Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 July 2016
3.7
Ward:
PROPOSED MULTIPLE DWELLINGS (16) - LOT 110 (NO.11) DUDLEY
STREET, MIDLAND (DA889-15)
(Midland/Guildford Ward)
(Statutory Planning)
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Authorised Officer: (Executive Manager Planning and Development)
KEY ISSUES
•
Planning approval is sought for a 16 unit Multiple Dwelling development on Lot
110 (No.11) Dudley Street, Midland.
•
The subject lot is zoned 'Residential' with a density code of R60 under the
City’s Local Planning Scheme No.17 (LPS17). Multiple Dwelling is a
discretionary ('D') use in the 'Residential' zone, meaning that the use is not
permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting
planning approval.
•
The proposed development does not meet the 'deemed-to-comply' requirement
of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) relating to
building size because the Multiple Dwelling will have a plot ratio of
approximately 1:0.88 in lieu of the maximum ratio of 1 : 0.7. This variation
translates to an additional 240m2 of plot ratio area for the development than
what is deemed acceptable for the R60 density code.
•
City staff consider that the proposed development of the Multiple Dwelling with
a plot ratio area in excess of the maximum plot ratio requirements applicable
to the R60 density code cannot be seen to fulfil the relevant design principles
as set out in the R-Codes for development to be at a bulk and scale indicative
of the density code as designated by the local planning framework (LPS17) and
consistent with the existing and future desired built form of the locality.
•
The proposed development does not meet other 'deemed-to-comply'
requirements of the R-Codes relating to building height and lot boundary
setbacks. These aspects of the proposal and other minor 'deemed-to-comply'
variations relating to outdoor living area, landscaping and the design of car
parking spaces require consideration against the relevant design principles of
the R-Codes.
•
The application was advertised to the two adjoining (side) landowners for a
period of 14 days to seek comment on proposed variations to building and
visual privacy setback distances. No objection to the proposed building
setbacks and extent of overlooking was received from either landowner. The
development design has nevertheless been amended by the applicant to satisfy
the 'deemed-to-comply' requirements of the R-Codes relating to the provision
of visual privacy.
Page 1
Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 July 2016
•
The application was referred to the Department of Water (DoW) because a
portion of the development site is affected by major flooding from Blackadder
Creek. The DoW advised that the development is acceptable with respect to
major flooding because habitable areas will have a raised floor level adequate
for flood protection. Should the development be approved, it is recommended
that future landowners are advised via a notification on title of the potential for
flood damage to non-habitable areas and also of their landowner
responsibilities to continually inspect and maintain the land to ensure ongoing
protection against the impacts of land erosion due to flooding from Blackadder
Creek.
•
It is considered that the proposed Multiple Dwelling development is inconsistent
with objective (b) of the 'Residential' zone to provide residential development
that is of a form and density permissible in the locality, and that this has the
potential to prejudice the sense of place and community identity intended for
the locality in the local planning framework.
It is recommended that the Council resolve to refuse to grant approval for the
proposed Multiple Dwelling on Lot 110 (No.11) Dudley Street, Midland.
AUTHORITY/DISCRETION
Council has discretion in accordance with Clause 10.3 of Local Planning Scheme No.17
(LPS 17) and Clause 68(2) of Schedule 2 of Part 9 of the Planning and Development Act
(Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to approve (with or without conditions) or
refuse to approve the application. If the applicant is aggrieved with the decision of the
Council, a right of appeal may exist in accordance with Part 3 of the State Administrative
Tribunal Act 2004 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.
BACKGROUND
Applicant:
Owner:
Zoning:
LPS17 MRS Strategy/Policy:
Development Scheme:
Existing Land Use:
Lot Area:
Use Class:
Archiplan Architects & Planners
G8 Holdings Pty Ltd
Residential (R60)
Urban
State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes of
Western Australia (R-Codes)
Local Planning Scheme No.17
Single House
1,348m2
Multiple Dwelling “D”
Page 2
Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 July 2016
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL
The application proposes the development of 16 Multiple Dwellings on Lot 110 (No.11)
Dudley Street, Midland. The Multiple Dwelling development will be separated into a two
buildings, which combined will comprise of 5 single-bedroom dwellings and 11 twobedroom dwellings, all of which will be between 55m2 to 100m2 in plot ratio area.
The front most building will be two storeys high as viewed from Dudley Street and up to
three storeys at the back where two proposed units and associated utilities and facilities
areas will be located below the natural ground level. The rear most building will be up to
four storeys high with the lowest level also located below natural ground level and
containing most of the utilities and facilities area for the development.
A total of 20 on-site vehicle parking bays, inclusive of 16 undercover resident parking
bays and 4 visitor parking bays, will be provided for the development as well as bicycle
racks for residents and visitors.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE
The subject development site is a rectangular lot of 1,348m2 area located on Dudley
Street approximately 100 metres north of the intersection of Morrison Road in Midland.
The lot is zoned 'Residential' with a density code of R60 under the City’s LPS17.
The topography of the lot slopes downwards by a vertical distance of approximately 6
metres from the level at the front adjoining Dudley Street to the rear boundary of the
lot, which abuts the Blackadder Creek (Midland main drain) contained within a Local
Reserve for Recreation under LPS17.
There is little vegetation cover on the lot except for a few small trees scattered at the
rear and along the northern side boundary of the lot. The lot contains an existing single
dwelling at the front of the lot that will be demolished to make way for the proposed
development should it be approved. Vehicular access to the site is provided via an
existing crossover to Dudley Street.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The application was advertised to the two adjoining (side) landowners to the north and
south of the subject lot for a period of 14 days in accordance with Part 4 of the
Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), to seek comment on proposed variations to building
and visual privacy setback distances. No objection to the proposed building setbacks and
extent of overlooking was received from either landowner. The development design has
nevertheless been amended by the applicant to satisfy the 'deemed-to-comply'
requirements of the R-Codes relating to the provision of visual privacy.
Page 3
Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 July 2016
CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND/OR CONSULTANTS
Department of Water
A portion of the development site is affected by major flooding from the Swan River /
Blackadder Creek. The Department of Water (DoW) have advised that the proposed
development is acceptable with respect to major flooding as it will have a minimum
habitable floor level of 7.30m AHD, which will ensure adequate flood protection. The
DoW also advise that the proposed lower level non-habitable storage area with a floor
level of 5.00m AHD will be affected by 1 in 25 AEP flooding and any electrical
installations in this area should be located at least above 6.58m AHD and be suitably
insulated. It is recommended that future landowners are notified of potential flood
damage to by way of a notification on title should the development be approved.
Department of Aboriginal Affairs
A portion of the development site is affected by an Aboriginal Heritage Site. The
Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) have no objection to the proposal, however
recommend that the landowner and developer conduct an Aboriginal Heritage Due
Diligence Risk Assessment, in addition to the Aboriginal Heritage Survey submitted as
part of the application, prior to implementing the proposal. City staff note that this
requirement may be addressed through an advice note should the development be
approved.
DETAILS
Zoning and Permissibility of Use Class
The subject lot is zoned 'Residential' with a density code of R60 under the City’s LPS17.
Multiple Dwelling is a discretionary ('D') use in the 'Residential' zone, meaning that the
use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting
planning approval.
The objectives of the 'Residential' zone are to:
(a)
provide for a range of forms and densities of residential development to meet the
needs of the wide variety of households which make up the community;
(b)
promote a residential environment in each locality consistent with the form and
density of residential development permissible in the locality, so as to enhance a
sense of place and community identity;
(c)
preserve and enhance those characteristics which contribute towards residential
amenity, and to avoid those forms of development which have the potential to
prejudice the development of a safe and attractive residential environment;
(d)
provide for a limited range of ancillary development compatible with the form and
density of residential development, and complementary to the needs of local
communities, but which will not compromise residential amenity;
(e)
avoid development of land for any purpose or in any manner that would detract
from the viability or integrity of development in either the Strategic Regional Centre
or the Commercial zones.
Page 4
Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 July 2016
The proposed Multiple Dwelling development is a residential development consistent with
objective (a) of the zone. As detailed in the following assessment of the proposal against
the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) and the local planning
framework, it is considered that the proposed Multiple Dwelling is inconsistent with
objective (b) of the zone to provide residential development that is of a form and density
permissible in the locality, and that this has the potential to prejudice the sense of place
and community identity intended for the locality in the local planning framework.
Notwithstanding the exceedance of maximum plot ratio area, the proposed Multiple
Dwelling development is considered to further objective (c) of the zone to preserve and
enhance those characteristics that contribute toward residential amenity and the
development of a safe and attractive residential environment.
The proposed development is not an ancillary residential development and does not
entail any form of commercial development, and so objectives (d) and (e) of the zone do
not come into consideration.
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes)
The application proposes a number of variations to the deemed-to-comply requirements
of the R-Codes as applicable to the R60 density code, most notably relating to building
size, building height and lot boundary setbacks. The proposed variations have been
assessed against the relevant design principles and all but the variation to Building Size
(plot ratio area) are considered to be acceptable as discussed below:
6.1.1 C1 – Building Size:
Variation:
The development proposes a plot ratio of approximately 1:0.88 where the
maximum allowable under the deemed-to-comply requirement is 1:0.7. This
variation translates to an additional 240m2 of plot ratio area for the
development than what is deemed acceptable for the R60 density code.
Comment:
The proposed development of the Multiple Dwelling with a plot ratio area in
excess of the maximum plot ratio requirements applicable to the R60
density code cannot be seen to fulfil the relevant design principle for
development to be at a bulk and scale indicative of the R60 density code as
designated for the land under LPS17, and therefore cannot be deemed
consistent with the existing and future desired built form of the locality.
6.1.2 C2 – Building Height:
Variation:
The rear-most walls and concealed roof, including balcony, of the
proposed development measures approximately 11-12m in height above
the existing natural ground level in lieu of the maximum deemed-tocomply building height of 10m.
Justification:
The proposed variation to building height is confined to a limited portion
of the development and is considered to fulfil the relevant design
principles to have no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining
properties. The development has been designed to moderate the
perception of building height and bulk as viewed from the adjoining
properties through the use of podium-style stepping back of upper levels
from the lot boundary, and the use of articulation and variation in
materials to create depth in the building façade.
Page 5
Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 July 2016
The proposed building height will not interfere with access to views of
significance toward Blackadder Creek from the surrounding properties and
the development will have minimal impact on the provision of daylight
and direct sun to both the subject development and the adjoining
properties.
It is noted that the variation to building height occurs only at the rear of
the development and will have no adverse impact on the streetscape
consistent with the design principles.
6.1.4 C4.1 – Lot Boundary Setbacks:
Variation:
The proposed development will be setback from the northern boundary
(Lot 109 (No.13) Dudley Street) in variation to the deemed-to-comply
minimum setbacks as detailed below:
Wall
Required
Setback
Proposed
Setback
Variation
Front Building
Level 4 Wall
(H=7.5m)
3.0m
1.5m
1.5m
(H=9m)
3.6m
1.5m
2.1m
1.2m
0.75m
0.45m
1.3m
0.75m
0.55m
Level 4 Privacy
Panel
(H=7m)
(H=7.5m)
Rear Building
Level 3 Wall
(H=7.5m)
3.0m
2.17m
0.83m
(H=9.5m)
3.8m
2.17m
1.63m
(H=12m)
4.25m
3.92m
0.33m
(H=13m)
4.75m
3.92m
0.83m
Level 4 Wall
Page 6
Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 July 2016
The proposed development will be setback from the southern boundary
(Lot 111 (No.9) Dudley Street) in variation to the deemed-to-comply
minimum setbacks as detailed below:
Wall
Required
Setback
Proposed
Setback
Variation
Front Building
Level 4 Wall
(H=7.5m)
3.0m
2.45m
0.55m
(H=8m)
3.1m
3.07m
0.03m
Rear Building
Level 3 Wall
(H=8.5m)
3.3m
2.4m
0.9m
(H=9.5m)
3.8m
2.4m
1.4m
2.7m
1.65m
1.05m
(H=10m)
4m
3.45m
0.55m
(H=13m)
4.75m
3.45m
1.3m
Level 3 Privacy
Panel
(H=6.5m)
Level 4 Wall
Justification:
The setback variations were advertised to both affected landowners
and no objection to the proposed development was received from
either. The development is nevertheless assessed against the relevant
design principles of the R-Codes, being that buildings will be setback
from lot boundaries so as to:
1) ensure adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation for buildings
and the open space associated with them, and ensure access to
daylight and direct sun for adjoining properties;
The location and orientation of the proposed development relative to
existing development on Lot 109 (No.13) Dudley Street to the north
means that the proposed building setbacks will have negligible impact
Page 7
Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 July 2016
on the provision of ventilation, daylight and direct sun to both the
subject development and the adjoining property (Lot 109).
The applicant has submitted an overshadowing diagram to demonstrate
that the proposed development will cast a mid-winter shadow over
approximately 25% of Lot 111 (No.9) Dudley Street to the south,
compliant with the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes.
The area of Lot 111 that will be overshadowed by the proposed
development comprises only the north-eastern half of the existing
dwelling on the land, and a portion of open space behind the dwelling
that is already shadowed by existing mature trees on the lot.
2) assist with the protection of privacy between adjoining properties;
The proposed development will meet the deemed-to-comply
requirements of the R-Codes for visual privacy through the use of
screening to balconies and hi-light windows with a sill height of more
than 1.6m (ie. non-major openings) to restrict views from all major
openings and outdoor living and active habitable spaces of the
development towards both of the adjoining properties.
3) moderate the visual impact of building bulk on a neighbouring
property;
It is considered that the proposed setbacks of the development will
have minimal visual impact on the perception of building bulk as
viewed from the adjoining properties as detailed below:
The proposed setback of 2.3m wide feature panels at 0.75m from the
northern boundary (Lot 109) in lieu of 1.2m, and at 1.65m from the
southern boundary (Lot 111) in lieu of 2.7m is considered to be a
minor projection that will serve to articulate the development façade
and cause minimal visual impact relative to the overall scale of the
development.
Of greater relevance is the proposed setback of the front building of the
multiple dwelling development at 1.5m from the northern boundary
(Lot 109) in lieu of the minimum requirement of 3.6m as applicable to
the highest point of the building wall, and the setback of a 2.4m wide
portion of the building wall at 2.45m from the southern boundary (Lot
111) in lieu of the minimum requirement of 3m. The proposed setback
of the remainder of the front building at 3.07m from the Lot 111
boundary in lieu of a minimum of 3.1m is considered to be of such
minor consequence that the visual impact of the variation will not be
discernible.
Both adjoining lots contain single-storey dwellings, with the dwelling on
Lot 109 setback 1.2m from the common lot boundary and the dwelling
on Lot 111 to the south built up to the common lot boundary. In both
cases the proposed development will be within view of major openings
to the dwelling, however upward views of the second-storey of the
Page 8
Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 July 2016
proposed development and above will be restricted from the existing
dwellings due to the close proximity and single-storey elevation of the
major openings. In this regard, the potential visual impact of building
bulk as viewed from existing development on Lot 109 and Lot 110 is
considered to be minimal.
The proposed setback of the rear building of the multiple dwelling
development at 2.17m from the Lot 109 boundary in lieu of the
minimum requirement of 3.8m for the third storey, and at 3.92m in
lieu of the minimum requirement of 4.75m for the fourth storey, will
primarily impact the rear half of Lot 109 containing an existing shed
and substantial vegetation. A verandah and deck are located on the
northern side of the existing dwelling on Lot 109 and so views of the
development from this outdoor living area will be partially obstructed
by the existing dwelling as well as surrounding vegetation.
The proposed setback of the rear building at 2.4m from the Lot 111
boundary in lieu of the minimum requirement of 3.8m for the third
storey wall, and at 3.45m in lieu of the minimum requirement of 4.75m
for the fourth storey will impact the rear half of Lot 111, only a portion
of which appears to contain an outdoor active habitable space and
which is otherwise screened from the view of the subject lot by existing
mature trees and vegetation. It is therefore considered that the impact
of building bulk is likely to be minimal where views in the direction of
the proposed development from the outdoor living areas of adjoining
land will occur.
6.3.1 C1 – Outdoor Living Areas:
Variation:
Justification:
The balconies (outdoor living area) of six of the proposed units with the 4B
design are approximately 9.95m2 in area in lieu of the minimum required
area of 10m2. The balconies of four of the proposed units with the 4C or 5
design narrow to a minimum dimension of 2.3m instead of 2.4m. It is
noted that these balconies are over 10m2 in area when including the
portion of the balcony that has a minimum dimension of less than 2.4m.
The variations are minor and accepted on the basis that the proposed
outdoor living areas are considered to be sufficient in area to be capable
of active or passive use in conjunction with a habitable room, consistent
with the design principles.
6.3.2 C2i) – Landscaping:
Variation:
More than 50% of the street setback area will be hard surface.
Justification:
The variation is considered to be acceptable given the proposed design
will allow for some landscaping to contribute to the streetscape while also
meeting the needs of residents as per the relevant design principle
through provision of visitor parking bays and adequate vehicle access and
manoeuvrability.
Page 9
Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 July 2016
6.3.4 C4.1 – Design of Car Parking Spaces:
Variation:
The required "blind aisle" 1m clearance area beyond the last visitor
parking bays as specified in AS2890.1 (2004) will be potentially
obstructed by a proposed security gate.
Justification:
The proposed design is considered to be acceptable given the "blind aisle"
will be clear as necessary when the security gate is open. The residential
nature of the development means low turnover and users that are
generally prepared to accept some inconvenience when entering or
leaving the parking space (ie. three-point turns) as per the minimum
required function of parking facilities for residential uses as stipulated in
Table 1.1 of AS2890.1 (2004). The proposed design of visitor parking
bays is considered adequate for convenient access in accordance with the
relevant design principles.
Local Policies and Design Specifications / Guidelines
The proposed development complies with the
specifications, and guidelines as discussed below:
City's
various
policies,
design
Public Art:
A condition requiring the applicant to make a contribution to public art, either monetarily
or via development on-site, is recommended in accordance with the Provision of Public
Art policy.
Vehicle access / manoeuvrability:
Suitable provision has been made in the design of the development for efficient vehicular
circulation within the lot in accordance with relevant provisions of the City’s Building &
Development Standards - Residential Zones policy.
Stormwater Drainage:
Stormwater plans have been prepared to demonstrate that stormwater produced on the
site will be adequately managed and drained to the satisfaction of City staff. A drainage
contribution is required should the development be approved, because the lot is located
within the Midland District Drainage Contribution Area and subject to the City of Swan's
Midland District Drainage Development Reserve Fund policy.
Waste Collection and Storage:
A screened and secure bin storage area will be provided on-site for the dwellings
compliant with the City's Waste Management Operational Guidelines. The development
site has adequate street verge to accommodate the placement of the required number of
bins on collection day.
Page 10
Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 July 2016
Flood Fringe - Department of Water
A portion of the development site is affected by major flooding from the Swan River /
Blackadder Creek. The Department of Water (DoW) have advised that the 1 in 100 year
AEP (annual exceedence probability) flood level for the site is expected to be 6.58m
AHD.
The DoW advise that the proposed development is acceptable with respect to major
flooding as it will have a minimum habitable floor level of 7.30m AHD, which will ensure
adequate flood protection. The DoW also advise that the proposed lower level nonhabitable storage area with a floor level of 5.00m AHD will be affected by 1 in 25 AEP
flooding and any electrical installations in this area should be located at least above
6.58m AHD and be suitably insulated.
Should the development be approved, it is recommended that future landowners are
notified of potential flood damage to the non-habitable area during 1 in 25 AEP flooding
and greater via a notification on title. The notification should also make future
landowners aware of their responsibility to design development to withstand the impacts
of land erosion due to flooding from Blackadder Creek, and to continually inspect and
maintain land to ensure ongoing protection.
Bushfire Prone Area
The subject lot was designated a Bushfire Prone Area by the Fire and Emergency
Services Commissioner on 21 May 2016. As the land has been designated bushfire prone
for less than four months, the requirement to prepare a bushfire attack level assessment
for the development site does not apply in accordance with Clause 78D(1)(b) of
Schedule 2 Part 10A of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes)
Amendment Regulations 2015. The applicant is aware that additional planning and
building requirements may apply to development on the site from 21 September 2016
onwards.
State Planning Policy - Aircraft Noise
The subject lot is located within the 20-25 ANEF noise exposure zone and the proposed
development is a "noise-sensitive premises" as defined in SPP 5.1 - Land Use Planning in
the Vicinity of Perth Airport. The development is a conditionally acceptable building type
in the 20-25 ANEF zone and subject to a notice on title advising of the potential for noise
nuisance in accordance with SPP 5.1 should the development be approved.
OPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Option 1:
Council may resolve to refuse to grant approval for the proposed Multiple
Dwelling on Lot 110 (No.11) Dudley Street, Midland, for the following
reason:
1.
The proposed development will not satisfy the Design Principles for
the design element of 'Building Size' as set out in State Planning
Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes).
Implications: The owner/applicant would have a right of review
Administrative Tribunal if aggrieved by this decision.
This is the recommended option.
Page 11
to
the
State
Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 July 2016
Option 2:
Council may resolve to grant approval for the proposed Multiple Dwelling
on Lot 110 (No.11) Dudley Street, Midland, subject to the following
conditions:
1. This approval is for “Multiple Dwellings" (16 dwellings) as defined in
the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.17 and the subject land may not
be used for any other use without the prior approval of the City.
2. Use of the site for the purpose approved shall not commence until an
Occupancy Permit is issued.
3. In order to comply with the City of Swan Provision of Public Art Policy
PO-LP-1.10, the owner(s) or applicant on behalf of the owner(s) shall
within 28 days of the grant of this approval elect either;
(a) To pay to the City the sum of ($32,000) which equates to 1% of
the Construction Cost of the development, in lieu of providing on-site
Public Art (option 1); or
(b) Seek approval form the City for an artist to provide Public Art on
the development site to a minimum value of ($32,000) (option2).
If the election is Option
the City on the earlier of
City, or prior to the
development the subject
1, the cash-in-lieu amount must be paid to
the date specified in an invoice issued by the
issuance of the building permit for the
of the approval.
If the election is Option 2:
(a) the owner(s) or applicant on behalf of the owner(s) within a
further 28 days following the election (or such longer period agreed
by the City) must seek approval from the City for a specific Public Art
work including the artist proposed to undertake the work. The City
may apply further conditions regarding the proposed Public Art;
(b) no part of the development may be occupied or used unless the
Public Art has been installed in accordance with an approval granted
by the City;
(c) the Public Art approved must
continuation of the development; and
be
maintained
during
the
(d) prior to the lodgement of a building permit application a
Notification pursuant to section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act must
be lodged against the certificate of title to the land on which the
development is to be carried out, to make the proprietors and
prospective purchasers aware of the preceding point (c) of this
condition.
Page 12
Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 July 2016
4. The landowner shall make a contribution to the City of Swan in
accordance with the City of Swan Policy POL-C-040 “Midland District
Drainage Development Reserve Fund” based on the total site
allotment area of 1,348m2 to the satisfaction of the City of Swan.
Payment is to be made prior to the lodgement of a Building Permit
application and/or prior to any work commencing on the site.
The approved Multiple Dwelling shall have a minimum habitable floor
level of 7.30m AHD. Any electrical installations for the development
shall be located above 6.58m AHD and be suitably insulated.
ADVICE NOTES: Advice notes apply.
Implications: The applicant will be able to proceed with the proposed development. The
landowner who objected to the development would potentially be
aggrieved by the decision to approve the development.
This is not the recommended option.
CONCLUSION
Planning approval is sought for a 16 unit Multiple Dwelling development on Lot 110
(No.11) Dudley Street, Midland.
The subject lot is zoned 'Residential' with a density code of R60 under the City’s Local
Planning Scheme No.17 (LPS17). Multiple Dwelling is a discretionary ('D') use in the
'Residential' zone, meaning that the use is not permitted unless the local government
has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval.
The proposed development does not meet the 'deemed-to-comply' requirement of the
Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) relating to building size
because the Multiple Dwelling will have a plot ratio of approximately 1:0.88 in lieu of the
maximum ratio of 1:0.7. This variation translates to an additional 240m2 of plot ratio
area for the development than what is deemed acceptable for the R60 density code.
City staff consider that the proposed development of the Multiple Dwelling with a plot
ratio area in excess of the maximum plot ratio requirements applicable to the R60
density code cannot be seen to fulfil the relevant design principles as set out in the RCodes for development to be at a bulk and scale indicative of the density code as
designated by the local planning framework (LPS17) and consistent with the existing and
future desired built form of the locality.
The proposed development does not meet other 'deemed-to-comply' requirements of the
R-Codes relating to building height and lot boundary setbacks. These aspects of the
proposal and other minor 'deemed-to-comply' variations relating to outdoor living area,
landscaping and the design of car parking spaces require consideration against the
relevant design principles of the R-Codes.
The application was advertised to the two adjoining (side) landowners for a period of 14
days to seek comment on proposed variations to building and visual privacy setback
distances. No objection to the proposed building setbacks and extent of overlooking was
received from either landowner. The development design has nevertheless been
amended by the applicant to satisfy the 'deemed-to-comply' requirements of the RCodes relating to the provision of visual privacy.
Page 13
Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 July 2016
The application was referred to the Department of Water (DoW) because a portion of the
development site is affected by major flooding from Blackadder Creek. The DoW advised
that the development is acceptable with respect to major flooding because habitable
areas will have a raised floor level adequate for flood protection. Should the
development be approved, it is recommended that future landowners are advised via a
notification on title of the potential for flood damage to non-habitable areas and also of
their landowner responsibilities to continually inspect and maintain the land to ensure
ongoing protection against the impacts of land erosion due to flooding from Blackadder
Creek.
It is considered that the proposed Multiple Dwelling development is inconsistent with
objective (b) of the 'Residential' zone to provide residential development that is of a
form and density permissible in the locality, and that this has the potential to prejudice
the sense of place and community identity intended for the locality in the local planning
framework.
It is recommended that the Council resolve to refuse to grant approval for the proposed
Multiple Dwelling on Lot 110 (No.11) Dudley Street, Midland.
ATTACHMENTS
Location Plan
Development Plans (x16)
3D Perspectives
STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS
Nil
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS
State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes)
Local Planning Scheme No.17
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Nil
VOTING REQUIREMENTS
Simple majority
Page 14
Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 July 2016
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council resolve to:
1)
Refuse to grant approval for the proposed Multiple Dwelling on Lot 110 (No.11)
Dudley Street, Midland, for the following reason:
a. The proposed development will not satisfy the Design Principles for the design
element of 'Building Size' as set out in State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential
Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes).
2)
Advise the applicant/owner of the resolution of Council.
3)
Advise all those who made a submission of the Council's decision accordingly.
MOTION that the Council resolve to:
1)
Defer consideration of this mattering to the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be
held on 17 August 2016.
2)
Record the reason for changing the staff recommendation is to allow the applicant
the opportunity to address concerns within the report.
(Cr Elliott – Cr Henderson)
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY TO:
1)
Defer consideration of this mattering to the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be
held on 17 August 2016.
2)
Record the reason for changing the staff recommendation is to allow the applicant
the opportunity to address concerns within the report.
Page 15
3URSRVHG0XOWLSOH'ZHOOLQJ/RW1R'XGOH\6WUHHW0LGODQG
DISCLAIMER: Information shown hereon is a composite of information
from various different data sources. Users are warned that the
information is provided by the City of Swan in this format as a general
resource on the understanding that it is not suitable as a basis for
decision making without verification with the original source.
ATTACHMENT - LOCATION PLAN
11 July 2016
1:1000
JUNE 2016
JUNE 2016
JUNE 2016
JUNE 2016
JUNE 2016
JUNE 2016
JUNE 2016
JUNE 2016
JUNE 2016
JUNE 2016
JUNE 2016
JUNE 2016
JUNE 2016
JUNE 2016
JUNE 2016