-
CITY OF ARMADALE
MINUTES OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COMMITTEE
ROOM, ADMINISTRATION CENTRE, 7 ORCHARD AVENUE, ARMADALE ON TUESDAY,
20 MAY 2014 AT 7:00 PM. PRESENT: Cr C M Wielinga (Chair)
Cr C A Campbell JP Cr M Geary Cr J H Munn JP CMC Cr M H Norman
Cr H A Zelones JP Cr J A Stewart (Deputy for Cr Shaw)
APOLOGIES: Cr D M Shaw (Leave of Absence) OBSERVERS: Cr C Frost
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr I MacRae Executive Director Development
Services
Mr P Sanders Executive Manager Planning Services Mr G Dine
A/Health Services Manager Mr N Gundry A/Building Services Manager
Mrs N Cranfield Executive Assistant
PUBLIC: 26 “For details of Councillor Membership on this
Committee, please refer to the City’s website –
www.armadale.wa.gov.au/your council/councillors.”
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE COUNCIL MEETING 26
MAY 2014
DISCLAIMER The Disclaimer for protecting Councillors and staff
from liability of information and advice given at Committee
meetings was read. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS Nil. QUESTION
TIME 1. Mr R Baker – 29 Arania Place, Bedfordale In regards to the
report re the Place of Worship, Lot 81 Churchman Brook Road,
Bedfordale, the report notes that Council has the ability to
control the opening hours down to four hours each week, my question
is, does the Council have the authority to control both noise from
the Place of Worship as well as the number of persons attending the
venue? Chair referred the question to the Executive Director
Development Services. The Executive Director Development Services
advised that noise issues were controlled by the Environmental
Protection Noise Regulations (clarification of this was provided by
the Manager Health Services below) and that the number of persons
in attendance was controlled by planning conditions applied to the
proposed development. The Executive Director Development Services
also advised that Council has the authority to instigate
appropriate legal action in respect to non-compliance issues. The
A/Health Services Manager further advised that Noise from Place of
Worship is classified as Community Noise under the Noise Regulation
and is therefore generally exempted from prescribed standard for
noise. However, the Chief Executive Officer has authority under
Regulation 16 of the (Noise Regulation) to impose conditions on any
application or premises if a type of community noise has, or is
likely to have, a detrimental effect on the neighbouring community.
2. Ms N Baker – 29 Arania Place, Bedfordale In regards to the
report re the Place of Worship, Lot 81 Churchman Brook Road,
Bedfordale, in regards to the options if the proposed development
gets conditional approval, one of the conditions is to move the
Place of Worship and to the change the lot size of the subdivision
so it has less of a noise impact and therefore would no longer need
to have an earth mound or masonry wall. Will there be a new
application or will the Council pre-approve an application that is
going to have radical changes? In regards to the acoustic
measurements, in what areas were the measurements taken from? Chair
referred the question to the Executive Director Development
Services.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 3 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE COUNCIL MEETING 26
MAY 2014
The Executive Director Development Services advised that there
will be a revised site plan illustrating an amendment to the
disposition of the car parking areas and lot design to meet the
recommended separation distances between the activity and the
closest residence. The acoustic consultant advised that acoustic
barriers would not be necessary if a separation distance of 23m
could be achieved from the proposed car park to any boundary. Noise
would be mitigated by distance as opposed to walls and it too would
not detrimentally affect the amenity of the area. The main issues
raised in the submissions would be addressed and the application
would meet the current requirements of the Scheme. The Executive
Director Development Services advised that the matter “in what
areas were the acoustic measurements were taken from” would be
taken on notice (Mr Dykstra subsequently provided the advice
concerning the method of undertaking the noise study during his
Deputation). 3. Ms M Laurence – 310 Churchman Brook Road,
Bedfordale In regards to the report re the Place of Worship, Lot 81
Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale, this development is proposed to
be erected next door to my property. Given that the number of
existing Bedfordale residences who have objected to the application
exceeds by approximately 4 to 1 those who are in favour of it and
given that Council serves the Bedfordale community, would Council
consider encouraging the applicant to seek a site for its Church in
a community where it would support this development proposal? Will
the residents have another opportunity to address the new proposal?
Chair referred the question to the Executive Director Development
Services. The Executive Director Development Services advised that
if the objections could be satisfactorily addressed then Council
could argue that these concerns are no longer a concern with the
proposed development. It is entirely up to the landowner to submit
an application for a proposal on a piece of land which the Council
is bound to consider. It is not for the Council to propose
alternative sites but has to deal with the specific application as
submitted. The proposal before the Committee is the amended
proposal which has been provided in response to community
submissions. It is not proposed that the revised application be
readvertised. 4. Ms V Read – 55 Dmietrieff Rd, Bedfordale (formerly
of 9 Wallangarra Dr North) In regards to the report re the proposed
subdivision and sale of portions of Lot 108 Springfield Road,
Bedfordale, considering the overwhelming support of the members of
the Bedfordale Residents Association at last year’s AGM when this
proposal was first presented with the retention of the area as it
is, why is Council considering this proposal given that the City’s
plan for the future was mentioned in the attachment of the Agenda
which partly states that “to provide and promote Council sport,
recreation and leisure facilities; maintain and improve where
required the quality, amenity and accessibility of open spaces;
develop, implement and report on Council’s strategic and business
plans; and actively pursue alternative sources of revenue for
Council’s assets and operation”, are the latter two initiatives
more important to Council when the overwhelming responses from the
residents in that area was to retain as reserve?
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 4 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE COUNCIL MEETING 26
MAY 2014
Chair referred the question to the Executive Director
Development Services. The Executive Director Development Services
advised that there is a fairly extensive report, where the City has
had a programme for the past 12 years to make sure that the City
more fully utilises its assets particularly public open space
assets. Where the POS is under-utilised the City is considering a
better use for and to procure funds from a list of requirements so
that our POS elsewhere can be improved and better provided to the
community. In this regard, it has been concluded that the pony club
would be better provisioned elsewhere, as has happened, and the
balance of the lot is to be used to provide funds to improve other
places within the locality and where the local community is
benefitting. There is also an opportunity for the community to
comment on the proposal and on how/where the City spends the funds.
The City needs to go through this process to enable the City to
make these steps. On balance, what is proposed seems to be of
benefit to the community. MOVED Cr Munn That public question time
be extended MOTION CARRIED 5. Ms V Read – 55 Dmietrieff Rd,
Bedfordale (formerly of 9 Wallangarra Dr North) I understand that
70% of the funds derived through these land sales will be invested
into recreation upgrades to parks in Bedfordale Precinct M area, I
don’t consider that to be within the locality of the lot where the
proposal is? The Executive Director Development Services advised
that the extremities of the localities are unlikely to be subject
to any open space improvement. The likely option for the
expenditure is where existing POS and facilities exists. The
community may suggest that new recreation facility be provided such
at the Bedfordale Hall. Chair advised that there would be further
public consultation in regards to this proposal. 6. Ms R Rendell –
36 Wallangarra Drive, Bedfordale In regards to the report re the
proposed subdivision and sale of portions of Lot 108 Springfield
Road, Bedfordale, when Council is assessing where this money can be
used better, is it deemed in terms of the location of the
population because there is not much population in Bedfordale. If
the land is not currently open space can it be zoned open space
because this is what it has been used as for several years. I feel
that the understanding is that this money will not be used for any
facilities in this area. How does the Council assess why the money
would be better spent somewhere else? Chair referred the question
to the Executive Director Development Services. The Executive
Director Development Services advised that it was uncertain at this
time where the funds would be spent within Precinct M and this
would be determined after canvassing community views. However, the
likelihood would be that the funds would be expended within
existing reserves in the locality - this effectively excludes areas
on the fringes of the precinct.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 5 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE COUNCIL MEETING 26
MAY 2014
7. Landowner – 9 Waterwheel Road, Bedfordale In regards to the
report re the Place of Worship, Lot 81 Churchman Brook Road,
Bedfordale, how will the Council monitor the number of tenants and
compliance with the nominated times of the meetings? The Executive
Director Development Services advised that the City has the
authority to instigate appropriate legal action in respect to
non-compliance issues. The City’s Compliance officers would
investigate any written complaints from nearby residents. 8. Ms E
Wallis – 27 Arania Place, Bedfordale In regards to the report re
the Place of Worship, Lot 81 Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale,
specifically TPS No.4 Amendment No.69, what level of regard does
the Council have to this Amendment which stated that there be no
Place of Worship in Special Residential zones? The Executive
Director Development Services advised that the situation with an
Amendment that has been proposed is that it does not actually
become part of the Scheme until the WAPC and the Minister for
Planning on the recommendation from the Commission approves the
Amendment, and then it is subsequently gazetted. At this stage the
Council has only proposed this change. An Application received by
the City in the interim period has to be dealt with on the merits
of the case at the time. While the City takes into account the
proposed Amendment we have to consider the application as though it
was approvable because the current Town Planning Scheme provisions
have it as an approvable use. DEPUTATION – 7.15pm Proposed
Development Application - Place of Worship - Churchman Brook Road,
Bedfordale - Mr Henry Dykstra, Manager of Planning & Projects
Harley Dykstra Planning Mr Henry Dykstra (Harley Dykstra Planning)
addressed the Committee at 7.26pm. Mr Dykstra thanked Committee for
the opportunity to provide further assurance that the proposed
Place of Worship by this particular religious group has a proven
track record within the City of Armadale of being an unnoticeable
neighbour. Being a good neighbour is very important to this
particular group and this is the third application for a similar
proposal within the City of Armadale. Mr Dykstra provided the
following comments in support of the proposed development - The
religious group associated with this proposed place of worship has
maintained
various Places of Worship within the City of Armadale for many
years. Their search for a suitable Place of Worship in Bedfordale
to provide for their Bedfordale local group was done with careful
consideration. Quite a number of sites were looked at including
sites within the Churchman Brook Estate itself and prior
consultation with City representatives and also with ourselves as
the local town planners.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 6 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE COUNCIL MEETING 26
MAY 2014
Ultimately this particular site in Churchman Brook Road was
chosen and was purchased by the group because it is located outside
of any estate, it also has a frontage to a major road, is somewhat
larger than other Special Residential lots in the area and it is in
close proximity to the homes of the local members that will be
attending this facility;
In purchasing the site the landowners and applicants do
understand that there is a possibility that a planning approval for
a Place of Worship could be declined and they accept this
responsibility. One possibility that neither they nor I were aware
of was that Council would soon be considering a proposed Amendment
to the Special Residential zoning table. This is something that
only became apparent to us a month after the application was
lodged;
During and following the public advertising of the proposal this
particular group has
always been open to meetings and discussions with neighbours and
other community members to provide further information and address
concerns where possible. The Schedule of Submissions has been
responded to carefully and respectfully to each concern that has
been raised by the community. We have also modified the scale of
the proposal and various design aspects to further reduce any
negligible impact that this use may have. The proponents are intent
to own their particular premises to serve only their one local
group of no more than 30 persons and only for two relatively short
gatherings per week. Parking and driveway locations have been
modified so that it complies with the recommendation and the
independent acoustic report.
The nature of worship activity during the two gatherings per
week is a very peaceful and
very subdued activity. It does not involve any amplified
speaking or any musical instruments. The Sunday morning gathering
is for communion and the Monday evening gathering is a prayer
meeting only. The larger church services themselves are held in the
larger meeting hall in Seville Grove.
The experience of neighbours associated with the two other
Places of Worship that I have
been involved with is that the reaction from the community in
those cases was initially somewhat cautious, perhaps a little bit
apprehensive of the unknown, but in both of those cases when once
approved and once operating the response from the community members
was very supportive even to say that they did not realise that the
activity had commenced.
In regards to the Omnibus Amendment, this application was lodged
at the end of the
advertising period of the Omnibus Amendment and at Council’s
last meeting the Omnibus Amendment was recommended for final
approval and is now being assessed by the WAPC and ultimately it
will go through to the Minister for Planning. The Omnibus Amendment
included a list of changes throughout different parts of the Town
Planning Scheme and until such changes are finally accepted by the
Minister and Gazetted, Council is still working under its current
Scheme in its current form. Obviously Council may have regard to
various proposals under that Omnibus Amendment for making decisions
but Council is certainly not bound by the Omnibus Amendment. It is
not yet known whether all of the proposals in that Amendment will
be accepted by the WAPC and the Minister for Planning nor is the
timeframe of the Amendment known at this stage.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE COUNCIL MEETING 26
MAY 2014
Mr Dykstra concluded with a request to the Committee to consider
the application against the current provisions of the Town Planning
Scheme, and for this reason I request on behalf of the owners that
a decision be made on this proposal at this month’s meeting if
possible. CHAIR thanked Mr Dykstra for his presentation. Deputation
retired at 7:48pm. At the request of the Committee and in regards
to questions received from the public, Mr Dykstra subsequently
provided advice concerning the method of undertaking the noise
study - The Acoustic Reports are undertaken by Acoustic
Modelling;
The Acoustic Engineer is provided with information regarding the
land, the surrounds of the land, topography and vegetation etc.
The Acoustic Engineer then visits the site and then they do
there modelling based on the information received.
The acoustic modelling device throws out a type of noise plume
which is tested from various angles on the site.
This process will provide information in regards to boundaries,
setbacks, location of car park, types of fencing etc to achieve
compliance.
Mr Dykstra further advised that the Environmental Noise
Assessment recommended that the driveway and car park be relocated.
The assessment indicated that in order to avoid noise walls, a
distance of 23m from any boundary to the car park would need to be
maintained.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 8 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE COUNCIL MEETING 26
MAY 2014
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES RECOMMEND
Minutes of the Development Services Committee Meeting held on 23
April 2014 be confirmed.
Moved Cr J H Munn MOTION CARRIED (7/0) ITEMS REFERRED FROM
INFORMATION BULLETIN - ISSUE 8 / 2014
Outstanding Matters & Information Items Report on
Outstanding Matters - Development Services Committee Health Health
Services Manager’s Report - April 2014 Planning Planning
Applications Report - April 2014 Town Planning Scheme No.4 -
Amendment Action Table Subdivision Applications - WAPC
Approvals/Refusals - April 2014 Subdivision Applications - Report
on Lots Registered for 2013/2014 PAW Closure Report - Significant
Actions during April 2014 Compliance Officer’s Report - April 2014
Building Building Services Manager’s Report - April 2014
Building/Health Compliance Report - April 2014 Building
Applications Monthly Statistics - April 2014 Committee noted the
information and no further items were raised for discussion and/or
further report purposes.
-
CONTENTS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE
20 MAY 2014
1. HEALTH
1.1 DRAFT PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING PLAN
..............................................................
53
2. DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PLACE OF WORSHIP - LOT 81 CHURCHMAN BROOK RD,
BEDFORDALE ....................... 10
3. PAW CLOSURE/ROW CLOSURE 3.1 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY (PAW)
BETWEEN LOTS 719 & 2 URANA RD,
ARMADALE
..................................................................................................................................
59
4. STRATEGIC PLANNING 4.1 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND SALE OF
PORTIONS OF LOT 108
SPRINGFIELD ROAD, BEDFORDALE
......................................................................................
38
5. MISCELLANEOUS 5.1 **LOCAL LAW REVIEW - REMOVAL OF REFUSE,
RUBBISH AND DISUSED
MATERIALS
..................................................................................................................................
70
5.2 PLANNING INSTITUTE AUSTRALIA WA STATE CONFERENCE - 25 JULY
2014
.................................................................................................................................
73
6. COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS 6.1 CR WIELINGA - URBAN FOREST STRATEGY
........................................................................
77
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT 7.1 PLANNING
COMPLIANCE – UNAUTHORISED COMMERCIAL VEHICLE
PARKING - LOT 360 (166) WESTFIELD ROAD, KELMSCOTT
............................................. 78
7.2 PROGRESS REPORT ON KEANE ROAD DEDICATED ROAD RESERVE,
FORRESTDALE - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR COMPLETION OF
SEALED ROAD
............................................................................................
79
7.3 REFERRAL OF MRS AMENDMENT PROPOSAL FOR PRIVATE LOTS IN
ANSTEY, ARMADALE AND KEANE ROADS FORRESTDALE - WAPC REQUEST FOR
PRELIMINARY COMMENT
............................................................................
81
SUMMARY OF “A” ATTACHMENTS
......................................................................................................
83
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 10 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 11 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
2.1 - PLACE OF WORSHIP - LOT 81 (296) CHURCHMAN BROOK ROAD,
BEDFORDALE WARD
: JARRAH In Brief: The City received an application for a
‘Place of Worship’ in January 2014. The proposal was advertised
for two (2)
weeks to 35 surrounding residents. A total of 138 submissions
were received including 113 objections, twenty 20 letters of
support and five (5) letters of conditional support/comments.
A Noise Impact Assessment Report submitted by the applicant
demonstrates that the noise from the church associated activities
can be mitigated if additional actions are undertaken.
There is an issue of incompatibility with Amendment No.69, which
has been finally adopted by Council, but not by the WAPC /
Minister.
Recommend Council approve the proposed development subject to
appropriate conditions.
Committee additionally recommended that Council refuse the
application for Planning Approval for a Place of Worship on Lot 81
(296) Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale.
FILE No.
: M/159/14
APPLN NO.
: 10.2014.24.1
DATE
: 15 May 2014
REF
: EP / PRR
RESPONSIBLE MANAGER
: EDDS
APPLICANT
: Harley Dykstra Planning
LANDOWNER
: Bend-Tech Investment P/L
SUBJECT LAND
: Property size 5000sqm
ZONING MRS / TPS No.4
: :
Rural Special Residential
Tabled Items
Nil
Officer Interest Declaration
Nil
Strategic Implications
2.3 Diverse and attractive development that is integrated with
the distinctive character of the City.
Legislation Implications
Planning and Development Act 2005 Town Planning Scheme (TPS)
No.4 Local Planning Strategy 2003 Metropolitan Region Scheme
Environmental Protection Act 1986 Environmental Protection (Noise)
Regulations 1997
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 12 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 13 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Council Policy/Local Law Implications
City’s Fencing Local Law 2011 Budget/Financial Implications
Nil
Consultation
Development Control Unit Surrounding Landowners Council’s Health
Department BACKGROUND The City received an application for a “Place
of Worship” on the subject site in January 2014, which is presently
an ‘A’ (discretionary) land use requiring public advertising within
Town Planning Scheme (TPS) No.4. The application originally
proposed the following (which has since been updated and those
additional details are outlined under the ‘Details of Proposal’
section of this report): The construction of a church building (on
the western most lot of the three lot subdivision
proposed for Lot 81 Churchman Brook Road) as a purpose built
facility, but in a manner that will allow it to be converted to a
residential dwelling should the ‘Armadale Gospel Trust’ decide that
the facility is no longer required for their intended purpose;
The building will be located central to the lot and will be
adequately set back from the neighbouring lot boundaries with
parking at the front of the building, but not encroaching on the
40m wide landscaping buffer proposed for the front portion of the
lot;
Strategic landscape buffers will be planted along the northern
and eastern boundaries to mitigate sound and visual impact on the
adjoining residential lots;
Additional landscaping will also be provided around the proposed
building; A 40m (30/10m) ‘screen fence’ to the north of the
proposed building, internal to the lot; The architectural design of
the building will be such that its outward appearance and scale
will resemble a residential building; A sealed driveway and
parking area, which was to include 25 vehicle parking bays to
service the development; This ‘Place of Worship’ was originally
proposed to accommodate between 30 - 40 persons
during weekly services which would have occurred every Sunday
morning; Additional gatherings on Sunday afternoons were originally
proposed to accommodate a
total of 80 to 100 people, occurring approximately 6-8 times per
year; The duration of all services will be between 1 and 2 hours,
and church attendees will leave
the premises shortly after the completion of each service; and
80 - 100 people were proposed to use the premises on Friday
evenings from 7.30pm -
8.30pm approximately 12 -15 times per year. As a result of
advertising the above to the public and the submissions of
objections received from the surrounding landowners during the
advertising period, the applicant has proposed to substantially
scale down the activities of the development in terms of attendance
capacity, number of parking bays, days/times of operation and
length of service times.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 14 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
DETAILS OF PROPOSAL The revised application as submitted on 14
April 2014 proposed the following alterations to the details
outlined previously: The proposal will accommodate a maximum of 30
– 40 persons; Meeting times will be Sunday between 6:00am and
7:15am and Monday evenings
between 6:00pm and 8:00pm; and Reduction in the number of car
parking bays at the front of the building to 13 (11 bays in
front of the building and 2 under a carport) in line with the
reduction to total attendees. In addition to the above, an
Environmental Noise Assessment was submitted on 7 May 2014, which
recommended the following: The construction of a physical noise
barrier (masonry wall) to the east of the proposed
building to achieve compliance with the Environmental Protection
Act / Noise Regulations;
If a Masonry wall is not considered suitable, a double layered
colorbond fence (possibly with brushwood attached for screening
purposes) or an earth bund would also be appropriate;
These alternatives could only be used if the driveway and car
park are relocated internal to the site so they sit more centrally,
increasing distance to neighbouring properties; and
The use of 6mm glazing for all windows on the building.
Revisions to the Noise Assessment were received 15 May 2014. The
revisions indicated that in order to avoid noise walls, a distance
of 23m from any boundary to the car park would need to be
maintained. COMMENT Health Services Health Services advised that a
commercial Treatment System Application would need to be approved
by the City and Health WA. The Environmental Protection Noise
Regulations were also discussed and whilst there would be some
exemptions applicable, some likelihood of some impact on the
amenity of the area would result. Public Advertising The
application was advertised for two weeks, closing on 28 February
2014. Advertising was carried out by way of letters to affected and
nearby landowners, a sign on site and details being available on
the City’s website and at the front counter. Total No. of letters
sent to residents/owners : 35 Total No. of submissions received :
138 No. of submissions of conditional support/no objection : 25 No.
of submissions of objection : 113
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 15 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
The main issues raised in submissions, together with comments
and responses on each issue are outlined below. Key Issues Issue 1
– Omnibus Amendment Recently adopted omnibus amendment recommended
that ‘Place of Worship’ be made an “X” use within the “Special
Residential” zone. This indicates that the Council has already
agreed that this use is detrimental to the ‘Rural Feel’ of this
zone. Comment The applicant has provided the following
comments in response: Although Council has adopted the amendment,
there is no certainty that it will be
finalised in its current form and there is no clear timeframe
for its finalisation; This Development Application was lodged prior
to Council’s final adoption of the
Omnibus Scheme Amendment, so the application can be assessed
having due regard for the amendment, but also having regard for the
current Town Planning Scheme provisions and policies;
In response to the public interest, the application has now been
scaled back (refer to above) and can be restricted to this scale of
use and to this particular group only by way of conditions on the
Planning Approval;
This small scale of meeting activity is not a place of worship
in the full sense of the word, and it is doubtful that Council was
seeking to exclude this type of activity scale when considering the
Omnibus Scheme Amendment. The actual worship services of this group
are held in a larger meeting place located in the urban area of
Armadale.
The primary motivation for Council to contemplate on such an
amendment was not related to retaining the “rural feel”, as Council
has retained the discretion for such a use to occur within the
Rural Living zone (which occurs immediately adjoining and
surrounding the Hills Special Residential zones).
Response/Recommendation The applicant is not entirely accurate
in their assertions. Within the Rural Living zone, lots are larger
and as such, there is a higher probability of greater separation
between land uses. Generally speaking, greater separation and space
makes it possible for proposed developments to meet minimum
requirements, address issues such as the impact the development may
have on the amenity of the surrounding area and ensure the
maintenance of the enjoyment of that amenity by surrounding land
owners and the public and as such, preserve the “rural feel” of the
area. The scaled back details certainly assists this proposal to
reduce the impacts it will generate, however impacts are not
eliminated entirely and the City and Council are required to have
regard for Amendment No.69. This issue is addressed in detail later
in the report. The issue is supported in part.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 16 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Issue 2 – Zone Objectives Encouraging these types of
non-residential uses is contrary to the objectives of the ‘Special
Residential’ zone as stated in the TPS No.4. The proposed use is
incompatible and out of character within the ‘Special Residential’
(semi - rural residential) zoning and will detract from the amenity
of the area. This use will impact on the peace and tranquillity
which currently exists within this locality. Comment The applicant
has provided the following comments in response: As this particular
proposal represents a relatively small Place of Worship (i.e. a
100m2
maximum sized meeting hall) located on a 5000m2 lot that only
has frontage to Churchman Brook Road, there will be no detrimental
impact on the enjoyment of residents and maintenance of ecological
and landscape values.
Given that the lot is not located within an estate as such, this
small scale proposal will not be incompatible with achieving
integrated and harmonious character within each of the estates.
Given the small scale and incidental nature of this particular
land use activity, it is arguable that this activity will offer a
higher degree of peace and tranquillity on the subject land, in
comparison to the establishment of a family home and associated
domestic activities (e.g. outdoor family activity, daily domestic
vehicle movements, domestic shed/workshop activity, domestic social
functions/parties, etc.).
Response/Recommendation The objectives of the Special
Residential zone are to be read in conjunction with the Use Class
Table for that zone. The current TPS No.4 Use Class Table does
provide discretion for approval of a ‘Place of Worship’ within this
zone, however Proposal 5 within Amendment No.69 proposes to change
that, which is addressed in detail later in the report. Regardless
of Amendment No.69, the City is required to consider the potential
impact of the proposal on the amenity of the locality via Clause
10.2 of TPS No.4. Through a residential style building, reduced
attendance numbers, reduced operating times, additional noise
attenuation measures, screen fencing and landscaping, the applicant
has argued that the impacts the proposed development will generate
on the surrounding area are managed in such a way as to be
negligible. The City is of the view that there will still be an
impact on the amenity of the area and that the impact is primarily
visual, with further discussion on the proposed use of screen and
acoustic fencing outlined later in the report. In turn, the City
believes that the visual impact would compromise the zoning
objectives, which is of concern in terms of the consideration of
this proposal. The issue is supported.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 17 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Issue 3 – Traffic Impact/Volume Contrary to the applicant’s
argument that the traffic impact would be less than a residential
use, the influx of 100 cars at the same time for church activity
will have a far more detrimental impact in terms of traffic
obstruction. This narrow road with no footpaths lined by
ditch/drains and trees is shared by rubbish trucks, school buses,
cows, kangaroos, horse riders, motor bikes and general motoring
public. Further traffic increase in large numbers will introduce a
more hazardous situation. Comment The applicant has provided the
following comments in response: The issue identified in this
submission is based upon incorrect information. Upon reviewing the
scale of the application it should be noted that any worship
service/meeting would now attract approximately 8 - 10 cars.
Utilising the same property for the purpose of a single dwelling
would result in approximately 10 vehicle movements per day, and the
numbers would increase if other uses were added to the dwelling,
such as a home business and/or ancillary accommodation.
Response/Recommendation The additional traffic generated by the
amended proposal is limited and would not compromise the level of
service the surrounding road network is designed to provide. The
issue is not supported. Issue 4 – Parking Do not believe that 25
parking bays will be sufficient to cater for a maximum of 100
congregations. A large number of vehicles arriving and departing at
the same time will create traffic conflict with the surrounding
residential traffic given that Churchman Brook Road is the only
access route to this site. Churchman Brook Road being a narrow road
lined with trees attempting to park on the verge by patrons would
potentially create a traffic hazard. Comment The applicant has
provided the following comments in response: In addition to the
matters already discussed under Issue No.3 above, the revised
provision of 11 car bays (including 1 disabled bay) for this size
of meeting place is in accordance with the Local Scheme/Policy
requirements. Regarding the parking issue, the venue will only
accommodate 40 persons and therefore we have provided parking for
40 people as opposed to a 100m² meeting hall. Further, we are happy
for a condition to be included on an approval that limits the
amount of people using the venue to 40 people. Therefore as it will
be limited to this number there is no need for (the originally
proposed) 25 parking bays and as a result 10 plus 1 disabled bay
will be sufficient, particularly when it is considered that the
families attending these meetings are larger than average and
generally travel to the venue in one car, or even in one case by
walking.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 18 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Response/Recommendation Schedule 11A of TPS No.4 requires 1
space for every 2.5m² seating area, plus 1 space for every staff
member present in peak operation. The proposed 11 bays equate to
27.5m² floor space, or the equivalent of 0.69m² per person for a
maximum capacity gathering of 40 persons, which appears inadequate
at face value. To look at it another way, each car would have to
carry at least three people and some would need to carry 4, or
people would have to walk, and this assumes a car has the right to
park in the proposed disabled bay. The City notes the applicant did
not include the two bays under the curtilage of the carport in
their count, (presumably for staff) which brings the total number
of bays provided to 13, however it is apparent that the proposed
parking arrangement generally has to be considered a minor
variation to the applicable standard and not fully compliant as the
applicant states. As there is room on site to accommodate
additional parking (formal or informal), the variation is seen as
one that could be granted. The issue is not supported. Issue 5 –
Danger to local wild life The wild life (flora and Fauna) in the
area such as echidnas, kangaroos, Red Tail Cockatoos and bobtails
are already at risk by the current amount of traffic. Mother
Kangaroos use Churchman Brook Road and Canns Road to walk their
young. Increasing traffic to cater for this type of activity would
increase the danger to wild life. The traffic volume driving past
and increased number of people visiting will also have an adverse
impact on the Heritage listed ‘Settlers Common’. Comment The
applicant has provided the following comments in response: As
already identified in the response to Issue 3 above, this proposal
will not result in a significant increase of traffic volumes when
compared with the development of the lot for normal residential
purposes. Further, the majority of the activity and vehicle
movements will be during daylight hours, at which time the risk of
traffic and wildlife conflict is significantly lower.
Response/Recommendation The additional traffic generated by the
amended proposal is limited and would not represent a significantly
greater risk than the traffic being generated by the nearby
residential areas. The issue is not supported.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 19 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Issue 6 – Noise Residents in Special Residential zones choose
such locations for its quiet and peaceful nature. Building a
church, which starts operating from early hours of the morning till
late night with music and services held late at night will disrupt
and compromise the very life style the resident’s desire and pay
for in these types of peaceful localities. As the applicant feels
the need to establish measures to reduce the noise impact, it
clearly demonstrates that noise will be an issue. Place of Worship
being exempt from Noise Regulation is a major concern in this
instance as the neighbours will not have a right to complain.
Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in
response: The religious group associated with this proposed place
of worship have maintained various places of worship within the
City of Armadale for approximately 40 years. During this time they
have continuously held 6.00am meetings and have never received a
noise complaint from any of the surrounding neighbours at any of
the meeting places. They are very conscious of the fact that their
meetings are early in the morning, and as a result, try their
utmost to ensure that noise is kept to an absolute minimum.
Additionally, there will be no playing of musical instruments or
amplification of voices during any of the meetings held at the
proposed place of worship, including during the 6.00am meeting.
Further, there will be no late night services held at the premises.
In terms of traffic impact, many of the people that will use this
place of worship live in the Bedfordale Hills area, and therefore,
if it is refused they will be travelling to other places of worship
within the City of Armadale, using Churchman Brook Road to get
there. Therefore, there will be no additional traffic impact as a
result of any approval. Please also note that the adjoining lot 2
will accommodate a residential dwelling occupied by a member of
this organisation, as indicated earlier. It should also be noted
that these meetings at this particular time are a religious
requirement for the group, and therefore the start time is
non-negotiable. Response/Recommendation The applicant’s response
was provided prior to the submission of an Environmental Noise
Assessment. The assessment is reviewed in detail later in the
report, however in short, the report acknowledges there are
potential noise impacts and outlines they can be adequately dealt
with via mitigation measures. The appropriateness of such measures
is reviewed later in the report. The issue is supported in
part.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 20 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Issue 7 – Visual Impact Constructing colorbond fencing on this
property would impact on the rural feel of the estate (estate
covenants preclude such fencing) and be detrimental to the open
rural/residential type lifestyle of the residents. Visually
unappealing screened fencing is a major concern within this zone,
which will be ignored in this instance. Comment The applicant has
provided the following comments in response: Construction of screen
fencing well within the boundaries of the property, as courtyard
style fencing, is not uncommon within Special Residential areas. In
terms of visual impact the construction of an internal courtyard
style colorbond fence is far less visually apparent than the
construction of a standard sized colorbond shed or garage. There
are no covenants on this particular lot that preclude the
construction of an internal courtyard style screen fence.
Response/Recommendation This is an issue the City has spent some
considerable time on over the years since development of these
Special Residential areas commenced. The City’s Fencing Local Law
stipulates a requirement for open style, rural fencing for all lots
to maintain an “open” feel to the area, without solid fences
breaking up the landscape. However, this is at odds with the need
to screen drying areas, or people’s desire for privacy when
utilising areas such as alfresco spaces, so the City has
pragmatically accepted and approved applications for small sections
of solid screen fencing immediately adjacent to such areas. The
development plan shows a section of screen fencing 30m long, with a
return of 10m representing a length considerably longer than the
City would normally consider appropriate. In addition, the
Environmental Noise Assessment recommends a 2m high masonry fence
along the eastern boundary, from the northern edge of the 40m
vegetation buffer to the proposed screen fencing behind the
proposed building, which represents a distance of approximately 45m
(noting that this would be to address the “worst case scenario” of
a dwelling on the proposed lot next door being within 20m of the
boundary). The report notes that a 6m long Colorbond fence would be
required adjacent to the western end of the car park to achieve
compliance should the land to the west ever be developed for
Special Residential purposes. Whilst the noise component is
discussed later in the report, the issue here is that what was to
be another visually open, Special Residential lot much like those
around it will be surrounded on two sides by solid fencing.
Discounting the “what if” scenario to the west (as a 6m length is
relatively similar to those “privacy screens” the City has accepted
in the past), the fencing proposed to the north and east at 40m and
45m is not comparable to the small sections of screen fencing the
City has given permission for on other lots as the applicant
claims. The objective of the Special Residential zone talks about a
“rural setting”, “maintenance of landscape values” and “an
integrated and harmonious character”. The open style fencing
requirement of the City’s Fencing Local Law supports those
objectives. The City’s officers believe screen fencing / masonry
walls are at odds with maintaining that objective. It is
acknowledged the Noise Assessment provides alternatives and these
are considered later in the report. The issue is supported in
part.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 21 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Issue 8 – Hours of Operation Administering church hours, times
and attendance capacity is a difficult task. As such the potential
increase of activities and numbers will have an increasing
detrimental impact on the surrounding residents. Comment The
applicant has provided the following comments in response: The
times of worship services and meetings would not go beyond that
stipulated in the application, and if necessary the planning
approval could stipulate the requirement prohibiting services and
meetings outside of particular agreed hours. This level of
commitment and control offers surrounding residents with a far
greater peace of mind than normal residential/domestic use of the
property, where night time domestic activities and social
gatherings can take place at any time and at all hours of the
night. Response/Recommendation The City concurs with the
applicant’s statement. Conditions are regularly imposed on planning
approvals to address operating hours and are statutorily
enforceable. The issue is not supported. Issue 9 – Property Value
Concern is raised that this type of non-residential activity will
de-value the properties within the special residential zones, which
are residents’ life investments. Comment The applicant has provided
the following comments in response: There is no evidence to support
the idea that a low scale occasional land use activity such as
proposed would have any detrimental impact on land values within
Special Residential zones. Land values within Special Residential
zones also take into account the Town Planning Scheme Provisions
for that zone, and the Scheme Provisions provide for a Place of
Worship as a discretionary Land Use. Notwithstanding this, it is
also noteworthy that this particular development is being designed
to assume a built form that has the appearance and scale of a
normal residential dwelling. Response/Recommendation There is no
evidence to support this claim and the issue is not a matter that
can be considered as part of development application assessment.
The issue is not supported.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 22 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Issue 10 – Lifestyle The main reasons for choosing to build and
live in this area is for the tranquil and peaceful life style, less
noise, less traffic and less pollution. Residents in Bedfordale are
willing to drive long distances and work remotely or commute a long
way because of the serenity of the area. It is a natural bush
setting with minimal residential infrastructure. Establishment of
developments of this nature compromises such life style and
resident expectations that the residents have worked hard all their
lives to achieve. Comment The applicant has provided the following
comments in response: The clarifications and corrections detailed
in the responses to Issues 1-8 above show that this proposal is not
at odds with the local resident aspirations of a peaceful
lifestyle, less noise, less traffic and less pollution.
Response/Recommendation The City does not entirely agree with the
applicant’s statement. There is less impact as a result of the
amended proposal in comparison to the original proposal, but there
is still an impact which should be considered. The City may use
different terms such as ‘amenity’ and ‘objectives of the zone’, but
the meaning is similar. The submission is correct in its assertion
that the lifestyle in the City’s Special Residential zones is
different to a standard residential environment where the proposed
use is regularly found. Noise and visual impact, which can have a
negative effect on lifestyle, are addressed further later in the
report and as stated previously for Issues 1, 2, 6 and 7, the City
does not entirely agree with the applicant’s point of view. The
issue is supported in part. Issue 11 – Emergency Exit Churchman
Brook estate comprises only of two entrance/exit points. Evacuation
of a congregation of 100 people in an emergency situation (bush
fire) may pose a problem and a danger to all involved. Comment The
applicant has provided the following comments in response: The
subject land is not located within the Churchman Brook Estate, but
rather is located along Churchman Brook Road. Accordingly, there
are more than 2 choices in the case of exiting the locality.
Further, the number of congregation members is significantly less
than has been claimed in the submission, and it is noteworthy that
for the majority of the time the premises will not (be occupied).
Response/Recommendation The City concurs with the applicant’s
statement. The proposal has been revised from the figures quoted
and there are multiple directions of travel available in the event
of an emergency. The issue is not supported.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 23 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Issue 12 – Establishing Precedent Approval of this type of
semi-commercial development will set a precedent to encourage
similar type of uses in the future detrimental to rural character
of this area. Comment The applicant has provided the following
comments in response: This proposal does not represent a
semi-commercial development, but rather is a community based
activity that is discretionary within the Special Residential zone
of this area. There is no issue of precedent as Council has the
right and responsibility to consider each application on its own
merits, having due regard to the scale and potential impact of the
proposal on the surrounding area. Approval of a small development
of a particular kind does not establish a precedent or expectation
that a larger development of the same or different kind may also be
approved. Response/Recommendation The applicant is correct in that
each application is considered on its merits and precedent only
exists where the circumstances of applications are very similar.
The issue is not supported. Issue 13 – Sewerage As we are on
septics and/or biomax systems we believe the extra waste from this
property will adversely affect the groundwater and catchment runoff
into Churchman Brook Dam and the creek in the area. Comment The
applicant has provided the following comments in response: The
subject land is almost twice the size of the most common Special
Residential lot size within the Churchman Brook Estate and
surrounding Special Residential areas, and yet will only
accommodate a 100m2 meeting hall that will be used only 1 hour at a
time twice per week. Unlike a residential dwelling, this use will
not involve showering and laundry functions. The Health Department
will need to approve the onsite system and will require it to be of
a suitable capacity and standard. The submission has incorrectly
assumed that the property lies within the catchment of the
Churchman Brook Dam. Response/Recommendation The applicant is
correct in that a separate application for approval of an effluent
disposal system will need to be made to the Department of Health
WA. The issue is not supported.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 24 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Issue 14 – Exclusive Organisation Armadale Gospel Trust (a.k.a.
Plymouth Brethren) are an exclusive organisation who close ranks
against outsiders which contradict the meaning of a church. They do
not assimilate with the neighbours/community and will not provide
any benefit to the surrounding neighbourhood or the Bedfordale
community. This will be a direct threat to all our young children
in Bedfordale. Comment The applicant has provided the following
comments in response: The doctrines and practices of a church group
are not a town planning consideration. The activity on the land and
its impact on the surrounding area is a planning consideration. The
suggestion that this church group will be a direct threat to all
the young children in Bedfordale is extremely hurtful.
Response/Recommendation The City concurs with the applicant’s
statements. The issue is not supported. Issue 15 – Specific Events
All specific events dates and times of the activities are not
detailed in the application. This uncertainty leaves open the
possibility that the facility may be used at unsuitable times.
Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in
response: This particular facility is not a church building in the
traditional sense of the word, but is a smaller facility that will
host 2 small meetings (30 - 40 persons) a week. Any other special
events such as weddings and funerals etc. will be held in the
larger district facility located within the municipality.
Response/Recommendation As described in response to Issue 8,
conditions are regularly imposed on planning approvals to address
operating hours and are statutorily enforceable. The issue is not
supported.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 25 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Issue 16 – Security Wherever there is a building which is
infrequently used, there is an increased risk of crime occurring
such as vandalism, theft etc. An empty car park would be an
invitation to hoons to have burnouts, donuts etc. What measures
would the Trust take to ensure this does not happen? Comment The
applicant has provided the following comments in response: The
premises will be secured in a similar fashion to other residential
properties within the Bedfordale area, and the property will be
appropriately fenced and gated and locked. The car park itself will
be relatively discreet and will be separated from the road by a 40m
wide landscaped buffer. Further, one of the families within the
congregation is currently in the process of establishing a family
home on the adjoining property, which will further improve security
and surveillance. Response/Recommendation Such measures would be
adequate to address this issue. However the City notes there is an
inconsistency here with the Environmental Noise Assessment, which
indicates that it is “understood that access to the car park will
remain unhindered (i.e. no gate)” (page 3). The Noise Report
outlines this understanding in order to technically exempt noise
from vehicle engines from assessment, but ultimately considered
such noise anyway, so it should not make a difference from the
point of view of the Noise Report if the driveway is gated. The
issue is not supported. Issue 17 – Future Use of Second Vacant Lot
We are extremely concerned about what could be proposed for the
vacant lot of land (assuming the subdivision occurs) next to the
proposed church. What restrictions would be put in place for future
developments? Will the church be allowed to build residential unit
for the church purpose. Comment The applicant has provided the
following comments in response: The adjoining vacant lot within the
subdivision will be used for a family home (refer to Response 16
above). Response/Recommendation The issue is noted. Such would be
subject to a separate application and approval.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 26 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Issue 18 – Additional Use The current land is one lot which
already contains a house, pool and outbuildings. As the proposed
new lot has not yet been created a proposal cannot be assessed
against a planned future but the current situation. The Town
Planning Scheme No.4 does not allow a second dwelling on this lot.
Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in
response: This application does not propose a second dwelling on
the lot. Notwithstanding this, it is the intention for the
subdivision to be implemented (resulting in the creation of three
(3) lots) and the Place of Worship would occur on its own separate
title. Response/Recommendation The City concurs with the
applicant’s statements. The issue is not supported. Issue 19 –
Lighting Concerned about the outdoor lighting burning at night and
its impact on surrounding residences. Comment The applicant has
provided the following comments in response: Outdoor lighting is
not proposed to be any different than a normal residential dwelling
within the neighbourhood. Response/Recommendation If the
application was approved, the City would impose a standard advice
note, noting the development would have to comply with Australian
Standard 4282-1997 “Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor
lighting” (or its equivalent) and the City’s Environment, Animals
and Nuisance Local Laws. The issue is supported in part. Issue 20 –
Do Not Need More Similar Churches There are a number of Gospel
(similar) churches within the City of Armadale. Being a shift
worker who regularly drives past one of such churches (cnr
Patterson and Canns Roads) on a Sunday morning I have witnessed the
number of cars driving in and out of the church before 6:00am in
the morning. Do not think we need more similar churches of this
nature in Armadale. Comment The applicant has provided the
following comments in response: This is a subjective opinion that
is not supported by any planning considerations.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 27 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Response/Recommendation The proposed land use is one that can be
considered via the development application process. The issue is
not supported. Issue 21 – Vandalism The property being unattended
during most of the day and night will be an attraction to vandalism
and burglaries. Comment The applicant has provided the following
comments in response: Refer to the response to issue 16, which
details security measures similar to that of a normal residential
dwelling. Response/Recommendation The issue is not supported. Issue
22 – Disturb Sleep As an employee in the retail sector working 6
days a week early morning start of church activity on a Sunday will
disturb the only day of ‘sleep in’. Comment The applicant has
provided the following comments in response: Refer to the response
to Issue 6, where noise management is detailed.
Response/Recommendation The submitted Environmental Noise
Assessment acknowledges there are potential noise impacts and
outlines they can be adequately dealt with via mitigation measures.
The appropriateness of such measures is reviewed later in the
report. The issue is supported in part. ANALYSIS Proposal 5 of
Amendment No.69 to TPS No.4 – Omnibus Amendment No.4 Initiated at
the Council meeting of September 2013, the above omnibus amendment
to TPS No.4 included Proposal 5 to modify the permissibility of a
‘Place of Worship’ in the Special Residential zone from ‘A’
(discretionary) to ‘X’ (not permitted). The following explanation
was provided in justifying such proposal:
“‘Place of Worship’ is defined as “means premises used for
religious activities such as a church, chapel, mosque, synagogue or
temple”. The objectives of the Special Residential zone under
Clause 4.2.2 of TPS No.4 are as follows: (a) to provide for low
density residential development in a rural setting, in which
natural
environmental values are conserved as far as possible for the
enjoyment of residents as well as the maintenance of ecological and
landscape values”.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 28 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
(b) to ensure development is sited and designed to achieve an
integrated and harmonious character within each of the estates.
When considering the broad objectives of the Special Residential
zone at the initiation stage of this amendment, it was difficult to
justify the retention and permissibility of the land use ‘Place of
Worship’ in this zone. The Special Residential zoned areas/estates
of the City are well established and consist of predominately low
density residential development. It should also be noted that there
has been minimal intrusion of non-residential development in such
areas to date. This is the main point of distinction when compared
to other zones, such as “Residential”, “Rural Living” and “General
Rural”, which already contain a mix of compatible non-residential
land uses and are further supported by an additional TPS No.4
objective as follows: “to provide for a range of associated
compatible activities and development…”.
In addition, the main issues associated with Place of Worship
including increased traffic and noise (particularly on weekends and
outside of normal business operating hours) were seen as sturdy
grounds to prohibit this activity from occurring in the future.
Notwithstanding the above, it is now acknowledged that there may
be unforeseen instances where such issues could be mitigated and
the activity conducted without any adverse impacts on the amenity
of residents within the Special Residential zone. Retaining the use
as “D” (discretionary) use under TPS No.4 still affords Council the
ability to consider an application on its individual merits and/or
refuse any application that is deemed to pose adverse impacts on
the local amenity”.
After advertising of Amendment No.69, the City recommended
Council reconsider its position on Proposal 5, which would have
left ‘Place of Worship’ as a discretionary land use within the
zone. This was discussed at length and the following was recorded
in the Minutes:
“Committee discussed Proposal 5 of the Omnibus Amendment and the
proposed change after the advertising period to delete a portion of
Proposal 5. Committee further discussed the requirements of the
Special Residential zone, the officer’s original report which
included a proposal to prohibit Place of Worship within the Special
Residential zone. When considering the objectives of the zone,
general lot sizes, the established residential nature, quiet and
peaceful environment and the residents expectations living in a
special residential area, establishment of such a land use may be
inappropriate within this zone. Such uses also require parking
areas etc. that generate issues such as traffic and noise, which
makes it an inappropriate use within this zone”. MOVED “That
Proposal 5 be modified to what was previously advertised “Modify
the permissibility of ‘Place of Worship’ in the Special Residential
zone from ‘A’ (discretionary) to ‘X’ (not permitted) and in the
Strategic Regional Centre Zone from ‘X’ to ‘D’ (discretionary).”
MOTION CARRIED
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 29 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Amendment No.69, inclusive of the original Proposal 5 to make
‘Place of Worship’ an ‘X’ (not permitted) land use was adopted to
be forwarded to the WAPC for Minister’s approval in March 2014
(D11/3/14). Town Planning Scheme (TPS) No.4 The property is zoned
‘Special Residential’ under the City’s TPS No.4 and ‘Rural’ under
the Metropolitan Region Scheme. The proposed “Place of Worship” is
presently a discretionary ‘A’ use, meaning the use is not permitted
unless the City has exercised its discretion by granting planning
approval after giving special notice in accordance with clause 9.4
under TPS No.4. In assessing the current application for
development, the City and Council are required to have regard for
Amendment No.69, as Clause 10.2(b) of Town Planning Scheme No.4
states: “The City in considering an application for planning
approval is to have due regard to such of the following matters as
are in the opinion of the City relevant to the use or development
the subject of the application — (b) the requirements of orderly
and proper planning including any relevant proposed new town
planning scheme or amendment, or region scheme or amendment, which
has been granted consent for public submissions to be sought;”. As
Amendment No.69 has completed public advertising, been adopted by
Council and is due to be returned to the WAPC for final
consideration, the changes proposed within are relevant to the
current application. If the amendment proposal is approved, then
Place of Worship would become an ‘X’ not permitted land use in the
proposed location, which is Council’s publically advertised and
adopted position. As this is clearly the intent, whether approval
should be granted in those circumstances is an issue that should be
considered. Amendment No.69 mentioned that there has been “minimal
intrusion of non-residential development” within Special
Residential zoned areas, and this refers to two non-residential
uses that exist at present, and one other considered likely to
occur. They are very specific land uses planned from the outset of
the respective Special Residential estates, being the local shop
proposed to service the Churchman Brook estate, the Araluen Golf
Club within the Araluen Estate, and potentially, the future holiday
accommodation associated with the Araluen Golf Club. Proposal 5 of
Amendment No.69 was put forward in that context, as the Special
Residential zone is largely intact in respect of being primarily
residential in nature, and it is noted this application will
introduce a further non-residential land use if approved. Noise and
Mitigation Measures The applicant has submitted an Environmental
Noise Assessment prepared by Lloyd George Acoustics to address the
Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. There are
several key aspects the Noise Assessment addresses, and these can
be summarised as follows: Regulation 3 – Access to the car park
will remain unhindered by a gate, and as such, the
driveway and car park fall under the definition of a road and
noise from vehicles engines technically does not need to be
assessed. Nevertheless, the noise from slow moving vehicles has
been considered. Car doors must be considered irrespective of this
clause. (Refer to the City’s response to Issue 16 earlier in the
report);
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 30 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Regulation 16 – Schedule 2 defines ‘exempt noise’, which
includes reference to noise
emitted from an assembly convened solely for the purpose of
divine worship. As such, all noise within the building may be
considered exempt. However the City requested comment on this issue
regardless and an acceptable noise level can be achieved by
utilising 6mm glazing to all windows;
The ‘worst case’ scenario would be if a dwelling was constructed
on the proposed lot to the east of the subject site (once
subdivided) within 20m of the boundary;
If that was the case a 2m high masonry wall would need to be
constructed along the eastern boundary starting from the 40m
revegetation area up to the proposed screen fencing at the rear of
the building (approximately 45m);
If masonry is not practicable or acceptable, then alternatives
have been considered. The Report is inclusive of an annotated copy
of the development plan showing modifications to the driveway and
car park that would mean a 1.8m double layered Colorbond fence
(with any gaps sealed) or an earth bund of the same height may be
used as a compliant alternative;
The residence on the proposed adjacent lot to the east of the
subject site should be located as far north-east as practicable;
and,
The City requested consideration of the land to the west as
well, to address a “what if” scenario of that land also being
developed for Special Residential purposes. Levels at the nearest
point on that boundary are predicted to exceed the assigned level
such that noise control would be necessary to achieve compliance if
future development occurs. A sufficient control measure would be to
construct a 1.8m earth bund or Colorbond type fence next to the
western most parking bay (labelled No.6 in the plan marked by Lloyd
George Acoustics) and running its full length (approximately
6m).
The objectives of the ‘Special Residential’ zone (Clause 4.2.2)
are as follows: “To provide for low density residential development
in a rural setting, in which natural
environmental values are conserved as far as possible for the
enjoyment of residents as well as the maintenance of ecological and
landscape values.
To ensure development is sited and designed to achieve an
integrated and harmonious character within each of the
estates”.
In addition to the objectives of the zone, among other issues
outlined by Clause 10.2 of TPS No.4, the City is obliged to
consider “the preservation of the amenity of the locality”. Amenity
is defined by TPS No.4 as “all those factors which combine to form
the character of an area and include the present and likely future
amenity”. Noise is a part of that, and though there are exemptions
that may be applicable under the Regulations, even if that is the
case, noise can still be considered to negatively impact an
individual’s enjoyment of the amenity of the area. As such, the
City asked that the Noise Assessment consider those factors
regardless, and the Assessment demonstrates compliance can be
achieved with the Regulations if a wall, fence or bund (or plural
of that should the land to the west be rezoned) is constructed. The
applicant has indicated the owners are happy to have those
requirements imposed as conditions of any Planning Approval issued.
However, what this does raise is the issue discussed earlier under
Issue 7 – Visual Impact. The landscape values of the Special
Residential zone are important, as stipulated within the zoning
objectives. The City’s Fencing Local Law requires open style rural
fencing within the zone in order to maintain those landscape
values.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 31 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
Applications for privacy screens on individual special
residential properties are limited as far as is possible to the
area they relate to, such as an alfresco, swimming pool or clothes
drying area. In that context, even with the reduced numbers, this
application is requesting 40m of screen fencing to the north of the
proposed building and 45m of acoustic fencing to the east of the
proposed building (worst case). It is difficult to argue that the
screen and acoustic fencing meet the zoning objectives in their
entirety. The proposed expanses of fencing do not in the City’s
opinion ensure the “maintenance of… landscape values”, or
development being “sited and designed to achieve an integrated and
harmonious character”. The need for these fences points more to the
proposed land use being inappropriate for the zone, or at least
inappropriate for the size of lot the proposal relates to. The
applicant argues that the screen fence would be “less visually
apparent than the construction of a standard sized colorbond shed
or garage”. The difference is that residents move to that area
expecting to be allowed to have a larger shed (in comparison to a
residential zone). They do not move there expecting lots to be able
to be largely fenced in. It is the City’s opinion that the proposed
development cannot be located on proposed Lot 1 and the open
landscape value within the Special Residential zone maintained at
the same time. The development does not achieve an integrated and
harmonious character with the surrounding estate as it needs walls
in order to comply, while other properties do not. Even the earth
bund, whilst not fencing per se, would create a visual barrier
contrary to the zone objectives, though in the City’s opinion if an
option had to be chosen the bund (appropriately landscaped) would
have the greatest potential to fit with the surrounding character
of the area. Alternative Option As the attachments to this report
show, a subdivision has been considered and approved on the subject
site to create three (3) lots. It is on ‘proposed Lot 1’ that the
current application is situated.
To date, the subdivision has not been acted on. It is worth
mentioning that if the subject lot were larger, with increased
separation distances to surrounding residences, then there would be
no need for screen fencing or acoustic barriers to address noise
and so there would be no related visual impact or inconsistency
with the zone objectives. Noise would be mitigated by distance as
opposed to walls and it too would not detrimentally affect the
amenity of the area. The main issues raised in the submissions
would be addressed and the application would meet the current
requirements of the Scheme.
This scenario was put to the applicant, who in consultation with
the acoustic consultant, advised that acoustic barriers would not
be necessary if a separation distance of 23m could be achieved from
the proposed car park to any boundary. The applicant advised that
this could be achieved in one of two ways, modify the car park
shape, and/or modify the location of the subdivision boundary
between proposed Lots 1 and 2.
The applicant further advised that on speaking with the
owners/proponents, the preference would be to have a condition
imposed along the following lines; “A revised site plan is to be
submitted, depicting the car-parking area set back from the side
boundaries of the (proposed) lot in accordance with the
recommendations outlined in the Acoustic report prepared by Lloyd
George Acoustics, to achieve compliance with the Noise Regulations
without requiring additional acoustic barriers”.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 32 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
The City has reviewed this suggestion and notes that proposed
Lot 1 is 45m wide at the rear and 53m wide at the front. A distance
23m from either boundary excludes 46m width, which leaves a limited
area for an amended car park. Therefore, if this option is to be
pursued it appears the most realistic alternative is to review the
lot layout to create the required space. In doing so, the City
notes that Provision 11.3 of Development (Structure Planning) Area
No.11 requires any lot fronting Churchman Brook Road to have a
minimum area of 5000m². OPTIONS
Option 1 – Council may conditionally approve the proposal for a
Place of Worship at Lot 81 (296) Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale
if it is satisfied the resultant visual impact will not be
detrimental to the amenity of the area, and complies with the
Scheme.
Option 2 – Council may refuse the application if it is satisfied
the proposal for a Place of Worship at Lot 81 (296) Churchman Brook
Road, Bedfordale, will result in a detrimental visual impact on the
amenity of the area therefore will not meet the objectives of the
zone, noting that this determination also reflects its position in
respect of Proposal 5 within Amendment No.69.
Option 3 – Council may conditionally approve the proposal for a
Place of Worship at Lot 81 (296) Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale
on the basis that the lot size is increased to a point where no
solid fencing is required (to be confirmed by an acoustic
consultant). This would ensure the maintenance of the objectives of
the zone by ensuring there is no visual impact, and would mean
noise would not significantly affect the amenity of the area.
CONCLUSION
The proposed land use is currently discretionary within the
Special Residential zone. Council has publically advertised (via
Amendment No.69) its intent to change that land use to not
permitted.
The public advertising of the development application yielded a
number of submissions of objection, some of which have raised valid
issues of concern relating to the objectives of the zone and the
preservation of the amenity of the area. The applicant has designed
the building to appear residential and has scaled back the proposed
attendance numbers and operating times in an attempt to minimise
potential adverse impacts.
The Environmental Noise Assessment indicates acoustic fencing
should be utilised despite the reduced capacity and the owners are
committed to providing such, however the City considers the
proposed screen and acoustic fencing and the alternatives proposed
(colorbond or an earth bund) have the potential for a detrimental
impact on the visual amenity of the area.
Without any of those measures, noise will still have the
potential to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the
surrounding area and therefore, the objectives of the Special
Residential zone are not met by the proposal. As presently
proposed, the development should not be supported. However, given
the applicant / owner’s willingness to consider revisiting the
overall layout for the proposed lots / development that would
result in the issues of concern being addressed, the proposal could
be supported in that context. As such, Option 3 is recommended.
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
ATTACHMENTS 1. Subdivision Plan - Scan 1 - 81 Churchman Brook
Rd, Bedfordale2. Site Plan - Scan 2 - 81 Churchman Brook Rd,
Bedfordale 3. Floor Plan - Scan 3 - 81 Churchman Brook Rd,
Bedfordale 4. Elevation Plan - Scan 4 - 81 Churchman Brook Rd,
Bedfordale 5. Elevation Plan - Scan 5 - 81 Churchman Brook Rd,
Bedfordale 6. Development Site Plan - Scan 6 - 81 Churchman Brook
Rd, Bedfordale 7. Confidential - Submitter Plan - Lot 81 Churchman
Brook Rd, Bedfordale - This matter is
considered to be confidential under Section 5.23(2) (b) of the
Local Government Act, as the matter relates to the personal affairs
of a person
Officer’s Recommendation – That Council: A) Approve the
application for Planning Approval for a Place of Worship on Lot 81
(296)
Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale subject to the following
conditions: 1. Prior to the submission of a Building Permit,
revised plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the City’s Planning Services department,
in-accordance with Clause 10.8 of the City's Town Planning Scheme
No.4, that modify the proposal by: a) Removing the proposed screen
fencing north of the proposed building and the
proposed acoustic fencing east of the proposed building; b)
Relocating the development within a larger lot of adequate size
that noise mitigation
measures are not necessary, which has been confirmed as a 23m
separation between the car park and any boundary by an acoustic
consultant; and
c) Ensuring Provision 11.3 of Schedule 12 – Development
(Structure Planning) Areas which requires a minimum lot size of
5000m² for any lot abutting Churchman Brook Road is met.
2. The Place of Worship shall be limited to a maximum capacity
of 40 persons to the satisfaction of the Executive Director
Development Services.
3. Operating hours shall be limited to Sunday between 6:00a.m.
and 8:00a.m. and Monday evenings between 6:00p.m. and 8:00p.m. to
the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development
Services.
4. The development shall include 6mm glazing to all windows,
which shall be maintained thereafter, to the satisfaction of the
Executive Director Development Services.
5. The building shall be constructed in-accordance with
Australian Standard 3959 – Construction of Buildings in Bush Fire
Prone Areas (or superseding standard) and the approved Fire
Management Plan.
6. A schedule of external colours and materials shall be
submitted to the City’s Planning Services department and approved
by the Executive Director Development Services. The development
shall be completed and maintained in accordance with the approved
schedule to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development
Services.
7. External colours and materials shall be in keeping with the
surrounding character/amenity of the locality and maintained to the
satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.
8. No building or structure shall use zincalume, galvanised or
unpainted steel surfaces as an exterior finish.
9. To meet drainage requirements the developer/owner shall
submit a stormwater management plan incorporating water sensitive
design principles for approval and implement the approved plan
thereafter to the specifications and satisfaction of the Executive
Director Technical Services.
10. A landscape plan to enhance screening of the proposed
development shall be submitted to and approved by the Executive
Director Development Services. Such plan shall include:
a) Plant species (predominantly West Australian natives); b)
Numbers, location, container size;
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 34 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
c) Method of irrigation of the landscaped areas; d) Revegetation
of the 40m landscape buffer as deemed appropriate by the City; e)
The provision of shade trees within the car park at the rates of at
least 1 tree per 10
metre interval along any line of car parking; and f) Retention
of existing trees, as does not conflict with the requirements of
the approved
Fire Management Plan. All landscaping shall be installed prior
to occupancy of the development and maintained as per the approved
plan thereafter.
11. All vehicle manoeuvring spaces shall be constructed, sealed,
kerbed and drained in accordance with the approved site plan to the
satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services and
continuously maintained thereafter. Relocation/removal of any
services/infrastructure will be at the cost of the developer.
12. No materials shall be stored in car parking areas. 13. ‘End
of trip bicycle facilities’ in accordance with Clause 5.12.1 and
Schedule 11.B of Town
Planning Scheme No.4 shall be provided prior to occupation of
the development in a location agreed to by the City and
continuously maintained thereafter.
14. All Conditions shall be complied with prior to exercising
the right of this approval. B) That, in addition to standard advice
notes, the applicant be advised:
1. A separate application is required for all signs associated
with the development. 2. Compliance with the Health (Public
Buildings) Regulations 1992 is required. In this regard,
a Public Building application shall be submitted to the City’s
Health Department and approved prior to occupation of the proposed
building.
3. The applicant will be required to submit an Effluent
Treatment System Application to the City’s Health Services
Department which is available on the City’s website:
www.armadale.wa.gov.au/Home/Services_and_Facilities/Health
4. Compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise)
Regulations 1997 is required. 5. Lighting shall comply with
Australian Standard 4282-1997 “Control of the obtrusive effects
of outdoor lighting” or its equivalent and the City’s
Environment, Animals and Nuisance Local Laws.
6. With regard to Condition requiring construction in-accordance
with AS3959, it is highly recommended that ember protection screens
be installed to any evaporative air conditioning unit. Further
information can be obtained at: http://www.dfes.wa.gov.au
7. The owner is advised that compliance with the approved Fire
Management Plan for the area is required. A copy of the Fire
Management Plan should have been provided to you by the developer
at the time of purchase, however a copy can be obtained from the
City at no charge.
8. With regard to Condition requiring submission of a colour and
material schedule, it is expected that the colour and material
schedule will be submitted and approved prior to the submission of
a Building Permit Application.
9. With regard to Condition requiring a Landscape Plan, please
refer to the City’s Landscaping Guidelines – (Screening and/or
Grouped Dwellings and/or Industrial and Commercial) and the
Landscaping Guidelines – Plants to Avoid, to assist you to
formulate a satisfactory landscaping proposal. Copies of these
documents are available on the City’s website at:
www.armadale.wa.gov.au/publications/
10. With regard to Condition regarding vehicle manoeuvring
spaces, the City’s Technical Services Directorate should be
contacted in order that the appropriate crossover application may
be made.
C) That the submitters be advised of the Council’s decision.
Committee considered the Officer’s Recommendation in the context
of the recent support by Council of Amendment No.69 which sought
the exclusion of such uses from the Special Residential zone,
although it was recognised that the amendment may not receive
Ministerial support. It was considered that the amenity of such
zones was contrary to Places of Worship. Committee noted that
previous experience with similar facilities had
-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 35 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014
been positive and a number of examples of the use as being
benign were cited by councillors. On balance it was considered that
it was important to be consistent with the previous Scheme
Amendment resolution noting that in the event of such not
proceeding then the applicant could resubmit. Accordingly Committee
agreed to a modified recommendation that the application be
refused. D18/5/14 RECOMMEND
That Council refuse the application for Planning Approval for a
Place of Worship on Lot 81 (296) Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale
for the following reasons:
1. Council has adopted a position on the proposed alteration of
the land use classification of a ‘Place of Worship’ within a
Special Residential zone from ‘A’ (discretionary and requires
notice) to ‘X’ (not permitted) in Proposal 5 of Amendment 69.
2. Taking into account of the objectives of the Special
Residential Zone under TPS No.4
MOVED Cr M Geary SECONDED Cr Norman Opposed Cr Munn MOTION
CARRIED (4/3)
Council resolved at its Ordinary Meeting on 26 May 2014 that
Recommendation D18/5/14 be not adopted and replaced as follows -
D18/5/14 RECOMMEND
That Council:
A) Approve the application for Planning Approval for a Place of
Worship on Lot 81 (296) Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale subject to
the following conditions:
1. Prior to the submission of a Building Permit, revised plans
shall be submitted to and approved by the City’s Planning Services
department, in-accordance with Clause 10.8 of the City's Town
Planning Scheme No.4, that modify the proposal by:
a) Removing the proposed screen fencing north of the proposed
building and the proposed acoustic fencing east of the proposed
building;
b) Relocating the development within a larger lot of adequate
size that noise mitigation measures are not necessary, which has
been confirmed as a 23m separation between the car park and any
boundary by an acoustic consultant; and
c) Ensuring Provision 11.3 of Schedule 12 – Development
(Structure Planning) Areas which requires a minimum lot size of
5000m² for any lot abutting Churchman Brook Road is met.
2. The Place of Worship shall be limited to a maximum capacity
of 40 persons to the satisfaction of the Executive Director
Development Services.
3. Operating hours shall be limited to Sunday between 6:00a.m.
and 8:00a.m. and Monday evenings between 6:00p.m. and 8:00p.m. to
t