3.7 PROPOSED GROUPED DWELLINGS (4 UNITS) - LOT 228 (NO. … · Ordinary Meeting of Council 11 April 2012 Page 1 3.7 PROPOSED GROUPED DWELLINGS (4 UNITS) - LOT 228 (NO. 9) HAMERSLEY

Ordinary Meeting of Council 11 April 2012

Page 1

3.7 PROPOSED GROUPED DWELLINGS (4 UNITS) - LOT 228 (NO. 9) HAMERSLEY STREET, MIDLAND

Ward: (Midland Ward) (Statutory Planning)

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Authorised Officer: Executive Manager Planning & Development

KEY ISSUES

• The City has received an application for four grouped dwellings on the subject lot.

• The lot is zoned "Residential" with a density coding of R60 under the City's Local Planning Scheme No.17.

• The proposal mostly complies with the "Acceptable Development" requirements of the Residential Design Codes, with a number of minor variations that are considered to meet the associated performance criteria.

• One of the proposed variations (proposing boundary walls to two separate boundaries) required advertising to the adjacent neighbour (abutting western boundary) who objected on the grounds that the wall would overshadow their kitchen window.

• Given the parapet is on the western side boundary, any overshadowing to the abutting property is going to come in the early hours of the morning (when the sun is low in the eastern sky) and decrease throughout the day. At that time of the day overshadowing of the western side of the neighbour's house would likely occur from the wall irrespective of whether the wall was on the boundary or setback at the deemed to comply distance of 1 metre. Notwithstanding, the Codes concern themselves with overshadowing at 12 noon on mid-winters day June 21 and not generally with other times throughout the year. On this basis the extent of overshadowing that would occur is not considered unreasonable and accordingly is considered to fulfil the relevant performance criteria.

It is recommended that the Council approve the proposed development subject to standard conditions.

AUTHORITY/DISCRETION

Council has the power under clause 10.3 of the City's Local Planning Scheme No. 17 to determine applications for planning approval.


Page 2

BACKGROUND

Applicant: Longcape Holdings Pty Ltd (Directors: Johnny Colonico, Paul Joseph Sarich)

Owner: Longcape Holdings Pty Ltd Zoning: TPS - Residential R60 MRS - Urban Strategy/Policy: State Planning Policy 3.1 (Residential Design Codes)

Building and Development Standards (Residential Zones) - Pol-TP-128

Development Scheme: Nil Existing Land Use: Single House Lot Size: 1012 m2 Area: Midland Use Class: Grouped Dwellings ("D")

DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposal is for 4 single-storey grouped dwellings. The 4 dwellings all face towards North Street, and are 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom dwellings.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE

The site is located at the corner of North Street and Hamersley Street in Midland. The site is flat and has one existing dwelling on it. It is mostly clear of vegetation but has a few small and medium sized trees on it. The property has not yet been subdivided.

SITE HISTORY/PREVIOUS APPROVALS

Planning Approvals

98701-1995 Subdivision - Recommended approval

Building Licences

There are no records of any building licences issued for this property.

OTHER RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF COUNCIL

Nil


Page 3

APPLICANT'S SUBMISSION

The applicant noted that there are two boundary walls proposed (i.e. two garages are proposed with walls built up to the boundary). The applicant nominated the Unit A boundary wall as the "as of right" length of wall, seeking approval for the Unit D boundary wall against the respective performance criteria.

"The following justifications are provided for the City's consideration in respect to both lengths of boundary wall:

The proposed boundary walls will not restrict access to adequate sun and ventilation to the buildings (i.e. to the proposed new buildings). In fact, the Unit D boundary wall will assist with providing protection from the harsh afternoon western sun.

The proposed boundary walls will not restrict access to adequate sun and ventilation to adjoining buildings. The Unit D boundary wall will have no consequential impact on the adjoining western property, given the orientation of north. "

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The proposed second (western) boundary wall was referred to the adjoining neighbours at 3 North Street for comment, as it is a variation to the Residential Design Codes "Acceptable" development criteria. An objection was received, which is discussed further below.

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND/OR CONSULTANTS

Nil

DETAILS

Zoning and Permissibility of Use

The subject lot is zoned "Residential" with a density coding of R60 under the City's Local Planning Scheme No.17. The proposed use of "Grouped Dwelling" is a Discretionary ("D") use in the zone.

Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes)

The proposal is compliant with the Acceptable Development provisions of the R-Codes, including:

• Site area

• Setbacks

• Open space requirements


Page 4

The proposal entailed a variation to one of the Acceptable Development provisions (Clause 6.3.2 - Buildings on boundary) which pertains to building up to only one side boundary, where the applicant has proposed to build up to two separate boundaries (southern - Unit A and western - Unit D). For the purposes of assessment against the Codes, building up to the southern rear boundary was taken to meet the as of right provision for building up to one boundary with the parapet wall to the western boundary referred to the abutting neighbour for comment.

Boundary wall on western boundary

The R Codes Performance Criteria state that:

"Buildings [may be] 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."

It is evident that allowing the second boundary wall will fulfil the first criterion, facilitating more effective use of the lot, by allowing Unit D to be built over the full width of its site.

In relation to the latter two criteria, which must be satisfied in conjunction with the first criterion, the objection of the abutting neighbour has cited that his amenity would be impacted by the proposed parapet wall by way of overshadowing of his kitchen window and blocking his view from it.

The fundamental consideration in assessing the neighbour’s objection is whether the proposed parapet wall is in fact going to restrict the sun to his kitchen window to an extent that is unreasonable. In considering this it is pertinent to note the following:

- The parapet is proposed on the western boundary so any overshadowing that would occur would be in the early hours of the morning when the sun is low in the eastern sky.

- Such overshadowing is unlikely to completely fall across and into the neighbour's kitchen window.

- Such overshadowing would likely occur irrespective of whether the wall in this location was on the boundary or in fact setback 1 metre from it in compliance with the Acceptable Development provisions of the Codes.

- Minimum standards for overshadowing under the Codes is measured with respect to solar access to properties at 12 noon on mid-winters day - June 21 and not in the early hours of the morning throughout the year.


Page 5

Given the above it is considered that direct sun to the kitchen window would not be restricted to a degree that is manifestly unreasonable within the framework of the Codes and normal expectations within a residential environment such as this. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed parapet wall fulfils the above performance criteria and approval is recommended.

OPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Option 1: Council may resolve to approve the proposed development, on the basis that it meets the Performance Criteria of Clause 6.3.2 (Buildings on boundary) of the Residential Design Codes of WA.

This is the recommended option.

Implications: The proposal can proceed and the site can developed to its maximum capacity thus providing housing choice to the community.

Option 2: Council may resolve to refuse the proposed development, on the basis that it has an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the adjoining property and thus does not meet the Performance Criteria of Clause 6.3.2 (Buildings on boundary) of the Residential Design Codes of WA.

This is not the recommended option.

Implications: The proposal will not proceed in spite of the fact that it complied with the performance criteria for the zero boundary setback variation; the applicant could appeal to the SAT based on its compliance with the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes.

CONCLUSION

The City has received an application for four grouped dwellings on the subject lot. The lot is zoned "Residential" with a density coding of R60 under the City's Local Planning Scheme No.17. The proposal mostly complies with the "Acceptable" requirements of the Residential Design Codes, with a number of minor variations that are considered to meet the associated Performance Criteria.

One of the proposed variations (proposing boundary walls to two separate boundaries) required advertising to the adjacent neighbour (abutting western boundary) who objected on the grounds that the wall would overshadow their kitchen window.

Given the parapet is on the western side boundary, any overshadowing to the abutting property is going to come in the early hours of the morning (when the sun is low in the eastern sky) and decrease throughout the day. At that time of the day overshadowing of the western side of the neighbours house would likely occur from the wall irrespective of whether the wall was on the boundary or setback at the deemed to comply distance of 1 metre. Notwithstanding the Codes concern themselves with overshadowing at 12 noon on mid-winters day June 21 and not generally with other times throughout the year. On this basis, the extent of overshadowing that would occur is not considered unreasonable and accordingly is considered to fulfil the relevant Performance Criteria.


Page 6

It is recommended that the Council approve the proposed development subject to standard conditions.

ATTACHMENTS

• Locality plan

• Aerial photo

• Site plan, floor plans, elevations

• Street view photographs showing neighbour's kitchen window

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

Nil

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve to:

1) Approve the application for development of four single storey grouped dwellings on Lot 228 (No.9) Hamersley Street, Midland subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval is for “Grouped 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. The surface of the parapet walls shall be finished to a professional standard (i.e. have raked/rolled joints or an even render finish), to complement the dwelling on the adjoining lots (green title), to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner.

3. A verge tree is to be planted to replace the one proposed to be removed. The replacement tree is to be planted within 30 days of the practical completion of the development, in the location as shown on the


Page 7

approved plan. The tree is to be a Eucalyptus torquata (coral gum), with a minimum container size of 100 litres at the time of planting, unless otherwise approved by the City of Swan.

4. Cadastral lot boundaries shall be established on the site prior to the lodgement of a Building Licence.

5. Earthworks, footings and/or structures are not to extend over any lot boundaries.

6. The development must be connected to the Water Corporation’s sewer where available.

7. Vehicle access onto the site shall be restricted to that shown on the approved site plan.

8. All pavements on the site must be capable of accepting anticipated loadings (including accessways, parking areas, storage and hardstands). The City will not accept any responsibility for subsequent failure of any pavement.

9. Vehicle parking area, access and circulation areas must be sealed, kerbed, drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the City, in accordance with the approved plans.

10. All stormwater produced from this property including subsoil drainage is to be collected and disposed into the City’s drainage system in accordance with the City’s requirements. Invert level at point of connection is 12.90 m (A.H.D.)

11. No fluid, other than uncontaminated stormwater is to enter any stormwater drain without prior approval from the City and the Environmental Protection Authority.

12. As the development is within the Midland District Drainage Area, a drainage contribution of $5,788.64 is required. This fee is to contribute towards the upgrade and supply of an adequate drainage service within the area. Payment shall be made prior to the clearance of subdivision conditions or prior to the lodgement of a Building Licence and prior to any work commencing on the site.

13. The full cost of providing a new drainage connection point or modification to an existing drainage connection point to the development must be paid to the City prior to the lodgement of a building licence. The cost will be determined by the City upon lodgement of acceptable drainage connection plans.

14. All crossovers must be built and maintained in accordance with City's specifications.

15. All construction works within the road reserve including crossovers, drainage infrastructure, service adjustment, landscaping and footpath placement or reinstatement, must be built and maintained in accordance with the City's specifications. Failure to do so may result in these works being removed and reinstated by the City at the applicant's expense.


Page 8

At occupancy, the owner is responsible for the maintenance of the crossover, landscaping and reticulation in the verge.

16. The applicant is to ascertain the location and depth of any services that may interfere with this development. Any adjustment to these services required as part of this approval, must be arranged by the applicant prior to works commencing on the site. Any adjustment must be approved by the relevant service authorities and will be at the applicant's expense.

17. The parapet wall and footings shall be constructed inside the allotment.

18. Any additional development, which is not in accordance with the application (the subject of this approval) or any condition of approval, will require further approval of the City.

ADVICE NOTES

a) In relation to Condition 3 above, if it is not possible to obtain a Eucalyptus Torquata in a 100 litre container size, the applicant is advised to liaise with the City's Coordinator of Assets (Parks and Land) (currently Tim Garrigan) at the City of Swan (phone 9267 9267).

b) The noise generated by activities on-site, including machinery motors or vehicles is not to exceed the levels as set out under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

All development works are to be carried out in accordance with control of noise practices set out in Section 6 of AS 2436-1981 or the equivalent current Australian Standard.

No works shall commence prior to 7.00 am without the City’s approval.

c) The carrying on of the development must not cause a dust nuisance to neighbours. Where appropriate such measures as installation of sprinklers, use of water tanks, mulching or other land management systems should be installed or implemented to prevent or control dust nuisance, and such measures shall be installed or implemented within the time and in the manner directed by the City’s Principal Environmental Health Officer if it is considered that a dust nuisance exists.

d) Any asbestos must be handled, used, removed and disposed of in accordance with the Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 and the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2001. Please contact the Department of Environmental Protection to ensure compliance with the removal and transport of the asbestos.

e) Stormwater from this property is to be disposed of into the City's drainage system via a silt trap.

f) The City of Swan is authorised and liable for the maintenance and repair of roads under its control within its boundary and pursuant to Section 84 of the Road Traffic Act. The City is authorised to recover costs from the applicant, for the repair and maintenance of these roads if any damage


Page 9

is caused as part of this development to the kerb, footpath, drainage pits, stormwater system, landscaping or signs located within the road reserve.

g) Kerbs, roadways, footpaths, open drains, stormwater pits, service authority pits and nature strips must be adequately protected during the construction of the development.

h) This approval does not constitute approval from other service authorities to construct the crossover as shown on the plan. It is recommended that the applicant ascertain the location and depth of any services that may interfere with crossover and associated building construction. Any adjustment to affected services is to be arranged by the applicant at their expense with the appropriate service authority approval, prior to works commencing on the site.

i) In accordance with the Building Act 2011 and Building Regulations 2012, a Building Permit application must be submitted to, and approved by the City’s Principal Building Surveyor prior to any construction or earthworks commencing on site.

j) The proposed development is required to comply in all respects with the Building Code of Australia and Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. Plans and specifications which reflect these requirements are required to be submitted with the Building Permit application.

(k) Embankment stabilisation shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

(l) A Demolition Permit must be issued before any demolition work commences on the site.

(m) To enable your Building Permit application to be assessed promptly, please ensure a complete application is submitted to the City.

To assist in preparing a complete Building Permit application refer to the City of Swan Website (www.swan.wa.gov.au) and follow the links to Building Services - Applicant Checklists.

If you require assistance, please contact Customer Services on 9267 9267.

(n) This approval is not an authority to ignore any constraint to development on the land, which may exist through contract or on title, such as an easement or restrictive covenant. It is the responsibility of the applicant and not the City to investigate any such constraints before commencing development. This approval will not necessarily have regard to any such constraint to development, regardless of whether or not it has been drawn to the City’s attention.

(o) This is a Development Approval of the City of Swan under its Local Planning Scheme No. 17. It is not a building licence or an approval to commence or carry out development under any other law. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain any other necessary approvals,


Page 10

consents and licenses required under any other law, and to commence and carry out development in accordance with all relevant laws.

(p) Development may be carried out only in accordance with the terms of the application as approved herein and any approved plan.

(q) Take notice that it is the responsibility of the applicant to advise the landowner(s) and/or builder(s) of the need to satisfy the requirements of the conditions of the planning approval for the subject lot, prior to or on lodgement of Building Applications. The City will not issue a Building Licence until all the conditions of planning approval and any other requirements pertaining to this planning approval have been met (including payment of fees and charges).

2) Advise the neighbour who lodged an objection of the Council's decision.

CARRIED


Page 11

Documents

3.7 PROPOSED GROUPED DWELLINGS (4 UNITS) - LOT 228 (NO. … · Ordinary Meeting of Council 11 April 2012 Page 1 3.7 PROPOSED GROUPED DWELLINGS (4 UNITS) - LOT 228 (NO. 9) HAMERSLEY