TUSCOM SUBDIVISION CONSULTANTS Pty Ltd · Overshadow 35% of the site area (724.85m2) 34.9% of the site area (723m2) Deep Soil Area Minimum 207m2 (10%) 415m2 ... TUSCOM SUBDIVISION

TUSCOM SUBDIVISION CONSULTANTS Pty Ltd ACN 097 092 003 ABN 90 097 092 003

Surveying • Planning • Subdivision • Project Management • Architecture

Suite 3, Level 1, 4 Riseley Street Telephone: 9316 8388

Applecross Fax: 9316 8378

Western Australia 6153 Mobile: 0432 298 736

Email: [email protected] _________________


23 July 2020 Chief Executive Officer City of Melville Locked Bag 1 BOORAGOON WA 6954 Attention: Mr Mark Scarfone – Planning Services Coordinator Dear Mark RE: PROPOSED THIRTY FIVE (35) FOUR-STOREY MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AT LOT 883 (NO. 114) MATHESON

ROAD, APPLECROSS Tuscom Subdivision Consultants is pleased to represent our client, SB & Sons Pty Ltd in presenting an application for thirty five (35) multiple dwellings to be constructed on No. 114 (Lot 883) Matheson Road, Applecross (herein referred to as the subject site). The accompanying information supporting the application is as follows;-

- A copy of the Written Planning Advice Form;

- A copy of the proposed plans, including elevations and floor layout (please note, the scales are 1:250 and 1:200);

- Colour perspectives of the proposed development;

- Shadow Diagram;

- Landscaping Plan;

- Traffic Statement;

- Solar access & ventilation report;

- Waste Management Plan.








ZONING The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the City of Melville’s Local Planning Scheme No. 6 (‘herein referred to as the Scheme’) with a designated density of R40. The objective of ‘Residential’ zone is to “provide for a range of housing and a choice of residential densities to meet the needs of the community.” In addition, the zone is to “facilitate and encourage high quality design, built form and streetscapes throughout residential areas.” THE PROPOSAL The proposal seeks planning approval for thirty five (35) multiple dwellings located over four levels. Specifically, the development proposal exhibits the following key characteristics:

• A basement level comprising mechanical plant room, storage rooms, and fifty (50) car parking bays including seven (7) visitor bays;

• The ground floor comprising a total of ten (10) units;

• The first floor comprising a total of twelve (12) units;

• The second floor comprising a total of twelve (12) units;

• The third floor comprising one (1) penthouse unit;

• Three (3) units will be provided with three bedrooms with two bathrooms; twenty (20) units will be provided with two bedrooms and two bathrooms; eleven (11) units will be provided with one bedroom and one bathroom; and the penthouse unit will be provided with five bedrooms and four bathrooms;

• Each unit is provided with either private courtyard or balcony. GENERAL PLANNING ASSESSMENT

PERMISSIBLE PROPOSED

R-Code R40 R40

Plot Ratio (Lot area – 911m2) 0.6 (1242m2) 1.4 (2988m2)

Building Height 2 Storeys 4 Storeys

Front setback 4.0m 4.0m

Overshadow 35% of the site area (724.85m2) 34.9% of the site area (723m2)

Deep Soil Area Minimum 207m2 (10%) 415m2

Open Space N/A N/A Table 1 – Key Development Assessment Summary








The proposal complies with most general aspects of the Design WA Residential Design Codes. The only variation sought is plot ratio and building height, which will be discussed further below.

PLOT RATIO The proposal seeks a plot ratio of 1.4 being a total plot ratio area of 2988m² in lieu of 0.6 (1242m²), representing a variation of 0.8 or 1746m². Where a variation is sought, consideration against the design principles of the R‐Codes is necessary which stipulates “Development of the building is at a bulk and scale indicated in the local planning framework and is consistent with the existing or future desired built from of the locality”. Grouped housing massing diagrams in Figure 1 illustrates a built form for the site developed as grouped housing utilising the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes. The potential total floor space (excluding the external store and internal staircase) on this design concept is 2,465sqm, which equates to a plot ratio of 1.19. In this context, it is bizarre that a multiple dwelling development only has an allowable plot ratio of 0.6 – half of what would be permissible for a grouped housing development. There is a logical argument that a similar amount of floor space should be permissible on a site, regardless of whether the development is grouped housing or multiple housing. Besides, it is noted that the primary purpose of plot ratio is to manage building bulk and scale however this is done in conjunction with other building controls, these being building height, setbacks, deep soil areas and overshadowing. As such, plot ratio alone should not be relied upon as an effective means of managing building bulk. The visual impact of a development is influenced by the perceived height, bulk and scale of the development and this can be ‘softened’ by utilising various design elements. For the subject proposal, though it is a four-storey building, but visually the proposal presents as a three‐storey dwelling as viewed from the street and the scale has been further mitigated by varying the building materials, colour, finishes, roof form, heights and setback.








Figure 1 – Grouped housing massing diagrams

BUILDING HEIGHT Whilst the height limit for R40 development under R-codes SPP 7.3 is two storeys, there are numerous other buildings on lots with a similar or lower coding in the locality that are three storeys in height. A selection of these examples is illustrated below in Figure 2. The proposed development seeks a building height of 12.45m in lieu of 9.0m (overall) from proposed ground level to the proposed roof level, representing a variation of 3.45m. The proposal complies with the minimum 4m street setback requirement, while the fourth floor will have a further setback and will be obscured from the street. The proposal would have a negligible impact on the property abutting its northern boundary (No. 116 Matheson Road) given such adjoins multiple three-storey dwellings. Accordingly, privacy and overshadowing provisions are not applicable. Notwithstanding, the proposal overshadows the southern property by 34.9% which complies with Clause C2.1 of the R-Codes (35% permitted).








Figure 2 – Examples of existing three-storey buildings in the vicinity








Figure 3 – Proposed development as viewed from Matheson Road

Further to the above, under the general planning principles contained in high level state planning policies such as Liveable Neighbourhoods (LN), the general principles to achieving lot layout for housing diversity and density would suggest that: “Medium density housing and small lot development should be made more appealing by placing it in good locations such as close to town and neighbourhood centres or overlooking parks. Smaller lots need to predominate near town and neighbourhood centres and public transport stops to achieve sufficient density to support these facilities.

In this regard, we bring attention the following key considerations:

• The subject site is within 80m, 1 minute walking distance to the nearest bus stop;

• Within 500m to Applecross Village, Good Grocers, post office, some cafes and eatery;

• Within 900m to Applecross Primary School and Applecross Jetty;

• 1.2km to Woolworths supermarket, Riseley Centre and Heathcove Reserve.








Figure 4 – Site Context

Objective 9 of LN relative to Element 7 states “To promote the restructuring of existing urban areas to improve the distribution of centres in walking distance of residences, and to upgrade the quality and function of existing centres to support mixed uses, public transport, walkability, intensification, sense of community, amenity, and reduced car travel”. As noted above, the proximity of the subject site to the Local Shopping Centre, eatery, school and transport linkages is considered to address this objective. In addition, the proposal is considered to exhibit design








excellence in not only its exterior façade but also in its internal layout and configuration based on the following factors:

• Large living and dining areas which all have access to large major openings / balconies which allow access to ventilation and sunlight. The open nature of these areas also allow for multiple functions to occur simultaneously;

• Large and functional bedrooms all of which have the ability to gain access to direct sunlight;

• All balconies meet the minimum size requirements of the R-Codes; and

• Incidental facilities including robes to all bedrooms, cupboards as well as laundry nooks have been well placed and provided for within all units.

Figure 5 – Aerial perspective of Subject Site








DWELLING DESIGN According to the State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes, dwellings shall have a minimum internal floor area in accordance with Table 4.3a, and habitable rooms meet the minimum floor areas and dimensions in accordance with Table 4.3b. Furthermore, each dwelling shall be provided with private open space accessed directly from a habitable room with dimensions in accordance with Table 4.4. Refer State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for tables. The proposed development consists of thirty five (35) units, three (3) units will be provided with three bedrooms and two bathrooms; twenty (20) units will be provided with two bedrooms and two bathrooms; and eleven (11) units will be provided with one bedroom and one bathroom. The penthouse unit will be provided with five bedrooms and four bathrooms. The internal size and layout of the proposal is functional with the ability to accommodate furniture settings and personal goods, appropriate to the expected household size. All bedrooms provided meet the minimum internal floor area and are functional and spacious enough to fit a double bed and minor furniture.

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Refer to i3 Consultants Traffic Impact Statement and related Appendices. WASTE MANAGEMENT Refer to Waste Management Plan by Tuscom Subdivision Consultants. The Development will utilize local Council verge collection for all Waste and Recyclable Goods.

An enclosed Bin Store has been provided on ground floor, south of the building and is not visible from the surround roads or neighboring properties. The total area of the bin store area is 28sqm.








CONCLUSION It is considered that the proposal warrants favourable consideration based on the above. In summary, reasons in support of the proposal are:

• In isolation, the proposal plot ratio variation should not be construed as representing an adverse amenity impact to the locality on the basis that more pertinent factors have been appropriately provided. A similar amount of floor space should be permissible on a site, regardless of whether the development is grouped housing or multiple housing;

• The proposed building height should not be an issue as the fourth level is obscured from street level. There are numerous buildings on lots with a similar or lower coding in the locality that exceed maximum building height, thus it can be developed without having a detrimental impact on the surrounding residential developments within the locality;

• Compared to the existing development on the subject site, the proposal will significantly improve the amenity of the locality by introducing a high quality development that is visually appealing but also improves the housing and affordability options in the locality to the benefit of the wider community;

• The subject site affords excellent access to public bus services which provide connection to Fremantle, Perth City and areas in between. Medium to high density development such as the proposal should be encouraged in this regard.

Should you have further queries or seek clarification with regard to the matters raised above, please do not hesitate to contact Ms Susie Chai – Project Development Consultant on 9316 8388 or [email protected]. Yours faithfully

MR JAMES TEOH DIRECTOR

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

TUSCOM SUBDIVISION CONSULTANTS Pty Ltd · Overshadow 35% of the site area (724.85m2) 34.9% of the site area (723m2) Deep Soil Area Minimum 207m2 (10%) 415m2 ... TUSCOM SUBDIVISION