AGENDA - Shire of Roebourne
AGENDA - Shire of Roebourne
AGENDA - Shire of Roebourne
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Ordinary Council Meeting – Agenda 19 October 2009<br />
On behalf <strong>of</strong> Landcorp, the Burgess Design Group approached the Department <strong>of</strong> Planning<br />
Pilbara planning <strong>of</strong>ficers both in Karratha and Perth seeking support in principle to the<br />
altered lot configuration. Advice was received that the change is considered minor in nature<br />
and that the DP would not require an amendment.<br />
Issues<br />
Requirements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Shire</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Roebourne</strong> Town Planning Scheme No. 8<br />
Clause 6.4.5 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Shire</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Roebourne</strong> Town Planning Scheme No. 8 [the Scheme] states:<br />
Any departure from or alterations to the Development Plan may, subject to the approval <strong>of</strong><br />
the Commission, be permitted if the Council considers that the proposed departure or<br />
alteration will not prejudice the progressive subdivision and development <strong>of</strong> the area.<br />
Contrary to advice given by the Department <strong>of</strong> Planning, should Council support the<br />
proposed change to the configuration <strong>of</strong> lots, an amendment to the DP is required to be<br />
endorsed and forwarded to the WAPC for adoption.<br />
Clause 6.4.4 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme states that the Council may require the advertising <strong>of</strong><br />
development plans, including amendments to endorsed plans. Due to the minor nature <strong>of</strong><br />
the proposed development plan amendment and in the interest <strong>of</strong> expediting the<br />
subdivision approval and subsequent land release, it is not considered necessary for the<br />
plan to be publically advertised<br />
Application <strong>of</strong> the Development Plan with Regard to Statutory Planning<br />
As stated, the Department <strong>of</strong> Planning have advised that the DP does not require<br />
amending as the reduction in density (larger lots) proposed by the subdivision application<br />
still meets the designated R30 density. Contrary to this advice [and in accordance with the<br />
Scheme], Planning Services considers it imperative for the DP to be amended so that the<br />
<strong>Shire</strong>‘s Development Services <strong>of</strong>ficers can correctly apply the differing provisions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia when assessing building applications. For<br />
example, differing provisions are applied to R17.5 and R30 lots regarding building setback<br />
to primary streets, the provision <strong>of</strong> open space and the capacity to further subdivide lots.<br />
Development Services <strong>of</strong>ficers can only lawfully apply the density adopted by the DP (or<br />
the Scheme maps). A departure from these requirements may expose the <strong>Shire</strong> to possible<br />
review <strong>of</strong> disputed building applications at the State Administrative Tribunal.<br />
Reduction in Dwelling Yield<br />
The subdivision application proposes twenty [20] lots averaging approximately 570m 2<br />
(R17.5) and two [2] triplex lots measuring 1102m 2 each (R30). The total dwelling yield from<br />
this configuration is twenty-six [26]; three [3] dwellings less than the existing approved plan<br />
<strong>of</strong> subdivision under the current DP. The reduction is considered insignificant in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
the anticipated benefits gained to housing design and consumer choice. Consideration<br />
should; however, be given to refusing future proposed amendments to the DP that will<br />
result in a further or incremental reductions in dwelling yield. It should be noted that any<br />
reduction in the number <strong>of</strong> lots being released particularly cottage lots, may compromise<br />
housing affordability.<br />
Page 80