1

Western Power

No objection.

Noted.

No modification required.

2

Department of Education

The Department emphasises that there are unresolved vehicular and pedestrian access issues relating to the school site. Resolution of these issues may require adjustment to the boundaries of the school site.

Pedestrian and vehicle access points to the school site were determined through subdivision 145827 which was approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on 6 December 2012. The subdivision was designed in consultation with the Department of Education; however, if amendments to the subdivision layout are required this can be dealt with through a further subdivision amendment process which will not impact on LSP 84.

No modification required.

3

Department of Indigenous Affairs

The information has been reviewed and a search of the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) Register concludes that there is one registered Aboriginal heritage place (DIA 20772 - Jindalee) as recommended by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee (ACMC) within the proposed development area and three other heritage places (DIA 24405 - Christmas Tree, DIA 24408 - Dunes and DIA 24409 - Dunes) that are yet to be determined by the ACMC as fitting the criteria under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA).

Also on page 153 of the Local Structure Plan that the locations of the registered Aboriginal heritage place and the three other heritage places will be contained with land that is proposed as natural reserve. The City of Wanneroo and other developers should be aware of their requirement under the DIA's Due Diligence Guidelines.

An 'Aboriginal Heritage Summary' has been provided with LSP 84 which identifies all of the sites listed by the DIA in their submission. Three of the significant sites identified (24408, 20772 and  24409) are clearly located within Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Parks and Recreation reserves which are outside of the LSP 84 area and which will be subject to separate management plans.

In relation to DIA site 24405, although the Landscape Standards contained within the Jindee Design Code depict a 'Common' in the location of the site, there is no commitment in Part 1 or 2 of the LSP to the protection of the site. As the WAPC will not be administering the Jindee Design Code, it is considered necessary for the site to be denoted on the public open space plan in Part of the LSP to ensure the location of the site is acknowledged during the subdivision process.

The public open space plan contained within Part 2 of the LSP (page 217) shall be updated to denote the location of DIA site 24405.

4

Department of Water (DoW)

Section 3.2 of the Local Water Management Strategy (LWMS) should provide a breakdown of areas to be irrigated, and the amount of water required for irrigation. Turf and other areas requiring irrigation should be differentiated, and depicted on a plan.

Administration agrees that the LWMS lacks detail relating to the future irrigation of POS areas. Since Administration received this submission, the DoW has released the 'North West Growth Corridor Licensing Schedule', which identifies the LSP 84 development and includes indicative irrigation figures and objectives for various development areas within the North-West Corridor. The Schedule does not contain a water allocation figure for the LSP 84 area, however, it is considered essential that the LWMS be updated to acknowledge the objectives of the Schedule. Furthermore, the City's Local Planning Policy 4.4 - Urban Water Management (LPP 4.4), requires any LWMS to be consistent with the requirements of both the WAPC's 'Better Urban Water Management' (2008), and the DoW's 'The Interim: Developing a Local Water Management Strategy' (2008).  It is considered that additional modifications to the LWMS may be required to ensure its compliance with these two documents.

The LWMS shall be updated to be generally consistent with the requirements detailed in the Western Australian Planning Commissions 'Better Urban Water Management' (2008) and the Department of Water's 'The Interim: Developing a Local Water Management Strategy' (2008).  In addition, the LWMS shall be updated to acknowledge that the development has been identified within the 'North West Growth Corridor Licensing Schedule (DoW, 2013)', and that the detailed landscape design of POS, including irrigation, will be progressed on advice from the City of Wanneroo with the view of achieving the objectives of the Schedule to demonstrate the long term sustainability of landscaping. As a minimum, a table shall be inserted into the LWMS of indicative irrigation requirements (establishment phase and post establishment phase) for each POS 'typology'.

5

Department of Fire and Emergency Services (FESA)

No objection.

Noted.

No modification required.

6

Main Roads

6.1

T6 Transect Zone should be re-orientated from the north–south orientation to a east–west configuration fronting Brighton Boulevard, rather than Marmion Avenue.

The proposed north-south orientation of the T6 Zone adjacent to Marmion Avenue is consistent with the location of the 'Business' precinct identified on the DSP. Administration, therefore, considers the proposed configuration appropriate.

No modification required.

6.2

Despite previous requests from Main Roads, only minimum outcomes are set in the LSP (minimum of 1305 dwellings and minimum average density of 22 dwellings per site hectare will be achieved).   In addition, the following outcomes are now put forward by the LSP:

·    A3 Structure Plan - (Note 2) proposes final allocation of the residential densities shall be determined at the subdivision stage.

·    Statutory Provisions - Section 8.1 states that all development shall be assessed at the DAP stage.

Transect zones need to delineate maximum residential densities so that a development outcome can be predicted and transport network infrastructure can be adequately planned.

Noted. Administration is recommending modifications to Section 7 of the Part 1 statutory provisions to include dwelling targets for each transect, and a plan providing more specific lot size ranges (including maximum sizes) for the LSP 84 area.  This level of detail is equivalent to that typically provided through conventional structure planning.

No further modifications required.

6.3

For a number of traffic related safety reasons a “sufficient fence” is required at the boundary line of Marmion Avenue of suitable height at all locations where there is a likelihood that sports or leisure activities with students, animals and small children playing will interfere with the safe unhindered operation of a high speed Regional Road at capacity. It is also considered necessary to ensure pedestrians wishing to cross Marmion Avenue are directed to appropriate crossing locations.

Noted.  This submission relates to the southernmost portion of the draft LSP 84 area which adjoins Marmion Avenue. This land (which is subject to the adopted LSP 71) was subject to subdivision application 145827 that was approved by the WAPC on 6 December 2012. Condition 20 of this subdivision approval reads as follows:

"Suitable measures to prevent uncontrolled vehicular and pedestrian access to Marmion Avenue being constructed to the specifications of the City of Wanneroo in consultation with Main Roads Western Australia and to the satisfaction of the WAPC."

Administration considers that the implementation of this condition will adequately satisfy Main Roads concerns relating to the interference of pedestrians and recreational activities with Marmion Avenue.

No modification required.

6.4

The LSP should consider the issue of a grade separated crossing on Marmion Avenue in the vicinity of  Benenden Ave.

Agree in part. The Butler - Jindalee District Structure Plan addressed the issue of 'Major Pedestrian Crossings' and specifies that within the wider Butler - Jindalee area pedestrians should be encouraged to cross safely at grade to encourage walkability. Therefore, it is not considered necessary for LSP 84 to address the issue of a grade separated crossing on Marmion Avenue in the vicinity of Benenden Avenue.

Notwithstanding the above, currently LSP 84 only makes provision for an unmarked road crossing on Marmion Avenue in the vicinity of Benenden Avenue and Administration considers that this may not be adequate given the proximity of the future Jindalee Primary School to this crossing. 

The Local Transportation Strategy (LTS) shall be updated to consider the provision of a school crossing arrangement which can be activated for school start and finish times and inclusion of appropriate signage along Marmion Avenue.

6.5

Traffic Assessment report modelling depicts LSP minimum population, dwellings and traffic. The report states it has utilised a Main Roads ROM sub area matrix and provides an update to the 2003 district traffic model which, with a 10% peak hour factor yields a two-way daily traffic forecast of 27-29,850vpd on Marmion Avenue.  However, the current ROM 2031 base model, without inclusion of Lot 9036 land uses, forecasts midblock volumes on Marmion Avenue of 34,900vpd. Recent Butler – Brighton DSP traffic modelling undertaken for the DSP (2005) also yields volumes of 34,000 – 35,000vpd on Marmion Avenue at full build-out of the NW Corridor. 

With significantly lower district traffic modelled volumes, the LSP Traffic Assessment report SIDRA analysis indicates significant congestion at the Marmion Avenue/Brighton Bvd intersection with an overall Level of Service ‘D’ with excessive peak queues extending 340-420m north and south on Marmion Avenue, whilst utilising maximum cycle times.

This supports Main Roads previous advice that this section of Marmion Avenue will ultimately be near midblock capacity and will be at signal capacity for a 4-Lane road. This assessment of traffic does not take into account interim staged construction of the Mitchell Freeway and likely higher short term traffic volumes that may need to be accommodated on Marmion Avenue. 

It remains Main Roads opinion that it would be prudent to design Marmion Avenue for 6 Lanes (without local service road incursions within the Marmion Avenue reservation) in the vicinity of Lot 9036.

Administration supports use of the North West Corridor Ultimate Development PM Peak Hour Traffic Model (NWC Model) data rather than Main Roads current 2031 ROM data to update the Brighton-Jindee District Traffic Model.

The NWC model, developed by traffic engineering consultant Bruce Alubaugh with cooperation from the City, provides ultimate development traffic forecasts for the area north of Hester Avenue, south of the Two Rocks boundary, east of the coast, and west of Old Yanchep Road.

The NWC model is based on full build out land use data (dwellings, jobs, school enrolments, and special vehicle trip generators such as train stations, district recreation sites and beach recreation nodes) based on District and Local Structure Plans, and full build out road network to the local distributor level.

Furthermore, the NWC model has been used in the assessment and approval of other recent LSPs in the NW corridor, and no requirements have been placed on those structure plans to incorporate 2031 ROM data.

Administration does not support Main Roads' request for the traffic modelling to take into account the potentially higher short term traffic volumes on Marmion Avenue as a result of the interim staged construction of the Mitchell Freeway. However, Administration does consider it necessary for LSP 84 to be updated to address the long term traffic generation of Lot 9036 and its impact on and from the immediate surrounding network.

Administration considers it more appropriate for Main Roads to consider the short term and longer term impact of the Mitchell Freeway construction (and other regional transport infrastructure upgrades) on the North West Sub-region in its next review of the 2031 ROM based model. A regional assessment of the short term and longer term impact of the Mitchell Freeway construction can inform future district and local traffic modelling for areas that are yet to be structure planned. This will ensure future road reserves and infrastructure upgrades are aligned to robust and sound long term requirements.

The LTS shall be updated with information from the North West Corridor Ultimate Development PM Peak Hour Traffic Model.

6.6

The statutory provisions of LSP 84 indicate that local service roads may be provided within the Marmion Avenue reservation, if required. Access road incursions are also shown in the “indicative layout” of the Jindalee Primary School Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 71. Main Roads has previously objected to Marmion Avenue local service road incursions in its response to Council in relation to the Smart Growth rezoning and LSP 71. Any access road incursion in the vicinity of Lot 9036 will likely preclude the ability to widen Marmion Avenue to 6 Lanes in the future whilst also providing headlight screening, a Dual Use Path, appropriate bus bays and clear zones to the northbound carriageway of Marmion Avenue.

Noted. Pages 101 and 102 of the Jindee Design Code detail thoroughfare standards for the northern and southern lengths of Marmion Avenue adjacent to the LSP 84 area. Page 102 includes a provision which allows for service roads to be provided in the verge of Marmion Avenue.

Part 1 of LSP 84 specifically identifies that the statutory provisions contained within LSP 84 (including the Jindee Design Code) relate only to the land contained within the inner edge of the LSP 84 boundary. Administration, therefore, does not support the inclusion of design standards relating to Marmion Avenue which is outside of the LSP 84 boundary. It is considered appropriate for both page 101 and 102 to be deleted from LSP 84.

Notwithstanding the above, the location of the access road for the Jindee school site, which is depicted on LSP 71 within the Marmion Avenue road reserve, was approved by the WAPC on 6 December 2012 through subdivision 145827. The statutory provisions of LSP 84 do not override this subdivision approval.

Pages 101 and 102 of LSP 84 relating to 'Avenue 1C' and 'Avenue 1D' shall be deleted along with all other references to 'Avenue 1C' and 'Avenue 1D'.

6.7

Main Roads previously requested SIDRA analysis be undertaken for all major signalised and un-signalised intersections accessing Marmion Avenue in their response to the Lot 9036 Smart Growth rezoning.  However, the LSP Traffic Assessment provides SIDRA analysis results for the Marmion Avenue/Brighton Bvd intersection only. 

Main Roads notes significantly high modelled traffic volumes on un-signalised roads accessing Marmion Avenue that may likely warrant signalisation. Main Roads Marmion Avenue access advice is as follows:

·    Westside – 150m north of Brighton Bvd - Main Roads supports complete removal of the LILO due to the close proximity of adjacent signals 150m to the south.

·    Marmion Avenue/Brighton Bvd – Main Roads supports provision for a 6 Lane traffic signal installation with appropriate reservation truncations to suit left and right turning pockets on Marmion Avenue.

·    Westside – 150m south of Brighton Bvd - Main Roads supports complete removal of the LILO due to the close proximity of adjacent signals 150m to the north.

In the absence of LSP No 84 Traffic Assessment report SIDRA  intersection analysis:

·    Westside – 400m north of Brighton Bvd - Main Roads supports a LILO.

·    Westside – 300m south of Brighton Bvd – Main Roads supports a LILO.

·    Westside – 240m north of Kingsbridge Bvd - Main Roads supports a LILO.

With revised access arrangements as detailed above, it is possible that the proposed 24m road reservation width of the Jindee Main Street Bvd will need to be revised to accommodate higher traffic volumes, increased turning movements and turning pocket lengths at the Marmion Avenue/Brighton Bvd intersection.

Agree in part. The location and types of intersections depicted on LSP 84 are consistent with the City's Local Planning Policy 3.8 - Marmion Avenue Arterial Road Access (LPP 3.8). LPP 3.8 was adopted by the City on 7 February 2012 and has formed the basis of the City's decisions relating to intersections accessing Marmion Avenue since this time. Therefore, Administration considers the location and types of intersections accessing Marmion Avenue to be acceptable. 

LSP 84 depicts four full movement intersections with Marmion Avenue.

·  The southernmost intersection (Westside - 240m north of Kingsbridge Bvd) has already been constructed as part of the subdivision and development process for Lot 12 Marmion Avenue.  The intersection immediately to the north of the Jindalee Primary school site (Westside – 300m south of Brighton Bvd) has already been approved through WAPC subdivision 145827.  Therefore, Administration does not consider it appropriate to request any additional SIDRA intersection analysis for these two intersections, or to consider widening of the Jindee Main Street Bvd (as the access arrangements of these intersections are not proposed to change).

·  The applicant has provided SIDRA analysis to support the full movement intersection at Marmion Ave/Butler Bvd. Administration does not support the provision of a 6 lane traffic signal installation at this intersection. Administration considers it more appropriate that Main Roads investigates the long term role of Marmion Avenue (in its entirety) as part of more detailed strategic transport planning and modelling. This work can better inform the planning, design and construction of Marmion Avenue as part of future structure planning, subdivision and development.

·  Administration supports Main Roads request for a SIDRA intersection analysis of the northernmost full movement intersection (Westside – 400m north of Brighton Bvd) as currently no such analysis has been provided to the City. 

Furthermore, Administration does not support removal of the two LILO intersections (West side 150m north and south of Brighton Bvd) as they are consistent with LPP 3.8.

Plan 1 and the LTS shall be updated to depict the northernmost intersection with Marmion Avenue as a 'left in - left out' intersection. A notation on Plan 1 and the LTS shall clarify that the intersection is 'left in- left-out' unless adequate SIDRA analysis is provided to support the intersection being a full movement intersection.

6.8

Access to and from T6 commercial areas shall be gained from within the local road network. Full control of access shall be enforced along the western boundary of Marmion Avenue. No vehicle access shall be permitted to or from the Marmion Avenue reservation from adjacent structure plan roads.  This shall be noted on the deposited plan in accordance with s150 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 as a restrictive covenant for the benefit of the City at the expense of the applicant.

Disagree. The locations of the 'left-in left-out' intersections accessing the commercial area along Marmion Avenue are consistent with LPP 3.8 and are, therefore, considered acceptable. These access points to future commercial development are expected to assist in reducing traffic speed, are adequately separated from signalised intersections and will distribute traffic volumes more evenly, rather than concentrating traffic around one or two intersections.

No modification required.

6.9

Main Roads requires that no earthworks encroach onto the Marmion Avenue reservation and ground levels within the Marmion Avenue reservation shall remain as existing. These comments include private earthwork infrastructure such as retaining walls.

Agreed. The City has standard conditions relating to this issue which will be recommended to the WAPC during the subdivision stage of development.

No Modification required.

6.10

Awnings, Arcades and Galleries shall not encroach within the Marmion Avenue reservation.

Agree, the Marmion Avenue Road reservation is outside of the LSP 84 boundary.

The Urban Standards within the Jindee Design Code relating to the T6 zone adjacent to Marmion Avenue shall be updated to include a provision to ensure that no aspects of the built form will encroach onto the Marmion Avenue road reserve.

6.11

A revised updated robust Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) shall be undertaken that includes Main Roads Regional Operations Model (ROM) modelling and SIDRA analysis for all major signalised and un-signalised intersections accessing Marmion Avenue. The TIA will need to include a zone of influence for modelling the impacts of higher densities extending at least 1Km outside of Lot 9036 boundaries to identify potential deficiencies in the road network and to determine future infrastructure upgrade and modification requirements. It is important that the analysis should utilise adjusted ROM modelled traffic volumes at full build-out plus 10 years in accordance with the WAPC policy “Transport Assessment Guidelines for Developments” – Section 8.8.  

Refer 6.5 and 6.7 above

Refer 6.5 and 6.7 above.

6.12

A transport noise assessment has not been provided to Main Roads for the assessment of LSP No 84. The applicant will need to undertake a transport noise assessment in accordance with WAPC State Planning Policy 5.4 “Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning”.

Administration acknowledges that SPP 5.4 requires a noise assessment to be carried out as early as practicable in the planning process.  In this instance, Administration considers that the subdivision application stage is adequate for the approval of a Noise Management Plan as the recommendations of the assessment will be able to inform the subdivision design.  In addition, any noise attenuation requirements relating to the subdivision design will be carried through to the corresponding Detailed Area Plan. 

Currently, Table 7 of LSP 84 states that a 'Noise Assessment' will be approved at the LSP approval stage. However, in accordance with the above comments, Administration considers a Noise Management Plan at the subdivision application stage to be more appropriate.

Table 7 of Part 1 shall be updated to replace references to a 'Noise Assessment' with a 'Noise Management Plan'. The approval stage for this document shall be the subdivision (application) stage and the approval authorities shall be the City (on the advice of the former Department of Environment and Conservation, now Department of Environmental Regulation and Main Roads).

7

The Department of Transport

The Department understands that Main Roads Western Australia has raised a number of concerns with the City and the Department encourages the City to resolve these issues.

Noted.

No modification required.

8

The Water Corporation

The Water Corporation's planning is based on the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), and the Water Corporation requires the number of expected residences within areas of determine the demand for water and the expected waste water discharge. LSP 84 should provide an R-Code equivalent to the Transect Zone Descriptions.

Administration acknowledges that it is difficult for the proponent to determine the maximum number of residences which will ultimately be developed within each Transect Zone. However, it is considered reasonable and appropriate for the proponent to provide estimates to assist the Water Corporation in its forward planning.

Part 2 of the LSP shall be updated to include an estimate of the maximum dwelling yields for each Transect zone within the LSP 84 area.

9

CLE Town Planning and Design on Behalf of Satterley Property Group and the Department of Housing

Part 2 of LSP 84 discusses in considerable length that in order to successfully develop and achieve the objectives of the estate, a significant increase to the 'retail/commercial' floorspace will be necessary at some future time. The projected increase to the floor space is identified within the report as being:

·    4000m² for the coastal village centre central node (an increase of 1000m² from that identified in the Butler-Jindalee District Structure Plan (DSP);

·    1000m² in the central node; and

·    18,500m² along the Marmion Avenue T6 Precinct.

This last figure being significant considering that the Butler District Centre itself has a floorspace of 22,500m².

The hierarchy and floor space for the LSP 84 area was determined through  comprehensive retail modelling and land use planning carried out over the wider Butler-Jindalee locality, has been adopted by Council and has been accepted and complied with by all developments on surrounding landholdings.

It is considered that discussions within Part 2 relating to the increase in retail floor space to this level go well beyond simply providing some additional local residential conveniences. It appears to completely dismiss all retail modelling and land use planning for the area, ignores the long established centre hierarchy in the area and will only have a detrimental impact on the establishment of the Butler District Centre. It is requested that LSP 84 be amended to comply with the established floor space allocation for the area.

Under Amendment 115 to DPS 2, proposed Schedule 16 sets a maximum NLA for Jindee of 3000m², however, states that this NLA may be increased subject to the approval of the City and the WAPC following a retail needs assessment study being carried out. This 3000m² limit refers only to Planning Land Use Category 5 - Shop Retail (PLUC 5) floor space. There is no floor space limits for other forms of retail outside of this category.

At current, because Table 1 of Part 2 does not differentiate PLUC 5 from the other various forms of retail which are proposed, it would seem that the maximum NLA set by Amendment 115 to DPS 2 is being far exceeded. This is not the intention of the applicant who has confirmed that only 3000m² of PLUC 5 Shop Retail is currently being sought through LSP 84, with an additional 1000m² NLA being projected for the future, and subject to the approval of the City and the WAPC as outlined above.

Based on the above, Administration considers the proposed floor space figures to be reasonable, and not likely to have a detrimental impact on surrounding activity centres. It is, however, considered necessary for the Pages 208 and 209 of Part 2 to be updated to clearly differentiate between PLUC 5 Shop Retail and the other forms of retail. In addition, Part 2 should provide some additional information regarding the compliance of LSP 84 with the maximum NLA figures set out within draft amendment 115 to DPS 2.

Pages 208 and 209 of Part 2 shall be replaced with the revised version of pages 208 and 209 included as Appendix 1 to this Table.

10

Department of Fire and Emergency Services UXO Office

No Objection.

Noted.

No modification required.

Modification No.

Recommended modification

Administration justification

LSP map

1.      

The LSP map shall be labelled as 'Plan 1'.

The LSP map is referred to as 'Plan 1' throughout the Part 1 text and therefore should be labelled as such.

2.      

The LSP map shall be updated to apply a Transect zone to all thoroughfare areas within the LSP boundaries which are currently depicted without a Transect zone.

Currently the Part 1 plan shows blank (white) areas depicting the 'Primary Movement Network' which do not have an associated Transect zone. Administration requires all non reserved land to be part of a Transect in order to inform the development of this land, particularly where minor realignment of roads is proposed to occur through the subdivision process.

3.      

The legend shall be updated to omit Note No. 2.

This note appears to undermine the purpose of the LSP map which seeks to apply Transects and residential densities to the LSP area.

4.      

The LSP map shall be updated to delete the small areas of T3 and T4 adjacent to Strategic Open Space sites 3 and 5 respectively.

Editorial modification - the overlay of the Strategic Open Space Sites on the LSP map is slightly inaccurate.

5.      

The legal description of the land should read:

"Jindee Local Structure Plan

Lot 9036 & Portion of Lot 3054

Marmion Avenue, Jindalee

City of Wanneroo."

Editorial modification. The LSP 84 area falls within the wider Jindalee area.

6.      

Replace "facter" with "factor" in Note No.3

Minor typographical error.

7.      

The northern portion of the LSP plan (and all other plans throughout the entire LSP) shall be updated to depict and demonstrate an amended design which ensures road connection locations to Lot 9 Marmion Avenue, Jindalee are consistent with any existing approved plan of subdivision over that land.

Subdivision approval for Lot 9 Marmion Avenue, Jindalee was granted by the WAPC under WAPC subdivision reference 145521 and 147564.  The road connections as depicted on Plan 1 do not align with the location of roads on Lot 9, as approved through WAPC subdivision reference 145521 and 147564. 

8.      

Include reference to the Strategic Open Space numbering within the Plan 1 legend.

Inclusion of reference to Strategic Open Space numbering in the Plan 1 legend will improve plan legibility.

Part 1 -Statutory Provisions

9.      

The term 'Council' shall be replaced with the term 'City of Wanneroo' throughout Part 1 (including the Jindee Design Code).

Editorial modification.

10.    

The term 'Development Approval' shall be replaced with the term 'Planning Approval' throughout Part 1 (including the Jindee Design Code).

Editorial modification – District Planning Scheme No. 2 refers to 'Planning Approval'.

11.    

The term 'DPS 2' shall be replaced with 'the Scheme' throughout Part 1 (including the Jindee Design Code). 

District Planning Scheme No. 2 is currently under review and is likely to be replaced by Local Planning Scheme No. 3. 

12.    

Part 1 shall be updated to include a provision which states contributions are payable in accordance with the 'Clarkson Butler District Distributor Road (DDR) Infrastructure Developer Contribution Arrangements as defined by Part 11 and Schedule 10 of District Planning Scheme No.2'.

LSP 84 makes no reference to the existing scheme provisions in relation to 'Clarkson Butler DDR Infrastructure Developer Contribution Arrangements' as defined by Part 11 and Schedule 10 of DPS 2.  The obligation within Cell 1 relates to the dedication and construction of Marmion Avenue, the western end of Lukin Drive and the construction of four pedestrian crossings (currently unconstructed).

13.    

Clause 5.1 (c) shall be updated to read as follows:

"Part 2 of this Structure Plan and the Technical Reports (Part 3) should be used as a reference guide to assist in the interpretation of the statutory provisions contained in Part 1."

This wording is more consistent with the standard wording the City has approved in other Structure Plans.

14.    

The definition for 'Bed and Breakfast' shall be deleted from Table 1.

The DPS 2 definition adequately captures the intent of the proposed varied definition.

15.    

The definition for 'Civic Building' shall be updated in Table 1, to insert a comma after the word 'designed'. Additionally the definition shall omit the words "or for a use approved by the City of Wanneroo".

The current definition would suggest that the City has full discretion to determine what is and is not a 'Civic Building'. The definition must remain specific to avoid this type of interpretive wording.

16.    

The definition of 'Convenience Store' shall be deleted from Table 1

The DPS 2 definition is identical with the exception of limiting size to a maximum of 300m² gross leasable area. The size limitation is considered necessary to differentiate the use from a shop/supermarket and to ensure such 'convenience' retail uses are an appropriate size, particularly as these are typically co-located with a service station.

17.    

A new definition for 'Hire Service ' shall be included in Table 1 as a varied DPS 2 definition to identify the use as "land and buildings used for the hire of goods and equipment of a bulky nature including machinery and mechanical equipment and may include the display of bulky goods and equipment".

This modification will clarify the difference between retail hire services of smaller items included within the 'retail' definition, and industrial/bulky goods type hire services included in the 'Hire Service' definition.

18.    

The definition of 'Mast or Antenna' shall be deleted from Table 1

The DPS 2 definition of 'Mast or Antenna' adequately captures the intent of the proposed varied definition.

19.    

The definition of 'Reception Centre' shall be updated in Table 1 to replace the term 'business purposes' with the term 'seminar purposes'.

The term 'business purposes' is considered too ambiguous for the intended use and could see an argument put forward for many types of 'business' uses which are outside of the intended scope of this land use.

20.    

The definition of 'Restaurant' shall be deleted from Table 1

The DPS 2 definition of 'Restaurant' adequately captures the intent of the proposed varied definition.

21.    

The varied definition of 'Telecommunications Infrastructure' shall be replaced in Table 1 with an alternative definition that only varies the DPS 2 definition through the inclusion of 'satellite dishes associated with towers'.

Without significantly varying the DPS 2 definition, the proposed alternative definition meets the objective of the developer to control the location of satellite dishes associated with "Telecommunications Infrastructure'.

22.    

The reference to 'adverse impact in general' shall be deleted from the definitions of 'artisan studio' and 'cottage industry' in Table 2.

The term 'adverse impact in general' is only defined within the definitions for the Jindee Design Code and not within the Part 1 provisions. It is undesirable to include such an interpretive phrase within Part 1 which is not clarified through a corresponding definition.

23.    

The definition of 'Civic Structure' shall be updated in Table 2 to replace the term 'Civic Reserve' with the term 'Civic Space'.

Editorial modification - the term 'Civic Space' is a general term throughout LSP 84 to describe various forms of public space.

24.    

The definition of 'Inn', shall be updated in Table 2 to clarify the term "short term lodging" and make similar reference to length of stay as used for 'Short Term Accommodation'.

Editorial modification - the term is ambiguous and needs to be defined.

25.    

The definition of 'Kiosk' shall be updated in Table 2 to specify that a 'Kiosk' is open on at least one side.

Editorial modification - the current wording would suggest that a structure open on more than one side is not able to qualify as a 'Kiosk'.

26.    

The definition of 'Laboratory Facility' shall be updated in Table 2 to insert a comma after the word 'land'.

Editorial modification.

27.    

The definition of 'Museum' shall be deleted from Table 2 and the Jindee Design Code definitions.

A 'Museum' is captured by the DPS 2 land use definition of 'Public Exhibition Facility'.

28.    

The definition of 'Retail' should be updated in Table 2 and the Jindee Design Code definitions, to omit reference to 'Neighbourhood Retail'.

'Neighbourhood Retail' is a use class of its own with different land use permissibility's to 'Retail' and should not be used as a point of reference in the definition of 'Retail'.

29.    

The definition of 'Specialised Retail' shall be amended in Table 2 and the Jindee Design Code to read as follows:

"Big box retail and enclosed shopping malls usually served by parking areas adjacent to and/or surrounding the development'. 

The current definition implies that onsite car parking is not required for 'Specialised Retail'. Additionally, the definition requires parking to surround the development when this may not be necessary or possible.

30.    

The definition for 'Serviced Accommodation' shall be deleted from Table 2 and the Jindee Design Code.

The definition for 'Short Term Accommodation' includes 'Serviced Accommodation' and has the same permissibility's outlined in Table 6 of LSP 84.

31.    

The definition for 'Short Term Accommodation' shall be modified in Table 2 and the Jindee Design Code to exclude reference to 'Youth Hostels'.

A 'Youth Hostel' is defined separately within the Jindee Design Code and has its own land use permissibility's which are different to 'Short Term Accommodation'.  For this reason it is appropriate to exclude the term 'Youth Hostel' from the definition of 'Short Term Accommodation'. 

32.    

Section 6 shall be updated to include a new sub-section that includes a brief summary of the objectives and purposes of each Transect zone.

Clause 8.3 refers to determining the consistency of a proposed use against the objectives and purposes of each transect.  Section 6 of Part 1 statutory provisions introduces the transect zones and is therefore the most appropriate place for this information to be contained.

33.    

Section 7 shall be updated to include an additional three plans ('Plan 2, Plan 3 and Plan 4') which depict design elements contained within the Jindee Design Code that are relevant to the subdivision design process, as outlined below:

·        Plan 2 –  Lot size ranges;

·        Plan 3 – Thoroughfares including minimum reserve width, special design areas; and

·        Plan 4 – Public Open Space (sites which contribute towards the 10% requirement).

The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) will not be adopting or administering the Jindee Design Code and will be assessing applications for subdivision against the Part 1 statutory provisions only.  The City will make recommendations on subdivision applications based on the Part 1 statutory provisions and the Jindee Design Code.  Accordingly, it is important that certain elements of the Jindee Design Code which relate to subdivision control are contained within the Part 1 statutory provisions.  This will ensure that matters relating to subdivision control within the Jindee Design Code, which are considered by the City during its subdivision assessment, are also given due regard by the WAPC during its subdivision assessment.

34.    

Section 7 shall be updated the read as follows:

"Subdivision Compliance

7.1     Subdivision of land shall be in accordance with Plan 1 of the LSP.

7.2     In making a recommendation to the WAPC on a referred subdivision application for land located within the LSP 84 area, the City shall have regard to the relevant requirements of Part 1, including the requirements of the Jindee Design Code contained within Schedule 1 of Part 1.

Dwelling Targets

7.3     The LSP is to achieve a minimum of 1,305 dwellings within the LSP area.

7.4     Subdivision of the LSP area is to achieve a minimum average density of 22 dwellings per site hectare across the LSP area.

Density Control

7.5     Plan 2 defines the lot size ranges that apply within the LSP area. The size of freehold and survey-strata lots created within the LSP area shall be consistent with these lot size ranges.

Thoroughfare Reserves

7.6     Plan 3 identifies the minimum reserve widths and special design areas for the thoroughfare network within the LSP area. The thoroughfare network approved at the time of subdivision shall be generally consistent with Plan 3.

Public Open Space

7.7     The provision of a minimum of 10% public open space shall be provided in accordance with the WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhoods. Public open space is to be provided generally in accordance with Table 4 and Plan 4, with an updated public open space schedule to be provided at the time of subdivision for determination by the WAPC, upon the advice of the City of Wanneroo."

As Administration is recommending the inclusion of the three plans outlined in Modification 33 above, it is essential that Section 7 is updated to make reference to these plans and their function for the subdivision assessment process. It is also important to clarify that the City shall have regard to the Jindee Design Code in addition to the Part 1 statutory provisions.

Further to this, it has been recommended that Section 7 exclude all references to the 'Subdivision Control Plan'. The Subdivision Control Plan was proposed to be lodged with each subdivision application and will indicate the lot size applicable to each lot within the subdivision and any lot(s) which may be subject to re-subdivision.  Furthermore, it is proposed that when approved, the Subdivision Control Plan will form part of the Part 1 statutory provisions and used for determination of future subdivision applications. 

Essentially, the existence of the Subdivision Control Plan would provide any would be developer the means to vary residential densities, without requiring a formal Structure Plan amendment.  Administration does not consider it acceptable for any document lodged at the subdivision application stage to circumvent the Structure Plan amendment process.  Furthermore, the existence of the Subdivision Control Plan is considered to be superfluous in light of Administrations recommended modification to insert an additional plan into the Part 1 statutory provisions which identifies lot sizes ranges within each Transect zone.

35.    

In addition to the revised wording for section 7 outlined in modification 34 above, section 7 shall be updated to include dwelling targets for each Transect zone.

LSP 84 differs from a conventional structure plan as the lot ranges within each transect are very broad.  In the absence of conventional (narrower) lot ranges, dwelling targets will provide a standard for the intended density of development within each Transect.

36.    

Table 4 shall be deleted.

As per Modification 33 above, Administration is recommending a modification to include a new 'Plan 2' into Part 1 of the LSP. Plan 2 will outline the lot size ranges for the LSP area which subdivision must comply with. These lot size ranges do not correlate to the locations of each Transect zone, therefore, it is considered that the inclusion of Table 4 adds a level of confusion to the LSP.

37.    

Table 5 shall be updated to include a 'conservation' notation beside any public open space sites which are proposed to be partially or entirely conservation.

Several of the strategic public open space sites depicted on the LSP 84 plan are intended to function as conservation open space. It is important to specify this within Part 1 of LSP 84, to ensure that these sites are considered appropriately at the subdivision stage of development.

38.    

Clause 8.3 shall be updated to remove sub-clause (a).

This subclause is not necessary as it is covered by the content of sub-clause (b).

39.    

Clause 8.3 (b) and (c) shall be updated to clarify that the objectives and purposes for the Transect zones are outlined within section 6.

Clause 8.3 (b) outlines that the procedure for dealing with uses not specifically mentioned in Table 6, requires determining whether the proposed use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the particular Transect zone. Such objectives and purposes should therefore be clarified within the document.

40.    

Clause 8.3 (c) shall be updated to replace the term 'zone' with the term 'Transect'.

Editorial modification.

41.    

Table 6 shall be updated to replace the land use 'Hotel/Resort' with the land use 'Hotel'.

This current term is not consistent with DPS 2 which refers to a 'Hotel' only.

42.    

Table 6 shall be updated to reflect the land use 'Inn' as an 'X' use within the T2 transect zone.

The use 'Inn' is considered incompatible with the intended character and amenity of the T2 transect zone.

43.    

Table 6 shall be updated to reflect the land use 'Neighbourhood Retail' as a 'P' use in T5 and T6 transect zones. 

To avoid 'Neighbourhood Retail' being refused in a T5 or T6 transect, the use should be permitted. There would be no detrimental impact if 'Neighbourhood Retail' is located in a T5 or T6 transect zone.

44.    

Table 6 shall be updated to remove all reference to the land use 'Serviced Apartment'.

There is no corresponding land use definition for 'Serviced Apartment' in DPS 2 or LSP 84.

45.    

Table 6 shall be updated to remove all reference to the term 'museum'.

The definition of 'Museum' will be deleted from LSP 84 and captured through the DPS 2 definition for 'Public Exhibition Facility'. 

46.    

Table 6 shall be updated to reflect the land use 'Office' as an 'X' use in the T2 transect zone.

An 'Office' land use is not consistent with the intent of the T2 transect zone.

47.    

Table 6 shall be updated so the land use 'Club' is replaced with 'Club (non-residential)'.

This terminology is consistent with DPS 2.

48.    

Table 6 shall be updated to reflect  the land use 'Betting Agency' as an 'X' use in the T4 transect zone.

This land use is not considered appropriate in predominantly residential areas such as the T4 transect zone.

49.    

Table 6 shall be updated to reflect the land use 'Liquor Store' land use as an 'X' use in the T4 transect zone.

This land use is not considered appropriate in predominantly residential areas such as the T4 transect zone.

50.    

Table 6 shall be updated to reflect the land use 'Hire Service' as an 'X' use in the T4 and T5 transect zone.

The industrial hire of bulky items including machines and mechanical equipment' is not considered appropriate within the predominantly residential T4 and T5 transect zones.

51.    

The notation on the bottom of Table 6 shall be updated to read as follows:

"R = Reserve (reserves for public recreation which are vested in the Crown and managed by the City of Wanneroo).  Uses within any local public open space which fall within a Transect Zone shall be determined in accordance with 'R' permissibility's outlined above and not against the land use permissibility's for the corresponding Transect Zone."

The intent of the 'R' column in Table 6 is to apply separate land use permissibility's to POS.  Currently, the text beneath Table 6 reads as follows:

"R = Reserve (local reserve vested in CoW). Local reserve locations determined at subdivision stage."

This wording does not clearly specify where and how these land use permissibility's should be applied.

52.    

Table 6 - all 'P' uses within the 'R' column shall be updated to be 'D' uses.

This approach is consistent with DPS 2 and allows the City discretion when determining an application within a reserve.

53.    

Clause 9.4 shall be updated to include a provision which states:

"any noise mitigation measures recommended in accordance with the Noise Management Plan undertaken in accordance with State Planning Policy 5.4 shall be incorporated at DAP stage."

Administration is recommending that Table 7 be updated to require a Noise Management Plan to be approved at the subdivision application stage where new development lots are created within 300m of Marmion Avenue.  It is considered necessary that the recommendations contained within the Noise Management Plan are incorporated into any applicable Detailed Area Plan/s for the subdivision area.

54.    

Sub-clause 10.4 shall be updated to replace "28 days" with "60 days".

DPS 2 allows 60 days for the consideration of a Structure Plan amendment including minor amendments. This timeframe should be maintained as it is not feasible for Administration to deal with amendments in a lesser timeframe.

55.    

Sub-clause 10.6 - shall be updated to remove grammatical errors.

Editorial modification.

56.    

Table 7 shall be updated to include a requirement for the preparation of an 'Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan' which is to be approved by the City of Wanneroo (on the advice of the Department of Indigenous Affairs) prior to commencement of subdivisional works.

The applicant has provided an 'Aboriginal Heritage Summary' as a technical report to LSP 84. A recommendation of this report is that a 'Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan' is prepared to address several issues such as the process by which any cultural artefacts will be dealt with if discovered within the development site. The preparation of this management plan is also a standard requirement within other Structure Plans which have recently been adopted by the City.

57.    

Table 7 shall be updated to include a requirement for the preparation of a 'Landscape and Drainage Management Plan' which is to be approved by the City of Wanneroo prior to the commencement of subdivisional works.

A Landscape and Drainage Management Plan is considered essential to ensure the extent and form of landscaping delivered adequately reflects the intent of LSP 84, and that management and maintenance proposed for POS/drainage areas is supported by the City prior to works within those areas being undertaken.

58.    

Table 7 shall be updated to delete reference to an 'Environmental Management Plan', and replace this reference with:

·        A 'Flora and Fauna Management Plan' to be submitted to and approved by the City of Wanneroo (on the advice of the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC)) prior to the commencement of subdivisional works; and

·        A 'Conservation Management Plan' to be approved by the City of Wanneroo (on the advice of the DEC) prior to subdivision clearance.

The proposed 'Environmental Management Plan' is intended to function as both a 'Flora and Fauna Management Plan' and a 'Conservation Management Plan'. Administration considers it necessary for these two documents to be prepared separately because they relate to separate issues and are required to be assessed at different stages of the subdivision process.

59.    

Table 7 shall be updated to require the Noise Assessment and Noise Management Plan to be submitted with the first subdivision application which proposes the creation of any new development lots within 300m of Marmion Avenue.

Administration acknowledges that SPP 5.4 requires a noise assessment to be carried out as early as practicable in the planning process.  In this instance, Administration considers that the submission and approval of a Noise Management Plan at the time of application for the first subdivision which proposes any new development lots within 300m of Marmion Avenue to be adequate as any noise attenuation requirements relating to the subdivision design will be carried through to the corresponding Detailed Area Plan. 

60.    

Table 7 shall be updated to require the preparation and approval of an Asset Management Plan at the subdivision clearance stage.

An Asset Management Plan is required to holistically consider maintenance costs and funding sources for ongoing management/maintenance of the public realm/assets.

Schedule 1 to Part 1 - Jindee Design Code.

General

61.    

The Jindee Design Code shall be updated so that open space areas are referred to correctly, and so that the terminology used when referencing open spaces is consistent and not used interchangeably. In particular, the term 'Civic Reserve' shall be removed.  In general, the term 'Civic Space' may be used as a generic term to describe all open space areas which are depicted on the page 153 plan for the purpose of applying a 'Civic Space' landscaping typology to each site. The term 'Public Open Space' shall only be used to describe those public spaces which will ultimately be reserved for public recreation through the subdivision process. Generally, these public open spaces will also contribute to Jindee's 10% required public open space. 

A key function of the Jindee Design Code is to apply landscaping standards or 'civic space typologies' to open spaces within the LSP 84 area. These open spaces may be conventional 'public open spaces' in accordance with Liveable Neighbourhood Policy, pedestrian access ways or widened areas within the road reserve road. Notwithstanding that these sites may differ in their conventional form of creation, it is considered important that a single term is used to collectively refer to these sites. Therefore, the term 'civic space' should replace all other terminology currently used when generally referring to these open spaces.

In addition to the above, it is considered important that the Jindee Design Code only use the term 'Public Open Space' when referring to those 'civic spaces' which will ultimately be delivered as conventional 'POS' in accordance with Liveable Neighbourhoods. This differentiation is important to inform the assessment of subdivision applications.

62.    

The Jindee Design Code shall be updated to omit controls relating to any land which is outside of the delineated structure plan boundary, including MRS reserves.

LSP 84 has no jurisdiction to prescribe development  controls over land outside of the LSP 84 area, or land reserved under the MRS.

63.    

All plans contained within the Jindee Design Code shall be updated to depict an amended design which modifies or deletes the 'Y' shaped configuration of 'Drive 5 E' and 'Road 6B' connecting to the southern lot boundary of the LSP area.

The road configuration in this location has been deemed unsafe by the City's Engineers and an alternative configuration is therefore required.

64.    

All land use definitions in the Jindee Design Code shall be deleted.

Where land uses are not defined in DPS 2 or where a variation to a DPS 2 land use definition is proposed, such definitions are included in the Part 1 Statutory Provisions of the LSP. Deletion of the land use definitions in the Jindee Design Code will eliminate unnecessary repetition and will allow for definitions within the Jindee Design Code to be confined to design related terminology. 

Calibrated Tables and Design Approval Process

65.    

Move 'Design Approval Process' section to front of the Code, prior to 'Calibrated Process' section.

Editorial modification

66.    

Reference to the T1 zone shall be deleted from the Calibrated Tables.

LSP 84 does not have a T1 zone.

67.    

Table 1 Transect Zone Descriptions on page 27 shall be updated to reflect the full suite of civic space and frontage types permissible for each Transect zone.

The table currently includes "typical" frontage types, however, omits some of the frontage types that are permitted. Additionally, not all of the civic space types that are permitted are referred to in the table.

68.    

Table 1 Transect Zone Descriptions on page 27 shall be modified by replacing the word 'floor' with 'flex' within the T4 Building type description.

There is no 'floor building' type within the Jindee Design Code. This is an editorial modification to refer to the 'flex building' type which is a multi-family (apartment) building that may be attached to other building types.

69.    

Table 3 Garage Disposition Table shall be amended to detail any special circumstances that may justify street access for the front/rear side stack (access and parking configuration) where a laneway is present.

Where a laneway is present, vehicle access via the laneway is preferable.  Alternatives to this approach should be adequately justified and demonstrated.

70.    

The text accompanying the garage disposition table shall include an explanation that DAPs will include controls to address streetscape amenity and provide for passive visual surveillance between dwellings and adjoining thoroughfares.

Some garage dispositions in particular the 'Front Forecourt' configuration have the potential to adversely impact on streetscape or result in reduced surveillance in the absence of appropriate design/landscaping controls. Additional text is required to ensure that DAPs address these matters.

71.    

Clause 2 under the heading 'Detailed Area Plans' on page 38 shall be deleted. With the exception of reference to road reserve widths in clause 2(g), any controls listed under Clause 2 which do not appear in Clause 9.4 of Part 1 statutory provisions, may be inserted into Clause 9.4.

Editorial modification.  Clause 9.4 of the Part 1 statutory provisions already contain controls which may be prescribed by a DAP and it is not considered necessary to repeat these provisions within the Design Approval Process.

72.    

Clause 3 under the heading 'Detailed Area Plans' on page 38 shall be deleted.

LSP 84 provisions enable DAPs to vary certain requirements of the LSP.  A DAP or amendment to a DAP that is 'not inconsistent' with the LSP provisions does not guarantee the acceptability of that DAP or DAP amendment. It is appropriate that the City retains the discretion to advertise a DAP or amendment to a DAP where it considers this to be necessary, and as provided for in Clause 9.14.4 of DPS 2.

73.    

Table 13 shall be amended to delete Points 1a, 2a and 2d.

It is not considered appropriate for a DAP to allow variations to LSP 84 where those variations apply to subdivision related matters such as alignment of roads, lot layout and local open space configurations, as the City is not the authority responsible for determining applications for subdivision. It is also not appropriate for a DAP to vary LSP 84 in relation to the building typology plan or car parking standards, as this will add unnecessary complexity to the assessment process.  This may lead to uncertainty and/or inconsistency in the decision making process for development within the LSP 84 area.

74.    

Point 1b of Table 13 shall be updated to read as follows:

"Modifications to the recommended design elements regulated through the Control Plan."

Table 13 currently allows for variations to the 'required' design elements regulated through the Control Plan. This undermines the overall intent of having 'non-negotiable' design elements within the Control Plan. It is therefore only appropriate for a DAP to be capable of varying the 'recommended' design elements regulated through the Control Plan.

75.    

Point 3a of Table 13 shall be updated to specify that a DAP may only vary the design elements within the thoroughfare reserve of the thoroughfare type designated in LSP 84.

It is not appropriate for a DAP to assign a different thoroughfare type to those designated in LSP 84 as this may fetter WAPC subdivision decision making powers.  It is, however, considered acceptable for the design elements within the road reserve to be varied through a DAP where adequate justification is provided.  

76.    

The heading 'Development Approval' on page 40 shall be replaced with 'Planning Approval', as identified by recommended modification No. 10, above. The wording under this heading and for the 'Approvals Process' parts 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 shall be replaced with the following:

"An application for Planning Approval and/or a Building Permit must demonstrate that the proposed development meets the requirements of the approved DAP.

A review and assessment process for all development is required to be undertaken by the Jindee Town Architects' Office prior to lodgement with the City to ensure development achieves the required high quality architectural and built form outcomes.

Each application for Planning Approval and/or a Building Permit will be assessed on its merits and the approval of a particular design solution will not set a precedent for other developments.

Approval Process

The following steps outline the design formulation, submission and approval process required for development within the LSP 84 area.

1.0     Obtaining Town Architects' Office Endorsement

1.1              Applicant presents design plans for consideration by the Jindee Town Architects' Office.

1.2              The Town Architects' Office assesses the plans against the relevant provisions of the agreed LSP, approved DAP and any development requirement of the proponent.

1.3              The Town Architects' Office provides a written response to the applicant either endorsing the design plans for lodgement with the CoW or requiring further information /plan changes.

1.4              If changes are required, the applicant revises the design plans and submits them to the Town Architects' Office for endorsement.

1.5              When steps 1.1 to 1.4 are complete, an application for Planning Approval and/or a Building Permit may be made to the City accompanied by the Town Architects' Office statement of endorsement.

1.6              Where an applicant is unable to secure the endorsement of the Town Architects' Office, an application for Planning Approval and/or a Building Permit may be made to the City, however such application shall be accompanied with any written response provided to the applicant by the Town Architects' Office.

2.0     Planning/Building Permit Application Submission

2.1              Applications for Planning Approval and/or a Building Permit shall be submitted to the City together with the Town Architects' Office statement of endorsement or written comment.

2.2                    In the event that the applicant wishes to make design  changes to the development plans after an application has been submitted to the City, the applicant shall obtain the Town Architects' Office written endorsement or comment in relation to the plan changes and shall submit the endorsement or comment to the city with the revised plans.

3.0     Development of Civic (Public) Spaces and Civic (Public Buildings)

3.1        In considering the application, the City shall have due regard to:

i.        The ultimate purpose intended for the public space or applicable Transect Zone;

ii.       Any recommendations of the Town Architect's Office which may be provided with the application;

iii.      The provisions of the Agreed LSP and applicable DAP; and

iv.      Policy matters that CoW considers are relevant to the application."

The wording in LSP 84 requiring the applicant to address the Architectural Standards and other non-statutory design provisions administered by the proponent is to be removed as it is not appropriate for an LSP to require compliance with non-statutory documents that are not administered by the City. The obligation to comply with such requirements is subject to separate agreement between the purchaser and the proponent as may be established in the contract of sales agreements between the proponent and the purchaser.

The steps identified under the 'Approval Process' are to be modified to clarify the process for obtaining the Town Architects' Office endorsement of plans. It is desirable to retain the Town Architects' Office involvement in assessment of plans prior to lodgement with the City as this will facilitate a higher standard of plans for the City to assess and will reduce processing time. It is important, however, that the provisions in LSP 84 do not prevent consideration of a planning application where the Town Architects' Office has not endorsed the plans, especially where such refusal to endorse may be as a result of plans not complying with any separate developer administered standards. Notwithstanding this, all applications for planning approval lodged with the City will need to be submitted together with any written response/comment that has been provided by the Town Architects' Office to the applicant.

77.    

Numbering on the 'Setback Designations' diagram on page 41 shall be updated to ensure that it is correctly cross-referenced with the adjacent descriptions.

Editorial modification - cross-referenced numbering is incorrect.

Regulating Plan Series

78.    

The text beneath the heading 'Transect Plan' on page 44 shall be replaced with the following text:

"The Transect Plan assigns Transect zones and 'Civic Space' areas across the LSP 84 area.  Development is to accord with the design controls applicable to each Transect zone, 'Civic Space' type or Thoroughfare Standard.  There are 5 Transect zones within the LSP 84 area, starting from T2.  The 'Civic Space' areas within the MRS Parks and Recreation reserves will have the character of the T1 Natural Reserve zone (which is not included within the LSP 84 area), with this land being largely retained in its natural state.

Administration considers the modified text provides a more concise overview of the 'Transect Plan'.

79.    

The heading 'Reserves' and text contained underneath the heading on page 44 shall be replaced with the following text:

"Civic Spaces

The Transect Plan identifies 'Civic Spaces', some of which coincide with MRS 'Parks and Recreation' reserves, whilst others will be created as local 'Public Open Space' or thoroughfare reserves. 

The Landscape Standards allocate a 'Civic Space' type to many of the 'Civic Space' areas identified on the Transect Plan and establish parameters for the design of these spaces.  Where 'Civic Spaces' occur within a thoroughfare reserve, the Thoroughfare Standards provide the relevant design standards".

Administration considers it more appropriate to provide an overview of the 'Civic Spaces' in this area, as they directly relate to the Transect Plan provided on the following page.  Text relating to 'Reserves' is already provided on Page 90 of the Jindee Design Code, and therefore it is considered unnecessary to duplicate this information.

80.    

The words 'vested with' in the last paragraph on Page 44 shall be changed to 'managed by'.

Editorial modification.

81.    

The 'Transect Plan' on page 45 shall be updated to assign a Transect zone or 'Civic Space' to all land within the LSP 84 area.

This will ensure consistency with the definition of a 'Transect Plan', as introduced to DPS 2 through Amendment 115.

82.    

The note underneath the legend for the 'Transect Plan' on page 45 shall be deleted.

Editorial modification.

83.    

The text on page 46 describing the 'Control Plan' shall be updated to note that where more than one recommended frontage type is shown, that either one may be accepted. The text shall also note that where more than one frontage type is shown, a Detailed Area Plan may further refine the recommended frontage type to one of the two types depicted on the Control Plan.    

Clarification is required to outline the assessment approach to be followed where more than one recommended frontage type is shown on the Control Plan.

84.    

Sub-clause 1 on page 48 shall be updated to replace the term 'Public Open Spaces' with 'Civic Spaces'.

This clause refers to places within the public realm, which are considered 'Civic Spaces' and not just 'Public Open Space'.

85.    

The Public Space Plan on Page 49 shall be renamed 'Public Open Space Plan', and shall be amended to only include areas of public open space which will ultimately be reserved for the purpose of recreation through the subdivision process. Generally these public open spaces will also contribute towards Jindee's 10% public open space requirement.  In addition, the Public Space Plan shall be updated to depict a minimum of 2.1% conservation open space.  A notation shall be included on Page 49 which clarifies that additional civic spaces (of various typologies) may also be provided. These civic spaces may be created within the road reserve or through other arrangements such as being created as pedestrian access ways.

This modification will ensure that those spaces which will be ultimately reserved for public recreation through the subdivision process are easily identifiable, whilst acknowledging that additional spaces in the public realm may also be provided.

Urban Standards

86.    

The format and content of the 'Guiding Principles' for the Urban Standards shall be updated to include clear and concise objectives which underpin the more specific design requirements.

Administration considers it necessary that the objectives are clear and concise and relate only to the specific design requirements.

87.    

Table 14 shall be updated to:

·        Show the lot coverage as a range that is consistent with the maximum lot coverage figures identified in the relevant building typologies for each Transect;

·        Include a notation to clarify that the site coverage is determined by the standard applicable to the specific building typologies which are permitted on a lot;

·        Replace the terms 'prohibited' and 'permitted' with 'X' and 'P' respectively; and

·        Change Loft House to an 'X' classification in the T4 Transect zone.

Clarification is required to ensure the urban standards summary table is not used to override the lot coverage requirements for individual building typologies.

Administration considers the use of 'X' and 'P' when referring to permissibility improves legibility and is more consistent with terminology used elsewhere within LSP 84.

A Loft House is not an included typology for the T4 Transect.

88.    

The 'Car Parking' section on pages 53 and 54 shall be updated to:

·        Ensure that the text contained within the 'Car Parking – General Provisions + Standards' is not replicated within the preceding explanatory text;

·        Replace the reference to 'xx' in sub-clause 5 with the correct table number;

·        Replace the capital 'A' in 'amenity' to a lower case 'a'.

·        Group together standards and provisions which will inform a car parking strategy, and those standards and provisions which are general.

The current 'Car Parking' ' section is repetitive and lengthy.  Administration considers it necessary to consolidate and clarify the information and standards to ensure it can be easily applied when considering applications for Detailed Area Plans and development.

89.    

Point 9 under 'Car Parking – General Provisions + Standards' on page 54 shall be deleted.

The intent of existing point 9 is to signal the possible inclusion of transfer of car parking between lots as part of a future car parking strategy. Such arrangements may unnecessarily complicate parking assessment and administration at Jindee and the appropriateness of such a proposal cannot be determined at this point in time. Deletion of this part will not prevent future consideration of transfer of parking through a strategy, however, it is not considered necessary for the Jindee Design Code to pre-empt such possible inclusion. The developer views transfer rights as a longer term proposition as the coastal centre will not be developed for many years when the project reaches maturity.  As such it is considered more desirable for the City to consider the matter and any supporting justification wholly through a strategy at the time it is proposed, rather than potentially lending tacit support (however minimal) through referencing it in the LSP.

90.    

Point 13 under 'Car Parking – General Provisions + Standards' on page 54 shall be modified to clarify that residential development and/or use with a parking precinct may be subject to a separate parking standard derived from the base parking standards set out in Table 15, rather than the shared parking ratio that would apply to non-residential development/use. 

Parking demand for residential development/use within a parking precinct may necessitate the application of a different parking standard to that which may be applied to non-residential development through a shared parking ratio.

91.    

Point 19 under 'Car Parking – General Provisions + Standards' on page 54 shall be updated to state as follows:

 "a car parking strategy may, at the discretion of the City of Wanneroo and subject to supporting justification, identify lots where retail tenancies comprising floor space areas of less than 140m² within the T5 and T6 zones may be exempt from an on-site car parking requirement."

The original wording of this clause gives an 'as-of-right' parking exemption for retail tenancies less than 140m². Administration does not consider it reasonable for such an exemption to be granted at this early stage of planning. However, the Jindee Design Code does allow for an adopted car parking strategy in identified 'precincts' to include on-site car parking exemptions. The proposed modification would ensure that parking exemptions for retail tenancies of this size were considered only through the assessment of a car parking strategy once more detailed planning had been undertaken.

92.    

Table 15 shall be updated to delete references to Retail/Commercial space under 140m² being exempt from on-site parking requirements. Instead it shall be noted that Retail/Commercial space under 140m² shall provide parking at a rate of 1 on-site bay per 50m² of NLA.

The current car parking standard is a significant variation from the standards as prescribed by DPS 2.  Administration considers it necessary for Retail/Commercial tenancies under 140m² to provide a minimum level of parking on site to cater for staff and/or customers, whilst recognising the intention to provide for shared parking within public car parks within the coastal node, and through on-street car parking.

93.    

Table 15 shall be updated to include a parking standard of 1 bay per 4 persons accommodated for 'Civic Uses'.

Currently, Table 15 exempts 'Civic Uses' such as Cinemas, Reception Centres and Place's of Assembly from parking requirements.  Administration does not consider this acceptable given the potential for a high number of patrons attending such premises at a given time.

94.    

Table 15 shall be updated to include a parking standard for restaurant (excluding incidental outdoor dining within adjacent civic spaces) of 1 bay per 4 seats across all transects.

Currently, Table 15 exempts restaurants within the T2/T3 transects from parking requirements, and does not require parking to be provided for outdoor dining seats in T3/T4/T5 & T6.  Administration considers that a parking standard should apply to restaurant use within all transects given the potential parking demand generated by such uses.  'Alfresco' or 'outdoor dining' is encouraged, with the objective of facilitating pedestrian activity and vibrancy. Additionally, it is anticipated that allowing an exemption from providing on-site parking for incidental outdoor dining will facilitate the development of restaurant businesses. Given the benefits of outdoor dining and given the commitment to on-street parking within much of the LSP area, it is considered acceptable for incidental outdoor dining use within civic spaces to be exempt from the requirement for on-site car parking. Where outdoor dining is provided on a private lot this shall still be subject to the car parking standards.

95.    

Table 15 shall be updated to delete the parking requirement for a 'Drive Through Food Outlet' and a 'Showroom' in the T2/T3 transects and replace with 'N/A.'

The land uses of 'Drive Through Food Outlet' and 'Showroom' are not permitted in the T2 & T3 transects.

96.    

Note 1 under Table 15 shall be updated to state that "visitor parking for Villa, House, Cottage or Terrace may be provided on-site or off-site, including on street parking."

It is considered acceptable for visitor parking to be provided either on-site or off-site for the lower density building typologies of Villa, House, Cottage or Terrace. Higher density building typologies may result in a more significant demand for visitor parking in a setting where there is increased demand from other uses for on-street parking. It is therefore considered appropriate to clarify that the on-street visitor parking option is only available to those building typologies mentioned. For all other residential building typologies visitor parking should be provided on site.

97.    

Note 2 under Table 15 shall be deleted.

The content of these notes undermines and adds complexity to the content of Table 15.

98.    

A notation shall be included under Table 15 to state the following:

"The base parking standards contained within Table 15 relate to parking which is to be provided on-site, unless otherwise stated."

Editorial modification.

99.    

A notation shall be included under Table 15 to state the following:

"Base standards shall be used to arrive at a shared parking ratio where land falls within a car parking precinct.  This shared ratio will be applied in lieu of the base parking standards."

Editorial modification to clarify the relationship between the base parking standards and any future shared parking ratio that may be applicable.

100.  

Table 16 shall be deleted and replaced with an additional clause in the Part 1 Statutory Provisions as follows:

"2.0 ha of reserved land shall be created for regional beach car parking."

Currently, Table 16 provides car parking standards based on different ratios for local and regional beach car parking per linear metre of usable bathing beach.  In accordance with the Jindee Innovation agreement and the intent of the MRS amendment, the subsequent development of the LSP area will include the transfer of 2ha of land to the Crown, to be managed by the City of Wanneroo for use as regional public car parking. 

101.  

Table 17 shall be updated to replace "xx" with "15".

Editorial modification.

102.  

Point 12 under 'Building Height' on Page 59 shall be updated to reflect storey height in accordance with Administration's proposed modification for the definition of 'storey'.

Editorial modification.

103.  

The General Provisions for the T2 and T3 transects shall be updated to include a provision which states that a maximum of one principal building and one

 ancillary unit/ancillary building will be permitted on each lot.

Currently, there are no provisions which limit the number of principal buildings, ancillary units and/or ancillary buildings on a lot within any transect.  Administration considers that such controls are necessary within the T2 and T3 transects, to preserve the intended character and amenity of the relevant transect.  This modification does not restrict the number of outbuildings permitted on a lot, however clarifies that only 1 ancillary unit/ancillary building can be permitted.

104.  

The word 'total' in point 6 on Page 65 shall be replaced with 'maximum'.

Editorial modification.

105.  

The word 'accessory' within Point 4 on Page 70 shall be replaced with 'ancillary.'

Editorial modification.

106.  

The 'General Urban Standards' for a T4 'Cottage' shall be amended to replace 'N/A' for building height for an 'Outbuilding' with '2 storeys max'.

Editorial modification.

107.  

The Reserves' section on Page 90 shall be updated to ensure that 'General standards for public open spaces and civic buildings' is not replicated within the preceding explanatory text. 

Editorial modification.

Thoroughfare Standards

108.  

The format and content of the 'Guiding Principles' for the Thoroughfare Standards shall be updated to include clear and concise objectives which underpin the more detailed thoroughfare design considerations.  In addition, the 'Guiding Principles' shall contain the following text:

"The final reserve width for each thoroughfare will be determined at the subdivision approval stage.  The detailed design elements of each thoroughfare reserve will be determined at the DAP/detailed design stage.  The final reserve width, and detailed design of each thoroughfare reserve may vary from the design standards prescribed for that thoroughfare type where deemed necessary for safety reasons.  All thoroughfares will comply with the principals set out in Austroads, including the provision of adequate sight lines and turning movements to ensure final design responds to matters of safety, notwithstanding that the primary objective  should be to achieve compact, pedestrian oriented streets."

At this early structure planning stage, detailed engineering design for each of the thoroughfares has not yet been undertaken.  However, the Jindee Design Code prescribes thoroughfare design standards specific to each thoroughfare type.  It is important that these design standards are sufficiently flexible to accommodate changes which are deemed necessary at the detailed engineering design stage.

109.  

All 'Special Street Design Areas' and 'Large Special Design Roundabouts' (as depicted in Figure 19 of the Local Structure Plan: Traffic/Transport Assessment) shall be identified on the 'Plan 2', which Administration is recommending be included within Part 1 Statutory Provisions.  A notation shall be included to state that the detailed design of these thoroughfares (and/or any other thoroughfare where deemed necessary by the City) shall be supported by an adequate traffic safety audit and/or engineering drawings provided with the subdivision application.

The LTS currently makes this commitment, however, it is considered necessary to reinforce this through Part 1 of LSP 84 to ensure an understanding that the location/design of these areas may be subject to change at the subdivision stage if an adequate detailed design cannot be achieved.

110.  

The reserve widths specified for each thoroughfare type shall be amended to show each reserve width as a minimum width.

Currently, several of the reserve widths contained within the Thoroughfare Standards are shown as 'minimum' widths, whereas others are not.  Administration considers it necessary for every thoroughfare width to be shown as a minimum to allow flexibility to increase the width of any thoroughfare type where required for safety reasons.

111.  

The Street 4E table on page 117 shall be updated to reflect a minimum planter width of 2.7m consistent with the drawing on the same page.

The planter width is currently shown as 2.6m in the table and 2.7m in the associated drawing. This modification ensures consistency between the table and the drawing.

Landscape Standards

112.  

The format and content of the 'Guiding Principles' for the Landscape Standards shall be updated to include clear and concise objectives to underpin the more detailed landscaping standards.

Administration considers it necessary that the objectives are clear and concise and relate only to the specific design requirements of the landscaping standards.

113.  

The civic spaces types described on page 152 of the Landscape Standards shall be updated to include reference to 'conservation open space' within the descriptions for 'park' and 'green'.  The corresponding detailed descriptions for 'park' and 'green' on pages 156 and 157 shall also be updated to ensure that conservation open space and drainage are possible uses within those civic space typologies.

Clarification is required to ensure that conservation open space is specifically referenced within the civic space typologies so that the more general landscaping  standards of 'parks' and 'greens' do not apply to conservation open space.

114.  

The Landscape Standards shall be updated to remove reference to the T1 Transect Zone in relation to 'Natural Reserve' and 'Park'. The 'Natural Reserve' civic space type shall be referenced as 'MRS Parks and Recreation Reserves'.

'Natural Reserve' and 'Park' are not applicable within the T1 Transect zone, which is replaced in the Jindee Design Code by MRS Regional Parks and Recreation Reserves.

115.  

The description of 'Promenade, Passage + Path' on page 152 of the Landscape Standards shall be updated to remove reference to 'thoroughfare'.  The heading 'Passage' on page 163 shall be updated to 'Passage + Path' for consistency with descriptions elsewhere in the Jindee Design Code.

Reference to 'thoroughfare' is not appropriate in the general description as promenades, passages and paths are more accurately described as spaces for pedestrian movement. 

116.  

The tree species list contained within the landscaping standards shall be modified to only include those trees included on the 'Jindee Tree List v7' included as Attachment 6 to the Council report.

A number of trees have been removed from the advertised version of the Jindee Design Code at the City's request as they have been deemed unsuitable.

Part 1 – Schedule 6 definitions

117.  

All land use definitions which are included within the Part 1 statutory provisions shall be removed from the Jindee Design Code.

Where land uses are not defined in DPS 2 or where a variation to a DPS 2 land use definition is proposed, such definitions are included in the Part 1 Statutory Provisions of the LSP. Deletion of the land use definitions in the Jindee Design Code will eliminate unnecessary repetition and will allow for definitions within the Jindee Design Code to be confined to design related terminology. 

118.  

The definition for 'Ancillary Building' shall be updated to read as follows:

"ancillary building means a shed, studio or garage incidental to the principal building that has an ancillary unit attached either above it or on the same level".

The current definition refers to an 'Outbuilding' within the definition, which may lead to confusion in relation to the number of 'Ancillary Buildings' permitted on a lot.

119.  

The definition for 'base parking standards' shall be updated to mean "the car parking standards contained in Table 14 of Part 1, Schedule 1 of the LSP that are to be applied to the development and/or use of land to calculate required car parking".

The term currently is not adequately defined.

120.  

The definition for 'Car Parking Strategy' shall be updated to mean "a strategy prepared for a Car Parking Precinct to regulate the provision of car parking within that precinct".

The term is currently not adequately defined.

121.  

The definition for 'Datum Point' shall be updated to refer "to the point specified for a lot in the relevant Detailed Area Plan from which building height is to be measured, excluding the height of any building plinth.  The datum point will be expressed as the height above sea level as measured by the Australian Height Datum".  

The modified definition substitutes 'point' with 'building', and 'Australian Standards' with 'Australian Height Datum' as the datum point will refer to a location that will be nominated on the DAP for every lot from which the prescribed minimum/maximum building height is to be measured.  Given that many sites will be sloping, it is important that a datum point is nominated for each lot as a reference point for measuring building height. 

122.  

The definition for 'tourist/visitor related retailing' shall be updated to mean "retail activities that customarily rely wholly or partly on the trade of visitors originating from outside the LSP area".

This modification is for consistency with the meaning of tourist/visitor retailing in the provisions of amendment 115 to DPS 2.

123.  

The definition for 'Outbuilding' shall be updated to read as follows:

"a building on a lot that is incidental to the principal building, including a shed, studio or garage.  An outbuilding may also be converted to an ancillary unit or ancillary building where the City's approval for such use has been granted". 

Modification to the 'Outbuilding' definition is required to clarify that outbuildings modified to include an ancillary unit or to an ancillary building require the City's approval for that use.

124.  

The definitions for 'pedestrian shed' and 'pedestrian shed (linear)' shall be deleted.

Both of these definitions relate to elongated 'ped-sheds' (or elongated walkable catchments) which are no longer applicable to the Jindee Design Code.

125.  

The definition of 'storey' shall be amended as follows:

" means a level of a building that shall not exceed 3.3 metres in height from finished floor level to ceiling and a maximum of 4 metres from one finished floor level to the finished floor level above, except for the ground floor of the following building types where a storey shall not exceed 6 metres in height from finished floor level to ceiling:

·        Loft Building;

·        Flex Building;

·        Loft House;

·        Apartment Building; and

·        Commercial Building.

A DAP may prescribe minimum and/or maximum storey heights within the above defined limits.

The current definition of 'storey' allows for any level to be up to 6.0m in height. This is considered excessive and has the potential to adversely impact on the amenity of the area. The proposed modifications will allow flexibility for ground floor levels of specific building typologies to be 6.0m in height, however, in other instances a more standard interpretation of storey height is proposed.  

126.  

The definitions for 'cottage' and 'house' shall be updated to include the word 'may' before the text 'shared with an Accessory Building in the backyard'.

The revised definition allows a 'Cottage' or 'House' to be constructed in the absence of an 'Outbuilding'.

127.  

The term 'accessory' shall be replaced with 'Outbuilding' ('ancillary') in the definitions for 'Cottage' and 'House'.

Editorial modification. 

128.  

An adequate definition for Golden Mean/Golden Ratio shall be provided in the Jindee Design Code definitions.

This terminology is used with the Jindee Design Code to describe a development standard, and it is considered appropriate that a definition is provided.

Part 2

129.  

Part 2 shall be updated to reflect and reference gazettal of Amendment 115 to DPS 2.

Modification to reflect the updated gazetted status of Amendment 115.

130.  

The page numbers of Part 2 should commence at Page 1.

Editorial modification.

131.  

Part 2 shall be updated so that open space areas are referred to correctly, and so that the terminology used when referencing open spaces is consistent and not used interchangeably. In particular, the term 'civic reserve' shall be removed.  In general, the term 'civic space' may be used as a generic term to describe all open space areas, whilst the term 'public open space' shall only refer to those public open spaces which are reserved for the purpose of public recreation through the subdivision process.

See response to 61 above.

132.  

Section 7.2 of Part 2 shall be updated to replace the information on page 217 with a more comprehensive Public Open Space (POS) schedule and corresponding POS plan. This updated POS Schedule should:

·        Contain a breakdown of the restricted, unrestricted and conservation public open space which is acceptable to Administration;

·        Denote areas of drainage and demonstrate that these drainage areas and any proposed conservation sites are separate; and

·        Address the requirements for public open space contained within Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy.

The current POS schedule and associated plan contained with Part 2 does not provide all of this information. Without this information, it is not possible for the City to ensure that the proposed POS is adequate to meet the requirements of Liveable Neighbourhoods.

133.  

The definitions contained on pages 218 - 220 of Part 2 shall be updated to be consistent with the definitions in other sections of LSP 84.

Editorial modification, Administration is recommending several modifications to the definitions contained within Part 1 and the Jindee Design Code. Once these modifications have been made, the definitions in Part 2 should also be modified for consistency.

134.  

The text under the heading 'Regulating Plan Series' in Section 7.3 of Part 2 shall be updated to state that the regulating plan series consists of three plans not four plans.

Editorial modification.

135.  

Part 2 of the LSP shall include a description and plan of exposure zones (of the physical environment) together with an accompanying plant matrix (providing further details of trees in the Part 1 tree list) as the basis for plant species selection within the LSP.

Information on exposure zones was formerly included in the Community Design Code. Inclusion of this information within Part 2 will provide an explanation of the relationship between plant species selection and the physical environment.

136.  

Part 2 of the LSP shall be updated to ensure that there are no inconsistencies with the modifications requested to Part 1 of the LSP.

A general modification is required to ensure that the information in part 2 is updated where necessary to reflect modifications required to Part 1.

Part 3

Local Transportation Strategy

137.  

The second paragraph of Clause 2.3 shall be updated to replace the words "proposed Butler and Brighton Stations" with the words "proposed Butler Station".

Editorial modification.

138.  

The LTS shall be updated to demonstrate that in addition to on-road parking without embayments, how other traffic control measures will also be utilised to slow traffic. 

On-road parking without embayments forms a major part of the LSP's traffic control scheme. It is understood that traffic naturally slows where parked cars are located on the road, however, if there is no demand for parking then it is also necessary for other mechanisms to be introduced to slow traffic.

139.  

Figure 22 of the LTS shall be updated to include:

·        'Shared paths' (or where indicated) wide paved shop front footpaths/urban centre paths along the key  linkages and to connect Marmion Avenue with the north-south foreshore path consistent with the location of shared paths as depicted on Figure 14 in Part 2 of the Butler – Jindalee District Structure Plan (DSP).

·        A notation to state that wide paved shop front footpaths/urban centre paths shall have  'a minimum unobstructed width of 2.5 metres'

The information contained within page 206 of Part 2 relating to the pedestrian and cycle network shall be updated to be consistent with the above modifications.

The Jindalee Butler DSP shows a 'shared path' and 'on road cycle lane' running east-west from Butler Boulevard through to the north-south foreshore path on the western boundary of the LSP 84 area.  Administration notes LSP 84 proposes a 'wide paved shop front footpath' in lieu of the 'shared path' and 'on road cycle lane' along the portion of the Main Street which links with Marmion Avenue  and supports this variation considering the intended future land uses and development intended for this portion of the Main Street.  Notwithstanding this, it is considered that an unobstructed path of at least 2.5 metres in width (free from alfresco dining furniture) should be provided for the 'wide paved shop front footpath/urban centre path' to be consistent with the balance of 'shared paths' in the LSP 84 area.

140.  

The LTS shall be updated to include cross-sections for each thoroughfare type included within the Jindee Design Code. These cross-sections shall be consistent with specifications contained within the Thoroughfare Standards section of the Jindee Design Code, and shall include the pedestrian and cycle infrastructure depicted on Figure 22 of the LTS.

Currently, there are no thoroughfare cross sections contained within LSP 84. It is essential that cross-sections are provided to inform Administration's assessment of subdivision applications.

Local Water Management Strategy

141.  

Section 4 shall be updated to include reference to finished floor levels and a requirement for them to be a minimum of 0.5 metres above the 100-year flood level. 

Currently the LWMS does not include any information relating to minimum freeboard requirements. It is a standard requirement of Administration that this information is contained within the LWMS.  The City's Engineers have advised that the minimum free board requirements are 0.3m from dynamic water level and 0.5m from the static water level, as per the requirements of the Department of Water.

Clause 4.1.2 shall be updated to include the following text:

"The size of stormwater storage basins shall be refined during the detailed design phase to suit the available land and natural topography, which will be included within the Urban Water Management Plan provided at the subdivision application stage".

The LWMS does not provide any details relating to the design of stormwater disposal sites.  An indicative design concept of a 'fenced sump' in the north of the LSP 84 area provided by the proponent depicts steep retaining which would be difficult for the City to maintain.  Administration acknowledges the proposed 'fenced sump' will be provided in a natural depression, however, is of the view that further refinement of the detailed design is necessary.

142.  

Clause 4.2.1.2 shall be updated to omit references to 'Bottomless Junction Pits' being used as conveyance conduits.

Administration does not support the use of Bottomless Junction Pits due to their ongoing maintenance requirements.

143.  

Section 6.0 shall be updated to state that surface monitoring, including infiltration rate and water levels on the basins will also be detailed at the Urban Water Management Plan stage.

It is a standard requirement of Administration that the LWMS includes a commitment to the provision of this information at the Urban Water Management Plan stage.

144.  

The LWMS shall be updated to include a plan depicting the final basin locations and flow paths of 1, 5 and 100 year ARI for catchments 7 to 10.

The LWMS incorporates this information for other catchments within the LSP 84 area. Administration requires this information to also be provided for catchments 7 to 10 so that a full assessment can be undertaken.