The Categories of Uses are defined in Clause 5.3 of the ... daps/metro west jdap... · To promote...

Job: 0026 0026 Planning Statement Claisebrook Road, Perth.docx Page 7

The Categories of Uses are defined in Clause 5.3 of the EPRS, as follows:

• Category 1 Research and Development;

• Category 2 Commercial;

• Category 3 Service and Light Industry;

• Category 4 Retail;

• Category 5 Residential;

• Category 6 Community Uses; and

• Category 7 Recreation Uses.

For each Category of Use, Clause 5.3 lists a series of specific land uses. The uses

proposed by the Application fall within the following Use Categories:

• Office Category 2 - Commercial; and

• Multiple Dwellings Category 5 - Residential.

Categories 2 and 5 are designated as Preferred Uses in the Claisebrook Precinct.

Clause 5.2.2 of the EPRS states:

Where in this Part a category of use is stipulated as ‘Preferred Uses’ in any Precinct

then in dealing with a development application involving any use from that

Category in that Precinct the Authority:

a) Shall not refuse the application by reason of the incorporation of that use in

the proposed development; and

b) May relax or vary any development standard or requirement and otherwise

impose such conditions on its approval as seem fit to encourage the

incorporation of that use in the development.

The Application is consistent with the Claisebrook Precinct Statement of Intent and

cannot be refused by reason of the proposed Office and Multiple Dwelling land uses.

4.3.3 Development Provisions Part 4 of the EPRS contains standards and requirements for mixed use, residential

and non-residential developments.

Promotion of Mixed Use Development To promote mixed use development, Clause 4.1.1 of the EPRS states:

In order to promote the specific objectives of the Scheme and more particularly the

creation of a diversity of land uses and developments in the Scheme Area and to

create a mixture of mutually beneficial uses and developments within the Precincts

of the Scheme, the Authority shall take all reasonable steps to encourage the

incorporation of a residential component in those Precincts where the provisions of

Part 5 or a Policy indicate that a residential development is a preferred

development within the Precinct.


The proposed mixed-use building satisfies the intent of Clause 4.1.1.

Further, Clause 4.1.1 empowers the DAP to “take all reasonable steps” to encourage

the residential uses proposed by the Application. This includes exercising discretion,

pursuant to Part 2 of the EPRS, for the purpose of supporting variations to the

applicable development standards, as set out below.

Development Standards Clause 4.3 of the EPRS states that, unless otherwise provided for by the EPRS,

residential development shall conform to the provisions of the RD Codes, as per the

relevant density code depicted on the Scheme Map.

A residential density code of R80 applies to the Claisebrook Precinct.

The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of the RD

Codes applicable to Multiple Dwellings on land coded R80, as varied by the EPRS

and relevant Planning Policies, including the City’s Built Form Policy (January 2017).

Whilst the development satisfies the majority of the Deemed-to-Comply provisions of

the RD Codes and Built Form Policy, a number of variations are proposed.

The most pertinent development standards, including the variations sought by this

Application, are set out below, together with justification for each variation. Unless

stated below, all other relevant Deemed-to-Comply provisions of the RD Codes are

satisfied by the Application.

Plot Ratio

The RD Codes stipulate a plot ratio of 1:1 for Multiple Dwellings on land coded R80,

however, this is varied by Clause 5.2.5 in Part 5 of the EPRS:

The maximum plot ratio stipulated for each Precinct shall, subject to sub-clause 4.6.2

and any discretion applicable under the R Codes, be the maximum plot ratio

permitted for the total development of any particular area of land within that Precinct,

provided that if a formula is stipulated for the increase of the maximum plot ratio in

any case, then the plot ratio may be increased in accordance with that formula.

Sub-Clause 4.6.2 allows for a relaxation of the maximum plot ratio applicable to non-

residential uses, provided the relaxation will not prejudice the objectives of the EPRS

and not detract from the amenity or streetscape of the locality.

The maximum plot ratio for the Claisebrook Precinct is set out in Clause 5.18.3:

Maximum Plot Ratio 1.0

The plot ratio may be increased to a maximum of 1.5, provided that in any

development having a plot ratio in excess of 1.0, not less than 50% of the excess

relevant floor area shall be dedicated to residential use.


The plot ratio of the building proposed by this Application is as follows:

• Site Area 532m2

• Plot Ratio Permitted 798m2 1.50

• Plot Ratio Proposed

- Office Tenancy 41m2 0.07

- Multiple Dwellings 923m2 1.73

- Total Building 964m2 1.80

The development exceeds the maximum plot ratio by 0.3 (166m2), due to the plot

ratio of the residential component. Notwithstanding, it is considered the plot ratio

variation can be supported.

Pursuant to Clause 5.2.2 (b) of the EPRS, the variation will facilitate the development

of a Preferred Use in the Claisebrook Precinct, and as contemplated by Clause 4.1.1,

the variation will promote mixed-use development and contribute to the Precinct’s

evolution into a vibrant inner city locale with a diversity of mutually beneficial uses.

The relevant Design Principle of the RD Codes is:

6.1.1 Building Size

P1 Development of the building is at a bulk and scale intended in the local

planning framework and is consistent with the existing or future desired

built form of the locality.

The proposed four-storey building is consistent with the intended bulk and scale of

development in the area, and with the existing and desired future built form of the

locality, for the following reasons:

• The EPRS Planning Policy for the Claisebrook Precinct states that development of

up to three storeys is “the norm”, however, the Design Guidelines for the

Claisebrook Precinct (which provide a further level of guidance for specific areas

within the Precinct) promote buildings of four storeys fronting Claisebrook Road,

with buildings of three storeys plus a fourth level loft facing Somerville Street;

• The bulk and scale of the development is lower than that of other developments

recently approved in the locality, including Echo Apartments at the corner of

Lord and Summers Streets (6 storeys), the mixed-use building at 54 Cheriton

Street (5 storeys) and the mixed-use building approved by the DAP at No.150

Claisebrook Road (8 to 9 storeys);

• Most recently, the City’s Built Form Policy (January 2017) proposes heights of up

to 8 storeys for buildings fronting the west side of Claisebrook Road, including

the subject site. The City’s Built Form Policy does not contain a plot ratio control

to guide the bulk and scale of development.


In light of the above, the plot ratio proposed by the Application is consistent with the

intended bulk and scale of development in the locality, will not have an adverse

impact on occupiers of the building, and will not detract from the amenity or

streetscape of the Precinct.

Accordingly, approval of the plot ratio variation is considered appropriate.

Building Height

The relevant Deemed-to-Comply provision of the RD Codes is:

6.1.2 Building Height

C1 Development complies with the maximum height set out in Table 4, except

where stated otherwise in the scheme, local planning policy, local structure

plan or local development plan.

The City’s recently adopted Built Form Policy replaces this Deemed-to-Comply

provision with the following:

3.1 Building Height

C3.1.1 Development that is consistent with the building heights provided in Table

3 and Figure 2.

The Built Form Policy contemplates building heights of 8 storeys for land on

the west side of Claisebrook Road. The Application therefore satisfies the

building height provisions of the RD Codes, as varied by the Built Form Policy.

Street Setbacks

The Deemed-to-Comply provisions of the RD Codes stipulate a 2 metre setback to

the primary and secondary street for Multiple Dwellings on land coded R80. The

City’s recently adopted Built Form Policy replaces this Deemed-to-Comply provision

with the following:

1.2 Setbacks

C1.2.1 Primary and secondary street setback for the first three storeys is nil.

The development has a nil setback to Claisebrook Road and Somerville Street

for all four storeys. Hence, it is only the fourth floor of the building where a

variation to the street setback is proposed.


6.1.3 Street Setback

P3 Buildings are set back from street boundaries (primary and secondary) an

appropriate distance to ensure they:

• Contribute to the desired streetscape;

• Provide articulation of the building on the primary and secondary streets;


• Allow for minor projections that add interest and reflect the character of

the street without impacting on the appearance of bulk over the site;

• Are appropriate to its location, respecting the adjoining development

and exiting streetscape; and

• Facilitate the provision of weather protection where appropriate.

It is considered the nil street setback for the upper floor of the building, in lieu of a 2

metre setback, satisfies the relevant Design Principles for the following reasons:

• The narrow lot configuration makes it impractical to provide a 2 metre setback to

the street frontages of the site;

• The development seeks to achieve a consistent street setback for the entire

façade of the building, reflecting the retained façade of the existing two-storey

building that occupies the corner of Somerville Street and Claisebrook Road;

• The façade is articulated with windows and balconies that overlook the street and

add interest to the streetscape;

• The streetscape of the locality is characterized by established and new buildings

with nil setbacks to the street. This is supported by the EPRS Design Guidelines

for the Claisebrook Precinct, which note the area west of Claisebrook Road

“exhibits a tight structure and presents a continuous built edge to the street.”

In light of the above, the proposed upper level street setbacks satisfy the relevant

Design Principle of the RD Codes, will not have an adverse impact on occupiers of

the building, and will not detract from the amenity or streetscape of the Precinct.

Accordingly, approval of the street setback variation is considered appropriate.

Lot Boundary Setbacks

The City’s Built Form Policy replaces the Deemed-to-Comply side and rear boundary

setback provisions of the RD Codes with the following:

1.2 Setbacks

C1.2.2 Minimum side boundary setbacks for the first two storeys is nil.

C1.2.3 Side boundary setbacks for development three storeys and above and rear

boundary setbacks are to be in accordance with Table 5 of the R Codes...

C1.2.6 Where development adjoins a right of way the setback shall be measured

from the midpoint of the right of way.

For lots with a width of less than 14 metres, Table 5 of the RD Codes specifies a side

boundary setback of 3 metres for land coded R80. Given the site is located on a

corner, both the northern and western boundaries are considered to be side (as

opposed to rear) lot boundaries.

The table below shows the proposed and required side boundary setbacks.


Floor West Side Boundary North Side Boundary

Required Setback Proposed Setback Required Setback Proposed Setback

Ground Nil Nil Nil Nil

1st Floor Nil 1.5m Nil Nil

2nd Floor 3m * 3m * 3m 2m

3rd Floor 3m * 3m * 3m 2m / 1.3m Unit 8 Wall

* 2nd & 3rd Floor Setback to West Side Boundary measured to the midpoint of the adjacent Right of Way.

As evident, the development complies with the side boundary setbacks with the

exception of the northern side setback for the Second and Third Floors only.


6.1.4 Lot Boundary Setbacks

P4.1 Buildings set back from boundaries or adjacent buildings so as to:

• ensure adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation for buildings and

the open space associated with them;

• moderate the visual impact of building bulk on a neighbouring property;

• ensure access to daylight and direct sun for adjoining properties; and

• assist with the protection of privacy between adjoining properties.

It is considered the reduced northern side boundary setback for the upper two floors

of the building satisfies the relevant Design Principle, for the following reasons:

• The adjoining property is situated to the north and is used for commercial

purposes, hence the reduced setbacks will not have any adverse impact as a

result of building bulk, overlooking, or loss of daylight and sunlight;

• The setback of 2 metres relates to an open-sided walkway and store room wall (3

metre length), while the 1.8 metre setback is to the side wall of Unit 8 near

Claisebrook Road (3.5 metre length). These are minor elements of the building’s

north elevation which will not have a significant impact on the adjacent site;

• The main wall of the building is setback 3.2 to 3.7 metres from the site’s northern

boundary, consistent with the required setback; and

• The open-sided walkway and provision of light wells ensures the reduced setback

will not have any adverse impact on future occupants as a result of loss of

daylight (in the event of the abutting property being redeveloped).

In light of the above, the proposed upper level setback to the site’s northern

boundary satisfies the Design Principle of the RD Codes, will not have an adverse

impact on occupiers of the building, and will not detract from the amenity or

streetscape of the Precinct.

Accordingly, approval of the northern side boundary setback is appropriate.


Car Parking (Residential and Non-residential)

Clause 4.6.3 of the EPRS requires car parking to be provided in accordance with

Table 1, which stipulates both minimum and maximum car parking requirements.

With respect to Residential and Office uses, Table 1 reads:

Development Minimum Car Parking Spaces Required Maximum Exclusive Use On-Site Parking

Residential At the discretion of the Authority See R Codes

Office 1 per 70 sq.m gross floor area 1 per 50 sq.m gross floor area

For two-bedroom Multiple Dwellings located within 800 metres of a railway station,

the RD Codes require 1 car bay per dwelling, plus 1 visitor car bay for every four

dwellings. The minimum and maximum parking requirement for the development is:

Use Minimum Car Parking Spaces Required Maximum Exclusive Use On-Site Parking

Multiple Dwellings (12) At the discretion of the DAP 12

Residential Visitors At the discretion of the DAP 3

Office (41m2) 1 1

Therefore, a maximum of 16 car parking bays may be provided. The Application

proposes a total of 15 car parking bays within the Ground Floor of the building,

including 12 residential bays, 2 residential visitor bays and 1 shared residential visitor

/ office bay. The development therefore satisfies the maximum allowable car parking.

The only variation sought by the Application with respect to the minimum number of

car parking bays is the shared use of 1 car bay for residential visitors and the office.

Table 1 and Clause 2.19 of the EPRS allow the DAP to exercise discretion and

support a variation to the minimum on-site parking requirement, having regard to the

matters set out in Clause 4.4.2 (with respect to residential parking) and Clause 4.6.4

(with respect to non-residential parking). Those matters include:

• The effect of the development on parking demand in the locality, including the

availability of alternative parking and public transport systems;

• Any irregularity in the shape or size of the lot or any adjoining lot;

• The effect of the variation on the amenity of the area; and

• Whether different uses on the land will generate parking demand at different

times, allowing parking spaces to be shared (Clause 4.6.5 of the EPRS specifically

states that reciprocal parking arrangements may be approved).

Clause 6.3.3 of the RD Codes sets out Design Principles to guide variations to the

Deemed-to-Comply residential parking requirement, including the proximity of the

development to public transport and other facilities.


The shared use of 1 car bay by residential visitors and the office is considered

appropriate for the following reasons:

• The site is located within a mixed-use inner city locale and enjoys an extremely

high level of access by walking, cycling and public transport (bus and rail), as set

out in the Subject Site section of this report;

• The office tenancy is only 41 square metres and will likely operate during normal

business hours only, while demand for visitor car parking is most likely to occur

during the evenings and weekends; and

• If it were not for Lot 66, the 0.2 metre wide strip of land abutting the site’s

western boundary, it would be possible to gain access to the car park via the

site’s western boundary, meaning the ‘manoeuvring’ bay depicted on the

Ground Floor plan could be converted to an additional car bay.

For these reasons, the reciprocal use of 1 car bay is unlikely to have any adverse

impact on the amenity of the locality, and can therefore be approved by the DAP.

Design of Car Parking

The relevant Deemed-to-Comply provision of the RD Codes include:

6.3.4 Design of Car Parking Spaces

C4.1 Car parking spaces and manoeuvring areas designed and provided in

accordance with AS2890.1 (as amended).

C4.2 Visitor car parking spaces:

• marked and clearly signposted as dedicated for visitor use only, and

located close to or visible from the point of entry to the development

and outside any security barrier.

Due to the narrow width of the site and the restricted access, the car parking bays

and driveway are designed to comply with AS2890.1. This includes the provision of

9 car bays and reversing areas designed to the ‘small’ car bay standards of AS2890.1.

The development therefore satisfies Deemed-to-Comply provision C4.1.

With respect to C4.2, the visitor car bays will be marked accordingly, and are

positioned as close as possible to the entry, however, the visitor bays are located

inside the secure car park.

The relevant Design Principle of the RD Codes reads:


P4 Car, cycle and other parking facilities are to be designed and located on-

site to be conveniently accessed, secure, consistent with streetscape and

appropriately manage stormwater to protect the environment.


The location of the visitor parking is considered appropriate, given the narrow width

of the site, the restricted access, the retained façade of the existing building, and the

existing and desired streetscape of the locality with buildings constructed with a

‘hard edge’ to the street. Further, the building will incorporate an intercom system

that will allow residents to grant visitors access to the car park.

Vehicle Access

The relevant Deemed-to-Comply provision of the RD Codes include:

6.3.5 Vehicular Access

C5.2 Access to on-site car parking spaces to be provided:

• where available from a right-of-way available for the lawful use to access the

relevant lot and which is adequately paved and drained from the property

boundary to a constructed street;

• from a secondary street where a right-of-way does not exist, or

• from the primary street frontage where no secondary street or right-of-way

exists.

C5.3 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;

• the distance from a car space to street alignment is 5m or more.



P5 Vehicular access provided so as to minimise the number of crossovers, to

be safe in use and not detract from the streetscape.

With respect to C5.2, as described in the Subject Site section of this report, the site’s

western boundary abuts Lot 66, a strip of land 0.2 metres in width that was created

many years ago to prevent the site from having legal and physical access over the

private Right of Way on Lot 67 to the west of Lot 66. Accordingly, the Application is

not able to propose vehicle access via this nearby private Right of Way.

Access to the car park is proposed from Claisebrook Road (the site’s historic primary

frontage), rather than Somerville Street (the historic secondary frontage). However,

the building is orientated toward Somerville Street, including the ground floor entry

lobby and upper floor balconies. This design effectively means Claisebrook Road

becomes the site’s secondary frontage. In addition, Somerville Street connects the

site to Gladstone Square, a small local park, and has a superior level of pedestrian

amenity compared to Claisebrook Road. It is therefore preferable to protect the

streetscape of Somerville Street by locating the driveway off Claisebrook Road, with

the crossover located a sufficient distance (10 metres) from the street corner to

maintain adequate sight lines for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.


With respect to C5.3, the car park is designed to enable all vehicles to exit the site in

forward gear, however, a portion of the driveway is restricted to one-way access.

Notwithstanding, given the relatively small scale of the project, with only 15 car

parking bays, it is not considered the design will have any adverse impact on the

amenity of the area due to traffic blocking the footpath or street whilst attempting to

enter the site. Further, the reduced width of the driveway will have limited impact

on the streetscape and adequate sight lines are provided for pedestrian safety.

The proposed location and design of the vehicle entry / exit is therefore considered

to satisfy the relevant Design Principle of the RD Codes.

Store Rooms

The RD Codes require each dwelling to be provided with an enclosed, lockable store

room accessible from outside the dwelling, with a minimum dimension of 1.5 metres

and internal area of 4 square metres.

All 12 dwellings are provided with a secure, lockable store room accessed from

outside the dwelling, however, 10 of the store rooms do not meet the minimum

required area and dimension.


6.4.6 Utilities and Facilities

P6 External location of store room… where these are:

• convenient for residents;

• screened from view; and

• able to be secured and managed.

All of the store rooms are screened from the street and conveniently located near the

entry to each dwelling, with one store room located in the car park. To compensate

for the reduced size of the store rooms, shelving will be installed by the proponent

prior to occupation of the dwellings.

Other Design Considerations under the City’s Built Form Policy

Corner Sites and Awnings

Sections 1.3 and 1.5 of the Built Form Policy require an awning over the footpath to

each street frontage of the site, to provide weather protection for pedestrians. The

Application does not propose an awning and no historical evidence has been found

to ascertain whether the façade originally incorporated an awning.

Landscaping

The Built Form Policy proposes alternative Deemed-to-Comply provisions for

landscaping, however, introduction of the provisions is subject to approval by the

Western Australian Planning Commission (‘WAPC’).


Upon approval, the Built Form Policy would require the development to incorporate

80 square metres of deep soil zone landscaping. The Application proposes over

100 square metres of landscaping, including 60 square metres in planter boxes,

together with vertical landscape elements exceeding 40 square metres.

The Application is accompanied by a Landscape Plan and Maintenance Schedule

prepared by a Certified Landscape Architect, as required by the Built Form Policy.

Refer Attachment 5 – Landscape Plan and Maintenance Schedule.

Environmentally Sustainable Design

Section 1.8 of the Built Form Policy introduces Design Principles to “augment” the

provisions of the RD Codes, but does not specify which Design Principles are

augmented. Section 1.8 also indicates the Design Principles apply to development

that is not subject to the RD Codes.

The proposed development is subject to the RD Codes and not therefore required to

consider the Design Principles set out at Section 1.8 of the Built Form Policy. Despite

this, the building is designed with the intent of being energy efficient, taking into

consideration the site’s context, the size of the project, and the effect of the retained

character facade. Further, as indicated in the Architectural Drawings, the dwellings

are designed to achieve cross-flow ventilation, natural daylight and access to

additional daylight via ‘light shafts.’ The accompanying Landscape Maintenance

Schedule also confirms that water-wise plants reticulated by drip flow irrigation will

be used in all planter boxes.

4.4 State Planning Policies The WAPC has adopted various State Planning Policies to guide land use decision-

making processes in Western Australia. The DAP must give due regard to any

relevant State Planning Policy when determining the Application. In addition to the

RD Codes (addressed above), the following State Planning Policy is relevant.

4.4.1 State Planning Policy 5.4 - Road and Rail Noise The WAPC is presently advertising draft ‘State Planning Policy 5.4 - Road and Rail

Noise’ (‘SPP5.4’) for public comment. Once adopted, SPP5.4 will replace the existing

State Planning Policy relating to road and rail transport noise.

Draft SPP5.4 applies to noise-sensitive land uses within the ‘trigger distances’ of road

and rail transport corridors. The site is within the ‘trigger distances’ of Graham

Farmer Freeway and Lord Street, meaning it is necessary to assess the proposal in

accordance with draft SPP5.4.

Draft SPP5.4 recommends that a preliminary assessment be undertaken, in the form

of a Noise Exposure Forecast Worksheet, to ascertain the level of noise exposure and

whether mitigation measures should be incorporated into a proposed development.


In accordance with draft SPP5.4, a Noise Exposure Forecast Worksheet has been

prepared for the Application.

Refer Attachment 6 – Noise Exposure Forecast Worksheet.

The Noise Exposure Forecast Worksheet finds the development will have a Noise

Exposure Forecast Level of 61 dB, resulting in the development being classed within

Exposure Category B. Noise-sensitive land uses are deemed acceptable within

Exposure Category B, subject to noise mitigation measures either in accordance with

an approved Noise Management Plan, or to satisfy the acoustic ratings applicable to

the Quiet House B standard of construction.

It is proposed to construct the development in accordance with Quiet House B. The

Application is therefore considered to satisfy the requirements of draft SPP5.4.

4.5 Strategic Planning Considerations In addition to the statutory planning considerations discussed above, the following

strategic planning documents are relevant to the Application.

4.5.1 Capital City Planning Framework The Final Report of the Capital City Planning Framework (‘CCPF’) was released by the

WAPC in February 2013.

The CCPF seeks to create a more compact and liveable city that provides adequate

places for high density living to accommodate a growing residential population and

reduce reliance on the private car.

The CCPF identifies the locality around Claisebrook Rail Station as a place with good

access to public transport (WAPC, February 2013, p.74), and states:

The capacity for practical access to transport will have a significant influence on the

experience residents have within central Perth; and on the economic and social

fabric of the city. As the number of city residents increases, being able to easily

move around by types of transport other than the car will become vitally important.

Access to high-frequency public transport is potentially the most important criterion

for the location of future density and intensity.

The CCPF proposes a spatial framework plan for central Perth, emphasising the plan

is “intended to identify strategic patterns for future development in the focus area,

particularly to highlight opportunities for appropriate intensified development.”

The Claisebrook Precinct is nominated as being within the Urban typology area,

where a diverse mix of uses is considered appropriate, as stated in the CCPF:

Predominantly mixed-use areas, with commercial and retail uses at lower building

floor levels and commercial or residential uses at upper levels.


Section 5.2.6 of the CCPF emphasises the importance of a well-connected city

centre, and identifies specific investigation areas around the edge of the city where

planning needs to “overcome barriers constraining the city centre and unlock the

potential of important surrounding areas.” One such area is the ‘Northern Edge’ of

the city centre, including the railway and freeway near Claisebrook Rail Station. In

describing the WAPC’s intended approach, the CCPF states:

These investigation areas are likely to become the focus for the next generation of

urban renewal and city building projects, where addressing planning issues may

yield diverse new urban places, improve connectivity and add to the civic qualities

of central Perth.

The CCPF is a relevant strategic planning consideration that promotes Claisebrook

Precinct as an area where further urban renewal to promote mixed-use, high density

residential development ought to be facilitated.

This Application is consistent with the CCPF’s vision for the Claisebrook Precinct.

4.5.2 Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million / Central Sub-Regional Planning Framework The WAPC released the ‘Perth & Peel at 3.5 Million’ suite of strategic planning

documents in May 2015, including the ‘Central Sub-Regional Planning Framework’

(‘CSRPF’). Although the CSRPF remains a draft document, the website of the WAPC

indicates the ‘Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million’ suite of strategic documents is presently

being finalised. As a draft strategic planning document that has been advertised for

comment, it is a ‘seriously entertained’ proposal that is relevant to the Application.

The CSRPF (Pages 11 and 12) lists the various matters that have been considered in

formulating the strategic spatial plan for the Central sub-region. These include:

• The need to contain urban development to minimise further sprawl;

• A review of land requirements for economic and employment opportunities; and

• The avoidance of land use conflicts by taking into account buffer requirements.

Chapter 4 of the CSRPF lists the urban consolidation elements of the spatial plan,

including activity centres, corridors, station precincts, and industrial centres. Relevant

elements of the draft CSRPF are as follows:

• Lord St is depicted as a ‘Corridor’ with a ‘High Quality Public Transport Network’;

• Claisebrook Station is shown as a ‘Passenger Railway Station’;

• The rail line forms the boundary of the Perth ‘Activity Centre - Core’;

• The subject site is within the ‘Frame’ of the Perth ‘Activity Centre’; and

• An ‘Industrial Centre’ is designated 300 metres to the east of the site, between

East Parade and the Swan River, north of the Graham Farmer Freeway.


The CSRPF (Page 24) describes the purpose of the ‘Frame’ around the Activity

Centre Core:

In addition to the core boundary, a ‘frame’ around each centre indicates areas that

should be investigated for higher residential densities. The frame area also provides

an area for potential expansion of the core boundary over time as a centre grows.

The frame is at least 200 metres around the core boundary (equivalent to the

walkable catchment as outlined in State Planning Policy 4.2 Activity Centres for

Perth and Peel) and contains predominantly residential land uses.

The core and frame of activity centres should be examined for opportunities to

increase residential densities when reviewing a local planning strategy, local

planning scheme and/or preparing an activity centre structure plan.

The purpose of the ‘Corridors’ is explained as follows (Page 25):

The framework supports the concept of transitioning key transport corridors into

multi-functional corridors that allow for efficient movement and high amenity... It

identifies corridors that should be the focus for investigating increased densities

and a greater mix of suitable land uses.

With respect to ‘Industrial Centres’, the Draft CSRPF (Page 34) seeks to avoid the

encroachment of residential and commercial development on the Industrial Centres

identified in the ‘Economic and Employment Lands Strategy’ (‘EELS’). The EELS

proposes an ‘Industrial Centre’ to the north-east of the intersection of East Parade

and Graham Farmer Freeway. The intent of the ‘Industrial Centre’ shown in EELS

(and reiterated in the CSRPF) is to provide an opportunity for industrial activities to

operate in close proximity to central Perth without conflicting with other land uses.

The site is located 400 metres to the west of the ‘Industrial Centre’ and neither EELS

nor the CSRPF identify the subject site or any other land in the Claisebrook Precinct

(including the sites of two temporary concrete batching plants) as being contained

within a designated ‘Industrial Centre’. Instead, the CSRPF earmarks the Claisebrook

Precinct for high density, transit oriented development.

This Application is therefore consistent with the strategic approach outlined by the

WAPC in the CSRPF, including (by reference) the EELS.


5.0 Conclusion This Application seeks approval to develop a four-storey mixed-use building at

No.123 Claisebrook Road, comprising 12 multiple dwellings and an office.

The development is consistent with the Urban zoning of the land under the MRS and

proposes ‘Preferred Uses’ in the Claisebrook Precinct of the EPRS. This means the

Application cannot be refused by reason of the proposed land uses.

The development satisfies the majority of relevant development standards under the

EPRS and the Deemed-to-Comply provisions of the RD Codes, as varied by the City’s

Built Form Policy. Variations are sought with respect to the following:

• Plot ratio;

• Reciprocal use of one car bay for residential visitor and office parking;

• Street setback for the upper floor of the building;

• Northern side boundary setback for the upper two floors of the building;

• The size and dimension of ten residential store rooms;

• The location of the visitor car parking bays within the secure car park; and

• The provision of a one-way vehicle access entry to Claisebrook Road.

All of the proposed variations satisfy the relevant corresponding Design Principles of

the RD Codes and / or Built Form Policy, and will not have an adverse impact on the

amenity of either future occupants or the surrounding locality.

The DAP has power pursuant to the EPRS and RD Codes to exercise discretion and

approve the proposed development. In this regard, the EPRS promotes mixed-use

development and empowers the DAP to take all reasonable steps to encourage the

residential use proposed by the Application.

The Application satisfies the requirements of draft SPP5.4 and is consistent with all

relevant strategic planning considerations.

In light of the above, approval of the Application is consistent with the orderly and

proper planning of the locality.


Figures

Figu

re 1

Regi

onal

Loc

atio

n

Ref

eren

ce00

26

Pro

ject

Pro

po

sed

Mix

ed U

se B

uild

ing

Ad

dre

ssLo

t 14

(No

.123

) Cla

iseb

roo

k R

oad

, Per

th

Dat

e18

Sep

tem

ber

201

7

Scal

eN

TS

Map

So

urce

Go

og

le M

aps

No

rth

Subj

ect S

ite

Figu

re 2

Loca

l Loc

atio

n

Ref

eren

ce00

26

Pro

ject

Pro

po

sed

Mix

ed U

se B

uild

ing

Ad

dre

ssLo

t 14

(No

.123

) Cla

iseb

roo

k R

oad

, Per

th

Dat

e18

Sep

tem

ber

201

7

Scal

eN

TS

Map

So

urce

Nea

r M

aps

Subj

ect S

ite

Stad

ium

Clai

sebr

ook

Stat

ion

East

Per

th S

tatio

n

East

Per

th T

erm

inal

Clai

sebr

ook

Cove

East

Per

th

TAFE

City

Far

m

St B

arth

olom

ew's

Lim

e St

To P

erth

Swan

Riv

er

Gla

dsto

ne

Squa

re

Sum

mer

s St

reet

Gra

ham

Far

mer

Fre

eway

East Parade

Claisebrook Road

Bus

Stop

(41,

42,

48

& 5

5)

East

Per

thPo

wer

Sta

tion

No

rth


Attachments


Attachment 1 Certificate of Title

Date post:	06-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngokhue
View:	220 times
Download:	5 times

The Categories of Uses are defined in Clause 5.3 of the ... daps/metro west jdap... · To promote...

Documents