proposed subdivision lots 1 & 206 winston crescent and

Ordinary Meeting of Council 02 March 2016

3.3 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION LOTS 1 & 206 WINSTON CRESCENT AND LOTS 210, 211, 212 & 213 BERNLEY DRIVE, VIVEASH (SB002-16)

Ward: (Midland/Guildford Ward) (Statutory Planning)

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Authorised Officer: (Executive Manager Planning and Development)

KEY ISSUES

• The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) has referred for comment a proposed subdivision for the creation of 75 lots across Lots 1 and 206 Winston Crescent and Lots 210, 211, 212 and 213 Bernley Drive, Viveash.

• Given the recent community interest in the applicants clearing and construction activities of the former Midland Brick land it was considered in the public interest to refer the application to surrounding landowners and have the matter presented to Council.

• The land is zoned 'Residential Development' under Local Planning Scheme No.17 with such zone normally requiring a structure plan to be effected prior to subdivision. Given the small scale of the landholding and the obvious intent for it to be developed for residential infill it has been considered by the WAPC that a structure plan is not required.

• The City has received 8 written objections expressing concern with the size of the lots proposed, resultant increased traffic and the lack of emergency access for the proposed subdivision.

• City staff concur that it is undesirable to facilitate the creation of further residential lots within this part of Viveash serviced by only a single road connection (Muriel Street) east of Elvire Street. It is considered that provision of an emergency accessway across the Midland Brick’s land that connects to Eveline Road should be required. This would require Midland Brick’s land to be a part of the subdivision application.

• City staff also concur that the extra vehicle movements generated from 75 lots will exceed the nominal capacity of Muriel Street (3000vpd). It is considered that reducing the proposed number of lots from 75 to 63 would reduce vehicle movements below the 3000vpd capacity of that road.

• The proposed narrow strips of public open space (POS) are considered to have no functional value and should be removed from the plan with the offer put to the subdivider to contribute cash-in-lieu of POS which can be used for the maintenance and embellishment of the existing surrounding foreshore parks.

It is recommended that Council advise the WAPC that the application should be refused due to a lack of secondary road access and because the additional traffic generated from 75 proposed residential lots will exceed the nominal capacity of Muriel Street. It is further recommended that Council resolve to support a new or revised subdivision application that includes the adjoining Midland Brick’s land and which reduces the number of lots from 75 to 63.


AUTHORITY/DISCRETION

In accordance with Section 142(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is required to refer a plan of subdivision to the Local Government for recommendations or objections for a period of 42 days prior to making a determination.

BACKGROUND

Applicant: Planning Solutions Pty Ltd Owner: Midland Brick Company Pty Ltd (Now Boral Bricks

Western Australia Pty Ltd) Zoning: LPS17 - Residential; Residential Development; General

Industrial MRS - Urban Strategy/Policy: Liveable Neighbourhoods, SPP 3.7 Development Scheme: Local Planning Scheme No.17; Planning and

Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

Existing Land Use: Vacant Lot Area: 4.5ha approximately

DESCRIPTION OF SITE

The land is located on the western edge of the Midland Brick site and has been held by Midland Brick as surplus land until a recent decision to sell the land. Pindan Pty Ltd is in the process of purchasing the land from the Midland Brick companies.

The land is located to the east of the established Viveash suburb. There are no existing roads traversing this area and the land is predominantly covered in vegetation. This land has not previously obtained subdivision approval and this application is the first applicable to this land.

The land is to the north of an area that has recently been sold from Midland Brick companies to Pindan Pty Ltd. This land was titled back in 1968 but has never been cleared and the roads were never constructed. The lots have now been cleared and roads constructed. The lots will be sold for private development at a density of R20.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The clearing and construction of titled lots to the south of the subdivision area which were recently sold by Midland Brick to Pindan resulted in disharmony amongst the existing residents of this area. As such, whilst subdivision proposals are not usually advertised by the City, it was resolved to publicly notify residents within 300m of the subdivision that an application for subdivision had been received. In response to the City’s mail out we received 8 written submissions objecting to the proposal.


The objections received primarily raised the following concerns:

1. Concerned about increased traffic and single point of access to this area of the suburb;

2. Believe insufficient area of POS has been provided for the subdivision;

3. Consider the proposed lot sizes to be too small and therefore inconsistent with the existing amenity;

4. Concerned about impact on the natural environment

5. A number of residents also raised concern with the impacts from work currently occurring on site, including dust, noise and traffic impacts and requested that this be better managed in future stages.

DETAILS

Zoning

The land is zoned 'Urban' under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and 'Residential Development' under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.17

Clause 15 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 17 (the Regulations) and Part 5A.1.1 of the City’s LPS17 indicate that the Residential Development zone is a zone which requires the preparation of a structure plan.

Clause 27(2) of Schedule 2 of the Regulations, states:

"A decision maker for an application for development approval or subdivision approval in an area referred to in clause 15 as being an area for which a structure plan may be prepared, but for which no structure plan has been approved by the Commission, may approve the application if the decision maker is satisfied that -

(a) the proposed development or subdivision does not conflict with the principles of orderly and proper planning; and

b) the proposed development or subdivision would not prejudice the overall development potential of the area.

Orderly and proper planning

Whether the subject subdivision application can address the relevant matters of orderly and proper planning in the absence of a structure plan raises a series of questions as to whether:

1) The Residential Design Codes of WA controls on built form can be imposed by way of an assigned density coding?

2) Provision can be made for road access and connection to the local road network?


3) Provision can be made for public open space, or a financial contribution towards public open space?

4) Provision can be made for bushfire risk mitigation for dwellings through the application of AS3959?

Lot Sizes and Residential Density Controls

With respect to 1) above the application of a density coding to residential subdivisions is now commonly done by way of provision of a further density coding plan as a condition of subdivision approval. It is no longer the case that density codings are applied in a blanket fashion as part of a structure plan. Further zonings and density codings depicted on structure plans no longer have the same rigid application with the introduction of the new Regulations as they did previously. Alternatively a control on built form can still be applied by way of a restrictive covenant on title. Either way the absence of a structure plan does not impair the application of a residential density coding.

The lot sizes proposed under this application correlate to R20 and R25 codings. This is consistent with the density coding assigned to most of this part of Viveash; - a dual R20/35 coding. Whilst the lot sizes proposed are slightly smaller than existing lots they meet the minimum lot size requirements and will be in keeping with what may likely be the emerging new residential amenity as residents seek to develop or subdivide their land in line with the new dual coding.

Road Access and Connectivity

The proposed subdivision entails the extension of Winston Crescent, Hartford Avenue and Colyton Street. Road reserve widths are clearly detailed and adequate barring the proposed width for the Hartford Avenue extension which is recommended to be increased from 15.4m to 18m. This would require some adjustment to the configuration of the proposed abutting lots.

A number of submissions raised concern with the limitations posed by having only a single point of access for this area. The only point of access to this section of the suburb is along Muriel Street which becomes Ashby Terrace as it heads west into the subdivision area. This presents two issues: the first being a question of safety and convenience in the event that access/egress by way of Ashby Terrace/Muriel Street is unavailable for any reason. This might come about because of a vehicle accident and blockage of that road or potentially a bushfire, noting that portions of the land are bushfire prone.

This requirement for improved road connectivity is a relevant matter requiring resolution be it through a structure plan or a subdivision application. It is understand the applicant has had discussions with Boral, the owners of the adjoining Midland Brick premises with respect to securing emergency access across their land through to Eveline Road. It is further understood that Boral are not adverse to this but would require some time for these arrangements to be approved.

City staff consider it of paramount importance in the consideration of the proposed subdivision that a secondary emergency access route is available and able to be secured by a proper and lawful condition of subdivision approval. As the Boral land is not part of this application such access cannot be secured by condition. Accordingly City staff are not prepared to recommend that the Council support any subdivision application for the subject land until it is amended to include the Boral land or otherwise indicates provision of an alternate satisfactory emergency access route.

The second issue is matter of the traffic capacity of the road network.


Muriel Street experiences significant congestion as a result of a high school being located in this area. The City’s most recent traffic counts from December 2013 indicate that Muriel Street in all locations is carrying approximately 2,300 vehicles per day.

The applicant has submitted a Traffic Assessment prepared by Transcore (February 2016) which anticipates that each dwelling will have 8 vehicle movements per day, therefore the proposed 75 lots will generate approximately 600 vehicles per day (vpd) and the 24 recently created lots on Cranwood Crescent would generate approximately 192vpd. The combination of the existing and proposed traffic will generate approximately 3,100vpd which will all be directed east along Ashby Terrace before continuing east or heading south to Morrison Road.

Ashby Terrace is constructed with a pavement width of 7m to 7.2m. Liveable Neighbourhoods classifies this standard of road as having a carrying capacity of 3,000vpd. To ensure the existing road network has the capacity to accommodate the intended growth from the proposed subdivision, it is recommended that the number of lots proposed is reduced by 12 lots. The proposed subdivision would therefore only accommodate 63 lots which would result in the vehicle movements per day being just less than the carrying capacity of Ashby Terrace and would not overburden the local road network. Additional lots may be considered at such a time as an alternate gazetted road connection can be provided to the subdivision area.

Public Open Space (POS)

The plan of subdivision proposes two areas of POS with a combined area of approximately 1,500m2. The land proposed does not adjoin any other areas of POS and is not functional for the purposes described in Liveable Neighbourhoods. Should the proponent seek to retain the lots within the subdivision then it is recommended that this land instead be created as a Public Access Way (PAW) and not be considered as creditable public open space.

The City would recommend instead as a condition of any subdivision approval that the applicant be invited to provide Cash-in-lieu of Public Open Space in accordance with Section 153 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. These monies could then be utilised for the maintenance and embellishment of the adjoining foreshore parks.

Bushfire Risk

The proponent has prepared a Fire Management Plan for the proposed subdivision area. This assessment was based on existing vegetation on site and includes a post hazard assessment determined by clearing to be undertaken to facilitate the subdivision. The assessment has been undertaken by a qualified bushfire assessor and is based on an onsite assessment. The assessment concludes that all but 9 lots are bushfire prone and have a Bushfire Attack Level of 12.5.

The State Government published state wide bushfire mapping in December 2015 informed by site assessment and mapping prepared by the applicable Local Governments. The Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) mapping did not identify this site as being bushfire prone.

It is understood that there is the opportunity for local authorities to provide additional information around bushfire prone areas for inclusion in the operative version of the State Bushfire prone mapping. If that is so and does occur then in the instance of this subdivision the land would be bushfire prone and the Bushfire Regulations would mandate that affected houses be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 3959.


The City is in the process of reviewing the State’s bushfire mapping and will be making a submission for this land to be identified as bushfire prone in the DFES 2016 mapping.

OPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Option 1: Council may resolve to recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission refusal of the application as per the staff recommendation.

Implications: The WAPC will determine the application.

Option 2: Council may resolve to recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission approval of the application subject to the following conditions:

1. The land shown as Public Open Space is to be modified and will not be accepted for this purpose, the City will accept the creation of this land as a Public Access Way.

2. Engineering drawings and specifications are to be submitted, approved, and subdivisional works undertaken in accordance with the approved plan of subdivision, engineering drawings and specifications, to ensure that those lots not fronting an existing road are provided with frontage to a constructed road(s) connected by a constructed road(s) to the local road system and such road(s) are constructed and drained at the landowner/applicant’s cost.

3. As an alternative, and subject to the agreement of the Local Government the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is prepared to accept the landowner/applicant paying to the local government the cost of such road works as estimated by the local government and the local government providing formal assurance to the WAPC confirming that the works will be completed within a reasonable period as agreed by the WAPC. (T1)

4. Engineering drawings and specifications are to be submitted and approved, and subdivisional works undertaken in accordance with the approved plan of subdivision, engineering drawings and specifications to ensure that:

a) street lighting is installed on all new subdivisional roads to the standards of the relevant licensed service provider and

b) roads that have been designed to connect with existing or proposed roads abutting the subject land are coordinated so the road reserve location and width connect seamlessly; cul-de-sac to have a radius of greater than 9.5m and

c) temporary turning areas are provided to those subdivisional roads that are subject to future extension to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission. (T2)


5. Engineering drawings and specifications are to be submitted, approved, and subdivisional works undertaken in accordance with the approved plan of subdivision, engineering drawings and specifications, for the provision of shared paths through and connecting to the application area.

6. The approved shared paths are to be constructed by the landowner/ applicant.

7. All local streets within the subdivision being truncated in accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Liveable Neighbourhoods policy. (T11)

8. Engineering drawings and specifications are to be submitted, approved, and works undertaken in accordance with the approved engineering drawings, specifications and approved plan of subdivision, for grading and/or stabilisation of the site to ensure that:

a) lots can accommodate their intended use; and

b) finished ground levels at the boundaries of the lot(s) the subject of this approval match or otherwise coordinate with the existing and/or proposed finished ground levels of the land abutting. (D1)

9. Prior to the commencement of subdivisional works, an urban water management plan is to be prepared and approved, in consultation with the Department of Water, consistent with any approved Drainage and Water Management Plan. (D2)

10. Engineering drawings and specifications are to be submitted and approved, and works undertaken in accordance with the approved engineering drawings and specifications and approved plan of subdivision, for the filling and/or draining of the land, including ensuring that stormwater is contained on-site, or appropriately treated and connected to the local drainage system. Engineering drawings and specifications are to be in accordance with an approved Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the site, or where no UWMP exists, to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission. (D3)

11. The land being filled, stabilised, drained and/or graded as required to ensure that:

a) lots can accommodate their intended development; and

b) finished ground levels at the boundaries of the lot(s) the subject of this approval match or otherwise coordinate with the existing and/or proposed finished ground levels of the land abutting; and

c) stormwater is contained on-site, or appropriately treated and connected to the local drainage system. (D4)

12. The landowner/applicant is to provide a post geotechnical report certifying that all subdivisional works have been carried out in accordance with the pre-works geotechnical report. (D5)


13. All pedestrian access way(s) within the subdivision being constructed and drained at the landowner/applicant’s cost and shown on the diagram or plan of survey (deposited plan) as such and vested in the Crown under Section 152 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, such land to be ceded free of cost and without any payment of compensation by the Crown. (T19)

14. A fire management plan being prepared, approved and relevant provisions implemented during subdivisional works, in accordance with the WAPC’s Guideline Planning for Bushfire Protection Edition 2, May 2010 (in particular Appendix 3) to the specifications of the local government and/or the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. (F2)

15. A notification, pursuant to section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 is to be placed on the certificate(s) of title of the proposed lot(s). Notice of this notification is to be included on the diagram or plan of survey (deposited plan). The notification is to state as follows:

‘The lot(s) is/are subject to a fire management plan.’ (F3)

16. Uniform fencing being constructed along the boundaries of all of the proposed lots abutting the PAW. (B2)

17. An area(s) of land at least 4,500m2 in area, in a position to be agreed with the Western Australian Planning Commission, being shown on the diagram or plan of survey (deposited plan) as a reserve for Recreation and vested in the Crown under Section 152 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, such land to be ceded free of cost and without any payment of compensation by the Crown. (R3)

Implications: The WAPC will determine the application.

CONCLUSION

The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) has referred for comment a proposed subdivision for the creation of 75 lots across Lots 1 and 206 Winston Crescent and Lots 210, 211, 212 and 213 Bernley Drive, Viveash.

Given the recent community interest in the applicants clearing and construction activities of the former Midland Brick land it was considered in the public interest to refer the application to surrounding landowners and have the matter presented to Council.

The land is zoned 'Residential Development' under LPS17 with such zone normally requiring a structure plan to be effected prior to subdivision. Given the small scale of the landholding and the obvious intent for it to be developed for residential infill it has been considered by the WAPC that a structure plan is not required.

The City has received 8 written objections expressing concern with the size of the lots proposed, resultant increased traffic and the lack of emergency access for the proposed subdivision.


City staff concur that it is undesirable to facilitate the creation of further residential lots within this part of Viveash serviced by only a single road connection (Muriel Street) east of Elvire Street. It is considered that provision of an emergency accessway across the Midland Brick land that connects to Eveline Road should be required. This would require Midland Brick land to be a part to the subdivision application.

City staff also concur that the extra vehicle movements generated from 75 lots will exceed the nominal capacity of Muriel Street (3000vpd). It is considered that reducing the proposed number of lots from 75 to 63 would reduce vehicle movements below the 3000vpd capacity of that road.

The proposed narrow strips of public open space are considered to have no functional value and should be removed from the plan with the offer put to the subdivider to contribute cash-in-lieu of POS which can be used for the maintenance and embellishment of the existing surrounding foreshore parks.

It is recommended that Council advise the WAPC that the application should be refused due to a lack of secondary road access and because the additional traffic generated from 75 proposed residential lots will exceed the nominal capacity of Ashby Terrace/Muriel Street. It is further recommended that Council resolve to support a new or revised subdivision application that includes the adjoining Midland Brick land and which reduces the number of Lots from 75 to 63.

ATTACHMENTS

Plan of subdivision

Density plan

Bushfire Attack Level Plan

Context Plan with indicative emergency access

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

Nil

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS

Local Planning Scheme No.17

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Simple majority


RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve to:

1) Recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission that the subdivision application as submitted be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed subdivision would be serviced by only a single point of connection to the local road network west of the juncture of Muriel Street and Elvire Street and so provides for no secondary access/egress in the event of an emergency.

2. The number of lots proposed in the application would be expected to add additional traffic along the local road network (Ashby Terrace/Muriel St) in excess of the nominal 3000 vehicle per day designated as the service capacity for these roads.

2) That Council resolve to delegate to the Chief Executive Officer authority to recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission approval, subject to conditions at his discretion, of a subdivision application that:

1. Includes the Boral land to the west of the subject land for the purposes of facilitating a secondary access/egress way for the subdivision and broader Viveash locality for emergency access; and

2. Reduces the number of proposed lots from 75 to 63.

3) Advice all those who made a submission to the City on this application of Council’s resolution accordingly.


MOTION that the Council resolve to:







3. Sets aside Lots 522-526, 532-536 and 547–567 as Bush Reserve.


4) Record the reason for changing the staff recommendation is that the proposed changes creates reserve protection for existing Department of Parks and Wildlife Priority 1 plant and tree species, existing under storage plant and tree species currently in good condition and old growth Wandoo trees, whilst still enabling the development of 44 lots.

(Cr McDonnell – Cr Johnson)

Cr Haynes entered the Chamber at 8.16pm.


RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY TO:







3. Sets aside Lots 522-526, 532-536 and 547–567 as Bush Reserve.


4) Record the reason for changing the staff recommendation is that the proposed changes creates reserve protection for existing Department of Parks and Wildlife Priority 1 plant and tree species, existing under storage plant and tree species currently in good condition and old growth Wandoo trees, whilst still enabling the development of 44 lots.

proposed subdivision lots 1 & 206 winston crescent and

Documents