metro outer joint development assessment panel agenda

Version: 4

Metro Outer Joint Development Assessment Panel Agenda

Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, 20 October 2021; 2:00pm Meeting Number: MOJDAP/132 Meeting Venue: City of Wanneroo 23 Dundebar Road, Wanneroo

1 Table of Contents

1. Opening of Meeting, Welcome and Acknowledgement ................................2

2. Apologies .........................................................................................................2

3. Members on Leave of Absence ......................................................................2

4. Noting of Minutes ............................................................................................2

5. Declarations of Due Consideration ................................................................2

6. Disclosure of Interests ....................................................................................2

7. Deputations and Presentations ......................................................................3

8. Form 1 – Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Applications ....................3

8.1 Lot 9010 (91) Ariane View, Yanchep ..................................................... 3

9. Form 2 – Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Amendment or

Cancellation of Approval ................................................................................3

Nil..................................................................................................................... 3

10. State Administrative Tribunal Applications and Supreme Court Appeals ..3

11. General Business ............................................................................................4

12. Meeting Closure ..............................................................................................4

Version: 4

Attendance

DAP Members Mr Ian Birch (Presiding Member) Mr Gene Koltasz (A/Deputy Presiding Member) Mr Jason Hick (Third Specialist Member) Cr Jacqueline Huntley (Local Government Member, City of Wanneroo) Cr Frank Cvitan (Local Government Member, City of Wanneroo) Officers in attendance Mr Greg Bowering (City of Wanneroo) Ms Mel Sun (City of Wanneroo) Minute Secretary Ms Sue Wesley (City of Wanneroo)

Applicants and Submitters Mr Mitchell Bisby (Burgess Design Group) Mr Matthew Pears (Primewest) Mr Daniel Moore Members of the Public / Media

Nil.

1. Opening of Meeting, Welcome and Acknowledgement

The Presiding Member declares the meeting open and acknowledges the traditional owners and pay respects to Elders past and present of the land on which the meeting is being held.

2. Apologies

Ms Sheryl Chaffer (Deputy Presiding Member) Cr Vinh Nguyen (Local Government Member, City of Wanneroo)

3. Members on Leave of Absence

Nil.

4. Noting of Minutes

Signed minutes of previous meetings are available on the DAP website.

5. Declarations of Due Consideration

Any member who is not familiar with the substance of any report or other information provided for consideration at the DAP meeting must declare that fact before the meeting considers the matter.

6. Disclosure of Interests

https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/about/development-assessment-panels/daps-agendas-and-minutes

Version: 4

Nil.

7. Deputations and Presentations

7.1 Mr Daniel Moore presenting against the recommendation for the application at Item 8.1. The presentation will address multiple reasons that I am against the development.

7.2 Mr Mitchell Bisby (Burgess Design Group) presenting in support of the

recommendation for the application at Item 8.1. The presentation will

address support to the Officers recommendation for approval & request removal of Condition 6.

The City of Wanneroo may be provided with the opportunity to respond to questions of the panel, as invited by the Presiding Member.

8. Form 1 – Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Applications

8.1 Lot 9010 (91) Ariane View, Yanchep Development Description: Child Care Centre Applicant: Burgess Design Group Owner: Primewest (Yanchep Beach Road) Pty Ltd Responsible Authority: City of Wanneroo DAP File No: DAP/21/02022

9. Form 2 – Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Amendment or Cancellation of Approval

Nil.

10. State Administrative Tribunal Applications and Supreme Court Appeals

Current SAT Applications

File No. & SAT DR No.

LG Name Property Location

Application Description

Date Lodged

DAP/19/01708 DR 138/2020

City of Kwinana

Lot 108 Kwinana Beach Road, Kwinana

Proposed Bulk Liquid Storage for GrainCorp Liquid Terminals

01/07/2020

DAP/01729 DR 176/2020

City of Kalamunda

Lot 130 (74) Warlingham Drive, Lesmurdie

Aged Residential Care Facility

28/8/2020

DAP/20/01764 DR 204/2020

City of Swan

Lot 780 (46) Gaston Road, Bullsbrook

Proposed Stock Feed Grain Mill

8/09/2020

DAP/20/01829 DR 001/2021

City of Swan

Lot 1 (42) Dale Road & Lot 4 (43) Yukich Close, Middle Swan

Aged care and community purpose

08/01/2021

DAP/210/01926 DR144/2021

City of Armadale

Lot 60 Centre Road, Camillo

Proposed 45 Grouped Dwellings

09/07/2021

Version: 4

11. General Business

In accordance with Section 7.3 of the DAP Standing Orders 2020 only the Presiding Member may publicly comment on the operations or determinations of a DAP and other DAP members should not be approached to make comment.

12. Meeting Closure

☐

Presentation Request Form

Regulation 40(3) and DAP Standing Orders 2020 cl. 3.5

Must be submitted at least 72 hours (3 ordinary days) before the meeting

Presentation Request Guidelines

Persons interested in presenting to a DAP must first consider whether their concern has

been adequately addressed in the responsible authority report or other submissions. Your

request will be determined by the Presiding Member based on individual merit and likely

contribution to assist the DAP’s consideration and determination of the application.

Presentations are not to exceed 5 minutes. It is important to note that the presentation

content will be published on the DAP website as part of the meeting agenda.

Please complete a separate form for each presenter and submit to [email protected]

Presenter Details

Name Daniel Moore

Company (if applicable) 119 Moorpark ave Yanchep

Please identify if you have any special requirements:

YES ☐ NO ☒

If yes, please state any accessibility or special requirements:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Meeting Details

DAP Name Child Care Centre

Meeting Date 20/10/2021

DAP Application Number DAP/DA2021/1043

Property Location 91 Ariane View Yanchep

Agenda Item Number Click or tap here to enter text.

Presentation Details

I have read the contents of the report contained in the Agenda and note that my presentation content will be published as part of the Agenda:

YES ☒

Is the presentation in support of or against the report recommendation)? (contained within the Agenda) SUPPORT ☐ AGAINST ☒

Is the presentation in support of or against the proposed development? SUPPORT ☐ AGAINST ☒

Will the presentation require power-point facilities? YES ☒ NO ☐

If yes, please attach

https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/834d1aa3-cf7a-4186-a1b1-104b2d17eb31/DAP-Regulations

https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/7b2de614-2f2b-41d6-aff3-f149ba8a093d/Standing-Orders-(website-published)

mailto:[email protected]

Presentation Content*

These details may be circulated to the local government and applicant if deemed necessary

by the Presiding Member. Handouts or power points will not be accepted on the day.

Brief sentence summary for inclusion on the Agenda

The presentation will address:

Against the proposed development for the below reasons:

In accordance with Clause 3.5.2 of the DAP Standing Orders, your presentation request

must also be accompanied with a written document detailing the content of your

presentation.

Please attach detailed content of presentation or provide below:

1- 12 rubbish bins next to our boundary wall which is all so right next to our patio and pool/entertainment area, can you imagine the smell all year round( especially summer time) with these bins containing shitty nappies and food scrapes. 2- Due to land levels at the rear of our property we loose a certain amount of privacy as it is. With the proposed plans we will loose alot more with the number of people coming and going, which will be a big invasion of our privacy. 3- Excess noise, due to the increase in motor vehicle traffic also due too the 32 carbays on proposed Daycare plans, also car doors banging 12+ hours a day, which we already Deal with due to the new primary school across the road. 4- Excess lighting due to the 32 carbays and proposed Daycare. 5- Landscaping plans show 2 Melaleuca Quinquenervia (paper bark) on our boundary wall which will be damaging to wall/pool when matured they can grow to a least 20 metres tall they will drop foliage and stain. 6- Proposed Daycare centre Signage, ask yourself this would you be happy with this sign/wall right next to your property/ formal garden.


☐

Presentation Request Form

Regulation 40(3) and DAP Standing Orders 2020 cl. 3.5

Must be submitted at least 72 hours (3 ordinary days) before the meeting

Presentation Request Guidelines

Persons interested in presenting to a DAP must first consider whether their concern has

been adequately addressed in the responsible authority report or other submissions. Your

request will be determined by the Presiding Member based on individual merit and likely

contribution to assist the DAP’s consideration and determination of the application.

Presentations are not to exceed 5 minutes. It is important to note that the presentation

content will be published on the DAP website as part of the meeting agenda.

Please complete a separate form for each presenter and submit to [email protected]

Presenter Details

Name Mitch Bisby

Company (if applicable) Burgess Design Group

Please identify if you have any special requirements:

YES ☐ NO ☒

If yes, please state any accessibility or special requirements:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Meeting Details

DAP Name Metro Outer JDAP

Meeting Date 20 October 2021

DAP Application Number DAP/21/02022

Property Location 91 (Lot 9010) ARIANE VIEW, YANCHEP

Agenda Item Number 8.1

Presentation Details

I have read the contents of the report contained in the Agenda and note that my presentation content will be published as part of the Agenda:

YES ☒

Is the presentation in support of or against the report recommendation)? (contained within the Agenda) SUPPORT ☒ AGAINST ☐

Is the presentation in support of or against the proposed development? SUPPORT ☒ AGAINST ☐

Will the presentation require power-point facilities? YES ☐ NO ☒

If yes, please attach

https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/834d1aa3-cf7a-4186-a1b1-104b2d17eb31/DAP-Regulations


mailto:[email protected]

Presentation Content*

These details may be circulated to the local government and applicant if deemed necessary

by the Presiding Member. Handouts or power points will not be accepted on the day.

Brief sentence summary for inclusion on the Agenda

The presentation will address:

Support to the Officers recommendation for approval & request removal of Condition 6.

In accordance with Clause 3.5.2 of the DAP Standing Orders, your presentation request

must also be accompanied with a written document detailing the content of your

presentation.

Please attach detailed content of presentation or provide below:

Regarding the concurrent subdivision application:

• The RAR notes the City has recommended refusal of the subdivision because of concerns

regarding permeability.

• We understand this stems from a concept plan we prepared in 2014 that identified a road link

through the site connecting to future residential uses.

• An updated Concept Plan was provided to the City & WAPC as part of the subdivision and DA

to demonstrate how the site will integrate with future development without this road

connection (see Attachment 5 of the RAR).

• The City, WAPC & DFES have all indicated they support this concept, and are satisfied that it

resolves any concerns and provides a desirable outcome.

• However, as noted in the RAR, the City is not supportive of the proposed subdivision because

the Concept Plan itself is not subject of a subdivision approval.

• Respectfully, we believe this is putting the 'cart before the horse'.

o First, the City's concerns stem from a concept plan that was not subject of a

subdivision approval.

o Second, the current Concept has been prepared to demonstrate how the proposal will

integrate with the ultimate development outcome. As all parties are supportive, it

appears to have served its purpose.

o The planning framework, including the Structure Plan, Liveable Neighbourhoods and

State Planning Policy 3.7 (Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas) provide a firm foundation

to guide the delivery of the concept, largely dictating all key elements of the design

response, including road interfaces, broader connectivity, and delivery of a public

open space corridor to the school.

o In more practical terms and for context, servicing constraints and efficient delivery of

infrastructure dictate that the broader development needs to proceed from the south

to the north. If that weren't the case, we would look to develop around the school to

capitalise on that amenity, but it simply isn't practicable.

o Conversely, with the recent delivery of the Yanchep Rise Primary School and in the

context of the growing community of Yanchep, there is a need and opportunity to

deliver child care services ahead of the broader development.


• Procedurally, the subdivision application is due to be determined next week, and Officers of

DPLH have advised that an approval is forthcoming provided the DA is approved.

• We believe the proposed development, subdivision and Concept Plan all come together to

produce an integrated outcome that will provide for a well-planned addition to Yanchep.

Regarding Condition 6:

• Condition 6 requires a revised southern elevation incorporating varied materials, colours,

textures, and/or landscaping, which the RAR explains is in response to a proposed variation to

the boundary setback.

• We believe this isn't warranted in the context of the proposed variation.

o First, it is important to note the area of the variation is small. The incursion measures

9m², which is more than offset by immediately adjacent areas set back in excess of 3m

that measure 81m². Alternatively, the incursion comprises about 16% of the southern

elevation (9.2m of 58.5m total).

o It only affects a small portion of adjoining properties due to irregular boundaries.

o The area of adjoining residential properties is unlikely to experience any significant

amenity impact. Noting the area of Lot 248 accommodates a shed that screens the

building, and the outdoor living areas of Lot 249 are all oriented away on the opposite

side of the property.

o The design of the development itself orients active, noise generating uses on the

opposite side of the building, away from residential uses, and a solid fence will screen

the building.

o It is also worth noting that if the site were developed for residential uses, a two-storey

dwelling could be built with a 1.2-1.5m boundary setback under the R-Codes, arguably

creating a much more significant impost in terms of bulk and scale.

o As such, the proposed variation is not considered to have a significant impact on the

amenity and enjoyment of the adjoining properties, and certainly not to the extent

that it would warrant a revised design and treatment to the entire southern elevation.

o We respectfully ask that the JDAP consider the suitability of Condition 6 in this context,

and preferably remove it.

ARIANE VIEW, 91 (LOT 9010) YANCHEP – CHILD CARE CENTRE

Form 1 – Responsible Authority Report (Regulation 12)

DAP Name: Metro Outer JDAP Local Government Area: City of Wanneroo Applicant: Burgess Design Group Owner: Primewest Value of Development: $2.1 million

☐ Mandatory (Regulation 5) ☒ Opt In (Regulation 6)

Responsible Authority: City of Wanneroo Authorising Officer: Greg Bowering, Manager Approval Services LG Reference: DA2021/1043 DAP File No: DAP/21/02022 Application Received Date: 29 June 2021 Report Due Date: 8 October 2021 Application Statutory Process Timeframe:

90 Days (additional 30 days extension)

Attachment(s): 1. Development Plans 2. Location Plan 3. Summary of Submissions 4. Subdivision Plan and Initial Concept

Plan 5. Revised Concept Plan

Is the Responsible Authority Recommendation the same as the Officer Recommendation?

☐ Yes ☒ N/A

Complete Responsible Authority Recommendation section

☐ No Complete Responsible Authority and Officer Recommendation sections

Responsible Authority Recommendation That the Metro Outer JDAP resolves to: 1. Approve DAP Application reference DAP/21/02022 and accompanying plans

provided in Attachment 1 in accordance with Clause 68 of Schedule 2 (Deemed Provisions) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, and the provisions of the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2, subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1. Pursuant to clause 26 of the Metropolitan Region Scheme, this approval is

deemed to be an approval under clause 24(1) of the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

2. This decision constitutes planning approval only and is valid for a period of four years from the date of approval. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the specified period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

Page | 1

3. The use of the premises is to be Child Care Centre as defined in the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 as follows:

“Child Care Centre: means premises used for the daily or occasional care of children in accordance with the Community Services (Child Care) Regulations 1988.”

4. A maximum of 100 children and 16 staff are permitted within the Child Care Centre premises at any one time.

5. The hours of operation of the Child Care Centre shall be between the hours of

6:30am to 7:00pm Monday to Friday (excluding public holidays).

6. A revised southern elevation drawing shall be submitted to the City and approved prior to lodgement of the building permit. The revised elevation shall provide a higher quality interface and presentation to the adjoining residential properties through the use of materials, colours, textures and/or landscaping.

7. A revised site and verge plan shall be submitted to the City and approved prior

to lodgement of the building permit. The revised site plan shall relocate the footpath into the Moorpark Avenue verge to achieve a minimum setback distance of 2.5 metres from the nearest car bay and provide a pram ramp on the verge opposite of the street to connect into the existing footpath network.

8. Detailed civil engineering drawings and specifications for works within the public

road reserve (footpath and pram ramp construction) shall be lodged for approval to the City prior to commencement of construction works. Construction works are to be undertaken in accordance with the approved development application, engineering drawings and specifications to the satisfaction of the City.

9. The development is to comply with the recommendations and measures outlined

in the Environmental Acoustic Assessment prepared by Herring Storer Acoustics dated 27 May 2021 and the information provided in the letter by Herring Storer Acoustics dated 13 August 2021 (Ref 28203-1-21192). Recommended works shall be completed prior to the commencement of the use.

10. A noise management plan shall be submitted for approval to the City prior to

lodgement of the building permit. The noise management plan will need to outline measures undertaken to restrict the use of the car bays located along the eastern portion as indicated in the Environmental Acoustic Assessment prepared by Herring Storer Acoustics dated 27 May 2021, which include (but are not limited to):

a. Signposting parking restrictions; b. Education to staff and patrons; and/or c. Providing cones to staff to block off car parking access until after 7:00am.

The future operations of the Child Care Centre shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved noise management plan.

11. A traffic management plan shall be submitted for approval to the City prior to commencement of use. The traffic management plan shall detail measures to ensure all pick-up and drop-off of children associated with the Child Care Centre is contained on-site. The future operations of the Child Care Centre shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved traffic management plan.

Page | 2

12. The development is to be maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Bushfire Management Plan prepared by Martinick Bosch Sell Environmental and dated September 2021 (Revision 2).

13. Detailed landscaping plans for the subject site and adjacent verges which include

specifications for the plant species, densities, confirmation on mulch details, planting locations, and shade trees, shall be lodged for approval by the City prior to lodging a building permit. Planting and installation shall be in accordance with the approved landscaping and reticulation plans and completed prior to occupation of the development and maintained thereafter, to the satisfaction of the City.

14. Parking areas, driveways and points of ingress and egress shall be designed

and constructed in accordance with the Australian Standard for Offstreet Carparking (AS 2890) and shall be drained, sealed, marked and maintained to the satisfaction of the City prior to occupation of the development.

15. The parking areas and associated access indicated on the approved plans shall

not be used for the purpose of storage or obstructed in any way at any time, without the prior approval of the City.

16. All storage areas, external fixtures and building plant, including air conditioning

units and water tanks shall be located so as to minimise any visual and noise impact on surrounding landowners and screened from view from streets, public places and adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the City.

17. Stormwater and any other water run-off from buildings or paved areas shall be

collected and retained on site.

18. The applicant/owner shall ensure that all illuminated signage shall have any boxing or casing in which it is enclosed constructed of incombustible materials, shall not comprise of flashing, pulsating, chasing or running lights and shall not have such intensity as to cause annoyance to the public or illuminate beyond the extent of the lot boundaries.

19. All signage is to be contained entirely within the allotment. 20. All signage is to be kept in accordance with the City’s Signs Local Planning

Policy and/or Signs Local Law (1999) as amended from time to time.

21. Lighting shall be installed to pathways and car parking areas, be designed in accordance with the Australian Standards for the Control of Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting (AS4282) and shall be internally directed to not overspill into nearby lots. All floodlights shall be oriented and hooded to eliminate disturbance to occupants on the surrounding properties.

22. All future waste management operations on the lot shall be undertaken in

accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Talis Consultants dated 7 September 2021.

23. All waste shall be stored within the designated bin enclosure and shall be collected from the site by a private contractor at the cost of the owner/occupier.

24. The movement of trucks for delivery purposes shall occur between 7:00am to

7:00pm, Monday to Friday only.

Page | 3

25. The development shall be finished in accordance with the approved schedule of external finishes (including materials, colour schemes and details) prior to the use or occupation of the development.

26. A construction management plan shall be submitted for approval to the City prior

to an application for a building permit being made. The plan is to detail how construction of the development will be managed to minimise disruption to adjoining landowners. The plan will need to address the following:

a. The delivery times for materials and equipment to the site; b. Storage of materials and the location and type of equipment on site; c. Adequate measures be implemented during construction to minimise any

adverse impacts caused by sand drift and dust from the site; d. Parking arrangements for contractors and sub-contractors; e. Construction times; f. Measures to minimise noise impacts on surrounding residents; and g. Any other matter required by the City. The construction management plan is to be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any development.

Details: outline of development application Region Scheme Metropolitan Region Scheme Region Scheme - Zone Urban Local Planning Scheme District Planning Scheme No. 2 Local Planning Scheme - Zone Urban Development Structure Plan Yanchep City Agreed Structure Plan No. 68 Structure Plan - Land Use Designation

Residential

Use Class and permissibility: Child Care Centre – D use Lot Size: 27.8ha Development Area: 3,032m2 Existing Land Use: Vacant State Heritage Register No Local Heritage

☒ N/A ☐ Heritage List ☐ Heritage Area

Design Review ☒ N/A ☐ Local Design Review Panel ☐ State Design Review Panel ☐ Other

Bushfire Prone Area Yes Swan River Trust Area No

Proposal: The proposal is for a Child Care Centre comprising the following:

• Single storey building with a floor area of 820m2; • 32 on-site car bays (16 staff and 16 visitor bays); • Access from Moorpark Avenue; • Capacity of 100 children and 16 staff; • Operating from 6:30am to 7:00pm Monday to Friday (excluding public

holidays); and

Page | 4

• An entry wall sign. The development plans for consideration are included in Attachment 1. Proposed Land Use Child Care Centre Proposed Net Lettable Area 820m2 Proposed No. Storeys Single Storey Proposed No. Dwellings N/A

Background: Site Context The development area (subject site) falls within the northern portion of Lot 9010 (91) Ariane View, Yanchep. The subject site is bound by residential properties and Moorpark Avenue to the south, and residential properties to the east. There is vacant land to the north and west of the site which is identified as a strategic public open space (POS) for the purposes of landform and vegetation retention under the Yanchep City Agreed Structure Plan No. 68 (ASP 68), and also consists of Residential zoned land. Due to the site levels, the subject site is approximately 0.4 metres to 0.8 metres above the adjoining residential properties to the south. The site slopes upwards towards the northern extent identified as strategic POS. A location plan of the subject site is included as Attachment 2. Subdivision History The subject site currently forms part of Lot 9010 (91) Ariane View, Yanchep. A subdivision application (Reference 160892) has been submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for the purposes of creating the subject lot. To date, this application has not yet been determined by the WAPC. The City has provided a recommendation to the WAPC to not support this subdivision application. This will be discussed in further detail in the comment section. Development Application History On 23 March 2021, Metro Outer JDAP resolved to approve a Child Care Centre which spans across numerous lots including the a portion of the balance of the lot (Reference DAP/21/01933). This Child Care Centre is located within the southern portion of the lot and is bound by Castlemead Drive, Spinnaker Boulevard and Yanchep Beach Road, and is approximately one kilometre from the subject site. To date, there are no other development approvals within the balance of the lot, and no development approvals relating to the subject site. Legislation and Policy: Legislation Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) State Government Policies

Page | 5

State Planning Policy 3.7 – Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP 3.7) State Planning Policy 7.0 – Design of the Built Environment (SPP 7.0) Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) Bulletin 72/2009 – Child Care Centres (Planning Bulletin 72/2009) Structure Plans/Activity Centre Plans Yanchep City Agreed Structure Plan No. 68 (ASP 68) Yanchep-Two Rocks District Structure Plan No. 43 (DSP 43) Local Policies Local Planning Policy 2.3 – Child Care Centres (LPP 2.3) Local Planning Policy 4.6 – Signs (LPP 4.6) Consultation: Public Consultation The application was advertised for a period of 14 days, commencing on 22 July 2021 and concluding on 5 August 2021. Advertising was undertaken by way of letters to surrounding landowners within a 200 metre radius, a sign on site and a notice published on the City’s website. A total of nine submissions were received during this time, with six objections, two in support and one with no objections. The key concerns raised in the submissions include:

• The compatibility of the Child Care Centre given its proximity to residential properties;

• Existing traffic, parking and safety issues from the nearby school, which will be exacerbated by the proposed Child Care Centre; and

• Noise impacts.

A summary of submissions and the City’s responses are included as Attachment 3. Referrals/consultation with Government/Service Agencies Department of Fire and Emergency Services The subject site is located in a bushfire prone area and the Child Care Centre is classified as a Vulnerable land use. As such, the applicant was required to provide a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) and Emergency Evacuation Plan (EEP) in support of the proposal, which determined the site has a Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) rating of BAL-29 and included measures to demonstrate compliance with the bushfire protection criteria. This was referred to the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) for comment, who did not support the BMP and recommended a number of modifications to the BMP. The applicant subsequently provided a revised BMP to address DFES’s comments. The below table outlines DFES’s comments and the applicant’s response. DFES Comments Applicant’s Response The Bushfire Hazard Level (BHL) is not required at the development application stage of planning. If you wish to retain it, the hazard level should be show a 150 metre assessment area.

Removed BHL from the BMP as it is not required at this stage.

Page | 6

The Vegetation Classification Map (Figure 3) should classify the vegetation out to the 150 metre assessment area. All the vegetation areas should be labelled with their respective classification or exclusion clause on the Vegetation Map.

The Vegetation Classification Map (Figure 3) has been updated to show the vegetation to a distance of 150 metres. Area 1 and 2 reclassified to consider the 13 metre Asset Protection Zone which will be maintained as non-vegetated with crushed limestone.

Areas 1 and 2 should be classified as Class Shrubland as per sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of the BMP.

The BAL Contours (Figure 7) should extend across the classified vegetation out to the 100 metres.

The BAL Contours (Figure 7) have been extended out to 100 metres.

Any area to be managed as an Asset Protection Zone should be shown on the BAL Contour Map (Figure 7).

A separate map has been provided indicating the Asset Protection Zone (Figure 8).

The BMP should include a BAL-analysis table which clearly outlines how the BAL rating was calculated, and this would validate the BAL rating.

A BAL-analysis table (Table 1) has been included in the BMP.

The area of BAL-40/FZ on the north west corner of the lot shall be mitigated as the outdoor play area of the Child Care Centre is still a vulnerable land use and cannot be supported with this rating.

Additional bushfire protection measures included to ensure the entire lot has a BAL rating less than BAL-40/FZ as shown in Figures 3 and 8.

The City is of the view that the revised BMP has adequately addressed DFES’s comments. It is recommended a condition be imposed requiring the measures outlined in the BMP to be implemented. Department of Education As the subject site is located in close proximity to Yanchep Rise Primary School, the application was referred to Department of Education (DoE) for comment. DoE states that the supporting Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) has demonstrated that the Child Care Centre is not expected to have any adverse impacts to the traffic, amenity or safety of the existing Primary School, and therefore does not object to the proposal, subject to the following conditions:

• A Construction Management Plan (CMP) be prepared to address noise, odour and dust emissions mitigation, and ensure car parking, delivery vehicles, traffic impacts associated with the construction will be managed so as to not impact the safety of the school community, particularly during school peak periods; and

• A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be prepared and implemented to ensure that all pick-up and drop-off of children associated with the Child Care Centre is contained on-site.

To address Department of Education’s concerns, the City recommends the conditions be imposed requiring a CMP and TMP to be submitted and implemented. Design Review Panel Advice Not applicable. Planning Assessment:

Page | 7

An assessment has been carried out against the provisions of LPP 2.3, LPP 4.6, ASP 68 and DPS 2. The following matters have been identified as key considerations for the determination of this application:

• Setbacks to Moorpark Avenue, western and southern boundary; • Landscaping; • Footpath network; • Traffic impacts; • Noise impacts; and • Compatibility in the Residential zone; and • Orderly and proper planning.

These matters are outlined and discussed below. Setbacks to Moorpark Avenue, western and southern boundary DPS 2 Provisions Proposal Moorpark Avenue: 6 metres Western boundary: 3 metres Southern boundary: 3 metres

Moorpark Avenue: 1.8 metres (signage wall) Western boundary: 1 metre (signage wall) Southern setback: 1.3 metres to 6.5 metres (building)

The signage wall with the letterbox is proposed to be setback 1.8 metres and 1 metre to Moorpark Avenue and the western side boundary respectively. In addition, the Child Care Centre building is setback a minimum of 1.3 metres to the southern boundary which adjoins three residential properties. The City supports the reduced setbacks for the reasons outlined below. Signage wall:

• The signage wall has a length of 3.5 metres and height of 1.5 metres which the dimensions are not dissimilar to a front fence and letterbox. The boundary fence to the adjoining residential property to the west will also assist in screening the signage wall.

• The signage wall occupies 11.6% of the frontage of the site, which will not add significant building bulk as viewed from the street.

• Due to the irregular shape of the subject site, the signage wall proposed in its location is considered to be necessary and required for the realistic needs of advertising and to assist in directing patrons to the site. The signage wall improves legibility and would reduce the likelihood of patrons getting lost which could result in traffic issues.

Child Care Centre building:

• Approximately 17.6% of the building intrudes into the 3 metre setback line, and spans across a portion of two residential properties. The area of the building with the reduced setback is located away from the adjacent dwellings and their outdoor living areas, with the affected area of Lot 248 accommodating a shed, and Lot 249 which is configured so that the pool and patio are located on the opposite side.

• The site is constrained by irregular boundaries between the subject site and the three southern residential properties, however the building has been designed for the majority of the building to be adequately setback, with the maximum setback being 6.5 metres.

Page | 8

• Solid boundary fencing is proposed along the southern boundary, which will assist in providing screening and ensure the privacy of the adjoining residential properties are maintained.

• The floor plan has been designed to have staff rooms, offices, a laundry room and corridors along the southern side of the building. These rooms typically generate less noise which will assist in reducing impacts to the adjoining residential properties.

• Notwithstanding the above, the southern elevation consists of a blank façade, and in combination with the reduced setback, presents a poor interface to the residential properties. As such, should the JDAP be of the view to approve this application, it is recommended a condition be imposed requiring a revised southern elevation to be provided and approved by the City, which incorporates varying materials and colours to provide a better interface to the adjoining residential properties.

Landscaping DPS 2 Provisions Proposal Clause 4.7.4 First 3 metres of the street alignment to be used for access and landscaping.

Moorpark Avenue: signage, footpath, landscaping, driveway, parking

Clause 4.17.1 Adjacent verges to be landscaped and maintained to the satisfaction of the City.

Landscaping plan does not include verge landscaping.

Clause 4.17.4 Designed to improve visual appeal of development from street. Use of endemic trees and shrubs are encouraged.

Some planting species are not supported.

Clause 4.17.5 8 shade trees required.

7 shade trees provided.

Clause 4.7.4 of DPS 2 requires the first three metres of a street alignment to be used for access and landscaping. Parking and the signage wall is located within the first three metres of the boundary to Moorpark Avenue. This is supported for the following reasons:

• The proposal provides 28% soft landscaping on site which greatly exceeds the minimum of 8% under DPS 2; and

• As discussed in the Setback section, the reduced setback of the signage wall is acceptable as it is necessary and required for the realistic needs of advertising and to assist in directing patrons to the site.

Further to the above, the landscaping plans do not include verge landscaping and has a shortfall of one shade tree. In addition, some of the chosen species are not supported by the City. As such, the City recommends a condition be imposed requiring a revised detailed landscaping plan be provided which includes landscaping of the adjacent street verges, inclusion of eight shade trees and revised planting species. Footpath Network LPP 2.3 requires pedestrian access to be provided from the parking area and to link into existing or future neighbourhood pedestrian or cycle networks. The proposal incorporates a footpath which runs along the primary street boundary and then extends to the verge but does not provide a direct connection to the existing footpath network

Page | 9

located on the opposite side of the road verge that is adjacent to the school. In addition, the proposed footpath is located directly against two car bays and does not meet the minimum 2.5 metre setback distance to ensure sufficient sightlines are achieved for pedestrian safety. In light of the above, the City recommends a condition be imposed requiring the footpath to be relocated into the adjacent verge to achieve a minimum setback distance of 2.5 metres from the car bays and a pram ramp being provided on the opposite side of the road. Furthermore, it is recommended a condition be imposed requiring detailed engineering drawings to be provided for works within the road reserve. Traffic and Parking Impacts A number of submissions raised concerns regarding to the traffic generated from the development and its impact on safety, parking and congestion. The submissions also noted that there are already existing traffic and parking issues associated with the nearby primary school, and that the proposed Child Care Centre will exacerbate these issues. Further to the above, LPP 2.3 states that access should ideally be from a Neighbourhood Connector road, however, access is proposed on Moorpark Avenue, which is classified as an Access Road. In support of the proposal, a TIA was submitted with the application and included the following findings:

• Moorpark Avenue currently carries approximately 1,500 vehicles per day (VPD) from the nearby primary school and 180 VPD from the residential properties.

• The Child Care Centre is anticipated to generate 110 vehicle trips in the AM peak period, and 90 vehicle trips in the PM peak period, with a total of 432 VPD.

• Moorpark Avenue is an access road which is capable of accommodating 3,000 VPD. Given this, the proposed Child Care Centre is capable of being accommodated within the existing road capacity.

• There may also be reciprocal vehicle trips between the primary school and the Child Care Centre which would reduce the overall traffic movements on Moorpark Avenue.

It’s acknowledged that the proposed Child Care Centre vehicle access is located directly opposite the primary school which may conflict with the school during peak drop-off and pick-up periods. However, the proposed crossover has good sight distances in both directions and the on-site car parking is compliant with the LPP 2.3 parking requirements which is likely to minimise any traffic and parking impacts associated with the Child Care Centre. On this basis, the City’s Traffic and Transport Services supports the Child Care Centre location and also advises that the adjacent roads and intersections can adequately accommodate the predicted traffic volumes. Noise Impacts A number of submissions were received objecting to the proposal on the basis that the noise generated would negatively impact the amenity of the surrounding residential properties. An Environmental Noise Assessment was provided with the application based on the proposed operating hours, which concluded the proposed development could comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 subject to the following:

• No outdoor play is permitted prior to 7am; • Solid fencing being provided to the eastern and southern boundaries;

Page | 10

• Car bays abutting the eastern boundary cannot be used before 7am; and • All deliveries to consist of small delivery trucks or vans.

The City’s Health Services has reviewed the Environmental Noise Assessment and have advised that it is acceptable subject to compliance with the recommendations outlined in the assessment and restricting the operating hours. As such, the City recommends that a condition is imposed requiring the recommendations in the Environmental Noise Assessment to be implemented, a Noise Management Plan to be provided demonstrating how car bay usage is restricted, and a condition restricting the operating hours of the Child Care Centre. In light of the above, potential noise impacts associated with the proposed Child Care Centre can be sufficiently managed through compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and through the imposition of specific conditions of development approval. Compatibility in the Residential zone The proposed Child Care Centre is a ‘D’ or discretionary use within the Residential zone. The objectives of the Residential zone under DPS 2 are listed below:

a) maintain the predominantly single residential character and amenity of established residential areas;

b) provide the opportunity for grouped and multiple dwellings in selected locations so that there is a choice in the type of housing available within the City;

c) provide the opportunity for aged persons housing in most residential areas in recognition of an increasing percentage of aged residents within the City; and

d) provide for compatible urban support services. The proposed Child Care Centre provides a community benefit and urban support service that is appropriately located in close proximity to residential areas and is complementary to the nearby primary school, which is consistent with the locational criteria of LPP 2.3. The Child Care Centre has also been sited to locate the outdoor play areas and activity rooms to face the future POS to ensure that the high noise generating areas are situated as far as practically possible from the adjoining residential properties. The proposed Child Care Centre therefore satisfies the objectives of the Residential zone and has been designed to minimise potential impacts on the amenity of the nearby residential properties. Orderly and Proper Planning The subject site currently forms part of Lot 9010 (91) Ariane View, Yanchep. Prior to adoption of the Yanchep City Centre Structure Plan No. 68 (ASP 68) and designation of the ‘Residential’ zone to the subject lot, a portion of this proposed lot was intended to provide road access from Moorpark Avenue to future residential lots. A subdivision application (Reference 160892) for creation of the subject site as a separate lot was submitted to the WAPC and has not been supported by the City. The plan of subdivision and a concept plan of the future subdivision of the remaining area was provided with the application. This is included as Attachment 4. The City has not supported the subdivision application as the subject site being proposed as a Child Care Centre will result in the intended future road access to remain as private property, and would significantly reduce connectivity for future residential lots located within the eastern portion of the lot. A revised concept plan was provided with through subdivision application (Attachment 5) which indicates a future east-west road along the northern boundary of the Child

Page | 11

Care Centre and will provide a link to the road network and connectivity for vehicular traffic. This will also improve the interface to the POS and retain the POS corridor which will link directly to the school and maintain a high level of pedestrian/cyclist permeability. The City acknowledges that there is scope in addressing the City’s concern on connectivity. However, the future roads are not proposed with the subdivision application 160892 and the revised concept plan is ultimately concept only. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the future subdivision of the remaining balance of the lot would be undertaken in that manner. The determination of this development application prior to receiving subdivision approval could limit and potentially undermine the ability to achieve a well designed and highly interconnected area. Clause 67(b) of the Deemed Provisions of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 states that due regard is to be given to the requirements of orderly and proper planning. While procedural concerns exist with approving the development application prior to the determination of the subdivision application for the site, the City acknowledges that the Child Care Centre is a use capable of being considered on the lot and all other matters have been adequately addressed. Conclusion: The development application for a Child Care Centre at Lot 9010 (91) Ariane View, Yanchep, has been assessed against LPP 2.3, LPP 4.6, ASP 68, SPP 3.7 and DPS 2. While the City has concerns on the development application being determined prior to subdivision of the subject lot and balance of the lot, the City acknowledges that the proposed Child Care Centre is generally compliant with the relevant planning requirements. In addition, the Child Care Centre has been designed to mitigate impacts to the adjoining residential properties and is complementary to the nearby primary school and future POS. The City therefore recommends the proposed development be approved, subject to conditions.

Page | 12

of orderly and proper planning. While procedural concerns exist with approving the development application prior to the determination of the subdivision application for the site, the City acknowledges that the Child Care Centre is a use capable of being considered on the lot and all other matters have been adequately addressed. Conclusion: The development application for a Child Care Centre at Lot 9010 (91) Ariane View, Yanchep, has been assessed against LPP 2.3, LPP 4.6, ASP 68, SPP 3.7 and DPS 2. While the City has concerns on the development application being determined prior to subdivision of the subject lot and balance of the lot, the City acknowledges that the proposed Child Care Centre is generally compliant with the relevant planning requirements. In addition, the Child Care Centre has been designed to mitigate impacts to the adjoining residential properties and is complementary to the nearby primary school and future POS. The City therefore recommends the proposed development be approved, subject to conditions.

36

37

37

37

38

36.5

36.5

37.5

37.5

38.5

POWERPOLE

TELSTRAPIT

POWERPOLE

TELSTRAPIT

SEWER

LINE

36.24

SEWERM/H

36.24

SEWERM/H

36133625 36

15

3605

35923602

3591

3583

35783587

36 16

36 1436 28

36 35

36 50

36.70 36.7

1

367236 84

36 6536 56 36 42 36 51

36 97

37 13

37 28

37 40

37 49

37 4337 50

37 4437 5137 44

37 48

37 86

37 57

37 41

37 88

37 76

37 1136 65

36 63

37 11 37 28

37 09

36 8536 65

37 00

36 88

36 6036 85

37

36 96

36 62

36 6136 8236 72

36 66

36 49

36 2536 24

36 20

36 47

36

36 21

36 28

36 2836 27

36 35

36 4836 76

37 06

36 99

37 42

37 50

37 48

37 2036 29

36 69

36 53

37 43

37 51

37 5937 68

37 11

37 67

37 76

37 82

37 77

36 58

37 70

38 20

37 28

37 08

37 97

37 71

36 99

38

37

37 86

38 01

38 09

38 22

38 21

38 02

38 06

38 22

38 3038 22

38 20

37 74

38 06

37 76

37 40

37 4237 56

37 80

37 80

37 87

37 78

38 26

38 1737 67

37 45 37 94 38 29 38 33

38 45

38 8838 84

38 3238 0437 61

37 84 38 25

38 3838 88

38 89

36133625 36

15

3605

35923602

3591

3583

35783587

36 16

36 1436 28

36 35

36 50

36.70 36.7

1

367236 84

36 6536 56 36 42 36 51

36 97

37 13

37 28

37 40

37 49

37 4337 50

37 4437 5137 44

37 48

37 86

37 57

37 41

37 88

37 76

37 1136 65

36 63

37 11 37 28

37 09

36 8536 65

37 00

36 88

36 6036 85

37

36 96

36 62

36 6136 8236 72

36 66

36 49

36 2536 24

36 20

36 47

36

36 21

36 28

36 2836 27

36 35

36 4836 76

37 06

36 99

37 42

37 50

37 48

37 2036 29

36 69

36 53

37 43

37 51

37 5937 68

37 11

37 67

37 76

37 82

37 77

36 58

37 70

38 20

37 28

37 08

37 97

37 71

36 99

38

37

37 86

38 01

38 09

38 22

38 21

38 02

38 06

38 22

38 3038 22

38 20

37 74

38 06

37 76

37 40

37 4237 56

37 80

37 80

37 87

37 78

38 26

38 1737 67

37 45 37 94 38 29 38 33

38 45

38 8838 84

38 3238 0437 61

37 84 38 25

38 3838 88

38 89

36.03TBM

35.81CPT

36.03TBM

35.81CPT

06

1

06 4062

06

3

PROPOSED 100 PLACE

CHILDCARE CENTRE820m²

TYP.5500

CL

CL

TYP.2400

CL

CL

TYP.

2600

TYP.5500

TYP.2220

32 CARBAYS

16 STAFF16 VISITOR1420

BOUNDARY (19.00 m)

BOUNDARY(1

8.00 m

)

BOUNDARY (29.00 m)

BO

UN

DA

RY

(9.0

0 m

)

BOUNDARY

(8.7

0 m

)

BOUNDARY (28.49 m)

BOUNDARY

(8.50 m)

BO

UN

DA

RY

(11.6

2 m

)B

OU

ND

AR

Y(1

5.8

9 m

)

BO

UN

DA

RY

(27.9

3 m

)

BOUNDARY (81.27 m)

BIN

SETBACK4453

SETB

ACK

1220

5SE

TBAC

K23

200

SETBACK19005

SETB

ACK

3000

SETB

ACK

1311

SETB

ACK

2001

SETBACK3741

SETB

ACK

3017

SETB

ACK

3312

SETB

ACK

3285

LOT 247 LOT 248

LOT 249

LOT 250

OUTDOOR PLAY

LANDSCAPE SUBJECT TO FURTHER DESIGN / DETAIL

FFL 37.00

MOORPARK AVENUE

EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED

NEW 2.1M HIGH COLORBOND FENCE


NEW CROSSOVER TO COUNCIL REQUIREMENTS

NEW SIGNAGE WALL

RETAINING

RETAINING

RETAINING

EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING FENCE

EXISTING FENCE

EXISTING FENCE

EXISTING NEIGHBORING FENCE

LANDSCAPING

LAND

SCAP

ING

LANDSCAPING

09

3

BIKE

PAR

KING

1000

BIN HARDSTAND

4000 4000

1000

EXISTING PARAPET WALL

NEW BOUNDARY WALL

NEW PERMEABLE SLAT FENCE


NEW COLORBOND FENCE

LINE OF NEIGHBOURING GARAGE

PAVING. REFER TO LANDSCAPING DRAWINGS

FOR DETAILS

TYP.5500

1802

0

BO

UN

DA

RY

(21.5

0 m

)

FFL 36.50

FFL 36.85

PRAM

RAM

P

RETA

ININ

G


16 m²PLANT

NEW COLORBOND FENCE


3500

09

1

09 2

SOLID FENCE SOLID FENCENEW PERMEABLE SLAT FENCE



SOLID

FEN

CE

DA ISSUEISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL

Scale

DateJob No.

Rev:Dwg No.

Drawn

A1 SHEET

9/300 Rokeby Road, Subiaco, Western Australia 6004 Telephone : 08 6382 0303 ABN 65 007 846 586

brownfalconer.com.au

Checked

DISCLAIMER:The drawing(s) provided herewith shall be used for the purposes for which it was provided. The electronic data files for all or part of the drawings carry no guarantees whatsoever as to their accuracy, content or lack of same. The use of electronic data files are at the recipient's (or any other third party user's) risk. They cannot be used for any contractual purposes. The user of these files must verify the electronic data files against the hard copy or .pdf file provided.

1 : 200

5

28/09/21

YANCHEP CHILD CARE CENTRE

SITE PLAN

2021030

PRIMEWEST

BFG

3420 03

MJ

1 : 200

SITE PLAN

Rev. Amendment Date1 ISSUE FOR DA 20/05/213 BIN STORE & FENCE UPDATED 01/09/214 STREET ELEVATION ADDED 07/09/215 SOLID FENCE ADDED 28/09/21

1250

1625

06

1

06 4

062

06

3

3995

A

07

A

07

ACTIVITY 63+ YRS30 PLACES99.30m2 PROVIDED97.50m2 REQ

3+ YRS20 PLACES65.05m2 PROVIDED65.00m2 REQ

2-3 YRS15 PLACES49.70m2 PROVIDED48.75m2 REQ




ACTIVITY 5 ACTIVITY 4 ACTIVITY 3

ACTIVITY 2

ACTIVITY 1

16 m²STORE

48 m²STAFF

15 m²BATHROOM

11 m²PREP/STORE

15 m²BATHROOM

11 m²PREP/STORE

30 m²KITCHEN

14 m²RECEPTION

6 m²UAT

3 m²WC

18 m²BATHROOM

8 m²MILK

15 m²PLANNING

14 m²DIRECTOR

11 m²LDRY

12 m²COT

18 m²COT

14 m²BIN

5350 36425 3264 12772

BED BED BED BED

OUTDOOR PLAY

LINE OF ROOF OVER

LINE

OF R

OOF

OVER

LINE

OF V

ERAN

DAH

OVER

100 PLACES705m2 PROVIDED700m2 REQ

DRYING COURTSTAFF BREAKOUT

FOYER

4800

1099

592

05

17200 24395

4150

3670

1598

0

2500

0

57811

57891

2150

2380

0

B

07

B

07

GATE

GATE

FFL 37.00

GATE

GATE

PLAN

TERB

OXPL

ANTE

RBOX

4 m²STORE

4 m²STORE

38125

LINE OF ROOF OVER

LINE

OF R

OOF

OVER

CHILDSAFE FENCE

PLANTGATE

GATE

GATE


Scale

DateJob No.

Rev:Dwg No.

Drawn

A1 SHEET



Checked


1 : 100

3

01/09/21


FLOOR PLAN

2021030

PRIMEWEST

BFG

3420 04

MJ

1 : 100

GROUND FLOOR

Rev. Amendment Date1 ISSUE FOR DA 20/05/213 BIN STORE & FENCE UPDATED 01/09/21

06

1

06 4

062

06

3

A

07

A

07

3°

3°

5°

5°

EAVES GUTTER

EA

VE

S G

UT

TE

R

EA

VE

S G

UT

TE

R

EAVES GUTTER

EAVES GUTTER

EAVES GUTTER

EA

VE

S G

UT

TE

R

METAL ROOF SHEETING

METAL ROOF SHEETING

METAL ROOF SHEETING

B

07

B

07

14°

3°


Scale

DateJob No.

Rev:Dwg No.

Drawn

A1 SHEET



Checked


1 : 100

3

01/09/21


ROOF PLAN

2021030

PRIMEWEST

BFG

3420 05

MJ

1 : 100

ROOF


GROUND FLOOR0

CEILING LEVEL2700

PITCHING3100

ROOF5100

1600

500

1200

1000

PLANTER IN FRONT OF RECESSED WINDOW

2000 2000PLANTER IN FRONT OF RECESSED WINDOW

CL03CL03 CL01 CL03 CL03PC01

STREET SIGN

BOUN

DARY

BOUN

DARY

2000

400

2700

FN01

GROUND FLOOR0

CEILING LEVEL2700

PITCHING3100

ROOF5100

2700

2000 4000 4000 4000 1050 4000 1500

2100

RF

PC01 PC01 PC01 PC01

CL03

CL03 CL02CL02

BOUN

DARY

2000

400

2700

CL01

CL01 CL01 CL01CL03

GROUND FLOOR0

CEILING LEVEL2700

PITCHING3100

ROOF5100

2000

400

2700

1500

600

4000

2100 27

00

1000 3000 3000

2700

RF RFPC01 CL02PC01 CL03PC02 PC02 PC02

PC02PC02 RF PC02 CL02COLORBOND FENCE SHOWN

DASHED FOR CLARITYBOUN

DARY

GROUND FLOOR0

CEILING LEVEL2700

PITCHING3100

ROOF5100

2000

400

2700

PC01 CL03 CL02PC01

CL02

4000 1050 4000

CL02CL01

COLORBOND FENCE SHOWN DASHED FOR CLARITY

BOUN

DARY

FN01

CL01 - PAINTED LIGHT WEIGHT CLADDING WITH VERTICAL GROOVES - NEUTRAL

CL02 - LIGHT WEIGHT CLADDING -NEUTRAL

PC01 - POWDERCOAT COLOUR 1 PC02 - POWDERCOAT COLOUR 2PAINTED COLOUR 2

PAINTED COLOUR 1

FN01 - COLORBOND FENCE RF - METAL ROOF SHEETINGCL03 - TIMBER LOOK CLADDING

PAINTED COLOUR 3

FN02 - PERMEABLE SLAT FENCE


Scale

DateJob No.

Rev:Dwg No.

Drawn

A1 SHEET



Checked


As indicated

4

07/09/21


ELEVATIONS

2021030

PRIMEWEST

BFG

3420 06

MJ

1 : 100

2 - EAST ELEVATION

1 : 100

1 - NORTH ELEVATION

1 : 100

3 - SOUTH ELEVATION

1 : 100

4 - WEST ELEVATION

Rev. Amendment Date1 ISSUE FOR DA 20/05/213 BIN STORE & FENCE UPDATED 01/09/214 STREET ELEVATION ADDED 07/09/21

GROUND FLOOR0

CEILING LEVEL2700

PITCHING3100

ROOF5100

KITCHEN FOYER2700

400

2000

B

07

GROUND FLOOR0

CEILING LEVEL2700

PITCHING3100

ROOF5100

A

07

2000

400

2700 ACTIVITY 6 PREP/STORE ACTIVITY 5 ACTIVITY 4 PREP/STORE ACTIVITY 3 KITCHEN

LOBBY


Scale

DateJob No.

Rev:Dwg No.

Drawn

A1 SHEET



Checked


1 : 100

4

07/09/21


SECTIONS

2021030

PRIMEWEST

BFG

3420 07

MJ

SECTION

1 : 10004

A

SECTION

1 : 10004

B

Rev. Amendment Date1 ISSUE FOR DA 20/05/212 SIGNAGE REVISED 06/07/213 BIN STORE & FENCE UPDATED 01/09/214 STREET ELEVATION ADDED 07/09/21

GROUND FLOOR0

CEILING LEVEL2700

PITCHING3100

ROOF5100

FN 02

2100

BOUN

DARY

BOUN

DARY

FN 02 FN 02SOLID SLAT FENCE SOLID SLAT FENCE

GROUND FLOOR0

CEILING LEVEL2700

PITCHING3100

ROOF5100

FN 02 FN 01 FN 01

BOUN

DARY

SOLID FENCE

BOUN

DARY

BOUN

DARY

EXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING RESIDENCECARPARK

MAILBOX

SIGNAGE WALL

NEW BOUNDARY FENCE

1500


Scale

DateJob No.

Rev:Dwg No.

Drawn

A1 SHEET



Checked


1 : 100

5

28/09/21


STREET ELEVATION

2021030

PRIMEWEST

Author

3420 09

Checker

1 : 100

1 - STREET ELEVATION - NORTH

1 : 100

2 - STREET ELEVATION - WEST

1 : 100

3 - STREET ELEVATION - MOONPARK AVE

Rev. Amendment Date4 STREET ELEVATION ADDED 07/09/215 SOLID FENCE ADDED 28/09/21

ROADSIDE SIGN

DETAIL AASECTIONAL GENERAL DETAILS

200mm WIDE ALUMINIUM

EXTRUSION SIGN CASE

WITH RETAINING

50mm ALUMINUM TRIMS.

SIGNCASE AND TRIMS

POWDERCOATED BLACK.

4.5m OPALm POLYCARBONATE®.

D ™ ENVISION™

PRINT FILM PRINTED WITH

TRANSLUCENT PRINT SATURATION.

INCLUDES PROTECTIVE OVER LAMINATE.

IGITALLY PRINTED 3M

SCREW FIXINGS COUNTERSUNK

THROUGH RETURNS ONLY.

TO BE NEAT & ALIGNED.

FIXINGS TO BE TOUCHED UP

FULL MATTE BLACK

SAMSUNG LEDS & DRIVER MOUNTED

TO ALUMINIUM BACKING TRAY

(ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSE ONLY).

FULLY WELDED TO ALUMINIUM

RETAINING TRIMS.

EXTERIOR POWDER COATED BLACK.

INTERNAL PAINTED WHITE

FIXING TYPE SUBJECT

TO SITE / SPECIFICATION

& LOCATION

A

50mm

A

:DETAILS Illuminated sign.

200mm wide extrusion sign case, with 50mm retaining trims. Complete box powdercoated black. Internally illuminated with Samsung s and driver.LED

4.5 opal ®. D M™ Envision™ Print Film printed with translucent print saturation. Includes protective over laminate, satin finish.mm igitally printed 3Polycarbonate

OVERALL SIZE:

2400mm X 1200mm. Full site survey prior to manufacture. All signage is site specific.

PLEASE NOTE

Sign to be visible to passing traffic.

RETAIL & COMMERCIALSERVICES

EXTERNAL SIGNAGE GUIDE

GB-E-006


Scale

DateJob No.

Rev:Dwg No.

Drawn

A1 SHEET



Checked


1 : 1000

3

01/09/21


3D VIEWS

2021030

PRIMEWEST

BFG

3420 08

MJ


© Landgate WA, Nearmaps, OpenStreetMaps contributors While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this product, City of Wanneroo and the Local/State/Federal Government departments and Non-Government organisations whom supply datasets, make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims all responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damage (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which you might incur as a result of the product being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

ATTACHMENT 1 – OVERALL LOCATION PLAN Scale = 1:4000

http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

4547

41

47

39

48

45

44

46

46

48

44

38

43

46

40

45

48 43

4247

81.3

30

19

18

2.826.2 9

14

8.7

30.2

8.5

11.6

15.9

3032m²

APPLICATION AREA

YANCHEP RISEPRIMARY SCHOOL

MOORPARK AVE

SUNNINGDALE

RD

27.9

NORTH

PO Box 8779, Perth Business Centre 6849 P (08) 9328 6411

www.burgessdesigngroup.com.au F (08) 9328 4062 CITY OF WANNEROOLOT 9010 ARIANE VIEW, YANCHEP

PROPOSED CHILD CARE CENTREFIGURE 2: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

Plan No:Date:

Client:Planner:

PRI YAN 09-07-0226.05.21

PRIMEWESTMB

All areas and dimensions are subject to survey, engineering and detailed design

and may change without notice. © Copyright of Burgess Design Group.

0 10 20 30 40 50m

SCALE 1:1000 (A4)

of 5

CITY OF WANNEROO

DA2021/1043 JDAP - Child Care Centre Development SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS FOLLOWING ADVERTISING

(Advertising Closed 5 August 2021)

No. Submitter No. Summary of Submission Administration Comment Recommendation

1. Position 1.1 1, 3 Support. Noted. No modifications

required. 1.2 2, 4, 5, 6,

7, 8 Object. Noted. No modifications

required. 1.3 9 No objection. Noted. No modifications

required. 2. Traffic and Parking 2.1 2, 6, 8 The existing primary school has already

caused an increase in traffic to the area which has caused congestion. The proposal will exacerbate traffic issues.

A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) was provided with the application. The City’s Traffic and Transport Services has reviewed the TIS and advised that the surrounding road networks are adequate to safely accommodate the predicted traffic volumes.

No modifications required.

2.2 7, 8 The proposal will exacerbate safety issues particularly for children due to the number of vehicle movements during the school peak periods, with parents and children having to traverse roads and walking between parked cars.

See response to 2.1 above. It is acknowledged that the Child Care Centre vehicle access location is located directly opposite the primary school which may conflict with the school peak drop-off and pick-up periods. However, the proposed crossover for the Child Care Centre has good sight distances in both directions and as the parking provided on-site is compliant with the provisions under the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.3 Child Care Centres (LPP 2.3), this will minimise any traffic impacts associated with the Child Care Centre.


2.3 7 The proposal does not meet the objectives of See response to 2.1 and 2.2 above. No modifications

of 5


LPP 2.3 due to having a detrimental impact on the function and safety of the surrounding road network.

required.

2.4 4, 6 There is already an existing parking issue with the primary school, with vehicles being parked on the verge.

The existing parking issue is a matter relating to the existing primary school and is not relevant to the proposed Child Care Centre. Notwithstanding, the application proposes 32 car bays for the Child Care Centre, which complies with the minimum number of car bays required under LPP 2.3, and results in a surplus of 1 bay. On this basis, it is considered the Child Care Centre parking can be adequately contained on-site.


2.5 8 There is insufficient parking on site. See response to 2.4 above. 3. Noise 3.1 2, 5, 8 The proposal will cause excessive noise,

including traffic noise from vehicles slamming doors, crying children, and vehicles entering and exiting the facility from 6am or earlier for staff. In addition, the operating hours and delivery times will result in noise issues for approximately 14 hours a day.

An Environmental Noise Assessment has been provided with the application, which concluded that the proposal could comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 subject to implementing noise mitigation measures. It is recommended a condition should be imposed that requires recommendations outlined within the Environmental Noise Assessment to be implemented.

Recommend condition be imposed to implement the development in accordance with the Environmental Noise Assessment.

3.2 4 The increase in noise and traffic generated from the Child Care Centre will exacerbate health issues such as blood pressure and sleep, which in turn is detrimental to the nearby residents’ health and wellbeing.

There is no evidence to prove that this Child Care Centre would exacerbate health issues to nearby residents. Notwithstanding, as discussed in 2.1 and 3.1 above, the traffic and noise generated for proposal is considered to be acceptable.


3.3 4 There are dogs in the neighbourhood which bark and the school activities can be heard from residential properties. Having a child care centre will cause more noise issues.

See response to 3.1 above. No modifications required.

4 Amenity 4.1 2, 8 The building and adjacent fence is unsightly There is no maximum height requirement for non- No modifications

of 5


and the building is over 6 metres tall which is not in keeping with the residential area.

residential development. Notwithstanding, residential dwellings are permitted to have a maximum height of 7 metre high walls, and 10 metres to the roof pitch under the Residential Design Codes.

required.

4.2 8 How does this not comply with the design codes and streetscape?

The proposed Child Care Centre is not subject to the provisions of the Residential Design Codes, and is generally compliant with the relevant provisions under the District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and LPP 2.3.


4.3 5, 8 The wall sign at the front of the lot right next to a property is not appropriate and is too commercial for the area.

As discussed in the body of the report, the signage wall is 3.5 metres in length and 1.5 metres in height which is not dissimilar to a front fence and letterbox. The signage wall occupies 11.6% of the frontage of the site which will not add significant building bulk. In addition, the signage wall is considered to be necessary and required for the realistic needs of advertising, and would assist in directing patrons to the site.


4.4 5, 8 The child care centre and car park will cause excessive light pollution into residential properties.

Noted. It is recommended a condition be imposed that requires lighting to be designed in accordance with the Australian Standards for the Control of Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting (AS4282) and shall be internally directed to not overspill into nearby lots.

Recommend condition be imposed requiring lights to comply with AS4282.

4.5 2, 8 Residential properties would be located between a child care centre and the school which will be unliveable and is like an industrial estate.

A Child Care Centre is a ‘D’ (discretionary) use and is therefore capable of being considered within a Residential zone. It is not uncommon for Child Care Centres to be located within a Residential zone.


4.6 4, 5, 8 Bins are located right against a residential property’s outdoor living area causing odour issues all year around and particularly in summer.

The bin store has been relocated next to the plant room to the north of the site, and is now located away from residential properties.


4.7 5 Loss of privacy due to the child care centre being located on higher land levels and could

It is acknowledged that the Child Care Centre will be located on land levels approximately 0.4 metres to 0.8


of 5


overlook into the nearby residential properties’ outdoor living areas.

metres higher than the adjoining residential properties. However, the plans indicate that a colorbond fence will be installed to 2 metres in height from the ground levels of the Child Care Centre, which will provide sufficient screening and ensure the privacy of the residential properties will be maintained.

5 Miscellaneous 5.1 1 Yanchep is a growing area which requires

more child care centres. Noted.

5.2 1, 3 Located opposite a school and provides transition from early childhood through to end of primary years and is convenient.

Noted. No modifications required.

5.3 1 Noise generated from the vehicles and children will be negligible.


5.4 1 Most child care centres are located within the community.


5.5 2 The existing traffic impacts have been detrimental to property values. The proposal will further devalue the property.

Devaluation of property is not a relevant planning consideration.


5.6 2, 8 Bought the property as it wasn’t intended to be located between a school and a commercial tenancy, and was told it would be built up as residential lots. Bought into this area due to being a quiet suburb with low traffic volumes.

See response to 4.5 above. No modifications required.

5.7 3 The proposal provides more local jobs. Noted. No modifications required.

5.8 4 The proposed child care centre should be relocated.

See response to 4.5 above. As the site is private property, the application can be proposed on the subject site.


5.9 5, 8 Landscaping plans shows two Melaluca Quinquenervia (Paper Bark) trees which

It is recommended a condition be imposed that requires a revised landscaping plan to be provided, including

Recommend condition be imposed

of 5


where they mature can grow up to 20m tall and drop foliage which could cause damage to walls/pool/plumbing.

specifying species. requiring a revised landscaping plan.

5.10 5, 8 The proposal will decrease water pressure and infrastructure will not be able to cope.

The decrease in water pressure is not a relevant planning consideration. Notwithstanding, as part of subdivision, the landowner would need to ensure there is adequate servicing of water for the site.


5.11 6, 8 There are too many child care centres in Yanchep and this is too close to residential properties. There is no demand for anymore with lots of availabilities/spaces for children. There is already an additional child care centre planned near the train station.

See response to 4.5 above. The number of Child Care Centres within any given area is driven by market demand. There are no provisions within DPS 2, Agreed Structure Plan No. 69 Yanchep City (ASP 69) and LPP 2.3, which limit the number of Child Care Centres.


5.12 8 Proposal should not require bin pads on verge.


5.13 8 The area will create antisocial behaviour. There is no evidence to prove that this Child Care Centre would create antisocial behaviour.


901030.1947ha

EXISTING SALESOFFICE TO BERETAINED

4547

41

47

39

48

4135

4537

44

46

46

48

44

38

4635

40

45

48

36

43

38

4247

65.9

15.4

30

19

18

2.826.2 9

14

8.7

30.2

8.5

11.6

15.9

3032m²

29.8915ha

1

BALANCE

6m EMERGENCY ACCESSWAYFOR FUTURE EMERGENCYACCESS TO BALANCE LAND

BALANCE29.8915ha

EXISTING SALESOFFICE TO BERETAINED

NORTH


www.burgessdesigngroup.com.au F (08) 9328 4062

PROPOSED SUBDIVISION

Plan No:Date:

Client:Planner:

PRI YAN 3-15-0122.04.21

PRIMEWESTMB

PARENT LOT SCALE 1:17,500


and may change without notice. © Copyright of Burgess Design Group. BALANCE LOT SCALE 1:17,500

CITY OF WANNEROOYANCHEP

LOT 9010 ON DEPOSITED PLAN 42002850m403020

SCALE 1:1,500

0 10

(A4)

4547

41

47

39

48

4135

45

42

37

44

37

46

46

39

48

35

44

43

38

40

38

43

42

3746

41

39

40

45

48

36

43

38

4247

41

182.5

13.8

8.9 26.6

38.7

280.1

173.5

95.1

67.4

17

9.1

6

18

69.111

25.5

65.9

17.1

8.3

8.3 11.2

87.7

2.4000ha

15.4

30

19

18

2.826.2 9

14

8.7

1.74.5

18

68.5

11.6

15.9

3032m²12.5

9.7

4.621.2

313m²

12.7 26.7

12.5

349m²

8.43

27.9

10.5

313m²

12.5

30

12.5

375m²

12.5

30

12.5

375m²

15

30

15

450m²

15

30

15

450m²

13.4

30

13.4

401m²

12.5

30

6.8

18.5

375m²

13.61.7

23.2

10.5 5.8

383m²

4.4

4.214

25.6

15.2

15.1

367m²

21

15 21

15

315m²

13

16

18

4.2

331m²

15

4.22.9

19.5

14.2

409m²

15

25

15

375m²

15

25

15

375m²

12.5

25

12.5

313m²

12.5

25

12.5

313m²

12.5

25

12.5

313m²

15

25

15

375m²

15

25

15

375m²

4.212

25

15

22

370m²

30

12.5 30

12.5

375m²

9.5

12.5 27

4.2

370m²

25

15

25

375m²25

12.5

312m²25

12.5

312m²25

12.5

312m²25

15

375m²

23.2

4

36

6.9

528m²

12.5

29.1

13.1

340m²

16

25.3

25

24.1

10

675m²

15

25

15

375m²

12.5

2512.5

312m²

15

25

69

375m²

15

25

17.5

442m²

4.212

33.9

11 6.4

39.8

571m²

1.77

9.3

22.8

21.68.4 8.

514

.9943m²

3.3

10.5

2.8 28

9.2373m²

3.49.1

30

12.5

376m²

7.31.5

14.2

30.8

48.7571m²

0.5

15

32.2

14.5

474m²12.5

12.5 31381m²

15

30

2.9

12.5

427m²

STRATEGIC OPEN SPACE

CHILDCARE

DRAINAGE

EMERGENCY ACCESSWAY

ROADS TO FACILITATEPASSIVE SURVEILLANCE

ROAD INTERFACE TOBUFFER BUSHFIRE IMPACTS

DRAFTMaximum Lot Area Minimum Lot Area Average Area of Lots Total Area of Lots Number of Lots

LOT SUMMARY

m²

m² m²

m²43

16668388312675

NORTH

Plan No:Date:

Client:Planner:

PRI YAN 1-0822.04.21

PRIMEWESTMB



NORTHERN CELL & CHILDCARE CONCEPT





SCALE 1:1,500

0 10

(A3)

NOT PART OF THIS PROPOSAL

FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY

4547

41

47

39

48

4135

45

42

37

44

37

46

46

39

48

35

44

43

38

40

38

43

42

3746

41

39

40

45

48

36

43

38

4247

41

STRATEGIC OPEN SPACE

CHILD CARE CENTRE

DRAINAGE

NO VEHICULAR ACCESS

ROAD INTERFACE TOBUFFER BUSHFIRE IMPACTS


2.4ha

NORTH

Plan No:Date:

Client:Planner:

PRI YAN 1-08a10.08.21

PRIMEWESTMB



NORTHERN CELL & CHILDCARE CONCEPT





SCALE 1:1,500

0 10

(A3)

NOT PART OF THIS PROPOSAL

FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY

DEVELOPMENTCOMPLETED

APPROVED

APPROVED

PROPOSED CHILDCARE CENTRE

YANCHEP BEACH ROAD

MOORPARKA

VE


NORTH

Plan No:Date:

Client:Planner:

PRI YAN 1-08A-0224.08.21

PRIMEWESTMB


www.burgessdesigngroup.com.au F (08) 9328 4062 CITY OF WANNEROOLOT 9010 ON DEPOSITED PLAN 420028, YANCHEP

VERTEX ESTATECONCEPT PLAN

DRAFTAll areas and dimensions are subject to survey, engineering and detailed design


0 25 50 75 100m

SCALE 1:4,000 (A3)

metro outer joint development assessment panel agenda

Documents