AGENDA - Shire of Roebourne

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ordinary Council Meeting – Agenda 19 October 2009 The current location of the sea container has been measured as 1.3 from the corner truncation and 1.6 metres from the primary street. The approximate location of the sea container deduced from its footprint on the proposed site plan is 1.5 metres from the corner truncation and 2.6 metres from the primary street. It is unclear whether the applicant intends to further adjust the position of the sea container or submit revised plans reflective of the current location if approved. Submission of Supplementary Information The applicant has submitted the written consent of five neighbours four of whom being owners and one being an occupier, photos of the rear yard, and a revised site plan to further support the application. A map showing the location of the objector and supporters‘ properties, photos of the rear yard and revised site plan are attached as appendices to this report. Whilst the support of affected neighbours is important where a variation to policy and accepted practice is being sought, the impact of development within the primary street frontage is felt by all road users. The written objection tabled at the May OCM still stands. The photos clearly demonstrate that the applicants have invested heavily in the rear yard creating a high level of residential amenity. However, the photos reinforce a view ascertained from the site plans as submitted and review of aerial photography that the rear yard is of a size able to accommodate the development. Arguably should sea containers be such an eyesore, there may well not be the level of resistance to place one in the rear yard. The extent of screening from exiting trees forms a substantive basis of the applicant‘s justification for a Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) variation and to vary the provisions of local planning policy DP7 ‗Residential Frontage‘ (the local planning policy). The applicant has expressed the view that insufficient weight was given to the extent of vegetation screening the sea container. Whilst an assessment of sight lines has not been undertaken, it is noted that the trees forward of the sea container are located within the road verge adjacent to the visual truncation and could well be compromising sight lines. The sitting height of drivers for which clear sight lines are to be maintained lie between 1.05 metres and 2.4 metres. Should clear sight lines need to be re-established between this range, the existing trees would offer no effective screen. Implications of Approval in Proposed Location The local planning policy discourages outbuildings, sea containers and ground-mounted satellite dishes within the primary road frontage unless it can be clearly demonstrated that no alternative location exists, and that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the streetscape. Should Council determine that grassed or landscaped areas are not deemed to be an alternative location for development, then this sentiment should be reflected in local planning policy. The performance criteria contained in the R Codes facilitates the development of outbuildings that “do not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties”. It is also noted that the acceptable development criteria that provides the framework to ensure that performance criteria is met does not allow outbuildings to be located within the primary street setback area. Should acceptable development criteria not allow outbuildings within the primary street setback area, it is difficult to mount an argument for what is essentially an industrial structure. Page 88
Ordinary Council Meeting – Agenda 19 October 2009 Without a variation to the R Codes the absolute minimum setback for a dwelling on the subject land is 3 metres (subject to adequate compensation area being provided for that extent of the dwelling within 6 metres of the primary street). Due to its materials and lack of articulation a sea container has arguably greater impact on the streetscape than a dwelling. Whether or not the rear yard of 2 Stanbridge Way is deemed to be an alternative location for development, approval of a sea container 2.6 metres from a primary frontage and 1.5 metres from a corner truncation with limited screening could only be construed as being ultra vires given the Shire of Roebourne Town Planning Scheme No 8 prescribes that…”the development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt by the Residential Planning Codes shall conform to the provisions of those Codes”. Options Council has the following options available: 1. To rescind resolution 14641 and to reconsider the Planning Services‘ recommendation as drafted for report 11.1.4 tabled at the May OCM. 2. To rescind resolution 14641, determine that an alternative recommendation to that as drafted for report 11.1.4 tabled at the May OCM be voted upon and, if the sea container is supported within the primary street frontage, to also rescind resolution 14640. Forming part of report 11.1.3 and also tabled at the May OCM resolution 14640 refused a sea container not within the primary street setback area but visible from the street at 24 Harriet Way, Nickol. An indicative alternative recommendation to vote upon that would approve the sea contain in the position shown on the plans as submitted is as follows: Approve planning application PA2040 for a sea container at Lot 2231, 2 Stanbridge Way, Millars Well subject to: 1. The sea container being relocated to accord with the position as shown on the endorsed site plan (1.5 metres from the corner truncation and 2.6 metres from the primary road frontage) within sixty [60] days of the issue of development approval. 2. A building licence being lodged within sixty [60] days of the issue of development approval. 3. Additional landscaping being established where indicated by red ink on the endorsed site plan (between the sea container and the corner truncation) within sixty [60] days of the issue of development approval to the satisfaction of Planning Services. Note: A species schedule must be submitted to Planning Services for endorsement and have regard to species that upon maturity will provide an effective screen. Note: The landscaping must be maintained in a healthy condition, dead or deceased plants must be replaced as soon as practical. 4. Other standard planning conditions as determined by the Manager of Planning Services. Page 89
Page 1 and 2:
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA NOT
Page 3 and 4:
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS (NOTES FOR
Page 5 and 6:
Ordinary Council Meeting - Agenda 1
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40: Ordinary Council Meeting - Agenda 1
Page 89: Ordinary Council Meeting - Agenda 1
show all

AGENDA - Shire of Roebourne

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?