attachment: summary of applicant's justification · 2017. 6. 26. · attachment: summary of...

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification DV17.46 - LOT 38 (NO. 36) BIARA GARDENS, MT CLAREMONT APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION Display Hours Monday & Wednesday 2.00pm-5.00pm Saturday & Sunday 1.00pm-5.00pm Based on our displays in Display Villages we would get on average 10-15 groups of traffic a day on Saturday & Sunday. During Monday & Wednesday this is considerably less between 2-3 groups a day. This display is not in a display village so we expect less traffic Saturday & Sunday 5~10 Groups over the 4 hours and between 1& 2 groups over the 3 hours during the week. We would expect the Display to be open for 2 years from the time of completion. Completion Date December 2017, to be displayed for 2 years until December 2019. Parking Bays The Garage will be used for 1 Staff Member and addition client space in the garage for clients staying for a longer appointment. There will be a total of 5 parking bays for visitors which will be ample with a couple of additional bays across the road if necessary as the plans attached. The house is setback for BAL reasons and allows addition parking. We are happy to work with the council with this new display home and has you can see from submissions from Don Russell Homes over the past 3-4 months we believe this area is a fantastic opening to display a beautiful home.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification DV17.47 - LOT 59 (NO. 9) KAVANAGH STREET, WEMBLEY APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION The following justification is provided in line with the design principles of the R-Codes to demonstrate proposal’s compliance. R-Codes Clause 5.1.2 - Street Setback P2.2 Buildings mass and form that: … Uses appropriate minor projections that do not detract from the character of the streetscape; … The proposed dwelling comply with the R-Codes Clause 5.1.2 - Street Setback requirements and P3.1 in all instances, with the sole instance of non-compliance relevant to these provisions being the support piers of House 2, which are 100mm wider and deeper than permitted under P3.1 Clause 3.1.2. This slight variation in dimensions is negligible and will not be perceived by anyone passing by as non-complaint with P3.1. The piers will not detract from the character of the streetscape and are entirely appropriate and consistent with the built forms of the area. Narrower peris in this case would look out of context as it would not look as if they could support the protruding void wall above. To enforce compliance will not result in any practical or noticeable benefit, and will merely compromise the architectural integrity of the design. In any case, the issue is a design issue and not a planning issue, and therefore does not technically warrant justification on planning merits. R-Codes Clause 5.1.3 - Lot Boundary Setback P3.1 Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to: Reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; The impact of proposed wall setbacks (and building bulk) is considered negligible to the adjoining dwellings. The two properties impacted by this proposal are not orientated towards the side boundaries, nor is there any useable open space other than narrow alleyways, which are typically provided for a purely functional purpose. Although the dwellings are two storey, they are height compliant and feature various walls set back at varying distances. This helps to break up the building and thus reduce perception of building bulk. In any case, each dwelling is well set back from their respective rear lot boundaries. As a result, building bulk would not be ready appreciated from the backyards and outdoor living areas of the neighbouring lots. Provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and adjoining properties; and Ventilation is afforded to both neighbouring properties of the parent lot as no boundary walls abut each other, or are proposed on upper floors. This allows for westerly breezes to flow through the proposed and neighbouring dwellings uninterrupted. In regards to direct solar access, House 2 is south of the adjoining lot, and thus will not cause any overshadowing. Although House 1 exceeds the deemed-to-comply requirement of R-Codes Clause 5.4.2, this is only by 1%. Please refer to the justification provided for R-Codes Clause 5.4.2 - Solar Access for Adjoining Sites.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification DV17.47 - LOT 59 (NO. 9) KAVANAGH STREET, WEMBLEY Minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties. The walls subject to the setback variations on the upper floor do not feature any major openings. None of the major openings on the ground floor walls overlook into neighbouring properties either. In this manner, overlooking and loss of privacy is more than adequately minimised. P3.2 Clause 1 - Buildings on the Boundary P3.2 Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this: Makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living areas; The designs were undertaken with functional purposes in mind. The walls on the boundaries are to facilitate usable areas of open space at rear of each dwelling. The positioning of the dwellings creates open outdoor living areas which face both north and west and have good dimensions allow for practical use. These variations demonstrate highly effective use of space, creating a very functional sized private open spaces towards the rear of the lots. Without the ability to construct these boundary walls, which would in any case comply with the deemed-to-comply requirements of R-Codes Clause 5.3.1, 1m wide un-useable pieces of open space would be provided for the sole purpose of ameliorating bulk for the lot adjoining the southern boundary or northern boundary. Forcing compliance would therefore result in very ineffective use of space. Does not compromise the design principle contained in clause 5.1.3 P3.1; The boundary walls comply with the deemed-to-comply requirements of R-Codes Clause 5.3.1, and therefore are permitted as right in accordance to the R-Codes. In regards to the design principles of Clause 5.1.3 P3.1, the boundary walls provide minimal building bulk, do not unduly compromise the solar access and ventilation of the outdoor living area and useable open spaces of the adjoining properties, and do not provide any overlooking opportunities as no major openings are present on either wall. Does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property; The proposed boundary walls will be barely noticeable from occupants of neighbouring properties. They are featured towards the front of the lots cannot be viewed from the outdoor living areas of neighbouring properties, nor are the dwellings orientated to face towards the boundary walls in any case. The boundary walls merely reflect on common residential building practice within the Perth metropolitan region and throughout Western Australia. Ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for adjoining properties is not restricted; As mentioned previously, the boundary walls proposed does not restrict direct solar access to the outdoor living areas of adjacent properties or habitable rooms. In regards to the southern lot adjoining House 1, the boundary wall is opposite an existing garage wall. Although there is a window featured, this window does not appear to be very large and is not very high. From this it can be deduced that the room with the window is of no major importance. Therefore, this opening is unlikely to be considered a major opening to a habitable room, meaning that the boundary wall of House 1 is appropriate.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification DV17.47 - LOT 59 (NO. 9) KAVANAGH STREET, WEMBLEY Positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape. There is sufficient precedent within the streetscape for boundary walls of the sort proposed in this instance. The northern adjoin lot features a garage boundary wall, will dwellings further to the north along Kavanagh Street also feature boundary walls. In the case of House 1, which has a notably narrow lot configuration, without the ability to construct a boundary wall, the design and placement of habitable room at the front of the dwelling on the ground floor would not be feasible or even possible. As a result, the boundary wall is very necessary as passive surveillance from the ground floor cannot be provided otherwise. As for the boundary wall for House 2, this wall will simply blend in within the development proposal, especially as it is lower in height compared to the House 1 study nook wall. In any case, with the varying wall heights and street setbacks provided, which are also wholly complaint with the R-codes and P.3.1, the proposal will duly contribute to the prevailing and desired context of the streetscape. R-Codes Clause 5.4.1 – Visual Privacy P1.1 Minimal direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of adjacent dwellings achieved through: Building layout and location; The portion of the northern adjoining property overlooked by the front window of Bed 4 of House 2 is of a negligible size and merely corresponds to the driveway of the property. The proposal is complaint to R-Codes Clause 5.4.1 – Visual Privacy in all other instances, as the building design, layout, and location has ensured this. The front window of Bed 4 - House 2 merely seeks to appropriately address the streetscape, provide solar access, and provide passive surveillance. In any case, even the portion which is overlooked is overlooked on an angle and not directly straight from the window. Design of major openings; As mentioned previously the Bed 4 – House 2 window is designed and orientated to face directly towards the street, and thus does not focus on the northern adjoining property. All other openings of House 1 and 2 are designed appropriately and do not overlook onto any other properties. Landscape screening of outdoor active habitable spaces; and/or The outdoor active habitable spaces of the proposed dwellings are not above 0.5m in height compared to neighbouring properties and thus do not result in any overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbours. Location of screening devices. Screening devices and frosted glazing are appropriately placed on balconies and windows in order to ensure that R-Codes Clause 5.4.1 deemed-to-comply requirements are not compromised in any other instance other than the variation proposed, which is of itself negligible in nature.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification DV17.47 - LOT 59 (NO. 9) KAVANAGH STREET, WEMBLEY P1.2 Maximum visual privacy to side and rear boundaries through measures such as: Offsetting the location of ground and first floor windows so that viewing is oblique rather than direct; As discussed previously, the Bed 4 – House 2 front facing window views the minor portion of the northern neighbouring lot in an oblique manner. Building to the boundary where appropriate; The boundary walls featured are compliant with the R-Codes Clause 5.3.1. Please refer to the previously provided justifications for further elaboration. Setting back the first floor from the side boundary; The first floors have for the most part been setback from the side boundaries appropriately. The setback variations in regards to them are exceptionally minor and would not be perceived by neighbours or pedestrians passing by in any case. Providing higher or opaque and fixed windows; and/or The proposal features numerous high windows and windows in frosted glazing to ensure that overlooking does not occur on the upper floors along the sides and rear of the proposed dwellings. To mandate a frosted or higher placed front window for Bed 4 – House 2 would merely compromise on the ability to receive direct sunlight and provide passive surveillance for the benefit of the safety of the community. Screen devices (including landscaping, fencing, obscure glazing, timber screens, external blinds, window hoods and shutters). As mentioned previously, screening devices have been provided to the balconies in order to ensure maximum visual privacy to the rear and side boundaries of the neighbouring properties. R-Codes Clause 5.4.2 – Solar Access for Adjoining Sites P2.1 Effective solar access for the proposed development and protection of the solar access. The proposal has been designed in such as manner as to maximise solar access for each of the dwellings. Each feature numerous along the longer elevations, while the street and rear elevations feature multiple large major openings, which allow natural light to flood into the interior spaces. The dwellings are also set back considerably from the rear boundary in order to ensure that the outdoor living spaces and open spaces in general enjoy copious solar access. P2.2 Development designed to protect solar access for neighbouring properties taking account the potential to overshadow existing:

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification DV17.47 - LOT 59 (NO. 9) KAVANAGH STREET, WEMBLEY Outdoor living areas; Considering that House 1 is constructed on a narrower block only 10m wide, overshadowing is difficult to limit. The constraining nature of the lot has dictated the floor plan heavily, resulting in House 1 stretching long and parallel to the shared boundary with the southern neighbouring lot. Despite this, the overshadowing variation is only 1%. Furthermore, the outdoor living area of the affected lot is spared considerably due to the rear setback. North facing major openings to habitable rooms, within 15 degrees of north in each direction; or As discussed previously in relation to the boundary wall of House 1, the dwelling of the southern neighbouring lot does not appear to feature many if any openings which would be considered major. In any case, the overshadowing from House 1 onto the southern neighbouring dwelling does not appear to be significantly greater, as the existing house on the parent lot already overshadows the northern wall of the southern neighbouring dwelling. Roof mounted solar collectors. The southern neighbouring dwelling has ample roof space and is readily able to mount solar collectors at any orientation. Conclusion The client has chosen this design to maximise their use and function of the property. The designer has been instructed to create two modestly sized homes which have been thoughtfully designed by walking a fine line between achieving the most out of the site and maintaining the external amenity of the dwellings. Applying the design principles against the proposal, in consult with the R-Codes and its explanatory guidelines, and Local Planning Policies, demonstrates that this design proposal has been able to suitably address the relevant criteria. Accordingly, the above justification is tendered for the Town’s approval.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.48 - LOT 295 (NO. 8) DORKING ROAD, CITY BEACH APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION 1. Ground Floor Side Setback (left/north) The attached amended plans illustrate an increased setback of 1.1m which responds to the Town’s advice. 2. Upper Floor Side Setback (left/north)

a. The proposal has been amended to remove the sunshade in this location, with the setback for the upper floor now meeting the applicable deemed-to-comply standard.

b. The amended plans illustrate a compliant setback of 1.6m in the location of the proposed upper floor wall.

3. Ground Floor Side Setback (right/south) The plans as submitted illustrated a setback of 1.5m to the southern side boundary, with the Town’s advice indicating that a setback along this boundary ranging from 1.5m to 5m was required, with the greater setback required in the location of the ground floor positioned above the visible portion of the basement. Further consideration has been given to the relevant provisions of the R-Codes. We note that within the R-Codes, Figure Series 4 illustrates the method for measuring the appropriate setback for a length of wall adjacent to a lot boundary. Figure 4c is applicable in this instance and notes as follows: “Where the side of the building includes two or more portions of a wall without a major opening... their setbacks shall be determined independently of each other provided they are separated from one another by a distance of more than 4m (in the case of wall heights 6m or less) and an additional 1m for every 3m increase in height.” The amended plans show minor alterations to the wall along the southern boundary to position the ground floor in from the exposed basement level and to identify the separate portions of walls in this location. As shown in Drawing No.5 on the attached Plan A7, the ground floor of the proposed development meets the deemed-to-comply setback requirements in accordance with the method described in 4c above. 4. Upper Floor Side Setback (right/south) We consider that there may be some confusion relating to the interpretation of the drawings on this matter. The southern portion of the second storey is set back 3.23m from the front setback. The roof for the ground level of the dwelling projects forward at the bottom of the second storey but does not contribute to its bulk, as the area on top of the ground floor roof is not to be used as a habitable space. As such, the portion of the southern elevation in question (‘sunshade’ to ‘ensuite 2’) actually only consists of the length from ‘Ensuite 2’ to ‘Bed 2’which is 9m long and 6.905m high. Under Table 2a of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) the deemed-to-comply setback for a wall with these dimensions and no major openings is 1.2m. Therefore, the setback for the second storey is compliant with the R-Codes. 5. Side Setback for eaves The proposal has been amended so that the eaves do not project more than 0.75m into the setback area which now meets the applicable deemed-to-comply standard.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.48 - LOT 295 (NO. 8) DORKING ROAD, CITY BEACH 6. Front Setback (garage) With respect to the proposed basement garage, we note that the garage door providing access to the space is to be set back 8m from the front boundary. This aspect of the development represents the only portion of the dwelling which is identifiable from the street as being part of the garage, for the following reasons:

a. Owing to the contours of the property the majority of the structure is positioned entirely below ground level;

b. To the street frontage where it would potentially be visible, the development incorporates raised planter beds and a bin store to the south, with the northern portion concealed by a raised planter bed, gate house, retaining walls and the access/entry to the front door of the residence. The western wall of the proposed garage forms an integral part of the building entry and ground floor and is to be finished to a high standard.

As a consequence the majority of the garage is concealed from view with the only identifiable portion of the garage maintaining a compliant setback. It should also be noted that this garage door opening is only 3.5m in width, further reducing its prominence within the streetscape. On this basis consider that the garage does not detract from the amenity or dominate the frontage of the dwelling and that it meets the intent of the Town’s Streetscape Policy. 7. Garage Width We note that the Town’s assessment of the garage is based upon the width of the garage at 12.4m. However as outlined in the previous item 6 above, given that the bulk of the garage is concealed within the dwelling structure and that landscaping features are used extensively throughout the front of the dwelling, only a small portion of the garage is identifiable from the street. In addition, the garage door is set back from the ground level elevation by 2.36m and is slightly sunken below ground level. The family living room, which is an architecturally significant feature of the dwelling, sits above this. As suggested in the Town’s Guide to Streetscape Policy, this enables the visual impact of the garage to be lessened significantly. The impact of the garage on the appearance of the dwelling is minimised and is therefore aligned with the intent of the Town’s Policies and the RCodes. 8. Street Surveillance Given that the entrance to the dwelling is south-west facing, protection from the wind and rain is to be achieved through positioning the front door behind the building line of the development. This form of development complies with the third diagram provided in Section 3.1.6 – Street Surveillance of the Town’s Policy 3.1: Streetscape where the middle of the dwelling is stepped back from two side structures. Attached is an amended perspective for the dwelling, taken at eye level from Dorking Street, which clearly demonstrates the location of the front door in the form illustrated as acceptable within the policy.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.48 - LOT 295 (NO. 8) DORKING ROAD, CITY BEACH We also note that in accordance with Element 5.2.3 – Street surveillance of the R-Codes, the street elevation of the dwelling is to address the street with clearly definable entry points visible and accessed from the street, together with at least one major opening from a habitable room of the dwelling facing the street and the pedestrian or vehicular approach to the dwelling. The proposed development satisfies all of these deemed-to-comply standards. For the reasons noted above, we consider that the proposal satisfies this provision of the Town’s Streetscape Policy. 9. Gatehouse In relation to gatehouses, the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town’s Policy 3.1: Streetscape state that a maximum dimension of 2.0m is applicable. In this regard, the gatehouse proposed within the development is to be a maximum of 2.0m in width and depth. However the Town has included the width of the gutter associated with the collection of stormwater runoff. Given that this element is minor in nature and incidental to the appearance and operation of the structure, we consider that the gutter should not be included within the dimension and therefore the deemed-to-comply standard is met. In addition to the above, the proposed gatehouse meets the relevant design principles within Policy 3.1 as the structure is open-style, does not block the dwelling nor limit opportunities for passive surveillance and will have no impact on adjoining properties. 10. Sightlines adjacent to driveways The amended plans attached show the correct levels in this location which demonstrates a compliant height of 0.75m for the proposed letter box. 11. Crossover width The amended plans attached illustrate a compliant width of 4.5m (including splays) for the proposed crossover. 12. Retaining Walls and Filling of Land The amended plans attached illustrate a minor adjustment to the location of steps and retaining walls in this location in order to demonstrate compliance with the 0.5m maximum height for retaining in this location. 13. Retaining Walls in the Street Setback Area We note the deemed-to-comply provision of Section 3.1.8 – Retaining Walls of the Town’s Policy 3.1: Streetscape which specifies that retaining walls are to be horizontally spaced at least 0.75m apart. Within the proposed development, the retaining walls are spaced 600mm apart in order to accommodate a greater extent of landscaped space at each level. In addition, the spacing allows for an improved entry from the gatehouse to the portico which represents a difference in level of almost 2.6m. We note that the proposed retaining in this location will present as the second image within Section 3.1.8 in that the retaining walls are less than 0.75m in height and are to incorporate planting which will screen the majority of the walls from view. The design principles of Clause 5.3.8 of the R-Codes are applicable in this instance and states:

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.48 - LOT 295 (NO. 8) DORKING ROAD, CITY BEACH “Retaining walls that result in land which can be effectively used for the benefit of residents and do not detrimentally affect adjoining properties and are designed, engineered and landscaped having due regard to clauses 5.3.7 (site works) and 5.4.1 (visual privacy).” It is considered that the retaining walls at a width of 600mm apart will satisfy the design principles as this width:

i. creates more usable space through the increased width at each level; ii. would not detrimentally affect neighbouring properties; iii. responds to the relevant provisions of clauses 5.3.7 and 5.4.1; and iv. will be suitably landscaped to enhance the appearance of the development and

provide partial screening of the retaining wall structures. For the reasons noted above, we consider that the proposal meets the relevant standards and should be permitted. 14. Privacy Screening for the Family Room Window Attached are enlarged plans which show the detail of the privacy screening. Comments from neighbouring property owners We note from the advice provided by the Town that during the public consultation process, submissions were received from the neighbouring properties at No.6 and No.10 Dorking Road. Our response to the matters identified within the submissions as provided by the Town is as follows: No.6 Dorking Road 1) With respect to the setbacks proposed to the southern side boundary, this is addressed

in detail within the previous items 3 and 4 of this correspondence; 2) The attached amended plans illustrate a clearance of 750mm from the eaves to the

southern boundary to No.6, thereby resolving this issue; 3) The identification of potential impacts during the construction phase of the proposed

development such as earthworks, sand drift, windblown litter, noise and vehicle movement are completely irrelevant at this stage and are more than capable of being addressed during the construction process.

No.10 Dorking Road We note the comments made by this property owner and the attached amended plans illustrate the following: a. The relocation of the pool pump equipment and air conditioning unit away from the

bedroom of No.10; b. The installation of frosted glass to the walk-in robe window facing east; c. The eaves to the top floor incorporating an increased side setback of 0.75 metres from

left/ north side boundary; and d. The existing dividing wall between Nos. 6 and 8 to achieve a minimum height of 1.8

metres.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.48 - LOT 295 (NO. 8) DORKING ROAD, CITY BEACH NEIGHBOUR COMMENT 6 Dorking Road, City Beach According to the Town’s correspondence to the landowners dated 3 March 2017 the application for the proposed new dwelling on Lot 295 is seeking Council’s approval to the following variations to the ‘deemed to comply requirements’ prescribed in the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia: i) Setbacks from the side boundaries; and ii) Necessary eave clearances from the side boundaries. As previously mentioned the purpose of this submission is to convey the landowner's strongest objection to the proposed new dwelling on Lot 295 in its current form and to raise a number of concerns regarding the negative impacts that the Town’s approval of the application is likely to have on the current amenity and character of the adjoining property. Whilst it is acknowledged and accepted that Lot 295 is capable of being developed for residential purposes and that the site does comprise a change in levels, the proposed dwelling on the land in accordance with the details of the plans submitted in support of the current development application raises significant concerns and is not supported for the following reasons: Building setback from the southern boundary The application proposes various setback variations for the new dwelling on Lot 295 from the southern side boundary. It is concluded that the setback variations (i.e. ranging from 400mm to 3.5 metres) are excessive and are considered unacceptable for the following reasons: 1. The proposed setback variations will reduce the much needed separation between the

proposed dwelling on Lot 295 and the existing single detached dwelling on No.6 Dorking Road. It is concluded that a larger setback is warranted under these circumstances to improve the separation between the two dwellings and minimize any potential impacts that are likely to have in regards to overshadowing, noise (generated by the future occupants of the proposed dwelling on Lot 295) and potential light spillage from the new dwelling. Whilst it is recognized that the proposed dwelling on Lot 295 may meet the ‘deemed to comply requirements’ of the R-Codes in terms of overshadowing, the extent of shadow being cast over adjoining No.6 Dorking Road will be excessive and would impact the outdoor living area of that dwelling. A compliant setback for the proposed new dwelling on Lot 295 would assist with reducing any potential adverse impacts on the existing dwelling on the adjoining property.

2. Lot 295 comprises adequate land area (i.e. 933m2) to ensure that the setbacks of the

new dwelling comply with the R-Codes (i.e. Lot 295 is not constrained by a narrow lot width or area).

3. The setback variations will have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the existing

dwelling on adjoining No.6 Dorking Road in terms of bulk and scale. In fact the design of the proposed dwelling on Lot 295 does little to reduce the impacts of building bulk on the adjoining property and therefore does not satisfy the ‘design principles’ of Element 5.1.3 C3.1 of the R-Codes.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.48 - LOT 295 (NO. 8) DORKING ROAD, CITY BEACH 4. The extent of the proposed setback variations from the southern side boundary will

compromise continued access to ventilation for the existing dwelling at No.6 Dorking Road and in so-doing will have a negative impact upon the amenity and lifestyle of its current inhabitants.

5. The setback variation from the southern side boundary will have an adverse impact on

the outdoor living area (i.e. swimming pool area) of the existing dwelling at No.6 Dorking Road which will significantly compromise the amenity and privacy currently afforded by the occupants of the outdoor living area on the adjoining property (see Figure 1).

6. The setback variations from the southern side boundary are likely to have an adverse

impact upon the local streetscape considering the bulk and scale of the proposed new dwelling on Lot 295.

Given these concerns and potential negative impacts on the adjoining property at No.6 Dorking Road it is contended that the reduced setbacks from the southern side boundary do not satisfy the ‘design principles criteria' of Element 5.1.3 C3.1 of the R-Codes and cannot therefore be supported by the Town. Eaves clearance from side boundary The application proposes a substantial variation to the required eaves clearance from the southern side boundary. The proposed eave will only comprise a 300mm clearance from the southern side boundary. This is considered unacceptable for the following reasons: 1. The proposed reduction in the required eaves clearance from the boundary results in

the roof line of the proposed dwelling on Lot 295 being closer to the southern boundary and therefore increasing the bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling on the existing dwelling on adjoining No.6 Dorking Road.

2. The variation to the required eaves clearance (i.e. 300mm in lieu of 750mm) is

considered excessive and is likely to have a significant negative impact upon the amenity of the existing dwelling on No.6 Dorking Road in terms of bulk, scale and overshadowing.

3. The proposed reduced eaves clearance from the boundary will have insufficient fire

separation from the southern lot boundary, therefore impacting on the existing dwelling on No.6 Dorking Road.

4. In addition to the above point, the reduced eave clearance for the new dwelling on Lot

295 may burden any future development on No.6 Dorking Road, as any future development or additions to the existing dwelling on that land will then need to provide adequate fire separation from the dwelling on Lot 295. The potential burden on adjoining No.6 Dorking Road is unacceptable and inequitable.

Given the above concerns, the reduced eave clearance of the new dwelling on Lot 295 from the southern side boundary are insufficient, will have an adverse impact on the adjoining property and should not be supported by the Town.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.48 - LOT 295 (NO. 8) DORKING ROAD, CITY BEACH Other Matters In addition to those matters identified above, the proposed new dwelling on Lot 295 includes an extensive area of excavation to facilitate the construction of an underground car parking area. Given the proposed excavation works, the following concerns are raised for the Town's consideration: 1. Destabilisation of existing residential buildings on the adjoining properties caused by

the proposed excavation given the soft sand current evident on the land. It is a concern that the extent of excavation may result in damage being caused to the existing dwelling on adjoining No.6 Dorking Road. As such, we request that the Town impose a condition on any development approval granted that the developer/landowner prepare a dilapidation report for the adjoining properties in the instance that damage is caused to those adjoining properties during the construction of the new dwelling on Lot 295.

2. Sand and rubbish drifting into the adjoining property during the excavation stage of the

construction process. As the Town would be aware, this has been an ongoing issue with Lot 295 in regards to the control of sand drift. Any further movement of sand through the excavation process will exacerbate the matter resulting is sand being blown or deposited onto No.6 Dorking Road.

3. In addition to the above point, further sand drift will have an impact on the existing

swimming pool on No.6 Dorking Road which is located close to the common boundary Lot 295.

4. Potential truck/pedestrian conflict caused during the excavation phase of construction

as numerous truck movements would be anticipated given the extent of excavation. 5. Noise generated during the construction process, in particular the excavation phase,

which will have an adverse impact on the adjoining residential properties given the anticipated number of trucks required to remove sand from the site and the use of excavation machinery.

6. In light of the above points, it is requested that the Town impose a condition on any

approval granted that the developer/landowner prepare a comprehensive construction management plan detailing the measure to be undertaken to control sand, rubbish, vehicle movement and noise.

Whilst it is appreciated that the above matters are not planning issues and that they are addressed by alternative legislation, it is request that the Town have due regard to the adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties generated as a result of the construction of a substantial dwelling on Lot 295. Conclusion It is concluded that the application is seeking large variations to side setback requirement, that will have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties in terms of bulk and scale and that the proposed construction works may have an impact on the structural integrity of the existing dwelling at No.6 Dorking Road, City Beach.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.48 - LOT 295 (NO. 8) DORKING ROAD, CITY BEACH In light of the above, on behalf of the landowners, we hereby request that Council either: a) refuse the development application to construct a new dwelling on Lot 295 (No.8) Dorking Road, City Beach for the various reasons cited in this submission ; or b) request that amended plans be prepared and submitted with the Town of Cambridge ensuring that the proposal meets all the ‘deemed to comply requirements’ of R-Codes, the Town’s Local Planning Scheme and any relevant Local Planning Policies, whilst having due regard for the amenity of the existing dwelling on adjoining No.6 Dorking Road.. We now look forward to the Town’s favourable consideration of our submission in this matter and its subsequent written advice regarding Council’s decision on the application. 10 Dorking Road After much study and discussion to the above building plans, we are ok with most of the setbacks subject to the following: 1. The locality of the proposed air conditional and pool pump equipment could pose

excessive noise concern to our bedrooms and we would request consideration for relocation of those mechanical devices.

2. To ensure privacy to our pool / entertainment areas we request that frosted glass be

installed to large walk in robe window facing east. 3. Side set back of eaves on top floor should have a minimum of 0.75 metres from left/

Northside boundary. 4. The existing back dividing wall between our 2 properties should have a minimum of 1.8

metres in height to ensure privacy and safety to both parties. I briefly discussed the above issues with Mark (architect concerned) and he has, after consultation with the owner, verbally told me that they will conform most of the above issues and put it in writing to the Cambridge planning council. As with the air conditioner unit, if at all it was to be installed as planned , then a noise/sound study will be conducted (at their cost) to the satisfaction of both parties as well as the council by laws. Furthermore, Mark has also indicated that the pool pump equipment will be relocated to the back of the dwelling.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.49 - LOT 41 (NO. 32A) CONNOLLY STREET, WEMBLEY APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION Ground Floor Setback (north): Although there are reduced Ground Floor setbacks to the Northern boundary, there will be no adverse effect on the amenities of the neighbouring property. The proposed boundary wall (Ensuite & WC) abuts the neighbours existing boundary wall (Garage) with only a minor portion of it projecting in front of the existing boundary wall. Although this minor portion of boundary wall exceeds the allowable average wall height, it does remain below the allowable maximum wall height, and is located adjacent to the neighbouring driveway only, not areas used for outdoor entertaining or major openings to habitable rooms. Due to the orientation of the lots, there will be no increase in overshadowing to the neighbours property created by this boundary wall, and there is adequate natural light and ventilation into all rooms (habitable and non-habitable) of the proposed dwelling. The boundary wall in its location will enhance privacy between the two lots, and also security for the proposed dwellings residents by removing direct access to the rear of the dwelling. The boundary wall in its location will provide screening from street to the area outside of the dwelling to be utilised for external services and fixtures (drying court, a/c unit etc.). Overall the design makes effective use of the space provided. Furthermore, no objections to the proposed dwelling were received from the neighbouring property owners. Ground Floor Setback (north) - Laundry, lift and stairwell: Although there are reduced Ground Floor setbacks to the Northern boundary, there will be no adverse effect on the amenities of the adjoining property. The setbacks are slightly greater than the minimum normally required for the Ground Floor (1.5m) and are increased only due to the extreme natural slope of the development property. There are no major openings located within this wall, and the area within this setback is to be utilised for external services and fixtures only (drying court, a/c unit etc.) and not outdoor entertaining. Due to the orientation of the lots, there will be no increase in overshadowing to the neighbours property created by this reduced boundary setback, and there is adequate natural light and ventilation into all rooms (habitable and non-habitable) of the proposed dwelling. The area of the neighbouring property that these reduced setbacks abut are not used as outdoor entertaining areas. Overall the design makes effective use of the space provided. Furthermore, no objections to the proposed dwelling were received from the neighbouring property owners. Upper Floor Setback (east) - Balcony Although there is a reduced Upper Floor setback to the Eastern boundary, there will be no adverse effect on the amenities of the neighbouring property. The open balcony does constitute a major opening; however there will be no overlooking to the neighbouring property that will create privacy concerns. Due to the finished floor level of the proposed balcony, all of the overlooking to the neighbouring property will fall directly onto the roof, with no direct line of site to any openings, be they major or minor, or to habitable or non-habitable rooms. The external area that will be directly visible from the balcony is utilised as access to the entry of the neighbouring dwelling, and also access to the rear of the property, both of which are clearly visible and within far closer proximity to any member of the public travelling past the neighbouring property. Due to the orientation of the lots, there will be no increase in overshadowing to the neighbours property created by this reduced setback, and

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.49 - LOT 41 (NO. 32A) CONNOLLY STREET, WEMBLEY there is adequate natural light and ventilation into all rooms (habitable and non-habitable) of the proposed dwelling. Overall the design makes effective use of the space provided. Furthermore, the neighbouring property owner has endorsed the proposed design and the reduced Upper Floor balcony setback. Wall and Overall Height (pitched roof): Although the proposed dwelling does exceed the maximum building height, there will be no adverse effect on the amenities of the neighbouring properties and streetscape. The building height is increased to a level of non-compliance due to the extreme natural slope of the development property, and all efforts have been made to reduce this height as much as is possible. Ceiling heights allocated to each of the levels are standard industry construction, and cannot be lowered further than this due to the requirements for building services (a/c ducting and plumbing) to be concealed in dropped ceiling and roof spaces. The proposed dwelling cannot be repositioned any lower whilst still maintaining sufficient vehicle access into the undercroft garage (a scenario which currently exists in the dwelling that will be demolished, and is to be replicated in the proposed dwelling). The entry to the dwelling is set significantly lower than the verge level, clearly demonstrating the extreme slope of the lot and the additional construction that has been required in order to make the lot developable to its maximum potential. Due to the orientation of the lots, there will be no increase in overshadowing to any neighbouring properties created by this building height. The additional building height as measured to the flat balcony roof is due to the existing undercroft garage and in turn the significant lowering of natural ground levels that were created by the previous owner / developer of the existing residence. Had these construction methods not been used previously on the existing dwelling then the natural ground levels from which the flat balcony roof building height are being calculated would be significantly higher, therefore significantly reducing the calculated height of the building. Precedence has also been set in the surrounding streetscape, with several existing (and newly constructed) dwellings in very close proximity (within eye sight) of the proposed dwelling being of three storey construction, and clearly not cut into the natural ground levels of those lots as we have proposed on this development. Standard industry construction methods would make these three storey neighbouring dwellings at least (and possibly exceeding) 8.0m in height as seen from the street. The only portion of the proposed dwelling that encompasses three storey construction has the lower of the three storeys (the undercroft garage) significantly cut into the natural ground level of the lot, and therefore significantly reducing the visible bulk of the building as it is seen from the street. Furthermore, no objections to the proposed dwelling were received from the neighbouring property owners. Roof Pitch: Although the main roof pitch is lower than the pitch required, there will be no adverse effect on the amenities of the neighbouring properties and streetscape. As demonstrated on the plans (Sheet 05, Elevation 1) the increase in roof pitch would create a significant increase in the ridge height of the roof, due to the overall width of the proposed dwelling and the distance these roof planes would have to travel from pitching point to ridge. This increased ridge height would create additional scale and bulk to the building as seen from the street, and would counteract the efforts that have been made to reduce the impact of the dwelling on the neighbouring properties and streetscape. The proposed roof pitch is industry standard for a standard hip and valley roof, and therefore does not look out of place or out of scale on

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.49 - LOT 41 (NO. 32A) CONNOLLY STREET, WEMBLEY the proposed dwelling. Roof pitches up to and in excess of 30° are far better suited to narrow lot housing where the additional roof pitch does not have significant increase on the overall height and scale of the dwelling. Furthermore, no objections to the proposed dwelling were received from the neighbouring property owners. Outdoor Living Area: Although the main outdoor living area (balcony) does not have two thirds permanently unroofed, there will be no adverse effect on the amenities of the dwelling residents. As the main outdoor living area is an Upper Floor balcony and not a ground Floor courtyard, it allows several of the sides to be significantly more open to natural light and ventilation, as there are no boundary fences to create barriers against these elements, and therefore counteracts the effect of the additional roof cover. There are significant major and minor openings to the habitable rooms that directly access this outdoor living area, meaning the requirement of borrowed light and ventilation from this outdoor living area is not of concern. In addition a secondary outdoor living area (courtyard) of approximately 29m² has been proposed which is entirely unroofed and open to natural light and ventilation. This secondary outdoor living area is accessible directly from a habitable room (Bed 1) and although not a main living area of the dwelling, there is proposed additional access provided directly to it via the gate within close proximity to the main entry door, providing easy access to this courtyard by any resident or visitor of the dwelling wishing to utilise an unroofed outdoor living area. Furthermore, no objections to the proposed dwelling were received from the neighbouring property owners. Driveway Design and Crossover: Although the crossover configuration and location does not meet the requirements, there will be no adverse effect on the amenities of the surrounding properties and streetscape. The Western side of the proposed crossover (closest to Connolly Street) is to be setback further than the existing crossover is currently located, meaning there will be an increase in the setback to the street tree than which is currently existing on the lot. Due to this it is concluded there will be no significant damage to any root systems of the tree by the construction of this crossover, and there will be no reduced sight lines created by the proposed crossover setback being that it is greater than the existing crossover currently being utilised by the existing dwelling residents. Due to the proposed undercroft garage and driveway access to it being sloped down from the verge level (a scenario which currently exists in the dwelling that will be demolished, and is to be replicated in the proposed dwelling scenario) the additional width of the proposed crossover will increase sight lines and assist the residents to safely enter the verge and road reserve from their property. It has been observed that Woolwhich Street has significant pedestrian traffic due to the relatively close proximity of West Leederville Primary School at the Eastern end of the road. The majority of this pedestrian traffic is obviously primary school aged children, who may not yet have the common sense or awareness to stop and look for oncoming traffic at not only intersecting streets or laneways, but crossovers as well. A reduction in the width of the crossover will significantly reduce the line of sight to not only the residents leaving their property, but also the passing pedestrian traffic being able to see any vehicles with enough time to safely stop their movements. Exiting the undercroft garage at an angle to utilise the driveway / crossover that is narrower than the width of the garage itself will further increase the difficulty and danger associated with an act as simple as driving your car out of your own garage. In addition, due to the neighbouring properties along the Northern side of Woolwhich Street having access from intersecting streets or laneways, there is no other driveway crossover

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.49 - LOT 41 (NO. 32A) CONNOLLY STREET, WEMBLEY until East of Joseph Street, approximately 70m-80m away from the proposed crossover, meaning there is more than adequate landscaped verge space within the surrounding streetscape to justify the proposed additional crossover width. Furthermore, no objections to the proposed dwelling were received from the neighbouring property owners. Retaining Walls and Filling of Land: Although there is fill retaining greater than 0.5m along the boundary, there will be no adverse effect on the amenities of the neighbouring property. The outdoor area where this retaining is located is to be used for external services and fixtures only (drying court, a/c unit etc) and not for outdoor entertaining. There are no major openings to habitable rooms located where this retaining exceeds 0.5m. The finished level of the outdoor area cannot be lowered as it serves as direct access from the dwelling (Laundry) to the drying court. The outdoor area will be adequately screened by the required 1800H boundary fence between the two properties. The area of the neighbouring property that this retaining abuts is not used as outdoor entertaining area. Overall the design makes effective use of the space provided. Furthermore, no objections to the proposed dwelling were received from the neighbouring property owners.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification DV17.50 - LOT 725 (NO. 158) GRANTHAM STREET, FLOREAT APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION Note: There is a current development approval for this property. The Owners do not wish to proceed with the approved plans and this application is a new application for planning approval. We are writing in support of the drawings attached and submitted for a) an outbuilding (shed) and b) an ancillary dwelling at 158 Grantham Street, Floreat. The project consists of a modest, single storey building at the rear of the property, comprising a shed and ancillary dwelling. The building is designed to maximise connection to the existing established garden and house and to make the best of usable private open space with good solar access on the site. The addition has minimal visual impact from the street and neighbouring properties. Both the shed and the ancillary dwelling are smaller than the allowable plot ratio areas under the Town’s policies and the R-codes, both meet height requirements and present no overshadowing, ventilation impact or visual privacy impact to neighbours. The materials of the proposed building are face brick walls and a simple hipped zincalume custom orb roof. The materials and form have been designed to reflect the architectural style, form and material of the existing dwelling, which is a typical character bungalow, and to provide excellent longevity and fire separation. We have designed the shed and ancillary dwelling to be separate but with a shared roof line, so that the development has a considered, consistent appearance, rather than an ad-hoc nature, and to maximise the open, private, sunny garden area between the existing house and proposed new building. The design satisfies most of the deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes and the Town’s TPS1 and policies, however we request that the Town exercise discretion in relation to the following: Boundary Setback Variation sought: The shed is proposed to be located partly on the eastern boundary and the ancillary dwelling is proposed to be located partly on the northern boundary. All other boundary setback requirements are met. Justification (Shed): A zero setback for the shed for a length of 6m on the eastern boundary is sought to make more effective use of space and to allow a larger setback to the western boundary (where the ancillary dwelling is) to provide greater amenity, ventilation and light to a residence rather than a shed. It does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. The shed is proposed to have a floor level of 19.950, which is 850mm lower than the surveyed ground level of the adjacent neighbouring property, and retaining will be provided. The wall height of the shed from existing ground level on the eastern boundary is therefore less than 1.6m, which reduces the impact of its bulk and scale. Additionally, it does not overshadow, prevent ventilation or otherwise impact on the neighbouring property.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification DV17.50 - LOT 725 (NO. 158) GRANTHAM STREET, FLOREAT Justification (Ancillary Dwelling): A zero setback for the ancillary dwelling is proposed for a length of 8.79m on the northern boundary. This is sought to make more effective use of space in the established, open garden. We hope that the variation can be supported in order to minimise the impact the proposed ancillary dwelling has on the solar access to the open garden space and existing house. The reduced setback has minimal impact on the adjoining property: it enhances privacy between the private outdoor living areas of each property, does not restrict solar access or ventilation to the adjoining property, and with a wall height of 1.8-2.4m above the adjacent ground level presents 600mm or less additional height than a boundary fence would. Additionally, we believe that it is vital that winter solar access is maximised to the existing garden and house. The benefits of maximising the sunny, private, open space of the garden, by building the ancillary dwelling on the north boundary, outweigh the benefits of a setback that would be an unusable, heavily shaded sliver of land with no connection to the dwellings on the site, and of no additional benefit to the adjoining property. In summary, we believe this design closely follows the deemed to comply or performance criteria of the R-Codes, provides new functional and flexible spaces for the lot while maintaining 68% open space area and is sympathetic to and respectful of the character of the original dwelling and the character of Floreat more generally. We hope that you will consider this application favourably. NEIGHBOUR'S JUSTIFICATION I am aware that the owners would like to build a 8.79 metre long wall by 2.4 metre high brick parapet wall on the rear boundary of their property (adjacent to my property) as part of their new ancillary residence. I have no objections to this structure and in fact would prefer it to the existing metal fence and having their new building set back as the brick wall would increase the degree of privacy between our outdoor living areas. I am happy to support their proposal.

TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE

TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 1

AMENDMENT NO. 33

DV17.51 - 1 of 4 - Scheme Amendment 33 Documentation

MINISTER FOR PLANNING

PROPOSAL TO AMEND A TOWN PLANNING SCHEME

1. Local Authority: Town of Cambridge

2. Description of Town PlanningScheme:

Town Planning Scheme No. 1

3. Type of Scheme: District Zoning Scheme

4. Serial No. of Amendment: 33

5. Proposal: To rezone portions of Lot 8 (350) Cambridge Street, Wembley from 'Residential R20' and 'Public Purpose' to 'Local Centre' and amend the Scheme Map accordingly

1


FORM 2A

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2005

RESOLUTION TO PREPARE AMENDMENT TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME

TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 1

AMENDMENT NO. 33

Pursuant to Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, Council initiates an

Amendment to the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 to rezone

portions of Lot 8 (350) Cambridge Street, Wembley from 'Residential R20' and

'Public Purpose' to 'Local Centre'.

Dated this day of .............. 2016.

…………………………………….. JASON BUCKLEY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

2



TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE

TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 1 - AMENDMENT NO.33

SCHEME AMENDMENT REPORT

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1) is to rezone

portions of Lot 8 (No. 350) Cambridge Street, Wembley, from ‘Residential R20’ and ‘Public

Purpose – Car Parking’ to ‘Local Centre’.

The amendment to TPS1 is proposed in order to facilitate the mixed use development of the

subject land. Due to the existing zoning / reservation of the subject land, the Town of

Cambridge (‘Town’) is currently unable to consider redevelopment of the site as a whole.

The Scheme Amendment is proposed to allow for the full redevelopment of the subject land

commensurate with that envisaged by the advertised Draft Wembley Town Centre Activity

Plan.

BACKGROUND: The site that is the subject of this amendment is Lot 8 (No. 350) Cambridge Street,

Wembley, which is currently occupied by 296 vehicle parking bays over two (2) separate

levels, together with the Cambridge Forum which includes various retail and commercial

tenancies.

The existing vehicle parking bays provided at the subject sites are required in accordance

with historic planning approvals granted. Additionally, the Town has a legal agreement with

the current landowners of the subject land to ensure reciprocal access and use of the vehicle

parking bays with abutting development (Wembley Hotel) and the general public.

The subject land is presently zoned ‘Residential R20’, ‘Local Centre’ and reserved as ‘Public

Purpose – Car Park’. The existing zoning and reservation of the subject land is shown at

Figure 1, below.

3


Figure 1: Existing Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Zoning

Land to the north of the subject land is zoned ‘Residential R20’, while land to the east, south

and west, which has frontage to Cambridge Street, is zoned ‘Local Centre’. The Wembley

Hotel is situated on adjoining Lot 7 (No. 344) Cambridge Street, Wembley, being to the

south east of the subject land.

It has been confirmed that the ‘Public Purpose – Car Park’ reservation was introduced by

the City of Perth prior to the 1993 division of the Perth Local Government Area, which

created the Town of Cambridge. It is understood that the Reservation was imposed to

secure the continued provision of vehicle parking at the site.

4


DETAILS: The purpose of this amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1) is to rezone

portions of Lot 8 (No. 350) Cambridge Street, Wembley, from ‘Residential R20’ and ‘Public

Purpose – Car Parking’ to ‘Local Centre’. The proposed amendment is depicted in Figure 2,

below.

Figure 2: Proposed Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Zoning

Due to the existing zoning / reservation of the subject land, the Town of Cambridge (‘Town’)

is currently unable to consider redevelopment of the site as a whole. The amendment to

TPS1 is proposed in order to facilitate the mixed use development of the subject land, as is

contemplated within the advertised Draft Wembley Town Centre Activity Plan. It is expected

5


that the rezoning and subsequent development of the subject land will serve as a catalyst for

further high quality redevelopment of the locality.

Furthermore the Scheme Amendment also addresses a longstanding irregularity in the Town

Planning Scheme in that the north-west portion of the lot has been used for car parking for

over 20 years while zoned "Residential R20".

The proposed Local Centre zoning will allow for the mixed use development of the subject

land, providing the surrounding community with a vibrant centre, within which daily essential

services will be provided, which will build on the existing commercial focus of the Cambridge

Forum. Similarly, the mixed use development of the subject land will assist the Town in

achieving the State Government’s infill housing target prescribed by Directions: 2031 and

Beyond.

It should be noted however that throughout 2015 and 2016, the Town is preparing an Activity

Centre Plan for the Wembley Town Centre which includes this site. In particular, this site has

been identified as an anchor site for new development in the future. It is expected that a

Scheme Amendment would be prepared following the finalisation of the Plan. It is intended

to apply the new development standards proposed under the Wembley Activity Centre Plan

to future development on this site as the Activity Centre Plan is a seriously entertained

planning proposal.

In conjunction with adoption of this Amendment, Council resolved that future development of

the Wembley Hotel/Cambridge Forum site is planned to be controlled through a Local

Development Plan or similar mechanism as part of the modified Wembley Precinct Policy 6.4

and the Wembley Activity Centre Plan which is to be prepared by the Town.

SUMMARY: This amendment to TPS1 is proposed to rezone portions of Lot 8 (No. 350) Cambridge

Street, Wembley, from ‘Residential R20’ and ‘Public Purpose – Car Parking’ to ‘Local

Centre’, which will assist in facilitating the high quality mixed use redevelopment of the

subject land. It is considered that the rezoning and subsequent redevelopment will activate

an otherwise underutilised allotment, as is contemplated by the recently advertised Draft

Wembley Town Centre Activity Plan.

The proposed amendment is consistent with the relevant statutory planning framework.

6



TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 1

AMENDMENT NO. 33

The Town of Cambridge under and by virtue of the powers conferred upon it in that

behalf by the Planning and Development Act 2005 hereby amends Town Planning

Scheme No.1 by:-

Rezoning portions of Lot 8 (350) Cambridge Street, Wembley from

'Residential R20' and 'Public Purpose' to 'Local Centre' and amending the

Scheme Map accordingly.

7


EXISTING ZONING

8


SCHEME (AMENDMENT) MAP

9


ADOPTION

Adopted by resolution of the Council of the Town of Cambridge at the Ordinary

Meeting of Council held on the 25th day of August, 2015.

…………………………………….. KERI SHANNON MAYOR


10


FINAL APPROVAL

Adopted for final approval by resolution of the Town of Cambridge at the Ordinary

Meeting of the Council held on the _________________________and the seal of the

Municipality was pursuant to that resolution hereunto affixed in the presence of:-

…………………………………….. KERI SHANNON MAYOR


Recommended/Submitted for Final Approval

…………………………………….. DELEGATED UNDER S. 16 OF PD ACT 2005

Date: ………………………….……

Final approval granted

…………………………………….. MINISTER FOR PLANNING

Date: ………………………….……

The common seal of the Town of Cambridge has been affixed pursuant to advice in a letter dated ………………………… and in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and not for the purposes of certifying final approval.

11


Town of Cambridge Scheme Amendment No. 33 - Summary of Submissions Schedule

1

Sub no.

Interest Summary of Submission Comment/Response

1 N/A Public/commercial bays limit in support of nearby retail. To offset this change perhaps the Council should purchase two or three adjoining residential properties, to the northern side of the Wembley Hotel Site for open bay public car parking purposes.

Future development to comprise public carpark

Transport Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of Wembley Activity Centre Plan

2 ATCO Gas ATCO Gas has commercial service lines and meter sets within the said lot and medium pressure gas mains and gas infrastructure predominantly within the surrounding road reserves of Lot 8, however we do not have any objection to the proposed change of purpose for Lot 8.

ATCO will not be lodging a written submission with Town of Cambridge for this proposed change.

Noted

3 Local property owner Amendment 33 is deeply flawed because:- 1. It seeks to enable the business centre of Wembley to creep into an area that is otherwise occupied by residential properties.2. It seeks to enable any developer who acquires this land to develop the site up to 7 storeys high adjacent to residentialproperty that is only single or double storey at present. A gross invasion of privacy to those residents such as myself who areclose to this area.3. Development of this site to the size and scale that will be permitted will bring a volume of vehicle and pedestrian traffic thatthe area as it currently exists will not be able to support in terms of parking and other crucial public amenities (toilet etc).4. The appropriate place for any further business development of this magnitude should be located on land opposite theWembley Pub at the south side of Cambridge Street as this would be much more central to the centre of the existing precinctand would not encroach into territory that is residential. The fact that this would be more difficult for Council to achieve is noted.

Local Development Plan to be prepared to control future development on the site

Scheme Amendment to be modified to include setbacks to adjoining residential property boundaries and control building height adjoining residential property boundaries.

Privacy requirements under Multi Unit Housing Codes apply to residential development on upper floors.


4 Private homeowner No provision for parking on the proposed Plan. Transport Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of Wembley Activity Centre Plan

5 Local resident Object to this re-zoning as the two carparks on this site are vital to the community and the continued success of the Wembley shopping precinct. The Cambridge Forum food court is regularly visited and this facility is highly valued and by other Cambridge residents. It is not desired to replace a towering development that will solely benefit the developer and help to destroy whatever meaningful sense of community the Wembley Activity Centre currently enjoys.


Retention of food court desirable as outlined in Wembley Activity Centre Plan.

6 Owner/Occupier Strongly opposed to this rezoning:- - The building boundary will now become the perimeter which is directly on my boundary- Any site works to support a multi storey building will severely impact the structural integrity my home- Concerns that property value will decrease.- Car parking already busy (photos added). Where will these people going to park after this? If underground parking, no oneuses it as they do not feel safe.

Scheme Amendment to be modified to include setbacks to adjoining residential property boundaries and control building height adjoining residential property boundaries



7 Owner of property Concerns for traffic congestion in nearby street, losing the community food hall which is well used and attended and taking away 'easy' car parking facilities


Retention of food court desirable as outlined in Wembley Activity Centre Plan.


8 Telstra At present, Telstra Corporation Limited has no objection Noted

9 Private citizen Object to the proposed changes.

Concerns regarding the potential loss of free car parking for the food hall, hotel and shops

Access shall be from side street not Cambridge Street

Future parking should be as per R-Codes as well as same number of free car bays

For development over 5 storeys should have 50 more free bays controlled by the Town


Future parking to be provided in accordance with the Town's Parking Policy / Multi Unit Housing Codes and in addition, future development to comprise public carpark


Retention of food court desirable as outlined in Wembley Activity Centre Plan

10 Water Corporation The Water Corporation has no objections to the proposed rezoning. It is understood that the main purpose of the rezoning is to facilitate future development control for the possible redevelopment of the site in accordance with the recommendations of the Wembley Activity Centre Master Plan.

It should be noted that the car parking surrounding the Forum and Hotel is presently traversed by gravity sewers contained within easements in favour of the Water Corporation (see plan attached below). The location of these sewers will likely limit the ability to substantially redevelop the site, unless the developer is able to relocate the sewers to another suitable alignment to the Water Corporation's satisfaction. The feasibility of relocating and reinstating the sewers should be investigated by the developer prior to the building stage.

Noted

DV17.51 - Attachment 2 of 4 - Summary of submissions Amendment 33


1

11 Western Power As your proposed work is near energised electrical installations and powerlines, the person in control of the work site must ensure that no person, plant or material enters the "Danger Zone" of an overhead powerline or other electrical network assets.

Noted

12 Local resident High rise buildings overlook people's backyards and increase traffic. The height limit for the buildings facing Cambridge Street should be only 5 storeys while other buildings on this site should be confined to a 2 storey height in keeping with the feel of the local area.

Concerns regarding overlooking from proposed high rise buildings in the local area. The homes in Simper and Alexander Street will lose all privacy in their backyards.


Privacy requirements under Multi Unit Housing Codes apply to residential development on upper floors.

13 Local resident Do not object to the rezoning but would definitely like to see a restriction on any development to 8 to 10 floors. Maximum height on site to be set at 7 storeys

14 Department of Water The Department of Water has assessed the proposed amendment including Amendment 33 documentation and has no comment.

Noted

15 Owner Do not like multi storey - units that are cement boxes

Parking and traffic implications


16 Resident Strongly object to the Re-zoning due to concerns over - Safety and security risks/crime/noise and nuisances- Quality of residential living will be diminished given tall buildings;- Property value reductions- Uncontrolled development


17 Owner occupier of property Concerns about existing traffic levels, height issues, overshadowing, car park and pedestrian access to shops. Transport Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of Wembley Activity Centre Plan

Building height to be set at 7 storeys in modified scheme amendment


18 Owner occupier Concerns that this Scheme Amendment has proceeded without planning controls in place. There should be proper planning controls in place before the Amendment is considered. Further concerns over traffic, parking and height controls. Impact on lovely suburb.



19 Main Roads WA Main Roads has no objection to proposed Town Planning Scheme Amendment No. 33 but reiterates comments made on Wembley Activity Centre Plan re proposals to reduce speed limit on Cambridge Street to 40km/h and any modifications to the traffic signal controlled intersection at Cambridge St/Jersey St.

Noted


20 Local resident Object to the rezoning of the car park and lack of planning controls.

Concerns over overlooking due to lack of height restrictions and setbacks, increased traffic in the residential streets due to lack of proper traffic planning, environmental effects (visual pollution), increase in density and impact on local amenity, altering the character of Wembley permanently and detraction from the heart and soul of Wembley suburb.

No rezoning until a comprehensive Local Planning Strategy and controls are put in place.



21 Department of Transport The Department of Transport (DoT) has no comment to provide. Noted

22 Local resident Object to the rezoning of Wembley Hotel food hall and carpark. Concerns over provision of adequate infrastructure and traffic and parking caused by multistorey apartment blocks.


23 Local resident Object to the rezoning of Wembley Hotel food hall and carpark. Concerns over provision of adequate infrastructure and traffic and parking caused by multistorey apartment blocks.


24 State Heritage Office The proposed Scheme Amendment has been considered for its potential impact on heritage places within the Scheme area. There is no objection to the proposal.

Noted

25 Private citizen, owner occupier in the area

Concerns about possible adverse changes to Wembley's character, failure to define buildings controls, height restrictions, setbacks, and parking and traffic considerations.

Concerns over push to increase population and density. Need to know limit of population to put stop to long term creep. Council and residents need to define limits on Town requirement to follow State Government direction.






1

26 Local landowner Concerns that the amendment will allow unrestricted building height with little or no building controls, not only impacting neighbouring properties but also the atmosphere of the precinct. Neighbouring property values will devalue, privacy invaded and affected by shadows due to an unsightly structure. The neighbourhood would be affected by a sudden increase in demand for community services (eg. Schools) which would negatively impact the suburb.

Small scale increase in housing density is supported however strongly concerned at what the potential of this amendment could allow and the negative impact it would have on our beautiful suburb and what has attracted families to the area.




27 Private citizen Concerns for timing of amendment in relation to the local development plan. The rezoning should not be considered before the development plan is finalised to provide planning controls to ensure the amenity of the surrounding area is protected as much as possible.


Key development controls have been included in modified scheme amendment to address overall height and setbacks.

28 Private citizen Very concerned at this amendment and object strongly.

Concerns/questions over building controls, height restrictions, side and rear setback, parking and traffic and Wembley's character. Additionally, the timing of the scheme amendment before the Wembley Activity Centre Plan is questioned.

Transparency of process questioned.



29 Department of Education The Department of Education has reviewed the document and advises that it has no objection to this proposal. Noted

30 Local resident Concerns/questions over building controls, height restrictions, building design and impact on character, privacy and overlooking, side and rear setback, parking and traffic (particularly impact on local streets) and loss of local businesses particularly the food hall as it is a low cost option for locals and visitors. Additionally, the timing of the scheme amendment before the Wembley Activity Centre Plan is questioned.




31 Local resident Concerns over street setbacks and the need to taper building height, need for future road widening and narrow pedestrian access. Buildings without tapering will ruin Wembley's character.


32 Owner/occupier Amendment 33 should be rejected until the WACP becomes a binding planning document. Concerned that allowing an amendment prior exposes residents to the possibility of building at the site not being consistent with the WACP and compromises the strength of the WACP as a precedent would be set with the first approval being potentially non-compliant. To allow Amendment 33 to proceed without a binding WACP in place offers no benefit to the residents and broader community.


33 Local resident Do not support development except where strict controls are in place concerning; parking accommodated on-site, traffic impact assessed, ground floor amenities for the community ie cafes, and maximum height and design controls to ensure the design is high quality and ideally includes some space for greenery and verge trees




34 Floreat resident Do not support any development of the site or rezoning of the site unless strict controls are enforced on its development. The restrictions should include: • Maximum height of seven storeys• Strict design controls (so that any development is of high architectural merit and improves the look of the area• Ground level has amenity that all of the community can enjoy (i.e shops, restaurants) not residential• Traffic implications of whole of T.O.C are assessed and it is ensured that this that this is not adversely impacted• Immediate local residents concerns are given due regard• Any parking lost should be accommodated in any redevelopment (with more parking inserted) as it is likely that visitors to anyfuture development will put even more pressure on parking



35 Department of Fire and Emergency Services

The proposed Scheme Amendment does not fall into an area designated as bushfire prone pursuant to the Fire and Emergency Services 1998 (as amended) as identified on the Map of Bush Fire Prone Areas.

Noted

36 Local resident The development of the block is based on out of date and inadequate development controls.

Concerns regarding the following; building controls, height restrictions, side and rear setbacks, parking and traffic study, Wembley's character and the timing of the amendment.



37 Owner/ Occupier Concerns over the timing of this scheme amendment. We are in general supportive of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan and the concept of stepped/recessed heights to buildings of no more than 7 storeys high. We are very concerned at the prospect of an over-height, dominating and unsympathetic building on top of the existing carpark site. In particular we will be affected by overlook onto our property and potential reduction in value of our property.


Building height to be set at 7 storeys in modified scheme amendment. Local Development Plan to be prepared to control future development on the site



1

Concerns over existing traffic associated with Wembley Hotel. We would like to see new traffic measures put in place, potentially similar to Simper St, where a cul-de-sac is in place.

38 Local resident Proposed development is not supported. 7 storey development inconsistent with nature and character of Wembley. Traffic problems likely. Not opposed to development but not of this size and scale which will do nothing for harmony / character of area. Development of this scale is not proposed any where else in Town.


39 Local resident The increase in density and building activity in Wembley is affecting my quality of life and access to amenities. Concerns over the potential to increase demand on amenities, shops and infrastructure and no increase in public access.

Concerns for building restrictions, particularly height, negative impact on character and the need for parks and reserves.

Hotel site should not be developed until the Wembley Activity Centre Plan is complete.



40 Local resident Insufficient planning controls in place in Town Planning Scheme. Developer has presented plans showing 17 storeys. Insufficient work on assessing/managing traffic, retail needs, setbacks, impact on residential areas, parking (particularly loss of public car parking - the site should retain restricted use for parking). Given size of lot, lack of controls, lack of well-researched Activity Centre Plan, this site needs to meet current and future parking. Rezoning will expose site to bad planning outcomes.

Concerns with height proposed under Wembley Activity Centre Plan. Town only now preparing traffic/retail needs assessment and significant changes to plan should be readvertised.

Request that Amendment 33 is either: • Rejected in its entirety• If the amendment is approved, integrate height restrictions of 2 storeys and retain a restricted use of parking on this land.

If Scheme Amendment progressed without planning controls and lack control over parking and traffic there is significant risk that character of Wembley significantly altered - due to potential size and design of development, traffic congestion, loss of amenity/liveability. Wembley residents deserve strategic, controlled, quality development to add to unique/well-loved character of the area.





41 Property Owner Concerns as there are no mention of parking/traffic, planning controls/height restrictions, setbacks and impact on Wembley's character. Will only benefit developer.




42 Local resident Concerns over lack of proper planning controls before rezoning and retention of a positive character of Wembley. Strategic redevelopment which accounts for community interest is essential.



43 Local resident Threatens the overall town plan for this area. New development is welcomed but this is a suburb not a city centre. Development to be in accordance with Wembley Activity Centre Plan through modifications to Town Planning Scheme Amendment and Local Development Plan.

44 Owner/Occupier Concerns over addressing the scheme amendment ahead of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan. Development to be in accordance with Wembley Activity Centre Plan through modifications to Town Planning Scheme Amendment, Local Development Plan and Wembley Precinct Planning Policy.


45 Private citizen Object to the rezoning until planning controls are in place. Currently experiencing traffic increases and difficulties. Development standards for overall building height and height and setbacks to adjoining residential properties are proposed. Additional development requirements to be addressed through Wembley Precinct Planning Policy and Local Development Plan to control future development on the site

Transport Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of Wembley Activity Centre Plan.


46 Private citizen Object to the rezoning until planning controls are in place. Concerns over high rise in the area and traffic problems which are already bad. Concern over building design.

Development standards for overall building height and height and setbacks to adjoining residential properties are proposed. Additional development requirements to be addressed through Wembley Precinct Planning Policy and Local Development Plan to control future development on the site

Transport Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of Wembley Activity Centre



1

Plan


47 Resident Concerns over no height restrictions, no side and rear setbacks and the need of a parking and traffic study. Key development controls have been included in modified scheme amendment to address overall height and setbacks.


48 Owner/Occupier Question to the status of the parking and traffic studies. Transport Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of Wembley Activity Centre Plan

49 Owner Occupier Oppose high rise development nothing over five storeys high. This is a residential area that needs to live in harmony with commercial development.


Local Development Plan to be prepared to control future development on the site 50 Owner of property No comment Noted

51 Owner of property Concerns over the height, with no side and rear setbacks, the requirement for a traffic study and traffic controls. Transport Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of Wembley Activity Centre Plan


52 Property Owner Concerns for height restriction being too high, traffic controls, Wembley character being eroded and not enough consultation with residents.




53 Local resident Will be badly affected by the proposed development. The proposal is ill-conceived. Concerns reference traffic and safety Transport Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of Wembley Activity Centre Plan

54 Local resident Development ill conceived. Going to be very badly affected by the Jersey/ Cambridge St junction flats. Please do not increase it further by this scheme amendment 33 as proposed. We need more open space and less traffic.


Network of open space to be provided under Wembley Activity Centre Plan and public plaza to be provide on the subject site.

55 Owner/ Occupier Council is seeking to step outside its own processes to proceed before Wembley Activity Centre Plan - proposal is ad hoc. Concerns over building control, height, setbacks requirements, parking/ traffic.

Development will reduce parking as developers seek to maximise density and result in adjacent street parking taken up by residents due to inadequate site parking which impacts other residents and traffic management.





56 Private Citizen Strongly oppose the traffic, congestion and extra number of people a potential development could bring to my street. Concern over lack of development control.




57 Private citizen If the Wembley Hotel car park site is allowed to be fully developed it will have dreadful ramifications for a small suburban street. Development to be in accordance with Wembley Activity Centre Plan through modifications to Town Planning Scheme Amendment and Local Development Plan to control building height and setbacks to adjoining residential property boundaries.

Future development to comprise public carpark 58 Owner/ Occupier If Amendment 33 goes ahead it will allow full development of the hotel car park site - a dreadful result for Alexander St

residents. Local Development Plan to be prepared to control future development on the site

59 Owner/occupier Strongly oppose Amendment 33 in its current state and will make quiet suburban street a nightmare. Local Development Plan to be prepared to control future development on the site

60 Owner/Occupier Concerns that the amendment will have an impacts on the 'liveability' and old world character of Wembley and lead to overcrowding, noise out of control, traffic congestion, reduced car parking and overflow parking onto surrounding streets and

Transport Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of Wembley Activity Centre Plan. Future development to comprise public carpark



1

general lowering of living standards and anti social behaviour.

Building height should be restricted to five storeys/building size should be set. Local Development Plan to be prepared to control future development on the site

61 Owner Questions regarding traffic impact (specifically for Alexander Street) - consider a cul-de-sac, number of apartments proposed, need for height controls, timing of amendment in relation to the Wembley Activity Centre Plan and Development Plan and the change of the zoning from carpark when the plan includes a car park at the rear of Anchor zone 1.



62 Private citizen/ owner occupier

Concerns/ questions regarding the timing this amendment before Local Development Plan and Wembley Activity Centre are in place, no height restrictions, lack of provision of green space, and change to the use of the car park inconsistent with the Wembley Activity Centre Plan.



63 Planning consultant on behalf of landowner

Support for Amendment 33.

Wembley ACP recommends Lot 8 be included in the 'District Centre' zone under TPS1. For all intents and purposes, the 'Local Centre' and 'District Centre' zones achieve the same outcome. The 'Local Centre' zoning proposed by Amendment 33 in consistent with the Wembley ACP.

Existing 'Residential R20' zone and 'Public Purposes - Car Park' reservation are inconsistent with the Wembley ACP and prevent the owners from realising the site's development potential.

It is contrary to orderly and proper planning to reserve land for a public purpose unless the Council seriously intends to acquire (and pay the owners compensation for) that land for the public purpose for which it is reserved. For these reasons, Amendment 33 should proceed.

Noted

Development to be in accordance with Wembley Activity Centre Plan through modifications to Town Planning Scheme Amendment and Local Development Plan.


64 Private landowner Concerns / questions surrounding building controls/design, parking for the food hall and new complex and loss of character of Wembley.




65 Private landowner Concerns/questions regarding the following; building controls, height restrictions, side and rear setbacks, provision of parking, and lack of traffic/parking study , Wembley's character and the timing of the amendment before Wembley Activity Centre Plan.




66 Local resident Object to Amendment 33. Concerns for building controls, side and rear setbacks, traffic flow, parking for residents/free parking and loss of character due to multistorey buildings in the area.



67 Local resident No planning controls in place yet. Development standards for overall building height and height and setbacks to adjoining residential properties are proposed. Additional development requirements to be addressed through Wembley Precinct Planning Policy and Local Development Plan

68 Private citizen Concerns for appropriate restrictions to protect the people and character of the Wembley community. Amendment is poorly planned and premature

Key development controls have been included in modified scheme amendment to address overall height and setbacks. Local Development Plan to be prepared to control future development on the site

69 Private citizen No to Amendment 33. Noted

70 Private citizen No rezoning without planning control of projects, traffic assessment and height restriction Transport Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of Wembley Activity Centre Plan

Key development controls have been included in modified scheme amendment to address overall height and setbacks



1

71 Local resident No rezoning until further planning restrictions are undertaken that will provide some control over height/ amount of development. Concerns over the loss of parking bays for food hall customers. The food hall is integral to the Wembley Community.

Local Development Plan to be prepared to control future development on the site. Key development controls have been included in modified scheme amendment to address overall height and setbacks

Future development to comprise public carpark. Transport Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of Wembley Activity Centre Plan

Food Court identified as desirable land use in the Wembley Activity Centre Plan

72 Private citizen Concerns over traffic congestions on local roads, character of the suburb and difficulty with parking and access to local shops Transport Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of Wembley Activity Centre Plan

73 Local resident No to Amendment 33. Area not able to sustain sudden increase in population Development to be consistent with the Wembley Activity Centre Plan


74 Local resident No to amendment 33. It will out too much pressure on Cambridge St and Wembley Primary School Local Development Plan to be prepared to control future development on the site


Department of Education has indicated no objection

75 Owner occupier/ local resident

Amendment legally flawed on initiation. Limited planning restrictions in place to prevent poor development. Amendment should be postponed until Local Planning Strategy complete. Planning controls should be in the Town Planning Scheme for large site.

Completely object to the rezoning on the basis that the parking should be protected given that our community is growing and density is increasing. Increased traffic will require more parking. The proposed reduced number of parking spots for this site will be inadequate. The Town's own Parking Strategy report as per pages attached identified this carpark as an important piece of land. As it exists, it acts as a set back from residential properties.

The zoning public purpose - carpark exists historically as protection to the adjacent residents after residential land was used illegally against its zoning by the owners of the land at the time. In fact, the entire Lot 350 is used contrary to its zoning other than the Wembley Hotel.

Two storey height limit should apply.

Adjacent streets must be given traffic calming (cul-de-sacs) to prevent through traffic.


Local Development Plan to be prepared to control future development on the site. Key development controls have been included in modified scheme amendment to address overall height and setbacks

76 Owner of property Amendment 33 should not proceed until proper height restrictions and setbacks are limited to protect existing residences from overlooking, overcrowding and privacy issues.



77 Local resident Disagree with the proposed re-zoning and should not proceed before Wembley Activity Centre Plan. Concerns that the amendment lacks necessary mandatory height controls and setbacks and allows for a high rise development (ie over 7 storeys).

Without mandatory height limit, JDAP will approve development over 7 storeys. Even 7 storeys would impact amenity for nearby residents and change current desirable low rise character.

Better controls needed to ensure development is not unattractive, dominating

Amendment 33 should not proceed prior to adoption of Wembley Activity Centre Plan with specific height and setback and design controls.



78 Owner of property Concerns over the timing of the amendment before the planning controls envisaged in the Wembley Activity Centre Plan are in place. Furthermore, concerns that the type of development that will be constructs if Amendment 33 proceeds will not meet the intent of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan.


79 Owner of property Supporters of the Cambridge food court and wish to retain the pleasant facilities as that are. No to further development. Retention of food court desirable as outlined in Wembley Activity Centre Plan

80 Local resident Full support. The amendment reflects existing land use, will enable comprehensive development of the overall site, providing greater opportunity for suitable transition to the adjoining lower density housing.

The Wembley Town Centre is already showing signs of revitalisation; it is desirable that this momentum is encouraged and maintained. The Wembley Hotel site is at the heart of the Town Centre and it is important that future development there

Noted

Development provisions to be consistent with the Wembley Activity Centre Plan.




1

provides focal point of activity, on which the surrounding commercial can feed, all leading to a thriving, likely, attractive centre, serving the surrounding residential community.

81 Local resident Concerned that this rezoning is occurring whilst Local Activity Plan still being developed Development to be in accordance with Wembley Activity Centre Plan through modifications to Town Planning Scheme Amendment, Local Development Plan and Wembley Precinct Planning Policy to control future development on the site

82 Local property owner Rezoning could be left until the Local Activity Centre Plan is finalised. Unclear why this car park zoning is being separately discussed.

Development to be in accordance with Wembley Activity Centre Plan through modifications to Town Planning Scheme Amendment, Local Development Plan and Wembley Precinct Planning Policy to be prepared to control future development on the site

Transport Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of Wembley Activity Centre Plan. Future development to comprise public carpark.

83 Local resident Concerns over increase to traffic, parking issues (tenants and visitors), people, overlooking, height of building, setbacks/over looking adjoining properties, noise (increase of people and cars) and not in character with the area.





84 Property owner/occupier Strongly object to Amendment 33.

Wembley Activity Centre Plan has not been approved. Even so, controls (building height and setbacks) should be in Town Planning Scheme. Proceeding with Amendment 33 ahead of controls in place exposes community to developers who may appeal decisions.

Inadequate traffic/parking analysis - traffic congestion on Cambridge Street

Infill and high-rise is undesirable/not appropriate for area. No need for more infill given housing targets met.

More new build high-rise development, lack of appropriate space and affordable / affordable rent will drive out small business - ruin the character of the area and in turn reduce property value of dwellings.




85 Private citizen Support for this amendment subject to standard planning controls being followed. The proposed amendment aligns with planning for centre and encourage diversity of population through housing options. Wembley facilities can only be enhanced through increased density in appropriate locations such as this. This will take pressure off surrounding streets for future density. The amendment will provide flexibility to allow a suitable mixed use development.



86 Private citizen, property owner/occupier

Strongly object to Amendment 33.

Infill and high-rise of the sort that Amendment 33 exposes the community to is inappropriate and undesirable in a low rise residential area. Concerns over loss of character and reduction in housing values as apartment building would overwhelm the area

Proceeding with amendment ad hoc as Wembley Activity Centre Plan incomplete - wait until that process is complete given the significance of the site. To proceed now misses opportunity to develop comprehensive vision and opportunity to improve character and quality of the area.

Inadequate height limits - lack of mandatory provisions

As area already meets housing target no need for more density

Inadequate traffic analysis of Cambridge St - especially impact of one way traffic




87 Owner and occupier of property

Revoke the amendment or impose controls to ensure redevelopment consistent with local community expectations. Concerns that the amendment enables development on the site with inadequate controls (including height limit) which is contradictory and incompatible with the Wembley Activity Plan and will have a negative impact on traffic flow and area ethos.



88 Local resident Strongly disagree with Amendment 33. By allowing this Amendment the Council reduces the power of the Wembley Activity Plan. Allowing development inconsistent with Centre Plan against community ethos.

Development provisions to be consistent with the Wembley Activity Centre Plan.



1

89 Private citizen Concerns that turning the car park into something else would render existing buildings completely useless for the purpose they were designed for. Parking is at a premium in the area at the best of times, particularly during netball season.



90 Local resident Amendment 33 should be abandoned immediately and allow the procedure for the establishment of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan to continue with renewed focus on early completion. Development should be consistent with WACP.

Concerns for little or no controls on development. Not against development in area but believe it should be controlled, development within the overall values of the suburb as a dormitory locale for raising families and providing services such as shops, parks, schools and local entertainment facilities. Rowe Group proposal is inconsistent with this.

Any new developments of the site (Lot 350) should be within the Wembley Activity Centre concept with the same level of planning controls as previously done so on this site when food court was developed originally (i.e. closing Simper St and controlled access). Impact of school traffic needs to be factored in. Recent road traffic controls questionable.

Maintain sensible planning controls.




91 Owner/occupier and private citizen

Concerns about parking, traffic in our street, proposed multistorey carpark, unknown height of new buildings, character of the area with hotel being a land mark and too many unknowns.




92 Owner/ occupier Opposed to the proposal of amending the zoning on the basis that it will possibly lead to an undesirable development on the site.

Local Development Plan to be prepared to control future development

93 Local resident Concerned that the character and community spirit of the area is being eroded by development. The Wembley Hotel and food hall as a focus point for the community and has good and free parking facilities. Any changes made to this sensitive area will affect businesses in Cambridge Street.

Question relating to the status of the parking impact study.



Local Development Plan to be prepared to control future development

94 Department of Health The DOH has no objection to the proposed amendment provided all departments are required to connect to scheme water and reticulated sewerage as required by the Government Sewerage Policy - Perth Metropolitan Region.

Noted

95 Citizen/resident Concern that amendment should be made in conjunction with the overall plan for Wembley otherwise the height and the commercial buildings could look out of place in the township.


96 Owner/occupier Concerns over the height and building quality that may be reflected at end Alexander St. through the rezoning. Keep garden suburb.




AMENDMENT 33 - PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS IN RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

Amendment 33 be modified as follows:

(a) under Part 3 - Development Requirements, Division 1 - GeneralDevelopment Requirements insert a new clause 23B into the Scheme titled'Requirement for Local Development Plans', incorporating the followingprovisions:

23B REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS

(1) The Table sets out the land in respect of which a localdevelopment plan is required for the purposes of orderly andproper planning.

(2) The local development plan shall address the matters set outin the Table, and may address other matters.

Table - Land in respect of which a local development plan is to be prepared

No. Description of land Matters to be addressed 1 Lot 8, No 350 Cambridge

Street, Wembley and Lot 7, No 344 Cambridge Street, Wembley

Specific and detailed guidance for future development, including details as to:

a) The location, orientation, anddesign of buildings and thespace between buildings;

b) Height of buildings, to provide arespectful transition to thestreet and surrounding areaand allowing for solar access toCambridge Street;

c) Street and boundary setbacks,to provide a gradual transitionin built form and scale, and soas to be sympathetic to existingresidential streetscapes alongSimper Street and AlexanderStreet;

d) Provision of an appropriateinterface to the low densityresidential developmentsurrounding the site, includingproviding for an adequate levelof visual privacy betweendevelopments;

e) The interface between publicopen spaces and buildings,including setbacks,surveillance, solar access and

DV17.51 - Att 3 of 4 - Proposed modifications to Amendment 33 in response to public advertising

amenity requirements;

f) Public pedestrian accessthrough the site, connectingpublic open spaces, parkingfacilities and streets;

g) Vehicle access to the site,including opportunities forshared access with Lot 78Cambridge Street;

h) Location of parking, includingthe incorporation of a publicparking facility in the order of100 spaces;

i) Location and indicative designof open space within the siteboundaries, including a publicplaza in the order of 1500square metres fronting bothCambridge Street and thecommon western boundarywith Lot 78;

j) Protection of, and designresponse to the WembleyHotel; and

k) Any other relevant matters.

(b) under Part 3 - Development Requirements, Division 1 - GeneralDevelopment Requirements insert a new clause 23C into the Scheme titled'Additional Site and Development Requirements', incorporating thefollowing provisions:

23C ADDITIONAL SITE AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS

(1) The Table sets out requirements relating to development that areadditional to those set out in the R-Codes, activity centre plans, localdevelopment plans or State or local planning policies.

Table - Additional requirements that apply to land in Scheme area

No. Description of land Requirements 1 Lot 8, No 350 Cambridge

Street, Wembley and Lot 7, No 344 Cambridge Street, Wembley

• Maximum overall buildingheight shall be no higher than 7storeys nor 25 metres asmeasured from natural groundlevel.

• A minimum setback of 2 metresshall apply to Alexander Street.On Lot 8, the building height atthe setback to Alexander Streetshall be no higher than 2


storeys nor 7.5 metres as measured from natural ground level.

• The ground floor to first floorheight (measured floor to floor)shall be a minimum 3.7 metres,in order to facilitate anadaptable ground floor.

• A minimum setback of 2 metresshall apply to Cambridge Streetand Simper Street. Thebuilding height at the setbacksto Cambridge Street andSimper Street respectively shallme no higher than 3 storeysnor 11 metres, as measuredfrom natural ground level.

• A minimum setback of 6 metresshall apply to developmentadjacent to boundaries withResidential zoned lots. Thebuilding height at the setback tothe Residential zone shall beno higher than 2 storeys nor7.5 metres as measured fromnatural ground level.

• Vehicle access to the site shallnot to be taken from CambridgeStreet or from Simper Streetnorth of the cul-de-sac.

(2) To the extent that a requirement referred to in subclause (1) is inconsistentwith a requirement in the R-Codes, an activity centre plan, a localdevelopment plan or a State or local planning policy the requirementreferred to in subclause (1) prevails.


Delegated Decisions and Notifications for Council Town of Cambridge

Property Address Application Description Signed

For the Period Between: 1/03/2017 to 31/03/2017

Carport 01-Mar-201749 The Boulevard~FLOREAT WA 6014

Two Storey Additional Dwelling 01-Mar-201763 Simper Street~WEMBLEY WA 6014

Two Storey Dwelling 07-Mar-20178 Maida Place~MT CLAREMONT WA 6010

Additions to Single Dwelling 07-Mar-20173 Daglish Street~WEMBLEY WA 6014

Bedroom addition with ensuite, alfresco and new carport 07-Mar-201723 Harborne Street~WEMBLEY WA 6014

Additions and alterations to kitchen/dining rooms 07-Mar-201775 Blencowe Street~WEST LEEDERVILLE WA 6007

Temporary modular display suite, accessible toilet, display signage and

landscaping

07-Mar-201729 Stadium Drive~FLOREAT WA 6014

Carport 07-Mar-2017237 Salvado Road~FLOREAT WA 6014

Two storey dwelling 08-Mar-20175 Kintyre Crescent~FLOREAT WA 6014

Ancillary Dwelling 14-Mar-201711 Grasmere Avenue~CITY BEACH WA 6015

Cabana, Outbuilding and Retaining Walls 14-Mar-201793 Empire Avenue~CITY BEACH WA 6015

Fence, gazebo and pergola 15-Mar-201752 Tranmore Way~CITY BEACH WA 6015

Gymnasium, storeroom and changeroom 15-Mar-201749 Marlow Street~WEMBLEY WA 6014

Additions and alterations and new dining room 15-Mar-201721B Pangbourne Street~WEMBLEY WA 6014

Boundary fence and paving 15-Mar-201726 Linden Gardens~FLOREAT WA 6014

Patio 17-Mar-201728 Norbury Crescent~CITY BEACH WA 6015

Additions and alterations and second storey addition 20-Mar-201715 Kinross Crescent~FLOREAT WA 6014

Garage extension, fence and pool store 23-Mar-20175 Orana Crescent~CITY BEACH WA 6015

New living/dining, bedroom 4 with ensuite, bedroom 3 and alfresco 24-Mar-2017163 Daglish Street~WEMBLEY WA 6014

New fencing and retaining walls 27-Mar-201787 Daglish Street~WEMBLEY WA 6014

Fencing and Landscaping 28-Mar-2017128 St Leonards Avenue~WEST LEEDERVILLE WA 6007

Single storey dwelling 28-Mar-201732 Turriff Road~FLOREAT WA 6014

Patio 29-Mar-201714 Collier Street~WEMBLEY WA 6014

Replacement of awning on cafe 31-Mar-2017445 Cambridge Street~FLOREAT WA 6014

Monday, 3 April, 2017 Page 1 of 1

attachment: summary of applicant's justification · 2017. 6. 26. · attachment: summary of...

Documents