NOTICE OF MEETING - Town of Claremont · 2019-09-17 · • A time limit of 3 minutes is allocated...

TOWN OF CLAREMONT

N O T I C E O F M E E T I N G

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an

ORDINARY Meeting of the Council will be held,

on TUESDAY 7 JULY, 2015, commencing at 7:00 PM

at the Town of Claremont, Claremont Council Chambers, 308 Stirling Highway,

Claremont.

Stephen Goode CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Date:

DISCLAIMER Would all members of the public please note that they are cautioned against taking any action as a result of a Council decision tonight until such time as they have seen a copy of the Minutes or have been advised, in writing, by the Council’s Administration with regard to any particular decision.

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 7 JULY, 2015

Page (i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO 1 DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS ............ 1

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE .......... 1

3 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS .................................................................. 1

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE . 1

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME .......................................................................... 1

6 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME ....................................................................... 1

7 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ............................................ 2

8 PETITIONS/DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS ........................................ 2

9 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS ..................... 2

10 ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC ......................................... 2

11 BUSINESS NOT DEALT WITH FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING ............... 2

12 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ..................................................................... 2

13 REPORTS OF THE CEO ............................................................................. 3

13.1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT .................................................. 3

13.1.1 LOTS 3 AND 4 (219) STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT - PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY CAR WASH FACILITY ........ 3

13.1.2 LOT 84 (27) FERN STREET, SWANBOURNE - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EXISTING APPROVAL TO REMOVE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS .......................................... 15

13.1.3 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 123 - PARKING PROVISIONS AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES ON PUBLIC PARKING AND BICYCLE PARKING ..................... 23

13.1.4 TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 3 HERITAGE SCHEDULE REVIEW ............................................................................... 37

13.2 PEOPLE AND PLACES ................................................................. 46

13.2.1 WRITE-OFF OLD LIBRARY DEBTS FOR CLAREMONT LIBRARY MEMBERS ........................................................... 46


Page (ii)

13.3 CORPORATE AND GOVERNANCE .............................................. 48

13.3.1 APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION OF LIMITATIONS OF NUMBER OF DOGS (DOG ACT 1976) ................................ 48

14 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING PERSON ............................... 51

15 ELECTED MEMBERS’ MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ............................................................................................. 52

15.1 NOTICE OF MOTION ..................................................................... 52

15.1.1 ASHTON AVENUE / STUBBS TERRACE TEMPORARY STORAGE DEPOT............................................................... 52

16 NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION OF MEETING ......................... 53

17 CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC ....................................................................... 54

17.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ....................................................... 54

17.1.1 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ........................................................ 54

17.2 CORPORATE AND GOVERNANCE .............................................. 55

17.2.1 CLAREMONT AQUATIC CENTRE CAFE LEASE ............... 55

18 FUTURE MEETINGS OF COUNCIL ......................................................... 56

19 DECLARATION OF CLOSURE OF MEETING ......................................... 56


Page 1

TOWN OF CLAREMONT

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

7 JULY, 2015

AGENDA

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

3 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Questions: • Questions are to be put to the Mayor. • Questions must be in writing and placed on the table near the Chamber doors

once presented. Questions sheets are available to assist you. Please speak to the Personal Assistant – Services if you require a photocopy.

• A time limit of 3 minutes is allocated to each person. • Responding to Questions:

Once a question is asked the Mayor may:

• Respond to the question asked; • Refer the question to an officer for response; • Take the question on notice, in which case a written response will be included

in the agenda papers in the next Council Meeting. 6 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME

Community Submissions: • Submissions are to be put to the Mayor; • Notice to speak must be provided in writing to the Chief Executive Officer by

noon on the day of the meeting; • The submission must be put prior to a decision being made on the matter by

Council. • A time limit of 5 minutes is allocated to each person.


Page 2

7 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

8 PETITIONS/DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS

9 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 16 June 2015 be confirmed.

10 ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

Item 17.1.1, Annual Performance Review of Chief Executive Officer.

Item 17.2.1, Claremont Aquatic Centre Cafe Lease.

11 BUSINESS NOT DEALT WITH FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING

12 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


Page 3

13 REPORTS OF THE CEO

13.1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

13.1.1 LOTS 3 AND 4 (219) STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT - PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY CAR WASH FACILITY

File Ref: A-3598/DA2015.00053 Attachments – Public: Location and Submission Plan

Photograph Submission Table

Attachments – Restricted: Plans

Submission Applicant’s Response to Submissions

Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development

Author: Nick Bakker Senior Planner

Proposed Meeting Date: 7 July 2015 Date Prepared: 16 June 2015 60 Days Due Date: 13 June 2015 Property Owner: Elleen Day Submitted By: Urbis Pty Ltd Area of Lot: 2,155m2 Zoning: Residential Enabling Legislation: Town Planning Scheme No.3 (TPS3)

Summary • Application for planning approval received for a car wash.

• The proposal involves the washing of four vehicles at a time (accommodated in the tunnel), a waiting area (accommodating 13-17 cars) and a shade structure (holding 12 cars) at the front of the property. This will accommodate up to 29-33 cars being cleaned on site.

• Customers will leave their cars in the queuing lanes and will wait in the cafe, which has a seating capacity of 30.

• The car wash is proposed operating hours of 8am to 6pm Monday seven days a week with a maximum of 12 staff proposed on site during peak hours. Eight staff and customer parking are proposed to the rear of the site.

• The proposal has been advertised for public comment and significant concerns have been raised in regard to potential noise impacts site layout and business operations, traffic and access, noise impacts and general amenity and health matters.


Page 4

• Concerns are also raised with regard to the use class permissibility of a car wash under TPS3

• It is recommended that the application be refused.

Purpose The application proposes a car wash on the subject site including the construction of a single storey building accommodating part of the car wash, a cafe/lounge and staff amenities. The application requires the Council’s determination due to neighbour objections.

Background The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal:

Date Item/Outcome 14 April 2015 Planning Application received by Council 22 April 2015 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment 23 April 2015 Additional information requested from applicant 7 May 2015 Advertising commenced 21 May 2015 Advertising closed 26 May 2015 Additional information received from applicant 4 June 2015 Applicant’s response to submissions received 18 June 2015 Report prepared for Council

Past Resolutions There are no past Council resolutions relevant to this application.

Heritage The property is not listed in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory of the TPS3 Schedule of Heritage Places.

Consultation The application was advertised in accordance with Local Planning Policy LG525. Fourteen neighbours were consulted and eight submissions were received. The submissions included a petition signed by eight surrounding residents and business owners. Concerns were raised in relation to the site layout and business operations, noise impacts, traffic and access and general amenity and health matters. A summary of and responses to these matters are addressed in the discussion below. The applicant has provided a detailed response addressing each of the concerns raised in the submissions. A full copy of the applicant’s response to the submission is included in the attachments. Metropolitan Region Scheme Metropolitan Region Scheme (Main Roads Referral) The subject site is located partially within a Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) reserve for ‘Primary Regional Road’ (PRR). Under the Planning and Development Act (PDA) MRS Instrument of Delegation (Del 2011/02), the Council has delegated authority to approve development within or adjacent to the Stirling Highway MRS reservation subject to any decision being consistent with the comment and recommendation of Main Roads WA (MRWA).


Page 5

The subject application has been referred to MRWA for comment. MRWA has advised that the proposed development is acceptable subject to the following conditions and advice notes: 1. No development or car parking other than landscaping shall be permitted on the

land as shown required for future road purposes on the enclosed extract of Drawing No. 1.7146.

2. The area required for future road purposes is not to be included in the specific car parking requirements for this development.

3. All vehicle access shall be restricted to and from Stirling Highway road reserve from the existing western crossover located at Lot 3. The existing eastern crossover located at Lot 4 shall be made redundant and removed at the applicant's cost. This single access point shall be Left-in and Left-out (LILO) only and clearly identified to show movement of vehicles 'in' and 'out' of the site.

4. No earthworks shall encroach onto the Stirling Highway road reserve. 5. No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Stirling Highway road

reserve. Advice to the applicant: 1. MRS major amendment 1210/41 proposes to decrease the land requirement as

shown on Drawing No. 1.7146. However, this is still subject to the completion of the amendment process. Further information on amendment 1210/41 is available on the Department of Planning's website at the following link: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/6242.asp

2. The project for the upgrading/widening of Stirling Highway is not in Main Roads’ current 4-year forward estimated construction program and all projects not listed are considered long term. Please be aware that timing information is subject to change and that Main Roads assumes no liability whatsoever for the information provided.

3. Main Roads advises there is the potential for the internal driveway access to become full and vehicles may then spill back onto Stirling Highway. This has the potential to reduce Stirling Highway to one lane in each direction causing disruptions to traffic flow and safety concerns.

4. LILO driveway design is needed as motorists wishing to exit the car wash and turn right to travel westbound on Stirling Highway may have difficulty in doing so. This may also cause queuing through the car wash. Additionally, if a vehicle is required to turn right into the car wash from Stirling Highway at the same time this may cause lengthy delays for motorists wishing to exit the car wash in turn increasing the likelihood of spillage onto Stirling Highway.

5. Consideration and contingencies actions may also be needed by the applicant, in the event that the car wash facility becomes full and additional vehicles cannot enter the site; i.e. temporarily closing access when the car wash facility is full until vehicles have cleared.

Further consideration is given to the implications of the above recommendations in the discussion section of this report.

http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/6242.asp


Page 6

Discussion Description The application proposes to demolish the existing two storey office building on the subject property in order to develop the site for a car wash. The car wash will be a single storey stand-alone building which will be constructed up to the eastern boundary and extend to the centre of the site. The eastern portion of the building will house the main car wash tunnel, washing equipment and storage area. The central building will include a cafe’/lounge with 30 seat capacity, office, a staff toilet and a public toilet. The proposed car wash will have a maximum of 12 staff on site during the proposed trading hours. The applicant has advised that up to 29-33 vehicles may be cleaned on site at any one time inclusive of a 13-17 vehicle queuing area. Customers will enter the site through the existing crossover to the west and park in the queuing bays where they will select and pay for their service. A cafe and lounge is provided on site where customers will wait while their vehicles are being serviced. The Cafe has a capacity of 30 seats. The proposed operating hours are 8am to 6pm seven days a week and there will be no after hours self service provided. Compliance - Permitted Land Use There is no use class definition of ‘Car Wash’ (or similar) in TPS3. Clause 14(5) states if a use ‘is not included in the general terms of any of the Use Classes that use shall be deemed to be prohibited’. Legal advice sought by the Town states that a use falling within the “general terms” of a use class is consistent with the notion that the process of use class classification requires a ‘best fit’ approach. The applicant has submitted legal advice stating that the proposed car wash would fall within the definition of ‘Service Trade’, which is defined in TPS3 as ‘any part of any land or building used for the repair, servicing or maintenance of goods, generally of a readily portable nature, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes the premises of a boot maker and a bicycle repair shop’. The advice goes on to explain that while a car wash may not be considered similar in nature to a bookmaker or bicycle repair shop, it still however falls within the general terms of the Service Trade definition, and therefore clause 14(5) does not apply in this case. To the contrary, the Town’s legal advice explains that consideration needs to be given to whether any other use class in TPS3 is a ‘better fit’ for a car wash use. The advice indentifies ‘Depot’ as the best fit. TPS3 defines the use class ‘Depot’ as ‘any part of any land or building used for the maintenance or storage (in the course of transfer from place to place or otherwise) of vehicles, goods or materials of any kind including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, a builder’s yard. The word does not include a warehouse.’ As detailed above, a car wash involves ‘maintenance’ of vehicles. Therefore a car wash fits within the general terms of the ‘Depot’ use class. The issue of which is the better fit for the use ‘Service Trade’ or ‘Depot’ is of utmost importance to this application. Within the Highway zone a ‘Service Trade’ is permitted


Page 7

‘P’ use, whereas a ‘Depot’ is a not permitted ‘X’ use. As the Depot use class refers explicitly to vehicles, it is considered that it is a better fit for a car wash than the Service Trade use class which uses the more general term of ‘goods’. Based on the legal advice provided by the Town’s solicitors, and given the specifics of the above use definitions, it is considered that the ‘Depot’ use class is a better fit for a car wash than ‘Service Trade’. Therefore the proposed car wash is an ‘X’ use under Clause 14(3) of TPS3 and is not permitted within the Highway zone. Given that the use class determination is a matter which may be subject to review by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), assessment and determination of this application should also take into account other provisions of the Scheme, in particular amenity impacts of the proposal. It is noted that a mechanical car wash business operates from 232 Stirling Highway. This business operates entirely within the Primary Regional Road reservation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and is therefore not subject to the provisions of TPS3 and the above land use interpretation. Site Layout and Business Operations The following is a summary of the key concerns raised during the consultation period in relation to the operation of the business:

• The orientation of the north/south tunnel system will result in vehicles stacking up to the northern end of the site bounded by residential properties.

• The proposed 3m high screens abutting the north of the site will impact the access to sunlight on adjoining properties.

• The acoustic wall should be setback from the boundaries abutting residential properties.

• The development does not specify types of proposed cleaning systems which is required to ascertain the output of noise, waste, vibration that may impact on neighbours.

• The trading hours are considered too long.

Applicant comments: “The Magic Hand business model is based on efficiency. Customers will arrive at the site via the western most crossover from Stirling Highway and park in the designated queuing bays. At this point vehicles will either continue straight through to the car wash tunnel for service or will be parked in the queuing lanes until they are serviced. Unlike self-service/coin operated car washes, customers will not be waiting in their vehicles and therefore cars will not sit idling for any prolonged period. The structure and configuration of the wash tunnel results in the washing of vehicles being undertaken within confines of the tunnel. This results in limited potential for spray drift due to the physical barriers and limitations. There have been no instances of spray drift impacting on adjoining properties at any of the established Magic Hand sites.


Page 8

It is acknowledged that there are level differences between the subject site and the adjoining properties to the west. Whilst overshadowing is a key planning consideration, the proposed 3.0 metre height acoustic wall will not result in any overshadowing above that permitted under the provisions of the Residential Design Codes. There is no mechanical detail included on the plans as the proposal is for a manual (hand) car wash. Whilst there is some minor mechanical equipment used to assist the service delivery, the predominant service is undertaken manually. The daily activities of the proposed manual car wash will involve vehicles being washed by hand using equipment limited to a central ducted vacuum cleaner, high pressure cleaners and hoses, hand held buff machine and an extraction clean unit. Equipment will be stored within the proposed equipment room and the hand held buff and steam clean unit will be used within the centralised cleaning bays. This equipment is considered to be “light” in nature and does not involve large commercial equipment that is required for automatic car washes. The proposed car wash will operate between 8am – 6pm, 7 days a week (excluding public holidays when the business will be closed). These hours are considered to be consistent with surrounding business hours and will have substantially less of an impact on nearby residential properties than a 24/7 self-service car wash (like that existing at No.232 Stirling Highway, Claremont). The car wash will not become a 24/7 hour car wash due to the explicit nature of the business model. Furthermore, the applicant is accepting of any conditions of approval relating to operating hours.” Officer comments: The applicant states that the car wash tunnel will contain much of the noise and spray drift within the tunnel and that the impact on the surrounding residents will be minimal. The applicant states that the tunnel door will remain open during operating hours of the car wash. This may not sufficiently address the concerns associated with potential noise and spray drift – see detailed comments on noise below. On the other hand if the tunnel door was to open and close as every vehicle enters from the northern opening, this could result in increased noise impacts on the surrounding residents. It is also considered that the proposed car wash opening hours of 8am – 6pm, 7 days a week to be excessive considering the nature of the use and the concerns raised by the surrounding residents. It is therefore recommended that if the application is approved that the hours be limited to 8am – 6pm Monday to Friday, 9am - 5pm Saturdays and closed on Sundays. The proposed 3m high sound barrier abutting the western and northern boundaries is considered to be an essential aspect of preserving the amenity of the neighbouring residents. Although these walls will significantly reduce the noise impacts on the residential properties, they are much higher than a standard 1.8m dividing fence and have the potential to impact on neighbour amenity relative to the bulk and scale of the walls. This is of particular concern relative to the properties at 28A Walter Road and 3/30 Walter Road which have their main outdoor living areas backing onto the


Page 9

common boundary and a lower ground level (resulting in a wall approximately 4-4.5m in height when viewed from these properties). It is noted that cl.37A of TPS3 contains a 5m set back requirement for vehicular access ways from adjoining residential properties. The site plan shows the western-most queuing lane setback 3m from the side boundary. This setback is non-discretionary and would effectively require the removal of the western-most vehicle queuing lane, or alternatively redesign the building and tunnel structure. Noise Impacts The following is a summary of the key concerns raised during the consultation period in relation to the operation of the business:

• The roller door on the northern end of the tunnel will be constantly open during opening hours and noise will be funnelled northwards towards residents.

• Significant noise will be generated by machinery and from vehicle related noise (i.e. shutting of car doors, people talking/yelling, cars revving etc.), which will impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential properties.

• The proposed acoustic fence will do little to mitigate noise levels. There are no details of the wall and the dimensions and materials should be negotiable.

Applicants Comments: “Although some level of noise will be associated with the operation, the key item is whether noise levels could be managed so as not to exceed those which could reasonably be anticipated in a commercial/mixed use setting. An Acoustic Assessment has been undertaken by Watson Moss Growcott Noise Consultants which has determined that through appropriate mitigation methods as incorporated into many commercial developments, the proposed activity will meet relevant noise standards. It should be noted that regardless, the proposal is required under separate legislation to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. The northern roller door is proposed to be open during opening hours to undertake the service of vehicles. As detailed above, the machinery is ‘light’ in nature and does not use large commercial equipment which would generate significant more noise. In addition, the car wash will only operate during standard work hours which would ensure that adjoining properties are not exposed to any undue noise impacts afterhours. To further assist in addressing any impacts of noise on adjoining residential properties, an acoustic wall extending between 2.2 – 3.0 metres high will be constructed along the boundaries (north and west) and of the site which will ultimately reduce the noise level received at adjoining properties, ensuring compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. The materials and details of this noise wall will be determined at the building permit stage and will be consistent with recommendations made within Section 8.2 of the Acoustic Report”


Page 10

Officer comments: The acoustic report was reviewed by the Town’s health officer. Significant concerns were identified and further modelling of the sound impacts were required. The applicant has submitted a revised acoustic report and the Town’s health officer has provided the following comments and recommendations:

“The report outlines the predicted decibel levels that would be received at a noise sensitive premises both with and without acoustic barriers and attenuation (e.g. – rear doors closed).

The report demonstrates the predicted values of the combined sound received at the residential premises to be below the estimated assigned levels as set in Table 1 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, being 49dB with influencing factors accounted for (+9dB) (e.g. – background contributing noise).

The levels that are predicted to be received at the noise sensitive premises with all acoustic barriers and attenuation installed (proposed barrier walls on boundary and noise attenuation walls on building) vary with 46dB as the lowest level and 48dB as the highest. The dwellings with the higher levels predicted are 30 Walter Street, 10,12,14 Smith Street and the first floor apartment at 25-37 Brown Street, these predicted levels account for all equipment and at the entry opening.

The report does not acknowledge the noise associated with human sources (voice), being the staff at the facility. As with other facilities run by Magic Hands, the level of shouting observed by staff communicating with each other significantly adds to the overall impact of noise. This will affect the predicted levels and a considerable quantity of complaints are expected to related to noise from human voice.

Furthermore it is reasonable to expect that the business will operate at its peak on Sunday when significantly lower traffic levels on Stirling Highway reduce the level of background “white noise”. This is expected to result in greater impacts on neighbours where it is reasonable to expect residents will suffer a greater level of discomfort due to the reduced background noise.

While it is acknowledged that the predicted value falls below that of the assigned levels, it is prudent to expect that this modelling hasn’t factored in a suitable error ratio. It is considered that a factor of 1dB under the assigned levels is not sufficient to be considered for approval.

Recommendations:

This department does not recommend approval for reasons following:

• The predicted noise level of 48dB, is 1dB under the assigned level and it is reasonable to assume that the estimated value is incorrect as no error ratio has been included. The estimated value may have a +/-1dB or greater variance factoring in error, resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

• The report does not factor the impact of human voice which considerably impacts on perception of noise and adds to the overall level of noise


Page 11

generated and is often the greater source of noise complaints and therefore the +/-1dB variance will be affected adversely.

• The reduction in traffic on Stirling Highway on Sundays will have a significant impact on lowering background white noise. In addition to the expected higher patron numbers (as demonstrated at other locations) and higher level of vehicle noise associated with the facility, this will have a higher level of noise impact (both perceived and actual) on the residential properties resulting in higher rates of complaints received.”

Traffic and Access The following is a summary of the key concerns raised during the consultation period in relation to the operation of the business:

• There are no details as to where employees will park their cars.

• The introduction of a car wash will generate more traffic and the business proposes too many employees which will add to congestion on the roads.

• There are no details of expected traffic through the facility and how this will affect traffic flow on Stirling Highway and the surrounding area. There is already enough congestion within the local area, particularly during peak periods (before 10am and after 3pm).

Applicant Comments: Based on the business model and nature of the car wash operations, all customer cars will be parked within the stacking lanes. Therefore, the car bays to the rear of the site are likely to cater to employees and the odd customer who may be collecting someone whilst their car is being serviced. Due to the available space within these stacking lanes for customer’s vehicles, there is considered to be sufficient car parking to cater to the development and its employees. The car wash will operate whereby customers visiting the site will drop off their car in one of the allocated car bays for washing by staff and then collect their vehicle after servicing is completed. This type of activity and service provided will not generate any queuing lines of cars or the interruption to the normal traffic flow of the car park which is often experienced at automatic car washes. A Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by Transcore Traffic Consultants, consistent with the requirements of the WAPC Transport Assessment Guidelines for Development. The previous use generated approximately 67 daily vehicle trips, with 13 of these being during the peak weekday period. The proposed car wash is expected to generate approximately 45 additional vehicle trips on the road network. Under the WAPC Transport Assessment Guidelines, an increase in traffic of less than 10 per cent of capacity is not considered to have any material impact on any particular section of road. As the proposal only generates an additional 45 vehicle trips per day, traffic flows will not increase anywhere near the quoted WAPC threshold and is therefore not considered to have any material impact on the local road network, and more specifically on the function of Stirling Highway.


Page 12

Further to the above, the proposal will result in a net reduction of -2 vehicles per hour during the afternoon peak period which is an improved peak period scenario. Officer comments: Further to the applicant’s comments above they have also provided a Traffic Impact Statement prepared by Transcore Traffic Consultants. The Town’s Engineering Department has advised as follows: “Comments on capacity of the site Post-development trip generation volumes as provided within the development application’s Transport Statement are based upon the RTA NSW Guide to Traffic Generating Development document. This is the most common method for the type of development in question. Accurate data for this type of development is fairly scarce in WA as no traffic generation database is available for general use. Projected customer numbers are based upon hand car wash developments of a similar type and appear reasonable. Therefore the vehicle capacity as provided within the development application is deemed satisfactory. Comments on traffic impact: Projected increase in usage is less than 10 percent of the capacity of any adjacent lane. As site capacity has been deemed sufficient, any traffic impact has been deemed insignificant. MRWA have provided the Town with their conditional approval for this development in accordance with a number of conditions including but not limited to, restricting access to left-in left-out only, removal of one crossover reducing access and egress to the site to a single crossover, and facilities to close access to the site should it reach capacity to prevent vehicle overspill onto Stirling Highway. The required changes can be accommodated by the developer, however this will require significant redesign. Reassessment of capacities and traffic impact will need to be completed should the developer choose to continue with the proposed development once the MRWA requirements have been met.” Health Impacts The following is a summary of the key concerns raised during the consultation period in relation to the impact on amenity and health concerns:

• Vehicle exhaust fumes from queuing vehicles will significantly impact neighbouring houses.

• Health concerns with respect to recycled water, detergents, “paint protection” and any improper maintenance of the system.

• The water particles containing cleaning detergents and other possible bacteria and dirt will blow onto surrounding houses.

Applicant Comments: Cars will only be at the queuing area for a few minutes, at this point the car will be switched off and the keys handed to the operator. Any additional cars that come onto the site will be in a holding position for no more than a few minutes. As a result, the


Page 13

car exhaust fumes will not have any significantly impact on the neighbouring properties as this is no different to other similar businesses such as a Service Station which is a use which can be permitted within the Highway zone. The products used to clean the vehicles are classified as non-dangerous goods by the criteria of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code and are safe for use. These products have been used by the brand for over 20 years with exposure and correct handling resulting in no health accidents or risks. The use of recycled water does not pose any environmental or health and safety risk. The proposed units have been used by the brand with auditing of recycled water passing minimum standards. The water recycling system that is used is a common unit used throughout the industry and satisfies all health and environmental requirements. We are prepared to conduct tests on site to demonstrate the safety of recycled water. The potential for water particles to blow onto surrounding houses is substantially reduced as a result of the washing of vehicles occurring within the tunnel. Notwithstanding, all water and washing products meet necessary health and Environmental Protection Authority requirements and would therefore pose no health risk to occupants of nearby dwellings. The chemicals that are used are considered to be non-toxic and have no adverse health effects if handled in accordance with the safety data. The washing chemical is used at 100.1 dilution with water, has no particular hazard to the environment and are readily biodegradable. Officer comments: The applicant has provided a comprehensive response in relation to the potential health impacts and spray drift associated with the car wash. The Town is satisfied that any potential for adversely impacting the surrounding area in terms of the above, can easily be prevented and or resolved if any health risks were to arise.

Conclusion It is recommended that the application be refused on the basis of the proposed use being a prohibited use in the Highway zone. The proposal does not comply with TPS3 setback requirements for the queuing lane and has the potential to adversely impact on amenity of the surrounding residential properties by way of noise and building bulk.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION THAT Council refuse the proposed car wash facility at Lots 3 and 4 (219) Stirling Highway, Claremont, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use is more suitably defined as a ‘Depot’ use under Town

Planning Scheme No.3 which is a prohibited use in the Highway zone. 2. The development does not comply with Clause 77 of Town Planning

Scheme No. 3 as it is considered to have significant potential to impact on neighbouring residential amenity in terms of noise exposure, together with an unreasonable bulk impact resulting from the proposed 3m high


Page 14

acoustic wall which adjoins two smaller outdoor living areas at 28A and 3/30 Walter Road.

3. The western most queuing lane is not setback 5m from the western side boundary as required by Clause 37A of Town Planning Scheme No. 3.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

LOTS 3 AND 4 (219) STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT - PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY CAR

WASH FACILITY

LOCATION AND SUBMISSION PLAN

7 JULY 2015

ATTACHMENT 1 – PUBLIC

PAGES 1

Lots 3 & 4 (219) Stirling Highway, Claremont

General Location: Lots 3 & 4 (219) Stirling Highway, Claremont (Source UBD 2011)

Local Location: Lots 3 & 4 (219) Stirling Highway, Claremont

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED REGARDING Lots 3 & 4 (219) Stirling Highway, Claremont

(Subject lot in black)

OBJ indicates a submission of OBJECTION was received. SUP indicates a submission of SUPPORT was received. CON indicates a submission of CONCERN was received.

NR indicates a submission was not received

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – 7 JULY 2015

hlofthouse

Polygon

hlofthouse

Objection

hlofthouse

Objection

hlofthouse

Objection

hlofthouse

Objection

hlofthouse

Objection

hlofthouse

Objection

hlofthouse

Objection

hlofthouse

Objection

hlofthouse

Callout

3 objections from petition

hlofthouse

Callout


hlofthouse

Callout




WASH FACILITY

PHOTOGRAPH

7 JULY 2015


PAGES 1

Lots 3 & 4 (219) Stirling Highway,

Claremont

Lots 3 & 4 (219) Stirling Highway, Claremont




WASH FACILITY

SUBMISSION TABLE

7 JULY 2015


PAGES 12

1 of 12

Submission Schedule Proposed Car Wash at Lots 3 and 4 (219) Stirling Highway

Submissions Received

Address: 10 Smith Street, Claremont Submission Applicant Comment Officer Comment • The plans do not outline the

specific type of proposed cleaning systems which is required to ascertain the output of noise, waste and vibration that may disturb local residents.

• There are no details of expected

traffic through the facility and how this will effect traffic flow on Stirling Highway and the surrounding area.

• There is no mechanical detail included

on the plans as the proposal is for a manual (hand) car wash. Whilst there is some minor mechanical equipment used to assist the service delivery, the predominant service is undertaken manually.

• A Traffic Impact Statement has been

prepared by Transcore Traffic Consultants, consistent with the requirements of the WAPC Transport Assessment Guidelines for Development. The previous use generated approximately 67 daily vehicle trips, with 13 of these being during the peak weekday period. The proposed car wash is expected to generate approximately 45 additional vehicle trips on the road network. Under the WAPC Transport Assessment Guidelines, an increase in traffic of less than 10 per cent of capacity is not considered to have any material impact on any particular section of road. As the proposal only generates an additional 45 vehicle trips per day, traffic flows will not increase anywhere

1. The Town’s health officer has assessed

the acoustic reports submitted by the applicant and recommended that the application be refused – see details in report and point 7 below. Please also refer to comments in points 4 and 7 below relating to noise and the proposed acoustic wall.

2. As indicated in the report, the Town’s Engineering Department has reviewed the Traffic Impact Statement and concluded that the proposal is acceptable on traffic grounds. Post-development trip generation volumes as provided within the development application’s Transport Statement are based upon the RTA NSW Guide to Traffic Generating Development document. This is the most common method for the type of development in question. Accurate data for this type of development is fairly scarce in WA as no traffic generation database is available for general use.

Projected customer numbers are based upon hand car wash developments of a similar type and appear reasonable. Therefore the vehicle capacity as

2 of 12

• There are no details of where the

facilities staff (my estimation of 12) will park and how this will affect the local area – particularly Smith Street that is short parking at present.

• There is limited information

available regarding a proposed 3m high fence along my boundary with the facility and a condition that I’d like placed on the proposed development is that the fence dimension and materials is negotiable.

near the quoted WAPC threshold and is therefore not considered to have any material impact on the local road network, and more specifically on the function of Stirling Highway.

• Based on the business model and

nature of the car wash operations, all customer cars will be parked within the stacking lanes. Therefore, the car bays to the rear of the site are likely to cater to employees and the odd customer who may be collecting someone whilst their car is being serviced. Due to the available space within these stacking lanes for customer’s vehicles, there is considered to be sufficient car parking to cater to the development and its employees.

• The materials and details of this noise wall will be determined at the building permit stage and will be consistent with recommendations made within Section 8.2 of the Acoustic Report

provided within the development application is deemed satisfactory. Revisions to the site plan to address MRWA requirements will need to be undertaken if the application is approved.

3. The proposed car wash will have a maximum of 12 staff on site during the proposed trading hours. There are 8 bays at the rear of the site allocated for staff and visitor parking. It is also noted the site is served by good public transport links and it is therefore reasonable to accept the provision of 8 bays to accommodate the staff.

4. The proposed 3m high acoustic walls abutting the western and northern boundaries are considered to be an essential aspect of preserving the amenity of the neighbouring residents. Although these walls will significantly reduce the noise impacts on the residential properties, they are much higher than a standard 1.8m dividing fence and have the potential to impact on neighbour amenity relative to the bulk and scale of the walls. If approved a condition will be place on the approval that the acoustic walls are constructed to the satisfaction of the adjoining land owners and the Town.

3 of 12

Address: 2/30 Walter Street, Claremont

• There is a concern about the number of cars which would enter on the western boundary and sit with engines running.

• I would like to know more about the chemicals to be used. This company applies "paint protection" and I do not know about the safety of the products used, nor the safety of the recycled water.

• The proposed facility will use vacuums which may be noisy, and there will possibly be sprays blowing on to neighbouring properties.

• The car wash will operate whereby

customers visiting the site will drop off their car in one of the allocated car bays for washing by staff and then collect their vehicle after servicing is completed. This type of activity and service provided will not generate any queuing lines of cars or the interruption to the normal traffic flow of the car park which is often experienced at automatic car washes.

• The products used to clean the

vehicles are classified as non-dangerous goods by the criteria of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code and are safe for use. These products have been used by the brand for over 20 years with exposure and correct handling resulting in no health accidents or risks.

• Although some level of noise will be

associated with the operation, the key item is whether noise levels could be managed so as not to exceed those which could reasonably be anticipated in a commercial/mixed use setting. An Acoustic Assessment has been undertaken by Watson Moss Growcott Noise Consultants which has determined that through appropriate mitigation methods as incorporated

5. Vehicles will not be left with their engines

running whilst in the waiting lane – they will be progressively moved along the queue. It is also noted that Cl.37A of TPS3 contains a 5m setback requirement for vehicular access ways from adjoining residential properties. Therefore the proposal is not permitted with the setback currently shown. This additional setback will require modifications to the site plan and proposed building if the development is approved.

6. The Town’s health officer has

commented on these matters in the report and is satisfied that the use will not be using toxic chemical and all chemicals are classified as non-dangerous.

7. The noise levels that are predicted to be received at the noise sensitive premises with all acoustic barriers and attenuation installed (proposed barrier walls on boundary and noise attenuation walls on building) vary with 46dB as the lowest level and 48dB as the highest. The dwellings with the higher levels predicted are 30 Walter Street, 10, 12 & 14 Smith Street and the first floor apartment at 25-37 Brown Street, these predicted levels

4 of 12

into many commercial developments, the proposed activity will meet relevant noise standards. It should be noted that regardless, the proposal is required under separate legislation to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

account for all equipment and at the entry opening. As recommended by the Town’s health officer, a number of concerns have been identified in the acoustic report and it is recommended that the application be refused due to noise concerns.

Address: • 3/30 Walter Road, Claremont • Between our house and the

fence we have a number of mature fruit trees which will be very sensitive to any toxic material which will inevitably enter our property from the adjoining car wash facilities.

• The products used to clean the

vehicles are classified as non-dangerous goods by the criteria of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code and are safe for use. These products have been used by the brand for over 20 years with exposure and correct handling resulting in no health accidents or risks. The chemicals that are used are considered to be non-toxic and have no adverse health impacts if handled in accordance with the safety data. The washing chemical is used at 100:1 dilution with water, has no particular hazard to the environment and are readily biodegradable. The submitter has not provided any reason as to why or how the proposed acoustic wall will impact on the neighbours adjoining fruit trees. The acoustic wall will not have any impacts on the adjoining properties with respect to overshadowing or privacy and therefore there is no requirement for it to be setback from the boundary.

8. The Town’s health officer has assessed

the comprehensive response from the applicant and confirmed that the Town is satisfied that the any potential for adversely impacting the surrounding area can easily be prevented and or resolved if any health risks were to arise. The Town’s Manager Parks and Environment has confirmed that the dilution levels of the chemicals used in the cleaning solutions will not impact the health of the fruit trees.

9. The acoustic wall height is of particular concern relative to the properties at 28A and 3/30 Walter Road which have their main outdoor living areas backing onto the common boundary and a lower ground level (resulting in a wall approximately 4-4.5m in height when viewed from these properties).

5 of 12

• Between Walter Street and

Brown Street Lots 3 and 4 Stirling Highway are unique in that they intrude into a residential area to the north. The other commercial uses between our property and Stirling Highway are not noise producing and accordingly our house is situated in an area which at present is free of objectionable noise and other nuisances.

• I am strongly of the view that the

introduction of the proposed car wash facility on the north side of the highway will add to that traffic congestion.

• Although some level of noise will be associated with the operation, the key item is whether noise levels could be managed so as not to exceed those which could reasonably be anticipated in a commercial/mixed use setting. An Acoustic Assessment has been undertaken by Watson Moss Growcott Noise Consultants which has determined that through appropriate mitigation methods as incorporated into many commercial developments, the proposed activity will meet relevant noise standards. It should be noted that regardless, the proposal is required under separate legislation to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

• The car wash will operate whereby

customers visiting the site will drop off their car in one of the allocated car bays for washing by staff and then collect their vehicle after servicing is completed. This type of activity and service provided will not generate any queuing lines of cars or the interruption to the normal traffic flow of the car park which is often experienced at automatic car washes. A Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by Transcore Traffic

Again if the application is approved a conditional will be places on the approval let to address the neighbours concerns in this regard.

10. The applicant has outlined that there will be a 3m high sound wall constructed along the rear boundary. See points 1, 4 and 7 for further comments on noise impacts above.

11. The Town’s Engineering Department has assessed the Traffic Impact Statement Post-development trip generation volumes as provided within the development application’s Transport Statement are based upon the RTA NSW Guide to Traffic Generating Development document. This is the most common method for the type of development in question. Accurate data for this type of development is fairly scarce in WA as no traffic generation database is available for general use.

6 of 12

• The area does not need a

second car wash. There is already an established car wash on the south side of Stirling Highway opposite Walter Street.

Consultants, consistent with the requirements of the WAPC Transport Assessment Guidelines for Development.

The previous use generated approximately 67 daily vehicle trips, with 13 of these being during the peak weekday period. The proposed car wash is expected to generate approximately 45 additional vehicle trips on the road network. Under the WAPC Transport Assessment Guidelines, an increase in traffic of less than 10 per cent of capacity is not considered to have any material impact on any particular section of road. As the proposal only generates an additional 45 vehicle trips per day, traffic flows will not increase anywhere near the quoted WAPC threshold and is therefore not considered to have any material impact on the local road network, and more specifically on the function of Stirling Highway. Further to the above, the proposal will result in a net reduction of -2 vehicles per hour during the afternoon peak period which is an improved peak period scenario.

• It is acknowledged that there is an existing car wash at No.232 Stirling Highway, Claremont. It should be noted however that this car wash is an automatic/self-service car wash which operates substantially different to the

MRWA have provided the Town with their conditional approval for this development in accordance with a number of conditions including but not limited to, restricting access to left-in left-out only, removal of one crossover reducing access and egress to the site to a single crossover, and facilities to close access to the site should it reach capacity to prevent vehicle overspill onto Stirling Highway. The required changes can be accommodated by the developer, however this will require significant redesign. Reassessment of capacities and traffic impact will need to be completed should the developer choose to continue with the proposed development once the MRWA requirements have been met.

12. Competition matters are not relevant planning considerations. It is noted that a mechanical car wash business operates from 232 Stirling Highway. This business operates entirely within the Primary Regional Road reservation

7 of 12

proposed manual car wash. Unlike the car wash at No.232 Stirling Highway, the proposed car wash will not operate 24 hours a day, is fully staffed during trade hours to control any off-site impacts such as noise and attracts a much smaller volume of customers and vehicles compared to that of an automatic/self-service operation due to the higher price point and level of service offered.

under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and is therefore not subject to the provisions of TPS3 and the above land use interpretation.

Address: • 17 Smith Street, Claremont • Very long trading hours.

• Sound from machinery will travel

to all surrounding houses, with little reprieve.

• The water particles containing cleaning detergents and other possible bacteria and dirt will

• The proposed car wash will operate

between 8-am – 6pm, 7 days a week (excluding public holidays when the business will be closed). These hours are considered to be consistent with surrounding business hours and will have substantially less of an impact on nearby residential properties than a 24/7 self-service car wash (like that existing at No.232 Stirling Highway, Claremont). The car wash will not become a 24/7 hour car wash due to the explicit nature of the business model. Furthermore, the applicant is accepting of any conditions of approval relating to operating hours.

• The applicant has discussed noise

impacts in detail above in relation to No.10 Smith Street

• The potential for water particles to blow

onto surrounding houses is substantially reduced as a result of the

13. It is noted that the proposed trading

hours of 8am to 6pm seven days a week were excessive. If the application is approved it is recommended that the trading hours are significantly reduced. For example hours of 8am to 6pm on weekdays, 9am to 5pm on Saturdays and closed Sundays.

14. See points 1, 4 & 7 above.

15. The Town’s health officer has assessed the comprehensive response from the

8 of 12

blow onto surrounding houses.

• Vehicle exhaust fumes will

significantly impact neighbouring houses.

washing of vehicles occurring within the tunnel. Notwithstanding, all water and washing products meet necessary health and Environmental Protection Authority requirements and would therefore pose no health risk to occupants of nearby dwellings. The chemicals that are used are considered to be non-toxic and have no adverse health effects if handled in accordance with the safety data. The washing chemical is used at 100.1 dilution with water, has no particular hazard to the environment and are readily biodegradable.

• Cars will only be at the queuing area

for a few minutes, at this point the car will be switched off and the keys handed to the operator. Any additional cars that come onto the site will be in a holding position for no more than a few minutes. As a result, the car exhaust fumes will not have any significantly impact on the neighbouring properties as this is no different to other similar businesses such as a Service Station which is a use which can be permitted within the Highway zone.

applicant and confirmed that the Town is satisfied that the any potential for adversely impacting the surrounding area can easily be prevented and or resolved if any health risks were to arise.

16. The applicant’s comments are noted and it is considered the emission will not be significant given the location of the property in relation to the Highway which already generates substantially greater emissions.

Address: 220 Stirling Highway, Claremont The owner of this property has wanted it noted that they do not object to the proposal but request Council consider the following. • Request Council to exercise

• No comment was provided in this

17. Noted

9 of 12

particular care to ensure that any redevelopment at 219 Stirling Highway does not have a negative impact on the heritage listed buildings on 220 and 222 Stirling Highway, and the new office building constructed to the rear on 220.

• The office building on the site has

remained vacant for approximately 2 years, and in the present economic climate, the prospects for letting the old building are probably not good.

• The owners of 219 Stirling

Highway should not be allowed by the Council to prejudice the interests of owners nearby.

• Furthermore, there can be no

certainty that the car wash use will be short term. If the approval is not to be time-limited, then the Council should exercise particular care to ensure that it will be compatible with other developments and uses in the locality, and the amenity of the locality in the long term.

regard. • No comment was provided in this

regard • No comment was provided in this

regard • It is not considered appropriate to

put a time-frame on any approval on the basis that strategic planning for the locality may change into the future. Furthermore, the operators are investing substantial money on landscaping and site improvements which will result in an overall improvement to the site within the context of the streetscape and immediate surrounds. The application is to be determined on its merits and against the current planning framework.

18. Noted

19. Noted. The recommendation to Council takes into account the assessed amenity impacts of the proposed development.

20. The development is a low cost facility which preserves long term redevelopment options. The state government and the Town is progressing the Stirling Highway Study to examine the potential for redevelopment of the properties along the Highway to address long term population growth. The long term redevelopment options for the site will not be prejudiced by approval of the application as economic factors will drive any future redevelopment of the site. Whereas the any approval may have a condition limiting the length of the approval, this is not considered necessary in this instance.

10 of 12

Address: 215 Stirling Highway, Claremont

• There is no magic in this car wash despite its name. It is an old fashioned tunnel system that relies on hand finishing (straight out of the 1960’s). It uses no modern car wash technology.

• The roller door on the northern

end of the tunnel will be constantly open, during opening hours and only closed when the business shuts.

• There is no mechanical detail in the plan.

• The tunnel system uses modern

technology, for example electrical motors are governed by VFD’s (variable frequency drivers). These devices enable Magic Hand to regulate the electrical motors, running at less than capacity making the operation efficient and using less power, yet operating the equipment at the level required.

• The northern roller door is proposed to

be open during opening hours to undertake the service of vehicles. As detailed above, the machinery is ‘light’ in nature and does not use large commercial equipment which would generate significant more noise. In addition, the car wash will only operate during standard work hours which would ensure that adjoining properties are not exposed to any undue noise impacts afterhours.

• There is no mechanical detail included

on the plans as the proposal is for a manual (hand) car wash. Whilst there is some minor mechanical equipment used to assist the service delivery, the predominant service is undertaken manually.

21. The technology proposed to be used in

the business is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this application, other than in relation to its resulting amenity impacts.

22. The concerns associated with potential noise and spray drift have been addressed in the report. If the tunnel door was to open and close as every vehicle enters from the northern opening, there may be increased noise impacts on the surrounding residents.

23. Noted

11 of 12

Address: Petition submitted by owner of 3/30 Stirling Highway (signed by residents and a commercial lease holders of the consulting rooms at No. 211 Stirling Highway

• Hours of operation will be 8am to

6pm 7 days per week. • Significant noise will be

generated by the machinery used, disturbing the residents of the adjacent properties every day. There will be no respite even on weekends. The proposed "Acoustic Fence" will do little to mitigate the noise levels.

• The proposed wash tunnel is

orientated SSW to NNE. The predominant summer wind pattern will blow the mist from the high pressure sprays used in car cleaning onto the adjacent properties. This mist will contain

• The proposed car wash will operate

between 8-am – 6pm, 7 days a week (excluding public holidays when the business will be closed). These hours are considered to be consistent with surrounding business hours and will have substantially less of an impact on nearby residential properties than a 24/7 self-service car wash (like that existing at No.232 Stirling Highway, Claremont). The car wash will not become a 24/7 hour car wash due to the explicit nature of the business model. Furthermore, the applicant is accepting of any conditions of approval relating to operating hours.

• To further assist in addressing any impacts of noise on adjoining residential properties, an acoustic wall extending between 2.2 – 3.0 metres high will be constructed along the boundaries of the site which will ultimately reduce the noise level received at adjoining properties, ensuring compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

• The structure and configuration of the

wash tunnel results in the washing of vehicles being undertaken within the confines of the tunnel. This results in limited potential for spray drift due to the physical barriers and limitations. There have been no instances of

24. It is noted that the proposed trading

hours of 8am to 6pm seven days a week were excessive. If the application is approved it is recommended that the trading hours are significantly reduced. For example hours of 8am to 6pm on weekdays, 9am to 5pm on Saturdays and closed Sundays.

25. See points 1, 4 & 7 above. 26. The Town’s health officer has assessed

the comprehensive response from the applicant and confirmed that the Town is satisfied that the any potential for adversely impacting the surrounding area can easily be prevented and or resolved if any health risks were to

12 of 12

dirt particles and detergents • The proposed use of recycled

water poses danger of bacteria transmission such as Legionella. The recycle storage tanks will contain soil, detergents which these types of bacteria feed upon. Any improper maintenance of the system will allow these bacteria to become airborne from the high pressure sprays, a most dangerous situation. Observation at other carwashes using recycled water show evidence of bacteria contamination in the sprays through the foul odour generated.

spray drift impacting on adjoining properties at any of the established Magic Hand sites.

• The use of recycled water does not

pose any environmental or health and safety risk. The proposed units have been used by the brand with auditing of recycled water passing minimum standards. The water recycling system that is used is a common unit used throughout the industry and satisfies all health and environmental requirements. We are prepared to conduct tests on site to demonstrate the safety of recycled water.

arise.

27. Noted: The Town’s health officer confirmed that the use of recycled water does not pose any health risk.


Page 15

13.1.2 LOT 84 (27) FERN STREET, SWANBOURNE - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EXISTING APPROVAL TO REMOVE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS

File Ref: A-1635 / 2015.00047 Attachments – Public: Location and Submission Plan

Photograph Attachments – Restricted: Plans

Photographs Submissions Applicant’s Response to Submissions


Author: Julia Kingsbury Manager Planning

Proposed Meeting Date: 07 July 2015 Date Prepared: 22 June 2015 60 Days Due Date: 12 June 2015 Property Owner: Simon and Lydia Winter Submitted By: Simon and Lydia Winter Area of Lot: 685m2

Zoning: Residential R20 Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA)

Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) Residential Design Codes (RDC) Residential Amenity Policy (LV129)

Summary • Application for planning approval received for modifications to the approved

residential dwelling recently constructed on site to remove screening requirements.

• Aspects of the proposal does not meet the ‘deemed-to-comply’ (DTC) requirements of the RDC relating to visual privacy, therefore the proposal has been assessed under the ‘design principles’ (DP).

• Two neighbours were consulted and two submissions were received.

• Application is recommended for approval, subject to relevant conditions.

Purpose The application proposes modifications to the screening of major openings within the approved residential dwelling on the subject site. The application requires the Council’s determination due to neighbour objection.


Page 16

Background The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal:

Date Item/Outcome 13 April 2015 Planning Application received by Council 15 April 2015 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment 16 April 2015 Advertising commenced 8 May 2015 Advertising closed 22 June 2015 Report prepared for Council

Past Resolutions Ordinary Council Meeting 7 August 2012, Resolution No. 136/12: THAT Council grant Planning Approval for the proposed demolition of the existing dwelling and proposed two storey dwelling at Lot 84 (27) Fern Street, Swanbourne, subject to relevant conditions and advice notes including: 5. The upper floor east facing windows to the void area shall be screened or

glazed in an obscure material to a minimum of 1.6m above the finished floor level of the upper floor entertaining area in order to restrict overlooking of the adjoining property to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Planning and Development.

18. The wall to the bathroom on the western side of the upper floor be raised to a sill height of 1.6m and the window above to be obscured glaze in order to provide added privacy to the adjoining land owners.

CARRIED (NO DISSENT)

Condition 18 as detailed above has been complied with to the satisfaction of the planning department. Condition 5 is addressed as part of this application for approval. Under Delegated Authority on 7 August 2013 the Town issued Planning Approval for amendments to the approved two storey residential dwelling. The approval was granted subject to relevant conditions and advice notes including: 1c. Any upper floor windows shown as being finished in obscure glazed louvres

are to comply with the privacy requirements of the Residential Design Codes. Details are to be submitted to the Town for approval prior to application for a Building Permit.

Heritage The property is not listed on the Town’s Local Government Inventory or the TPS3 Schedule of Heritage Places.

Consultation The application was advertised to the adjoining landowners to the east and west of the site in accordance with Local Planning Policy LG525 and two submissions were received. A summary of the submission has been provided as follows:


Page 17

Submissions Received Address: 25 Fern Street, Swanbourne Submission Applicant Comment Officer Comment Query raised in regards to the proposed method of permanently fixing the louvres to restrict their opening. Preference for the windows to be fixed glass at the bottom sections (instead of louvres) as it will be difficult to ensure the ongoing fixing of the louvres especially for cleaning. Object to overlooking from the first floor entertaining area looking north-east.

Proposed to permanently restrict the movement of the louvres by inserting screws into the window frame, which will not allow the panes of glass to be opened by more than 20 per cent. (See comments below in report relative to alternative approaches as discussed on site)

The DTC provisions of the RDC relating to visual privacy permit screening devices that obscure 75 per cent of the view in the direction of the overlooking. It is considered that the proposed method of fixing the louvres will permanently restrict the ability to open the louvres and therefore comply with the DTC of the RDC. As detailed above the DTC of the RDC permits screening devices such as obscure glazing and shutters to a height of 1.6m that are permanently fixed and at least 75 per cent obscured to restrict view in the direction of overlooking. In this instance the owners have chosen louvers to allow natural airflow into the dwelling. It is considered that the louvers will be permanently fixed and that cleaning, as with other maintenance, will not alter this status. See comments section in Report for the DP assessment.

Address: 29 Fern Street, Swanbourne Submission Applicant Comment Officer Comment The full height clear glazed window in the master bedroom overlooks the entire southern section of our property as well as the pathway running the full length of our house on the eastern boundary which includes the main access to the house for the owners and visitors. It is unacceptable to us to be overlooked in this way from this window. It is incongruous that the louvres be obscured and the fixed glass clear. The eastern section of the operable timber louvres in Bedroom 4 should be fixed the same as the western section as our garden and pool areas are clearly visible from this window.

We request that the fixed glazed window remain clear as no area of the neighbours property (that can be viewed from this window) cannot already be viewed from the street. We proposed to fix and obscure the louvred windows to the required minimum height to address the neighbour’s concerns. Our preference would be to open the shutters fully as they provide a view to the bushland and playing fields to the north-east. Furthermore there is no area of the neighbours property that can be viewed from this window that cannot be viewed from the bushland and

See comments section in Report for the DP assessment. See comments section in Report for the DP assessment.


Page 18

cricket club behind our properties. We are willing to restrict the western section as a gesture of good will.

A full copy of the submissions are attached to this report.

Discussion Description The approved two storey residential dwelling has been constructed and occupied by the owners of the property. A number of openings of the approved dwelling were not constructed in accordance with the approved plans (including not installing approved screening devices) and the applicant is requesting approval for these modifications. Details of the changes are as follows:

• North Elevation Bedroom four features a full height clear glazed window with operable internal timber shutters. It was initially proposed to fix the western section of the shutters to open no greater than 20 degrees and install a landscaping screen along the western edge of the ledge (roof) beyond the northern elevation of the dwelling to prevent overlooking to the west. No changes are proposed to the eastern section of the operable louvres.

• South Elevation Bedroom three features a full height clear glazed window with internal operable timber shutters. It is proposed to fix the shutters to open no greater than 20 degrees to a maximum height of 1.65m above floor level to prevent overlooking to the west.

• East Elevation The entertaining area features two full height clear glazed windows and two full height clear glazed operable louvre windows. It is proposed to obscure all the windows to a minimum height of 1.65m and fix the operable louvres to open no greater than 20 degrees to prevent overlooking to the east. • West Elevation The stairwell features a full height clear glazed window from ground floor to the first floor level. It is proposed to obscure the window between 0.5m below and 1.6m above the finished floor level of the first floor to prevent overlooking to the west. A semi-mature tree has also been planted within the setback area adjacent to the stairwell. The master bedroom features one full height clear glazed window as part of a feature corner window and two full height clear glazed operable louvres. It was initially proposed to obscure the louvres to a minimum height of 1.65m and fix the operable louvres to open no greater than 20 degrees to prevent overlooking to the west and south. It is now proposed to fix the louvres to open no wider than 20mm (between the ground and 1.35m) and 10mm (between 1.35m and 1.75m).


Page 19

No changes are proposed to the full height clear glazed corner window in the south west corner of the master bedroom. The owners have obscured the windows of the openings proposed to be obscured in the details above whilst the application is being assessed. Compliance A number of on-site inspections have been carried out by the Town to determine the impacts on the adjacent properties. In May 2015 the Town inspected the property, taking a number of photos from the openings the subject of this proposal for referral to the owners to the adjacent property, with the permission of the owners of the subject site. The photos are attached to this report as a restricted attachment as they include images of inside the dwelling. Section 5.4.1 of the RDC specifies the DTC visual privacy requirements for the proposed development including minimum setback distances and/or screening provisions in order to prevent overlooking to adjacent residential developments. These include a 4.5m and 6m setback to major openings to bedrooms and other habitable rooms respectively. Permanent and other screening devices include obscured glazing, timber screens, external blinds, window hoods and shutters that are at least 75 per cent obscure. Where an application does not meet the DTC requirements, applicants may seek to satisfy the RDC requirements though consideration of the DPs which include minimising direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas maximising privacy to the side and rear boundaries of adjoining residential properties. Council Policy – Residential Amenity LV129 also aims to ensure that new development considers the preservation of reasonable amenity for occupiers of adjoining properties and the surrounding area, and would apply in instance such as the stairway. Where the owner has proposed to obscure the glazing and fix (to restrict the opening) the existing louvres or proposed shutters with restricted openings, the proposal is considered to comply with the DTC of the RDC, as the DTC includes the provision of both permanent and other screening devices. This includes the louvred windows contained in the entertaining area (east side of house) and master bedroom (west side of house), together with the internal shutters to bedroom 3. The following areas do not comply with the DTC or require consideration under the Policy provisions and have been assessed in accordance with the DP of the RDC and the objectives of Council policy. • Stairwell The full height clear glazed window to the stairwell has been obscured partially below and 1.6m above adjacent finish floor level of the first floor to prevent overlooking to the west. Although the neighbour to the west has not raised this area in their submission it was identified as an area of concern when the dwelling was being constructed. The proposal has been assessed in accordance with Council policy – Residential Amenity LV129 as the RDC do not require openings to non habitable rooms to be setback or screened.


Page 20

The attached photos (photos 1 – 7) illustrate the view from the base of the stairs, middle landing and top of the stairs towards the neighbour to the west. As illustrated in the photos the obscured glazing restricts any potential overlooking to the west as a person ascends or descends the stairs. In conjunction with the tree planted in the setback area and the existing dividing fence it is considered that there is no adverse overlooking impact from the stairway and it is recommended that the alteration be supported. • Entertaining Area The entertaining area also features full height glazed windows that enclose the first floor level void. The windows have an outlook towards Creswell Park and allow light into the ground floor dining area. The windows also overlook the north-west corner of the property to the east as illustrated in the attached photos (photo 8). The view to the north east includes the roof structure of a patio and BBQ area which has been recently constructed. It is noted that the neighbours pool area is located to the east of the neighbouring dwelling. It is considered that the windows to the void area do not adversely overlook the neighbouring property and it is recommended the proposal to not screen these windows is supported.

• Bedroom Four Bedroom four features a full height clear glazed window with internal timber shutters with an outlook to the north of the property. The window is setback 3.2m from the western boundary in lieu of 4.5m as required by the RDC. Screening was proposed by the applicant on the 2012 and 2013 planning approvals therefore the window complied with the DTC provisions of the RDC and the variation was not considered against the DP’s of the RDC. The proposal includes a landscaped planter box positioned on the roof structure adjacent to the window to restrict the view to the neighbouring property. Following discussions with the neighbour and applicant and on-site inspections an alternative proposal to fix the western portion of the timber louvres to a minimum height of 1.65m was proposed. The neighbour has objected to this proposal stating their preference is for the entire window to be screened. The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the DP of the RDC and with Council Policy – Residential Amenity LV129 which allows the Council to have regard to any factor relevant to the amenity of the adjoining property. The adjoining property has an outdoor living area and outdoor swimming pool at the rear of the dwelling. Although the cone of vision does not extend specifically to the pool, the window does allow overlooking of the rear of the property to the west as illustrated in the attached photos (photo 9). The effect of fixing the shutters to restrict their opening is illustrated in the attached photos (photo 10). It is considered that fixing the western section of the timber shutters will restrict the view to the west but maintain the view to the north towards Creswell Park which is located at the rear of the property. In addition, the neighbour has planted fast growing plants adjacent the side boundary which further limit the visibility of the pool area from the eastern portion of the window. It is therefore


Page 21

considered that the additional landscaping planter restricting their opening of the eastern shutter are not required in this instance. In regards to the above it is noted that the properties along Fern Street back onto the publically accessible Creswell Park. The adjacent property to the west of the site features a visually permeable fence along its rear boundary. Having regard for the concerns raised by the adjacent owner, the planting by the neighbour along the side boundary, the infrequent use of the bedroom (in comparison to a living area) and the visible public accessibility to the rear of both properties is it considered that the proposed screening is sufficient in this instance and is recommended for approval. • Master Bedroom The applicant has proposed to obscure the two full height louvred windows along the west elevation of the dwelling to a minimum height of 1.65m and fix the louvres to restrict the opening to prevent overlooking to the west. The master bedroom also features a large clear glazed window overlooking Fern Street which wraps around the south west corner of the room which is proposed to remain unchanged. The RDC requires major openings to comply with the visual privacy requirements where it overlooks any part of a residential property behind the setback line. In this instance the full height clear glazed window primarily overlooks the front setback area of the adjacent property to the west. The main dwelling of the adjacent property is setback behind a double garage with an upper level loft area. Although the formal entry to this dwelling is located adjacent to the western boundary of the site the property owners have advised the Town that access to the dwelling is via an informal entry along the eastern side boundary which is used by the both the occupants and visitors to the property. They therefore objected to the overlooking from the window. The RDC acknowledge that a lesser need for privacy protection is usual in the case of front gardens and areas visible from the street and other public places as controlling overlooking from adjacent properties to these areas can be ineffective and would go against the principles of encouraging passive surveillance over the streets and other public areas. As such the RDC requires any dwelling to have clearly definable entry points visible from the street and at least one major opening from a habitable room facing the street and vehicle and pedestrian access to the dwelling. Protection from overlooking is also not necessarily required for open space other than that defined as ‘outdoor living areas’ (being an area behind the front setback line with a minimum length and depth of 4m) as it can be considered unreasonable to expect a relatively high degree of privacy for pathways. The RDC primarily focus on providing privacy to outdoor living areas which are occupied for extended periods of time. In this instance it is considered that the area overlooked by the master bedroom window is generally visible from Fern Street and in accordance with the RDC should be visible from the street and therefore it is not unreasonable to expect a lesser degree of privacy. Although the master bedroom is defined as a habitable room under the RDC it is considered to be infrequently occupied (primarily at night time) and given that the area overlooked is not a primary outdoor living area the proposal


Page 22

to retain the clear glazed fixed window and obscure and fix the louvres is supported in this instance.

Conclusion Based on the above, it is considered that the revised screening measures satisfy the DTC and DP’s of RDC and objectives of Council Policy – Residential Amenity LV129. In this instance the overlooking impacts are able to be assessed on site and any actual overlooking can be minimised through appropriate screening measures. It is recommended that the proposal be supported subject to the approved screening measures being implemented as soon as practically possible to satisfy the neighbour’s concerns.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION THAT Council grant planning approval for a proposed modifications to the approved residential dwelling development to remove screening requirements at Lot 84 (27) Fern Street, Swanbourne, subject to the following conditions and advice notes: 1. All development shall occur in accordance with the approved drawings

(Planning Application DA2015.00047), as amended by these conditions. 2. The proposed timber shutters in bedroom three and the western section of

the timber shutters in bedroom four to be fixed to prevent openings wider than 20 degrees to a minimum height of 1.6m.

3. The proposed obscure glazed louvres in the master bedroom and entertaining area to be fixed to prevent openings wider than 20mm between the ground and 1.35m and 10mm between 1.35m and 1.75m.

4. Details of the proposed method of permanently fixing the glass louvres and timber shutters in accordance with the Residential Design Codes is to be submitted for approval and the louvres and shutters to be fixed in accordance with the approved measure within 30 days of the date of this approval.

5. This approval is valid only if the development is commenced within 24 months of the date of approval.

Advice Notes: (i) If an applicant is aggrieved by this determination a right of review may exist

under the Planning and Development Act 2005. An application for review must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au within 28 days of this determination.


LOT 84 (27) FERN STREET, SWANBOURNE - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EXISTING APPROVAL TO REMOVE SCREENING

REQUIREMENTS

LOCATION AND SUBMISSION PLAN

7 JULY 2015


PAGES 1

Lot 84 (27) Fern Street, Swanbourne

General Location: Lot 84 (27) Fern Street, Swanbourne (Source WhereiS)

Local Location: Lot 84 (27) Fern Street, Swanbourne

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED REGARDING Lot 84 (27) Fern Street, Swanbourne

(Subject lot in black)

OBJ indicates a submission of OBJECTION was received. SUP indicates a submission of SUPPORT was received. CON indicates a submission of CONCERN was received.

NR indicates a submission was not received


hlofthouse

Objection

hlofthouse

Objection

hlofthouse

Polygon

hlofthouse

Callout

27 Fern Street


LOT 84 (27) FERN STREET, SWANBOURNE - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EXISTING APPROVAL TO REMOVE SCREENING

REQUIREMENTS

PHOTOGRAPH

7 JULY 2015


PAGES 1


Page 23

13.1.3 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 123 - PARKING PROVISIONS AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES ON PUBLIC PARKING AND BICYCLE PARKING

File Ref: LND/00099 Attachments – Restricted: Survey of Car Parking Provisions from Other Local

Authorities Draft Local Planning Policy PS205 – Public Parking Draft Local Planning Policy LV127 – Bicycle Parking and Facilities


Author: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development

Proposed Meeting Date: 7 July 2015 Date Prepared: 25 June 2015 Financial Implications: Cash-in-lieu under Parking Reserve Fund

Policy/Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PD Act) Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3)

Summary

• The Town has attempted on a number of occasions to resolve concerns raised by local businesses over the excessive cost for CIL parking bays and inflexible parking provisions contained under TPS3.

• Council considered a report in June 2012 to initiate Amendment No. 123 to TPS3 to provide for parking concessions through licensing arrangements in order to address parking requirement impediments for small scale development in the town centre. Council also resolved to prepare a policy for public consultation.

• In July 2012 Council applied a ‘moratorium’ to parking relative to ‘defined small business’ development approvals within the town centre. This ‘moratorium’ expired on 30 June 2014.

• The proposed scheme amendment and planning policy have not progressed to date as it became apparent that a complete review of TPS3 parking requirements was required to provide for greater discretion in order to facilitate development opportunity throughout the entire town.

• A report to address amendment and policy proposals was presented to a Special Council meeting on 3 June 2014. The report was deferred to enable further information and clarification of the proposals.

• A number of Elected Member Briefings were held in 2014 to establish the key concerns relating to parking across the entire town.


Page 24

• This report provides a background to the parking requirements of TPS3 and proposes amendment and policy proposals which address the issue of cost impositions under the TPS3 parking provisions which are presently constraining development through the town.

• The report also supports the payment of licence fees to accommodate parking shortfalls in the Town Centre and Local Centre zones and parking discounts throughout the town while the amendment is finalised.

• Recent estimates have established that the average cost of constructing decked parking bays $30,000 as a long term basis of CIL contribution.

Purpose For Council to consider revisions to Amendment No. 123 to TPS3 to incorporate a thorough review of Council’s parking requirements under the scheme and adopt draft policies for public comment on Public Parking and Bicycle Parking and Facilities. The proposals include a review of parking concessions which may apply to commercial uses, revisions to cash-in-lieu (CIL) contribution calculations and revisions to a variety of related administrative provisions addressing Council and local business concerns over the present parking arrangements under TPS3.

Background The cost of parking provision in the town centre has been the subject of concern over a number of years. Specifically, the high value of land is a significant cost component for CIL requirements under TPS3 which stifles development opportunity within the town as a whole. Council has approached this in a number of ways over recent years in an effort to reduce the constraints on development.

Past Resolutions There are a number of principal decisions of Council in the past three years which address parking requirements of TPS3 within the town – primarily within the town centre. These decisions aim to reduce the constraints on development by introducing increased discretionary considerations:

1. On 5 June 2012 Council resolved (84/12) to initiate an amendment to TPS3 to relax parking requirements for existing small scale single tenancies developments in the town centre having a gross floor area of 200m2 or less and adopt a parking licence of $1,250 per bay. This was part of an initiative to re-energise business activity for selected commercial premises in the town centre. The amendment provided statutory provisions to reconcile the licence payments when the amendment was gazetted and also proposed the removal of ‘sole’ use of parking spaces restrictions.

2. A revocation motion was considered by Council on 19 June 2012 (96/12) which significantly revised the parking licence to $1,750 per bay (half the estimated cost for construction of at grade parking bays) for ‘defined small business’ development, and also provided a ‘moratorium’ to exempt these small businesses from the licence fees. The ‘moratorium’ applied to existing small scale single tenancy development through the town centre which had a gross leasable area of 200m2 or less, for the purpose of a Beauty Salon,


Page 25

Consulting Room or Office (only above ground level), Hairdresser or Barber, Restaurant or Small Bar.

3. On 3 July 2012 Council resolved (117/12) to adopt the above licence fee ($1,750 per bay) approach for applications which were located in the town centre but did not fully satisfy the specific requirements for the ‘moratorium’. This involved the payment of an initial fee of $1,250 per bay as an interim approach and, subject to finalisation of Amendment No 123, a final payment of $500 per bay (total $1,750 per bay).

4. On 17 September 2013 Council resolved (270/13) to reaffirm the ‘moratorium’ with an increased area for the small scale single tenancies of 300m2, confirmed the cost of a CIL licence to be $1,750 and further clarified the location requirements for ‘defined small business’ to include properties along Bay View Terrace, St Quentin Avenue and their associated laneways.

5. At the Special Council Meeting on 3 June 2014 (80/14), Council considered a report recommending a comprehensive review of parking provisions to address parking issues which extended further afield from the town centre (local centres and Stirling Highway). It was proposed to waive the CIL contributions in favour of a policy based parking licence of $4,000 (for preferred uses) or $25,000 (otherwise) per bay until Amendment No. 123 is gazetted. The report also recommended parking calculation concessions commonly provided in other local government areas. The proposals were complex and referred back for further refinement.

6. The last report to Council addressing the CIL requirements was on 21 October 2014, where Council resolved (171/14) to support parking CIL concessions in Bay View Terrace. The approval required payment of a parking licence of $3,500 per bay (for 14 car bays - $49,000) in consideration of extenuating circumstances surrounding the technicalities of the application. The report to Council presented a range of ‘licence’ options from $1,750 to $25,000 per bay in lieu of the TPS3 CIL requirement in excess of $1.4m.

Discussion Current Parking Provisions

TPS3 provides for parking discretion and payment of CIL as detailed below:

• Small Bars require one bay per four licensed persons except in the Town Centre zone – may be reduced to one per 16 licensed person (cl.22(4)(a)).

• Retail Store and Shop (Small and Intermediate) parking requirements may be reduced from one bay per 16.67m2 GLA to one bay per 20m2 where bays are wider than 2.7m and access aisles wider than 6.4m or bays are wider than 2.8m with access aisles greater than 6.2m are provided (cl.31A(1)). This equates to a 16.67% concession and specifically has been applied to the development of the Claremont Quarter.

• Parking concessions for mixed-uses within 500m of a railway station range between 5 and 15% where parking is monitored and controlled by boom gates and ticket machines, where Council considers the proposal to provide a public benefit to the town centre, compliment the character and not adversely impact the amenity of the locality (cl.31A(4)(i)).


Page 26

• Up to 5% parking concession for other uses where parking is monitored and controlled by boom gates and ticket machines (cl.31A(4)(ii)).

• Use of parking bays in other locations provided they are sufficiently close and available for the ‘sole’ use of the occupiers and visitors to the development (cl.32).

• CIL for parking shortfalls based on land value and construction cost (cl.33). It is noted that legal advice indicates that within Regional Reservations under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (e.g. a Primary Regional Road Reservation), the parking provisions of TPS3 act only as a guide, and accordingly the scheme parking provisions within the reservation may be varied. Assessment of ‘Moratorium’ and ‘Licence’ Arrangements

Since Council’s resolution of 5 June 2012, application of the ‘moratorium’ has with some limited success promoted ‘defined small business’ in the town centre. In the application of the ‘moratorium’, it was apparent that strict adherence to the terms of the ‘moratorium’ may unfairly discriminate against other small business proposals which slightly varied from the terms (i.e. – other small business slightly larger than 200m2, fronting other roads, similar uses or use located on ground level). A compromise solution was reached where Council supported other small business applications with the application of the parking ‘licence’ instead of CIL. To date three applications have benefited from the ‘moratorium’ and six from the ‘licensing’ arrangements. Total CIL concessions granted (see table below), based on an estimated value of between $72,250 (land plus at-grade bay) and $131,250 (land and decked parking bay), range between $3,881,000 and $7,126,000.

Value of Parking Concessions Granted by Council by ‘Moratorium’ and ‘Licence’

Concession No of applications Bays Value of concessions (between

$72,250 and $131,250 per bay) Moratorium 3 16 $1,156,000 - $2,100,000 Licences $1,750 ($1,250 up front plus $500 at call – 14 bays more recently calculated at a rate of $3,500 per bay)

6 39 $2,817,750 - $5,118,750 (minus total licence fees - $92,750) $2,725,000 - $5,026,000

Totals 9 41 $3,881,000 - $7,126,000 In supporting these concessions, Council has recognised that that the existing TPS3 requirements blight commercial development in the town centre and that the approach to parking concessions is consistent with many other local authorities in Perth which are attempting to incentivise business activity. This needs to be balanced with Council’s long term obligation to ensure that sufficient parking is available within the town centre and funded for its continued success. Whilst it may be considered that the value of the parking concessions granted in the past three years results in a considerable loss in income generation to the Council’s Parking Reserve Fund (presently containing $831,000), it is conversely recognised that these applications may not have proceeded without the concessions granted.


Page 27

Options for Revised Amendment Proposals

In the preparation of details for the amendment and policy proposals, it is apparent that Council’s parking requirements under TPS3 are impacting on development opportunity throughout the whole of the Town of Claremont - not just the town centre. While the original intent of the amendment was targeted to encourage ‘preferred uses’ along defined streets and laneways in the town centre, this has evolved to assist other businesses in the town centre and it is evident that a number of broader parking issues could also be redressed as follows:

• Parking concessions for other common factors which reduce parking demand such as proximity to railway stations, high frequency bus routes, bicycle parking, etc.

• Reciprocal parking inclusive of consideration of peak parking demand surveys.

• Recognition of ‘Status quo’ provision (where an historic use may not supply the required parking bays, but is recognised as having the required parking in calculating new parking requirements for additions or change of use).

• Long term parking provision relative to future Stirling Highway widening.

• Rounding of parking calculations.

• Alignment with Australian Standards for design of parking areas.

• Use class allocations for ‘Car Park’ within the Town Centre zone. These matters are proposed to be addressed by re-initiation of Amendment No. 123 and preparation of local planning policies on public parking and bicycle parking and facilities to guide the application of the new scheme provisions. A review of parking requirements for ten other local governments within the Perth metropolitan area (Belmont, Canning, Cambridge, Cottesloe, Fremantle, Melville, Stirling, Subiaco, Victoria Park and Vincent) indicates considerable flexibility in the application of parking requirements and provides some guidance for Council consideration in the further evolution of this amendment. It is apparent from the surveys undertaken that:

• Requirements vary from scheme to policy provisions.

• CIL contributions ranged from nil (Fremantle for promotion of city centre where significant public parking is present) to $100,000 per bay (Melville).

• Many consider land value inclusion in CIL as a significant disincentive to development. Some have land available for the provision of public parking (e.g. Vincent). Many local governments have removed the land cost components from the CIL calculations.

• Most accept a ‘status quo’ approach for pre-existing development.

• It is common practice to accept peak parking demand and reciprocal parking within development sites and adjacent land in satisfying the parking provision. The original amendment proposal to remove ‘sole’ from cl.32 will accommodate parking on the road, but does not recognise reciprocal or peak parking demand calculations. The peak parking demand approach recognises that reciprocity naturally occurs within a development site containing different


Page 28

uses and that this may vary dependant on the nature of the business operations. Reciprocal parking may consider parking available on adjacent land (subject to legal agreement).

• Parking concessions are regularly applied e.g. Stirling applies concessions of up to 65% for factors including proximity to public transport and parking stations, reciprocal uses, cyclist facilities and retention of heritage buildings.

• Parking calculations vary relative to rounding of parking bay requirements to the next whole number or nearest whole number.

• Parking design standards vary from diagrams (some which contain errors) to the most common approach being the Australian Standards for parking bays and access.

Elected Member Parking Forum

In preparing this report, consideration has been given to feedback on parking amendment topics raised at the Elected Members Parking Forum on 4 August 2014 (tabled) and Briefing on 15 June 2015. Taking into account the comments raised at the Forum and Briefing, it is recommended by administration that the amendment and policy proposals presented to the Special Council Meeting on 3 June 2014 be modified to address the following:

• Simplify the proposals presented to Council in June 2014.

• Establish CIL values which support business, but not transfer the long term cost of parking shortfalls and construction of public parking to the Town.

• Remove the land value component of CIL where public land is available for the provision of CIL and review construction costs for parking bays to provide a consistent approach which provides for the long term provision of decked parking bays.

• Scheme provisions should clearly identify the requirements for CIL and parking concessions available.

• Associated Council policy should address variable factors, such appropriate locations where CIL can be accommodated and regular reviews of construction costs (every two years).

• Plan to utilise the existing land owned by the Town in proximity of the town centre for the construction of decked parking station in order to reduce CIL cost by removing land values, discounted for ‘preferred uses’ by 50%.

• Remove opportunity for CIL along Stirling Highway (outside of the town centre) due to limited availability to construct additional parking in streets fronting commercial sites, potentially resulting in commercial parking intrusion into adjoining residential areas.

• Provide for limited parking calculation concessions - 65% too excessive as it potentially transfers significant parking shortfalls to public spaces.

• Maintain current parking concessions provided in the TPS3 relating to increased bay and aisle widths but incorporate other concessions into one table.


Page 29

• Introduce new opportunities for parking concessions up to 35% for proximity to public parking areas, railway station (or public transport proximity in general) and provision of bicycle parking and facilities.

• Allow for parking provisions to facilitate joint parking ventures where excess parking provision is clearly established (e.g. If concessions can reduce the parking requirements based on evidence from Claremont Quarter (CQ), opportunity may exist for a parking agreement with CQ to provide parking for town centre staff –either private or with the Town).

Revised Amendment Proposal It is considered that the parking provisions under TPS3 are out of date relative to other local government requirements and too restrictive to promote business development within the town as a whole. In addition, the former ‘moratorium’ and parking bay ‘licences’ are not sustainable approaches to building Council’s Parking Reserve Fund for the provision of necessary public parking within the town over the longer term. Revisions to the amendment are warranted to address issues identified from reviews of other local government requirements and concerns raised at Council’s Elected Member Parking Forum and Briefing sessions. Recent estimates have established that the average cost of constructing parking bays is approximately $5,000 per at grade bay and $30,000 per decked parking bay, however the long term commitment to the provision of parking bays should be based on the cost of constructing decked parking bays. In introducing the additional elements of the scheme amendment, it is important to ensure that the requirements provide a balance between certainty and flexibility, whilst recognising the original intent of the amendment by acknowledging the desirability of preferred uses in the granting of concessions. Clear scheme provisions can provide requirements which are enforceable by the Town and State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), whereas policy provisions provide additional flexibility, but are open to SAT review. A combination of scheme and policy provisions could allow specific requirements to be applied relative to aspects over which Council desires clear control – such as maximum parking calculation concessions available and cost of CIL. Related policies should address the land availability for CIL parking facilities and contribution rates, variables dependant on costs and concessions for ‘preferred uses’ in addition to providing clarity on bicycle parking and facility requirements. It is proposed to reinitiate Amendment No. 123 to include opportunities for Council to support a total parking concession of up to 35% taking into account satisfaction of various performance criteria and peak parking demand evidence. Provisions are also proposed to provide for the interim application of both reduced CIL contributions and parking discounts (up to 35%) and final reconciliation with the final Scheme requirements following gazettal of the amendment. At the same time it is proposed to introduce two supporting policies.


Page 30

The first proposed policy relating to Public Parking (PS205) identifies where CIL may be provided and determines relative costs based on construction costs together with land use preferences. As the long term cost for construction of parking bays will be $30,000 for a decked bay, this is recommended to be the standard CIL payment. In the town centre, it is recommended that Council acknowledge a 50% discount for ‘preferred uses’ - reduced to $15,000 per bay as opportunity exists to recoup costs through parking fees. The second proposed policy relating to Bicycle Parking and Facilities (LV127) aims to detail parking and facility requirements in order to satisfy parking discounts being applied under the terms of the scheme.

Financial and Staff Implications The proposals aim to remove significant impediments on commercial development in the Town of Claremont, whilst at the same time, providing for the growth of the Parking Reserve Fund to ensure future public parking is appropriately managed.

Policy and Statutory Implications Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 provides for Council to initiate amendments to town planning schemes. Although Amendment No. 123 was first initiated by Council in June 2012, the Department of Planning has indicated that Council may re-initiate the amendment with modifications. Once initiated, the Town is required to advertise the amendment, consider submissions and forward the proposal to the Hon. Minister for Planning for determination. Clause 82 of TPS3 guides the preparation and adoption of local planning policies. It is proposed that the local planning policies on public parking and bicycle parking outlined in the Recommendation be adopted as a ‘Draft Policies’ for the purpose of public consultation. Gazettal of Amendment No.123 and the final adoption of the local planning policies will take some time to be finalised. In the interim period, it is proposed that Council maintain and extend the ‘parking licence’ approach in the town, modified to cover construction costs of parking, proximity to public parking and land use preferences, as detailed in the draft policies and extending out into the Local Centres where opportunity for the construction of public parking can be accommodated.

Publicity Once the scheme amendment is initiated, the proposal is to be advertised for a period of 42 days in accordance with procedures outlined in the Western Australian Planning Commission Planning Bulletin No. 29. It is proposed that the revised amendment be advertised at the same time as the draft policies. The proposed policies are to be advertised for a period of 21 days in accordance with cl.82 of TPS3.

Urgency The current parking provisions under TPS3 are restricting the capacity for businesses in the Town of Claremont to further develop. The review of scheme and policy provisions is complex and has taken considerable time to develop. Providing the


Page 31

business sector certainty on a long term basis is desirable. As the comprehensive review has been finalised, it is now appropriate that these initiatives be progressed.


OFFICER RECOMMENDATION THAT Council resolve as follows: 1. To re-initiate an Amendment No. 123 to Town Planning Scheme No. 3,

pursuant to Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, modified as follows:

1.1. Modify the use class classification under Table 1 – Land Use Table by Car Parking in the Town Centre zone, from “X & P*” to “AA”, together with removing Car Park from the use class allocations under Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Clause 6 Disposition of Uses.

1.2. Add an additional Note to Table 2 – Development Table as follows:

“Car parking requirements are to be measured to the nearest whole number.”

1.3 Amend Clause 30 to provide for ‘status quo’ recognition of parking standards for existing development by deletion of the words “car parking spaces of the number required by the scheme shall be” and by adding the words “and the alteration results in additional usable area and/or creates an additional demand for car parking, the additional bays” as follows: “Where: (1) land is developed by any substantial reconstruction, alteration or

any addition to a building on that land, or (2) the nature of the use made of the land is changed

and the alteration results in additional usable area and/or creates an additional demand for car parking, only the additional bays shall be required accordance with the Scheme.”

1.4 Amend Clause 31(2) to remove reference to “Appendix III” and “appropriate diagram contained in the Appendix” and replace these references with “relevant Australian Standards” as follows: “Those car parking spaces and access ways to those spaces shall not be of lesser dimension than those specified under the relevant Australian Standards and shall be laid out together with required access aisles in accordance with those standards.”

1.5 Delete “Appendix III – Dimensions of Car Parking” from the Scheme. 1.6 Amend Clause 31A(1) and (2) by combining them under Clause 31A(1)

for clarity modified as follows: “Notwithstanding Clause 31(1) and the requirements of Table No. 2 relating to the number of car parking spaces to be provided, the


Page 32

Council may in its discretion approve the development of land for the purpose of: (a) a Retail Store; (b) a Shop (Intermediate); or (c) a Shop (Small) with a reduced number of parking bays in accordance with the third column of Table No. 3, provided the parking layout is in accordance with the first and second columns of Table No. 3.”

1.7 Rename Table 3 – Car Parking Space under existing Clause 31A(2) (to be changed to Clause 31A(1)) to “Table 3 - Car Parking Space under Clause 31A(1) and modify reference “Appendix III” to “relevant Australian Standards.”

1.8 Replacing existing Clause 31A(2) with a new Clause 31A(2) which allows for parking concessions to apply to the minimum parking requirements achievable under the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 as follows: “Notwithstanding other parking concessions achievable for non-residential development under this Scheme, Council at its absolute discretion may apply further parking concessions for non-residential development (excluding educational establishments) of up to 35% where it is considered that proposed land use or development suitably satisfies the performance criteria contained in Table 4 – Additional Car Parking Concessions.

Table 4 – Additional Car Parking Concessions Car Parking Concession Performance Criteria

5% The proposed development is within 400m of a rail station and customers/staff are likely to use the train to access the development.

5% The proposed development is within 100m of a stop on a high frequency bus route and customers/staff are likely to use the bus to access the development.

5% The proposed development is within 400m of a public car park.

5%

The proposed development provides 10 bicycle bays or more and where ‘end-of-trip facilities’ are provided as recommended under a Local Planning Policy adopted under the provisions of the Scheme and customers/staff are likely to use bicycles to access the development.

5% The proposed development is located within Town Centre or Local Centre zone and provides a public benefit, compliments the character of the zone and does not adversely impact the amenity of the locality.


Page 33

5% Where the building/place is listed on the Town’s Heritage List, Municipal Inventory or the State Register of Heritage Places (subject to the building or place being conserved to the satisfaction of Council).

5% The proposed development contains parking controls which monitor and control use through boom-gates (or similar) and ticket issuing machines.

Notes: 1. Distances referred to in this table are measured along constructed footpaths or verges of road reserves, not ‘as the crow flies’. 2. The applicant shall be required to submit a Peak

Parking Demand Survey to satisfy Council that the granting of parking concessions under this clause will not result in parking shortfalls for the proposed development.

1.9 Add a new Clause 31A(8) to provide for and recognise reduced parking requirements in accordance with proposed Clause 31A(2) as interim arrangements to the provision of the required parking bays under Town planning Scheme as follows: “If the Council has granted an interim parking concession in accordance with Clause 31A(2) in respect of a development of land, and application is made to Council for reconsideration of the parking requirements under the Scheme, the Council may consider any revised parking requirement as satisfying the parking requirements of the Scheme as if the application for the development was then before the Council for determination. The reduced parking requirement shall be taken into account as satisfying the final parking requirements of the Scheme.”

1.10 Delete existing Clause 31A(3) and add a new Clause 31A(3) as follows: “Council, in considering the merits and application of parking concessions relative to non-residential land use and development proposals under Clause 31A(2) and the value of cash-in-lieu for parking bay construction under Clause 33(1)(a), is to take into consideration any Local Planning Policy which is adopted under the scheme and is applicable to public parking.”

1.11 Delete existing Clause 31A(4) relating to existing parking concessions and Clause 32 relating to parking bay location together with adding a new Clause 31A(4) which formalises reciprocal parking opportunity on site and on other land sufficiently close to the development: “Council may consider joint use of car parking facilities in satisfaction of parking requirements for non-residential development under the scheme as follows: (a) Parking facilities may be provided jointly by two or more owners

or users of land or by one owner or user in respect of separate buildings or uses, subject to the satisfaction of the standards and requirements hereinafter set out in this sub-clause.


Page 34

(b) If there is a deficiency in the number of parking spaces provided to serve any building or use, the Council may permit the parking spaces for that building or use to be provided jointly with any one or more other buildings or uses whether or not those others separately have the prescribed number of parking spaces provided that the peak hours of operation of the buildings or uses so sharing are different and do not substantially overlap.

(c) The Council may require that reciprocal access and circulation arrangements are provided for any buildings or uses affected by this sub-clause when, in the opinion of the Council, such arrangements are deemed necessary to improve design or amenity.

(d) The combined supply of car parking is considered by Council to be sufficient to meet the estimated peak combined demand and the location of parking is considered to be within close proximity and accessible from the development site, to the satisfaction of Council.

(e) The Council may require an agreement to be prepared by a solicitor at the expense of the person seeking to take advantage of the provisions of this sub-clause, detailing the relevant issues of the joint usage, and executed by all parties concerned. Any such agreement shall be capable of operating as an easement, an easement in gross and/or a restrictive covenant against any land providing parking spaces, reciprocal access or circulation arrangements and shall ensure that where the easement or restriction is made expressly in favour of an adjacent landowner other than the Town, that the restraint cannot be removed without the consent of the Council upon the Council being satisfied that the joint use of parking facilities is no longer required.”

1.12 Modify the valuation calculation for cash-in-lieu parking bays under Clause 33(1)(a) to remove all reference to the value of land in the Town Centre and Local Centre zones by removing the last half of the clause following “spaces calculated” and adding the following: “in accordance with the scheme inclusive of any amount the Council estimates to be the cost of providing land to accommodate those spaces within or adjacent to the Town Centre and Local Centre zones taking into consideration any Local Planning Policy which is adopted under the scheme and is applicable to public parking.”

1.13 Delete Clause 33(2) and replace with the following new Clause 33(2): “(2) The monies received by the Town under this clause shall be paid

into a Parking Reserve Fund and shall only be used: (a) for the provision of public parking or facilities,

infrastructure and services for cyclists, pedestrians and public transport users;

(b) for reimbursing the Town for any expenses incurred for the purpose of this clause including any loan repayments.”


Page 35

1.15 Add a new Clause 33(3) to provide for and recognise the leasing or licensing of Council provided car parking bays as an interim arrangement to the provision of cash-in-lieu for insufficient parking bays as follows: “If the Council has granted or waived a parking licence fee or granted a licence of car parking bays in a parking area or parking station under the control of the Council in respect of a development of land for any of the purposes referred to in Clause 31A(3), if during the term of the licence, or within three months after the termination of the licence by reason of the expiration of the term, or otherwise on the election of the licensee in accordance with the provisions of the lease or licence, the licensee may apply to the Council to reassess the parking requirement for the development in accordance with the provisions of this clause and the Council may do so as if the application for the development was then before the Council for determination. The waived licence fee or licence payment paid to Council for the licence of Council parking bays shall be taken into account as satisfying the final cash-in-lieu payment to Council for parking.”

2. His Worship the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to endorse the revised amendment document.

3. The Town of Claremont forward a copy of the amendment documentation to: (a) The Environmental Protection Authority in accordance with

Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. (b) The Western Australian Planning Commission for information.

4. On receipt of advice from the Environmental Protection Authority under Section 48A of the Environmental Protection Act indicating that the amendment need not be subject to an environmental assessment, the amendment be advertised in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations for not less than 42 days.

5. Council resolve, pursuant to Clause 82 of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 to adopt the attached Draft Local Planning Policy PS205 - Public Parking for public consultation.

6. Council resolve, pursuant to Clause 82 of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 to adopt the attached Draft Local Planning Policy LV127 - Bicycle Parking and Facilities for public consultation.

7. Council resolve to reaffirm and extend its Parking Licence interim approach for satisfying Town Planning Scheme No. 3 cash-in-lieu contribution requirements in the Town Centre and Local Centre zones until such time as Amendment No. 123 is gazetted, subject to the parking requirement being reconciled in accordance with proposed Clause 33(3) following gazettal of Amendment No. 123 to Town Planning Scheme No.3. During the interim period, Council resolve to base the Parking Licence fee for shortfalls in parking provision at a rate of $30,000 (reduced to $15,000 for ‘preferred uses’ in the town centre) per bay.

8. Council resolve to extend its interim parking concessions to provide for discounts to parking requirements for non-residential development


Page 36

(excluding educational establishments) in accordance with proposed Clause 31A(2) under Amendment No. 123 to cover discounts to parking requirements until such time as the amendment is gazetted, subject to the applicants entering into a legal agreement with Council registered as an Absolute Caveat on the Certificate of Title to ensure the Scheme parking requirement are reconciled in accordance with proposed Clause 31A(2) following gazettal of Amendment No. 123 and any shortfalls in parking being satisfied by payment of cash-in-lieu.

9. Prior to consideration of finalisation of proposed Amendment No. 123, a report be referred to Council to consider any submissions made on the amendment and proposed Local Planning Policies PS205 - Public Parking and LV127 - Bicycle Parking and Facilities.


Page 37

13.1.4 TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 3 HERITAGE SCHEDULE REVIEW

File Ref: DAB/00043 Attachments - Public: Draft TPS3 Heritage Schedule

Submission Table Attachments - Restricted: Submissions

Draft Retention of Heritage Places, Heritage Areas and Heritage Precincts Policy – LV124 Extracts from Draft Review of Council’s Heritage Places, Heritage Areas and Heritage Precincts Policy – LV124


Author: Julia Kingsbury Manager Planning

Odhran O’Brien Heritage Officer

Proposed Meeting Date: 7 July 2015

Enabling Legislation: Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3)

Summary

• At its meeting held on 5 August 2014 Council resolved to adopt the Draft Municipal Inventory as the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 (LGI).

• It is proposed to update the Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places (Schedule) adopted pursuant to cl.78 of TPS3 to incorporate the changes in the LGI.

• Technically the LGI and the Schedule are two different lists, however the Town’s practice has been to include the same buildings, objects and places in both lists.

• In accordance with TPS3 cl.78(6) the Town sought comment from owners of newly included properties and heritage areas in the LGI relative to their inclusion in the Schedule. Sixteen submissions were received; three supporting, eight objecting, two with no objection and three requesting further information.

• It is recommended that Council resolve to update the TPS3 Schedule to include the newly adopted properties and discrete heritage areas (consistent with the LGI) but refer two proposals to the Town’s Peer Review Panel for consideration.


Page 38

Purpose For Council to consider the submissions received during the consultation period for the Heritage Schedule and consider the recommendation for inclusion of new adopted properties and discrete heritage areas.

Background Section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 states that: (1) A local government shall compile and maintain an inventory of buildings within

its district which in its opinion are, or may become, of cultural heritage significance.

(2) The inventory required by subsection (1) shall be compiled no later than 4 years from the commencement of this Act and shall be – (a) updated annually; and (b) reviewed every 4 years after compilation.

The Town created its first Municipal Inventory (MI) of locally significant heritage buildings and places in 1991 in accordance with (2) above. The MI has been updated regularly since 1991 and a comprehensive review commenced in 2011 which resulted in the adoption of the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 (LGI – new name for MI). To afford the places, areas and precincts listed in the LGI with protection under TPS3, and therefore enable development on these properties to be assessed under the provisions of TPS3 and Council Policy, the Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places (Schedule) is required to be updated in accordance with cl.78 of TPS3. Cl.78 states that: 78. SCHEDULE OF HISTORIC AND OTHER BUILDINGS AND PLACES:

(1) The Council shall maintain a schedule of buildings, objects and places (“the Schedule”) which the Council considers to be an architectural, historical or townscape value.

(2) The Schedule shall be available for inspection by any member of the public on request.

(3) The Council shall include in the Schedule: (a) any building constructed prior to the year 1910 and which retains

substantially its original form and detail as seen from any public place;

(b) any building constructed during or after the year 1910 and which the Council considers to have high intrinsic architectural merit or to be an outstanding example of its kind or of historical significance;

(c) buildings, objects or places that the Council considers make a positive contribution to the townscape of the district.


Page 39

(4) Every building, object or place which is included by the National Trust of Western Australia (WA) in either the Recorded or the Classified List or which is included by the Australian Heritage Commission in the Register of the National Estate shall be deemed to be included in the Schedule.

(5) The Council may from time to time add to or delete from the Schedule any building, object or place.

(6) The Council shall, before including any building, object or place in the Schedule: (a) give to the owner of that building, object or place written notice

that the Council proposes to include that building, object or place in the Schedule and specifying a date being not less than three (3) weeks after the notice is given by which submissions may be made to the Council by the owner;

(b) advertise notice of the Council’s intention in a newspaper circulating in the district and specifying the date by which submissions may be made to the Council by any person interested.

(7) The Council shall not include a building, object or place in the Schedule without first considering any submissions made within the time limit specified by the notice referred to in sub-clause (6) of this Clause.

Cl.79 of TPS3 provides the protection status for properties contained in the Schedule as follows: 79 PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC AND OTHER BUILDINGS, OBJECTS AND

PLACES: (1) Where any development involves an alteration to, or the destruction,

total or partial of a building, object or place which is: (a) entered in the Schedule;

(b) included by the Australian Heritage Commission in the Register of the National Estate;

(c) included in the National Heritage Register; The Council before determining that application may give notice thereof to the National Trust of Australia (WA) the Australian Heritage Commission and such other bodies or persons as the Council thinks fit.

(2) In determining an application referred to in sub Clause (1) of the Clause the Council shall have regard to any submission made to the Council with respect to the preservation of the building, object or place involved in that application.

Past Resolutions

Ordinary Council Meeting, 5 August 2014, Resolution 116/14: That Council:


Page 40

1. Note the submissions received during the consultation period for the Draft Municipal Inventory, adopt the recommendations as contained in the attached Submissions Schedule and adopt the Draft Municipal Inventory (minus the five places removed under delegated authority on 19 May 2014) as the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 inclusive of the following modifications: a) Remove 78 Bay View Terrace, Claremont subject to the submission of

an archival record of the place to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont;

b) Remove the 76-78 Bay View Terrace Heritage Area whilst maintaining 76 Bay View Terrace, Claremont as a standalone place;

c) Remove 11 (Lot.37) Rob Roy Street, Swanbourne subject to satisfaction of planning requirements;

d) Remove 9 Second Avenue, Claremont; e) Remove 11 Second Avenue, Claremont; f) Remove 13 Second Avenue, Claremont; g) Remove 114 Shenton Road, Swanbourne; h) Remove 116 Shenton Road, Swanbourne; i) Convert the proposed Bay View Terrace Heritage Area 1 to the Bay

View Terrace Commercial Heritage Precinct; j) Convert the proposed Claremont Crescent Shops Heritage Area to the

Swanbourne Station Commercial Heritage Precinct; and k) Convert the proposed Shenton Road Shops Heritage Area to the

Shenton Road Commercial Heritage Precinct. l) Refer back 13 Langsford Street, 16 Brown Street, 13 Smith Street, 24

Barnfield Road, 3 Pennell Road, 3 Renown Avenue, 399 Stirling Highway and 378 Stirling Highway for further consideration.

2. Pursuant to Clause 78(5) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, updates the current Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places to remove all properties no longer listed in the adopted Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014.

3. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, updates the current Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places to include all newly nominated properties contained in the adopted Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 for the purposes of advertising the proposed additions to the Schedule.

4. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, consult with the owners of the newly nominated buildings, objects or places in the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places for a period of 21 days.

5. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 and on conclusion of the consultation period, receives a report to consider any submissions received prior to Council adopting the final Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places 2014.


Page 41

CARRIED (NO DISSENT)

With regard to part 1(l) above, the subject properties were referred to a Peer Review Panel for consideration and during the course of the following six months the Peer Review Panel met at each of the properties and made recommendations to Council on the inclusion of the properties in the LGI. In summary, Council resolved to retain all of the properties on the LGI with exception of 16 Brown Street, Claremont and further requested that the Town address options to allow some flexibility in the consideration of development requirements in relation to some of the lower order Category C listings.

Discussion Town Planning Scheme No. 3 - Heritage Schedule The Inventory and the Schedule are two different lists however in Claremont’s history they have generally been the same list of buildings, objects and places. As detailed in the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, the Inventory is to contain buildings within the district of cultural heritage significance. Although the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 does not specifically mention places or objects, the Town’s LGI is considered to be a more extensive list of buildings, places and objects of cultural heritage significance. This practice is not considered unusual among the planning and heritage professionals and is advised by both the State Heritage Office of Western Australia and the Burra Charter. The listing in the LGI itself does not accord the building, place or object with protection under TPS3 until it is included in the Schedule. The Schedule is being updated to reflect to changes made to the LGI during its review completed in 2014. The changes included the inclusion of heritage areas, management categories and the nominated places. Those places that were removed from the LGI at its Ordinary Council Meeting of 5 August 2014 because they were not considered to have a significant level of heritage value were removed from the Schedule in accordance with part 2 of Council’s OCM resolution on 5 August 2014 (above). Cl.78(6) & (7) of TPS3 requires that any additions to the Schedule be advertised, affected property owner’s be contacted in writing and that any submissions by the owner be considered before changes are made to the Schedule. During September 2014, the Town undertook these processes and received sixteen submissions. Details of comments raised in the submission are included in the attached Submission Table. A summary of the major themes contained within the submissions have been included below. Property Values Two of the submissions received included concerns that local heritage listings negatively impact the value of properties. This issue was addressed in 5 August 2014 OCM report in relation to submissions received on the review of the LGI. As detailed at that time there have been a number of studies undertaken on the relationship between property values and heritage listing. These studies include: Report to Australian Property Institute Concerning Residential Sales Analysis 1988 to 2006 (Dennis Barton 2008); Heritage Australia: A Review of Australian Material Regarding the Economic and Social Benefits of Heritage Property (Peter Wills, Dr Chris Eves &


Page 42

NSW Heritage Office 2005) and Heritage Listing and Property Value (Heritage Victoria, 2001). The findings of the studies indicate that there is a lack of evidence to suggest that properties values are negatively impacted by heritage listing and that in certain areas that were surveyed by Dennis Barton’s study, the value of the heritage listed places were comparable and in some cases greater than non heritage listed places. Development Implications Places listed on the Schedule will be subject to the heritage provisions of the TPS3 and the Council’s Heritage Policy LV124. These are the current development controls applied to places listed on the Schedule and therefore there is no change until they are reviewed (e.g. Council’s Heritage Policy LV124 is currently under review – see comments below). The degree of discretion that is implied to heritage places when planning applications are being assessed against Council’s Heritage Policy LV124 will depend on which Management Category the place has been allocated i.e. A, B or C. The review of the LGI categorised places within these management categories according the level of heritage value, which they demonstrated. As indicated above, Council’s Heritage Policy LV124 is currently being reviewed to include guidance on dealing with applications for standalone heritage places, heritage areas and properties adjacent to heritage areas. In addition, as the policy also proposes to introduce measures to guide development on some of the lower order Category C properties. A separate report on this matter is scheduled to be presented to Council for consideration on 4 August 2015, however proposed modifications relating to Category C properties are detailed below. Queries Related to the Criteria There was a small group of submissions querying whether certain properties fulfilled the criteria required for heritage listing. During the review of the LGI, all listed places and those proposed for inclusion were assessed by the Town’s Heritage Officer and heritage consultants against the State Heritage Office of Western Australia’s Criteria for the Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas. In addition to utilising this practical guide to identify the values of local heritage places, the Heritage Officer and consultants based their recommendations on the provisions of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, the Burra Charter and State Planning Policy 3.5, Historic Heritage Conservation (SPP 3.5). All of the above criteria were used by the Peer Review Panel when considering the inclusion of the eight properties included in part 1 of Council’s OCM resolution on 5 August 2014. Accordingly, it is confirmed that the correct criteria has been used to determine the proposed listings in the Schedule. Royal Agricultural Society of Western Australia In line with their objection to being included in the Town’s LGI, the Royal Agricultural Society of Western Australia (RAS) has objected to being included in the Town’s Schedule. The RAS maintain that the entry of the Showgrounds is not consistent with Section 45(1) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990. The RAS’s suggestion that the place record should be limited to a list of buildings rather than the buildings and the surrounding area is inconsistent with the best practice of heritage management as identified in the SPP 3.5 and Burra Charter. Further, the place record for the Showgrounds is clear about the levels of significance associated with the buildings on the site. It is also clear in regards to those buildings which have little


Page 43

significance. The social and historical significance of the site within the local community is also an important consideration of the listing. Further assessment of the significance of the buildings needs to be carried out. Initial attempts to conduct these assessments at the beginning of the LGI review were denied by the RAS. In light of the RAS’s recent presentation to Council of concept design proposals for the redevelopment of the site, it is important that the place be entered onto the Schedule and a comprehensive assessment of its buildings be undertaken in order to assign specific management categories to the buildings identified. This will provide sufficient information to draft a heritage policy for the site, which will allow development consistent with the current use as well as identifying areas for appropriate redevelopment sympathetic to the heritage values of the place. Community Support Members of the local community made submissions encouraging and congratulating the Town on its efforts to protect the significant heritage places within the locality which positively contribute to its amenity and sense of place. The overall small number of submissions querying the Schedule indicates that the majority of the owners of heritage places are satisfied with the current process of heritage management within the Town. Summary of Recommendations Contained in the Submissions Table The attached Submissions Table provides detailed responses to the comments and reports that have been received by the Town relative to the Schedule. All of the submissions were thoroughly reviewed and considered by the Town’s Heritage Officer with the assistance of John Taylor Architects as required. The sixteen submissions have been reviewed and there are seven recommendations for places to be either included or retained in the Schedule. There is one possible recommendation to change a place from a Category B management category place to Category C. It is considered that this submission (for 16 Hammond Road) and another (for 17A Walter Road) warrant further review by Council’s Peer Review Panel. Of the remaining submissions, six require noting. Review of Council’s Heritage Policy LV124 to Address Lower Order Category C Properties Under the final review of the LGI in 2014, a number of heritage places were referred to a Peer Review Panel for recommendation to Council. In three instances, the Panel recommended retention of the listing in the LGI, but questioned the relevance of the listing in the Schedule under TPS3. At that point of time, proposed modifications to planning legislation under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2014 did not recognise the importance of a local planning policy. As such, it was important to retain the registration in the LGI and Schedule to ensure any future development responded to heritage planning objectives. It has been confirmed by the Department of Planning that the new planning legislation will recognise the importance of a local planning policy. Accordingly the Town is finalising a proposed policy review to address requirements for delisting and demolition of heritage properties to ensure the local heritage characteristic of the Town are suitably preserved.


Page 44

The proposed policy review endorses the Peer Review Panel approach used during the LGI review to assist the Town process requests by owners for a review of a heritage category assessment for their property. The Panel’s role will be to make a recommendation on the review of a heritage classification of a place to Council where an owner seeks a review of a heritage listing outside of the scheduled LGI and Schedule review programs. The policy review proposes to include direction on determining planning applications for Category C heritage places. This includes allowing for greater flexibility to be applied to Category C places than Category A and B places, when determining a planning application. In accordance with the recommendations of the State Heritage Office the proposed policy revisions include procedures for adding, deleting or amending entries on the Schedule. This aims to provide greater clarity and transparency with regard to the processes involved in heritage listing. The proposed policy provides direction on how the Town may consider the removal of a place from the Schedule (e.g. Category C listing) if, following consideration of a detailed Heritage Assessment by both the Town and the Town’s Peer Review Panel, the place no longer is considered to meet the threshold for inclusion in the Schedule. The proposed processes will vary dependant on whether the property is a Heritage Place, or contained within or within the immediate locality of a Heritage Area or Precinct. It is proposed that demolition of any Heritage Place as an individual listing or as part of a Heritage Area or Heritage Precinct requires agreement from Council for removal from the LGI and the Schedule and a planning approval. Council should in the first instance agree to the delisting of the place for one or more of the following reasons:

• The Council believes the demolition of a place is required to deliver exceptional benefits to the community.

• It has been proven that it is not feasible to restore or adapt the place. • Structural failure is proven and the building is beyond reasonable conservation. • A place is found to no longer meet the threshold for inclusion based upon the

findings of a detailed Heritage Assessment and Council consideration of a recommendation from the Peer Review Panel.

• Any other reason the Council finds warrants the delisting.

Where the property is within or within the immediate locality of a Heritage Area or Precinct, the agreement for removal of the Category listing from the LGI and the Schedule will be subject to the lodgement of a planning application, which proposes demolition and a new development which addresses the requirements of this policy with regard to the Guidelines for Development within the Immediate Locality of Heritage Areas and Heritage Precincts to the satisfaction of Council (e.g. – the development is complementary to the Heritage Area or Precinct). Individually listed properties will also be subject to a planning application, but not subject to guidelines. As a condition of planning approval for the demolition and redevelopment of a property which is individually listed or listed within a Heritage Area of Heritage


Page 45

Precinct in the LGI or the Schedule, the Town will require an Archival Record /Interpretation Plan to be submitted and/or an element of interpretation to be included within the new development, i.e. an engraved plaque or other element to the satisfaction of Council. Following satisfaction of these requirements, the property may be removed for the LGI and Schedule. The proposed definition for “Immediate Locality of a Heritage Area or Precinct” means any property within the boundaries of a heritage area or precinct; across the road from or adjoining the side boundaries of a property listed in a heritage area or precinct; or any other place otherwise considered by the Town to have a potential impact on a heritage area or precinct.

Conclusion The updating of the Schedule to reflect the changes include in the LGI is one of the final stages in the review of the Town’s heritage management process which has been taking place since 2010. New places and sites that were nominated through the review process have also been incorporated.


OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1 Advise those who made submissions on the Draft Town of Claremont

Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places of the comments contained in the attached submissions table.

2 Adopt the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places 2015 (attached) under Clause 78 of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, with exception of 16 Hammond Road and 17A Walter Street, which are to be further reviewed by Council’s Peer Review Panel.

3 Request the Royal Agricultural Society of Western Australia to provide permission for the Town of Claremont to enter the showgrounds to assign specific management categories for the individual buildings contained in the Claremont Showgrounds Heritage Area and assist in the development of a local planning policy to guide the future development of the showgrounds.


TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 3 HERITAGE SCHEDULE REVIEW

DRAFT TPS3 HERITAGE SCHEDULE

7 JULY 2015


PAGES 15

Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places 2015

1/07/2015 1 of 15

STREETHOUSE

NUMBER Heritage Area

Management Category for

Heritage Area Contributory Significance Standalone

Management Category for Standalone Sites


Sites Assessment Number COMMENTS

Agett Rd 6 HA B Considerable 11Agett Rd 8 HA B Considerable 16Agett Rd 10 HA B Considerable 19Agett Rd 12 HA B Considerable 21Agett Rd 13 HA B Some 22Agett Rd 14 HA B Some 23Agett Rd 16 HA B Considerable 24Agett Rd 18 HA B Considerable 26Agett Rd 19 HA B Some 27Agett Rd 20 HA B Some 28Agett Rd 22 HA B Some 29Agett Rd 24 HA B Considerable 30Agett Rd 26 HA B Some 31Agett Rd 28 HA B Some 32Agett Rd 32 HA B Some 35Agett Rd 34 S (Nominated) B In LGI and Nominated for HSAirlie St 18 S CAirlie St 23 HA B Considerable 87Airlie St 25 HA B Considerable 89Albert St 5 HA B Some 108Albert St 7 HA B Some 109Albert St 9 HA B Some 110Albert St 10 S (Nominated) B In LGI and Nominated for HSAlbert St 11 HA B Some 111Albert St 13 HA B Some 112Albert St 15 HA B Considerable 113Albert St 17 HA B Some 115Albert St 19 HA B Some 116Albert St 21 HA B Some 118Albert St 24 HA B Some 121Albert St 26 HA B Some 123Albert St 28 HA 125

Albert St 14Fmr Admin Building from St Louis Community of John XXIII

Anstey St 26 Site B Osborne Hotel Folly

Australind St 4 HA B Some 283Reviewed and upgraded from potentially significant to significant.

Australind St 7 HA (Scotch College) A Some Scotch College headmasters houseAustralind St 8 HA B Considerable 285Australind St 10 HA B Considerable 286Barnfield Rd 2 HA B Some 323Barnfield Rd 3 HA B Some 324Barnfield Rd 4 HA B Considerable 325Barnfield Rd 5 HA (Nominated) B Some In LGI and Nominated for HSBarnfield Rd 6 HA (Nominated) B Some 327 In LGI and Nominated for HSBarnfield Rd 8 HA B Some 329Barnfield Rd 9 HA B Some 330Barnfield Rd 10 HA B Considerable 331Barnfield Rd 11 HA B Some 332

Barnfield Rd 12 HA B Some 333Reviewed and upgraded from potentially significant to significant.

Barnfield Rd 13 HA (Nominated) B Some 334 In LGI and Nominated for HSBarnfield Rd 14 HA B Considerable 335

hlofthouse

Highlight

hlofthouse

Highlight

hlofthouse

Highlight

hlofthouse

Highlight

jkingsbury

Highlight


1/07/2015 2 of 15

STREETHOUSE







Barnfield Rd 15 HA B Some 336Barnfield Rd 17 HA B Some 338Barnfield Rd 19 HA B Some 343Barnfield Rd 21 HA B Some 344Barnfield Rd 22 HA B Some 345Barnfield Rd 23 HA B Considerable 5270Barnfield Rd 24 HA (Nominated) B Some 347 In LGI and Nominated for HSBay Rd 12 HA B Some 366Bay Rd 14 HA B Some 375Bay Rd 17 S C 379Bay Rd 25 S B 386Bay Rd 29B S B Combined shop and house - was 29Bay Rd 33 S C 398Bay Rd 43 S B 409Bay View Tce 1 Precinct B 411 Claremont HotelBay View Tce 62 Precinct 497 Old National Bank, cnr Stirling HwyBay View Tce 72 S C 501 1895-1902 Victorian FederationBay View Tce 73 S (Nominated) B Park Lane Apartments In LGI and Nominated for HSBay View Tce 74 S C 507 1904 FederationBay View Tce 76 S B B 509 Beechworth HouseBay View Tce 83B & C S (Nominated) B Residential Duplex In LGI and Nominated for HSBay View Tce 85 S C 540Bay View Tce 87 S C 547Bay View Tce 89 S C 548Bay View Tce 91 S B 549Bay View Tce 1 Precinct B Considerable 411Bay View Tce 2A Precinct A Considerable 556 Post OfficeBay View Tce 2 Precinct B Considerable 412Bay View Tce 7 Precinct B Considerable 415Bay View Tce 4 Precinct B Some 413Bay View Tce 6 Precinct B Considerable 414Bay View Tce 8 Precinct B Some 416Bay View Tce 10-12 Precinct B SomeBay View Tce 11-19 Precinct B SomeBay View Tce 14 Precinct B SomeBay View Tce 16 Precinct B SomeBay View Tce 18 Precinct B Considerable 420Bay View Tce 20-22 Precinct B Some 422Bay View Tce 21 Precinct B Considerable 424Bay View Tce 23 Precinct B SomeBay View Tce 24 Precinct B Some 426Bay View Tce 26 Precinct B SomeBay View Tce 27-33 Precinct B SomeBay View Tce 28 Precinct B Some 429Bay View Tce 35, 37, 39 Precinct B Some 432Bay View Tce 38-40 Precinct B SomeBay View Tce 41-49 Precinct B SomeBay View Tce 42 Precinct B SomeBay View Tce 44 Precinct B Some 439Bay View Tce 1/50 Precinct B Considerable 470Bay View Tce 2/50 Precinct B Some 440Bay View Tce 50 Precinct B Considerable Bay View Tce (Lane) 50 Precinct B Some

hlofthouse

Highlight

hlofthouse

Highlight

hlofthouse

Highlight


1/07/2015 3 of 15

STREETHOUSE







Bay View Tce 51 Precinct B Some 472Bay View Tce 53-57 Precinct B Considerable Bay View Tce 56 Precinct B Considerable Bay View Tce 60-62-62a Precinct B Considerable Bernard St 1 Precinct B Some 585Bernard St 2 Precinct B Some 586Bernard St 5 Precinct B Considerable 589Bernard St 7 Precinct B Considerable 591Bernard St 8 Precinct B Considerable 592Bernard St 9 Precinct B Considerable 593Bernard St 11 Precinct B Considerable 595Bernard St 13 Precinct B Considerable 598Bernard St 14 Precinct B Considerable 599Bernard St 14A Precinct B Some 600Bernard St 15 Precinct B Considerable 601Bernard St 16 Precinct B Considerable 602Bernard St 17 Precinct B Considerable 603Bernard St 18 Precinct B Some 604Bernard St 19 Precinct B Considerable 605Bernard St 20 Precinct B Considerable 606Bernard St 22 Precinct B Considerable 608Bernard St 23 Precinct B Considerable 609Bernard St 25 Precinct B Considerable 611Bernard St 26 Precinct B Some 613Bernard St 27 Precinct B Considerable 614Bernard St 29 Precinct B Some 617Bernard St 30 Precinct B Considerable 618Bernard St 31 Precinct B Considerable 619Bindaring Pde 3 S B 643Bindaring Pde 13 S B 674Bindaring Pde 18 S B 682

Bindaring Pde 21 S B 689Rare Rodney Alsop House built for H.L. Brisbane (Bristile)

Brae Rd 7 S B 696Brassey St 14 S C 712Brassey St 18 S B 716Brown St 18 S C 749Brown St 20 S C 752Brown St 21 S C 753Brown St 22 S C 761Brown St 1/25 S C 764Brown St 35-37 S B Heritage AgreementCaxton Rd 10 HA B Some B 797Caxton Rd 12 HA B Considerable 798Caxton Rd 22 S C 803Central Ave 10 HA C Some 827Central Ave 15 HA C Some 829Central Ave 16 S C 830Central Ave 18 S C 832Central Ave 19 S B 3202Central Ave 25 S B 834Chester Rd 11 HA B Some 913Chester Rd 12 HA B Some 914 1897/98 stone house


1/07/2015 4 of 15

STREETHOUSE







Chester Rd 13 HA B Considerable 915Chester Rd 14 HA B Considerable 916Chester Rd 15 HA B Considerable 917Chester Rd 17 HA B Some 919Chester Rd Historic Site HA C N/A Site of Claremont BathsClaremont Cres 11 S C 926Claremont Cres 23 S C 930Claremont Cres 37 HA B Some 937Claremont Cres 39 HA B Some 938Claremont Cres 41 HA B Some 939Claremont Cres 43 HA B Some 940Claremont Cres 47 HA A Exceptional 942Claremont Cres 49 HA B Some 943Claremont Cres 51 HA B Considerable 944Claremont Cres 53 HA B Considerable 947Claremont Cres 55 HA (Nominated) B Some 948 In LGI and Nominated for HSClaremont Cres 57 HA B Considerable 949Claremont Cres 59 HA B Some 950Claremont Cres 147 S C 983Claremont Cres 101 Precinct B Some 957Claremont Cres 105-115 Precinct B N/A 958Claremont Cres 119 Precinct B Considerable 966Claremont Cres 123 Precinct B Considerable 967Claremont Cres 125 Precinct B Considerable 968Claremont Cres 127 Precinct B Some 970Claremont Cres 129 Precinct B Some 971Claremont Cres 131 Precinct B Some 972Claremont Cres 133-137 Precinct B Some 974Claremont Cres 139 Precinct B Some 975Claremont Cres 101 Precinct B Some 957Claremont Cres 105-115 Precinct B No 958Claremont Cres 119 Precinct B Considerable 966Claremont Cres 123 Precinct B Considerable 967Claremont Cres 125 Precinct B Considerable 968Claremont Cres 127 Precinct B Some 970Claremont Cres 129 Precinct B Considerable 971Claremont Cres 131 Precinct B Some 972Claremont Cres 133-137 Precinct B Some 974Claremont Cres 139 Precinct B Some 975Claremont Cres Historic Site Precinct C N/A Site of Bulter's Swamp SidingCliff Road 1 HA (Nominated) B Considerable 986 In LGI and Nominated for HSCliff Road 3 HA (Nominated) B Some 991 In LGI and Nominated for HSCliff Road 5 HA (Nominated) B Considerable 994 In LGI and Nominated for HSCliff Road 7 HA (Nominated) B Considerable 997 In LGI and Nominated for HSCliff Way 22 S B 3039 Was 14 Richardson AveCollege Rd 2 S B 1022 St Thomas Catholic ChurchCorry Lynn Rd 1 S C 1107Corry Lynn Rd 5 S C 1118Corry Lynn Rd 7 S B 1120

Davies Rd 15 S C 11211905 brick Federation, part of Central Claremont Estate


hlofthouse

Highlight

hlofthouse

Highlight

hlofthouse

Highlight


1/07/2015 5 of 15

STREETHOUSE








Davies Rd 25 S B 5278Davies Rd 27 S C 1147Davies Rd 29 S B 1148Davies Rd 69 S B 1223Davies Rd 74 S C 1229 1910/11 two room workers cottageDeakin St 1 S C 1386Deakin St 4 S C 1389Dean St 13 S C 1413Devon Rd 2 HA B Considerable 1485Devon Rd 4 HA B Exceptional Known as McKenzie's FollyDevon Rd 9 S B 1493Devon Rd 14 S B 1497Devon Rd 17 S B 1501Devon Rd 21 S B 1504Devon Rd 29 S B 1513Devon Rd 32 S B 1516Devon Rd 33 S B 1517Devon Rd 36 S B 5496Devon Rd Site C Swanbourne Primary Dunbar Rd 3 HA C Some 1554Dunbar Rd 7 HA C Some 1558Dunbar Rd 17 S C 1568Dunbar Rd 25 S C 1572Evelyn Rd 1 S B 1604Evelyn Rd 7 S C 1610Evelyn Rd 10 S B 5426Fern St 19 S B 1627First Ave 66 HA B Considerable 1706First Ave 68 HA B Considerable 1708Franklin Rd 15 S C 1719Fraser St 1 HA B Some 1722

Fraser St 2B HA B Some 5066Heritage Agreement under Clause 53 - Now 2B Fraser Street.

Fraser St 5 HA B Some 1727Fraser St 9 HA B Considerable 1730Fraser St 11 HA B Considerable 5272Fraser St 12 HA B Considerable 1732Fraser St 13 HA B Some 5271Fraser St 16 HA B Considerable 1736Fraser St 17 HA B Some 1737Fraser St 19 HA B Some 5339Fraser St 20 S C 1740Freshwater Bay Foreshore Historic Site Site C

Includes River, Shore line, Site of Claremont Baths, Claremont Jetty & Alex Prior Park

Freshwater Pde 3 S B 1765Freshwater Pde 19 HA B Considerable 1806Freshwater Pde 20 HA B Some 1807 1907 FederationFreshwater Pde 21 HA B Considerable 1808Freshwater Pde 23 HA B Some 1812Freshwater Pde 25 HA B Considerable 1821


1/07/2015 6 of 15

STREETHOUSE







Freshwater Pde 25A S C 1822Freshwater Pde 26 HA B Some 1823Freshwater Pde 27 HA B Considerable 1824Freshwater Pde 28 HA B Considerable 1825Freshwater Pde 29 HA B Some 1826Freshwater Pde 32 HA B Considerable 1829Garden St 19 S C 1855Goldsmith Rd 3 S B 1887Goldsmith Rd 7 S B 1896Goldsmith Rd 14 S B 1921Goldsmith Rd 15 S B 1903Goldsmith Rd 20 HA B Some 2436Goldsmith Rd 21 HA B Considerable 1910Goldsmith Rd 31 S C 1920 Heritage Agreement under Clause 53.Goldsworthy Rd 2 HA B Some 1923Goldsworthy Rd 4 HA B Some 1925Goldsworthy Rd 5 S B 1927Goldsworthy Rd 6 HA B Some 5160Goldsworthy Rd 8 HA B Some 1930Goldsworthy Rd 10 HA B Some 1931Goldsworthy Rd 12 HA B Some 1932Goldsworthy Rd 14 HA B Some 1933Goldsworthy Rd 16 HA B Considerable 1934Goldsworthy Rd 18 HA B Considerable 1935Goldsworthy Rd 20 HA B Considerable 1938Goldsworthy Rd 22 HA B Some 1941Goldsworthy Rd 33 S B 1950Goldsworthy Rd 37 S B 1956Goldsworthy Rd 42 S B 5346

Goldsworthy Rd 50 HA A ExceptionalEdith Cowan University. Fmr Teachers Training College

Goldsworthy Rd 50 HA A ExceptionalGoldsworthy Road Sugar Gum Trees, Eucalyptus cladocalyx

Goldsworthy Rd 50 HA A ExceptionalBay Road Sugar Gum Trees, Eucalyptus cladocalyx

Goldsworthy Rd 63 S C 1977Grange St 1 HA B Some 1984Grange St 3 HA B Considerable 1992Grange St 4 HA B Some 1993Grange St 5 HA B Considerable 1994Grange St 6 HA B Some 1995 Heritage Agreement under Clause 53.Grange St 7 HA B Considerable 1997Grange St 8 S C 1998Grange St 9 HA B Some 1999Grange St 9a HA B Some 2000Grange St 10 S C 5449Grange St 11 HA B Some 2002Grange St 13-15 HA B Some 5429Grange St 14 HA B Considerable 2012Grange St 16 HA B Considerable 2014Grange St 17 HA B Considerable 2015Grange St 19 S C 2017Grange St 25 S C 2023


1/07/2015 7 of 15

STREETHOUSE







Grange St 28 S C 2026Graylands Rd Showgrounds HA TBCGraylands Rd 48 S B 2046 Timber late Federation, 1921Graylands Rd 70 S B 2077

Gugeri St Grass Trees Site Significant for age, rarity and landmark quality

Gugeri StClaremont

Station HA A Exceptional 2193Station Building with inclusive Station Masters House

Gugeri StClaremont

Station HA A Exceptional 2193 Signal Cabin

Gugeri StClaremont

Station HA A Considerable 2193 Middle Platform Shelter

Gugeri StClaremont

Station HA A Exceptional 2193 Goods Shed

Gugeri StClaremont

Station Considerable 2193 Camphor Laurel Tree

Hammond 16 S (Nominated) B 2214

In LGI and Nominated for HS (Recommended for Further Review by Council's Peer Review Panel)

Jetty Rd Historic site Site C Claremont JettyJohn St 1 S C 2234John St 7 S B 2243King St 7 S B 2264King St 10 S C 2266King St 12 S C 2268King St 16 S C 2272Kingsmill St 17 S C 2287Langsford St 1 HA B Some 2321Langsford St 2 HA B Some 2322Langsford St 3 HA B Considerable 2323

Langsford St 4 HA B Some 2324

1907 Federation house with modified detail. In major area of 1903-1915 development in Claremont

Langsford St 5a HA (Nominated) B Some 2326 In LGI and Nominated for HSLangsford St 5b HA B Some 2325Langsford St 6 HA B Some 2327Langsford St 7 HA B Considerable 2328Langsford St 8 HA B Some 2329Langsford St 9 HA B Some 2330Langsford St 10 HA B Some 2331Langsford St 11 HA B Some 2332Langsford St 12 HA B Considerable 2336Langsford St 13 HA (Nominated) B Some 2337 In LGI and Nominated for HSLangsford St 14 HA B Some 2338Langsford St 15 HA B Considerable 2339Langsford St 16 HA B Considerable 2340Langsford St 17 HA B Some 2341Langsford St 18 HA B Some 2342Langsford St 20 HA B Considerable 2344Langsford St 22 HA B Considerable 2345Langsford St 24 HA B Considerable 2346Langsford St 26 HA B Some 2347

hlofthouse

Highlight

hlofthouse

Highlight

hlofthouse

Highlight

hlofthouse

Highlight


1/07/2015 8 of 15

STREETHOUSE







Lapsley Rd 1 HA B Exceptional 2348

1897/8 timber cottage, one of matched group of four - from mid-1890s Central Claremont Estate development







Lapsley Rd 9 S B 2352

Lapsley Rd 11 S C 23541907 brick Federation, part of Central Claremont Estate

Lapsley Rd 13 S C 23551910 brick Federation, part of Central Claremont Estate

Loch St 45a S C 320Loch St 51 HA B Some 2422Loch St 53 HA B Some 2423Loch St 55 HA (Nominated) B Some 2424 In LGI and Nominated for HSLoch St 59 HA B Some 2427Loch St 63 S B 2429Loton Rd 10 Was 20 Goldsmith RdMary St 2 S B 2438Mary St 10 HA B Some 2451Mary St 14 HA B Considerable 2455

Mary St 15 HA B Some 2456

1908 Federation house with modified detail. In major area of 1903-1915 development in Claremont

Mary St 17 HA B Some 2458Mary St 18 HA B Considerable Mary St 19 HA B Some 2460Mary St 21 HA B Considerable 2462Mary St 22 HA B Considerable 2463Mary St 23 HA B Considerable 2464Mary St 24 HA B Considerable 2465Mary St 25 HA B Considerable 2466

Melville St 4 S B 2146Was 64 Gugeri, address changed by subdivision

Melville St 13 S B 2478Melville St 21 S B 5146 Heritage Agreement under clause 53.Melville St 23 S C 2488Melvista Ave 4 HA B Some 2494Melvista Ave 6 HA B Some 2498Melvista Ave 18 HA B Some 2503Melvista Ave 20 HA B Considerable 2504Melvista Ave 22 HA B Some 5273Melvista Ave 34 S C 2513Osborne Pde Historic Site Site C Site of Osborne steps and jettyOsborne Pde Historic Site Site C Site of Osborne HotelAnstey St 26 Site C 254 Folly only not houseOsborne Pde 2 S B 2728

hlofthouse

Highlight


1/07/2015 9 of 15

STREETHOUSE







Osborne Pde 6 S B 2729Osborne Pde 10 S B 2732Otway St 3 HA B Some 2762Otway St 4 HA B Considerable 2763Otway St 5 S C 1718 Was 13 FranklinOtway St 6 S C 2764Otway St 7 S C 2765Otway St 8 S B 2766Otway St 11 S TBC 2769Otway St 12 S B 2770Otway St 15 S B 2771Otway St 16 S B 2773Otway St 20 S C 2777Park Lane 8 HA B Considerable 5305

Park Lane 9 S B 2798Award winning 1950s mediterranean style house & free standing addition

Park Lane 10 HA B Considerable 2799Parry St 2 HA (Nominated) B Considerable 2801 In LGI and Nominated for HSParry St 4 HA B Some 2804Parry St 8 HA B Some 2805Parry St 10 HA B Considerable 2806Parry St 12 HA (Nominated) B Some 2807 In LGI and Nominated for HSParry St 14 HA B Some 2808Parry St 16 HA B Considerable 2809 Old dairy in gardenParry St rear 16Parry St 18 HA B Some 5411Parry St 20 HA B Some 5412Parry St 22 HA B Considerable 2815Parry St 24 HA B Some 2816Pennell Rd 3 S C 2823Pennell Rd 11 S B 2828 Timber Federation housePrincess Rd 2 HA B Considerable 2835Princess Rd 4 HA B Considerable 2836Princess Rd 5 HA A Considerable 2837 Claremont Primary School. Princess Rd 5 HA A Considerable 2837 Kindergarten BuildingPrincess Rd 5 HA A Considerable 2837 Pavilion 1Princess Rd 5 HA A Considerable 2837 Pavilion 2

Princess Rd 5 HA A Considerable N/A Two Elm Trees Ulmus proceraPrincess Rd 6 HA B Some 2838Princess Rd 7 HA A Considerable 4682 Former Infants’ School Princess Rd 10 HA B Some 2839Princess Rd 14 HA B Some 2841Princess Rd 16 HA B Some 2842Princess Rd 18 S BPrincess Rd 26 HA A Considerable 2846 St Aidan's ChurchPrincess Rd 26 HA A Considerable 2846 Church HallPrincess Rd 33 S C 2856Princess Rd 34 S B 2857Princess Rd 36 HA B Some 5408Princess Rd 41 HA B Considerable 2864Princess Rd 43 HA B Some 2865Princess Rd 45 HA B Considerable 2867

hlofthouse

Highlight

hlofthouse

Highlight


1/07/2015 10 of 15

STREETHOUSE







Princess Rd 46 S B 2868Princess Rd 49 HA B Considerable 2871Princess Rd 51 HA B Considerable 2873Princess Rd 53 HA B Considerable 2874Princess Rd 55 HA B Considerable 2875Princess Rd 71 S C 2885Princess Rd 75 HA B Considerable 2887

Princess Rd 77 HA B Some 2888East Claremont Primary (fmr Claremont Practising School) and additions

Princess Rd 90 HAProspect St 2B 5282Queen St 5 HA B Some 2918 Early design by Steve WoodlandQueen St 7 S B 2920 Old dairy in garden

Queen St 9 HA B Some 2923Christ Church Grammar, Parry & Walters House

Queenslea Dr C C G HA B Exceptional Christ Church Grammar, Avenue of treesQueenslea Dr C C G Trees Site C Christ ChurchQueenslea Dr 2 S A 2930 London Plane TreesQueenslea Dr Trees Site C RectoryQueenslea Dr 2A S AQueenslea Dr 4 HA B Some 2933Queenslea Dr 6 HA B Some 2934Queenslea Dr 10 S C 2939Queenslea Dr 14 HA B Considerable 2947Queenslea Dr 16 HA B Considerable 2948Renown Ave 1 HA B 2973Renown Ave 2 HA B 2974Renown Ave 3 S C 2975Renown Ave 5 S C 2977Renown Ave 6 S B 2978Renown Ave 8 S C 2981Reserve St 4 HA B Some 2984Reserve St 6 HA B Considerable 2985Reserve St 10 HA B Considerable 2986Reserve St 12 HA B Some 5365Reserve St 14 HA B Considerable 2988Reserve St 16 HA B Some 2989Reserve St 18 HA B Some 2990Reserve St 22 HA B Some 2992Reserve St 24 HA B Considerable 5145Reserve St 25 HA B Considerable 2994Reserve St 26 HA B Considerable 2995Reserve St 27 S C 2996Reserve St 28 HA B Considerable 2997Reserve St 29 HA B Considerable 2998Reserve St 30 HA B Some 2991Reserve St 31 HA B Some 3000Reserve St 32 HA B Some 3001Reserve St 33 HA B Considerable 3002Reserve St 36 HA B Some S C 3005Reserve St 37 HA B Considerable 3006Reserve St 41 HA B Considerable 3009 Recreation Area


1/07/2015 11 of 15

STREETHOUSE







Reserve St Rowe Park HA (Langsford) B SomeRichardson Ave 5 S B 3023Richardson Ave 11 HA B Some 3036Richardson Ave 13 HA B Some 3037Richardson Ave 14a S C 3040Richardson Ave 15 HA B Considerable 3041Richardson Ave 17 S B 3062Richardson Ave 18 S B 3063Riley Rd 2 HA B Considerable 3089Riley Rd 3 S B 3091Riley Rd 4 HA B Considerable 3092Riley Rd 7 S B 3095Riley Rd 8 HA B Considerable 3096Riley Rd 10 HA B Considerable 3100Riley Rd 17 HA B Considerable 3113Riley Rd 18 HA B Considerable 3114Riley Rd 20 HA B Considerable 3116Riley Rd 22A S C 3119Riley Rd 29 S B 3126 Trees only (32 Riley)Riley Rd 32 Site C 3128Riley Rd 33 S B 3129Riley Rd 37 HA B Some 3134Riley Rd 38 S B 3135Riley Rd 39 HA B Some 5143Rob Roy St 3 S B 3139Rob Roy St 11 S B 5446Saladin St 3 HA B Considerable 5428Saladin St 5 HA B Some 3161Saladin St 6 S C 3162Saladin St 7 HA B Some 3163Saladin St 9 HA B Some 3165 Oldham ResidenceSaladin St 11 HA A Exceptional 3167Saladin St 12 S C 3168Saladin St 14 S C 3171 ANZAC CottageSaunders St 16 S A 3196Scott St 2 S B 3212Scott St 5 S B 3218Second Ave 61 S B 3309 Timber Federation 1914Second Ave 63 S B 3311Second Ave 67a S C 3316Servetus St 32 HA B Some 3376

Servetus St 34 HA B Some

3377 Avenue of Pine trees planted to commemorate fallen soldiers during the World Wars

Shenton Pl extending onto Claremont Golf Course HA (Lake Claremont) C N/A Shenton Rd 2 S B 3402Shenton Rd 4 HA B Considerable 3403Shenton Rd 6 HA B Considerable 3405Shenton Rd 8 HA B Considerable 3407Shenton Rd 9 HA B Some 3408


1/07/2015 12 of 15

STREETHOUSE







Shenton Rd 10 HA B Considerable 3409Shenton Rd 11 HA B Considerable 3410Shenton Rd 12 HA B Considerable 3411Shenton Rd 14 HA B Considerable 3413Shenton Rd 15 S B 3414Shenton Rd 27 S C 3435Shenton Rd 32 S C 3450 Scotch College Jnr SchoolShenton Rd 43 S BShenton Rd 46 HA B Considerable 3469Shenton Rd 48 HA B Considerable 3470Shenton Rd 50 HA B Considerable 3471Shenton Rd 52 HA B Considerable 3472Shenton Rd 54 S C 3473Shenton Rd 56 HA B Considerable 3475Shenton Rd 59 S B 3478Shenton Rd 60 HA B Some 3479Shenton Rd 66 HA B Considerable 3489Shenton Rd 68 HA B Considerable 3490Shenton Rd 70 HA B Considerable 3492Shenton Rd 72 S C 3494Shenton Rd 73 S C 3495Shenton Rd 74 S C 3496Shenton Rd 75 S C 3497Shenton Rd 76 HA (Scotch College) A Exceptional 3401 Scotch College, Barrett's HouseShenton Rd 76 HA A Exceptional 3401Shenton Rd 77 S C 3498 RavenscroftShenton Rd 78 HA (Scotch College) A Considerable 3328Shenton Rd 80 S C 3500Shenton Rd 83 HA C Some 3502Shenton Rd 84 S B 3503Shenton Rd 85 HA C Some 3504Shenton Rd 87 HA C Some 3506 Shenton ShopsShenton Rd 91 Precinct B Considerable 3508 Shenton ShopsShenton Rd 93 Precinct B Considerable 3510Shenton Rd 94 S C 3511 Shenton ShopsShenton Rd 95 Precinct B Considerable 3513Shenton Rd 97 S B 3516Shenton Rd 98 S B 3517

Shenton Rd 109 HA B Some 3528Enchantment' built 1896/1897 as house and shop.

Shenton Rd 110 HA B Considerable 3529Shenton Rd 111 HA B Some 3530 Heritage AgreementShenton Rd 113 HA B Some 3537Smith St 1 HA B Considerable 3552Smith St 3 HA B Some 3553Smith St 5 HA B Some 3555Smith St 7 HA B Some 3557Smith St 12 S C 3562Smith St 13 S C 3563Smith St 16 S (Nominated) C 3566Smith St 23 S C 3570St Quentins Ave 2 HA (BVT) B Considerable 3963 Fmr Coronado Hotel


1/07/2015 13 of 15

STREETHOUSE







Stirling Hwy 206 S A 3577 Origninal dwelling 1/222 Stirling HighwayStirling Hwy 222 S B 5441

Stirling Hwy 236 S B 3629Letterbox and site of halfway tree, not building

Stirling Hwy 256 Site C 3660 Fmr ChurchStirling Hwy 262 HA A Considerable 3662 Fmr Congregational ChurchStirling Hwy 264 HA A Exceptional 3665 Fmr Electric SubstationStirling Hwy 280 S B 3686 St John's Ambulance

Stirling Hwy 282 S B Claremont Park and site of convict depot

Stirling Hwy 282 S BSt John Ambulance – Claremont Sub-centre

Stirling Hwy 288 HA A Exceptional R883Claremont War Memorial and landscape setting

Stirling Hwy 308 HA A Exceptional

Claremont Council Offices and Surroundings

Stirling Hwy 308 HA A Exceptional 5263 Claremont Town Hall

Stirling Hwy 327 S BMethodist Ladies College, Centenary Building & Burnside House

Stirling Hwy 356 S B 3740Stirling Hwy 365 S (Nominated) B In LGI and Nominated for HSStirling Hwy 378 S C 3823Stirling Hwy 380 S C 3828Stirling Hwy 394 S B 3859Stirling Hwy 395 HA (Grange Street) B Some 3860Stirling Hwy 399 S C 3881Stirling Rd 23 HA B Some 3941Stirling Rd 25 HA B Considerable 3942Stirling Rd 27 HA B Some 3944Stirling Rd 29 HA B Considerable 3946

Stirling Rd 31 S B 3952 Lake Claremont, formerly Butler's SwampStirling Rd Lake Claremont Reserve Site C

Thomson Rd 7 S B 4032Thomson Rd 17 S C 4041Thomson Rd 19 S C 4043Thomson Rd 21 S B 4045

Thomson Rd 25 S B 4049Thomson Rd 26 S B 4050Vaucluse St 1 HA B Considerable 4054

Vaucluse St 2 HA B Considerable 4055

Built in 1905 and retains substantially original form and some detail, positive contribution to street, part of main area of 1903-1915 development

Vaucluse St 3 HA (Nominated) B Some 4056 In LGI and Nominated for HSVaucluse St 4 HA B Some 4057Vaucluse St 5 HA B Considerable 4058

Vaucluse St 7 HA B Considerable 4060

Built in 1904 and retains some form and detail, positive contribution to street, part of main area of 1903-1915 development

hlofthouse

Highlight

hlofthouse

Highlight


1/07/2015 14 of 15

STREETHOUSE







Vaucluse St 9 HA B Some 4062Vaucluse St 12 HA B Considerable 4063Vaucluse St 15 HA B Considerable 4072Vaucluse St 17 HA B Some 4073Vaucluse St 22 S B 4077 Bay View MansionsVictoria Ave 16 a S B 4127 Bay View MansionsVictoria Ave 16b S B 4128 Bay View MansionsVictoria Ave 16c S B 4129 Bay View MansionsVictoria Ave 16d S B 4130 Bay View MansionsVictoria Ave 16e S B 4131Victoria Ave 36 HA B Some 4267Victoria Ave 37 S B 4268Victoria Ave 38 HA B Some 4270Victoria Ave 43 HA B Considerable 4305Victoria Ave 47 HA B Considerable 4307

Victoria Ave 49 HA B Some 43111911 two storey riverside mansion built for Arthur Bunnings by Bunnings Bros.

Victoria Ave 50 S A 5008Victoria Ave 51 HA B Considerable 4313Victoria Ave 55 S C 4318Victoria Ave 63 S B 4337 Was 2 Goldsmith: heritage agreementVictoria Ave 67 S B 4340 BoatshedVictoria Ave 66 HA B Some 4341 Claremont MusuemVictoria Ave 66 HA A Exceptional Mrs Herberts ParkVictoria Ave 66 HA C SomeWalter St 1 S B 4354Walter St 2 HA B Considerable 4355Walter St 4 HA B Considerable 4358Walter St 5 HA B Considerable 4359Walter St 6 HA B Some 4360Walter St 7 HA B Considerable 5367Walter St 8 HA B Some 4362Walter St 10 HA B Considerable 4364Walter St 11 HA B Some 4365Walter St 12 HA B Some 5387Walter St 13 HA B Some 4367Walter St 14 HA B Some 5388Walter St 15 HA B Considerable 4369

Walter St 17 HA (Nominated) B Some

In LGI and Nominated for HS (Recommended for Further Review by Council's Peer Review Panel)

Walter St 19 HA B Considerable 4373Walter St 21 HA B Some 4378Walter St 23 HA B Considerable 4379Walter St 25 HA B Some 4381Walter St 26 HA B Considerable 4382Walter St 28 HA B Considerable 4385Walter St 29 HA B Some 4387Wilson St 1 HA B Exceptional 4413Wilson St 3 HA B Considerable 4414Wood St 5 HA B Some 4429Wood St 6 HA B Some 4430

hlofthouse

Highlight

hlofthouse

Highlight


1/07/2015 15 of 15

STREETHOUSE







Wood St 8 HA B Considerable 4433Wood St 9 HA B Some 4434Wood St 10 HA B Some 4435Wood St 11 HA B Some 4436Wood St 13 HA B Some 4438Wood St 14 S C 4439Wood St 17 HA B Some 4443Wood St 18 HA B Some 4444Wright Ave 6 S B 4454


TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 3 HERITAGE SCHEDULE REVIEW

SUBMISSION TABLE

7 JULY 2015


PAGES 12

SUBMISSION TABLE – HERITAGE SCHEDULE

N:\ENCAPSULATE 2007 TOC\ENCAPSULATE LIVE\CAPS DOCUMENTS\ORDINARY\REPORT\DIRECT TO COUNCIL\COUNCIL\DRAFTS\PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT\HERITAGE SCHEDULE SUBMISSION TABLE 241114.DOCX 1 of 12

Property Summary of Submission Summary of Officer Response 4/73 Bay View Terrace, Claremont (Park Lane Apartments) Individual Listing – Category B – ‘Considerable Significance’

• Wish to express my strong objection to this proposal. • Listing the property will significantly reduce the property value

and make future sale of the individual apartments considerably more difficult.

• A great deal of the value of this block is the vacant land surrounding the complex making it ideal for possible redevelopment or renovation.

• Listing the property would render the property only suitable to a select few buyers.

• The owner’s concerns in regards to the impact of the listing on property value and redevelopment are noted. However, there are a number of studies on this issue, which identify that there are many benefits attached to heritage listings on a social and economic level. Further, the studies included below demonstrate that there is a lack of evidence that property prices are negatively impacted by heritage listings. Lastly, the Town’s Heritage Policy LV124 allows for appropriate redevelopment of these places.

• Studies on heritage listings and property value: Report to Australian Property Institute Concerning Residential sales analysis 1988 to 2006 (Dennis Barton 2008); Heritage Australia A Review of Australian Material Regarding the Economic and Social Benefits of Heritage Property (Peter Wills & Dr Chris Eves, The NSW Heritage Office, 2005) and Heritage Listing and Property Value (Heritage Victoria, 2001).

• It is noted that No. 73 is already included on the Heritage Schedule.

• It is noted that the property has larger than normal front setbacks to both Bay View Terrace and Park Lane. These setbacks are important to the historical context of the building and in accordance with Council’s Heritage Policy LV124, opportunity for development forward of the building setback is limited.

• It is also noted that the property is zoned Residential with a density coding of R25. This coding ordinarily allows for the development of two dwellings and the existing apartments already exceed this development potential. TPS3 prevents redevelopment of the existing apartments at the current density unless the building is destroyed as a



result of fire etc, and the building is restored at its pre-existing density.

Recommendation: Include No. 73 Bay View Terrace in the Heritage Schedule as a Standalone Listing.

3 Cliff Road, Claremont Cliff Road Heritage Area – Category B – ‘Some Contribution’

• The applicant would like to receive further information about the implications of being included on the Heritage Schedule and Local Government Inventory on the resale and development of their property.

• They object to the inclusion until receive explanation regarding implications.

• Contacted 28/11/14 – no response. • The implications of being included on the Heritage

Schedule are that all development must comply with the heritage provisions of the TPS3 and the heritage policy.

Recommendation: Include No. 3 Cliff Road in the Heritage Schedule within the Cliff Road Heritage Area.

19 Fraser Street, Claremont Fraser Street Heritage Area – Category B – ‘Some Contribution’

• Owner advised they would be overseas and did not provide any specific comment in response to the consultation.

• It is noted that the property is already included on the Heritage Schedule as an individually listed place.

• The owner has recently entered into a Heritage Agreement with the Town and did not provide any comments on return from their overseas trip.

Recommendation: Note owner’s submission. Retain No. 19 Fraser Street in the Heritage Schedule within the Fraser Street Heritage Area.

1 Graylands Road, Claremont Claremont Showgrounds Heritage Area – Category B – ‘Some Contribution’

• The applicant states that the Town’s letter of 18 September 2014 highlights that the Town has not considered or addressed the requirements of heritage law.

• The Royal Agricultural Society of Western Australia does not accept the claim in the Town’s letter of 5 August 2014 that the buildings on the Showground were listed in accordance with Section 45(1) of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990.

• The listing of the whole Showground in Town’s Local Government Inventory is contrary to S. 45(1) of the Heritage Act and is invalid for this reason.

• Staff from the Town’s Planning Department met with representatives of the RAS to address their concerns as part of the LGI process. Further the Town offered the RAS the opportunity to take part in its Peer Review Panel sessions during which a group of local heritage professionals met with owners of certain locally listed heritage places to address their concerns and mediate whether or not their place should be included on the LGI.

• As previously advised in its letter to the RAS of 18 September 2014, the Town does not consider the inclusion



• The applicant is unable to find notice from the Town provided under Clause 78(6)(a) or 78(6)(b) of TPS3 or newspaper advertisement which refers to the Heritage Schedule.

• The applicant notes that Cl.78 does not provide the Town with the ability to automatically transfer places from the LGI to the Heritage Schedule.

of the Showground on the LGI as invalid. S. 45(1) of the Heritage Act specifically provides for the local government to compile and maintain an inventory of ‘buildings’ within its district which in its opinion are, or may become, of cultural heritage significance. Whilst not indicating the local government shall include the listing of an ‘area’, S. 45(1) does not preclude the listing of an area on the LGI. In addition, the listing of areas under an LGI and Schedule are in line with the Burra Charter and other best practice guidelines outlined in the State Heritage Office’s Criteria for the Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas.

• The Town’s letter of 3 September 2014 provided notice of the proposed changes to the Heritage Schedule to include the Claremont Showgrounds Heritage Area in addition to the advertisement in The Post newspaper on 5 September 2014.

• It is noted that the RAS has raised concerns over the Town’s processes in the review of the LGI and Schedule with the Ombudsman. Should the Ombudsman indicate any wrong doing by the Town’s processes, a report will be referred to Council to rectify the situation.

• In light of the RAS’s recent presentation to Council of concept design proposals for the redevelopment of the site, it is important that the place be entered onto the Schedule and a comprehensive assessment of its buildings be undertaken in order to assign specific management categories to the buildings identified.

Recommendation: Include No. 1 Graylands Road in the Heritage Schedule within the Claremont Showgrounds Heritage Area. It is also recommended that the Council request the RAS to provide permission for the Town of Claremont to enter the



showgrounds to assign specific management categories for the individual buildings contained in the Claremont Showgrounds Heritage Area and assist in the development of a local planning policy to guide the future development of the showgrounds.

16 Hammond Road, Claremont Individual Listing – Category B – ‘Considerable Significance’ 2 Submissions

Submission 1 • The applicant is unsure why their property is included when other

similar properties have not been included. There are similar properties on Hammond, George and Goldsworthy Roads. It seems odd to only include one property.

• It could be that a token property was needed. • They have read the notes of the assessment and concluded that

there is nothing special about their property. • The chimney which is mentioned in detail is the same as the

chimney that was on the property across the road and that was demolished to be replaced by a sustainable residence.

• It is laudable that the Town is attempting to preserve the heritage of Claremont, but it is incongruous that only one World War II place has been proposed for inclusion.

• Clearly the proposal was not made on architectural merit, but rather due to the sympathetic extension made to the property.

• The listing could be make repairs that are needed to the place difficult.

• Preserving one place in a street of ‘Mansions’ will not give residents a snapshot of the working class origins of Claremont.

• This will have a ‘huge’ impact on the value. • If Council list the property then they should consider some

compensation such as re-roofing the building, contributing to the up keep, offering free rates for 10 years or increasing the density.

They could not find the early nomination on the Town’s website and hope that due consideration is given before the proposal is approved.

• No. 16 Hammond Street, an Inter-War California Bungalow style residence, has aesthetic value in its presentation and provision of homogeneity to the streetscape on the south side of Hammond Road. The place has minor local social value through association with various owners. The design of the place incorporates some Arts and Craft influences, and is a good (but not outstanding) example of the Inter War period of development – it is clearly identifiable. The era and style of residence contributes to the community’s sense of place.

• The place has been well-maintained, and despite the apparent modification of the original core of the house by a large-scale rear extension (that follows original detailing), fits well within the streetscape, with similar-era residences at Nos. 8, 10 and 12 Hammond Road.

• Council may consider reclassification of property from Category B to Category C (or alternatively removal of the property from the LGI and Heritage Schedule). However, consistent with the LGI process, details of the submission should be referred to the Peer Review Panel for consideration and recommendation to Council.

Recommendation: Council may consider reclassification from Category B status to Category C or removal of the property from the Heritage Schedule attached to the Town of Claremont TPS3 (and LGI), subject further review by Council’s Peer Review Panel prior to determination.



Submission 2 • The applicant strongly objection the inclusion of their property

on the Heritage Schedule. • They have lived in Hammond Road for twenty-eight years and

have previously seen one heritage review take place. • In the last review, the applicant is aware of at least one place

that was listed as a ‘heritage colonial’ when in fact it was the same age as No. 16. They note that the planners don’t always get it right.

• The submission notes that most other houses of that vintage (c.1944) have been demolished. Further, the architecture of the place is cramped and has poor light and heating.

• There are places on Hammond Road, George Street and Goldsworthy Road which have not been nominated. Therefore it is discriminatory and they applicant is concerned that the original Selection Committee has mistaken the 1990s addition which afford the place greater street presence.

• The property has been recently been valued over the phone and they were not interested in viewing the property as its value is contained with the land value.

• The applicant believes that the proposed classification will make the property worthless.

• The Planning Department has advised that the Council is flexible in terms of modifications that can be made to the place. However, the layout makes alteration of the layout quite difficult.

• The tile roof needs to be replaced and they are unsure if the heritage listing will prevent them from replacing it with colorbond.

• The nomination says that the property is reflective of a more prosperous era. This is not evident in the construction.

• The applicant is concerned that requirement to preserve the place will have a significant financial cost for them. They trust



that Council would offer compensation for the listing such as increased density.

• The nomination of one property within three streets will isolate it from its environment, which comprise of modern dwelling.

• The applicant urges Council to vote against the nomination.

1 Langsford Street, Claremont Langsford Street Heritage Area – Category B – ‘Some Contribution’

• The applicant is opposed to the inclusion of No. 1 in the Langsford Street Heritage Area based on a series of reasons.

• No. 1 has poorly constructed and designed alterations. • These alterations have negatively impacted the contribution of

the place to the streetscape. • There are some aspects of the place that make a positive

contribution to the streetscape such as the mature trees on the property which the applicant proposed should be retained in a recent development application lodged with the Town.

• The application was refused by Council and has been referred to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

• The removal of the existing building at No. 1 Langsford and replacement with a sensitive new residential development that fits within the characteristics is supported by a local heritage consultant engaged by the applicant.

• Any decision to include No. 1 Langsford Street on the schedule should be delayed pending the SAT outcome.

• It is noted that No. 1 has been subject to some unsympathetic alterations. However, it continues to display key characteristics of the Federation style including the roof form, verandah and entryway. Its scale and form also remain intact.

• The Federation aesthetic of No. 1 allows the place to make an important contribution to the Heritage Area streetscape beyond the mature trees within its garden setting.

• The SAT review resulted in the submission of revised plans to retain, extend and renovate the existing dwelling together with the development of two sympathetic dwellings, one on each side. As the application was approved by Council, the SAT review has been withdrawn.

• It is noted that No. 1 is already included on the Heritage Schedule as an individually listed place

Recommendation: Retain No. 1 Langsford Street in the Heritage Schedule within the Langsford Street Heritage Area.

3 Langsford Street, Claremont Langsford Street Heritage Area – Category B – ‘Considerable Contribution’

• The applicant agrees with the proposal as it heightens the heritage status of the Heritage Area.

• Note the owner’s support. No further action required.

Recommendation: Retain No. 3 Langsford Street in the Heritage Schedule within the Landgsford Street Heritage Area.

13 Langsford Street, Claremont • The applicant objects to the listing of No.13 based on the advice • While it is noted that Langsford Street largely consists of



Langsford Street Heritage Area – Category B – ‘Some Contribution’

received from two heritage architects. • The applicant states that based on the predominantly Federation

streetscape and as the property is a poor example of a Californian Bungalow that it does not meet the minimum requirement to be part of the Langsford Street Heritage Area.

• The applicant quotes John Taylor report: ‘Whilst the place does not detract from the streetscape, it is arguable whether its contribution to the heritage area is justified on heritage grounds. The place does not meet the criteria for inclusion on the Heritage Inventory under Clause 78 (3) of TPS3 and its contribution to the area is therefore more one of ‘urban character’. The residential function, similar street alignment and single-storey form are qualities that contribute to the pattern, character and consistency of the Langsford Street Heritage Area’

• The applicant believes that the above passage demonstrates that the property does not possess the minimum level of heritage value required for heritage listing provided by the State Heritage Office’s guidelines.

• In the mediation session held by the Town at the property there was difference of opinion among the owner’s view and that of Council.

• The level of heritage contribution that the place makes to the street is a subjective matter.

• The applicant notes that in the Town’s report of 19 November refer to State Planning Policy 3.5, which emphasises the importance of reconciling heritage protection with the property owner’s expectations.

• In the opinion of the applicant this concept has been forgotten. • The property just meets the requirements of heritage listing. The

owner purchased the property without any heritage protection. The applicant believes that it is reasonable to expect that the property remains without any heritage protection. They believe the review process has not made high-level consideration of

Federation style residences the Town maintains that the Inter-War development within the Langsford Street Heritage Area is important to both the cohesiveness of the locality and reflects a significant development period within Claremont and the street.

• The Taylor Report notes that No. 13 is a ‘moderately good example of the Inter-War California Bungalow’. It also recommends that No. 13 should be listed in the LGI and that the place contributes to the ‘pattern, character and consistency’ of the streetscape.

• The Town commissioned a Peer Review Panel of five heritage experts to meet at No. 13 on 17 October to consider the merit of the proposed heritage listing. The Panel reviewed all of the material associated with past assessments and the submissions made by the owner. The Panel recommended to Council that No. 13 be retained on the LGI, which was endorsed by Council on 18 November 2014.

• The Town recognises the importance of owners’ expectations and considered those expectations in having the listing reviewed and put before the panel of experts. The panel considered in-depth the comment and material put forward by the owner at that time.

• While it is understood that the owner purchased the property before it was listed, the Town is required by the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 to review its list of significant places every four years and consider the existing places on its list and new places that are worthy of inclusion. The process of heritage management of a locality is an evolving process and not static.

Recommendation: Include No. 13 Langsford Street in the Heritage Schedule within the Langsford Street Heritage Area.



owners’ expectations. • The applicant reiterates that he purchased the property prior to

the listing, which he could not have foreseen. The listing has a valuation impact on the property that they could not have reasonable expected.

• Based on the above, the applicant asks Council to reconsider the listing.

15 Langsford Street, Claremont Langsford Street Heritage Area – Category B – ‘Considerable Contribution’

• Strongly support this important planning initiative and congratulate Council on its commitment to preserving listed heritage buildings and places that contribute so much to Claremont and Swanbourne’s sense of place.

• The initiative is another example of best practice being followed with respect to town planning and heritage management.


Recommendation: Include No. 15 Langsford Street in the Heritage Schedule within the Langsford Street Heritage Area.

55 Loch Street, Claremont Loch Street Heritage Area – Category B – ‘Some Contribution’

• Requests that the photo and description be updated based on information provided.

• Note the owner’s submission • Updates to the photo and description in the Local

Government Inventory are scheduled as part of a previous resolution.

Recommendation: Include No. 55 Loch Street in the Heritage Schedule within the Loch Street Heritage Area.

5 & 7 Princess Road, Claremont Claremont Primary School Heritage Area – Category A – ‘Considerable Contribution’ 90 Princess Road, Claremont East Claremont Primary School Heritage Area – Category B – ‘Considerable Contribution’

• The applicant has no objection as long as development facilities will not have conditions or restrictions that limit the Department’s ability to upgrade or replace facilities in response to changes in demographics and education service delivery.

• Town has no objection to the owner upgrading the facilities to meet the changing needs of the demographic and education services. Any changes to the Town’s policies associated with the development of heritage places will involve consultation with the owners of heritage places and open for further comment.

• It is noted that Nos. 5, 7 & 90 are already included on the Heritage Schedule as an individually listed place.



Recommendation: Retain Nos. 5, 7 and 90 in the Heritage Schedule within the Claremont Primary School and East Claremont Primary School Heritage Areas.

48 Shenton Road, Claremont Shenton Road Heritage Area 4 – Category B – ‘Considerable Contribution’

• No objection • Strongly recommend that the current facades and street aspects of

No. 48 and the adjoining Nos 46, 50, 52 & 56 are safeguarded in the future as a part of Claremont’s heritage. Fully support any efforts to achieve this purpose through the Heritage Schedule.


Recommendation: Retain No. 48 Shenton Road in the Heritage Schedule within the Shenton Road Heritage Area.

32 Servetus Street, Swanbourne Servetus Street Heritage Area – Category B – ‘Some Contribution’

• The applicant has had plans approved to make an extension to 32 Servetus Street. The applicant ensured that these plans were designed in accordance with heritage guidelines. The applicant writes seeking assurance that the changes to the Heritage Schedule will not impact the approved works.

• The planning approval for No. 32 Servetus Street is valid for two years from the date of approval and will not be impacted by the changes to Heritage Schedule.

• It is noted that No. 32 is already included on the Heritage Schedule as an individually listed place.

Recommendation: Retain No. 32 Servetus Street in the Heritage Schedule within the Servetus Street Heritage Area.

34 Servetus Street, Swanbourne Servetus Street Heritage Area – Category B – ‘Some Contribution’

• Object to the listing. • The inclusion of the property will have negative consequences in

terms of market value and market attractiveness. • We do not believe we have ever been notified of the significance of

this listing – the last we knew was that it was of interest only. • There are several properties in Servetus Street which we believe

have far more heritage significance than this property and are not included.

• We are personally happy to retain the look of the home, however should we decide to sell, the inclusion would be a negative to any prospective buyer and unless the Council is willing to offer compensation for this, we believe it should be excluded.

• The owner’s concerns in regards to the impact of the listing on property value and redevelopment are noted. However, there are a number of studies on this issue, which identify that there are many benefits attached to heritage listings on a social and economic level. Further, the studies included below demonstrate that there is a lack of evidence that property prices are negatively impacted by heritage listings. Lastly, the Town’s heritage policy allows for appropriate redevelopment of these places.

• Studies on heritage listings and property value: Report to Australian Property Institute Concerning Residential sales analysis 1988 to 2006 (Dennis Barton 2008); Heritage Australia A Review of Australian Material Regarding the



Economic and Social Benefits of Heritage Property (Peter Wills & Dr Chris Eves, The NSW Heritage Office, 2005) and Heritage Listing and Property Value (Heritage Victoria, 2001).

• It is noted that No. 34 is already included on the Heritage Schedule as a place of significance from 2007.

Recommendation: Retain No. 32 Servetus Street in the Heritage Schedule within the Servetus Street Heritage Area.

222 Stirling Highway, Claremont Individual Listing – Category B – ‘Considerable Significance’

• No objection.


Recommendation: Retain No. 222 Stirling Highway in the Heritage Schedule as a Standalone Listing.

17A Walter Street, Claremont Walter Street Heritage Area – Category B – ‘Some Contribution’ 2 Submission

Submission 1 • The applicant strongly objects to the nomination of their property

for the Heritage Schedule. • It is noted that Walter Street is a significant Heritage Area within

Claremont. • The significance of the street relates to the Federation Bungalow

style and its associated features. The examples contained within the street have significant scale, consistency, landholdings and heritage features.

• Photos of No. 17A are included and reveal a very ‘non-descript’ 1950s duplex.

• The place is not consistent with the predominantly Federation Bungalow style of the street and inclusion would have adverse impact on the community perception of the significance of Walter Street.

• No. 17A is neither stylistically exceptional nor important for any

• While it is noted that the Walter Street Heritage Area has a number of Federation residences, the Statement of Significance makes clear that the locality is distinguished by two intersecting development styles which included the Inter-War period. Other examples of the Inter-War period can be seen at Nos. 6 & 12.

• No. 17 contributes to the streetscape homogeneity of the locality and reveals the transition in development over time.

• No. 17 is not listed because it is a perfect example of a Californian Bungalow, but rather that it reflects a significant period of development within the Town and within the Heritage Area to which it is attached.

• It is noted that No. 17 is a duplex, but this is not grounds for its exclusion. The fact that it is a duplex sets it apart from the dominant build form of the Town and gives it a



aspect of rarity • The applicant has included a reported completed by a heritage

professional to support their objection. • The place does not conform with the predominantly Federation

Bungalow architectural style of Walter Street nor the introduced 20th Century development.

• The duplex at No. 17A is an example of an irregular development in the streetscape and does not warrant identification as a place of significance.

• The inclusion of the place on HS should be opposed as the owner does not wish the place to be entered on the HS, the place is not consistent with the predominantly Federation Bungalow style streetscape and the place is neither stylistically exceptional nor important for any aspect or rarity.

• The houses immediately adjoining No. 17 A at Nos. 17 and 19 Walter Street are sound examples of Federations Bungalow style houses and appropriately entered in the inventory.

Submission 2

• The applicant notes their submission of 19 September, which includes a supporting opinion from a local heritage consultant.

• The applicant reiterates their objection and requests that the property be excised from Walter Street Heritage Area and that no steps be made to advance the listing.

• The applicant individually addresses the Criteria for the Assessment of Local Heritage Places.

• Aesthetic value: The place is a nondescript 1950s duplex and from the front only the door, simple verandah, window and garage door are visible. The front elevation is partially obscured by a carport addition. Further the duplex is completely different from the other properties in the street, which are typically Federation style bungalows on large lots. A duplex is inconsistent with the surrounding lots. Lastly, No. 17 has no association with creative or artistic excellence.

unique quality. • Consistent with the LGI process, details of the submission

should be referred to the Peer Review Panel for consideration and recommendation to Council.

Recommendation Refer this submission to the Peer Review Panel for consideration and recommendation to Council prior to determination.



• Contribution to the history of the locality: The duplex is nonconforming with the area. It is neither rare nor stylistically important.

• Potential to yield information on the natural and cultural history of the locality: No. 17 is atypical and can provide no information on the local cultural or natural history.

• Demonstrative of technical innovation or achievement: No. 17 is a simple and common construction.

• Social, cultural educational, or spiritual association with the local district: No relevant association.

• Demonstrative of rare, uncommon or endangered aspect of the local district: No. 17 is an atypical (non-conforming) structure.

• Demonstrative of a class cultural places of the locality: There are many other 1950s duplexes in Claremont more broadly and No. 17 is neither significant nor rare,

• Demonstrative of a unified form in the public realm with identifiable aesthetic, historic or social theme associated with a period or periods of development: No. 17 does not reflect the development of the Walter Street Heritage Area.

• The applicant submits that there is no basis for the inclusion of No. 17 in the Walter Street Heritage Area and requests removal from all heritage listings.


Page 46

13.2 PEOPLE AND PLACES

13.2.1 WRITE-OFF OLD LIBRARY DEBTS FOR CLAREMONT LIBRARY MEMBERS

File Ref: FIM/00067 Attachments: Borrower Previous Debts Responsible Officer: Liz Ledger

Executive Manager People and Places Author: Sarah Liddiard

Library Coordinator Proposed Meeting Date: 16 June 2015

Purpose For Council to consider the write-off of outstanding Claremont library member accounts considered unrecoverable from 4th June 2005, a period greater than ten years.

Background The Library charges members an account fee (fine) for overdue items and a fee for lost and damaged items. The report contains a list of members with outstanding fines and fees older than ten years. The list of names is to remain confidential. The Western Suburbs Library Group (WSLG) decided at a business meeting in 2015 to write off the debts for library members with accounts outstanding greater than ten years. Nedlands, Subiaco and The Grove Libraries have agreed to follow this procedure to clean up the database and remove inactive WSLG members from the AMLIB library database.

Discussion A review of outstanding debts has been undertaken following an AMLIB report that has identified debts considered to be unrecoverable due to the passage of time. The debt of $13,830.15 is unrecoverable and is presented to Council for approval to write-off the Claremont Library debts held by individual library members.

Past Resolutions Nil.

Financial and Staff Implications There is no financial implication for the Claremont Library in the write-off of the debt. Library account fees do not raise significant revenue on an annual basis. The library stock that is missing is older than ten years and is likely to have been written off or sent back to the SLWA in an exchange.


Page 47

As such, the library debt write-off will have no impact on Councils current year operating surplus.

Policy and Statutory Implications N/A

Publicity Nil

Strategic Community Plan Governance and Leadership

We are an open and accountable local government that encourages community involvement and strives to keep its community well informed.

• Provide and maintain a high standard of governance, accountability, management and strategic planning.

• Focus on improved customer service, communication and consultation.

Voting Requirement ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council approves the write-off of $13,830.15 being the amount of outstanding monies owed by Claremont Library members with fines and fees greater than ten years.


Page 48

13.3 CORPORATE AND GOVERNANCE

13.3.1 APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION OF LIMITATIONS OF NUMBER OF DOGS (DOG ACT 1976)

File Ref: Property File 1558 Responsible Officer: Les Crichton

Executive Manager Corporate and Governance Author: John Balcombe Senior Ranger Proposed Meeting Date: 7 July 2015

Purpose The purpose of the report is for Council to consider an application for an exemption of limitation of the number of dogs allowed to be kept on the property at 7 Dunbar Road Claremont.

Background The Town received an application on 20 April 2015 for an exemption of limitation of the number of dogs allowed to be kept on a property at 7 Dunbar Road Claremont. The applicant is seeking Council approval to allow three (3) dogs to be kept on the property. Section 26 (3) of the Dog Act 1976 provides where a local government local law has placed a limit on the keeping of dogs in any specified area but is satisfied in relation to any particular premises that the provisions of the Dog Act 1976 have been adhered to, the local government may grant an exemption. Currently Council has not delegated this power to the Chief Executive Officer. The Town’s Dog Local Law 2012 section 26 (3.2.2) limits the number of dogs which may be kept on any premises to two (2). At the 2 June 2015 Ordinary Council Meeting, Council considered a report to authorise the Chief Executive Officer to approve the Exemption of Limitation of Dogs application subject to no adverse submissions being received. The report recommendation failed to obtain an absolute majority support. The applicant currently has an 11 year old Cocker Spaniel and a 2 year old Briard residing on the property. The third dog the owner is seeking approval for is a 2 month old Briard. The Dog Owners Guide Profile describes the personality of the typical Briard breed of dogs as brave, loyal, intelligent, good-natured and loving with family, and thrives on participating in family activities. In spite of the large size it is essentially a housedog. The life expectancy of the Briard breed is 10-12 years.


Page 49

Discussion The Town’s Ranger visited the property on the 20 April 2015 to evaluate its suitability to accommodate three (3) dogs. The Ranger’s report provided a positive assessment (attached) and appropriate conditions for three dogs to be kept on the property. As part of the approval process the Town sought submissions from adjoining residents and nearby neighbours. The submission period is for 21 days and closed on Friday 12 June 2015. The Town received one submission; the submission raised the concern of barking. Currently there seems to be a problem with a dog barking inside the house for extended periods when the owners are out or on holiday. The submission states no particular objection to a specified number of dogs being present provided they do not cause a noise nuisance. Applicants have been advised of objection and responded that they are looking into ways of reducing the issue.

Past Resolutions Ordinary Council Meeting 2 June 2015 Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to approve the Exemption of Limitation of Dogs application subject to no adverse submissions being received.

LOST

Financial and Staff Implications Resource requirements are in accordance with existing budgetary allocation.

Policy and Statutory Implications • Town of Claremont Dogs Local Law 2012. • Dog Act 1976. • Local Government Act 1995.

Publicity Nil.

Strategic Community Plan People

We live in an accessible and safe community that welcomes diversity, enjoys being active and has a strong sense of belonging.

• Create opportunities for and access to social participation and inclusion in support of community health and well being.

• Play an integral role in local safety and crime prevention.

• Develop a strategy for services and facilities for an ageing population.


Page 50

Governance and Leadership

We are an open and accountable local government that encourages community involvement and strives to keep its community well informed.

• Focus on improved customer service, communication and consultation.

Urgency The owner of the property made the application on 20 April 2015 and is due to go overseas later in June and would like the matter resolved.


OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council approves the Exemption of Limitation of Dogs application to Ms Katherine Adams, 7 Dunbar Road, Claremont with the following conditions. 1. This exemption is reviewed after 12 months; if no complaints received

then exemption is given for the lifetime of all dogs.

2. All dogs must be registered and micro chip in accordance with the Dog Act 1976.

3. Council may revoke the exemption or vary it at any time.


Page 51

14 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING PERSON


Page 52

15 ELECTED MEMBERS’ MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 15.1 NOTICE OF MOTION 15.1.1 ASHTON AVENUE / STUBBS TERRACE TEMPORARY STORAGE DEPOT File Ref: COP/00041 Author: Anita Lorenz

Councillor Proposed Meeting Date: 7 July 2015

Moved Cr Lorenz, That 1. Administration investigate locating suitable alternative locations for the

storage depot which is currently situated on the triangle bounded by Ashton Avenue, Stubbs Terrace and the railway line.

2. Consideration be given to allocating funding for this investigation, as well as to cover concomitant relocation costs and the lease of such a location.

3. A report be brought to council on the resulting options for decision. 4. Efforts be made to complete this relocation as soon as is practicable, but

definitely within the time frame of three to five years which was given to residents during consultation.

Reason: During advertising for comments residents were advised that the depot was a temporary solution with a time frame of three to five years. The use is now impacting on nearby residents and causing loss of amenity because of smell and dust problems, and noise sometimes as early as 06.45 in the morning from trucks. The screening has proved inadequate to both ameliorating these problems, and to camouflaging the depot, which residents say is unsightly. The situation would never be tolerated anywhere else in the town. Officer Comment At its meeting of 17 February 2015, Council approved the Ashton Avenue location as a temporary storage site following a search for a permanent site since May 2011 including two other reports to Council (10 December 2013 & 6 May 2014). Administration is currently in discussions with Western Power and the City of Nedlands on potential sites and will provide a report including costings to Council once we have something more concrete to present. The temporary site is not used regularly (it has sat idle for nearly two months prior to recent use) and our cartage contractors did not start work till after 9.00am during the recent usage of the site. On further investigation it was found that there was one occasion where the supplier has brought road material at 6.45 am. It has been made clear to the contractors that the operation of the site should not start before 7 am (Monday to Saturday). The progress of growth of the plantings outside the storage fence and shade cloth is satisfactory. This reduces the visual impact of the storage area. The planting along Judge Avenue is low. These are additional planting to improve streetscape.


Page 53

16 NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION OF MEETING


Page 54

17 CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

17.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

17.1.1 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

File Ref: PER/0642 Responsible Officer: Jock Barker

Mayor Author: Jock Barker - Mayor

Les Crichton - Executive Manager Corporate and Governance

Proposed Meeting Date: 07 July 2015

Purpose It is proposed that the following item be considered in closed session.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That in accordance with Section 5.23 (2) of the Local Government Act 1995 the meeting is closed to members of the public with the following aspect(s) of the Act being applicable to this matter: (a) A matter affecting an employee or employees.


Page 55

17.2 CORPORATE AND GOVERNANCE

17.2.1 CLAREMONT AQUATIC CENTRE CAFE LEASE

File Ref: COM/00030 Responsible Officer: Les Crichton

Executive Manager Corporate and Governance Author: Sean Badani

Aquatic Centre Manager Proposed Meeting Date: 07 July 2015

Purpose It is proposed that the following item be considered in closed session. That in accordance with Section 5.23 (2) of the Local Government Act 1995 the meeting is closed to members of the public with the following aspect(s) of the Act being applicable to this matter: (c) A contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting.


Page 56

18 FUTURE MEETINGS OF COUNCIL

19 DECLARATION OF CLOSURE OF MEETING

NOTICE OF MEETING - Town of Claremont · 2019-09-17 · • A time limit of 3 minutes is allocated...

Documents

Transcript of NOTICE OF MEETING - Town of Claremont · 2019-09-17 · • A time limit of 3 minutes is allocated...