MEETING OF COUNCIL...• 31 residents of Forview Road, Mount Claremont COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 28 MAY 2013 H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\13 MINUTES\May 2013\A Council Front.docx 3 Moved

Council Minutes

28 MAY 2013

COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 28 MAY 2013

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\13 MINUTES\May 2013\A Council Front.docx i

MEETING OF COUNCIL

28 MAY 2013 INDEX OF MINUTES

1. Opening ........................................................................................................................... 1 2. Attendance ...................................................................................................................... 1 3. Public Question Time...................................................................................................... 2 4. Petitions ........................................................................................................................... 2 5. Deputations ..................................................................................................................... 3 6. Applications for Leave of Absence ................................................................................ 3 7. Confirmation of Minutes ................................................................................................. 3 8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion ...................................................... 3 9. Committee Reports ......................................................................................................... 3

Development Committee 4

DV13.52 Lot 1 (No. 18C) Clune Avenue, West Leederville - Two Storey Dwelling with Undercroft and Swimming Pool - Referred Back 6

DV13.53 Lot 93 (No. 19A and 19B) Wayeela Place, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling with Undercroft Swimming Pool - Referred Back 13

DV13.54 Lot 334 (No. 50) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville - Two Storey Dwelling with Undercroft and Swimming Pool - Referred Back 19

DV13.55 Lot 341 (No. 240) Oceanic Drive, Corner Tumut Road, City Beach - Amended Plans for Two Storey Dwelling with Undercroft - Glass Balustrade Around Roof Service Deck 27

DV13.56 Lot 1158 (No. 8) Katrine Street, Floreat - Retrospective Additions and Alterations including new gatehouse and partially solid front fence 32

DV13.57 Lot 1 (No. 184A) Jersey Street, Wembley - Retrospective Approval for Garage Door 35

DV13.58 Lot 5 (No. 13) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville - Two x Two Storey Grouped Dwellings 39

DV13.59 Lot 888 (No.129) Brookdale Street, Floreat - Two Storey Dwelling 44 DV13.60 Lot 336 (No. 54) Daglish Street, Wembley - Single Storey Dwelling and

Rear Carport 51 DV13.61 Lot 123 (No. 57) Reserve Street, Wembley - Additions and Alterations 55 DV13.62 Lot 1356 (No. 114) Essex Street, Wembley - Colorbond Shed 58 DV13.63 Lot 967 (No. 2) East Lorne Street, Floreat - Surfmist Roof for a New

Patio 61 DV13.64 Initiation of Omnibus Scheme Amendment to Town Planning Scheme

No. 1 - West Leederville Activity Centre Rezoning of Land and Development Controls, Cash in Lieu of Parking, Wembley Precinct Corner Lot Development - Amendment No.27 64

DV13.65 Western Central Local Emergency Management Arrangements 2013 71 DV13.66 Wembley Sports Park - Declaration of New Parking Stations - Town Of

Cambridge Parking Local Law 75


H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\13 MINUTES\May 2013\A Council Front.docx ii

DV13.67 Revised Cat Sterilisation Subsidy Scheme 77 DV13.68 Development and Sustainability - Fees and Charges 2013 - 2014 79 DV13.69 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for April 2013 84 DV13.70 Building Permits Approved Under Delegated Authority 86

Community and Resources Committee 87 CR13.45 Lake Monger Reserve - Security Lights Replacement/Provision

Program 89 CR13.46 City Beach Groyne Maintenance - Grant Application 96 CR13.47 Road Rehabilitation and Road Improvement Grants 2014-2015 100 CR13.48 Tender No. RFT03-13 - Professional Engineering Services 2013-2016 106 CR13.49 Works and Parks Reserves - Fees and Charges Annual Review 110 CR13.50 Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA) Conference

2013 116 CR13.51 Mindarie Regional Council Meeting 2 May 2013 120 CR13.52 Administration and Civic Centre - Options for Energy Reduction 125 CR13.53 Review of Fees and Charges - The Boulevard Centre 128 CR13.54 Review of Fees and Charges - Cambridge Library 134 CR13.55 Review of Fees and Charges - Wembley Community Centre and

Leederville Town Hall 138 CR13.56 Lake Monger Recreation Club - New Kitchen Facility 144 CR13.57 Lake Monger Recreation Club - Review and Five a Side Soccer 147 CR13.58 Quarry Amphitheatre Works - Delegation to Chief Executive Officer 152 CR13.59 2013 Community Arts Development Program 155 CR13.60 Documents Sealed - May 2013 157 CR13.61 Project Management Panel - Award of Tender RFT01-13 159 CR13.62 Leederville Station Link - Development Advisor/Manager Brief 161 CR13.63 Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach -

Community Consultation During Development Approval 164 CR13.64 Adoption of the Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 167 CR13.65 Payment of Accounts - April 2013 180 CR13.66 Investment Schedule - April 2013 182 CR13.67 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - April 2013 187 CR13.68 Information, Communications and Technology Program 192 CR13.69 City Beach Oval Reserve - Nextgen Networks Pty Ltd 197

10. Council Reports 203 10.1 Representation on Statutory Authorities and Public Bodies 203

11. Urgent Business 205

11.1 Treescape Plan 2010-2020 Management of Adopted Planting Programs 205

12. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given 212

13. Confidential Reports 212

14. Closure 212

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\13 MINUTES\May 2013\A Council Front.docx 1

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON TUESDAY 28 MAY 2013. 1. OPENING The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.02 pm. 2. ATTENDANCE Present:

Mayor: Simon Withers Councillors: Rod Bradley Louis Carr Sonia Grinceri Tracey King Alan Langer Corinne MacRae Otto Pelczar

Colin Walker Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Brett Jackson, Director Projects Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Steven Rodic, Manager Development Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance and Contracts Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support) Catherine Celenza, Personal Assistant

Apologies: Nil Leave of Absence: Nil Adjournments: Nil



3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Verbal Susanne Jeffries 181 Daglish Street, Wembley Question About four months ago the Council bulldozed the verge in front of my property. Can you please give me a date when it will be replanted as it is currently unsafe? Response The Director Development and Sustainability advised that he has spoken with the Manager Infrastructure Parks and he is making the necessary arrangements and will be speaking with the owner regarding a date for planting. Robert Hagney, 138 Alderbury Street, Floreat Question Can Council provide any guarantees of the ultimate size of the proposed men's shed at Alderbury Reserve? Response The Mayor advised that it will be determined by the community consultation process which closes on Friday 31 May 2013. A report will then be submitted to Council on the outcome of the community consultation and Council will make a decision on the proposal. Karen Hagney, 138 Alderbury Street, Floreat Question Will there be further consultation providing more detail on the proposal? Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that Council will decide whether further consultation is necessary when they consider the report. At this stage, that decision has not been made.

4. PETITIONS

Three petitions have been received objecting the Proposed Tree Planting Program signed by: • 22 residents of Gibney Vista, West Leederville; • 24 residents of Perina Way, City Beach • 31 residents of Forview Road, Mount Claremont



Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Grinceri That in accordance with Clause 3.5 of the Standing Orders, the petitions be received. Carried 9/0

5. DEPUTATIONS

Nil

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Walker That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 23 April 2013 be confirmed. Carried 9/0

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION

The Mayor announced that the Town's Housing Policy was released last week and thanked Members of the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee for their contribution.

9. COMMITTEE REPORTS Prior to consideration of the following reports, members of the public present at the meeting were reminded by the Mayor that they should not act immediately on anything they hear at this meeting, without first seeking clarification of Council’s position. They were advised to wait for written advice from the Council before taking any action on any matter that they may have before the Council. Recommendations contained in the Committee reports were adopted en bloc, with the exception of the following items which were nominated for individual debate. Development: Items DV13.55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 64 and 70 Community and Resources: Items CR13.45, 50, 54, 56, 57, 62 and 64 Declarations of Interest: Item DV13.62 - Cr Carr - Impartiality Interest


H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\MAY 2013\B DV.DOCX 4

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The report of the Development Committee meeting held on Tuesday 21 May 2013 was submitted as under:

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at 6.01 pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.01 pm 7.52 pm Cr Rod Bradley 6.12 pm 7.52 pm Cr Tracey King 6.01 pm 7.52 pm Cr Otto Pelczar 6.01 pm 7.52 pm Observers: Cr Colin Walker Officers: Ian Birch, Director, Development and Sustainability Stevan Rodic, Manager Development Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 7.52 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Item DV13.54 Cameron Bowden, neighbour Sam Klopper, applicant Item DV13.57 Ian Manners, applicant Item DV13.60 Ray Berry, neighbour



5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 16 May 2013 as contained in the May 2013 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Nil

7. REPORTS



DV13.52 LOT 1 (NO. 18C) CLUNE AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT AND SWIMMING POOL - REFERRED BACK

ORIGINAL REPORT SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft and swimming pool at No. 18C Clune Avenue, West Leederville. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the building height, setback of buildings generally and landscaping in the front setback area performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes). The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reasons:- • portions of wall located in the front setback area are minimal with the acute angle of the

front boundary resulting in the variations on the western side with all other portions of wall setback well behind the allowable front setback area;

• portions of wall encroaching in the front setback area are made up of architectural features such as the front feature wall and open style structures such as the planters to the patio and balcony/terrace;

• north-south orientation of the lot will allow for adequate direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms of the adjoining properties;

• flat roofed design of the dwelling will protect access to views of significance out to Lake Monger from adjoining properties situated behind;

• planters to the patio and balcony/terrace and landscaping strips and pockets in the front setback area present a substantially green appearance as viewed from the street; and

• completely open front setback area allows views through to the dwelling contributing to the streetscape.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0056DA-2012 Owner: Mr Selwyn Kurlansky & Mrs Yael Kurlansky Applicant: Yael K Designs Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 500 m² The application was originally submitted on 20 February 2013. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town's Administration, amended plans were submitted on 5 April 2013. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report.



DETAILS:

Development description • The applicant proposes a flat roofed two storey dwelling with an undercroft section

including a garage, store and cellar. The ground floor includes a living, kitchen and alfresco area and the upper floor includes 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.

• Garage 900mm below street level. • The subject site slopes upwards significantly from front (north) to rear (south) by

approximately 4 metres. • Angled front boundary to Clune Avenue. A 4.62 metre wide crossover. • An incursion into the front setback area occurs for a small portion of the Patio on the

ground floor and the Balcony/Terrace on the upper floor due to the irregular lot size. • A height variation occurs to the front feature wall and to the top of the concealed roof

where the land slopes down at the front of the property. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable development provisions relating to building height, setback of buildings generally and landscaping. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Performance criteria assessment Setbacks of buildings generally Proposed Acceptable development provision Street Setback 2.4 metres - Patio

(ground floor) 2.4 metres - Balcony/Terrace (upper floor)

4.0 metres 4.0 metres

Performance criteria: Buildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they: • contribute to the desired streetscape • provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and • allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors. The variations to the front setbacks for the patio on the ground floor and the balcony/terrace on the upper floor are not considered to have an undue impact on the streetscape or surrounding amenity as the variations only occur for a small portion of the proposed dwelling. Due to the acute angle of the front boundary, the front north-west corner of the building encroaches into the required 4 metre front setback area. The remaining portions of wall to the front façade are set back well behind the street setback line. The portions of the building that are encroaching into the front setback area are predominately made up of architectural features such as the feature wall and open style features such as the planters to the patio on the ground floor and to the balcony/terrace on the upper floor. The majority of the useable floor area to the patio and balcony/terrace fall outside of the required front setback area.



The design of the dwelling is considered to be in keeping with the desired streetscape with a number of architectural features such as balconies, windows, feature walls and planters providing vertical and horizontal articulation, breaking up any perception of building bulk as viewed from the street. The proposed design is considered to provide adequate privacy and open space to the subject and adjoining properties. It is to be noted that the adjoining landowner to the west was contacted regarding the front setback variation and has not expressed any objection. In view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the Clune Avenue boundary satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • portions of wall located in the front setback area are minimal and are due to the acute

angle of the front boundary resulting in the variations with all other portions of wall setback well behind the allowable front setback area.

• portions of wall encroaching in the front setback area are made up of architectural features such as the front feature wall, and open style structures such as the planters to the patio and balcony/terrace, reducing the perception of building bulk.

Building height Proposed Acceptable development provision Overall height 7.75 metres - to top of

skillion roof 8.1 metres - to top of feature wall.


Performance criteria: Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:- • adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance. A building height variation occurs to the top of the concealed roof and the feature wall at the front of the lot where the land slopes down significantly. The proposed dwelling complies in the middle and rear of the property where the natural ground level is higher. The proposed dwelling is consistent in terms of height, bulk and scale to the recently approved dwellings to the east and other dwellings in the immediate locality. The design of the dwelling has included a number of features such as contrasting building materials, balconies and feature walls into the front and side elevations providing visual articulation as viewed from the street, providing for an interesting façade and reducing any adverse impacts of the proposed height variation on the streetscape. The over height portion of wall on the front (north) elevation comprises a long glass panel sitting underneath the roof line. This is considered to provide sufficient levels of northern/direct sunlight to habitable rooms such as the master bedroom. Due to the north-south orientation of the lot, the height of the dwelling will not affect the northerly aspect of adjacent properties. The flat roofed design of the dwelling will protect access to views of significance out to Lake Monger from the properties situated behind.



In view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development meets the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • north-south orientation of the lot will allow for adequate direct sun to major openings to

habitable rooms of the adjoining properties; and • flat roofed design of the dwelling will protect access to views of significance out to Lake

Monger from adjoining properties situated behind. Landscaping in the primary street/front setback area Proposed Acceptable development provision Landscaping within front setback area

Approximately 30% within front setback area

60%

Performance criteria: • The street setback area developed and planted to present a substantially “green”

appearance, allowing views to the dwellings; and • Development which minimises impact on the natural topography of the locality and

conserves significant landscape elements, including indigenous trees. The proposed variation to the required soft/green landscaping within the front setback area is not considered to have an undue impact on the streetscape or surrounding amenity with the incorporation of planters to the full length of the front of the patio on the ground floor and Balcony/Terrace on the upper floor. In addition, there is a green landscaped pocket on the western side of the front setback area on the inside of the curved driveway and a further landscaping area on the east (left) side of the 4 metre front setback area and beyond with a series of small trees and shrubs. In an attempt to increase the areas of landscaping within the front setback area, the applicant has submitted amended plans with the inclusion of a landscaping strip between the stair to the entry and the driveway. These landscaping elements which have been incorporated into the front setback area are considered to present an adequately green appearance, contributing to the streetscape and surrounding amenity. At the request of the Town's Administration, the applicant has submitted amended plans with the deletion of the previously proposed solid wall within the front setback area on the west (right) side boundary. The front setback area is now completely open with the absence of street walls or fences. This is will allow views through to the dwelling as viewed from the street and contribute to the overall amenity of the streetscape. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed landscaping in the primary street/front setback area is acceptable and meets the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • planters to the patio and balcony/terrace and landscaping strips and pockets in the front

setback area present a substantially green appearance as viewed from the street. • completely open front setback area allows views through to the dwelling contributing to

the desired streetscape. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.



FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no financial implications related to this report.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Applicants justification. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercoft and swimming pool submitted by Yael K Designs at Lot 1 (No. 18C) Clune Avenue, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 8 April 2013, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east on the

ground and upper floor and to the west on the upper floor to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) the street tree located on the western side of the verge adjacent to the subject site is to

be retained.

Committee Meeting 16 April 2013 During discussion, concern was expressed with regard to the appearance of the dwelling to the street due to the lack of landscaping in the front setback area. The Administration was requested to discuss with the applicant the possibility of increasing the amount of landscaping, prior to the next meeting of Council. It was therefore agreed that the item be submitted to Council for determination. FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 16 April 2013) The applicant has reduced the width of the crossover from 4.62 metres to 3.4 metres, however, no further changes to the landscaping on the site have been proposed. Although the reduction of the crossover width will contribute towards the overall green appearance of the streetscape, particularly having regard to the site being part of a three lot subdivision, which will see an additional two crossovers, there has been no attempt to increase the on-site landscaping. In the circumstances, Council may wish to refer the matter back to Committee to allow the applicant to further address this matter.



Accordingly, the following motion is put forward:- That the item relating to a two storey dwelling with undercroft at Lot 1 (No. 18C) Clune Avenue, West Leederville be referred back to the next Development Committee meeting. Council Meeting 23 April 2013 It was noted, prior to consideration of this item, that Cr Carr disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to Lot 1 (No. 18C) Clune Avenue, West Leederville, I declare that I sold the property to the current owners and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly". COUNCIL DECISION: That the item relating to a two storey dwelling with undercroft at Lot 1 (No. 18C) Clune Avenue, West Leederville be referred back to the next Development Committee meeting. FURTHER REPORT (Post Council 23 April 2013) The applicant has submitted an amended landscaping plan that increases the amount of landscaping within the front setback up to approximately 40% however, there are additional planters behind the front setback line which help to offset the shortfall. The applicant has also requested that a street tree be planted in the verge. This, however, is a Town responsibility and would be undertaken upon completion of all building works. The proposed landscaping together with the driveway sloping down reduces the effect of hard surfaces and allows for planting to be viewed from the street at different levels. The proposal still does not meet the 60% requirement, however, it is considered that the landscaping provided does achieve the desired outcome for the street. Whilst there is opportunity for additional landscaping this would compromise pedestrian access to the dwelling. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercoft and swimming pool submitted by Yael K Designs at Lot 1 (No. 18C) Clune Avenue, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 8 April 2013 and landscaping plan dated 13 May 2013, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east on the


(iii) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed and reticulated

prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town.

Footnote The applicant is advised that the Town will plant a street tree(s) in the verge in accordance with the Town's Treescape Plan.



Committee Meeting 21 May 2013 During discussion, Members agreed that the 40% landscaping in the front setback proposed by the applicant was still considered insufficient and that it should be increased to 50%. Amendment Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Bradley That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) the area of landscaping in the front setback area be increased to 50%. Amendment carried 4/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercoft and swimming pool submitted by Yael K Designs at Lot 1 (No. 18C) Clune Avenue, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 8 April 2013 and landscaping plan dated 13 May 2013, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east on the


(ii) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed and

reticulated prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town.

(iii) the area of landscaping in the front setback area be increased to 50%. Footnote The applicant is advised that the Town will plant a street tree(s) in the verge in accordance with the Town's Treescape Plan. Carried 9/0



DV13.53 LOT 93 (NO. 19A AND 19B) WAYEELA PLACE, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT SWIMMING POOL - REFERRED BACK

ORIGINAL REPORT SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling with an undercroft swimming pool at No. 19A and 19B Wayeela Place, City Beach. The plans show a two storey dwelling as viewed from Wayeela Place, with an undercroft swimming pool and living areas to the rear of the lot. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the site works, building height and visual privacy performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for building height for the following reasons:- • the height of the development will impact upon access to views of significance for

properties east of the site. • the bulk of the development will have a adverse effect on the amenity of adjoining

properties. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

PURPOSE:

To consider an application for a two storey dwelling requiring assessment under the performance criteria of the R Codes in respect of site works, building height and visual privacy.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 16DA-2013 Owner: Elena Alfimova Applicant: Rachel Roberts Residential Design Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 924 m² The subject site currently consists of two survey strata that are to be amalgamated into one green title lot. The application was originally submitted in January 2013 with a maximum roof height of 11.75 metres and wall height of 8.2 metres. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town's Administration and adjoining neighbours, amended plans were submitted in February 2013 reducing the height of the dwelling. It is the later set of plans that is the subject of this report.



DETAILS:

Development description • The lot fronts the cul-de-sac of Wayeela Place to the north with Ocean Village Park

located to the east and south of the site. • The vacant lot is 924m² and slopes down approximately 3 metres from front to rear. • The development consists of an undercroft swimming pool with habitable living areas and

a two storey dwelling above including a three car garage facing Wayeela Place. • There are retaining walls along the eastern, southern and western boundaries including a

retaining wall of approximately 0.8 metres in height adjacent the western side of the lot. • A sitting room window on the ground floor is set back at 4.5 metres from the western

boundary in lieu of the required 6.0 metre setback, within the cone of vision. • The undercroft section of the dwelling is accessible from the rear of the dwelling where

the building is essentially three storeys. The wall height here is a maximum height of 7.85 metres and the roof peaks at 10.64 metres above natural ground level.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable development provisions relating to landscaping provision, buildings on the boundary and visual privacy. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of five surrounding properties of the subject site, being No. 17 Wayeela Place, No. 20 Wayeela Place, Units 1 and 2 No.41 Tarongo Way and No.43 Tarongo Way. Two submissions were received objecting to the building height and one submission was received objecting to the site works, building height and visual privacy variations. A summary of the submissions is attached to this agenda. Performance criteria assessment Site Works Proposed Acceptable development provision Fill within 1.0 metre of the right/western boundary


Performance criteria: Development that retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from the street or other public place, or from an adjoining property. The dwelling will retain the impression of a two storey dwelling as viewed from Wayeela Place. As a result it will not have a significant impact on the streetscape. The area that is to be retained with fill greater than 0.5 metres above natural ground level is towards the rear of the dwelling on the western side and so will not have an impact on the appearance of the natural level of the site when viewed from Wayeela Place. The area of fill that exceeds 0.5 metres within 1.0 metre of a common boundary is only for a small section of uninhabitable space adjoining the drying court where a planter box is proposed. As a result it will not have any significant impact on the adjoining property to the west in terms of privacy.



The relatively minor variation of 0.8 metres in lieu of 0.5 metres will have minimal impact on the appearance of the natural level of the site. It is considered that the proposed height of fill adjacent to the left/western boundary is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the following reason:- • the amount of fill proposed along the western boundary will have minimal impact on the

appearance of the natural level of the site. Building Height Proposed Acceptable development provision Maximum wall height 7.85 metres 6.5 metres Maximum roof height 10.64 metres 10 metres Performance criteria: Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:- • adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance. The section of the proposed dwelling that exceeds the building height requirements for wall height is located to the rear of the dwelling. This will impact properties to the north-east of the lot, who retain sightlines to the Ocean behind the existing lot and through the adjacent Ocean Village Park corridor. The section of the proposed dwelling that exceeds the roof height requirements for building heights is the apex of the roof. The ridge has a length of 1.7 metres and is located in the middle of the subject site, central to the dwelling. Views from the dwelling located to the north-east at 43 Tarongo Way will be significantly affected by the roof apex. The roof is likely to restrict this neighbours Ocean views to the south-west through Ocean Village Park. The impact of the proposed dwelling in terms of building bulk will impact all surrounding dwellings. The roof line variation is likely to affect the owners of 20 Wayeela Place to the north most significantly as it will create a significant building bulk to the dwelling as viewed from Wayeela Place. The 7.85 metre high wall creates a visual bulk as viewed from the neighbour to the west which has an outdoor living area located on the south-east of their lot. A park abuts the lot to the rear (south). In view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development is not acceptable and does not satisfy the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the bulk of the development will have an adverse effect on the amenity of adjoining

properties; and • the height of the development will impact upon access to views of significance to

properties east of the site.



Visual Privacy Proposed Acceptable development provision Sitting room window setback, within the cone of vision, to the left/western boundary

4.5 metre setback 6.0 metre setback

Performance criteria: Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings is minimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor habitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness. Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid overlooking is preferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass. Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal impact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity. Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, the distance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows. The proposed sitting room does not overlook any major outdoor living areas of the adjoining property as these are located to the rear of that dwelling, obscured from view from the sitting room. There is an existing tree along the common boundary on the neighbouring lot that will partially screen the window above the existing screen wall. The neighbouring dwelling has a similar setback to the common boundary. It is considered that the proposed setback of the sitting room window from the right/western boundary satisfies the performance criteria for the following reason:- • the proposed sitting room will not overlook outdoor living areas of the adjoining property POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:









This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for a two storey dwelling with an undercroft swimming pool submitted by Rachel Roberts Residential Design at Lot 93 (No.19A & 19B) Wayeela Place, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 19 February 2013, for the following reasons:- (i) the height of the building does not meet the acceptable developments provisions of the

Towns Building Height Policy or the performance criteria of the R Codes relating to building height;

(ii) the bulk of the development will have an adverse effect on the amenity of adjoining

properties; (iii) the height of the development will impact upon access to views of significance for

properties east of the site. Committee Meeting 16 April 2013 Members were advised that the applicant has submitted amended plans today and the Administration was requested to provide an assessment of the plans prior to the next Council meeting. It was therefore agreed that the item be submitted to Council for determination. FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 16 April 2013) The applicant has submitted amended plans modifying the roof design and reducing the overall pitched roof height. It is recommended the application be deferred to the next Development Committee so the amended plans can be advertised to the neighbours who made submissions. The following recommendation is therefore put forward:- That the item relating to a Two Storey Dwelling at Lot 93 (19A/19B) Wayeela Place, City Beach be referred back to the next Development Committee for further consideration. COUNCIL DECISION: That the item relating to a Two Storey Dwelling at Lot 93 (19A/19B) Wayeela Place, City Beach be referred back to the next Development Committee for further consideration.



FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 23 April 2013) Following the April Council meeting, the applicant participated in a number of meetings with the Town's Officers and the adjoining neighbour to the east of the site at 43 Taronga Way. The applicant revised the proposal reducing the roof height to a maximum of 9.65 metres above finished floor level. Following further consultation with the adjoining neighbour, the applicant submitted revised drawings on the 15 May 2013 which lowered the whole dwelling by 350mm. This results in a further reduction to both the maximum roof height to 9.3 metres above natural ground level, and the maximum wall height to 7.5 metres above natural ground level at the lowest point on the site. The site does have a significant slope and the over height sections of wall are towards the rear of the site along the parkland abutting and the neighbour to the west. The mass of the roof has been reduced, however, due to the roof layout one of the ridges is 0.3 metres over the acceptable development requirement. The amended design, however, is considered to have less impact on the views of the adjoining properties. The adjoining neighbour at 43 Taronga Way supports the amended plans. The adjoining owner to the west has also viewed the amended plans and to address concerns regarding privacy the sitting room window on the western elevation of the ground floor is to be obscured glazed to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above floor level. The neighbour still raises concern of structural damage to her property during the excavation and construction of the dwelling. A footnote is recommended advising the applicant/owner of their obligations under the Building Act 2011 in this regard. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with an undercroft swimming pool submitted by Rachel Roberts Residential Design at Lot 93 (No.19A & 19B) Wayeela Place, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 15 May 2013, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the west to be

rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; (ii) the surface finish of boundary walls facing the parkland to the south and east to be

protected with an anti-graffiti coating; (iii) the infill panels of the fencing and gate in the front setback area to have a surface

with an open to solid ratio of no less than 1:1; and (iv) the window in the ground floor sitting room to be obscure glazed to a minimum

height of 1.6 metres above floor level. Footnote The owner/ applicant be reminded of their obligation under the Building Act 2011 to not interfere with the adjoining properties. Appropriate measures are to be undertaken during the construction of the dwelling. Liaison with the adjoining property owners may be required. Carried 9/0



DV13.54 LOT 334 (NO. 50) ST LEONARDS AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT AND SWIMMING POOL - REFERRED BACK

ORIGINAL REPORT

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft and swimming pool at No. 50 St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the building height, buildings on the boundary and overshadowing performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the upper floor is articulated and reduces building bulk onto the adjoining property to the

south; • direct northern sun to the adjoining properties outdoor living area has been protected; • the boundary wall makes effective use of space on the site located adjacent to a high

brick wall on the adjoining property to the south; • the portion of the boundary wall exposed where the dividing fence recesses will not result

in the loss of direct sun to major openings or habitable rooms as it will fall adjacent to a blank wall; and

• the feature wall is 0.2 metres thick and will be shielded from the street as viewed from the right (south) side by the adjoining two storey dwelling which sits over 2 metres forward of it in the front setback area.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 059DA-2012 Owner: Ilia & Erina Gastevski Applicant: Klopper & Davis Architects Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 647 m² This application was originally submitted on 22 February 2013. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s Administration and the owners of the neighbouring property, amended plans were submitted on 5 April 2013. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report.



DETAILS:

Development description • The applicant proposes a two storey dwelling with undercroft section including

carparking, den and storage. Ground floor which includes living areas, kitchen and pool in the rear yard and upper floor which contains 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.

• The site slopes upwards from the front (west) of the property to the rear (east) by approximately 3.0 metres.

• The applicant proposes a gabled roof of 30 degrees with the gables facing the left (north) and right (south) side elevations.

• The front feature wall on the right (south) side of the front façade results in wall height variation as it is 7.45 metres to the top of this flat roofed component.

• The applicant proposes a boundary wall on the right (south) side boundary on the ground floor to the Kitchen and Laundry of 9.0 metres in length and 3.0 metres in height resulting in a side setback variation.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable development provisions relating to buildings setback from the boundary, buildings on the boundary and building height. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the right (south) and left (north) side boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 48A and 52 Kimberley Street. One submission was received from the owners of 48A Kimberley Street objecting to building height, buildings on the boundary and buildings setback from the boundary. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Performance criteria assessment Buildings setback from the boundary Proposed Acceptable development

provision Store/Bath Void

1.0 metre from the right (south) side boundary 1.1 - 3.0 metres from the right (south) side boundary


Performance criteria: Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:- • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; • ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; • assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; • assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and • assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.



In response to the comments received by the adjoining property to the south, the applicant has made several amendments to reduce potential adverse impact on this neighbouring property. The setback to the western portion of the upper wall has been increased from 1.0 metre to a ranging setback 1.1 - 1.950 metres in an attempt to reduce the impact on northern light to neighbours upper floor windows. The height of the middle section of the upper floor wall on the southern elevation to the store and bathroom has been reduced in height by 0.2 metre and the eastern section of the subject wall has been reduced to achieve a ranging setback of 2.5 - 3.0 metres. These amendments break up the wall on this upper floor providing increased articulation as viewed from the south elevation, providing for an interesting façade and reducing any perception of building bulk. The feature wall which extends to rear (east) of the property has been reduced in length by 1.25 metres so that it is now in line with the neighbour's wall to the south. This will protect the access of northern light to the adjoining properties outdoor living area. The adjoining residence at No. 48B St. Leonards has its active living spaces facing east towards the outdoor living area at the rear. Positioning the dwelling forward of the neighbours outdoor living area will preserve the amenity of this southern property, maintaining its access to direct sunlight. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the south boundary is acceptable and meets the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the upper floor is articulated and reduces building bulk onto the adjoining property to the

south • direct northern sun to the adjoining properties outdoor living area has been protected. Buildings on boundary Proposed Acceptable development provision Kitchen/Laundry Nil setback from the right

(south) side boundary 1.0 metre

Performance criteria: Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to:- • make effective use of space; or • enhance privacy; or • otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; • not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and • ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of

adjoining properties is not restricted. The proposed southern boundary wall to the Kitchen/Laundry is 9.0 metres in length and 3.0 metres in height. The boundary wall will abut a high brick dividing wall of the same size existing on the northern side of the common boundary. A portion of the boundary wall of 4.860 metres in length and 0.64 metre in height will be exposed where the existing dividing wall recesses and steps down. However, there will be no undue impact on the availability of direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms or outdoor living areas as this section of wall will be adjacent to a narrow passageway and blank wall with no windows present. The proposed location of the subject wall is therefore considered to make effective use of space on the site in relation to the adjoining residence to the south.



Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed Kitchen/Laundry wall on the south boundary is acceptable and meets the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the boundary wall makes effective use of space on the site located adjacent to a high

brick wall on the adjoining property to the south. • the portion of the boundary wall exposed where the dividing fence recesses will not result

in the loss of direct sun to major openings or habitable rooms as it will be positioned adjacent to a blank wall.

Building height Proposed Acceptable development provision Wall height 7.37 metres to top of the

front feature wall 7.0 metres

Performance criteria: Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:- • adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance. The front feature wall on the right (south) side of the front façade results in a wall height variation of 0.37 metres as the land slopes down significantly at this point at the front of the property. The proposed front feature wall is not considered to have an adverse impact on the streetscape as the front of the feature wall is set back 5.8 metres from the front lot boundary. The subject wall is only 0.2 metre in thickness and is considered an architectural feature providing articulation and an interesting façade as viewed from the street and reducing any perception of building bulk. In an attempt to reduce any negative impact of the feature wall which runs through the length of the house on the adjoining property to the south, the applicant has submitted amended plans reducing the length from the front by 0.6 metre. This has effectively reduced the portion of wall which exceeds 7.0 metres at the front of the lot where the land slopes down to 1.5 metres in length and has reduced the overall height from 7.45 metres to 7.37 metres. This reduction in wall length at the front has also increased the street setback to a sufficient 5.8 metres. Importantly, the adjoining two storey dwelling immediately to the south at No.48B St Leonards Avenue which is setback is set back 3 metres from the street will shield the front feature wall from the street as seen from the south elevation, reducing any potential negative impact upon the streetscape. The two storey component of wall of the adjoining property to the south which would conceal the feature wall of the subject property is also flat roofed in nature and projecting forward of the pitched roof component of the dwelling. The height of the feature wall is less than the northern wall of the adjoining property immediately to the south and is more discrete in bulk and scale than the adjoining property which is screening it from the streetscape as viewed from the south elevation. In terms of the design of the proposed dwelling which has its gables facing away from the street, it is consistent with other roof forms of the same nature in the immediate locality such as 48B St Leonards immediately to the south and 51A and 51B St Leonards directly across the street to the west. It is however, noted that the roof form is not traditional of West Leederville.



Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development is acceptable and meets with the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the feature wall is 0.2 metres thick and will be shielded from the street as viewed from the

right (south) side by the adjoining two storey dwelling which sits over 2 metres forward of it in the front setback area.

Solar access for adjoining sites Proposed Acceptable development provision Solar access for adjoining sites

57% (approximately) of adjoining lot overshadowed

35% or less of adjoining lot overshadowed

Performance criteria: Development deigned to protect solar access for neighbouring properties taking into account the potential to overshadow: • outdoor living areas; • major openings to habitable rooms; • solar collectors; or • balconies or verandahs. As the lot is east/west facing the dwelling directly overshadows the property to the south. This adjoining property has been subdivided and is only 325 square metres therefore making the acceptable development requirement for overshadowing very difficult to achieve. Through the design of the house not projecting past the rear of the adjoining property, access to sun into the adjoining properties outdoor living area has not been compromised. The overshadowing largely falls onto the adjoining dwelling north side wall and roof. In view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed overshadowing meets with the performance criteria for the following reason:- • access to direct sun into the adjoining properties outdoor living area is not impacted

upon.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:










ATTACHMENTS:

1. Applicant's justification and neighbour comment. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft submitted by Klopper and Davies Architects at Lot 334 (No. 50) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 5 April 2013, subject to the following condition:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south to be

rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town. Committee Meeting 16 April 2013 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the adopted ground level form which the building height had been calculated. The Administration was requested to discuss with the Architect the possibility of reducing the overall height by 500 to 600 mm to reduce the impact on the streetscape and removal of the wing wall or reduction in the wing wall to allow sufficient light to the adjacent property window to the south. It was therefore agreed that the item be submitted to Council for determination. FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 16 April 2013) The applicant has submitted revised plans dated 19 April 2013 that propose the following modifications:- • Reducing the floor level by 200mm; • Reducing the ceiling height by 257mm; and • Reducing the roof peak by 43mm; • Reduced the height of the southern boundary wall by 200mm as a result of the reduced

floor level; and • The front feature wall reduced in length to not protrude forward of the building line; Overall, the height of the building has been reduced by 500mm and the reduction of the wing wall will allow light to the adjoining property window to the south.



The following recommendation is therefore put forward:- That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft submitted by Klopper and Davies Architects at Lot 334 (No. 50) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 5 April 2013 and plans dated 19 April 2013 subject to the following condition:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south to be

rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town. Council Meeting 23 April 2013 During discussion, Members considered that aspects of the application required further investigation and that the item should be referred back to the Development Committee for further consideration.

COUNCIL DECISION:

That the item relating to Lot 334 (No.50) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville be referred back to the Development Committee for further consideration. FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 23 April 2013) The applicant has met with the Administration and discussed the proposal and submitted further amended plans dated 14 May 2013. The amendments are as follows:- • Reduction in height of the proposed boundary wall to the Kitchen/Laundry to 2.6 metres

so as no portion of the wall protrudes above the lowest section of the adjoining high brick dividing wall on the northern side of the common boundary.

• The upper and ground floor (excluding the boundary wall of the kitchen and laundry) being moved over 200mm from the southern boundary.

The Administration has also met with the adjoining owners to the south to discuss the proposal. The neighbours still have concerns regarding the development in terms of loss of direct sun to their property, impact of building bulk and the boundary wall which as viewed from the street will look like the proposed building is adjoined to their property. The neighbours have suggested that the whole development be moved a minimum of 500mm from their common boundary. The reduction in height from 3.0 metres to 2.6 metres for the full 9 metres in length of the proposed boundary wall, combined with the overall reduction in the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling of 500mm means the boundary wall will not protrude above the neighbours' boundary fence and is considered to satisfy performance criteria. The increase in setback to the upper floor, together with the reduction in height, means that other than the front portion of the curved wall the upper floor meets the acceptable development setback requirements. Overall, it is set back further due to the stepping of the walls. The latest amendments further address neighbour concerns noting that the increased side setback of 200mm is less than the 500mm suggested by the neighbour and there is still a boundary wall. From a planning point of view, the submitted plans can be supported.



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft submitted by Klopper and Davies Architects at Lot 334 (No. 50) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 14 May 2013, subject to the following condition:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south to

be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town. Carried 4/0



DV13.55 LOT 341 (NO. 240) OCEANIC DRIVE, CORNER TUMUT ROAD, CITY BEACH - AMENDED PLANS FOR TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT - GLASS BALUSTRADE AROUND ROOF SERVICE DECK

SUMMARY:

The applicant unsuccessfully appealed Council's refusal of an application for a lift (with associated lobby) to access the roof deck area. An application has now been received for glass balustrading around the deck. The lift and lobby area have been removed. The deck area is described as a service deck, however, there is no indication on the plans as to what services will be located there. The large area (42m2) is essentially vacant. A planter box is shown along its northern edge. The proposed balustrading falls within the acceptable development requirements in terms of building height and in this regard, can be supported. Also, as purely a roof space, housing building service equipment, the use does not require planning assessment. Whilst the deck area remains vacant the balustrading would enable its use as a habitable terrace (it is unusual for balustrading of this nature to be installed on a roof). However, access is now via the adjoining roof space, which makes this option at best, unattractive. It is considered, however, that the area could reasonably be reduced by bringing the balustrading back from the façade. This will still provide an area of approximately 30m2 for any services. The application is, therefore, recommended for approval. In approving the application, given the somewhat contentious issues that have arisen over the use of the area, a specific condition is added. This is consistent with advice included in the SAT decision.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0424DA-2009.03 Owner: Mr C and Mrs E Cardaci Applicant: Ms N Day, Day Designs and Associates Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 837 m² At the Council meeting held on 28 August 2012, Council refused an application for an upper roof deck (with lift access and a lobby) at the subject site for the following reasons:- a) the proposal does not satisfy the acceptable development provisions of Council’s Building

Height Policy or the Building Height performance criteria of Part 6.7.1 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

b) the upper roof deck will have views to the active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of the adjoining property to the north; and

c) approval of the additional building height would establish an undesirable precedent for the area.



In the transcript of the Reasons for Decision delivered by the Tribunal on 18 March 2013, the Tribunal found that the proposal did not satisfy the objectives or performance criteria applicable to the maximum wall height in both the R Codes and the Town's Building Height Policy. The Tribunal found no cogent reason to depart from the Town's Building Height Policy and in particular was not satisfied that safety benefits in this case outweighed the considerations of the impact of building bulk on the streetscape and general locality. The Tribunal also found that the issue of adverse planning precedent was a relevant planning consideration and also warranted refusal of the application.

DETAILS:

Development description • The amended plans show a 1.1 metre high glass balustrade around the flat roof portion

(north-western corner) of the dwelling. • There is no lift access or lobby to the roof deck. The elevations show the main roof cut

back and an existing masonry wall with a door to the roof deck. There was a roof proposed over the lift access and lobby which has since been removed from the plan.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided the following information: • The glazing proposed is clear glass – which we believe will appear to be the least

conspicuous.

• The spot level at the West Side of the deck with proposed balustrading is 41.22 the floor level of previous residence, which is higher than the levels to the North of the deck. Which results in the balustrade being less than the 7.5m allowable height. Please refer to the survey attached as provided to the Town. Also attached is the same drawing with the red dashed line representing the extent of the western edge of the deck. Distance from boundary is approx. 9804mm.

Neighbour submission The Town did not notify the owners of the adjoining properties as the application falls within the building height acceptable development requirements and the space is not proposed to be habitable. Comment The previous (refused) plans showed lift access, a lift enclosure, and a lobby, with a pitched roof above, to the upper roof deck. This structure did not comply with the building height acceptable development requirements. The current plans show that the lift enclosure and lobby has been removed and so the height is measured to the top of the balustrade. This height is below the acceptable development requirements and therefore does not require an assessment against the performance criteria. Given the history of the site and in particular the roof deck, a Council decision is requested in relation to the balustrade.



The applicant has identified that the deck is an 'upper service deck'. In reviewing the application, the Tribunal found that the flat roof deck / service platform was reasonably capable of habitable use but this was not a determinative of the matter. Of more concern was whether the proposed lift enclosure and lobby satisfied the building height performance criteria. With the plans now showing the upper deck complying with the building height acceptable development requirements and the applicant confirming that the deck is for services only, it is considered that imposing a condition that the deck is a non-habitable space is appropriate. It is noted that the service deck is large (42m2) and it is apparent that most services seem to have already been installed elsewhere. The size of the service deck increases its likelihood of being used as a habitable space. It is recommended that the balustrade be relocated to approximately halfway across the service deck and the planter is removed. The removal of the planter and the relocation of the balustrade will result in the balustrade being less visible from the street and the deck being less noticeable as an accessible roof space. In the Tribunal's Reasons for Decision, the Tribunal agreed that adverse planning precedent is a relevant consideration in refusing the application. The Town has previously received enquiries to construct roof decks in City Beach and a clearly visible roof deck in such a prominent location may result in adverse planning precedent. The applicant has also confirmed that the balustrade will be clear glass. This will reduce the impact of the structure on the streetscape and a condition should also be included in this regard. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the balustrade is acceptable subject to its relocation further from the street and is clear glass, and the deck being non-habitable. Conditions of approval have been included in this regard.









ATTACHMENTS:

Nil.



ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the amended plans for glass balustrading surrounding the flat roof space designated as a service deck, submitted by Ms N Day, at Lot 341 (No. 240) Oceanic Drive, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 16 April 2013, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the area enclosed by the balustrading being reduced by relocating the front section of

balustrading 4.2 metres back, as marked in red on the plans; (ii) the roof deck be approved as a service area for locating equipment providing services to

the dwelling and is to remain non-habitable.

Committee Meeting 21 May 2013 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the proposed roof deck and the possibility that it could be used as a habitable space. Also, the upper roof deck will have views to the active habitable spaces and outdoor living area of the adjoining property to the north. The Administration was then voted upon and lost 1/3 For: Cr Bradley Against: Crs King, MacRae and Pelczar COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the amended plans for glass balustrading surrounding the flat roof space designated as a service deck, submitted by Ms N Day, at Lot 341 (No. 240) Oceanic Drive, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 16 April 2013, for the following reason:- (i) the balustrading would encourage its use as an active habitable space and this

could result in an intrusion on the privacy of the adjoining property to the north.

Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King That clause (i) of the motion be amended to read as follows: (i) the balustrading would encourage the use of the service deck as an active

habitable space resulting in an intrusion on the privacy of the adjoining property to the north and create and undesirable planning precedent.

Amendment carried 8/1 For: Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar and

Walker Against: Cr Bradley



COUNCIL DECISION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the amended plans for glass balustrading surrounding the flat roof space designated as a service deck, submitted by Ms N Day, at Lot 341 (No. 240) Oceanic Drive, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 16 April 2013, for the following reason:- (i) the balustrading would encourage the use of the service deck as an active

habitable space resulting in an intrusion on the privacy of the adjoining property to the north and create and undesirable planning precedent.

Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar and

Walker Against: Cr Bradley



DV13.56 LOT 1158 (NO. 8) KATRINE STREET, FLOREAT - RETROSPECTIVE ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS INCLUDING NEW GATEHOUSE AND PARTIALLY SOLID FRONT FENCE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received a retrospective application for additions and alterations at No. 8 Katrine Street, Floreat. The plans show interior modifications as well as additions including a new bathroom and pool pump house as well as amendments to the gatehouse and primary street fencing. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) relating to street walls and fences. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reason:- • the solid sections of the front fence do not contribute to an open streetscape.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 41DA-2013 Owner: Narelle Park Applicant: Blueprint Homes Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 809 m² The original single storey dwelling application was approved by the Town in May 2010, with amended plans approved on 22 December 2010. These plans detailed a visually permeable front fence design. This retrospective application was originally submitted 8 February 2013 with plans showing interior modifications, bathroom and pool pump house additions and a gatehouse amendment. A site visit conducted on 28 March 2013 revealed significant solid portions of front fence not detailed on the submitted plans. Updated plans were submitted 1 May 2013 that reflected the existing solid primary street fencing. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report. DETAILS:

Development description • The topography of the subject site, as viewed from the street, slopes down from right

(east) to left (west) by approximately 1.2 metres. • The solid fencing that exists on site comprises of different materials, is 6.5 metres in

length and is staggered in height ranging between 1 and 1.84 metres high. The remainder of fencing in the front setback area is visually permeable.



• Aside from the solid front fencing, the retrospective additions and alterations are considered minor in nature. The pool pump house, setback nil to the side/eastern and rear/northern boundaries, was advertised to adjoining neighbours with no objections received. The gatehouse is an open structure slightly larger than what was originally approved in 2010, and the storage loft now contains a small bathroom.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable development provisions relating to the primary street fencing. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Performance criteria assessment

Street walls and fences Proposed Acceptable development provision Solid walls in the primary street setback area

Up to 1.8 metres high No higher than 0.75 metres

Performance criteria: Front walls and fences to promote surveillance and enhance streetscapes, taking account of: • the need to provide protection from noise and headlight glare where roads are designated

as primary or district distributors or integrator arterials; or • the need to provide screening to the front setback; or • the need to provide privacy to north facing outdoor living areas. Council has a strong stance in respect to primary street fencing and the solid walls are considered to set an undesirable precedent for future development in the 'Garden Suburb' of Floreat. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the fencing in the primary street setback area along the Katrine Street boundary does not satisfy the performance criteria for the following reason:- • the solid sections of the front fence do not contribute to an open streetscape.










This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. ATTACHMENTS:

Nil. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,

Council APPROVES the application for retrospective interior additions and alterations, gatehouse and rear pool pump house submitted by Blueprint Homes at Lot 1158 (No. 8) Katrine Street, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 1 May 2013.

(ii) in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the retrospective application for a partially solid front fence submitted by Blueprint Homes at Lot 1158 (No. 8) Katrine Street, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 1 May 2013, for the following reasons:- (a) the proposed fencing does not satisfy the acceptable development

requirements of part 6.2.5 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape, or the performance criteria of part 6.2.5 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia relating to street walls and fencing;

(b) the solid sections of the front fence do not contribute to an open streetscape.

(iii) the owner be advised that the fence to be modified to comply with part 6.2.5 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape or to match the design approved by the Town on 22 December 2010 within 60 days of Council's decision. Should a new fence be proposed, a new planning approval will be required.

Carried 9/0



DV13.57 LOT 1 (NO. 184A) JERSEY STREET, WEMBLEY - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR GARAGE DOOR

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for retrospective approval for a garage door at No. 184A Jersey Street, Wembley. The garage door was installed to the existing carport on the subject site in April 2011 to alleviate security and privacy concerns of the owners. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the primary street setback performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes). The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reason:- • the garage door detracts from the desired streetscape and approval would set an

undesirable precedent.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 132DA-2013 Owner: Ian & Catherine Manners Applicant: Ian Manners Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 475 m² The owner installed the door in April 2011 to alleviate security and privacy concerns, and was unaware of the requirement to seek planning approval for garage doors. DETAILS:

Development description • The existing carport is set back 2.1 metres from the primary street and is attached to the

single storey dwelling. • The chosen garage door contains a single row of small windows along the top and is dark

blue in colour to match the existing dwelling. The door is 6 metres wide and occupies 40 percent of the frontage as viewed from the street.

• There is an existing front fence with visually permeable infill and small shrubs planted along the street frontage adjacent to the garage door.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variation to the acceptable development provisions relating to the garage door primary street setback. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.



Performance criteria assessment Setbacks of buildings generally Proposed Acceptable development provision Garage primary street setback

2.1 metres 6 metres

Performance criteria: Buildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they:- • contribute to the desired streetscape • provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and • allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors. Because of their open nature, carports may be located closer to the street. The R Codes define a carport as being an unenclosed roofed structure except to the extent that it abuts a dwelling on one side, and being without a door unless that door is visually permeable. Given this definition, the solid garage door must be assessed under 'garage' setback provisions of the Town's Streetscape Policy. For this site, the primary street setback requirement for garages is 6 metres. The Town has a strong stance in respect to street setbacks in residential zones, particularly for garage doors. Council allows for reduced setbacks for carports on the provision that they meet the relevant definition of the R Codes, which is not the case in this instance. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the setback of the development from the primary street boundary is not acceptable and does not satisfy the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the garage door detracts from the desired streetscape and approval would set an

undesirable precedent.











ATTACHMENTS:

Nil.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That:- (i) in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,

Council REF