Council Agenda

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.00pm, 26 April, 2016

Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Dundebar Road, Wanneroo

 

Council allows a minimum of 15 minutes for public questions and statements at each Council Meeting.  If there are not sufficient questions to fill the allocated time, the person presiding will move on to the next item.  If there are more questions than can be dealt with in the 15 minutes allotted, the person presiding will determine whether to extend question time.

 

Protocols

 

During the meeting, no member of the public may interrupt the meeting’s proceedings or enter into conversation.  Each person seeking to ask questions during public question time may address the Council for a maximum of 3 minutes each. 

 

A register of person’s wishing to ask a question/s at the Council Meeting is located at the main reception desk outside of the Chamber on the night.  However, members of the public wishing to submit written questions are requested to lodge them with the Chief Executive Officer at least 30 hours prior to the start of the meeting i.e. noon on the previous day.

 

The person presiding will control public question time and ensure that each person wishing to ask a question is given a fair and equal opportunity to do so.  A person wishing to ask a question should state his or her name and address before asking the question.  If the question relates to an item on the agenda, the item number should also be stated.

 

The following general rules apply to question and statement time:

·                Questions should only relate to the business of the council and should not be a statement or personal opinion.

·                Only questions relating to matters affecting Council will be considered at an ordinary meeting, and at a special meeting only questions that relate to the purpose of the meeting will be considered.  Questions may be taken on notice and responded to after the meeting.

·                Questions may not be directed at specific members of council or employees.

·                Questions & statements are not to be framed in such a way as to reflect adversely on a particular Elected Member or Officer.

·                The first priority will be given to persons who are asking questions relating to items on the current meeting agenda.

·                The second priority will be given to public statements.  Only statements regarding items on the agenda under consideration will be heard.

 

 

The Mayor and Councillors will conduct an informal session on the same day as the meeting of the Council at the Civic Centre, Wanneroo, commencing at 6.00pm where members of the public may, by appointment, present deputations relating to items on the current agenda. If you wish to present a deputation please submit your request for a deputation in writing, at least three clear business days prior to the meeting addressed to the Chief Executive Officer or fax through to Governance on 9405 5097.  A request for a deputation must be received by Governance by 12 noon on the Friday before the Council Meeting.

·                Deputation requests must relate to items on the current agenda.

·                A deputation is not to exceed 3 persons in number and only those persons may address the meeting.

·                Members of a deputation are collectively to have a maximum of 10 minutes to address the meeting, unless an extension of time is granted by the Council.

 

Please ensure that mobile phones are switched off before entering the Council Chamber.  Any queries on this agenda, please contact Council and Corporate Support on 9405 5027 or 9405 5336.

 

 

Objective

 

·         To ensure that there is a process in place to outline access to the recorded proceedings of Council.

 

·         To emphasise that the reason for recording of Council Meetings is to ensure the accuracy of Council Minutes and that any reproduction is for the sole purpose of Council business.

 

Statement

 

Recording of Proceedings

 

(1)     Proceedings for meetings of the Council, Electors, and Public Question Time during Council Briefing Sessions shall be recorded by the City on sound recording equipment, except in the case of meetings of the Council where the Council closes the meeting to the public. 

 

(2)     Notwithstanding subclause (1), proceedings of a meeting of the Council which is closed to the public shall be recorded where the Council resolves to do so.

 

(3)     No member of the public is to use any electronic, visual or vocal recording device or instrument to record the proceedings of the Council or a committee without the written permission of the Council.

 

Access to Recordings

 

(4)     Members of the public may purchase a copy of recorded proceedings or alternatively listen to recorded proceedings with the supervision of a City Officer.  Costs of providing recorded proceedings to members of the public will be the cost of the recording plus staff time to make the copy of the proceedings. The cost of supervised listening to recorded proceedings will be the cost of the staff time. The cost of staff time will be set in the City's schedule of fees and charges each year.

 

(5)     Elected Members may request a recording of the Council proceedings at no charge.  However, no transcript will be produced without the approval of the Chief Executive Officer.  All Elected Members are to be notified when recordings are requested by individual Members.

 

Retention of Recordings

 

(6)     Recordings pertaining to the proceedings of Council Meetings shall be retained in accordance with the State Records Act 2000.

 

Disclosure of Policy

 

(7)     This policy shall be printed within the agenda of all Council, Special Council, Electors and Special Electors meetings to advise the public that the proceedings of the meeting are recorded.

 

 

Notice is given that the next Ordinary Council Meeting will be held at the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Dundebar Road, Wanneroo on Tuesday 26 April, 2016 commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

21 April, 2016

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Item  1_____ Attendances_ 1

Item  2_____ Apologies and Leave of Absence_ 1

Item  3_____ Public Question Time_ 1

Item  4_____ Confirmation of Minutes_ 1

OC01-04/16     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 5 April 2016  1

Item  5_____ Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion_ 1

Item  6_____ Questions from Elected Members_ 1

Item  7_____ Petitions_ 1

New Petitions Received  1

Update on Petitions  1

PT01-04/16      Request for a Skate Park Facility in Yanchep  1

PT02-04/16      Request to Reject Change of Use of 16 Bamboore Crescent. Wanneroo to a Child Care Centre  2

PT03-04/16      Health and Environmental Audit on Concrete Recycling Plant, 50 Driver Road, Darch  2

PT04-04/16      Request to Reject Proposed Development at 1 Newmarket Parade, Butler of 54 Multiple Dwellings  2

PT05-04/16      Request to Develop Bowood Park, Porchester Drive, Darch  2

Item  8_____ Reports_ 3

Planning and Sustainability  3

City Growth  3

PS10-04/16      Adoption of Draft Revised LPP 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation  3

PS11-04/16      Proposed Scheme Amendment to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Recoding of the Quinns Rocks, Yanchep and Two Rocks Housing Precincts  19

PS12-04/16      Perth and Peel Green Growth Plan for 3.5 Million  28

Approval Services  78

PS13-04/16      Consideration of Development Application (DA2015/2175) for Change of Use from Hairdresser to Restricted Premises (Adult Store) at Unit 3 - Lot 782 (1868) Marmion Avenue, Clarkson  78

PS14-04/16      Support of Amendment No. 150 to District Planning Scheme No. 2  103

PS15-04/16      Consideration of Development Application DA2016/118 Single House Addition (Patio/Carport) at 17 Synnot View, Marangaroo  217

PS16-04/16      Consideration of development application (DA2016/104) for a Change of Use (Bed and Breakfast) at 30 Alexandria View, Mindarie  226

PS17-04/16      Consideration of Development Application (DA2015/1794) - Home Business - Category 3 at 28 Huntington Parkway, Landsdale  236

Health & Compliance  245

PS18-04/16      Boundary Wall, 28 Midland Elbow, Mindarie  245

Assets  249

Asset Operations & Services  249

AS07-04/16      Anchorage Drive Traffic Treatments - Project Update  249

AS08-04/16      PT01-12/15 - Concern regarding traffic volume, speed and safety on Badgerup Road and surrounding roads, Gnangara  261

AS09-04/16      PT02-12/15 Replace Colourbond Fencing with Limestone as Noise Buffer for properties backing onto Ocean Reef Road, Pearsall  271

AS10-04/16      Safety Review - Two Rocks Road, Two Rocks  276

Infrastructure Capital Works  282

AS11-04/16      Tender No 01610 - Construction of Multipurpose Room Extension at Gumblossom Reserve Sports Amenities Building  282

Assets Maintenance  291

AS12-04/16      PT03-12/15 Dewar's Track - Request to Relocate Entrance  291

AS13-04/16      Tender No. 01607 - Sand Supply and Delivery for Beach Re-nourishment  294

Community & Place  299

Community Facilities  299

CP04-04/16     To consider the Business Case from Quinns District Amateur Football Club for the Upgrade of Facilities at Ridgewood Park  299

CP05-04/16     PT03-03/16 Aquamotion - Request For Additional Aqua Aerobics Class  398

CP06-04/16     Banksia Grove District Open Space - Sports Amenities Building - Concept Design  400

Communication, Marketing and Events  414

CP07-04/16     Contribution of Services to Barbagallo Raceway  414

Place Strengthening  436

CP08-04/16     Merriwa Integrated Services Community Hub  436

Corporate Strategy & Performance  446

Business & Finance  446

CS09-04/16     Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 31 March 2016  446

Transactional Finance  465

CS10-04/16     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 March 2016  465

CS11-04/16     Proposal for Levying General Differential Rating for 2016/17 Financial Year  532

Customer & Information Services  538

CS12-04/16     Proposal for Renaming a Discontinuous Section of Wanneroo Road  538

Contracts & Procurement  542

CS13-04/16     Review of Purchasing Policy  542

Council & Corporate Support  595

CS14-04/16     Donations to be Considered by Council - April 2016  595

CS15-04/16     Proposed Change of Date for Scheduled Council Meeting 21 June 2016  598

Chief Executive Office  600

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 600

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 600

Item  11____ Confidential_ 600

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 600

Item  13____ Closure_ 600

 

 

Good evening Councillors, staff, ladies and gentlemen, we wish to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land we are meeting on, the Whadjuk people.  We would like to pay respect to the Elders of the Nyoongar nation, past and present, who have walked and cared for the land and we acknowledge and respect their continuing culture and the contributions made to the life of this city and this region and I invite you to bow your head in prayer:

Lord, We ask for your blessing upon our City, our community and our Council.  Guide us in our decision making to act fairly, without fear or favour and with compassion, integrity and honesty.  May we show true leadership, be inclusive of all, and guide the City of Wanneroo to a prosperous future that all may share.  We ask this in your name. Amen

Item  1      Attendances

Item  2      Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3      Public Question Time

Item  4      Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 05 April 2016 be confirmed subject to the following amendment:-

 

Item AS03-04/16 – Tender No. 01606 Construction of the Wanneroo Wheeled Sports Facility and Youth Precinct - The tender number quoted in the recommendation to the report to be amended from “01507” to “01606”.

 

This amendment is required due to an administrative error which gave the wrong tender number in the recommendation and is required to be inserted to provide an accurate record.

Item  5      Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

Item  6      Questions from Elected Members

Item  7      Petitions

New Petitions Received

Update on Petitions  

PT01-04/16       Request for a Skate Park Facility in Yanchep

Cr Sangalli presented a petition of 675 signatories requesting the design and implementation of a skate park facility in Yanchep in the City’s 2015/2016 budget in consultation with the community.   Update   Administration is currently investigating the request and will provide a report in response to the petition at its meeting to be held on 24 May 2016.

 

PT02-04/16       Request to Reject Change of Use of 16 Bamboore Crescent, Wanneroo to a Child Care Centre

Cr Newton presented a petition of 65 signatories requesting Council’s consideration to reject the change of use of 16 Bamboore Crescent, Wanneroo to a child care centre.   Update   Administration is currently assessing the application and a report will be presented to Council for its consideration in due course.

 

PT03-04/16       Health and Environmental Audit on Concrete Recycling Plant, 50 Driver Road, Darch

Cr Hayden presented a petition of 243 signatories requesting the City conduct a health and environmental audit on the concrete recycling plant located at Lot 1 (50) Driver Road, Darch.   Update   Administration is currently assessing the application and a report is being prepared for the 24 May Ordinary Council Meeting.

 

PT04-04/16       Request to Reject Proposed Development at 1 Newmarket Parade, Butler of 54 Multiple Dwellings

Cr Winton presented a petition of 251 signatories requesting the City reject the development at 1 Newmarket Parade Butler of 54 Multiple Dwellings due to parking issues, height and volumes of traffic.   Update   Administration is currently assessing the application and a report is intended to be presented to Council for its consideration at its meeting to be held on 24 May 2016.

 

PT05-04/16       Request to Develop Bowood Park, Porchester Drive, Darch

Cr Zappa presented a petition of 29 signatories requesting the City consider developing Bowood Park, Porchester Drive, Darch to be suitable for young children and to consult with the community in the design of the park.   Update   Administration is currently investigating the request and will provide and report in response to the petition to Council at its meeting to be held on 24 May 2016.

 

 

Item  8      Reports

Declarations of Interest by Elected Members, including the nature and extent of the interest. Declaration of Interest forms to be completed and handed to the Chief Executive Officer.

Planning and Sustainability

City Growth

File Ref:                                              3516 – 16/113014

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Issue

To consider adoption of draft revised Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation (LPP 3.1), following public advertising.

Background

Over the past few years the City has received a significant number of Structure Plan amendments that seek to increase residential density on undeveloped parcels of land within established suburbs in the City, particularly those in the East Wanneroo Cells 1-6.

 

A draft revised LPP 3.1 was prepared which included revised criteria for appropriate higher density development. Draft revised LPP 3.1 was presented to Council at its meeting on 1 March 2016, where it was adopted for the purpose of advertising.

Detail

Draft revised LPP 3.1 was advertised for public comment for a period of 21 days between the 15 March 2016 and the 5 April 2016, by way of:

 

·        Advertisement in local newspapers;

 

·        Display on the City's website; and

 

·        Display at the Civic Centre and the City's libraries.

 

No submissions were received during the public advertising period.

Consultation

Should Council resolve to adopt the proposed amendment to LPP 3.1, notification will be published in local newspapers.

Comment

Currently, the policy provisions allow for density increases in almost any location in the East Wanneroo cells. The adoption of revised LPP 3.1 will ensure that higher density development will only occur in appropriate locations.

The new criteria have been formulated to limit density increases to locations in close proximity to activity centres (with the exception of local centres) or areas characterised by good access to public transport. The new criteria will stop proposals for density increases that are purely based on proximity to public open space, community facilities such as schools and access to arterial road connections.

Statutory Compliance

Draft revised LPP 3.1 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Division 2 of the deemed provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). In accordance with clause 4(3) of the deemed provisions of DPS 2, Council must formally consider the submissions received and resolve to proceed with the draft Policy, with or without modifications, or not to proceed with the revised draft Policy.

 

In accordance with clause 4(4) and 4(6) of the deemed provisions of DPS 2, should Council resolve to finally adopt the revised LPP 4.3, notification of the final adoption must be published once in a newspaper circulating in the City and a copy of the revised LPP 4.3 must be made available for public inspection during business hours at the City’s offices.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.1    Great Places and Quality Lifestyle - People from different cultures find Wanneroo an exciting place to live with quality facilities and services.”

Risk Management Considerations

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

If adopted by Council, the revised LPP 3.1 will form part of the City’s Local Planning Policy Framework and supersede the current LPP 3.1.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to clause 4(3)(b)(ii) of the deemed provisions of City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 PROCEEDS with revised Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation included as Attachment 1; and

2.       Pursuant to clause 4(4) of the deemed provisions of City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 PUBLISHES notice of its final adoption of revised Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation in all local newspapers.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

LPP 3.1 Housing Strategy Implementation

16/58188

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              20926 – 15/533650

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the timing of Local Housing Strategy Implementation for the Quinns Rocks, Yanchep and Two Rocks housing precincts.

 

Background

Council resolved to approve the City’s Local Housing Strategy (LHS) at its meeting on 1 November 2005 (Item GS02-11/05). Central to the LHS, and upon which most community interest is focused, are the recommendations that relate to increases in residential density. For a density increase to come into effect, amendments need to be made to District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS 2) and other planning requirements, such as upgrades to infrastructure, need to be addressed.

 

Council adopted Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation (LPP 3.1) at its meeting on 6 April 2010 (item PS01-04/10) and amended LPP 3.1 at its meeting on 5 April 2011 (item PS03-03/11). LPP 3.1 provides a framework for implementing the City’s LHS recommendations for land identified for an increase in residential density.

 

The Wanneroo and Girrawheen-Koondoola housing precincts were prioritised for completion first and Amendment No. 119 was approved by the Minister for Planning subject to modifications on the 29 February 2016.

 

As Amendment No. 119 neared completion, Administration commenced the preliminary planning required to initiate a scheme amendment for the local housing precincts in Quinns Rocks, Yanchep and Two Rocks, as set out in LPP 3.1. (refer to Attachment 1 – maps of the housing precincts).

 

A report on the outcomes of these investigations was presented to Council Forum on 15 March 2016.

Detail

In May 2015, Administration wrote to State Government agencies and infrastructure service providers seeking comment on the capacity of essential service utilities to support increased residential density, and any other implications arising from this proposal. The outcomes of this consultation are as follows:

 

Sewerage

 

The Government Sewerage Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region requires all residential development with an R-Code above R12.5 to be serviced by deep sewer infrastructure. The Yanchep and Two Rocks precincts are not currently serviced by deep sewerage infrastructure. In order to progress residential density increases in these areas, the Department of Water (DoW) needs to add the Yanchep and Two Rocks housing precincts to the Government Sewerage Infill Program. They are not currently included the in DoW 5 year capital works program.

 

With regard to Quinns Rocks, the Water Corporation recently undertook upgrades to its infrastructure in the Quinns Rocks housing precinct and in the process, noted the intention of the City to increase residential densities. Consequently, the design of the reticulation pipes were sized to cater for the proposed higher densities, and can accommodate a future change from R20 to R20-R40/60.

 

Water

 

All housing precincts are currently serviced by existing water provision infrastructure. Generally, water delivery infrastructure is planned to accommodate the coded residential densities (R20), however, the Water Corporation has advised that upgrades are generally not required when undertaking increases in residential density on an ad-hoc basis over an extended period of time.

 

Education

 

Similar to Amendment No. 119, The Department of Education (DoE) expressed some concern for the ability of existing primary schools to accommodate increased demand as a result of the density increases. To address this issue for Amendment No. 119, Administration agreed to monitor uptake of development and work with the DoE to ensure that action is taken to address any issues when required. The DoE supports the proposed scheme amendment for Quinns Rocks, Yanchep and Two Rocks, providing the City adopts a similar approach.

 

Road Network

 

Main Roads WA (MRWA) indicated that the proposed increase in density in the Yanchep and Quinns Rocks housing precincts could have an impact on the function of a number of intersections and identified that a review of these intersections would be warranted. In discussions with MRWA, the Yanchep traffic concerns are currently being addressed via a broader study by MRWA on traffic generation in the wider area. The City has advised MRWA of its intent to increase residential densities in key locations, and this information is now being considered in MRWA’s modelling exercises.

 

Administration also identified the need to undertake a suitable Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) for three major intersections adjacent to the Quinns Rocks housing precinct, as follows:

 

·        Quinns Road & Marmion Avenue;

 

·        Hester Avenue and Marmion Avenue; and

 

·        Santa Barbara Parade and Marmion Avenue.

 

Administration is engaging a consultant to complete this work.

 

Coastal

 

In September 2013, Quinns Beach and Fred Stubbs Park suffered extensive coastal erosion during a series of storms. The City completed coastal protection works to these areas in October 2014. Since this time, the area south of the southern Quinns Beach Groyne has been well protected and no further coastal erosion issues adjacent to Fred Stubbs Park have arisen.

 

The City has also investigated the most appropriate options for the long term management of the Quinns Rocks coastline. The Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Management Study is currently underway and being delivered over three stages:

 

·        Stage 1 – Coastal Processes Assessment;

 

·        Stage 2 – Concept Options Assessment; and

 

·        Stage 3 – Detailed Design.

 

Stage 1 was completed in July 2015 and Stage 2 will be completed following community information sessions in late April 2016 and the selection of a preferred coastal management option for detailed design. Once a coastal management option has been selected, Administration can prepare a Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan (CHRMAP) for Quinns Beach. This CHRMAP will consider both the existing and proposed coastal structures along with the City’s coastal management/maintenance intentions as a result of the Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Management Study. This will identify areas that are likely to be at risk from coastal erosion in the future and enable the City to appropriately consider the potential for residential density increases along the Quinns Rocks coastline.

 

Design

 

Quinns Rocks is characterised by an undulating dunal topography and mature landscape. It is, to an extent, inevitable that tensions will be created between the need to conserve natural landform and mature vegetation in Quinns Rocks and the nature of contemporary medium density development. When sites are subdivided and redeveloped, they typically require flatter land parcels and access driveways. Furthermore, modern houses tend to occupy a significant area of the lot.

 

Whilst to some extent these issues can be mitigated by policy and scheme provisions, at some point Council will need to determine its primary planning objective. A comprehensive discussion paper on these issues will be provided as part of the consideration of any future amendment.

 

LPP 3.1 identifies a number of key issues that should be addressed prior to or in support of any scheme amendment proposals. These include the potential to introduce provisions for the application of design guidelines to address the specific aspects and context of each housing precinct to facilitate appropriate future residential development and subdivision. Once a scheme amendment for Quinns Rocks has been initiated, the City will undertake detailed planning and investigation into the preparation of provisions to protect coastal character and mature vegetation. This work may be required to be accompanied by a separate Local Planning Policy to guide the implementation of these provisions.

 

Consultation

In early 2010, consultation for LPP 3.1 showed strong public and agency support for the proposal to implement the recommendations of the Local Housing Strategy.

 

Administration has already consulted with government departments and infrastructure service providers including the Department of Planning, Main Roads, Water Corporation, Department of Water, Department of Education, Western Power Corporation, WA Gas Networks Pty Ltd, ATCO Gas Australia, Public Transport Authority of WA, Department of Transport, Department of Fire and Emergency Services (FESA), FESA UXO Services, Westnet Energy, Department of Housing, Telstra and NBN Co.

 

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 were gazetted on 25 August 2015 and took effect on 19 October 2015, replacing the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

 

 

Under the new Regulations, a future scheme amendment of this nature is considered by Administration to be a ‘standard’ amendment, and therefore, the consent of the WA Planning Commission would be required prior to advertising. Under the new regulations, the submission period would be 42 days. If the proposed scheme amendment is determined to fall under the category of ‘complex’ amendment, the submission period will be extended to 60 days.

 

Comment

Consultation with state government agencies and service providers did not identify any significant issues that will prevent a scheme amendment from being initiated in the future. However, the consultation process did highlight concerns that could significantly delay the process. The lack of deep sewerage provision in the Yanchep and Two Rocks precincts will prevent the City from undertaking a scheme amendment until the timing of this infrastructure provision has been confirmed. It is recommended that the City write to the Minister for Water and the Department of Water to advocate for the provision of deep sewer and identify a timeframe for the completion of these works.

 

The Quinns Rocks housing precinct is subject to some issues relating to coastal hazard risk studies and coastal protection works that are currently underway in the area. In accordance with State Planning Policy 2.6 Coastal Planning, local authorities are required to undertake coastal hazard mapping to identify areas that are at risk and consider adaptation measures accordingly.

 

Given that a major coastal erosion event has already occurred along the Quinns Rocks housing precinct coastline, there is a potential risk to the proposed R60 area. This is an issue because the City must determine whether or not to proceed with an increase in density to R60 along the coastline, knowing that this land may be at risk of coastal erosion or inundation over the next 100 years.

Administration is currently in the process of detailed planning for longer term coastal protection measures in the Quinns Rocks area and the selection of a preferred coastal management option for detailed design is intended to be presented to Council in the next few months. Once a detailed design has been selected by Council, Administration will prepare a CHRMAP to measure the impact that any coastal protection works will have on the coastal vulnerability of the Quinns Rocks coastline. At this point, the City will be able to identify which areas, if any, are likely to be impacted by coastal processes within the existing Quinns Rocks housing precinct.

It is therefore recommended that Council defer a scheme amendment for the Quinns Rocks housing precinct until the engineering design for the coastline protection works is confirmed and coastal hazard modelling has been completed to identify areas at risk of erosion.

Statutory Compliance

Scheme amendments must follow the statutory processes outlined in the Local Government Regulations (Local Planning Schemes) 2015.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.1    Great Places and Quality Lifestyle - People from different cultures find Wanneroo an exciting place to live with quality facilities and services.”

 

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-S04 Integrated Infrastructure & Utility Planning	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
EMT, Director CP&S & Director Assets	Manage

 

The above risk relating to the issue contained within this report has been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic risk register. Action plans have been developed to manage this risk to improve the existing management systems.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       DEFERS any consideration of an amendment to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to increase the residential density coding for the Yanchep and Two Rocks housing precincts until provision of deep sewerage infrastructure for the precincts has been initiated through the Government Sewerage Infill Program;

2.       REQUESTS the Mayor to write to the Minister for Water and the Chief Executive Officer to write to the Director General of the Department of Water, requesting that the Yanchep and Two Rocks housing precincts be added to the Government Sewerage Infill Program as a matter of priority; and

3.       DEFERS any consideration of an amendment to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to increase the residential density coding for the Quinns Rocks housing precinct until such time as the engineering design for the coastal protection works is confirmed and coastal hazard modelling has been completed to identify areas at risk of coastal erosion and/or inundation over the next 100 years.

 

Attachments:

1.	Quinns, Two Rocks, and Yanchep Housing Precincts maps	16/83289
2.	Final Quinns Rocks Potential Setback Line	16/83940

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              19354 – 16/75729

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       17         

Issue

To consider Council’s response to the Draft Perth and Peel Region Green Growth Plan for 3.5 million (PPGGP) that was released for public comment by the Department of The Premier and Cabinet (DPC) on 17 December 2015. The deadline for comments was originally 8 April 2016, but is now extended to 13 May 2016.

Background

Council has previously considered reports and presentations on the PPGGP at Council Forum on 19 March 2016, and the subsequent Council Briefing on 22 March 2016. The final report to Council was due to go to the Council Meeting on 5 April 2016, but was withdrawn due to the extension of the comment period, and owing to the DPC making the ‘detailed mapping’ available as of 24 March 2016.

 

The additional information contained in the detailed mapping and its accompanying explanatory text is useful, but does not provide a clarification on many issues raised in Administration’s report to Council. The additional information is discussed in the Detail’ section below, under the heading of ‘Detailed Mapping’ and with some additional comments on certain other matters in this report, particularly concerning East Wanneroo.

 

The Perth and Peel regions are projected to grow to 3.5 million people by 2050, a substantial increase in the current population. Supporting this growth and delivering an efficient and liveable city while protecting the unique environment of the region is a major challenge. The State Government has prepared the Draft PPGGP as a major initiative in an attempt to meet this challenge.

 

The PPGGP is principally a Strategic Conservation Plan, supported by nine Action Plans, and underpinned by two Strategic Impact Assessment Reports, one for State Environmental Values and one for Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES). The PPGGP is therefore a suite of documents providing the background and intent of the plan.

 

Council was first formally advised on the Strategic Assessment for the Perth-Peel Region (SAPPR) study (which is now referred to as the PPGGP), at the Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2015 (Item PS09-07/15). This report to Council primarily dealt with proposed submissions on the draft Perth to Peel at 3.5 Million Strategy (PP3.5) and the draft North-West Sub-Regional Planning Framework (NWSRPF) both released for public comment at that time. The report to Council explained the relationship of these latter two reports to the SAPPR.

 

In brief, this advice was to the effect that:

 

·        The SAPPR was commenced by the Commonwealth and State governments in 2011;

 

·        The final report would be released for comment in late 2015; and

 

·        The draft Perth-Peel and Sub-region Planning Framework proposals have been informed by the work undertaken by the SAPPR study.

 

At the 21 July meeting Council did not make any recommendations in respect of the SAPPR study, but did make various recommendations in respect of both the PP3.5 and the NWSRPF, including expressing its support for continued designation of the East Wanneroo area as an urban expansion area.

 

This particular recommendation is highly relevant to the current PPGGP.

 

An amendment was moved that an additional recommendation be added, as follows:

 

“2. d) This City is concerned that while these draft strategic planning proposals are said to be informed by the work undertaken to-date on the SAPPR, it is unclear how the finalization of these strategic planning proposals is going to be effectively integrated with the progression and finalization of the SAPPR study, particularly given the intention to release the final strategic plans around the same time that the draft SAPPR proposals are released for public comment, and could presumably be potentially the subject to substantial changes, depending on the submissions made on the draft.”

Detail

Overall Intent of the PPGGP

In the context of growth in the Perth and Peel regions to 3.5 million over the next 35 years the Draft PPGGP intends to deliver two key outcomes:

 

·    Cut red-tape by securing upfront Commonwealth environmental approvals and streamlining State environmental approvals for development required to support population growth; and

 

·    Unprecedented protection of bushland, wildlife, rivers and wetlands through implementation of a comprehensive plan to protect the environment. 

 

Hence, a key objective of the PPGGP is to simplify the increasingly complex and unwieldy Commonwealth and State environmental protection and approval system by implementing various elements of the PPGGP, and through avoiding (or minimising the use of) Part 9 EPBC Act Referrals.

 

The PPGGP intends to use the land use planning and development control process to implement and deliver a significant portion of the extensive environmental protection ‘commitments’ included throughout the PPGGP. In this regard the PPGGP makes reference to all aspects of the planning process from structure planning, town planning scheme provisions through to development control, and also references such aspects as water sensitive urban design, urban infill, urban streetscapes and appropriate designation of local open space. 

 

Strategic Conservation Plan

 

The Strategic Conservation Plan (SCP) is a key element of the PPGGP, and provides the strategy for progressively expanding the conservation reserve system by an additional 170,000 hectares in the Perth and Peel regions through the creation of new and expanded conservation reserves.

 

This expansion is conceived as a two phase process:

 

·        Phase 1: includes an initial package of 80,000 hectares immediately following endorsement of the SCP by the Commonwealth Minister for Environment.

 

 

Amongst other areas, this includes Bush Forever sites 289 (Ningana Bushland), 284, 369 (Wilbinga to Yanchep National Park link), and expansion of Yanchep National Park (involving the State Forest land immediately adjacent and east of the Park).

 

·        Phase 2: includes the creation of a further 18,000 hectares of new conservation reserves every five years from commencement of the SCP to a total of 90,000 hectares, and includes approximately 20,000 hectares of proposed acquisitions. The 90,000 hectares will be selected out of a total nominated area of 160,000 hectares, and hence yet to be determined.

 

It is noted that of the total area to be protected up to 15,000 hectares of private land will be purchased as “opportunities arise” over the life of the SCP.

 

Structure of the PPGGP

 

The PPGGP consists of a Strategic Conservation Plan and nine supporting Draft Action Plans, as well as two Draft Strategic Assessment Reports.

 

The first five Action Plans (A to E) are implementation plans for various classes of land use development or type (each referred to as ‘Class of Action) as follows:

 

1.       Draft Action Plan A: Urban and Industrial

2.       Draft Action Plan B: Rural Residential

3.       Draft Action Plan C: Infrastructure

4.       Draft Action Plan D: Basic Raw Materials (BRM)

5.       Draft Action Plan E: Harvesting pines and post-harvesting land use

 

The next four Action Plans (F to I) are for additional aspects of implementation of the overall Strategic Conservation Plan, as follows:

 

1.       Draft Action Plan F: MNES conservation commitments

2.       Draft Action Plan G: State environmental objectives and commitments

3.       Draft Action Plan H: Conservation Program

4.       Draft Action Plan I: Assurance

 

The two Strategic Assessment Reports are as follows:

 

i)        Draft State Strategic Impact Assessment Report; and

ii)       Draft EPBC Act Strategic Impact Assessment Report. 

 

These last two reports cover a wide range of environmental elements and values at both State and Federal levels, respectively. These two reports represent a detailed inventory of supporting data and information concerning all nominated environment values and elements. They also provide advice on implementation.

 

The PPGGP is an exceptionally large plan comprising many documents and separate volumes (e.g. 12 documents and approximately 2,600 pages in total).  Attachment 1 provides further advice on the various parts of the overall PPGGP as outlined above.

 

Enquiries made to the Department of Planning (DoP) indicate the PPGGP is still some 12 months from finalization, with many aspects still being worked on, some of which are as yet ‘confidential’. This includes detailed proposals for implementation including funding arrangements.

 

 

Therefore, the PPGGP is currently not complete, missing a range of important information and advice, and hence difficult to accurately or reliably assess for comment. 

Consultation

In assessing the PPGGP, Administration has undertaken limited consultation with the DOP, WALGA, UDIA, and City of Rockingham. The DPC is to hold a community information session on the 20 April at the Wanneroo Football Clubrooms commencing at 6.00 pm. Prior to this the DPC has offered to provide a presentation and Q&A session on the PPGGP with Elected Members.

Comment

General Scope of PPGGP

 

The PPGGP is a significant undertaking, and reportedly a “collaboration (that) has involved unparalleled effort across State Government”. (Ref: pg 1, Executive Summary, PPGGP).

 

The PPGGP and its supporting documents provide a comprehensive statement of environmental values occurring within the Perth and Peel regions.

 

The PPGGP makes two up-front claims:

 

·        That it will “optimise development and environmental outcomes, including addressing environmental impacts in the very early stages of land use planning and resolving conflicting future demands for land at strategic scale”; and

 

·        “This integrated and long-term planning is critical to delivering a compact, liveable and consolidated city and effective environmental protection.”

 

These are laudable and supportable claims of intent, providing they are achievable in an equitable manner without undue cost to society or any portion thereof. 

 

Whether it is entirely accurate or balanced in its emphasis and statement of protection priorities can be queried at various levels. The following covers some immediate issues and concerns.

 

Specific Concerns

 

Implications for local government planning

The PPGGP is explicit in its intention to implement various aspects of its intended commitments, objectives and outcomes through the ‘hierarchy and sequencing of the planning process’ (i.e. sub-regional structure plans through to local schemes, district structure plans, local structure plans, subdivision and development control).

 

All Councils should be concerned at the significant responsibilities the PPGGP is to impose on local government. These could have major implications, but as yet are not fully explained and in certain respects are far from clear.

 

The City is understood to be a particularly important local authority in this regard, partly because it is on the urban periphery with substantial areas of native vegetation on privately owned land, and also because of the intention to extend urban development into such areas as East Wanneroo.

 

 

 

 

The City requires clarifications on numerous matters and the opportunity for comprehensive discussions with State Government prior to any confirmation or endorsement of the final PPGGP.   

 

East Wanneroo Structure Plan Area – Planning Implications

The DoP has confirmed that East Wanneroo is an area of particular interest for the PPGGP. A review of available documentation confirms this, not just in terms of the areas of natural vegetation remaining on privately owned land, but also in terms of probable constraints that will be placed on the process of orderly planning and land use change as intended in the East Wanneroo Structure Plan and various other reports.

 

East Wanneroo MRS Amendment 1308/41 (East Wanneroo Structure Plan Area proposed major amendment Rural to Urban Deferred)

On 5 April 2016 the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) formally announced the intention to amend the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) for land in East Wanneroo. The notice confirms the amendment seeks to rezone approximately 2,100 ha of land from the Rural zone to the Urban Deferred zone in the MRS. The period for submissions closes on the 8 July 2016.

Approximately 150 hectares of land shown as ‘potential urban’ in the East Wanneroo Structure Plan has been excluded from the area proposed to be rezoned to Urban Deferred (Attachment 2 – indicated in red), and it is understood that this has been due to the PPGGP proposals. Other areas subject to PPGGP proposals (approximately 300 hectares) is included within the area proposed for rezoning to Urban Deferred, and it is apparent that any of this land which is eventually determined to also require protection is intended to be accommodated under a future Urban zoning (following the lifting of deferment).

The following sections of this report provide an assessment of various issues associated with PPGGP and its apparent implications for orderly planning and land use change, particularly East Wanneroo (see below and the section entitled ‘Detailed Mapping).

EPA Advice to WAPC re: East Wanneroo Amendment 1308/41 and PPGGP

A copy of the EPA advice to the WAPC (under Section 48A(1)(a) of the EP Act) concerning MRS Amendment 1308/41 (East Wanneroo Structure Plan Area proposed major amendment Rural to Urban Deferred) indicates that the EPA identifies the following environmental factors as relevant to this Scheme amendment:

 

·                flora and vegetation

 

·                terrestrial fauna

 

·                inland waters environmental quality

 

·                amenity

 

·                human health

 

Attachment 3 provides a copy of the detailed EPA advice to the WAPC under these headings.

 

 

 

Critically, the EPA advises the following:

 

·        “The EPA concludes that the amendment can be managed to meet the EPA’s environmental objectives, through the preparation of future local planning scheme provisions and structure plans to manage and protect the identified environmental factors of Flora and vegetation, Terrestrial fauna, Inland waters environmental quality, Amenity, and Human health; and

 

·        that a future City of Wanneroo local scheme amendment will need to contain specific mechanisms and provisions to adequately secure, protect and manage the environmental values within the amendment area. The EPA recommends that the Department of Planning liaise with the City of Wanneroo to develop appropriate mechanisms which can be included in the local scheme and to ensure that the subsequent stages of planning for the area are consistent with work undertaken for the PPGGP.” (Ref: attachment to EPA correspondence, CMS14142, I February 2016) (Note: italics added)

 

In summary, the advice of the EPA to the WAPC concerning the East Wanneroo Amendment is clearly stated. The consequences appear to be that it will involve the City taking whatever actions are necessary through the local scheme provisions to secure the environmental values in the area, and it is further presumed this will include some level of land acquisition, and implications for Developer Contribution Plans. The degree to which the requirements contained in this advice are in-part or fully negotiable, or substantially non-negotiable is not entirely clear.

 

However, with the release of the ‘detailed mapping’ and associated text on the 24 March 2016, the latest advice suggests the following:

 

1.       Detailed mapping shows both ‘specific’ commitments and ‘broad’ commitments. The former relate to commitments that involve land identified on maps definitely proposed for protection. The latter involve commitments that involve land identified on the maps which may need to be protected, this being determined through further planning which is being conducted over the area (e.g. structure planning, etc.).

 

2.       There are only two sites in East Wanneroo subject to specific commitments (e.g. Bush Forever site and a Conservation Category Wetland) (Attachment 4), but many sites that are shown as subject to broad commitments (e.g. mainly vegetation complexes at less than 30% remaining, and Carnaby’s Cockatoo feeding habitat) (Attachment 5).

 

3.       The ‘less than 30% vegetation complex remaining’ commitment involves ongoing planning to ‘have regard for’ these mapped areas. This advice suggests that there may be flexibility in the degree to which the PPGGP will pursue protection of such areas, and that through the process of detailed planning for the area (as well as the revised environmental approval process) not all the areas identified will end up being protected. However, how this overall ‘process’ will work is still far from certain.

 

4.       The Carnaby’s Cockatoo feeding habitat commitment involves a further 3,000 hectares of habitat to be protected throughout the PPGGP study area. Some of this total habitat occurs in East Wanneroo (and is mapped), as well as other areas in the City. In each case, land affected by Carnaby’s Cockatoo habitat still has to be individually surveyed and assessed, as part of the ongoing planning process.

 

 

5.       If ongoing planning determines that a PPGGP mapped area (i.e. broad commitments) is in fact not required to be protected, the advice received is that development of that land will not be conditional on any off-set requirement, but that a contribution may be required to a levy for the purposes of funding the management of conservation areas to be protected. How this will be achieved is not yet explained.

 

6.       The detailed mapping now provided does provide reasonable detail of those properties subject to a ‘broad commitment’ category in the PPGGP, but unfortunately does not indicate which of the broad commitments actually applies. It is intended that many of these areas will need to be refined further, possibly through individual approval processes on a site by site basis (i.e. particularly for Carnaby’s Cockatoo and nominated rare vegetation complexes). 

 

On the latter point, the PPGGP advises that the way in which the PPGGP requirements will affect each land parcel will be determined through the application of a set of guiding principles, as follows (Ref: DPC website):

 

·        Consideration of any valid approved structure plans;

 

·        Size of the conservation/environmental area, with preference to retaining areas of 4 hectares and greater;

 

·        Opportunities for conservation/environmental linkages to other areas;

 

·        Extent of multiple overlapping conservation/environmental values, with preference to retaining these areas;

 

·        Quality of the environmental values;

 

·        Strategic importance of developing an area, with preference given to considering clearing in higher importance areas such as activity centres;

 

·        Overall avoidance targets needing to be met under the draft commitments (e.g. Carnaby’s Cockatoo habitat);

 

·        Consideration of relevant biodiversity strategies and frameworks (e.g. local biodiversity strategies, Regional Framework for Local Biodiversity Conservation Priorities in Perth and Peel); and

 

·        Other principles may also be developed prior to finalising the maps.

 

Further assessment of the PPGGP mapping is provided below in the section entitled Detailed Mapping.

 

East Wanneroo Structure Plan Area – Cost Implications

Based on the EPA information outlined above, it is assumed that substantial costs will be incurred in advancing further planning and development of the East Wanneroo area for urban use.

 

These costs would relate to further environmental and ecological studies likely to be required as part of the planning and approvals process, and land acquisition costs.

 

 

At this point various scenarios for acquisition requirements of the areas eventually determined for protection can be assumed, and hence the cost implications vary accordingly.  If direct acquisition were not funded by the State Government, then as the PPGGP implies, the cost would be incurred in the form of Developer Contribution costs (assuming land is not given up for free) and passed onto the consumer. This would be an unacceptable cost penalty in an area where the affordability of subsequent housing development is an important factor.

 

Additionally, should the City become responsible for the ongoing management of all conservation land nominated for protection in East Wanneroo, a high recurrent cost would be borne.

 

In summary, a review of the issues in East Wanneroo provides a good indication of the possible implications of the PPGGP for other areas of land use change and progressive development within the City that feature various environmental values identified by the PPGGP.

 

Coastal Growth Corridor

 

A significant proportion of the coastal growth corridor is affected by commitments under the PPGGP (see Attachment 6). Most of the affected area is subject to a broad commitment relating to Carnaby’s Cockatoo feeding habitat which involves protection of an additional 3,000 hectares of the habitat over the overall PPGGP study area.

 

The degree to which this additional 3,000 hectares will involve habitat in the coastal growth corridor will presumably be addressed over time, as part of the further detailed planning of parts of this area which currently are not subject to ‘existing’ approvals (including structure plan and subdivision approvals, and approvals under Federal environmental laws). It should be noted that a substantial proportion of this area is subject to current approvals, and a number of EPBC Act approvals are already in place.

 

Neerabup-Nowergup Industrial Area

A substantial proportion of the zoned Neerabup Industrial Area and the possible northern industrial expansion area in Nowergup is affected by PPGGP commitments.

 

Attachment 7 shows the areas subject to specific commitments for protection (i.e. definitely proposed for protection). The particular environmental values and corresponding commitments are currently unclear due to the limitations of the new detailed mapping which still does not allow this to be determined.

 

Attachment 8 shows area subject to broad commitments. These appear to mainly relate to vegetation complexes with less than 30% remaining, and to Carnaby’s Cockatoo feeding habitat. The matter of which affected areas may be required to be protected will be determined through further detailed planning of these areas, although sites with current approvals will not be affected.

 

It is noted that there are certain EPBC Act approvals in place for this Neerabup-Nowergup Industrial area.

 

Lack of Community Awareness or Knowledge of PPGGP Content and Implications

The City is concerned that to this point in time the community has not been made sufficiently aware of the PPGGP and its implications. The potential impacts on local residents and landowners particularly in the Rural zoned areas of the City could be substantial.

 

The Mayor has written to the Premier on this matter and emphasised Council’s concerns.

 

 

Detailed Mapping

 

On 24 March 2016, in response to requests made by various stakeholders including this City, the State Government released more detailed mapping relating to a number of the PPGGP proposals.

 

The mapping covers the following:

 

·        Land subject to the urban, industrial and rural residential classes of action, showing:

 

·                Specific conservation commitments;

 

·                Broad conservation commitments and values;

 

·                Areas of the basic raw materials class of action that overlap the urban, industrial and rural residential class of action areas;

 

·                Areas subject to known existing approvals;

 

·        Areas proposed for new conservation reserves as part of the PPGGP conservation program; and

 

·        Basic raw materials mapping (which is on the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s website and is accessed through a link provided in the Terms of Use of the main mapping information).

 

The ‘Terms of Use’ of the mapping information includes important information relating to the mapping (see Attachment 9).  Information of particular note relates to:

 

·        The effect of existing approvals;

 

·        The three categories of draft commitments and values which have been mapped:

 

·                Draft specific commitments;

 

·                Draft broad commitments and values; and

 

·                Draft basic raw materials areas requiring further investigation.

 

·        How the areas subject to broad commitments and values will need to be refined, and how this refinement process will be informed by criteria to be developed (with possible principles being provided). 

 

A map printed from the electronic mapping released and that illustrates the above three categories of draft commitments and values which affect the City of Wanneroo as a whole, is shown in Attachment 10.

 

Attachment 11 shows an example of the mapping at a more detailed level, and includes comments on key features of the mapping at this level.

 

While the mapping information can be viewed in more detail as shown on Attachment 11, and can be easily printed for small areas, for larger areas such as East Wanneroo as a whole, prints of the small areas need to be manually joined into a mosaic. 

 

 

This exercise has been completed for East Wanneroo, with one map showing just the specific commitments (Attachment 4) and another map showing just the broad commitments and values (Attachment 5).

 

Unfortunately, while the two categories of specific and broad commitments can be viewed separately, the mapping system provided does not allow for each type of specific commitment (e.g. conservation category wetlands) or each type of broad commitment and value (e.g. vegetation complexes with more than 10% but less than 30% remaining) to be separately viewed.  This means, for example, that while it is possible to see that a particular property is affected by a broad commitment and environmental value, it is not possible to determine with absolute certainty what particular broad commitment and value is involved, and therefore which commitment text in the main PPGGP document should be referred to.

 

Similarly, it is not possible to relate a particular broad commitment and environmental value in the main PPGGP documentation to the relevant affected land on the mapping.

 

This is somewhat surprising as the Terms of Use of the mapping stresses the importance of looking at the mapping in conjunction with the full text of the draft commitments.  This matter has been raised with the relevant State Government agency which has been requested to provide the mapping in a way which enables each type of specific and broad commitment to be viewed separately.

 

In respect to the types of specific and broad commitments and values that affect the City of Wanneroo, a close review of the PPGGP documents has indicated the following:

 

·        Three specific commitments relate to:

 

·                Conservation category wetlands (CCW); and

 

·                Threatened and priority ecological communities (TEC and PEC) involving three commitments.

 

·        Four broad commitments and environmental values relate to:

 

·                Buffers to CCW;

 

·                Resource enhancement wetlands;

 

·                Vegetation complexes with more than 10% but less than 30% remaining; and

 

·                Carnaby’s Cockatoo feeding habitat.

 

Further details regarding the above specific and broad commitments and environmental values are provided in Attachment 12.

 

As noted previously, the released mapping does not enable each of the above specific and broad commitments to be individually related to a mapped area, or specific site within that area.

 

The mapping of the broad commitments and values for the East Wanneroo area (Attachment 5) is of particular note, as it affects a substantial amount of that area, and many properties.  All four types of the broad commitments and values referred to above and described in further detail in Attachment 12 will be affecting this area.

 

 

 

However, it is important to note that while a substantial area is involved, according to the relevant commitments it is intended that only parts of this affected area will be required to be protected, and that this will be determined as part of further detailed planning (e.g. structure planning) of the area.  While it is good (in terms of economic viability of the area) that only parts of the affected areas will be protected, it is unfortunate that the designation of broad areas which may be subject to future protection means a continuing uncertainty for affected landowners, prior to completion of the ‘refinement’ process.

 

A query has recently been raised with Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) regarding whether land that is determined through the refinement process to not require protection may still be subject to some offset requirement as a condition of development.

 

The DPC has advised that:

 

“Land which is marked as a broad commitment but is subsequently removed will fall back to its underlying class of action.  Where this occurs and development goes ahead developers will not be subject to an off-set requirement however it is anticipated that developers will have to contribute to a levy that will be used for the management of conservation areas.  A funding options paper is currently being drafted which will provide more information and this will be made available later this year.”

 

Basic Raw Materials (BRM)

 

The BRM class of action involves a review of the current State Planning Policy (SPP) 2.4. Attachment 13 shows the PPGGP BRM proposals for the norther part of the study area, including the City of Wanneroo. It is noted that this plan shows three significant Geological Supply (SGS) Nodes affecting the City of Wanneroo:

 

·        Gnangara sand SGS node

 

·        Wanneroo limestone SGS node

 

·        Wabling Hill limestone SGS node

 

The detailed BRM mapping released for the area is shown in Attachment 14. It may be noted that the BRM class of action area is divided into the following types:

 

·        Exclusion Area: where BRM extraction will not be approved;

 

·        Further Investigation Area: where further information is required to determine whether clearing of vegetation will be approved for BRM extraction or not; and

 

·        Further Resource Extraction Area: where approval will be given to clearing vegetation for enabling BRM extraction, subject to other requirements being met.

 

The PPGGP notes that there are BRM resources outside the BRM class of action area, and if they are proposed for extraction, then they will be subject to normal approval requirements, including possible assessment for State and Federal environmental approvals.

 

In terms of how the BRM class of action area compares to the Priority Resource Location area under current SPP 2.4, particularly for the Carabooda-Nowergup area, it generally involves a significant shift of the BRM boundary to the east. (see Attachment 15  - the blue line shows the current SPP 2.4 Priority Resource Location boundary).

 

 

 

In respect to how the BRM class of action area relates to the area now to be rezoned to Landscape Enhancement Zone (LEZ) through Amendment No. 121 to DPS 2, it may be noted that there is no over-lap between these two areas (Attachment 16 – see blue line indicating the LEZ). The main implication of this is that the existing LEZ remains intact.

 

Critical Overview – General Points

 

The report is potentially far-reaching in its scope and potential consequences. It is therefore necessary to comment on the overriding design and content of the Strategic Conservation Plan initiative, as presented in the combined volumes of the PPGGP.

 

Excessive Volume

The overall PPGGP is an excessively large document of over 2,600 pages in some 28 volumes. The Draft State Strategic Impact Assessment Report alone is supported by 13 pages of references to 199 policies, bulletins, guidance notes or scientific papers. The City is aware that other stakeholders are struggling with the sheer scale of the documentation. This is in itself a block to effective communication.

Legibility and comprehension:

The report content covers an exceptionally wide range of material (concepts and information). Unfortunately it is poorly structured, repetitive and at times poorly written with inconsistent style and confusing terminology. It is therefore not easy to read or understand. This is a significant concern, given the scope and objectives of the Draft PPGGP and the need for effective review.

 

Incomplete information and documentation

There are substantial matters not covered in the report that are essential for review and comment. These include explanations of intended stakeholder responsibility or partnership, resourcing provisions, costs and financial implications (i.e. acquisition, compensation, developer contribution, ongoing management), legalities and statutory aspects concerned with mandatory versus negotiable provisions of the Draft Assurance Action Plan (i.e. monitoring, audit, reporting, compliance enforcement etc.).

 

Resourcing and cost implications

There appear to be substantial resource and cost implications associated with implementation of the PPGGP/Strategic Conservation Plan. No resourcing and cost advice is provided, and this is an exceptionally important concern to local government in general and the City in particular.

 

Scope of the PPGGP Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference (TOR) for the PPGGP were relatively narrow. Queries to the DoP as to why certain alternative options for allocation of major land areas (e.g. pine plantations, BRM workings) other than those presented in the PPGGP were not considered, indicated the study team “were not asked to consider such matters”.

 

A plan with region-wide scope and significant strategic implications should not be limited to exclude a range of alternative land use options for major land areas that deserve consideration (e.g. displacement and relocation of agricultural land use, routes and alignments for major infrastructure corridors, second/additional international airport site(s), high technology industry research centres, potential for innovative ‘environmentally benign’ specialised urban precincts over groundwater recharge areas, etc.).

 

Opportunity and constraints assessment of strategic alternatives

Strategic regional planning studies of this magnitude normally apply comprehensive ‘opportunity constraints assessments’ where all relevant and often competing factors are considered against each other. This does not appear to have occurred.

 

The Draft PPGGP seems to have only considered ‘environmental values’ (based on mapping of where they exist), largely to the exclusion of all else. This would not normally be an acceptable way to determine far-reaching strategic outcomes and designation of substantial land areas to one priority use. This particularly applies to the substantial areas of pine plantations in the City, and to post-extraction land uses options for sand mining and limestone quarrying operations.

 

Strategic and policy over-reach

Following on from the above point, there is concern that strategic policy devised with substantial disregard for opposing interests or equally significant imperatives for a growing metropolitan region, and which has significant implications for a wide range of stakeholders – can be regarded as ‘policy over-reach’.

 

Reliance on the Precautionary Principle

The PPGGP often states there is limited knowledge and need of research concerning various aspects of the environment, flora/vegetation and fauna (e.g. Carnaby’s Cockatoo). Much of the threat to species or representative vegetation is stated as ‘risk’ rather than ‘certainty’. It appears the Draft PPGGP is relying heavily on the Precautionary Principle (i.e. allowing a large margin of error to accommodate uncertainty). Substantial areas of privately owned land are nominated for protection (e.g. East Wanneroo) which could result in a high cost to many affected land owners, and this cost imposition when dealing with uncertainty needs greater substantiation.

 

Climate change

Though climate change is purported to be a key consideration in the PPGGP, there are various aspects and consequences of likely climate change that do not appear to be sufficiently taken into account in the PPGGP. These include consideration of future bushfire hazard, long term management issues associated with the conservation estate (e.g. inability to adapt, loss of groundcover, plant aging and declining species recruitment), as well as innovative solutions as alternatives to excessive land take that might prove impractical and unaffordable.

 

Carnaby’s Cockatoo ‘iconic species’ Rationales

Carnaby’s Cockatoo gains very significant attention and focus of the PPGGP, which is understandable given the endangered as well as iconic nature of the species. However, given the total range of Carnaby’s Cockatoo through the South West of Western Australia, its original core habitat in the wheat belt, its ‘opportunistic’ nature to take advantage of varied food sources (including exotics), it is curious that so much land in this very limited portion of its total habitat (i.e. City of Wanneroo) is required for its protection.

 

This is particularly a concern given that various parcels identified for conservation purposes are extremely small, already fragmented and isolated, and unlikely survive over the long term. The issue of climate change affecting the viability of this part of the Carnaby’s Cockatoo total range appears not to have been greatly considered.

 

This is one example of an apparent imbalance in the PPGGP and the rationales it uses.  Others include:

 

·        Substantial regional bushfire risk associated with many areas of core conservation estate and remnant vegetation, particularly in the City and adjacent jurisdictions, and the apparent lack of any comprehensive assessment of risk to properties and communities over the long term;

 

·        Alternative strategic land use potential of the pine plantations; and

 

 

 

·        Alternative approaches to rehabilitation and post basic raw materials mine/quarry operation strategic land uses options. 

 

Absence of detailed mapping

The extensive mapping provided in the PPGGP when originally released was at a very large scale and very difficult to interpret. The mapping did not allow any accurate assessment of impact on local or site level planning and land ownership issues. It was unacceptable the Draft PPGGP was released for review and comment without detailed mapping (GIS based) at the appropriate scale. Subsequently, following requests from concerned stakeholders, including this City, more detailed mapping has been released and is commented on above.

 

The detailed mapping provided, sometimes referred to as ‘retention maps’ in the PPGGP, though an improvement are still not adequate and the commitments the maps refer to are still largely ‘buried’ in the main PPGGP text, and therefore very difficult to identify, and even then not to specific land parcels. This general deficiency in the mapping makes it extremely difficult for the City’s local residents to understand the implications of the PPGGP for their properties.

 

Lack of Community Consultation

There has been insufficient community consultation during the overall preparation of the PPGGP, including during the comment period. The principle of consultation and engagement to bring key stakeholders and the broader community ‘along the journey’ of the strategic intent of the PPGGP would have been wise. It is regrettable that the PPGGP has consequently attracted criticism that may have been avoidable.

 

The City acknowledges the Community Forum that DPC have organized at the City’s request, albeit it is very late in the process.

 

Conclusions

 

The following are a summary of conclusions arising from a review of the PPGGP:

 

1.       There are substantial matters not addressed and explanations not provided that make detailed assessment of the PPGGP impossible;

 

2.       The PPGGP is an excessively large and complex document that is not easily read or understood;

 

3.       The detailed mapping that has been made available subsequent to the release of the PPGGP still does not allow the effect of the PPGGP proposals on particular areas of land to be properly known or considered, due to the inability to separate the mapping of specific and broad commitments into individual commitments for any given site;

 

4.       There is significant concern at the potential implications of the PPGGP for the City of Wanneroo and especially the potential administrative and cost burdens that could arise from its implementation;

 

5.       There is significant concern the PPGGP has strategically significant implications and intentions that are well beyond a study Brief primarily concerned with the protection of environmental values and preparation of a conservation strategy;

 

6.       Taking East Wanneroo as a case study, there is particular concern that rather than simplifying the planning and environmental approvals process, it will make the management of land use change and development far more difficult;

 

 

 

7.       With respect to East Wanneroo there are potentially significant financial and cost implications arising from the PPGGP;

 

8.       It is noted that in response to the City’s request, the DPC are undertaking a Community Forum and Q&A session for the local residents; and 

 

9.       On the basis of the advice provided to date the PPGGP is largely unacceptable and there needs to be substantial consultation, engagement and additional advice provided before a position of support or otherwise can be reached. It is therefore recommended that the DPC be requested to address the outstanding matters identified in this report. It is also therefore recommended that the submission provided in Attachment 17 be endorsed as Council’s interim position and that in forwarding it to the DPC, the DPC be advised that the City reserves the right to provide further comment and advice once the outstanding matters referred to above have been addressed.

Statutory Compliance

Not Applicable.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “1     Environment - A Healthy and sustainable natural and built environment

1.1    Environmentally Friendly - You will be part of a community that has a balance of environmentally friendly development and conservation areas for future generations to enjoy”

Risk Management Considerations

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

The City of Wanneroo Tree Preservation Policy and City of Wanneroo Local Planning Policy 4.1: Wetlands are both relevant, and appear to be supported by the Draft PPGGP.

Financial Implications

It is not possible to determine at this stage, pending the release by State Government of papers concerning financial and funding aspects of the PPGGP. However, given the discussion above, the potential financial implications to the CoW are extremely significant.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

1.       NOTES that the Perth and Peel Green Growth Plan for 3.5 Million cannot be supported on the basis that there are a number of outstanding matters to be clarified and/or resolved, including:

a)      Appropriate consultation with landowners affected by the Perth and Peel Green Growth Plan for 3.5 Million has not previously occurred, and should be undertaken over the period of finalizing the PPGGP;

b)      ‘Detailed mapping’ showing land in the City of Wanneroo affected by the Plan has not been provided in a manner that enables it to be related to the relevant commitments contained in the text of the main PPGGP documents;

c)      Cost implications for local government, including acquisition and ongoing management has not been explained;

d)      Implementation details, including responsibilities, funding and statutory (mandatory versus negotiable or discretionary) aspects of the PPGGP, have not been provided;

2.       REQUESTS the Department of Premier and Cabinet address the outstanding matters set out in Recommendation 1;

3.       ENDORSE the City of Wanneroo Submission on the Perth and Peel Green Growth Plan for 3.5 Million included at Attachment 17 as an interim position; and

4.       FORWARD a copy of the interim submission to the Department of Premier and Cabinet and in doing so, ADVISE them that the City reserves the right to make a further submission once the matters referred to in Recommendation 1 have been addressed.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	ATTACHMENT 1 Unpacking GGP	16/85265
2.	ATTACHMENT 2 East Wanneroo Amendment 1308/41	16/115701
3.	ATTACHMENT 3 EPA Advice to WAPC	16/85259
4.	ATTACHMENT 4 GGP EW Specific Commitments	16/112068
5.	ATTACHMENT 5 GGP Broad Commitments	16/112075
6.	ATTACHMENT 6 Coastal Growth Corridor	16/115722
7.	ATTACHMENT 7 Neerabup-Nowergup Broad Commitments	16/115734
8.	ATTACHMENT 8 Neerabup-Nowergup Specific Commitments	16/115738
9.	ATTACHMENT 9 Important Information	16/112054
10.	ATTACHMENT 10 Overall GGP Implications	16/112062
11.	ATTACHMENT 11 GGP East Wanneroo Detailed Mapping	16/112065
12.	ATTACHMENT 12 Key Specific Commitments	16/112080
13.	ATTACHMENT 13 Overall Basic Raw Materials	16/115753
14.	ATTACHMENT 14 Detailed Basic Raw Materials	16/112082
15.	ATTACHMENT 15 Comparison to SPP 2.4	16/115761
16.	ATTACHMENT 16 LEH  Zone Amendment 121 DPS 2	16/115764
17.	ATTACHMENT 17 - Submission to PPGGP	16/112571	Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approval Services

File Ref:                                              DA2015/2175 – 16/84326

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

Issue

To consider a development application for a proposed Change of Use from Hairdresser to a Restricted Premises (Adult Store).  

 

Applicant	Pinnacle Planning
Owner	Denkey Pty Ltd/Brett Investments Pty Ltd
Location	Unit 3 - Lot 782 (1868) Marmion Avenue, Clarkson
Site Area	4559m2
DPS2 Zoning	Centre
ASP2 Zoning	Commercial

 

Background

 

A development application was received on 24 November 2015 for a Change of Use from a Hairdresser to an Adult Store at Unit 3 (subject tenancy) on Lot 782 (1868) Marmion Avenue, Clarkson (subject lot). The proposed Adult Store is located within an existing strip of commercial tenancies facing Marmion Avenue on the south-eastern portion of the intersection of Marmion Avenue and Ocean Keys Boulevard. A sewing shop and a take-away food outlet operate from tenancies located on either side of the subject tenancy. Other businesses located within the lot include other take-away food outlets, offices and a gymnasium. Residential properties are located approximately 80 metres to the west across Marmion Avenue, while other commercial land uses are located to the north, east and south of the subject lot. A location plan identifying the businesses on the subject lot as well as on adjoining lots has been included as Attachment 1 and a site plan identifying the subject tenancy on the subject lot has been included as Attachment 2. This plan also shows the location of the three schools, a child care facility and a church in the locality that are all a minimum of approximately 500 metres away from the subject tenancy.

 

The subject lot is zoned Centre under District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and Commercial under the Clarkson Activity Centre Structure Plan No. 2 (ASP 2).

 

Detail

 

Details of the proposed Adult Store are as follows:

 

·        The entrance of the tenancy will incorporate screening to obscure the view of products sold within the shop from the exterior.

 

·        Entry into the premises is restricted to persons 18 years and older.

 

·        The works associated with the proposal relates primarily to an internal fitout and tenancy signage.

 

·        The retail sale of goods that relate to sexually explicit material and personal goods of an adult nature.

 

·        Operating hours to be consistent with retail trading hours.

 

·        One employee to be working during operating hours.

 

·        There are no booths for viewing material or the provision of any form of adult services.

 

·        The window treatment in the façade of the tenancy will comprise of signage and display material. An indicative image of the façade of the tenancy is included as Attachment 3.

A floor plan of the proposed Adult Store is included as Attachment 4.

An Adult Store is considered a Restricted Premises use class under DPS 2. A Restricted Premises is defined in the DPS 2 as:

“Restricted Premises: means any premises used or designed to be used primarily for the sale by retail or wholesale, or the offer for hire, loan or exchange, or the exhibition, display or delivery of:

(a) publications that are classified as restricted publications pursuant to the Indecent Publications and Articles Act 1902 (as amended); or

(b) materials, compounds, preparations or articles which are used or intended to be used primarily on or in connection with any form of sexual behaviour or activities.”

 

A Restricted Premises is a discretionary ‘D’ use within a Commercial Zone. This means that the use is not permitted, unless the Council exercises its discretion having regard for matters considered relevant to the use as laid out in Clause 67 of DPS 2. As part of this, the City also has discretion to advertise the proposal. This is discussed further below.

Consultation

Administration considered it appropriate to consult with the public in respect to this proposal because a Restricted Premises is a use that may not be appropriate or suitable in all Commercial zones. As such, public consultation was undertaken for a period of 21 days from 9 February 2016 to 1 March 2016 by way of an advertisement placed in the Wanneroo Times Newspaper, a notice on the City’s website, a sign erected on site, letters written to landowners of the tenancies within the same strip of commercial units. It is also noted that during the course of public consultation, it was brought to the attention of Administration by the applicant that an unauthorised sign had been erected on the window of the subject tenancy by an unknown third party inviting others to make a submission in regards to the proposal. The applicant removed the sign.

 

At the conclusion of the public consultation period, 64 submissions were received, of which 61 were objections and three were in support of the proposal. A petition of 88 signatories objecting to the proposal was also received (PT02-03/16) during the public consultation period.

 

The main issues with the proposal raised during the public consultation period relate to the following:

 

·        Inappropriate location for an Adult Store; and

 

·        Incompatibility of the Adult Store and its clientele with adjoining land uses, and potential impact on these businesses.

 

A summary of submissions received and Administration’s responses to these are provided in Attachment 5. A more detailed discussion of the major issues and Administration’s assessment of the application is provided in the Comment section.

 

Comment

 

Location, Suitability and Compatibility of the Restricted Premises

 

Submitters’ Concerns

 

The majority of submissions expressed concern that the nature of the Adult Store and the clientele that will frequent the Adult Store would present a moral risk for and result in anti-social behaviour towards patrons of other businesses located in close proximity and detract from what was described as a family friendly shopping centre. Particularly, the sewing shop and take-away food outlets which attract the elderly, teenagers, students, children and families. Submissions received also indicated that this would result in the Adult Store detrimentally impacting these other businesses. As an alternative, some submissions received suggested that the Adult Store would be better located within an Industrial Zone or in a location that is less prominent.

 

Applicant’s Response to Submitters’ Concerns

 

The applicant has responded to these comments raised in the submissions received and has provided legal advice in regards to the proposal as follows:

 

1.         The principle of the operation of one land use detrimentally impacting another, and therefore the compatibility of the land use or amenity, should be limited to environmental factors, noise, traffic, odour, visual pollution, and building bulk and scale. Based on these factors, there is no reasonable town planning ground to suggest the land use is incompatible with the surrounding uses.

 

2.         The proposed use and adjoining land uses are all consistent with the general grouping of commercial land uses. The planning framework does not take into account business impacts and the choice of tenants in the approval process.

 

3.         Research and evidence from the operator’s online customer base that is in excess of 10,000 members indicates that their customers are representative of all genders and age demographics, and that there is no evidence to support the claim that customers of the Adult Store would be responsible for perpetrating any form of anti-social behaviour.

 

4.         The Commercial Zone, being the zoning of the subject site, is the only zone that a Restricted Premises may be considered under DPS 2. Therefore, a Restricted Premises cannot be considered in an alternative zoning, such as Industrial zoned sites. With respect to exposure of the tenancy, there is no requirement under the planning framework that sets out that a proposed Restrictive Premises ought to be in a location with less prominence.

 

5.         Amenity is defined under DPS 2 as “all factors which combine to form the character of an area and include the present and likely future amenity”. The amenity of the area should include all the land uses within Clarkson Activity Centre which comprises of existing retail and mix commercial land uses. This includes many land uses which sell products including cigarettes, alcohol and other products not sold to people under the age of 18. There is no planning framework mechanism that can control the co-location of the sale of such products or the uses itself. Entry into the Adult Store is restricted to people 18 years of age and over which provides an appropriate mechanism to manage the sale of products for adults.

 

6.         The Adult Store is a retail land use that functions the same and would attract similar clientele as other retail stores, including retail stores currently within the Clarkson Activity Centre. So long as appropriate conditions are imposed with respect to displayed or advertised material within the shop windows of the proposed Adult Store, any potential amenity concerns can be mitigated. Therefore, the proposed use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning of the land and would not have an impact on local amenity sufficient to warrant refusal.

 

7.         There is no method in determining a family friendly shopping centre and the term ‘family friendly’ are not appropriate when defining amenity, as the definition is ambiguous, and takes many different meanings. Some tenancies with the Clarkson Activity Centre are considered ‘family friendly’ casual dining and fast food locations, yet also sell alcohol. Personal preference and opinions lodged by the submitters do not constitute amenity impacts.

 

8.       Any decision made by Council may be open to a Judicial Review, should the numerous submissions that did not specify the name and address of the submitter be considered in the determination of the application. A large number of the submissions that are valid are pro forma in nature. These submissions offer little weight and provide little evidence or discussion on planning based matters.

 

Administration’s Comments

 

A Restricted Premises is a discretionary ‘D’ use in the Commercial Zone and is a prohibited use in all other zones, including Industrial Zones, under DPS 2. In considering a discretionary ‘D’ use, regard is to be given for relevant matters listed in Clause 67 of DPS 2. Three of which are Clause 67 (m), (n) and (y) that relate to the compatibility of development within the setting, the amenity of an area and submissions received, respectively. Clause 67 (m), (n) and (y) are as follows:

 

“(m)   The compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including, but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development.

 

(n)     The amenity of the locality including the following:

 

(i)      environmental impacts of the development;

(ii)      the character of the locality;

(iii)     social impacts of the development.

 

(y)     Any submissions received on the application.”

 

Amenity is not a term defined under the current DPS 2. The term was previously defined in DPS 2 as “all factors which combine to form the character of an area and include the present and likely future amenity”, however, it has been omitted since the Planning Regulations 2015 have come into effect. Nonetheless, the qualities and characteristics which create the amenity of an area are subjective and determined individually by its users. Therefore, patrons and tenants of the shopping centre are considered to be well placed to provide their views and comment on the qualities and characteristics of the amenity of this locality. As such, the amenity of this locality can be formed by considering submissions received, as well as the planning framework.

 

Under DPS 2, the purpose of the Commercial Zone is to provide for shopping and commercial areas that provide for a wide range of uses, including retailing, entertainment, professional offices, business services and residential.

DPS 2, however, does not set out any requirements for a particular mix of these range of uses, nor does it set out any requirements for certain uses to be co-located or alternatively, separated from one another. Similarly, the perceived or actual business impact of a proposed use on the economic viability of other nearby land uses is not a planning consideration under the planning framework. Additionally, DPS 2 does not include any locational criteria limiting the exposure or prominence of any land uses in any zones.

 

Currently, the businesses adjoining the subject tenancy include a sewing shop, take-away food outlets, offices and a gymnasium. There are more take-away food outlets, a police station, a veterinary hospital and retail tenancies on sites abutting the subject lot, together with residential properties located to the west of Marmion Avenue. Also within a walkable catchment from the proposed Adult Store tenancy are three schools, a child care facility and a church. There are no Restricted Premises currently operating within this area. So although there are no criteria for a family friendly shopping centre, this appears to be the basis for some objectors referring to the locality as a family friendly shopping centre. Therefore, it is the types of uses currently operating in this area that forms the amenity of the locality as one that is ‘family friendly’ by the majority of submitters.

 

The nature of the proposed Adult Store and being a Restricted Premises is different from and contrary to the image of the businesses currently operating in this commercial development. For this reason the proposed Adult Store use is inconsistent with the characteristics of the locality and incompatible with the other businesses. The fact that tenants and patrons of this shopping centre objected to the proposal demonstrates that the nature of their locality would be affected. Therefore it is considered that the proposed Adult Store consequently would potentially have a detrimental impact on the established amenity of this area should it be approved.

 

In respect to the perception of the majority of objectors that the clientele of the proposed Adult Store would be responsible for perpetrating anti-social or undesirable behaviour, Administration is unaware of any evidence to support or substantiate this claim. In addition, anti-social behaviour perpetrated by any person would be a matter for the Police to investigate and take appropriate action. As such, the clientele of the proposed Adult Store is not considered a relevant consideration in the determination of this application.

 

Visually, the interior of the proposed Adult Store is screened from the exterior of the premises and would not be visible to passer-bys. Therefore, the interior of the proposed Adult Store does not affect the visual amenity of the area. A display in the frontage of the tenancy is intended to feature advertising signage and some products being offered for sale, as shown in the indicative image of the proposed development included as Attachment 3. The appearance of the proposed tenancy frontage in the indicative image is not dissimilar from other retailers of undergarments and lingerie in commercial areas. Administration understands that the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1996 prohibits the display of an indecent or obscene article so as it is visible in a public place. As such, it is considered that the appearance of the proposed Adult Store is relatively discrete.

 

It is noted that all submissions received have been taken into account in the consideration of this application. All but three of the submissions received included the names of the submitters, while all but four of the submissions received did not include either a home address or email address. Administration does not have any evidence to suggest that these submissions are not valid.

 

Development Standards of DPS 2

 

The application has been assessed against and complies with all relevant provisions relating to development standards in DPS 2.

 

As the application is proposing a change of use, the extent of physical works proposed is limited to the internal fitout of the tenancy and the erection of signage. The carrying out of building works which only affect the interior of a building are exempt from planning approval. One wall sign and window signage are proposed on the frontage of the tenancy, while one sign is proposed on a multiple tenancy ‘tower’ on the shopping centre building. The applicant has not provided specifications of the signage proposed. In the absence of this, the City has undertaken an assessment of the signage shown on the indicative image of the proposed tenancy frontage shown in Attachment 3.

 

The wall sign and multiple tenancy sign are replacement signage for the existing Hairdresser use and are consistent with the City’s Signs Local Planning Policy (Signs LPP). The window signage covers an area of approximately 10m². Under the Signs LPP, window signage is not permitted to exceed 50% of the glazed area of the window or exceed 10m² in total for a tenancy. Therefore, the signage proposed is consistent with the requirements of the Signs LPP.

 

The car parking standards for a Restricted Premises is 7 bays per 100m² of net lettable area. This is the same car parking standard for the existing Hairdesser land use of the tenancy. Therefore the amount of car parking required for the proposal does not change.

 

Conclusion

 

While the proposed Restricted Premises use can be considered in the Commercial Zone, it is not considered appropriate in this locality because it is considered incompatible with the existing amenity of the area, and would detrimentally impact the local amenity sufficient to warrant refusal. On this basis, Administration recommends that the application be refused.

Statutory Compliance

This application has been assessed in accordance with the City of Wanneroo’s DPS 2 and Clarkson Activity Centre Structure Plan No. 2.

Council is required to determine the application under DPS 2 and must either approve it, with or without conditions, or refuse it, setting out its reasons for doing so. Any decision to refuse the application must be based on relevant planning grounds alone.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.1    Great Places and Quality Lifestyle - People from different cultures find Wanneroo an exciting place to live with quality facilities and services.”

Risk Management Considerations

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

Signs Local Planning Policy

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:

 

1.       REFUSES the development application for the proposed Change of Use from a Hairdresser to a Restricted Premises (Adult Store) at Unit 3 - Lot 782 (1868) Marmion Avenue, Clarkson, pursuant to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 for the following reasons:

 

In view of the objections received during public notice of the proposal, approval of the application would be contrary to the following matters to be considered by Council in exercising its discretion under Clause 67 of DPS 2:

 

“(m)  The compatibility of the development with its setting including the  relationship of the development to development on adjoining land or         on other land in the locality including, but not limited to, the likely       effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the           development.

 

(n)     The amenity of the locality including the following –

           

(i)    environmental impacts of the development;

          (ii)   the character of the locality;

          (iii)  social impacts of the development.

 

(y)     Any submissions received on the application.”; and

 

2.       ADVISES the submitters of this decision.

 

   

                                                                          

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Locality Plan	16/115037
2.	Attachment 2 - Site Plan	16/111297
3.	Attachment 3 - Indicative Signage	16/111298
4.	Attachment 4 - Floor Plan	16/111301
5.	Attachment 5 - Schedule of submissions	16/115203

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              21831 – 16/49943

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       7         

Issue

To consider the submissions received during the public advertising of Amendment No. 150 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and support of that amendment.

 

Applicant	City of Wanneroo
Owner	Various
Location	Lot 100 (25) Drovers Place, Wanneroo Lot 5 (33) Drovers Place, Wanneroo Lot 6 (43) Drovers Place, Wanneroo Lot 12462 (47) Drovers Place, Wanneroo Lot 7 (53) Drovers Place, Wanneroo Lot 8 (61) Drovers Place, Wanneroo Portion Lot 810 (1397) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo Lot 811 (1387) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo Lot 1 (1369) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo Lot 132 (1351) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo Lot 11 (1349) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo Lot 10 (1327) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo Lot 501 (1321) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo Lot 2 (1303) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo Lot 406 (1297) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development

 

Background

The locations of the land parcels subject to Amendment No. 150 to DPS 2 are outlined in the plan included in Attachment 1. The land subject to the DPS 2 amendment is bounded by Wanneroo Road to the east, Ashley Road to the south, Joondalup Drive to the north and the Yellagonga Regional Park to the west. The entire DPS 2 amendment area is currently situated within the City’s Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 (ASP 80).

 

The preparation of Amendment No. 150 was prompted by a written request Administration received from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). In that correspondence, the WAPC requested the City consider initiating an amendment to DPS 2, to normalise the zoning of the ASP 80 area under the local planning scheme (DPS 2). In particular, the WAPC requested that consideration be given to rezoning Lot 810 (1397), Lot 811 (1387), Lot 1 (1369) and Lot 132 (1351) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo (situated in the ASP 80 Central Precinct) to a Business zone under the DPS 2. Administration agrees with the WAPC’s view (expressed through its request to the City to normalise the zoning) that the numerous amendments to ASP 80 made in recent years have resulted in a complexity of the ASP 80 planning framework that was not intended for this structure plan.

 

 

 

Currently, the entire ASP 80 area is zoned ‘Urban Development’ under DPS 2, with ASP 80 prescribing the various zonings for the land to be applied within that structure plan area. ‘Normalising’ the zoning in this context means amending DPS 2 in a way so that the zonings of the land prescribed in ASP 80 become zonings under DPS 2.

 

At its 8 December 2015 meeting, Council considered the initiation of Amendment No. 150 (PS03-12/15) and resolved as follows:

 

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 PREPARES Amendment No. 150 to City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, to undertake the amendments to the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 as prescribed in the document included as Attachment 2;

 

2.       Pursuant to Regulation 35 (2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 150 of the District Planning Scheme No. 2 is a standard amendment pursuant to Regulation 34 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, for the following reason:

 

Amendment No. 150 is considered to be a ‘standard’ amendment to the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, as the amendment is consistent with a region planning scheme that applies to the scheme area (Metropolitan Region Scheme), and is not considered to align with the criteria applicable for ‘basic’ and ‘complex’ amendments, prescribed in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. 

 

3.       Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, REFERS Amendment No. 150 of the District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority; and

 

4.       Subject to no objections being received from the Environmental Protection Authority and pursuant to Regulation 47(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, NOTIFIES the Western Australian Planning Commission of its intention to advertise Amendment No. 150 and ADVERTISES Amendment No. 150 for public comment for a period of not less than 42 days, pursuant to Regulation 47(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

ASP 80 was recently subject to Amendment No. 4 and No. 5, both of which have been supported by Council. Council supported Amendment No. 5 to ASP 80 at its 13 October 2015 Meeting (PS01-10/15) and supported Amendment No. 4 at its 10 November 2015 Meeting (PS02-11/15). Following Council’s deliberations, the supported amendment proposal was forwarded to the WAPC for approval. Subsequent to Council initiating the DPS 2 amendment, the WAPC since resolved to require Amendment No. 4 and No. 5 to ASP 80 be modified (from what was supported by Council), before a final approval will be given. Discussion on how this WAPC resolution could affect the DPS 2 amendment is provided in the ‘Comment’ section below.

Detail

Attachment 2 contains a plan showing the existing zoning of the subject land under DPS 2, and the zoning proposed through Amendment No. 150.

 

 

 

Amendment No. 150 proposes to rezone the extent of ASP 80, to either:

 

·    Replicate the zones as currently prescribed in this structure plan to equivalent zonings under DPS 2; or

 

·    Rezone land in a manner consistent with the zonings (and Additional Use permissibility’s) as resolved by Council when it supported Amendments No. 4 and No. 5 to ASP 80.

A table outlining the similarities between zonings proposed in the DPS 2 amendment, and the zonings of land under ASP 80 (or as supported by Council through its resolution Amendments No. 4 and No. 5 to ASP 80) is provided in Attachment 3.

 

Amendment No. 150 also proposes to impose a Special Control Area over the ASP 80 area, and to create the necessary framework to enforce locational-specific requirements through DPS 2 provisions. The locational-specific provisions for the Special Control Area are proposed to be included in a new schedule of DPS 2, and would generally replicate the locational, traffic and environmental requirements that are currently prescribed throughout the ASP 80 text – or were supported by Council in its considerations of Amendments No. 4 and No. 5 to ASP 80.

 

In its considerations of Amendment No. 5 to ASP 80, Council supported the introduction of a ‘Costume Hire’ definition into that structure plan, as a definition for this land use is not included in Schedule 1 of DPS 2. Although ‘Costume Hire’ is not defined in DPS 2, its permissibility is currently prescribed in the DPS 2 Zoning Table. Amendment No. 150 proposes to remedy this issue, by proposing a ‘Costume Hire’ definition into Schedule 1 of DPS 2 that is consistent with what was supported by Council through Amendment No. 5 to ASP 80.

Consultation

In accordance with the Council’s decision, the amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment. On 29 December 2015, the EPA advised Administration that the scheme amendment did not warrant an environmental assessment. The Western Australian Planning Commissions (WAPC) consent to advertise was not required in this case.

 

A 42-day public advertising period was carried out between 19 January 2016 and 1 March 2016 by way of three on-site signs, advertisement in the local newspaper, a notice in Council offices and the City’s website, and letters to the affected and nearby landowners. Administration received 12 submissions, which Administration has summarised and provided a response for in Attachment 4.

Comment

WAPC Determination of Amendment No. 4 & No. 5 to ASP 80

 

As previously outlined in this Report, the WAPC resolved to require Amendment No. 4 and No. 5 to ASP 80 be modified (from what was supported by Council), before a final approval will be given. As also outlined previously in this Report, this DPS 2 amendment draws from what Council supported when it deliberated on the ASP 80 amendments. The key aspects of how the WAPC’s resolution of Amendments No. 4 and No. 5 to ASP 80 varies from what Council had previously supported is summarised below:

 

·        The WAPC’s decision did not support a modification to the Growers Mart definition as proposed in Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80 (and supported by Council), but rather requires the retention of current ASP 80 definition which is as follows:

 

 

Growers Mart : means any land or buildings used for the wholesale, distribution and retail sale of primary products including fruit and vegetables, meat, fish, bread.

 

Although the landowner of Lot 810 and Lot 811 initially pursued a change to the Growers Mart definition through Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80, this same landowner provided a submission to the Amendment No. 150 proposal requesting the retention of the definition as it currently is in ASP 80.

 

Administration supports the position to utilise the ‘Growers Mart’ definition in the DPS 2 amendment as it is currently worded in ASP 80. A modification to this effect is tabled in the Schedule of Modifications included as Attachment 5.

 

·        The WAPC’s decision did not support ‘Hire Service’, ‘Market (Retail)’, ‘Motor Vehicle Repairs’, ‘Shop’ and ‘Storage Yard’ being ‘Additional Uses’ permissible on Lot 810 and Lot 811 Wanneroo Road. In a Report prepared by the Department of Planning (DoP) Officers for the WAPC, it was clear that the WAPC’s position in this regard was to ensure that the amendments to ASP 80 reflect the intent and land use permissibility of the Business Zone, and that only the land uses currently permitted in ASP 80 (but not permissible in the Business Zone) are formalised as Additional Uses.  Whilst this is the position of WAPC; Council however, has maintained a different position. Therefore, the DPS 2 amendment proposal has been prepared to be consistent to Council’s previous decision in its support of the ASP 80 amendments, and not with this WAPC decision.

 

·        The WAPC’s decision did not support a ‘Supermarket’ definition being included in ASP 80; however, this decision does not have relevance in this Report, as it is not proposed to include a Supermarket’ definition in the DPS 2 amendment.

 

·        The WAPC’s decision did not support a ‘Costume Hire’ definition being included in ASP 80. Administration maintains its position that a ‘Costume Hire’ definition should remain as part of this DPS 2 amendment, as it is a land use with permissibility tabled in Table 1 of DPS 2 – yet does not have a corresponding definition in Schedule 1 of DPS 2. Further discussion on the ‘Costume Hire’ definition proposed in the DPS 2 amendment is included in the ‘Costume Hire Definition’ subsection below.

 

·        The WAPC’s decision did not support a provision proposed in Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80 that accommodated for ‘ancillary and subordinate land uses’. The provision which was not supported by the WAPC is as follows:

 

A use that is less than 10% of the floorspace of a use is permissible as part of that use (irrespective of its permissibility if considered as a separate use) provided it is ancillary and subordinate to the dominant use. The City may exercise discretion and grant Planning Approval for ancillary and subordinate uses that exceed 10% of floor area, provided the City is satisfied that the use is genuinely ancillary and subordinate to the dominant use.

 

The DPS 2 amendment proposal includes this provision. Administration is not recommending this provision’s deletion from the DPS 2 amendment, as it considers the guidance the provision provides for relating to ancillary and subordinate land uses could be useful.

 

·        The WAPC’s decision on Amendment No. 4 and No. 5 to ASP 80 has resulted in the requirement for minor changes to the traffic infrastructure upgrade provisions in ASP 80. For reasons unrelated to the WAPC’s decision on Amendment No. 4 and No. 5, further modification to the corresponding provisions proposed in the DPS 2 amendment are recommended by Administration, as discussed in the ‘Traffic Infrastructure Upgrades’ subsection below.

 

Administration is recommending that Council support a modified DPS 2 amendment that proposes Additional Uses, a ‘Costume Hire’ definition, and a provision for ‘ancillary and subordinate land uses’ that are either contrary or significantly vary the WAPC’s position, as expressed through its decision of Amendment No. 4 and No. 5 to ASP 80. Notwithstanding its resolution on the DPS 2 amendment, Council should acknowledge that the WAPC could seek to further modify the amendment proposal as part of its deliberations; particularly to reflect on the outcomes established through its determination of the ASP 80 amendments.

 

State Administrative Tribunal Review of ASP 80 Amendments

 

Administration has received correspondence that the WAPC decision on Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80 (as discussed above) will be subject to review at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). At the present time, a Hearing at the SAT has been listed for 29 June 2016, for the purpose of reviewing the WAPC’s decision.

 

Given the pending SAT Hearing, the applicant of Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80 has provided correspondence to the City formally requesting that Council defers consideration of Amendment No. 150 to DPS 2 until the SAT makes its determination on Amendment No. 4. The reason for this request is that the applicant considers the SAT determination would be a relevant factor in Council’s consideration of Amendment No. 150 to DPS 2.

 

Administration does not consider that a decision by the SAT in relation to Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80 is a factor warranting the deferral of Council’s consideration of Amendment No. 150 to DPS 2. This Report only requires Council to endorse its support of the amendment proposal (subject to modifications as discussed in this Report), and to forward the amendment onto the WAPC. It is the WAPC that will then consider the DPS 2 amendment proposal; and, more appropriately, consider whether to factor in any decision of the SAT made in relation to Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80.

 

Traffic Infrastructure Upgrades

 

When Administration considered Amendments No. 4 and No. 5 to ASP 80, Administration recognised an inequity in the traffic infrastructure upgrade provisions that were previously in that structure plan. In particular, Administration noted that provisions prescribed that the landowner of Lot 6, Lot 7 and Lot 8 Drovers Place, Wanneroo had full responsibility of designing and constructing a signalised intersection at Joondalup Drive/Drovers Place; and similarly the landowner of Lot 1 and Lot 132 had full responsibility of designing and constructing a signalised intersection at Wanneroo Road/Clarkson Avenue. The inequity lay on the fact that although certain landowners were required to fund the prescribed infrastructure upgrades, there could be future developments on sites owned by others that would benefit from this infrastructure.

 

The change in land use permissibility proposed in Amendment No. 4 and No. 5 to ASP 80 justified Administration recommending modification to the provisions, which Council then supported when it considered those ASP 80 amendments. The change of land use permissibility on the lots subject to Amendment No. 4 and No. 5 to ASP 80 potentially could have exacerbated the inequity of the traffic infrastructure upgrade provisions that are in ASP 80.

 

In preparing this amendment to DPS 2, Administration considered the need to include traffic infrastructure upgrade provisions consistent with what was supported by Council through amendments to ASP 80. Although some landowners in the DPS 2 amendment area (particularly those driving the amendments to ASP 80) were aware of Administration’s intentions to minimise inequity in the traffic infrastructure upgrade provisions, Administration still received comments that were critical of the proposed provisions.

 

 

In response, Administration obtained legal advice on the provisions proposed and the accuracy of the comments made in the submissions. This legal advice has been circulated separately to Elected Members. The key issues in the submissions that were identified by Administration are detailed below:

 

·        Legal effectiveness and validity of the provisions that were advertised. In response to those comments, the legal advice that Administration received regarding the traffic infrastructure provisions concluded that the provisions were legally valid, but could be improved to minimise uncertainties. A modification to the traffic infrastructure provisions to address concerns in the submissions and suggestions in the legal advice is discussed later in the subsection.

 

·        The submissions noted that the provisions were prepared in a way that not all landowners that will benefit from the required works (such as the landowners of Lot 100 and Lot 5 Drovers Place) was obligated to contribute to the design and construction of the signalised intersections. Currently, the provisions (as advertised) only give scope for the City to pursue a cost contribution from the landowners of Lot 810 and Lot 811 Wanneroo Road as well as Lot 1 and Lot 132 Wanneroo Road for the design and construction of the Drovers Place/Joondalup Drive intersection. Further discussion on this matter is provided in the next dot point.

 

·        The provisions prescribe that the City can condition a development (or recommend a condition of subdivision) requiring select landowners (being the landowners of Lot 810 and Lot 811 Wanneroo Road as well as Lot 1 and Lot 132 Wanneroo Road) to contribute to the cost of the design and construction of the Drovers Place/Joondalup Drive intersection. However, the submissions raised a concern about an inconsistency in the provisions, whereby there is no specific requirement for the City to condition a development (or recommend a condition of subdivision) requiring landowners other than of Lot 1 and Lot 132 to contribute to the design and construction of the Wanneroo Road/Clarkson Avenue intersection.

 

In response to this dot point (and the previous point), Administration agrees that the traffic infrastructure upgrade provisions included in the DPS 2 amendment should allow the City to acquire a cost contribution from any landowner in the Special Control Area, if that respective landowner were to undertake further development that could generate a significant volume of traffic using either (or both) the intersections referred to in those provisions.

 

·        The provisions prescribe the need to ‘signalise’ the subject intersections. However, a concern raised in the submissions is that signalising the intersections require the approval from Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA); and that if MRWA were to not approve the signalisation of an intersection, then the provision could potentially become ineffective. Administration considers modification to the traffic infrastructure upgrade provisions are appropriate, to the extent that the City could consider alternative intersection treatments (e.g. a roundabout) should an approval for the required traffic signals be withheld by MRWA for unforeseen reasons.

 

The legal advice received stated that the provisions proposed in the DPS 2 amendment were valid, but could be improved to minimise any areas of uncertainty. In light of the submissions and legal advice received, Administration sought the assistance of the City’s appointed legal representative to draft modifications to the provisions. The recommended modifications to the traffic infrastructure upgrade provisions are tabled in the Schedule of Modifications included as Attachment 5.

 

 

 

The modified provisions as drafted and included in Attachment 5 do not intend to establish the monetary contribution amount that each landowner is to pay for the required infrastructure. This is because the extent of traffic generated from future developments on each lot in the proposed Special Control Area is unknown or unforeseen, as are the costs in providing infrastructure at the time that it may be required. The provisions drafted may require a landowner and Administration to establish the monetary amount required to be contributed at the time a development application or subdivision proposal is presented to the City.

 

Planning Outcomes for Lot 6, Lot 7 and Lot 8 Drovers Place

 

During the public consultation, a submission was provided on behalf of the landowners of Lot 6, Lot 7 and Lot 8 Drovers Place, Wanneroo; primarily seeking a modification of the amendment proposal to zone these lots to ‘Residential’. The submission also sought modifications to proposed provisions in the amendment document, primarily to support the ‘Residential’ zoning.

 

A ‘Residential’ zoning of Lot 6, Lot 7 and Lot 8 Drovers Place, Wanneroo was the subject of Amendment No. 2 to ASP 80. Council resolved at its 25 May 2015 Meeting (PS06-05/15) to not approve this amendment to ASP 80. Council reviewed this decision at its 21 July 2015 Meeting (PS03-07/15), and affirmed its May 2015 decision. Council’s reasons for not supporting Amendment No. 2 to ASP 80 are outlined below:

 

a)      The proposed residential density is considered to be excessive in view of the environmental significance of Lake Joondalup and the Yellagonga Regional Park and midge management issues associated with the area; and

 

b)      The proposal is considered to generate excessive traffic that cannot be accommodated on the local road network and the arrangements for vehicle access are considered to be unsatisfactory.

 

The general principles outlined in the submission (of zoning Lot 6, Lot 7 and Lot 8 Drovers Place to ‘Residential’) are not supported by Administration. Administration considers the submission to consider applying a ‘Residential’ zoning on Lot 6, Lot 7 and Lot 8 Drovers Place as being too detailed and significant to entertain as a modification to the amendment proposal. Due to the significant nature of what is outlined in the submission, Administration would also be required to readvertise the amendment proposal pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Therefore, Administration’s is of the view that if the landowner wishes to pursue a change in zoning to ‘Residential’, then they should lodge a separate DPS 2 amendment.

 

Costume Hire Definition

 

Following initiation of the DPS 2 amendment, Administration identified an error in the definition of ‘Costume Hire’ as it was prescribed in the amendment document. The amendment proposal had intended to insert the following definition of ‘Costume Hire’:

 

Costume Hire: Means an area of land or building used for the hire or sale of costumes.

 

The above definition was supported by Council in its consideration of Amendment No. 5 to ASP 80. However, Administration mistakenly inserted a definition into the amendment document that was not consistent with that supported by Council. Modifying the definition in the amendment to what was intended is not considered to be a material change that would affect the outcome of the amendment.

 

 

Rather, modifying the amendment to insert the definition as above would only strengthen the fact that the ‘Costume Hire’ definition relates to premises that are to be used for the sale and hire of costumes, as the name of the use class suggests. The modification to the ‘Costume Hire’ definition – consistent with what Council supported when it considered Amendment No. 5 – is tabled in the Schedule of Modifications included as Attachment 5.

 

Specifically, the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 prescribe that the City can support an amendment to its local planning scheme, subject to modifications that address issues raised in submissions. However, the DoP has advised Administration that Council can still support an amendment subject to modifications that resolve errors in amendment documentation that may not have been modified in the submissions.

 

Revocation of ASP 80

 

The ASP 80 area is currently zoned ‘Urban Development’ under DPS 2. The proposed rezoning of the subject land to ‘Business’, ‘Residential’ and ‘Special Use’ as well as the replication of the development control provisions from ASP 80 would result in this structure plan no longer being necessary; as DPS 2 would instead prescribe the relevant development control provisions and land use permissibility.

 

Administration’s report to Council to initiate the amendment (PS03-12/15) advised that should ASP 80 become redundant following final adoption of Amendment No. 150, the Council could consider requesting the WAPC revoke its approval of this structure plan pursuant to Deemed Provision 28 (4) of DPS 2. However, Administration has subsequently been advised by the DoP that:

 

·        The Regulations do not specifically indicate the need for Council to formally request that the WAPC revoke its approval of ASP 80 for this instance; and

 

·        Because Amendment No. 150 will relate to the area that the structure plan currently applies to (causing the structure plan to become redundant), then the structure plan automatically ceases to have any effect by virtue of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2.

 

In light of the above; Council is only required to note the Department of Planning’s advice in this regard, which prescribes that ASP 80 would cease to have effect once Amendment No. 150 becomes effective.

 

Conclusion

 

Administration recommends that Amendment No. 150 to the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 be supported pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; subject to modifications tabled in Attachment 5 and demonstrated in a track change version of the amendment document included as Attachment 6. The track change version of the amendment document included in Attachment 6 only contains the relevant pages of the amendment document subject to modification. The modifications that are recommended respond to comments made in the submissions as well as to address the error identified in the amendment document, following Council’s initiation of the amendment.

 

A version of the amendment document prepared by Administration that incorporates the modifications is included as Attachment 7.

 

 

Statutory Compliance

 

Amendment No. 150 was prepared and advertised in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations).

 

In accordance with the Regulations, Council is required to consider the submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 150 and resolve to either support the amendment with or without modification – or alternatively not support the amendment.

 

Further, the Regulations require Council to provide the WAPC with (among other things) a copy of the resolution, a schedule of submissions and Council's recommendation and response to the submissions, together with particulars of any modifications recommended to the amendment.

 

Administration is recommending that Council supports Amendment No. 150 in accordance with the Regulations, subject to modifications.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “4     Civic Leadership - Working with others to ensure the best use of our resources.

4.2    Working With Others - The community is a desirable place to live and work as the City works with others to deliver the most appropriate outcomes.”

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-O03 – Land Development	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Executive Management Team	Manage

 

The above risk relating to the issue contained within this report has been identified and considered within the City’s Corporate risk register. Action plans have been developed to manage this risk to improve the existing management systems.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Any further costs relating to Amendment No. 150 to DPS 2 can be met from the existing Planning and Sustainability operational budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Regulation 50(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, CONSIDERS the Schedule of Submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 150 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 included as Attachment 4 and ENDORSES Administration’s comments and recommendations in response to those submissions;

 

2.       Pursuant to Regulation 50(3) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, SUPPORTS Amendment No. 150 to District Planning Scheme No. 2, subject to modifications to the extent as demonstrated in Attachment 5 and Attachment 6; and NOTES the modifications have been incorporated into a revised Amendment No. 150 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 document as included in Attachment 7;

 

3.       AUTHORISES the Mayor and the Director Planning and Sustainability to SIGN and SEAL Amendment No. 150 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 documents in accordance with the City’s Execution of Documents Policy;

 

4.       Pursuant to Regulation 53(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and subject to Item 2. above, PROVIDES Amendment No. 150 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission together with this Report for its consideration (including all attachments);

 

5.       NOTES the Department of Planning’s Officers have advised Administration that the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 will cease to have effect should Amendment No. 150 be adopted by the Honourable Minister for Planning; and

 

6.       ADVISES the submitters and all landowners of land subject to Amendment No. 150 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 of its decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan - Amendment No. 150 to DPS 2	15/541557
2.	Attachment 2 - DPS 2 Amendment Map Showing Zoning Changes	16/70596
3.	Attachment 3 - Table Comparing ASP 80 Zonings with DPS 2 Proposed Zonings	16/112870
4.	Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions - Proposed Amendment No. 150 to DPS 2	16/115276	Minuted
5.	Attachment 5 - Administrations Recommended Modifications - Amendment No. 150 to DPS 2	16/119047	Minuted
6.	NEW Attachment 6 - Track Changes to Amendment No. 150 to DPS 2	16/119044	Minuted
7.	NEW Attachment 7 - Revised Amendment No. 150 Document Including Modifications	16/119045	Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              DA2016/118 – 16/81183

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To consider a development application (DA2016/118) for a Single House Addition (Patio/Carport) at 17 Synnot View, Marangaroo.

 

Applicant	Outdoor World
Owner	Alexey & Olga Vereshchagin
Location	Lot 538 (17) Synnot View, Marangaroo
Site Area	680sqm
DPS 2 Zoning	Residential

 

Background

On 22 January 2016, the City received a development application for a Single House Addition (Patio/Carport) for Lot 538 (17) Synnot View, Marangaroo (subject site). The subject site is 680sqm in area and is zoned Residential with a density coding of R20 under the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). A location plan of the subject site is included in Attachment 1.

Detail

The details of the proposed patio/carport are as follows:

 

·        The patio/carport (the patio) encompasses the northern rear and eastern side of the dwelling;

 

·        To the rear of the dwelling, the patio measures 3.0m and 13.6m in depth and width;

 

·        To the eastern side of the dwelling the patio is irregularly shaped, and measures 12.5m in depth, increasing in width from 3.0m to 6.3m;

 

·        The patio is setback 0.96m from the western side boundary and 0.5m from the eastern side boundary (support posts are proposed on the eastern lot boundary, the roofline is setback 0.5m from the eastern boundary);

 

·        The patio has a part skillion and part gable roof. The skillion portion has a maximum height of 2.6m and minimum height of 2.2m, the gable portion has a ridge height of 3.3m and minimum height of 2.2m; and

 

·        Material proposed is red colourbond steel similar to the roof colour of the existing dwelling.

 

The site and elevation plans of the proposal are included in Attachment 2. The proposed patio setbacks are variations to the Deemed-to-Comply provisions of Clause 5.1.3 of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) which requires a 1.0m setback to the western boundary (0.96m proposed) and a 1.5m setback from the eastern boundary (nil boundary setback proposed for support posts, 0.5m for roofline).

 

Consultation

Public consultation was undertaken by the City in writing to landowners adjoining the western and eastern lot boundaries advising them of the proposal. These landowners comprise Lot 537 (15) Synnot View, Marangaroo and Lot 1 (19A) Synnot View to the west and east respectively. Consultation was undertaken for a period of 14 days commencing on 4 February 2016 and closing on 18 February 2016. Two submissions were received from the landowners consulted. A summary of submissions is included in Attachment 3.

 

The submission from 15 Synnot View to the west did not object to the proposal. The submission from 19A Synnot View to the east objected to the proposal. The landowner raised concerns with the potential negative effects of the patio on their property once constructed, including the potential for the patio to reduce ventilation, appear bulky, result in increased noise and devalue the objector’s property.

Comment

Assessment of Application

In accordance with Part 2 of the R-Codes, if a proposal does not meet the Deemed-to-Comply provisions, the City is to exercise its judgement to consider the merits of the proposal having regard to the relevant Design Principles. As the patio does not meet the Deemed-to-Comply requirements of Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes, it has been assessed against the corresponding Design Principles.

Objection was raised with regards to the eastern boundary setback variation, and is assessed against the corresponding Design Principle in the below table.

Design Principles – Clause 5.1.3 P3.1	Administration Comments
Reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties.	The proposed patio will be located adjacent to the outdoor living area (OLA) of 19A Synnot View for 3.0m and driveway of the property for 9.5m. Generally, building bulk arises from large solid walls and structures in proximity to habitable rooms and areas. Impact of the patio bulk on the driveway is not considered pertinent as it is not a habitable space.   For the portion of the patio adjacent to the OLA of 19A Synnot View, the patio’s bulk is not considered significant as it will be unenclosed on all sides, the roof would have a height of 2.2m, and the roof would be set off the boundary by 0.5m. The natural ground level of 19A Synnot View is up to 0.3m higher than the subject site, and the patio will only be partially visible above the existing fence line.   Ultimately the impact of building bulk on the adjoining property is considered acceptable.
Provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open space on the site and adjoining properties.	The patio is an unenclosed structure and therefore will not restrict ventilation to the site and neighbouring open spaces including the outdoor living area of 19A Synnot View.   The patio would comply with the Deemed-to-Comply overshadowing provisions of Clause 5.4.2 of the R-Codes. Given the north-south orientation of the lots, shadowing from the proposed patio will predominantly fall over the subject site. As such, the proposed patio will not untenably restrict direct sunlight to open spaces including the outdoor living area of 19A Synnot View.
Minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.	The finished floor level of the patio is proposed to be the same as the existing ground level of the lot. As a result, the proposed patio will not overlook the adjoining property.   The privacy of the adjoining property will be maintained by the existing boundary fence.

 

The western side boundary of the patio is a 0.04m variation, setback 0.96m from the boundary in lieu of the 1.0m Deemed-to-Comply setback. No objection was received from the western neighbour, and it is considered that the 0.04m variation conforms to all relevant Design Principles of the R-Codes and is therefore acceptable.

 

In light of the above, the proposed setback variations for the patio are considered to meet the relevant Design Principles of the R-Codes. The patio also satisfies all other requirements of the R-Codes. Administration considers that the issues raised in the letter of objection have been addressed and no modification to the proposal is required.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council approve the proposed patio at Lot 538 (17) Synnot View, Marangaroo. 

Statutory Compliance

This application has been assessed in accordance with the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 and State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes (2013).

Delegation to Determine Application

Pursuant to Part 8.3 (b) of the City’s Delegation of Authority Register, the application may be considered under delegation if, it is the view of the Manager, Planning Implementation, that the objections do not raise relevant planning considerations that cannot be specifically addressed or overcome by modifications to the proposal, or imposition of appropriate conditions of approval.

In this instance, Administration is of the opinion that the objection raises relevant planning considerations in relation to impact of building bulk and loss of ventilation on the adjoining property resulting from the patio. Administration does not consider that this can be addressed by modification or imposition of conditions. Therefore, the application cannot be considered under delegated authority and must be determined by Council.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.1    Great Places and Quality Lifestyle - People from different cultures find Wanneroo an exciting place to live with quality facilities and services.”

 

 

Risk Management Considerations

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       APPROVES the development application for the Single House Addition (Patio/Carport) at Lot 538 (17) Synnot View, Marangaroo, as shown in Attachment 2, pursuant to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, subject to the following conditions:

 

a)      This approval only relates to the proposed Single House Addition (Patio/Carport), as highlighted in Attachment 2. It does not relate to any other development on the lot.

 

b)      Stormwater and any other water run-off from buildings or paved areas shall be collected and retained on site.

 

2.       ADVISES the submitters of this decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan	16/103622
2.	Attachment 2 - Proposed Plans	16/91202	Minuted
3.	Attachment 3 - Schedule of Submissions	16/103821

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              DA2016/104 – 16/81311

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

Issue

To consider a development application (DA2016/104) for a change of use to Bed and Breakfast use at 30 Alexandria View, Mindarie.

 

Applicant	Mr Laszco Gabor Farkas
Owner	Mrs Susan Elizabeth Farkas
Location	Lot 487 (30) Alexandria View, Mindarie
Site Area	330sqm
DPS 2 Zoning	Marina

 

Background

On 25 January 2016, the City received a development application for a change of use to Bed and Breakfast (B&B) from Single House for Lot 487 (30) Alexandria View Mindarie (subject site). The subject site is 330sqm in area and is zoned Marina under the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). The lot is also subject to Mindarie Keys Harbourside Village Structure Plan (ASP 13). The subject site is located within the Residential Precinct of the Structure Plan and has a density coding of R30. A location plan of the subject site is included in Attachment 1.

Detail

The details of the proposed B&B are as follows:

 

·        A maximum number of four adult guests at one time;

 

·        Guests are expected to stay for up to one week;

 

·        The applicants will continue to occupy the property as their primary residence and may provide services such as breakfast to guests;

 

·        The B&B accommodation is proposed in three upstairs bedrooms and lounge room of the property only; and

 

·        Two car bays are available on site.

 

Development comprises only the change of use for a portion of the dwelling for B&B use. No physical works are proposed by the application. B&B is a ‘D’ discretionary use within the Residential Precinct. The site plan and floor plan of the proposal are included in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 respectively.

 

 

Consultation

Public consultation was undertaken by the City in writing to adjacent landowners, being Lot 488 (28) Alexandria View and Lot 486 (32) Alexandria View, advising them of the proposal. Consultation was undertaken for a period of 14 days commencing on 8 February 2016 and closing on 22 February 2016. Two submissions were received from adjoining landowners, including one late submission from 28 Alexandria View.

 

The submission from 32 Alexandria View did not object to the proposal.

 

The landowner at 28 Alexandria View objected to the proposal. The objection raised concerns about security, noise issues, the character of prospective guests and previous tenants of the property, loss of property value and parking congestion.  A summary of the submissions and Administration comment is included in Attachment 4.

 

A detailed discussion of the major issues considered in the assessment of the application which are landuse suitability and parking is provided in the Comment section.

Comment

Assessment of Application

Landuse Suitability

B&B is a ‘D’ discretionary use within the Residential Precinct of the ASP 13. Discretionary uses are uses where the Council may exercise its discretion to approve or refuse an application for development approval, and where Council shall have due regard to the provisions of clause 67 of the deemed provisions of DPS 2.

 

Clause 67 includes a broad range of matters that, where applicable, are to be considered by Council in the assessment of development applications. Clause 67 (g) specifically relates to any local planning policy for the Scheme area. As outlined below, local planning polices and strategies support the development of B&B landuse in the City.

 

The approved City of Wanneroo Tourism Strategy and Supporting Actions 2011-2017 seeks to grow tourism within the City. A key finding is that the lack of accommodation has a detrimental effect on visitor numbers to the City. One of the strategies the document proposes is to maximise tourism opportunities by ensuring that tourism receives adequate planning consideration and support.

 

City of Wanneroo Employment Local Planning Policy seeks to encourage local employment within the City. Home businesses such as the proposed B&B are ‘employment supporting landuses’ and result in the owners of the property being employed locally in accordance with the objectives of the Policy.

 

The ‘Mindarie Keys’ Marina is one of the most attractive and tourist oriented areas within the City, and based on the above policies, tourist accommodation is considered appropriate in this location to take advantage of the Marina nearby.

 

Parking

 

DPS 2 requires 2 bays, plus 1 additional bay per 2 B&B guests to be provided onsite. This requirement includes provision for the owners of the property. Therefore 4 onsite bays for the 4 proposed guests and owners would be required. Only 2 bays can be provided onsite in the property’s garage. As such the application would result in an onsite carparking shortfall of 2 bays.

 

 

Clause 4.2.1 of DPS 2 allows Council to approve an application where it does not comply with a development standard or requirement prescribed in DPS 2. This clause can only be exercised when the requirements of clause 4.2.3 of DPS 2 have been met. Clause 4.2.3 permits the Council to vary development standards where two criteria are achieved.

 

The first criterion is for the development to have regard to clause 67 of the deemed provisions of DPS 2. Clause 67 (s)(ii) specifically relates to adequate provision being made for loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking vehicles.

 

The second criterion is that the non-compliant development standard will not have an adverse impact on the users of the proposed development or the surrounding landowners and occupiers, or future development of the locality.

 

In mitigation of the parking shortfall, the applicant has advised that guests will be able to park in public onstreet car bays close by. Attachment 5 illustrates the large amount of available public car parking bays near the subject site. 26 public car bays are located on the opposite side of Alexandria View 30 metres south of the subject site, and 8 onstreet car bays are located in front of the subject site.

 

Based on the above information, Administration anticipates the onsite parking shortfall of 2 bays would not result in increased parking congestion within the locality given the large amount of available public parking bays found nearby, and is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the B&B use.

Conclusion

Based on the preceding assessment, the B&B use is an acceptable landuse to the Residential Precinct of ‘Mindarie Keys’ Marina, and the use will not untenably increase parking congestion locally or within the broader Mindarie area.

Statutory Compliance

Delegation to Determine Application

Pursuant to Part 8.3 (b) of the City’s Delegation of Authority Register, the application may be considered under delegation if, it is the view of the Manager, Planning Implementation, that the objections do not raise relevant planning considerations that cannot be specifically addressed or overcome by modifications to the proposal, or imposition of appropriate conditions of approval.

In this instance, Administration is of the opinion that the objection raises relevant planning considerations in relation to the potential impact on parking congestion and landuse. Administration does not consider that this can be addressed by modification or imposition of conditions. Therefore, the application cannot be considered under delegated authority and must be determined by Council.

This application has been assessed in accordance with the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 and Mindarie Keys Harbourside Village Structure Plan (ASP13), Local Employment Planning Policy and Tourism Strategy and Supporting Actions 2011-2017.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “3     Economy - Progressive, connected communities that enable economic growth and employment.

 

3.1    Local Jobs - You can choose to work locally and reduce the impact of travel time on you and your family.”

Risk Management Considerations

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       APPROVE the development application for the Change of Use  (Bed and Breakfast) at Lot 487 (30) Alexandria View, Mindarie, as shown in Attachment 2, pursuant to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, subject to the following conditions:

 

a)      This approval only relates to the proposed Change of Use (Bed and Breakfast) for the area highlighted in Attachment 2. It does not relate to any other development on the lot.

 

b)      The use of the approved premises shall conform to the District Planning Scheme No. 2 definition of a “Bed and Breakfast” which states:

 

          Bed and Breakfast: “means any dwelling in which the resident of the dwelling provides accommodation on an overnight or short-term basis, usually to the travelling public, and may include the provision of meals for guests.”

 

A change of use from that outlined above may require the approval of the City.

 

c)      A maximum of four adult guests shall be accommodated at the Bed and Breakfast at any one time, within the area highlighted in Attachment 3.

 

2.       ADVISE the submitter(s) of this decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan	16/88196
2.	Attachment 2 - Site Plan	16/99078	Minuted
3.	Attachment 3 - Floor Plan	16/99076	Minuted
4.	Attachment 4 - Schedule of Submissions	16/98062
5.	Attachment 5 - Parking Plan	16/98088

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              DA2015/1794 – 16/85726

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To consider a development application (DA2015/1794) for a Home Business – Category 3 at 28 Huntington Parkway, Landsdale.

 

Applicant	Yogam & Janine Naidoo
Owner	Yogam & Janine Naidoo
Location	Lot 910 (28) Huntington Parkway, Landsdale
Site Area	569m2
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development
ASP Zoning	Residential R20

 

Background

On 23 September 2015, the City received a development application from the landowners of Lot 910 (28) Huntington Parkway, Landsdale, to conduct swimming lessons from their property. This proposal is considered to be a Home Business – Category 3 under the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

 

The subject site is 569m² in area and is zoned Urban Development under DPS 2 and Residential under Agreed Structure Plan 57 – East Wanneroo Cell 9 (ASP 57) with a density coding of R20. Under DPS 2, a Home Business – Category 3 is a discretionary ‘D’ land use within the Residential zone. A location plan of the subject site is included in Attachment 1.

On 1 March, 2016 the matter was presented to Council for consideration where it was deferred by Elected Members so that the applicant could consult further with Administration in regards to the size of the home business and the traffic associated with it. Administration has since requested that the applicant address these two issues. The results are discussed in the body of the report.

Detail

·        The proposed home business involves swimming lessons in the existing backyard swimming pool.

 

·        The applicant has indicated that the proposed home business is intended to predominantly serve local residents, meaning that customers of the home business may walk to and from the subject site.

 

·        The proposed home business does not require any works to the existing dwelling and no signage is proposed to be displayed.

 

Original lesson schedule

·        Lessons were planned to be scheduled by appointment between 9:00am and 11:50am (morning classes) and between 4:00pm and 5:50pm (afternoon classes) Monday to Friday and between 9:00am and 12:00pm on Saturday.

 

 

·        No lessons were proposed to operate on Sundays or public holidays.

 

·        There were two students proposed per lesson and a maximum of eight lessons per day Monday to Friday and four lessons per day on Saturday.

 

·        The duration of each lesson was proposed to be 20 minutes with a break of 10 minutes between each lesson.

 

Amended lesson schedule

In response to the objector’s comments and Administration’s concerns relating to traffic, the applicant has proposed the following lesson schedule:

 

·        Lessons are planned to be scheduled by appointment between 3:30pm and 5:00pm Monday to Friday and between 9:00am and 12:00pm on Saturdays, between the months of October and April inclusive.

 

·        No lessons are proposed to operate on Sundays or public holidays.

 

·        There are two students proposed per lesson and a maximum of three lessons per day.

 

·        The duration of each lesson is proposed to be 20 minutes with a break of 20 minutes between each lesson.

 

Original area of home business

·        The home business was proposed to occupy a total area of 100m², which included the backyard swimming pool area, alfresco and an indoor toilet.

 

Amended area of home business

In response to Administration’s concerns relating to the area of the home business, the applicant has proposed the following:

 

·        The home business will occupy a total area of 48m², which includes the backyard swimming pool, an adjoining grassed area and an indoor toilet.

Consultation

Public notification was undertaken by the City in writing to nine surrounding landowners. Notification was conducted because the area for the home business was originally proposed to exceed 50m², which is the maximum area a Home Business – Category 3 may occupy under DPS 2 without requiring public notification. Notification was undertaken for a period of 14 days commencing on 19 October 2015 and closing on 2 November 2015. One submission raising objections to the proposal was received from the landowners at 1 Annevoie Road, Landsdale. A summary of the submission is included in Attachment 3. The submission raises a concern with the potential increase in vehicular traffic in the locality as a result of the home business operating at the subject site.

 

 

Comment

 

Delegation to Determine Application

 

Pursuant to Part 8.3(b) of the City’s Delegated Authority Register and Sub-Delegated Authority Register, the application may be considered under delegation if, it is the view of the Operations Manager Planning and Development Services or Director, Planning and Sustainability, that the objections do not raise relevant planning considerations that cannot be specifically addressed or overcome by modifications to the proposal, or imposition of appropriate conditions of approval.

 

In this instance, Administration is of the opinion that the objection raises relevant planning considerations in relation to the potential increase in vehicular traffic in the locality. Modifications to the operation of the home business have been made by the applicant in response to the objector’s concerns, and are detailed below. Despite these modifications, the objector still has concerns with the potential increase in vehicular traffic as a result of the home business. In the time since the 1 March Council Meeting, the applicant has further modified the proposal to reduce the traffic associated with the proposed home business. Administration has attempted to contact the objector in order to notify them of the further modifications to the proposal to obtain their views, however the objector has not been contactable. Therefore, the application cannot be considered under delegated authority and must be determined by Council.

 

Assessment of Application

 

1.       Traffic and Parking

The main concern raised by the objector relates to the potential increase in vehicular traffic in the locality as a result of the home business operating at the subject site. In accordance with DPS 2, a Home Business – Category 3 is not to result in traffic difficulties as a result of the inadequacy of on-site and off-site parking, or result in a substantial increase in the amount of vehicular traffic in the vicinity.

 

In response to the objector’s concerns relating to the potential increase in vehicular traffic, the applicant has amended the proposed schedule for the swimming lessons. Originally, the applicant proposed four lessons in the morning and four lessons in the afternoon (Monday to Friday) with a 10 minute break between lessons. In response to the objector’s comments and Administration’s concerns, the applicant has modified their proposal to remove the morning classes, remove one afternoon class and extend the break between lessons to 20 minutes.

 

The amended schedule for the swimming lessons is considered to adequately address the parking requirements for a Home Business – Category 3. Each lesson will have two students and the 20 minute break between lessons is considered sufficient time to allow students from one lesson to leave before the students for the next lesson arrive. As such, there will be a maximum of two visitor cars on the property at any one time. Sufficient room is available on the driveway for two visitor cars to park, meaning that there will not be traffic difficulties on the surrounding streets as a result of inadequate on-site parking.

 

In response to the objector’s comments and Administration’s concerns, the applicant has reduced the number of lessons to three per day. This means that the maximum number of visitor cars to the site is reduced from sixteen per day to six per day. The potential vehicle trips per day have correspondingly been reduced from 32 to 12. Furthermore, the applicant has indicated that the proposed home business is intended to predominantly serve local residents, meaning that customers of the home business may walk to and from the subject site.

 

ASP 57 identifies Huntington Parkway as a Neighbourhood Connector. Under the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Liveable Neighbourhoods policy, the indicative traffic volume for Neighbourhood Connectors is 3000 vehicles per day. The surrounding streets which may also be used to access the subject site are identified in ASP 57 as access streets. Under the Liveable Neighbourhoods policy, the indicative traffic volume for access streets is 1000 vehicles per day. The proposed 12 vehicle trips per day associated with the home business are not considered to be a substantial increase in vehicular traffic in the vicinity. This modification to the previous proposal is therefore considered to adequately address Administration’s traffic concerns.

 

2.       Other Home Business Requirements

The proposed home business complies with all other requirements for a Home Business – Category 3 under DPS 2. Further comment in respect to the area occupied by the home business, however, is provided below.

 

In accordance with DPS 2, a Home Business – Category 3 may occupy an area of up to 50m², however, Council may approve an area up to 100m², or one third the area of the dwelling, whichever is the lesser, subject to community consultation. Previously, the proposed home business occupied an area of 100m², and as such the application was advertised to surrounding landowners. Whilst no objections were received in relation to the size of the home business, Administration considered that the area for the proposed home business was excessive, given that it was greater than one third the area of the dwelling. In response to Administration’s concerns, the applicant has since reduced the size of the home business to 48m² (less than one third the area of the dwelling). This reduced area of the home business is considered to adequately address Administration’s concerns with the area of the proposed home business.

 

3.       Pool Safety and Water Quality Requirements

 

Pool Safety Requirements

Typically, a swimming pool intended only for private use requires a pool fencing inspection to be conducted by the City every four years. In the most recent inspection of the pool (11 March 2014) the pool fencing was deemed to comply with the City’s standards. As a condition of any planning approval issued, the applicant will be required to arrange yearly pool fencing inspections. Furthermore, a condition will be imposed on any planning approval issued, requiring a pool inspection to be carried out prior to the home business commencing. These additional requirements will ensure more frequent monitoring of the safety of the pool fencing.

 

Janine Naidoo, one of the landowners of the subject site, is the sole employee of the proposed home business and has provided an up-to-date Working with Children Check and an AUSTSWIM Teacher Licence. The AUSTSWIM Teacher Licence is recognised as the industry standard for swimming and water safety teachers. AUSTSWIM teachers may be randomly audited by AUSTSWIM. During a random audit, the teacher may be required to provide evidence of professional development, practical teaching hours and CPR qualifications. In the event that a random audit takes place and the teacher is found by AUSTSWIM to not comply with requirements of their licence, then AUSTSWIM may suspend the teacher’s licence until such time as the teacher can show that they do comply with the requirements. In addition to the requirement for an AUSTSWIM Teacher Licence, the practice of auditing by AUSTSWIM provides a means of continual monitoring of the teacher’s ability to safely conduct swimming lessons.

 

 

 

Water Quality Requirements

In addition to the pool fencing requirements for the private use of the pool, the use of the pool for the home business is considered an ‘Aquatic Facility’ under the Health (Aquatic Facilities) Regulations 2007. As such, the following requirements also need to be satisfied by the applicant:

 

·        Submit detailed plans and specifications of the proposed Aquatic Facility to the Executive Director, Public Health for approval prior to commencement of the home business.

 

·        Once approval has been granted by the Executive Director, Public Health, the applicant is required to maintain an Aquatic Facility Operations Manual for the pool. The Aquatic Facility Operations Manual is used to record details of the pool, including the results of ongoing water quality tests, as well as details of any chemicals kept on site.

 

·        An Environmental Health Officer from the City is required to visit the property on a monthly basis in order to conduct water sampling and testing of the pool, to check the pool fence and gate, and to review the Aquatic Facility Operations Manual. Should the water quality of the pool not comply with the Health (Aquatic Facilities) Regulations 2007, the City’s Environmental Health Officers have delegated power from the Executive Director, Public Health, to direct the applicant to close the pool until water quality is compliant with the Health (Aquatic Facilities) Regulations 2007.

 

These requirements for a swimming pool operating as an Aquatic Facility will ensure that the water quality of the pool is constantly monitored.  

 

4.       Similar Development Applications in the City of Wanneroo

Within the past two years, two similar applications to conduct home business swimming lessons have been approved by the City. These two applications to conduct swimming lessons in backyard swimming pools (one in Mindarie and one in Quinns Rocks) are comparable to this application in terms of the area occupied by the business, the number of students per lesson and the overall traffic generated.

 

Conclusion

In light of the above, the proposed swimming lessons to be conducted at 28 Huntington Parkway, Landsdale are considered to meet the requirements of a Home Business – Category 3, as set out in DPS 2. The pool safety and water quality requirements which the applicant will need to comply with, whilst not being strictly planning considerations, provide a means of regulating the safe operation of the proposed home business. Furthermore, the proposed home business is comparable in nature to previous applications which have been approved by the City. Administration considers that the issues raised in the letter of objection have been addressed and no further modifications to the proposal are required. It is therefore recommended that Council approve the proposed Home Business – Category 3.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.2    Healthy and Active People - We get active in our local area and we have many opportunities to experience a healthy lifestyle.”

 

 

Risk Management Considerations

 

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

 

 

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the development application for the Home Business – Category 3 at Lot 910 (28) Huntington Parkway, Landsdale, pursuant to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed to Comply Provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, subject to the following conditions:

a)  Permission is granted to the owners of the property 28 Huntington Parkway, Landsdale to conduct a Home Business – Category 3 at the above address and only whilst the owners permanently reside at the premises.

b) The applicant shall consent for a pool inspection to be conducted by the City, prior to the home business commencing operations. After this time, the applicant shall arrange for a pool inspection to be conducted by the City once every year, at the full cost of the applicant.

d) Hours of operation shall be between 3.30pm and 5.00pm Monday to Friday and between 9:00am and 12:00pm Saturdays, between the months of October and April inclusive. No lessons shall take place on Sundays or on public holidays.

e)  A maximum of three lessons may operate per day. A maximum of two students are permitted per lesson and shall visit by prior appointment only. Lessons shall be scheduled a minimum of 20 minutes apart.

f) Client parking shall be confined to the driveway of the property. Appointments shall be managed to ensure there is no client parking on the road verge or obstructing of movement onto or along the road; and

2.       ADVISES the submitter of this decision.

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan - 28 Huntington Parkway, Landsdale	15/590726
2.	Attachment 2 - Site Plan - 28 Huntington Parkway, Landsdale	16/89122
3.	Attachment 3 - Summary of Submission - 28 Huntington Parkway, Landsdale	16/103105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health & Compliance

File Ref:                                              6211 – 16/21151

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Issue

To consider an existing masonry boundary wall built in contravention of the City’s Private Property Local Law 2001, (Local Law) at lot 909 (28) Midland Elbow, Mindarie (the property).

Background

The owners of the property constructed a rear boundary masonry wall ranging from between 2 and 3 metres in height.  The boundary wall backs on to Anchorage Drive.  The owners constructed the wall at this height because of ongoing issues at the bus stop and the seat enabling people to obtain easy access to the property. The owners submitted a Development Application (DA15/1961) for the wall.  However, the Development Application was returned to the applicant because boundary walls/fencing is exempt from approval in District Planning Scheme No.2. 

The City’s Local Law states that the height of a fence is to be between 1.75 metres and 1.85 metres.  On 17 November 2015, the City wrote to the property owners requesting the masonry wall to be modified to comply with the Local Law.  The letter resulted in meetings/mediation with the property owners which had led to the preparation of this report to Council.       

Detail

Section 3.2(1)(a) of the Local Law stipulates that on a residential lot is a dividing fence or a boundary fence constructed and maintained in accordance with the specifications and requirements of the First Schedule.

In summary, the First Schedule requires fences to be constructed to the following specifications -

(d) the height of the fence to be between 1750mm to 1850mm.

The existing boundary wall is between 2 and 3 metres and does not fall within the permissible design requirements mentioned above.

The Local Law provides for discretion in approving non-compliant fences. Section 3.6 – General discretion of the local government states:

(1) The local government may approve the erection of a fence which does not comply with the requirements of this local law.

(2)     In determining whether to approve the erection of a fence, the local government may consider, in addition to any other matters that it is authorised to consider, whether the erection or retention of the fence would have an adverse effect on:

(a)     The safety or convenience of any person; and

(b)     The safe or convenient use of any land."

Consultation

There is no requirement to consult with neighbouring properties in the local law.

Comment

Section 3.6 of the Local Law allows a local government to exercise general discretion to approve a fence that does not comply with the provisions of the Local Law.  The discretionary considerations listed in the Local Law are noted in the detail section of the report.

 

In addition to these matters, it is reasonable that the Council consider factors such as the impacts of the fence on the amenity and character of the locality, and the overall streetscape.

 

The existing boundary wall is somewhat higher than those existing within the locality.  However, it is not considered to have a significant impact on the Anchorage Drive streetscape, as the area is dominated by dense existing vegetation that largely screens the fence from view.  The opposite side of the street is characterised by commercial development which is set back from the street.

 

The existing bus stop and seat adjoining the site are considered to support to the request, as people are able to use the seat and tree to look into the property and also potentially gain access.

 

Given these specific factors the approval of this fence is not considered to create an undesirable precedent, and as such, approval is recommended.  A structural engineers report confirming the wall has been built to a safe standard has not been obtained by the property owners, so the structural integrity of the wall remains unknown. Administration is therefore recommending that this be submitted to ensure the wall will not have an adverse effect on the safety or convenience of any person and the safe and convenient use of the land.

Statutory Compliance

Approval of the existing wall requires the Local Government to be satisfied that the wall meets the requirements of section 3.6 of the Local Law.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.”

Risk Management Considerations

The structural integrity of the wall. A structural engineer’s report is required to certify the structural integrity of the wall.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Should Council determine not to approve the existing boundary wall, it is expected that the matter would proceed to a hearing/determination before a Magistrates Court or the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) with potential legal costs being incurred by the City. 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council APPROVES the masonry boundary wall subject to the owner submitting  a Structural Engineers report to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability confirming the structural integrity of the wall. 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Photo of Boundary Wall at 28 Midland Elbow Mindarie

16/104811

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Assets

Asset Operations & Services

File Ref:                                              19410 – 16/1282

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider the status of Project PR-2978, Anchorage Drive Traffic Treatments, which is currently on hold following feedback from Northern Beaches Cycle Club regarding revisions to improve on-road cyclist safety.

 

Background

Council, at its meeting on 11 December 2012, considered Item No IN08-12/12 - Anchorage Drive, Mindarie - Speed Zoning and Pedestrian Crossings, in response to complaints from residents and enquiries for Elected Members regarding the speed of traffic along Anchorage Drive (south) and the danger to pedestrians. Refer Attachment 1 for location plan.

 

Following this report, it was resolved that Council:-

 

1.       ENDORSES the use of traffic treatments and landscaping to create a lower speed environment on Anchorage Drive, Mindarie, from Ocean Falls Boulevard to Rosslare Boulevard with the intent of lowering the posted speed limit to 50km/h;

 

2.       REQUESTS Administration to prepare detailed concept plans and costing for Council's consideration by the June 2013 meeting including;

 

a)      The installation of three pedestrian facilities on Anchorage Drive as per Attachment 2;

 

b)      The installation of street trees between Ocean Falls Boulevard and Swansea Boulevard;

 

c)      Extension of the existing boulevard treatment from Mariners View/Toulon Way to Swansea Boulevard, including the installation of street trees;

 

d)      Provision of on street parking on Anchorage Drive, north of Toulon Way; and

 

3.       ADVISES respondents to the community consultation of Council's decision.

 

In response, Administration prepared a concept plan to install pedestrian crossing facilities and a Traffic Management Scheme (TMS) consisting of raised and red asphalt medians, parking embayments and tree planting which was endorsed by Council in October 2013 (Item No IN02-10/13).  The construction of pedestrian facilities was undertaken as part of the 2013/2014 Pathway Program and these works have been completed.  An amount of $300,000 is currently allocated in the 2015/2016 Capital Works Budget for the implementation of the remainder of the Traffic Management Scheme.

 

Community consultation was conducted in March 2015 with 77% of responses received from residents indicating support for the proposed traffic management scheme.

 

Minor changes were made to the design to accommodate community feedback where possible as shown in Drawing No 2916-1-4, refer Attachment 2, endorsed by Council at its meeting on 23 June 2015.

 

Just prior to construction, in November 2015, the Northern Beaches Cycling Club contacted the City requesting improved cycling provisions in the design of the Traffic Management Scheme.  While off-road cycling on this section of Anchorage Drive is facilitated through shared paths, the reduction in lane width was perceived by the Club as a potential hazard to cyclist safety.

 

Due to the concerns raised, the project is on hold pending a further review by Administration.

Detail

Given the concerns of the Northern Beaches Cycle Club, Administration has conducted a comprehensive review of the design to see if it can meet both the original intent of the project in providing a target speed of 50 km/h and to address the concerns of Northern Beaches Cycle Club regarding on-street cycling.

 

The current design caters for cyclists on this section of Anchorage Drive through the provision of off-road shared paths and includes the construction of a concrete ramp to move cyclists from the carriageway to the shared path.  While this option provides a safe alternative, Northern Beaches Cycling Club has indicated that a section of the cycling community will not use this facility, choosing to remain on-road.  The Club has indicated that both the current layout with a wider carriageway with no marked cycle lanes or an alternative design with sufficient space for on-road cycling is preferred by cyclists. 

 

Although the City regularly undertakes traffic counts to determine vehicle numbers within the road network, it is difficult for the City to accurately determine the number of cyclists using Anchorage Drive.  Traffic counters are not sensitive enough to accurately register cyclists. A specialist traffic counter and tubes must be used for the collection of cyclist data; however this has proven inaccurate due to usage.

 

To determine the level of on-road cycling on Anchorage Drive, the City has undertaken cycle counts on the northbound cycle lane of Anchorage Drive just south of the proposed works.  Over 100 cyclists were recorded over a one week period and as these figures include only the northbound cycle lane, a total of over 200 cyclists use this route over the course of a week.  Based on the factors mentioned above, the actual number of cyclists present on Anchorage Drive may be considerably higher. 

 

An additional source of information was gathered by Administration through a mobile tracking tool, Strava, which monitors the movements utilised by registered users of GPS tracking and available on a number of fitness trackers and smartphones. This information is also used to generate heat maps indicating the popularity of certain routes. The application is available to the public and has over 1.2M users worldwide and is particularly popular with road cyclists to track their rides. Attachment 3 shows the heat map for Anchorage Drive and the surrounding area and shows that it is comparatively popular among cyclists.  While Strava does not provide cyclist numbers, it indicates that within the North Coast Ward, Marmion Avenue, Connolly Drive and Anchorage Drive/Ocean Drive form the most utilised part of the cycle network by Strava users.

 

The use of median treatments on this section of Anchorage Drive would not allow the provision of on road cycle lanes without undertaking significant road widening at a significant cost.  The inclusion of cycle lanes would also mean that the additional parking provided as part of the proposed traffic management scheme would not fit within the road reserve and would have to be deleted. 

 

Following evaluation of the usage numbers available and given the significance of the additional works that will be required, Administration considers that the provision of on road cycling lanes in conjunction with the proposed median treatments is not feasible and should not be considered.

 

Traffic treatments are generally considered under the City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Intervention Policy (TMIIP).  As the City’s original goal in implementing traffic management on Anchorage Drive was to achieve a reduction of the 85^th percentile speed to 50 km/h, no assessment was undertaken in accordance with the TMIIP at the time of the original design.  In reviewing the design of the Anchorage Drive Traffic Management Scheme, Administration conducted traffic counts in November 2015 and generated a Traffic Management Score for this section of Anchorage Drive in accordance with the City’s TMIIP.  The score of 44 indicates traffic management is not warranted on this section of Anchorage Drive. This score was calculated for the following traffic data:

 

·        Average Weekday Traffic               3,225

·        85^th percentile speed                       64km/h

 

Although the risk to cyclists has a relatively low, any crash between a cyclist and motor vehicle is likely to have severe consequences for the cyclist.  Anchorage Drive has been identified as one of the City’s major north-south routes for cyclists with over 200 on-road cyclists using the route each week.  Given these factors, Administration believes consideration of alternative options to provide for the safety of cyclist and other road users should be considered in order to provide the best outcomes for the community from this project.

 

The City has a number of alternative options available in moving forward with this project, however preliminary investigations by Administration shows that it is unlikely that a design meeting all desirable goals, can be achieved with the available budget. 

 

Administration considered four traffic management options for Anchorage Drive based on the following criteria:

 

·        Meeting the project objectives as given in Council’s resolutions on report IN08-12/12.  These are:

 

·                A reduction in vehicle speeds between Ocean Falls Boulevard and Rosslare Boulevard to support an application to Main Roads WA to reduce the posted speed limit to 50 km/h

 

·                The installation of street trees between Ocean Falls Boulevard and Swansea Boulevard

 

·                Extension of the existing boulevard treatment from Mariners View/Toulon Way to Swansea Boulevard, including the installation of street trees

 

·                Provision of on street parking on Anchorage Drive, north of Toulon Way

 

·        Effectiveness in improving road safety

 

·        Effectiveness in addressing the concerns of Northern Beaches Cycle Club

 

·        Option cost

 

·        How quickly the option could be implemented

 

Option 1 - Continue With Approved Design

This would see the City resume construction of project PR-2978, Anchorage Drive Traffic Treatments with no changes to the approved design.  This option has the benefits that the project was designed specifically to meet the resolutions of IN08-12/12 and could be recommenced immediately following a decision by Council.  While off-road cycling is catered for in this design, the concerns raised by Northern Beaches Cycle Club regarding on-road cyclist safety need to be addressed.  It is not possible to safely accommodate on-road cycling without making extensive changes to the current design.  This would require significant widening of Anchorage Drive which would be costly and reduce the effectiveness of the proposed treatments in reducing vehicle speeds.  Based on the inability to safely accommodate on-road cyclists within the current design, Administration does not support this option. Estimated cost of this option is $300,000.

 

Option 2 – Use Alternative Traffic Management Scheme such as Horizontal and Vertical Deflections

The median islands provided in the current design reduce available lane width which in turn makes drivers more cautious reducing vehicle speeds.  Other traffic treatments could be considered instead of median islands to achieve the goal of reducing vehicle speeds.  Horizontal deflection devices such as slow points or blister islands work by forcing vehicles to deviate from a straight path with the speed reduction relative to the amount of horizontal deflection.  To safely accommodate on-road cycling a bicycle bypass may be constructed which is effective but requires additional road width (at additional cost).  Failure to construct such a bypass would create pinch points for cyclists and do nothing to improve safety over option 1.  Vertical deflection devices such as speed cushions could be constructed.  These may also pose safety concerns for cyclists as the behaviour of motorists is often unpredictable in how they choose to negotiate speed cushions.  Some motorists choose to drive over the middle of the speed cushions while others attempt to drive around which would clash with the path of on-road cyclists. Estimated cost of implementing this option will range from $200,000 for speed cushions to $600,000 for horizontal deflection.

 

Given the length of time required to develop a new traffic management scheme and the high level of uncertainty regarding both safety and effectiveness, Administration does not support this option.

 

Option 3 – Do Nothing

Given that the purpose of the TMS was to reduce vehicle speeds on Anchorage Drive, recent data collected by Administration shows the 85^th percentile speed to be 64 km/h which is not significantly above the posted speed limit of 60 km/h.  In addition, the TMIIP score of 44 indicates that no traffic management would be required in Anchorage Drive.

 

While no treatment is warranted, this option will not provide any safety benefits on Anchorage Drive and given the previous consultation with the community, the complete loss of this project is likely to be poorly accepted.  Administration therefore does not support this option.

 

Option 4 – Install Cycle Lanes Instead of Median Islands

As an alternative to the use of median islands to reduce lane widths, the installation of cycle lanes along Anchorage Drive could achieve a similar narrowing of the road.  Administration expects this option to provide a small level of speed reduction comparable with the installation of median islands. This option can be complemented by planting trees in existing median. This is considerably more cost effective than installing median islands.  This option would have the additional benefit of addressing concerns over cyclist safety; however it does not meet some of the resolutions made by Council (IN08-12/12). Estimated cost of this option is $40,000.

 

Administration believes that this option provides best value to the City in providing a suitable balance between motorist and on-road cyclist safety. 

 

This option is relatively cost effective and could be implemented sooner due to minimal design and simple construction. The installation of linemarking is dependent on approval from Main Roads WA.

Consultation

Consultation on the Anchorage Drive Traffic Management Scheme was undertaken in March 2015 with the results presented to Council in Item No IN05-06/15.  At this time, the community indicated broad support for the proposed traffic management scheme.  A total of 31 responses were received with 77% supporting the traffic management scheme.  Small changes were made to the design to reflect community feedback.

 

No further community consultation has been undertaken by Administration.  Following the completion of consultation, the City was approached by Northern Beaches Cycling Club regarding the aforementioned issues regarding on-road cyclist safety and by Boating Club members who use Mindarie Marina regarding the impacts of the traffic treatments on boat trailers.  While this report deals in detail with the concerns raised by Northern Beaches Cycle Club, the proposed traffic treatments would not impact on boat trailers.  The City’s design with 3m traffic lanes is considerably larger than the 2.5m overall width which is permitted for trailers without special exemption from Main Roads WA.  Administration therefore does not believe that the proposed traffic treatments would adversely impact boat users.

 

Further correspondence was sent to Administration by the President of Northern Beaches Cycling Club highlighting the importance of Anchorage Drive to cyclists, Attachment 4 refers.

 

Should Council accept Administration’s recommendation to proceed with the installation of painted cycle lanes (Option 4), Administration recommends undertaking community consultation based on the concept plan in Attachment 5.

Comment

Administration has also re-examined the suitability of the proposed median treatment in reducing vehicle speeds on Anchorage Drive.  In September 2015, Administration conducted traffic counts to assess the effectiveness of Golf Links Drive Traffic Management Scheme.  This scheme involved the installation of both speed cushions and median treatments.  Some sections of Golf Links Drive had both median islands and speed cushions installed while other sections were treated with just median islands.  This allowed Administration to consider the relative effectiveness of these two treatments.  The speed data indicated that the sections of Golf Links Drive which included speed cushions achieved a speed reduction between 13km/h and 16km/h but the section of Golf Links Drive where only median islands were installed only achieved a speed reduction of 2km/h.

 

Following this study, additional sites within the City where median treatments have been installed have been investigated by Administration for their effectiveness in speed reduction.  This data has been summarised in the table below and confirms that the use of median treatments is of limited effectiveness in reducing vehicle speeds. 

 

	Before	After	Change
Addington Way, Marangaroo	47 km/h	45 km/h	-2 km/h
Hollingswoth Avenue, Koondoola	59 km/h	61 km/h	+2 km/h
Golf Links Drive, Carramar	62 km/h	60 km/h	-2 km/h
Brazier Road, Yanchep	63 km/h	58 km/h	-5 km/h

 

It should be noted that median islands do provide other recognised safety benefits such as the separation of oncoming traffic and the provision of a pedestrian refuge to improve pedestrian safety and may be more effective in reducing vehicle speeds when mature trees are present to create a ‘closed in’ environment.  A literature review undertaken by Austroads suggests constructed median islands lead to a reduction in casualty crashes of around 45% and their use is valid in many situations.

 

In the case of Anchorage Drive where the goal is to reduce vehicle speeds to around 50 km/h, Administration considers it unlikely that this is achievable solely through the installation of median treatments as even with a speed reduction at the top end of the sample sites, this would only lead to a speed reduction from 64 km/h to 59 km/h.  While Main Roads WA may give some leeway in this regard, Administration considers it extremely unlikely that the implementation of approved design will reduce vehicle speeds to a level where Main Roads WA would consider supporting a reduction in the posted speed limit.

 

Given the identified safety issues with on-road cycling, a low traffic volume, related traffic data and the limited chance of successfully reducing vehicle speeds to a level where Main Roads would allow a reduction in the posted speed limit, Administration does not believe that the project should proceed in its current form.  Of the options presented, Administration recommends that Council endorses Option 4, (to reduce lane width by installing painted cycle lanes on Anchorage Drive and to plant trees in the existing median between Ocean Falls Boulevard and Swansea Boulevard) for the purpose of further community consultation. 

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “3     Economy - Progressive, connected communities that enable economic growth and employment.

3.3    Easy to Get Around - The community is well connected and accessible with an integrated transport approach for all.”

Risk Management Considerations

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

The City’s Local Area Traffic Management Policy applies to the assessment of traffic management needs in Anchorage Drive.

Financial Implications

To date, approximately $15,000 has been spent on initiating the project, covering items such as traffic management, survey and service location.  Overall financial implications will depend on which option Council chooses to proceed with.  Option 3 – Do nothing and Option 4 – Install cycle lanes offer the City potential cost savings.  A budget provision of $300,000 has been approved under PR-2978 to undertake works in Anchorage Drive.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the amendment to PR-2978 Anchorage Drive Traffic Treatments to address vehicle speeds through the application of cycle lanes as shown on the City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2916-1-3 (Attachment 5); and

2.       REQUESTS Administration conduct community consultation with residents of Anchorage Drive in accordance with the City’s Community consultation and Engagement Policy based on “Option 4 – Install cycle lanes instead of median islands” as shown on the City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2916-1-3 (Attachment 5).

 

Attachments:

1.	Anchorage Drive Area Map	15/167099
2.	Anchorage Drive Drawing 2916-1-2	15/170749
3.	Anchorage Drive Cycling Heat Map.docx	16/97641
4.	Microsoft Word - Northern Beaches Cycling Club - Anchorage Drive Traffic Treatments - Letter to Council PDF	16/107673
5.	Anchorage Drive Cycle Lanes 2916-1-3 CONCEPT	16/12822	Minuted

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              3120V03 – 16/105875

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Issue

To consider a petition to reduce motor vehicle traffic in the vicinity of Badgerup Road, Gnangara.

Background

Petition PT01-12/15, signed by 115 residents, was received by Council at its meeting on
8 December 2015 and reads:

 “To the Mayor and Councillors of Wanneroo City Council. We, the undersigned residents living in the vicinity of Badgerup Rd, Gnangara are requesting action to be undertaken to reduce the excessive motor vehicle traffic in Badgerup Rd which has resulted from the extension of Ocean Reef Rd. Planning has been poor with inadequate community consultation before this development.

The traffic has reduced the quality of life in our previously peaceful locality with issues of excessive traffic noise, significant road safety issues including resident’s personal safety, increased pollution with vehicle fumes, decline of real estate values, and mental health issues.

Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the Council to make provision for:

 

·        Re-designating Badgerup Rd and adjoining roads such as Moondyne Tr/Lakelands Dr/Tuscan Wy,Jambanis Rd/Ashby St for local traffic only.

 

·        Reducing speed limit on Badgerup Rd to 70 kph or less, and adjoining roads to 60kph.

 

And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray”.

 

The issue of speed limit review on Badgerup Road and adjoining roads was previously considered by Council in two separate meeting.

 

 At its meeting of 20 August 2013, considered Item No IN03-08/13 and resolved in part as follows:

 

REQUESTS Main Roads WA to undertake a speed zone review of Badgerup Road with the intent of reducing the 80km/h posted speed limit to 70km/h from Ocean Reef Road to 280m north of Jambanis Road;

 

Council, at its meeting of 28 May 2013, considered report IN04-05/13 – Review of Default State Speed Limit Roads within the City of Wanneroo and resolved as follows:

 

1.       REQUESTS Administration to formalise a request in writing to Main Roads WA to undertake a speed zone review of the following roads with the intent of setting the corresponding Administration promoted posted speed limit;

 

 

East Wanneroo Area

-        Jambanis Road, Wanneroo                      60km/h

-        Benmuni Road, Wanneroo                      60km/h

-        Ashby Street, Wanneroo                          60km/h

-        Nicholas Road, Hocking                           60km/h

-        Bebich Road, Wanneroo                          60km/h

-        Shillington Way, Wanneroo                      60km/h

-        Stafford Way, Wanneroo                          60km/h

 

Carabooda Area

-        Carabooda Road, Carabooda                  70km/h

-        Bailey Road, Carabooda                          60km/h

-        Safari Place, Carabooda                          60km/h

-        Emerald Drive, Carabooda                       60km/h

-        Jade Loop, Carabooda                             60km/h

 

Nowergup Area

-        Nowergup Road, Nowergup                     70km/h

-        Wesco Road, Nowergup
between Gibbs Road and Hopkins Road 90km/h

-        Gibbs Road, Nowergup                            70km/h

 

Two Rocks Area

-        Oregano Drive, Two Rocks                     60km/h

-        Cinnamon Meander, Two Rocks              60km/h

-        Caraway Loop, Two Rocks                      60km/h

 

Other Roads

-        Pipidinny Road, Eglington                         80km/h

-        Greenvale Place, Banksia Grove            60km/h

 

2.       In consideration of the Administration promoted posted speed limits SEEKS Main Roads WA's support for Area Speed Limits for the roads incorporated in the following areas:

-        East Wanneroo Area

-        Carabooda Area, with the exclusion of Carabooda Road

-        Two Rocks Area

As part of this process Administration requested Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) to review the speed limit for the rural roads within the Gnangara area. MRWA’s response of 17 February 2015 did not support the Administration recommendation to reduce the speed limit on Badgerup Road. With regards to speed limit review for Jambanis Road, Ashby Street and Benmuni Road, MRWA agreed that the default state speed limit of 110km/hr was not appropriate, and that a speed limit of 60km/hr would not be appropriate either. MRWA installed a posted speed limit of 80Km/hr for the three roads. Administration was successful in having the area speed limit of 60km/h for East Wanneroo Area incorporated with Nicholas Road, Shillington Way, Stafford Way, Bebich Road and Benmuni Road (south of Nicholas Road).

 

 Refer to Attachment 1 for the location plan.

 

 

Detail

The subject area is located within the East Wanneroo area and bounded by Lenore Road to the west, Ocean Reef Road to the south, Sydney Road to the east and Trichet Road to the north.

Badgerup Road and Lakelands Drive are Local Distributor Roads in the City's Functional Road Hierarchy. The posted speed limit for Badgerup Road; Ocean Reef Road to north of Jambanis Road, is 80km/h, and 60km/h for the northern section of Badgerup Road. The posted speed limit for Lakelands Drive is 60km/h and 80km/h for both of Jambanis Road and Ashby Street.  Moondyne Track, The Fairways, Golfview Place and Tuscan Way have no posted speed limit and operate under the State default speed limit of 110km/h.  The land use zoning for the area is Special Rural and General Rural.

As the City continues to undergo significant land use change in East Wanneroo, traffic volumes have increased in the developed areas, and in some cases is impacting on adjoining rural areas.

The City frequently receives complaints from rural residents with respect to speeding.  A common misperception among these complaints is that residents of special rural subdivisions perceive that their subdivisions are located within a ‘built-up area’ and therefore should operate under a speed limit of 50km/h.

In follow up, Administration undertook a desktop review of rural roads in south of Gnangara and Wanneroo area within the City's jurisdiction to identify roads that have undergone significant functional change requiring a speed limit review to enhance road safety for all road users. 

Roads in this area have historically operated in a rural environment with low traffic volumes. It is anticipated that this area is being impacted upon by the urbanisation of Hocking, Pearsall and the commercial zone development at the corner of Ocean Reef Road and Sydney Road intersection. To review the traffic volumes on the major roads of this area, the City analysed the traffic count data; for comparison traffic data taken on Badgerup Road, Jambanis Road and Lakelands Drive is provided in the table below.

Definitions:

AWT : Average Weekday Traffic Volume in vehicles per day

85%ile Speed or operating speed: The speed at or below which 85% of vehicles are travelling

 

Badgerup Road data indicated traffic volumes from 2012 to 2016 are steady with a slight increase in 2015, however the volumes are still well under the accepted capacity for the functionality of the road. The 85^th percentile vehicle speeds are however over the posted speed limit which is similar to other arterial roads and is a matter for increased police enforcement.

 

Jambanis Road data also indicates traffic volumes from 2012 to 2015 are steady with a slight increase in 2015; however the volumes are still well under the accepted capacity of an Access Road of 3,000vpd. Jambanis Road previously operated under the State default speed limit of 110km/h; in 2014 MRWA reviewed the default speed limit and considered 80km/h for posted speed limit. As the data shows, the 85^th percentile vehicle speeds dropped significantly after the review. 

 

 

Lakelands Drive data indicates that traffic volumes constantly decreased from 2010 to 2016. These volumes are much lower than the capacity of Local Distributor Road of 6000vpd. In regards to 85^th percentile vehicle speeds, similar to other roads it is higher than the posted speed limit of 60km/h.

The traffic data collected on 2 February 2016 shows that Ashby Street carries only 442vpd with 85^th percentile vehicle speed of 83km/h and Tuscan Way carries only 363vpd with 85^th percentile vehicle speed of 58km/h. In both cases traffic volumes are well under the capacity.

The City has access to MRWA’s crash data for Badgerup Road.  The data is updated annually; the most recent update is for the period 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2014. MRWA collects this information from all road crashes reported to WA Police.  At present, WA Police require that a crash be reported where:

§ the incident resulted in bodily harm to any person; or

§ the total value of property damaged to all involved parties exceeds $3000; or

§ the owner or representative of any damaged property is not present.

MRWA has five categorises for severe crashes; fatal; hospital, medical, property damage only (PDO) major and PDO minor. For clarification, PDO crashes are those crashes where no medical treatment is required by individuals involved in the crash. These crashes do not specifically refer to damage to a property, but include damage caused to vehicles and infrastructure as a result of a crash.

There have been 15 reported crashes for the 5-year period 2010 – 2014, along Badgerup Road between Ocean Reef Road and Ross Street/Hawkins Road, excluding Ocean Reef Road/Badgerup Road intersection. One of those crashes resulted in hospitalisation and two in medical treatment, the remainder were classed as Property Damage Only.

A summary of the current five year crash data, 1January  2011 to 31 December 2014, is detailed in the table below and shows the  number of reported crashes decreased during this period where no significant infrastructure changes have taken place.

 

 

Administration also assessed the crash history over the period 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2014 at different intersections along Badgerup Road:

 

At the time of preparing the report to Council, Administration met on site with the petition signatories and had received emails from residents. The community has raised some safety issues and proposed a number of treatments for consideration, which are discussed below:

 

§  Local Traffic Only Signs:

The Australian Standard AS 1742.13-2009, Manual of uniform traffic control devices - Local area traffic management states that:

“The LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY sign may be used at entry points to a local area where it may not be obvious that the street should only be used by traffic with destinations within that local area.”

Local Traffic Only signs are non-regulatory and not enforceable; and as such are ineffective.

MRWA has approved Badgerup Road for use by for Restricted Access Vehicles (RAV) category 4, allowing commercial vehicles with 27.5m long and mass up to 87.5 tonnes to use this road. To have these roads as local traffic only will negatively affect the function of roads and business activity of this area. While some socially aware drivers may respond to the issue, some drivers actually resent the message on the sign and appear to deliberately use these roads as they pass the sign.

 

In the case of Badgerup Road, a local distributor road, is not exclusive only to local traffic and connects to a wider road network within the rural area of East Wanneroo; it does not meet the above criteria and as such the installation of a local traffic only sign is not supported. Notwithstanding, Administration also advised that, while Badgerup Road and other adjoining roads are under the care and control of the City of Wanneroo, an approving and installing Local Traffic only sign remains with the responsibility of MRWA. The City requested to MRWA and replied as follows:

“Thank you for your request for the installation of Local Traffic Only signs. Main Roads has reservations about the efficacy of such signs.

Furthermore,  Main Roads considers that an over proliferation of signs creates not only visual pollution, but can also lead to a general ambivalence to road signage and its inherent message, which reduces the efficacy of more important signs such as regulatory signs that are essential for maintaining road safety.

Therefore, Main Roads do not support your request for a Local Traffic Only sign at this or any other location.”

 

 

§  Construction of Roundabouts:

In regards to residents request for construction of roundabout at different intersections along Badgerup Road, Administration advises that while speed reduction measures such as roundabouts are the most suitable measure in both urban and rural settings, there is some evidence that motorcyclist, bicyclists and pedestrians experience some problems at roundabouts. Roundabouts are generally installed at intersections with a high crash and injury history. In the last five years crash history shows that there have been maximum two crashes at the intersections along Badgerup Road excluding Ocean Reef Road/Badgerup Road Intersection. As such it is not warranted to construct roundabouts at this stage. Additionally the installation of full sized roundabouts requires significant funding with a typical cost of around $300,000 - $500,000 per roundabout which involves land acquisition, power pole relocation, drainage structures and other utility services installation. Benefit cost ratios with this construction cost is not satisfactory, which would not be qualified for Black Spot funding.

§  Installation of Road Humps:

Australian Standard Guidelines indicate that road humps are generally best used in streets where all of the following conditions apply:

·        In local areas with a local or limited collector function.

 

·        Where a speed limit of 50 km/h or less applies.

 

·        Where the traffic volumes are less than 400 vph in the peak hour.

 

·        Where truck (4.5 tonne GVM or greater) volumes are less than 50 vpd.

 

·        Where the longitudinal gradient of the road is less than 5 percent.

 

·        Where the road does not form part of an important access to a commercial     development

 

·        Where that part of the road is not used extensively for access to emergency     service establishments, high density residential developments or public meeting places.

 

·        Where the road does not form part of a bus route unless steps are taken to minimize discomfort to passengers, e.g. use of long flat-top humps with minimum grade on the ramps.

 

Badgerup Road does not meet the above requirements for road humps; as such road humps, as a traffic calming device are not suitable for Badgerup Road with posted speed limit 80km/hr, as it will be a safety issue for motorist. Administration does not support road humps as a traffic calming treatment due to the noise they generate and the impact they have on service and emergency vehicles. 

§  Shared bike /pedestrian walkway along Badgerup Road:

Areas zoned rural or special rural are not provided with footpaths, kerbed roads, piped drainage or street-lighting other than at intersections. This zoning is reflected in the rating applied to the land and recognises that residents of rural subdivisions are seeking a rural lifestyle and not an urban environment.  Accordingly, the Administration does not support the request for shared bike/pedestrian walkway along Badgerup Road. The approximate cost for a 3.6km pathway to connect to Ocean Reef Road is estimated at $1,000,000 - $1,500,000.

 

 

 

§    Traffic Signals at Ocean Reef Road and Badgerup Road Intersection:

Administration has assessed residents request against MRWA guidelines for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Ocean Reef Road and Badgerup Road and wishes to advise that it does not meet the prescribed guidelines and requirements of the MRWA warrant for the installation of traffic control systems at this intersection. 

With regards to residents’ concerns regarding dumping rubbish, throwing beer bottles, loitering and other anti-social behaviours, Administration encourages the residents to report such issues to the City for investigation and appropriate action including reporting some of these issues to the WA Police Service.

 

In reference to the issue of speeding, burnout, crossing over the double barrier line and ignoring indicator, it is advised that this is primarily related to poor driver behaviour. Drivers who are doing such dangerous driving are doing so contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1974 and associated Road Traffic Code 2000.  The WA Police Service is the responsible authority to enforce the Road Traffic Code and hoon activity on local roads.

In reference to traffic noise, Administration advised that Badgerup Road & Lake Lands Drive are local distributor roads in the City's functional road hierarchy and are expected to aggregate and disperse traffic between the arterial road network and the local access roads within this area.  They are likely to be truck routes and carry commercial vehicles. As such transport noise can be of concern to some residents which is common throughout the City. Traffic noise from roads is exempt from the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, which states that:

3.       Regulations do not apply to certain noise emissions

          (1)     Nothing in these regulations applies to the following noise emissions –

(a)     noise emissions from the propulsion and braking systems of motor vehicles operating on a road.

Consultation

Though no formal consultation has been undertaken in preparing this report to investigate the matters raised in the petition, the City’s Traffic Engineer met onsite with some of the residents on 24 February 2016. Some residents also sent their correspondence through email. Administration consulted with Main Roads representative during a meeting held in the City.

Comment

With respect to the provision of traffic treatments, the City’s Local Area Traffic Management Policy (LATM Policy) is used to consider and prioritise these requirements. This Policy guides the decision making process to decide whether roads require infrastructure changes or increased policing. The Policy precludes the installation of traffic treatments in areas where development is still ongoing and has less than 90% residential occupancy. The basis for delaying the need for traffic treatments in these areas is that traffic treatments are costly and have ultimately shown to be unnecessary or inappropriate once the area is fully developed. Waiting for subdivisions to fully develop and homes occupied also enables all potential residents including the existing residents to comment on any proposals.

The area to the north-east of Lenore Road and Ocean Reef Road intersection is in the East Wanneroo Structure Plan area, where the majority of the area is earmarked for future urban development. Additionally, WAPC has released draft Perth-Peel@3.5M strategy and the associated draft North-West Sub-Regional Planning Framework (NWSRPF), which includes a proposal to designate the south Gnangara area as Urban Expansion.

 

 

As part of the identification of East Wanneroo as an urban expansion area, a regional road network analysis was undertaken by the Department of Planning that identified that new integrator arterial roads need to be provided; this includes the eventual upgrading of Badgerup Road, Sydney-Hawkins-Boundary Road, Lenore-Franklin Road, Ranch Road, Neaves Road and Elliot Road to dual carriageways.

In addition to the East Wanneroo Structure Plan, the City is preparing a Strategic Transport Plan which will assess the capacity of the existing transport network, including the roads mentioned in East Wanneroo, and identify future transport requirements for the entire City of Wanneroo, along with likely timing and responsibility. Any upgrades identified for the road network in East Wanneroo will need to have consideration for the ultimate road network identified through the planning of the East Wanneroo area.

The City does not support the early upgrading of Badgerup Road and other adjoining roads and it is highly unlikely the current Gnangara area will attract road improvement funding at this stage. Furthermore, where subdivision developments abut an existing road, the City through, the WAPC approval process, imposes a condition on developers to upgrade these roads to urban standards; this will include the provision of road widening, road resurfacing, kerbing and drainage, pathways and street lighting upgrades and has consistently been applied throughout the City where the adjacent land is subject to urban development.

The current traffic data for Badgerup Road and adjoining roads shows that traffic volumes are well under the accepted capacity for the functionality of these roads. Administration believes that a great deal of this traffic is detour traffic attributed by the recent Lenore Road construction. The City will, however, undertake another traffic count after the Lenore Road construction and will write to MRWA requesting a speed review should the traffic count data indicate a change in the speed environment.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.”

Risk Management Considerations

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

The City’s Local Area Traffic Management Policy is applicable to the assessment of the need for traffic treatments along Badgerup Road and other local roads.

Financial Implications

The estimated cost of the traffic treatments, incorporating two roundabouts, if considered for implementation on Badgerup Road, and subject to a detailed concept and design is in the order of $1.0M.

 

 

 

The estimated cost of implementing a proposal to install a 3.6km pathway on Badgerup Road connecting to Ocean Reef Road is $1,000,000 - $1,500,000. There are no funds in the Draft Long Term Capital Works Program to provide pathway on rural roads within the City.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that the existing traffic volumes in Badgerup Road and adjoining roads are below the road capacities;

2.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the installation of traffic treatments along  Badgerup Road as the City’s Local Area Traffic Management Policy precludes the installation of traffic treatments in areas where urban development in the traffic catchment is not substantially complete;

3.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the installation of LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY sign;

4.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the installation of pathway along Badgerup Road;

5.       REQUESTS Administration to collect further traffic data in Badgerup Road and adjoining roads after the Lenore Road construction;

6.       REQUEST Main Roads WA to undertake area wide speed zone review in this area;

7.       REQUESTS the WA Police to undertake speed enforcement of vehicles using Badgerup Road and adjoining roads; and

8.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Council’s decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Location map : Badgerup Road, Gnangara

16/106864

 

 

File Ref:                                              3120V03 – 16/67975

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Issue

To consider a petition requesting the installation of a sound barrier wall along the property boundaries of Popollo Place and Goundrey Drive, Pearsall.

Background

Council received petition PT02-12/15 at its meeting of 08 December 2015.  The petition reads:

“We, the undersigned, all being Residents of the City of Wanneroo do formally request Council’s consideration to allocate funds in the Councill Budget for 2016/2017to replace the ‘Colorbond’ boundary fencing for properties backing on to Ocean Reef Road (48-58 Goundrey Drive & 2-16 Popollo Place) that form part of The terraces Estate in Pearsall approved in 2010, with a limestone product of a suitable depth and height to act as a road noise buffer, to satisfy noise mitigation expectations set in the 2009 State Planning policy 5.4 Road and rail Transport Noise and Freight Consideration in Land Use Planning (SPP 5.4) for major roads”.

The petition was signed by 27 residents of The Terraces Estate, Pearsall.

Refer to Attachment 1 for the location plan. 

Detail

The subject land is located within the East Wanneroo Cell 4 Structure Plan and bounded by Archer Street to the east, Ocean Reef Road to the south, Wanneroo Road to the west and Goundrey drive to the north.  On 8 June 2010, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted subdivision approval for 58 residential lots (WAPC 142221).

The WAPC proposed a number of conditions on the approval, including the following:

“24. A Notification, pursuant to Section 165 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 is to be placed on the Certificates of Title of the proposed lots, as shown on the attached plan dated 8 June 2010, advising of the existence of a hazard or other factor. Notice of this Notification is to be included on the Deposited Plan. The notification to state as follows:

"This lot is abutting and/or in the vicinity of Wanneroo and Ocean Reef Roads and has the potential to be affected by nearby road noise and vibration."

Currently the property boundaries have been installed with the combination of limestone block wall and colourbond fencing.

In 2009, the Western Australian Planning Commission developed State Planning Policy (SPP) 5.4 Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Consideration in Land Use Planning (the Policy) for major roads.

This policy aims to promote a system in which sustainable land use and transport are mutually compatible.

 

 

It seeks to minimise the adverse impact of transport noise, without placing unreasonable restrictions on noise-sensitive residential development, or adding unduly to the cost of transport infrastructure. It aims to provide a standardised and consistent triple bottom line framework for the consideration and management of the impacts of transport noise and freight operations when dealing with:

·        New noise-sensitive development in the vicinity of existing or future major transport corridors or freight handling facilities;

·        New major road or rail infrastructure projects, including major redevelopments, in the vicinity of existing or future noise-sensitive land uses; and

·        The location of freight handling facilities.

The policy does not apply:

·        Retrospectively to noise from existing railways or major roads in the vicinity of an existing noise-sensitive land use; and

·        To proposals involving an increase in traffic along an existing railway or major road in the absence of a major redevelopment.

Consultation

No consultation has been undertaken in the preparation of this report.

Comment

In 2012 the City arranged a Traffic Noise Assessment on Ocean Reef Road, Pearsall with the prime purpose to review the impact of noise arising from traffic on Ocean Reef Road and the outcome of the Transport Noise Assessment Report, with a view to determining noise attenuation options and associated costs. Council, at its meeting on 4 March 2014, considered Item No IN01-03/14 and resolved not to support the installation of the noise attenuation wall in Ocean Reef Road. The same situation applies to the properties to the west of Archer Street.

The subdivision was given approval by WAPC (WAPC 142221) the custodian of SPP 5.4. No imposition of a noise management plan or a Detailed Area Plan was required as part of this approval. As no noise management plan was provided or required as a condition of approval by the WAPC, the City was not able to implement the mitigation measures as part of a building licence. It is noted that it is conditional land subdivisional development applications located adjacent to arterial road alignments such that noise attenuation is to be incorporated within the subdivisional and building development design to mitigate the need for any future noise wall construction.

Although Ocean Reef Road is considered as a major road in terms of SPP 5.4 Policy as a consequence of the vehicle per day definition, Administration does not support the construction of noise attenuation measures as this policy does not apply retrospectively to noise from existing railways or major roads in the vicinity of an existing noise-sensitive land use. SPP 5.4 does not apply to roadworks undertaken by local governments, as those works are carried out as 'public works' and are exempt from the need to obtain planning approvals or comply with planning schemes. As such, SPP 5.4 has no statutory jurisdiction or application over roadworks carried out by local governments, this includes Ocean Reef Road. SPP 5.4 acknowledges this fact and consequently expresses an 'expectation' that works carried out by public authorities should comply with the intent of the SPP; however, this in no way obliges the City, or any other local government, to comply with any part of the SPP, or carry out acoustic assessments, or install noise attenuation as part of its road construction projects.

 

 

Administration advises that, in accordance with Implementation Guidelines for SPP 5.4, developers are expected to consider transportation noise issues in the urban design form as early as possible in planning stages. It is advised to conduct a screening assessment to identify the likely extent of any noise issues at an early stage. If the noise limit is likely to be exceeded at any outdoor location on a site where noise sensitive development is to occur, a detailed assessment should then be undertaken by the developer and subsequent mitigation measures should be implemented by the developer with a view to achieve the noise target in at least one outdoor area.

The City has not previously undertaken the installation of fencing or solid barriers along major roads as part of the land developments. It is the general practice of most Councils, to avoid establishing a precedence in agreeing to apply retrospective works.

Historically, the City provides a vegetated landscape buffer as a natural transition and separation between road reserve and property boundaries. The existing vegetation buffer on this road section is fully established and perceived as noise attenuation. Considering Council’s previous position, and knowing that SPP 5.4 is not applicable for existing subdivision, it is therefore Administration’s recommendation not to install noise attenuation measures along Ocean Reef Road on either side of Archer Street, Pearsall.

Statutory Compliance

Western Australian Planning Commission-State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Consideration in Land Use Planning; Implementation Guidelines for State Planning Policy 5.4

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.”

Risk Management Considerations

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Since no further assessment or works have been supported, there are no financial implications for the City.

 

The indicative cost of implementing a proposal to install noise wall on Ocean Reef Road is estimated between $600,000 and $800,000.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       DOES NOT APPROVE the petitioners request for the City to replace the colourbond fencing with a limestone block wall for properties backing onto Ocean Reef Road, Pearsall; and

2.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Council’s decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Location Map: The Terraces Estate, Pearsall

16/68204

 

 

File Ref:                                              1446V03 – 16/84589

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Issue

To consider the outcomes of a safety review of Two Rocks Road, Two Rocks.

Background

Two Rocks Road has historically operated as regional distributor road carrying low traffic volumes in rural areas. As the localities of Two Rocks and Yanchep continue to undergo significant land use changes, traffic volumes have increased impacting on the safety and operating environment of previously rural road. Additionally, the number of crashes occurring in Two Rocks Road also triggered a safety review of the road.

 

The State Road Safety Strategy - Towards Zero: Getting there together 2008 - 2020 is based on a Safe Systems approach and is an holistic view which seeks to manage the interaction between road users, roads and roadsides, travel speeds and vehicles. In considering a preliminary safety review for Two Rocks Road, it is appropriate to do so in accordance with the 'Safe System' cornerstone.

 

As part of the speed limit review of a number of rural roads Council considered a reduction in speed limit on Two Rocks Road (IN03-08/13) in August 2013, however this was not supported.

Detail

Two Rocks Road is approximately 6.5km long stretching between Yanchep Beach Road and Lisford Avenue. It is classified as a District Distributor ‘B’ road in the City's Functional Road Hierarchy, connecting Yanchep and Two Rocks. Most of the section of Two Rocks Road from 150m north of Lookout Drive and 200m south of Montebello Boulevard operates at 90km/hr posted speed limit; the remaining section of Two Rocks Road operates at 60km/hr posted speed limit. The majority of a section of the road is constructed as two lane undivided single carriageway and has a number of crests and dips. While appropriate linemarking is installed on the whole length of the road the sight distance at some locations is restricted by the crests and dips and overtaking opportunity is limited along the road. Refer to Attachment 1 for a location and speed zone map.

 

Traffic Data for Two Rocks Road is summarised in the table below which shows the increase in traffic volume.

Traffic Count Locations, Two Rocks Road	Traffic Count Date	Average Weekday Traffic volume, Vehicle Per Day (Vpd)	85th percentile speed (speed at which or below 85% of the motorists are driving)
North of Lookout Drive	4 May 2010	3632	88km/hr
North of Montebello Bvd	4 May 2010	3217	82km/hr
South of Montebello Bvd	15 March 2016	4557	90km/hr
North of Zamia Rise	15 March 2016	4631	95km/hr

 

Crash data for Two Rocks Road records 23 crashes for the whole length (6.5Km) over the five years period between 2010 and 2014. Outcomes of the 23 crashes recorded included two fatalities, five hospital admission crashes and three crashes requiring medical attention. The crash data also highlights that eight of the 23 crashes occurred at night and nine of the crashes are off carriageway (leaving road) crashes. While Main Roads WA (MRWA) crash database has not yet been updated after 2014, the City is aware of a recent tragic head on fatal crash on this road over the March Labour Day long weekend, which resulted in the loss of three lives. As an aftermath of any fatal crash MRWA undertakes a preliminary investigation and should any infrastructure deficiency be identified, MRWA issues a Crash Location Report (CLR) to the local authority for action. While in this case the City is aware that MRWA has undertaken the preliminary investigation, the CLR is yet to be prepared.

 

While it is noted that the 85^th percentile speed (operating speed) is close to the posted speed limit, it can be established from the crash history that speed has contributed to the severity of the crashes. Speed affects both the risk of being involved in a crash due to the decrease in time to react and the severity of a crash should it occur. The ' Safe Speed' cornerstone endeavours to:

 

·                Ensure speed limits suit the purpose and nature of the road;

 

·                Educate road users on safe travel speeds; and

 

·                Develop effective speed enforcement strategies.

 

There are currently no bus stops along this section of road due to minimal urban development, however bus stops will be provided in the future as development occurs along Two Rocks Road. Two Rocks Road does not have any dedicated provision for cyclists as no shared path or cycle lanes are provided on this section of road. However, wide sealed shoulders are used by road cyclists. An additional source of information was gathered by Administration through a mobile tracking tool, Strava, which monitors the movements utilised by registered users of GPS tracking and available on a number of fitness trackers and smartphones. This information is also used to generate heat maps indicating the popularity of certain routes. The application is available to the public and has over 1.2M users worldwide and is particularly popular with road cyclists to track their rides. Strava indicates that Two Rocks Road is a low use cycling route at the moment. Improved cycling facilities will be considered as part of future upgrading of Two Rocks Road.

Consultation

No consultation was conducted as part of this report. Since no residents are directly affected by the proposed works no future direct consultation will be undertaken. However, If Council and Main Roads WA support a speed limit reduction; Main Roads WA will advertise the reduction on their website and install advanced warning signs to alert motorists of the speed limit change.

Comment

The 'safe speed' cornerstone recognises that under a safe systems approach, 70km/hr is considered as being the highest survivable speed for a head on collision and 50km/hr for a right angle collision. Administration as such considers that reducing the speed limit on Two Rocks Road to 70Km/hr will play a significant role in improving safety of the road, however it should be noted that while the City can request MRWA for a speed limit review on its road, the decision to change the speed limit rests with MRWA.

 

 

 

Development along Two Rocks road is progressing and a new subdivision, ‘The Spot Stage 1’ is being constructed south of Montebello Boulevard. This subdivision and will include an intersection on Two Rocks Road at Reef Break Drive. As a result, the environment of Two Rocks Road adjacent to the subdivision will change to a built up area environment. Considering the change in environment, MRWA has conducted an initial investigation which has recommended the existing 60km/hr speed limit to be extended from 200m south of Montebello Boulevard to 300m south of the new intersection with Reef Break Drive. Refer to Attachment 2 for a location map of the subdivision.

 

As part of the safety review, Administration has also considered improving delineation of the road and has had a preliminary discussion with MRWA. While installing street-lighting along the whole length of the road remains the best solution for improving delineation, Administration proposes to install guideposts along the road verge and Raised Reflective Pavement Markers (RRPM) along the existing linemarking in the short term. The City has already started investigating the street-lighting design for the road and initial investigations suggest the installation of street-lighting to be in the order of $4 – $6 million. The City will continue to review the situation and pursue external funding opportunities to progress the installation of street-lighting in future.

 

As the scope of the design will take some time, Administration will explore possible funding sources to fund the works when the detail design and cost estimate is available.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.”

Risk Management Considerations

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The responsibility of changing speed zone lies with MRWA and as such the City will incur no financial cost for changing the speed limit. Should MRWA approve the guidepost and RRPM request, the City will need to meet the cost of the guideposts and MRWA the cost of the RRPM. Approximate cost of the guideposts is $10,000 and can be funded from PR 2656 – Various Traffic Management Projects.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:-

1.       REQUESTS Main Roads WA to undertake a speed zone review of Two Rocks Road with the intent of reducing the 90km/hr posted speed limit to 70km/hr from 150m north of Club Capricorn entrance to 300m south of Reef Break Drive;

2.       NOTES that the City will write to Main Roads WA for approval for the installation of RRPM’S and guide posts along Two Rocks Road;

3.       NOTES the extension of the existing 60km/hr speed zone from 200m south of Montebello Boulevard to 300m south of the proposed Reef Break Drive and Two Rocks Road intersection; and

4.       NOTES the City will review the crash location report supplied by Main Roads WA as a result of the fatal crash and take any further action as required.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Two Rocks Road Speed Map	13/122471
2.	Location of The Spot Stage 1 subdivision	16/107424