adjoining single storey dwelling (positioned 3 metres from the boundary) and further add to the prominence of the development within the existing streetscape. Conversely however it is considered that over time as the built form transitions to that identified within the City Centre Structure Plan (particularly the Cecil Avenue Core Precinct) the impact will lessen over time. The overshadowing diagram (ref: 3-13) demonstrates the development will result in 22.7% of adjoining lot being overshadowed by the proposed development. The proposed development meets the objectives of the CCCSP and satisfactorily addresses the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes. It is also noted that overshadowing associated with the boundary falls within the front setback area of the adjacent dwelling. As identified previously in the report based on the feedback from the adjoining landowner a section of the boundary wall is proposed to be removed to create an opening in the wall. The remaining portion of the over height wall will also be finished to a higher standard than originally proposed with colour panelling and opaque glass panel inserts. The neighbour whilst supportive of the changes has now raised concerns about potential odour issues could be emitted from this opening. It is believed odour can be controlled via the provision of a tap and wash down facility to the bin storage area and regular cleaning. The opening in the wall could also pose a security issue for the development as the opening would be accessible from the street. Although there is an internal security door separating the bin storage area from the units the opening could pose a security risk for residents accessing this area to place rubbish in the allocated bins. At the time of finalising the RAR report to meet the reporting deadline the City has been unable to liaise further with the neighbour given the conflicting concerns raised. There appears to be a number of options open to the JDAP in this instance which are: 1) To impose a condition that the opening be replaced with a solid wall as

originally proposed by the applicant. 2) To impose a condition requiring the insertion of a perforated decorative screen

to be applied to the opening. This would assist in breaking up the wall (given the use of differing materials), will improve security for the residents and the adjoining neighbour and depending on the extent of the perforations will provide some mitigation in relation to the potential for odour.

3) To impose a condition requiring the removal of Unit 18 from the plans. This would reduce the boundary wall to 9.3 metres. The implications to the aesthetics of the building as it presents to Fletcher Street could be affected.

4) To refuse the development should it be considered the boundary wall is not in keeping with the design principles outlined above in P4.1 of the Residential Design Codes.

It is recommended that Option 2 be applied and a condition has been included in the recommendation. Boundary Setbacks

The development is setback 3.91m from the adjoining lot in lieu of 4m identified in Table 5 of the Residential Design Codes. Given the proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes the variation has been assessed under the relevant design principles, being P4.1 identified above. As stated above the development demonstrates the plans comply with the overshadowing requirements. The majority of the overshadowing impact will be within the verge area and access leg. The proposed variation is considered to be very minor in nature and still achieves adequate day light and direct sun to the adjoining property. All the major openings on the south boundary are sufficiently screened by a 1.7m balustrade with translucent glass to prevent overlooking. Parking Seven visitor bays are required for the proposed development under the Residential Design Codes, however only five have been identified on the plans. The revisions to the car parking embayments adjacent to the Leila Street cul-de-sac head to appease the concerns of the Water Corporation has resulted in a reduction of two bays. The Metro Central JDAP has the ability to vary the requirements if it is considered the following design principles are achieved: "P3.1 Adequate car and bicycle parking provided on-site in accordance with projected need related to:

• the type, number and size of dwellings; • the availability of on-street and other off-site parking; and • the proximity of the proposed development in relation to public transport and

other facilities." Given the site context of the subject property, the proposal is eligible for assessment under column A of the R-Codes which requires 0.75 parking bays per unit. The development has provided 1 bay per unit on site (ie. 25 bays) and therefore achieves this parking requirement. Two bays, including a disabled bay is available for the commercial tenancy. In relation to the visitor bays in addition to the five (5) bays identified on the plans, it is recommended that full requirement of seven (7) visitor bays are provided for. It is considered that there is sufficient space opposite the development site on Fletcher Street to provide the additional two visitor bays. Alternatively the City would be willing to take a contribution which reflects the actual cost of constructing these two bays. The City could then use the funds as part of wider works to install on street parking along Fletcher Street in the future. A total of 11 bicycle parking bays are required for the proposed use, with a total of 12 bicycle racks being provided. Utilities and Facilities The proposed store for Unit 9 and 18 have an area of 3.91m² in lieu of a minimum of 4.0m². The proposed variation is considered to be very minor in nature and all the stores have provided the minimum dimensions, the proposed variation of 0.09m2 will not impede on the functionality of the use of the stores. The applicants have confirmed that each store will be accommodated with a roller door, thereby achieving the full use of the area of each store.

Lighting The City has requested a detailed lighting plan be provided at the building permit stage which will enhance the opportunity of surveillance. This plan will need to particularly address the pedestrian entry on the north eastern boundary along Leila Street. The development proposes to amend the existing water corporation fencing to provide a footpath to this entry point. The entrance should be clearly defined for residents and visitors and well lit for security. Summary of Planning Assessment The following Table represents an overall summary of the development against the planning framework that exists for the site.

TABLE 1: Overall Assessment (Planning Framework)

Design Element

Residential Design Codes requirement

Proposed Development

Comment

6.1.1 Plot Ratio

2.0 1.51 (office and residential component).

The plot ratio does not meet the minimum requirement under the CCCSP, however the proposed density is considered appropriate for the locality.

6.1.2 Building Height

Top of external wall (concealed roof) at 19 metres.

Highest portion of external wall (concealed roof) is 12.4m.

Complies – CCCSP required a minimum height of 9 metres.

6.1.3 Street Setback

2m for primary and secondary street setbacks

Proposed nil setback to Fletcher Street (ground floor) and nil – 600mm to Leila Street (ground floor)

Considered to meet Performance Criteria as it contributes to the desired streetscape and is consistent with the LPP (CCCSP) as buildings are encouraged to be built close to the street alignment.

6.1.4 Lot boundary setbacks

Table 4 of the R-Codes specifies maximum and average boundary wall heights of 7m and 6m respectively. Clause 6.1.4 C4.2.ii provides for the above Table 4 heights for a maximum of two thirds of the boundary.

A 12.3m high boundary wall has been proposed to the side lot boundary, 12.8m in length with the remaining length dropping to a height of 2.75m to the rear of the property. A boundary wall is proposed to the rear of the property abutting Water

The City advertised the proposed variation to the adjoining lot. The issues are raised as the consultation section of the report. The applicant amended the boundary wall to soften the impact to the adjoining neighbour. The built form is consistent with the CCSP. The development aims to address active visual engagement between the units and the drainage areas through balconies and

Table 5 requires a 4m setback for a lot with a greater width of 16m.

Corporation Land. The proposed development proposes a wall setback 3.91m which produces a minor variation of 0.09m. Along the wall, a minor incursion (stairway) is setback 2.673m for the length of 6.444m from the side boundary.

window surveillance. Water Corporation had no objection to the proposed development built up to the boundary. The southern boundary wall adjoins a drain reserve owned by the City of Canning minimising the potential impact of the proposed wall to the surrounding property.

6.1.5 Open Space

No minimum open space required.

N/A Complies.

6.2.1 Street Surveillance

Building addresses the street.

Building addresses Fletcher street and Leila Street.

Complies.

6.2.2 Street Walls and Fences

Fencing to be less than 1.2m in front setback.

No fencing is proposed within the front setback.

Complies.

6.2.3 Sight Lines

Walls, fences and other structures truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m from a vehicle access.

The parapet wall to the south west boundary where it adjoin Fletcher Street for waste services has been reduced to 700mm high for a 1.5m metre setback to provide the required sightlines.

Complies.

6.3.1 Outdoor living areas

Each unit to provide 10m2 area for outdoor living with minimum dimension of 2.4m.

Units 9 and 17 and 18 provide variations to the OLA requirement. Minor variations occur to the minimum dimensions of

Every unit except for Unit 9 and 18 have 2 balconies. They are considered to meet Performance Criteria as the balconies are capable of use in conjunction with a habitable room. The variation to units 8 and 19 can be considered as the reduced balconies are

balconies for Unit 1-3, 7-12 and 17-25 vary in width from 1.5m – 2m in lieu of 2.5m

only 2.22m2 in area short of 10m2 in aggregate and are smaller one bedroom unit. The balconies are considered to be appropriate and functional to meet the needs of the residents as are conditioning units and clothes drying area can be accommodated within the other balconies, achieving the main balconies to be more functional in terms of usable space.

6.3.2 Landscaping

The 2m street setback area to developed with a maximum of 50% hard surface.

The primary street setback is to be paved.

Paving along primary street setback is to provide for pedestrian access. Landscaping overall will be accommodated via Leila Street with the 600mm landscaping strip along Leila street which will aid in softening the bulk of the building and contributing to the streetscape.

6.3.3 On-site parking provisions

At the ratio of 0.75 spaces per unit a total of 19 residential on-site car parking bays are required for residential component. A total of 7 visitor bays are required at 0.25 per unit for 25 units. The commercial element requires 4 bays

25 bays have been provided on-site for residential units being 6 bays in excess of requirement. A total of 5 bays are proposed with 3 visitor bays to be located within verge area of the development and 2 bays within the cul de sac of Leila Street. . A total of 2 bays have been identified for the

In total the applicant has provided 27 bays on site and 3 bays within the verge, and 2 bays within the cul de sac being a total of 32 bays. The development also proposed 2 on site motorcycle/scooter bays. Council staff have conditioned that two car embayment’s to be provided on Fletcher street to meet the visitor bays requirements. Requiring the extra two car bays, will ensure the demands for the residential and commercial use are meet, especially for visitor and delivery parking etc. and the development complies with the parking requirements for visitors. If the commercial and residential parking (inclusive of visitor bays) was provided

under the City’s Scheme. The LPP includes a reduced parking rate of 6 bays. At the ratio of 1 space for each 3 dwellings and 1 bicycle space for each 10 dwellings for visitors the development requires a total of 11 bicycle bays.

commercial uses on site. 12 bicycle parking rails have been proposed.

in accordance with the R-Codes and LPP 27 bays would be required. Inclusive of the on-street bays 32 bays are provided. Clause 4.6 of TPS 40 allows parking standards specified under the Scheme to be varied as is discussed below. If the parking rate identified in the LPP is applied, using Clause 4.6 of TPS No. 40, 32 bays would be required.

6.3.4 Design of parking spaces

Car parking spaces and manoeuvring areas designed and provided in accordance with AS2890.1 (as amended)

Onsite and offsite parking spaces have been provided in accordance with the minimum requirements outlined in AS2890.1 (as amended).

Complies and to be conditioned.

6.3.5 Vehicular Access

Driveways designed for two way access to allow for vehicles to enter the street in forward gear where the driveway serves five or more dwellings.

4.8m wide two-way access provided to the north/east of the building.

Complies.

6.3.6 Site Works

Excavation or filling is limited by building height and building setback requirements

Limited excavation and filling proposed within the external walls.

Complies.

6.4.1 Visual Privacy

Cone of vision > R50 (6m for balconies, 4.5m for dining rooms

Bedroom and studies setback 3.6m from adjoining

Complies.

etc. and 3m for bedrooms).

properties. A 1.7m screen has been provided to the walkway adjacent to the balconies to mitigate overlooking. Unit 9 and 18 propose highlight windows.

6.4.3 Dwelling Size

Minimum 20% single bedroom dwellings and minimum 40% two bedroom dwellings. Dwellings to be no smaller than 40m2 plot ratio area

20% of dwellings are single bedrooms with the remaining 80% being two bedroom dwellings. All apartments comply with the plot ratio area.

Complies.

6.4.6 Utilities and Facilities

4m2 storage area per unit and access to bin store.

Not all the storage areas are 4m2 in floor area; stores 2, 10, 17 and 23 vary between 3.91m2 and 3.92m2. All stores meet the minimum dimension.

All dwellings are provided with a store either on the ground floor or attached to the dwelling. The store areas are considered to meet the design principles of clause 6.4.6 of the R-Codes in that they are convenient to residents, either accessed outside of their dwelling or from their designated car bay, are screened from view and are considered to provide adequate storage space for the anticipated occupants of the dwellings. The bin stores will be accessible for residents and will be convenient for rubbish pick up.

Clause 4.5 and Tables 4A and 4B of the Scheme identifies development standards within the City Centre. Clause 4.6 of the Scheme allows variations to any standard or requirement applying to the City Centre Zones. In this instance the following scheme standards are proposed to be varied under the proposal which involves: A. Table 4A requires a front setback of 15 metres from the front boundary and 3

metres from the secondary street for corner sites. The proposed development

proposes a nil (ground floor) and nil to 2m for upper floors to Fletcher Street and a nil to 600mm setback to Leila Street which is consistent with the City’s Local Planning Policy – Canning City Centre Structure Plan.

B. Clause 4.5.4.3, (a) requires that landscaping should cover a minimum of 25% of

the designated setback area for each site with a minimum provision of a 2m landscape strip adjoining any street.

C. Table 4B identifies a parking requirement for the office use of 4 bays. It is considered that the above variations would be in the interests of proper and orderly planning and are supported. Conclusion: It is considered that the development meets the relevant planning requirements of the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 40, the Canning City Centre Structure Plan and the Residential Design Codes. On balance the development achieves a critical mass and intensity that is consistent with the planning objectives for the area. The City accordingly recommends approval subject to conditions. ADDENDUM TO REPORT Based on an updated Ground Floor Plan (Plan Ref: 5-17) dated 28 August 2014 being received post lodgement of the RAR report (which has been circulated to JDAP members), the number of parking bays required in addition to the five (5) visitor bays identified on the plans reduces from two to one visitor bay. The applicant has also requested that Condition 14 be modified to allow for flexibility in the event that more bays could be accommodated in Fletcher Street subject to discussion with the City. From the City’s perspective as long as the bays are provided there may be scope to amend their position. Due to the revised information received the following amendment to Condition 14 is proposed:

14. Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit detailed plans are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the City detailing the following works within the Leila Street and Fletcher Street road reserves:

i) Five (5) on-street car parking embayments and paved verge

within the Leila Street and Fletcher Street Road Reserves in accordance with the approved plans or within an alternative arrangement acceptable to the City to the standard identified in the City’s Canning City Centre Streetscape Design Concepts (March 2001);

ii) One (1) additional on-street car parking embayment on the opposite side of the proposed development on the Fletcher Street Road Reserve in accordance with the City’s Canning City Centre Streetscape Design Concepts (March 2001), or alternatively where agreed between the City and the owner an equivalent cash contribution representing the cost of constructing the said bay;

iii) A pedestrian path in accordance with the approved plans; and iv) The repositioning of the Water Corporation fence and gates

where required to accommodate visitor parking and access to the pedestrian entrance off Leila Street and the painting of

yellow ‘no parking’ hatching on the crossover between visitor car bays 1 and 2 to maintain access to the compensating basin for Water Corporation personnel.

All approved works are to be at the applicant’s cost and be completed prior to the occupation or use of the development.

graeme.bride

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 1

graeme.bride

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 2