minutes - City of Stirling

MINUTES 

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 

21 AUGUST 2012 - 7.00PM

Disclaimer 

Members of the public should note that in any discussion regarding any planning or other 

application that any statement or intimation of approval made by any member or officer of the City 

during the course of any meeting is not intended to be and is not to be taken as notice of approval 

from the City. No action should be taken on any item discussed at a Council meeting prior to 

written advice on the resolution of the Council being received. 

Any plans or documents contained in this document may be subject to copyright law provisions 

(Copyright Act 1968, as amended) and the express permission of the copyright owner(s) should 

be sought prior to the reproduction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE 

1. OFFICIAL OPENING 6 

2. ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE 6 

ATTENDANCE 6 

APOLOGIES 7 

APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE 7 

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS 7 

4. PETITIONS 7 

4.1 PETITION - CONCERNS RAISED BY RESIDENTS OF DUTTON 

CRESCENT, HAMERSLEY 

4.2 PETITION - OPPOSITION TO CITY OF STIRLING LOCAL PLANNING 

SCHEME NO. 3 - AMENDMENT NO.5 AND REVISED LOCAL 

PLANNING POLICY NO.6.5 

7 

8 

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 9 

5.1 RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE 

PUBLIC TAKEN ON NOTICE 

9 

5.1.1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - R MELECA 9 

5.1.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - M MELECA 10 

5.1.3 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - P ROMERO 11 

5.1.4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - P DAVEY 11 

5.1.5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - S JUSZKIEWICZ 12 

5.1.6 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - M DAVEY 13 

5.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 14 

5.2.1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - S BREEDEN 14 

5.2.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - W MONKS 16 

5.2.3 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - L COTTEE 16 

5.2.4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - Z PALCIC 17 

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 17 

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 18 

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER 18 

8.1 PRESENTATION TO THE CITY FROM MR DON BARBER - 

PRINCIPAL OF MT LAWLEY PRIMARY SCHOOL 

18


9. UNRESOLVED BUSINESS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 18 

10. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES 19 

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 14 AUGUST 2012 19 

10.1/AP3 LOT 44, HOUSE NUMBER 16, FOLEY STREET, BALCATTA - 

CHANGE OF USE - WAREHOUSE TO OFFICE - STATE 

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATION FOR REVIEW DR212 

OF 2012 

10.1/CP5 LOT 201, HOUSE NUMBER 19, GRIBBLE ROAD, GWELUP - 

AMENDMENT 8 - REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL R20 TO SPECIAL 

USE - S13 

10.1/CP6 LOT 235 AND LOT 900, NORTH BEACH ROAD, GWELUP - 

REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL R20 TO RESIDENTIAL R30 

10.1/AP1 LOT 2, HOUSE NUMBER 196, THE ESPLANADE, SCARBOROUGH - 

ADDITIONS TO BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENT 

(INCREASE FROM FOUR (4) TO SEVEN (7) BEDROOMS) 

10.1/AP2 LOT 313, HOUSE NUMBER 11, PINNATA MEWS, CHURCHLANDS - 

SINGLE DWELLING 

10.1/AP4 LOT 297, HOUSE NUMBER 26, ALVER ROAD, DOUBLEVIEW - 


10.1/AP5 LOT 100, HOUSE NUMBER 10, MAIN STREET, OSBORNE PARK - 

PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOWROOM / OFFICE TO 

OFFICE 

19 

38 

51 

63 

76 

108 

121 

10.1/CP1 DIANELLA CENTRE PLAN - FINAL ADOPTION 131 

10.1/CP2 AMENDMENT TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.3 - LOT 60, 

HOUSE NUMBER 1, MILLDALE WAY, MIRRABOOKA - REZONING 

10.1/CP3 LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.3 - AMENDMENT - 

DISCRETIONARY USE OF MEDIA ESTABLISHMENT IN INDUSTRIAL 

ZONE 

198 

206 

10.1/CP4 

LOT 73, HOUSE NUMBER 135, SWAN STREET AND LOT 62, HOUSE 

NUMBER 198 WANNEROO ROAD, YOKINE - REZONING FROM 

'RESIDENTIAL R30 - ADDITIONAL USE CONSULTING ROOMS' AND 

'RESIDENTIAL R30' TO 'RESIDENTIAL R30 - ADDITIONAL USE 

MEDICAL CENTRE' OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING 

211 

10.1/A1 APPROVALS ACTIVITY REPORT JUNE 2012 218 

10.1/A2 APPROVALS ACTIVITY REPORT JULY 2012 221 

10.1/A3 STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - PLANNING AND 

DEVELOPMENT UPDATE - JULY 2012 

225 

AUDIT COMMITTEE - 15 AUGUST 2012 232


10.2/IA1 STRATEGIC AUDIT PLAN 2012-2015 232 

10.2/IA2 

INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT - BUDGET DEVELOPMENT AND 

MANAGEMENT 

240 

10.2/IA3 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT AUGUST 2012 243 

10.2/A1 RISK MANAGEMENT 265 

11. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 

4.2(4) OF THE MEETING PROCEDURES LOCAL LAW 2009 

11.1 INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 

WORLD CONGRESS 2013, 10 - 12 APRIL, AUCKLAND, NEW 

ZEALAND 

269 

269 

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 277 

13. NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT MEETING 277 

13.1 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR RE - INCREASING THE MEN'S 

SHED AND WOMEN'S SHED PROGRAM 

14. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN 

GIVEN 

277 

277 

15. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE 277 

16. MATTERS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 278 

16.1 GOVERNMENT OFFICE ACCOMMODATION - STIRLING CITY 

CENTRE 

278 

17. CLOSURE 281

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 

21 AUGUST 2012 

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL OF TUESDAY, 21 

AUGUST 2012 HELD IN THE CITY OF STIRLING COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 

25 CEDRIC STREET, STIRLING 

1. OFFICIAL OPENING 

The Presiding Member declared the Ordinary meeting of Council open at 7.01pm. 

2. ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

ATTENDANCE 

Mayor 

Councillor David Boothman 

Councillors 

Staff 

Guest 

Councillor Sharon Cooke 

Councillor Joe Ferrante 

Councillor Giovanni Italiano JP 

Councillor Samantha Jenkinson 

Councillor David Lagan 

Councillor David Michael 

Councillor Stephanie Proud 

Councillor Elizabeth Re JP 

Councillor Keith Sargent 

Councillor Bill Stewart 

Councillor Terry Tyzack 

Councillor Rod Willox 

Chief Executive Officer - Stuart Jardine 

Director Community Development - Trevor Holland 

Director Corporate Services - Ed Herne 

Director Infrastructure - Geoff Eves 

Director Planning and Development - Ross Povey 

Manager City Planning - Fraser Henderson (until 7.53pm) 

Manager Governance and Council Support – Aaron Bowman 

Manager Marketing and Communications - Meriel Pickering (until 

7.53pm) 

Internal Auditor - Ian Lyall (until 7.51pm) 

Governance Officer - Emma O'Callaghan 

Governance Officer - Melissa Karapetcoff 

Mr Don Barber - Principal Mt Lawley Primary School 

Public 9 

Press 2 

6



APOLOGIES 

Councillor Jason Robbins. 

APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Nil. 

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS 

Councillor Boothman disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.1/CP1 as he is a Woolworths 

share holder. 

Councillor Jenkinson disclosed a Financial Interest in Item 10.1/CP1 as she has Woolworths 

shares through a trust. 

Councillor Willox disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.1/CP1 as he is a share holder 

with Coles and Woolworths. 

4. PETITIONS 

4.1 PETITION - CONCERNS RAISED BY RESIDENTS OF DUTTON 

CRESCENT, HAMERSLEY 

The following petition containing 18 signatures has been received by the City:- 

"We, the undersigned residents of Dutton Crescent, Hamersley and surrounding area protest 

against the situation that is being tolerated for over two (2) years in our street:- 

1. The residents at 44 Dutton Crescent behave in the manner that contribute to 

disturbance and an unsightly environment in this area. 

2. Their two (2) dogs often roam freely up and down the street sometimes displaying an 

aggressive manner toward people they approach. 

3. Their front yard and Council verge looks more like a disposal or salvage yard than a 

residential area. It is full of building material, builders equipment and machinery, 

disposal bins and all imaginary sort of rubble and junk. We would appreciate the 

ranger from the City of Stirling to supervise the removal of junk etc. 

4. The building extension that is being carried out for some three (3) years does nothing 

to contribute to either beautifying the area, conforming with the rest of the residential 

buildings here or the by-laws set down by the Council. 

5. A number of complaints to the Stirling Council did not produce any apparent result. 

7



6. There is suspicion that some of the persons residing there conduct their building or 

contracting business from this address regardless that this is zoned residential and 

not commercial or mixed use area. 

7. This property is on a hill and opposite a side road. Often there are five (5) or six (6) 

and more vehicles parked on the property or on the road creating a hazard for 

anyone commuting and using this road. Again the complaint to the Council did not 

produce any obvious results. 

We, as ratepayers and residents demand and deserve some action to protect us in enjoying 

our properties in full without interference, whether visual, audible or in any other manner 

against the shipways in 44 Dutton Crescent, Hamersley. We have tolerated this situation for 

years now without help from the authorities." 

The petition has been forwarded to the Approvals, Community Safety and Health and 

Compliance Business Units. 

4.2 PETITION - OPPOSITION TO CITY OF STIRLING LOCAL PLANNING 

SCHEME NO. 3 - AMENDMENT NO.5 AND REVISED LOCAL PLANNING 

POLICY NO.6.5 

Councillor Lagan tabled the following petition containing 35 signatures:- 

“We the undersigned, owners of property in the area 28014 have jointly discussed the 

proposal of upgrading of the laneway in this area and totally object to any upgrade. 

The objections are as follows:- 

Lighting 

Initial cost and extra increase in annual rates. 

Encouragement of crime and undesirable behaviour in the area. 

Disturbance to neighbourhood pets thus causing ill feeling in the neighbourhood. 

As is the case now - if you want your area of lane lit - put in a light and pay for the 

electricity. 

Sealing of laneway 

The benefit of the lane being sealed is only to those who want change in this 'heritage' 

area. 

The sealing would be of benefit only to those who redevelop the rear of their property. 

By Council taking 0.5m of land from owners the value of properties would diminish. 

If owners want to redevelop we believe the upgrades should be their responsibility only. 

As you can see from the number of signatures of owners in this precinct, this is a very 

unpopular proposal by the City of Stirling. We trust our objections will be recorded and no 

such upgrade shall occur in our precinct." 

The petition has been forwarded to the City Planning Business Unit. 

8



Council Resolution 

0812/034 

Moved Councillor Michael, seconded Councillor Re 

That Council RECEIVE the petitions tabled at the Council meeting held 21 August 

2012 and the petitions be REFERRED to the Chief Executive Officer for the 

appropriate action. 

The motion was put and declared CARRIED (13/0). 

For: Councillors Boothman, Cooke, Ferrante, Italiano, Jenkinson, Lagan, Michael, Proud, 

Re, Sargent, Stewart, Tyzack and Willox. 

Against: Nil. 

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 

5.1 RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE 

PUBLIC TAKEN ON NOTICE 

5.1.1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - R MELECA 

The following questions were submitted by Ms R Meleca, 21 Mackay Way, Hillarys WA 

6025 at the Council Meeting held 7 August 2012. 

"Q1. 

Has the City of Stirling sort legal advice in regard to the liability in regard to mental 

and health impacts the installation of the speed cushions has had on the residents of 

Beryl Street?" 

A1. The Acting Director Infrastructure advised that he was not aware of any legal advice 

obtained. 

The Mayor further advised the question would be taken on notice and a written 

response provided. 

"Q2. 

Is the Council aware that research done in the USA shows that speed cushions are 

detrimental to people with spinal injuries and osteoporosis?" 

A2. The Mayor advised the question would be taken on notice and a written response 

provided. 

Additional Information 

A1. No, the City has not been required to seek legal advice at this stage in regards to the 

speed cushions. 

A2. No, the City has not specifically sought any research from the USA in regards to the 

speed cushions. 

9



The City is aware of research undertaken by the West Australian Office of Road 

Safety during the development of the State's Towards Zero Road Safety Strategy, 

which showed that more than 5,500 less people would be killed or seriously injured 

on WA roads if overall reductions of 10km/h were applied to speed limits across 

Western Australia. Research from Sweden also indicates that a 5% decrease in 

average travel speed leads to typically 10% fewer injury crashes and 20% fewer fatal 

crashes. 

Given that the speed cushions along Beryl Street have resulted in an average 

13.7km/h reduction in 85 th percentile travel speeds (which is a 22% reduction) and a 

51% reduction in vehicles exceeding the speed limit (which equates to more than 

1,000 less vehicles exceeding the speed limit), the speed cushions are considered 

to provide a significant improvement to road safety along this road. 

5.1.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - M MELECA 

The following question was submitted by Ms M Meleca, 8 Beryl Street, Balcatta WA 


"Q1. 

Since the speed cushions have been put in Beryl Street, Balcatta I now live in the 

spare bedroom at the end of my house because of the excessive noise of the speed 

cushions. At the moment all my doors and windows are closed as it is winter. How 

am I going to manage in summer when I would like to leave my window, security 

doors and roller shutters open which I won't be able to do due to the monstrous 

noise?" 


provided. 


A1. The manner in which residents manage outside influences on their properties, such 

as traffic noise and street lighting, is a matter that can only be addressed and 

explored by residents themselves. Many people own properties along roads with high 

traffic volumes or adjacent to traffic calming treatments, and there are a number of 

options available to limit any impacts. Such options may include constructing (or 

increasing the height of) a barrier wall, double glazing to external windows, 

replacement of transparent doors with solid doors, planting of trees and thick shrubs 

in the front yard or installing thick curtains or drapes. These measures are intended 

not only to reduce the impact of the external noise, but also to assist in reducing the 

room temperature inside houses at night, which may assist in summer months. 

10



5.1.3 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - P ROMERO 

The following question was submitted by Ms P Romero, 1A Beryl Street, Balcatta WA 


"Q1. 

I have difficulty sleeping due to the noise of the speed cushions. The noise starts 

from 5.00am and is terrible. Can Council please reconsider the installation of the 

speed cushions?" 


provided. 


A1. The installation of speed cushions along Beryl Street was considered by Council at 

the Council meeting held 7 August 2012. Council did acknowledge the concerns 

raised by residents regarding the noise impact of these speed cushions. However, 

based on the 13.7km/h reduction in 85 th percentile travel speeds and the 51% 

reduction in vehicles exceeding the speed limit (which equates to 1,000 less vehicles 

exceeding the speed limit every day), Council resolved to retain all speed cushions 

currently installed along Beryl Street. 

5.1.4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - P DAVEY 

The following questions were submitted by Mr P Davey, 24 Beryl Street, Balcatta WA 


"Q1. 

Considering there have been no deaths on Beryl Street, has the City of Stirling 

considered the liability that could and should occur, in the event of a major accident 

caused by residents of Beryl Street who have sleep deprivation and that not only 

was the City of Stirling aware of the sleep deprivation but they were actually the 

creator of the problem by installing the speed cushions?" 


provided. 

"Q2. 

Has the City of Stirling surveyed the number of trucks and commercial vehicles that 

use Beryl Street as an axis route as this may be contributing to the excessive noise 

problems that we appear to be having?" 


provided. 


A1. In accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1974, it is the sole responsibility of motorists 

to ensure that they take due care and attention when operating a motor vehicle. 

11



If a motorist considers that they are suffering from sleep deprivation, they have a 

legal and moral obligation to refrain from driving a motor vehicle so as not to present 

a danger to the general motoring public. 

A2. Traffic count surveys were undertaken by the City before and after the installation of 

speed cushions, including an assessment of the number and percentage of heavy 

vehicles along this road. Prior to the installation of speed cushions, approximately 

1.9% of the 2,373 vehicles per day along the western section of Beryl Street were 

classified as heavy vehicles (i.e. 45 heavy vehicles per day). After the installation of 

speed cushions, 1.8% of the 2,107 vehicles per day were heavy vehicles (i.e. 38 

heavy vehicles). Accordingly, it has been shown that the percentage and number of 

heavy vehicles has reduced since the installation of speed cushions. 

5.1.5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - S JUSZKIEWICZ 

The following questions were submitted by Ms S Juszkiewicz, 26 Beryl Street, 

Balcatta WA 6021 at the Council Meeting held 7 August 2012. 

"Q1. 

I would like to advise that a large number of residents who live on my street do not 

have English as a first language and that may be a reason why they did not return 

the survey. Did the Council try any other method to inform the residents of the full 

impact of the speed cushions? If not, can you be sure that the survey results are 

accurate?" 


provided. 

"Q2. 

Significant vibrations have been experienced in Beryl Street since the speed 

cushions were introduced. Has the City of Stirling considered that the water pipes 

installed to the Yokine reservoir a few years ago might be exuberating the noise and 

vibrations in the street?" 


provided. 


A1. Given the high number of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds of City of 

Stirling residents, it is unfortunately not practical for the City to provide consultation 

letters to residents in a wide variety of languages, and there is no guarantee that 

every language would be covered. The City did, however, include a telephone 

number in the consultation letter to provide residents with an opportunity to speak 

with officers if they were unsure of the treatments being proposed. Residents are 

also able to contact the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS) if they need 

further language assistance. 

Notwithstanding the above, previous consultations with residents for traffic 

management treatments undertaken over the last five (5) years have resulted in an 

average response rate of approximately 28%. 

12



The response rate for the speed cushions along Beryl Street was 39%. Accordingly, 

the City considered that the higher than average response rate for this project was 

representative of the views of the entire street. 

A2. While the City has stormwater drainage infrastructure installed within the road 

reserve, the water supply mains referred to in this question are actually owned, 

installed and maintained by the Water Corporation. It is unlikely that water mains are 

responsible for any perceived vibrations along Beryl Street, as the City is not aware 

of any such instances in the past. However, if residents consider that there are 

issues with these water mains, this is a matter that should be pursued directly with 

Water Corporation. 

5.1.6 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - M DAVEY 

The following questions were submitted by Ms M Davey, 24 Beryl Street, Balcatta WA 


"Q1. 

The residents of Beryl Street have experienced various negative mental and physical 

health affects as a result of the installation of the speed cushions such as disturbed 

sleep, heavy vehicles passing and reckless driving trying to avoid the speed 

cushions. This has severely impacted on the quality of life of these people and the 

negative impact on our well being much more than the occasional hoon driver. Does 

the City of Stirling have any regard for the heath and well being of the residents or is 

its only objective to stop hoon driving?" 

A1. The Mayor advised that he can assure the residents that the City does have 

considerable regard for the health and well being of its residents. He further advised 

that the question would be taken on notice and a written response provided. 

"Q2 Is the City of Stirling confident that in their pre-installation survey that they fully 

informed the residents of the negative impacts of the speed cushions? Does the City 

of Stirling believe they provided a balanced view of the pros and cons of the speed 

cushions? We believe the Shire of Kalamunda have had their speed cushions 

removed because of the noise. Our recommendation is that the speed cushions be 

removed and white lines placed and that will reduce hoons as well." 


provided. 


A1. The City certainly does have concerns for the health and safety of its residents, and 

this is the primary reason that the speed cushions were installed in the first place, 

and the reason that the City installs all traffic management treatments. In fact, a 

petition received by the City on February 2004, signed by 66 residents of Beryl Street 

(including Ms Davey), advised that speeding and hoon behaviour was a daily 

concern along this road and the City was requested to take action before someone 

was killed. 

13



Based on this petition and the overwhelming support during the public consultation 

process, the City considered that it was acting in the best interests of the entire 

community of Beryl Street by installing speed cushions along this road. 

A2. The City’s consultation letter provided owners and residents with a summary of the 

traffic and speed statistics for Beryl Street at that time, including an indication of the 

proportion of motorists that were recorded exceeding the speed limit. The City also 

provided responses to a number of frequently asked questions that had been 

received during consultation for previous speed cushion projects, so that residents 

were aware of the responses to these common queries. Finally, the City provided 

photos of a similar speed cushion installation on another road so that residents were 

aware of the appearance of these treatments and could visit this site to view the 

speed cushions if they wished. Based on this information, the City considered that it 

provided residents with sufficient information for them to make an informed decision 

on the speed cushions. 

In relation to the speed cushions removed by the Shire of Kalamunda from 

Wittenoom Road in High Wycombe, the City is aware that public opinion on their 

removal remains divided. Following the removal of these speed cushions, many 

residents raised concerns with the Shire of Kalamunda and the local Member of 

Parliament that the removal would result in a return of dangerous driving along the 

road. It should also be noted that the Council of the Shire of Kalamunda made a 

decision to remove the speed cushions without undertaking consultation with all 

residents to determine the views of all residents. In the case of Beryl Street, the City 

of Stirling has undertaken pre and post consultation surveys and both have showed 

majority support for the speed cushions. 

5.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 

5.2.1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - S BREEDEN 

The following questions were submitted by Mr S Breeden, 130 Abbett Street, 

Scarborough WA 6019 prior to the Council meeting held 21 August 2012 and were 

read out by the Manager Governance and Council Support. 

"Q1. 

The answer to my Question 1 on 12 June 2012 vaguely states there is a “process” 

for cutting back frond bases of palm trees planted on street verges and medians, so I 

now ask will Council please be specific and advise the date when the frond bases 

will be cut back to the trunk of all palm trees along Sackville Terrace which have 

displayed unkempt frond bases for several years and, following the report in the 

Stirling Times 5 June 2012 about feral Lorikeet pests nesting in palm frond 

bases, two pairs of lorikeets were recently observed nesting in the 

Deanmore/Sackville roundabout palm which further indicates the need for the City to 

actively manage this problem?" 

14



A1. The Director Infrastructure advised the City prunes fronds away from City managed 

palm trunks every few years for a number of reasons, including to reduce the 

incidence of fire and vandalism, maintain traffic sight lines and minimise vermin 

numbers. He further advised it is not an inexpensive exercise as it typically involves a 

travel tower by pruning contractors, and traffic management services and the palms 

along Sackville Terrace, Scarborough are scheduled for trimming in October 2012. 

"Q2. 

To enable my further follow up to DEC concerning feral Lorikeets, can Council please 

advise the date, job title and name of the DEC person contacted as indicated in your 

answer to my Question 2 on 12 June because my subsequent enquiries to different 

areas of DEC always resulted in my being referred to their “lorikeet specialist” who is 

often in the field and with whom I have now spoken and says as at 12 June had no 

such contact from the City? " 

A2. The Director Infrastructure advised the City's conservation officers have regular 

contact and dealings with the Department of Environment and Conservation staff, 

and we can confirm that the Department has a Feral Bird Species control program 

located in the Wildlife Conservation Branch of DEC. He further advised the City 

understands that the control program includes strategically important locations 

across the Perth region and the City can provide Mr Breeden with the DEC officer’s 

contact name and phone number separately. 

"Q3. 

To provide a clear understanding in regards feral fauna within the City, can Council 

please advise the individual names of departments of regional authorities and 

neighbouring local governments referred to in the answer to my Question 2 on 12 

June, and their exact nature of support to our City’s control of rabbits and foxes 

within City boundaries because it appears the Q2 answer conflicts with the 

City’s website that clearly indicates such control is only by City of Stirling?" 

A3. The Director Infrastructure advised statutory authorities that issue guidelines on the 

control of feral animals in WA are the Department of Agriculture and Food and the 

Department of Environment and Conservation. He also stated these guidelines are 

incorporated into the City’s operational processes for the control of rabbits and 

foxes. He further advised the City of Stirling convenes a meeting with its 

neighbouring Councils each year to synchronise the timing of controls to prevent 

movement of animal pests across local government boundaries and these meetings 

have included the City of Wanneroo, City of Joondalup and the Town of Cambridge. 

15



5.2.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - W MONKS 

The following questions were submitted by Mr W Monks, 21 Bushey Road, Wembley 

Downs WA 6019 at the Council Meeting held 21 August 2012. 

"Q1. 

"Q2. 

"Q3. 

Mr Mayor, in July the City of Fremantle unveiled draft laws to ban retailers from 

giving single use plastic bags of less than 60 microns to shoppers (with a $150 

penalty per breach for retailers who fail to comply) and as reported the City's of 

Nedlands and Vincent may introduce similar laws. I raised the question about 

banning non-biodegradable plastic bags in shopping centres and other retail outlets 

in the City of Stirling on 20 March 2012 and the Council response was 'at present the 

City…is not aware of any State or Federal legislation that would prevent the 

manufacture and/or promotion of the use of plastic bags etc'. So if that is so, why did 

the Environment Minister state on 30 July that 'the Government was awaiting a 

review into the South Australian legislation before determining its stance'?" 

My Mayor, in response to questions at the Council meeting dated 29 May officers 

refer to an 'Adopt a Tree Scheme' whereby individual street communities would be 

involved in streetscape renewal programmes with the appointment of street captains. 

However, WREN proposed an almost identical scheme in early 2009 to work with the 

Council and community along Weaponess Road in Scarborough and Wembley 

Downs but this was rejected by officers. So are you now admitting that we have lost 

three (3) precious years that could have been achieved in community street plantings 

because of the previous poor error of judgement by this Council?" 

Mr Mayor, the City's of Nedlands and Subiaco are currently advertising a Waterwise 

Garden Competition and a Sustainable Subiaco Verge and Garden Awards 

respectively for their residents. The Subiaco awards recognise verges and gardens 

that demonstrate a notable contribution to the City's wider landscape, help 

strengthen green corridors and present features that contribute to sustainable living 

practices and Nedlands has categories for waterwise verges and gardens so will the 

City of Stirling adopt similar proposals?" 

A1-3. The Mayor advised the questions would be taken on notice and a written response 

provided. 

5.2.3 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - L COTTEE 

The following questions were submitted by Ms L Cottee, 1 Raffan View, Gwelup WA 


"Q1. 

"Q2. 

Are all Councillors aware that the City of Stirling established the R20 - 10% R30 

housing mix for Careniup Swamp Area in Gwelup to provide a wider housing 

choice?" 

Are all the Councillors also aware that the Gwelup Progress Association and the 

members have fought very hard to keep this mix of R20 - 10% R30 zoning and 

always supported the City of Stirling to prevent higher density being all in one area?" 

16



"Q3. 

Is the City of Stirling going to be consistent in support of the Gwelup R20 - 10% R30 

mix and in so doing send a message to the State Government Minister that infill 

development at all costs does not have the support of the population?" 

A1-3. The Director Planning and Development advised that Councillors are aware, 

advice is included in the officers report and supplementary information has been 

provided in respect to the Councillors previous adopted position which dates back 

to 1998. He further advised that in respect to the Gwelup Progress Association, 

whilst there has been representations in the past, due to this proposal not been 

initiated as yet, there has not been an opportunity for consultation or the opportunity 

for submissions from community organisations such as the Gwelup Progress 

Association. He further advised in terms of whether the Council will be consistent in 

applying its previous 10% requirement in respect to R30 that is a matter for Council 

to consider during the meeting. 

5.2.4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - Z PALCIC 

The following questions were submitted by Mr Z Palcic, 42 Dutton Crescent, 

Hamersley WA 6022 at the Council Meeting held 21 August 2012. 

"Q1. 

I represent a number of ratepayers from Hamersley. In conjunction with our petition 

that has been submitted to Council, we believe that the extension at 44 Dutton 

Crescent, Hamersley has been built not in agreement with the building permit and 

planning permit. What is Council doing in respect to that?" 

A1. The Director Planning and Development advised that the question would be taken on 

notice and a written response provided. 

"Q2. 

The same property is being used as a commercial site. Parking is permanently in 

front of the building, on the verge and in the street creating a hazard on Dutton 

Crescent. The Council has received complaints over the last two (2) years and it 

appears to us that nothing effective has been done." 


provided. 

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Nil. 

17



7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

Moved Councillor Willox, seconded Councillor Michael 

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council of 7 August 2012 be confirmed, 

and signed by the Presiding Member as a true and correct record of proceedings. 




Against: Nil. 

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER 

8.1 PRESENTATION TO THE CITY FROM MR DON BARBER - PRINCIPAL OF 

MT LAWLEY PRIMARY SCHOOL 

The Mayor welcomed Mr Don Barber, Principal of Mt Lawley Primary School and thanked 

him for attending the Council meeting. Mr Barber addressed Council to acknowledge the 

magnificent contribution the City of Stirling and its employees made to the Mt Lawley 

Primary School after the terrible fire that took place on the 7 July 2012. He presented the 

Council with a special certificate in appreciation of the fantastic work that the City has 

completed and sincerely thanked the Council on behalf of the community. 

9. UNRESOLVED BUSINESS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 

Nil. 

18



10. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES 

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 14 AUGUST 2012 

10.1/AP3 

LOT 44, HOUSE NUMBER 16, FOLEY STREET, BALCATTA - CHANGE OF 

USE - WAREHOUSE TO OFFICE - STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL 

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW DR212 OF 2012 

Report Information 

Location: 

Applicant: 

Reporting Officer: 

Business Unit: 

Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 44, House Number 16, Foley Street, Balcatta 

Greg Rowe and Associates 

Manager Approvals 

Approvals 

Hamersley 

Balcatta 

Authority/Discretion 

Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 

Quasi-Judicial 

Information 

Purposes 

when Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its 

community to another level of government/body/agency. 

the substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. 

e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing 

operations, setting and amending budgets. 

includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes and policies. 

Review when Council reviews decisions made by Officers. 

when Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a 

person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the 

obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of 

Quasi-Judicial authority include town planning applications, building 

licences, applications for other permits/licences (eg under Health 

Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be 

appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal. 

includes items provided to Council for information purposes only, 

that do not require a decision of Council (i.e. - for 'noting'). 

19




0812/035 

Moved Councillor Italiano, seconded Councillor Cooke 

That pursuant to the Orders made by the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance 

with Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), the Council 

RECONSIDERS its previous decision, and that pursuant to Clause 8.4 of Local 

Planning Scheme No.3, the revised application for retrospective planning approval for 

an Unauthorised Front Fence at Lot 44, House Number 16, Foley Street, Balcatta be 

APPROVED, subject to the following condition:- 

a. The security gates are to remain open during normal business hours and allow 

unimpeded access to both staff and visitor parking areas. 



Re, Sargent, Stewart and Willox. 

Against: Councillor Tyzack. 

Reason for change 

The Committee formed the view that the fence:- 

cannot be located behind the building setback line as suggested by the City's Industrial 

Design Guidelines; 

enhances the security of the property; and 

does not detract from the streetscape. 

Committee Recommendation 

That pursuant to the Orders made by the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with 

Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), the Council RECONSIDERS 

its previous decision, and that pursuant to Clause 8.4 of Local Planning Scheme No.3, the 

revised application for retrospective planning approval for an unauthorised front fence at Lot 

44, House Number 16, Foley Street, Balcatta be APPROVED, as it:- 

cannot be located behind the building setback line as suggested by the City's 

Industrial Design Guidelines; 

enhances the security of the property; and 

does not detract from the streetscape. 


The Committee formed the view that the front fence was acceptable for the reasons outlined 

in the recommendation. 

20



Officer's Recommendation 

1. That pursuant to the Orders made by the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance 

with Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), the Council 

RECONSIDERS its decision and that pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning 

Scheme No.3, the application for a Change of Use from Warehouse to Office at Lot 44, 

House Number 16, Foley Street, Balcatta be REFUSED for the following reason:- 

a. The application proposes 49.9% of the gross floor area as office space in lieu of the 

maximum permitted 30% under the City’s Industrial Design Guidelines; 

b. The proposed office use is not incidental to the predominant use of the development; 

2. That the City issues a direction under the Planning and Development Act 2005 for 

the removal of the unauthorised fence. 

Report Purpose 

The purpose of this report is for Council to reconsider a previous decision made under 

delegated authority for a Change of Use from Warehouse to Office, under Section 31 of the 

State Administrative Tribunal Act (2004) at Lot 31, House Number 2, Ledgar Road, Balcatta. 

The City’s officers had previously refused to approve the development application. 

In reconsidering the proposal the Council may:- 

a. Affirm its decision; 

b. Vary its decision; or 

c. Set aside the decision and substitute a new decision. 

Relevant Documents 

Attachments 

Attachment 1 - Applicant's report prepared for the City (ECM Document Number 3143705). 

Available for viewing at the meeting 

1. Development application ECM Doc No: 3012014 

2. Photographs of the site and surrounding area ECM Doc No: 3158545 

3. Site, floor and elevation plans ECM Doc No: 3158543 

Description of Development 

Site Area: 3029m 2 

Nearest Cross Street: Balcatta Road 

21



Location Plan 

Aerial Photograph 

22



Site Photos 

23



24



Principal Statutory Provisions 

Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS 

LPS3 

Use 

Class 

Industrial 

Industry 

Office 

Type D - Not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting 

planning approval. 

Class 

Warehouse 

Type P - Permitted. 

Development Standards 

Local Planning Scheme No.3 

The City’s Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS3) provides the basis for land use and 

development control with the City. LPS3 is a policy driven town planning scheme and most 

provisions controlling the development of land, for example, building setbacks are contained 

within Local Planning Policies adopted under the provisions of LPS3. 

LPS3 provides the objectives of the Industry zone which are:- 

a. To provide for a range of industrial and business development, as well as facilities for 

the storage and distribution of goods. 

b. To ensure a high standard of development appropriate to a modern industrial area and 

which is conducive to safe and convenient access by all clientele. 

When considering an application for approval such as this, Council is to have due regard to 

the matters contained under Clause 10.2 of LPS3. The following matters contained within 

Clause 10.2 of LPS3 are considered most relevant to this application:- 

The requirements of orderly and proper planning; and 

The compatibility of a use or development within its setting. 

Any Local Planning Policy adopted by Council under Clause 2.4; and 

The preservation of the amenity of the locality. 

Other Policies 

Industrial Design Guidelines 

The City’s Industrial Design Guidelines apply to the subject site and contain the following 

provision in relation to ‘Office’ uses in precincts other than the ‘Herdsman’ precinct:- 

25



‘Offices shall only be incidental to the predominant use of each tenancy (i.e. no 

greater than 30% of the gross floor area of each tenancy). This will enable industrial 

premises to provide on site and ‘in house’ services such as reception / customer 

service, payroll, drafting and a venue for meeting business customers, while 

safeguarding the predominant industrial character of these areas’. 

In relation to fencing within the street setback area the Industrial Design Guidelines state 

that it (fencing) “shall not be permitted”. 

The site is located within the ‘Balcatta Precinct’ area identified in the Industrial Design 

Guidelines. The guidelines provide specific development requirements for the subject site. In 

respect of the ‘Balcatta Precinct’, the guidelines contain the following statement of intent:- 

“The Balcatta precinct is designed to allow for larger lots set in landscaped surroundings with 

greater building setbacks to soften the traditional unsightly appearance of industrial area." 

Background 

A development application was submitted to the City on the 13 March 2012 (DA12/0542 

refers) for a change of use from warehouse to office. The applicant proposed to increase the 

amount of on site office space by converting warehouse space into office space. The 

submitted plans also showed a front fence on the site plan. After extensive deliberation 

between the City and the applicant the City refused the subject application on 5 June 2012 

under delegated authority for the following reasons:- 

1. The application proposes 49.9% of the gross floor area as office space in lieu of the 

maximum permitted 30% under the City’s Industrial Design Guidelines. 

2. The proposed office use is not incidental to the predominant use of the development. 

3. The application proposes fencing within the front setback area which is not permitted 

under the City’s Industrial Design Guidelines. 

The applicant has consequently sought a review of the City’s decision by the State 

Administrative Tribunal (SAT). The applicant accepts reasons one (1) and two (2) of the 

refusal however, seeks a review of reason three (3) above in relation to the fencing. The City 

attended an initial directions hearing at the SAT on the 6 July 2012 where the SAT ordered 

the City to reconsider its original decision for refusal in relation to the fence only. The order 

issued by the SAT is as follows:- 

"Pursuant to Section 31 (1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 the respondent is 

invited to reconsider its decision being the modified proposal effectively raising only the 

fence issue (but with new information) at its meeting on 21 August 2012." 

The City, however considers it inappropriate to reconsider the fencing reason for refusal in 

isolation – rather the reconsideration ought to apply to the development application as 

determined by the City. 

On 23 March 2010, an application for a warehouse extension was lodged with the City 

(DA10/0766). This application also indicated a front fence on the site plan, and the applicant 

was advised that this was not permitted. The application was subsequently approved on 23 

April 2010 subject to the following condition: 

26



The proposed development complying with all details and amendments marked in red as 

shown on the approved plan. Specifically no fencing is permitted within the 9.0m front 

setback. 

The applicant seemingly accepted that the fencing was not permitted and did not lodge an 

application for review with the SAT in respect of this condition. However, the owner/applicant 

however, proceeded to erect a front fence illegally and in contravention of its planning 

approval. The fence was erected some time between 20 April 2011 and 12 July 2011. The 

City’s Health and Compliance Business Unit began investigating the illegal fence and 

entered into correspondence with the owner/applicant. On 22 August 2011, an application 

for retrospective approval was lodged (DA11/2072) for the unauthorised front fence which 

was deemed refused. The fence remains unauthorised and has been erected in direct 

contravention of the City’s development approval (DA10/0766) issued on 23 March 2010. 

The City’s Health and Compliance Business Unit subsequently commenced prosecution 

proceedings on 4 July 2012 against the owner, Taronga Nominees Pty Ltd. 

Assessment 

Non-Residential Assessment - Local Planning Scheme No.3 

1 

Element 

Site 

Requirements 

Satisfies Scheme/ 

Policy 

2 Setbacks 

3 Car Parking 

4 Landscaping 

5 Facades 

6 Service Access 

7 Building Height 

 

OR 

Variation 

Required 

8 Policy 

Comment 

This is not a consideration 

as the City is to reconsider 

the front fence only. 



















The City’s Industrial Design 

Guidelines limit an ‘Office’ 

component of a proposal to 

30% of the tenancy area. 

The subject application 

proposes 49.9% office 

space. 

27



Element 


Policy 

OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

The City’s Industrial Design 

Guidelines do not permit 

fencing within the front 

setback area. 

The application proposes a 

front fence and gates within 

the front setback area. 

9 

Other 

Consideration 

 




Consultation/Communication Implications 

The proposal was not required to be advertised as part of the assessment. 

Applicant's Justification 

See report attached. 

Comment 

The SAT’s orders that the City should reconsider it’s decision in respect of the fencing 

reason for refusal are noted. However, as stated previously, the City is of the view that the 

SAT’s order is incorrect, and that it cannot be ordered to consider the fencing reason for 

refusal in isolation. 

Consequently, in the comments section below, the City’s officers have addressed the 

proposed development as a whole so that it is clear what aspects of the proposed 

development comply with the Local Planning Scheme and any relevant local planning 

policies, and which do not. 

Office Ratio 

Office is a discretionary use in the “Industry” zone under the City’s LPS3. The City’s 

Industrial Design Guidelines provide more specific direction in relation to considering office 

uses in the “Industry” zone. The guidelines provide the following in relation to office uses in 

the Industry zone:- 

"Offices shall only be incidental to the predominant use of each tenancy (i.e. no greater 

than 30% of the gross floor area of each tenancy). This will enable industrial premises 

to provide on site and ‘in house’ services such as reception / customer service, payroll, 

drafting and a venue for meeting business customers, while safeguarding the 

predominant industrial character of these areas." 

Office uses (unless 30% or less of the gross floor area of a tenancy) are not permitted as a 

right in the Industry zone, however the City has discretion to approve such proposals. Stand 

alone office developments and developments where the predominant use is office however, 

are not desirable or appropriate in the industry zone. 

28



Offices are classified as a discretionary use under LPS3 as the City recognises the need for 

industrial uses such as factories and warehouses to provide an incidental office component 

to facilitate the administrative side of the business. If office were to be made an “X” or nonpermitted 

use in the industry zone industrial businesses could not provide an office 

component to facilitate the administrative side of their business, therefore hindering and 

restricting the operation of industrial businesses. It is for this reason that office is a 

discretionary use in the industry zone. 

The City’s Industrial Design Guidelines are very specific in that office shall only be incidental 

to the predominant use of each tenancy, being 30% of the gross floor area. The Guidelines 

go so far as to explain the reason why 30% of the gross floor area of a development in an 

industrial area is permitted as a right. The 30% office ratio is permitted in order to “enable 

industrial premises to provide on site and ‘in house’ services such as reception / customer 

service, payroll, drafting and a venue for meeting business customers, while safeguarding 

the predominant industrial character of these areas.” The fact that the office use is 

discretionary under LPS3 can not be considered separately to the provisions of the Industrial 

Design Guidelines which clearly defines the intent of classifying office as a discretionary use 

in the industry zone. 

The Industrial Design Guidelines identify the need to “safeguard the predominantly industrial 

character of these areas.” In considering the subject proposal it is considered that approval 

of the subject application, and indeed others like it, does not safeguard the industrial 

character of the area but rather facilitates and encourages the proliferation of office uses 

which are better suited to other locations not only within the City of Stirling but within the 

Perth metro area. The industry zones within the City of Stirling are few, and should be 

safeguarded so as to fulfil their intended purpose of providing industrial land for industrial 

uses. 

Fencing 

The City’s Industrial Design Guidelines do not permit fencing in the front setback area. The 

front setback in the Balcatta Precinct is 18.0m. Fencing behind the 18.0m setback line 

however, is acceptable. The Guidelines aim to achieve open, attractive streetscapes free of 

fencing. The restriction on front fencing within the setback area also ensures that parking 

areas at the front of buildings are not used for the storage of the goods. The applicant 

contends that the fencing on the front boundary is needed for security. However, it is 

considered that adequate security can still be maintained through the provision of fencing in 

accordance with the guidelines i.e. behind the setback line. 

The key objective for the Balcatta Precinct of the City’s Industry zone is to “allow for larger 

lots set in landscaped surroundings with greater building setbacks to soften the traditional 

unsightly appearance of industrial areas”. It is considered that the existing garrison fencing 

the subject of this application does not facilitate or contribute to an expansive garden 

industrial precinct which the guidelines are trying to achieve in the Balcatta area. The fence 

is considered detrimental to the amenity of the site and subsequently the streetscape. It is 

considered that the aesthetic appeal of the development and the street would be enhanced 

as a result of the fence being removed from the subject property. The existence of the fence 

is associated with and contributes to the “traditional unsightly appearance of industrial 

areas”, an outcome which the guidelines have explicitly been worded to avoid. 

29



In its report the applicant sites precedence as a reason for approval of the subject 

application by referencing a decision of Council at its meeting held 12 June 2012 to approve 

an existing chain wire front fence at Lot 69, House Number 40, Collingwood Street, Osborne 

Park. The circumstances and context of the Council's previous decision are considered 

different to the subject application in relation to the following matters:- 

The site referenced by the applicant is located within the “Osborne” precinct of the City’s 

Industry zone whereas the subject site is located within the “Balcatta” precinct. The 

fundamental difference is that the primary setback in the Osborne precinct is 9m whilst 

the primary setback in the Balcatta precinct is 18.0m. This relates to the objective of the 

Balcatta precinct as compared to the Osborne precinct. As previously stated the 

Balcatta precinct consists of larger lots with more expansive setbacks in landscaped 

surroundings giving a feeling of spaciousness and enhanced amenity. This is not the 

case for the Osborne precinct which is more of a typical industrial area. The fencing 

directly contravenes the objectives of the Balcatta precinct whereas the objectives of the 

Osborne precinct are more generic; 

In the case of the property referenced by the applicant at Lot 69, House Number 40, 

Collingwood Street, Osborne Park the City had issued a building licence which clearly 

showed details of the front fence on the site plan. Although the fence was not shown on 

any development approvals, the site was developed in accordance with the building 

license issued by the City including the front fence; 

The owner of the subject property erected the fence in direct contravention of a planning 

approval issued by the City which contained a very specific condition stating that fencing 

was not permitted. The City is subsequently prosecuting the owner. In the case of the 

owner at Lot 69, House Number 40, Collingwood Street, Osborne Park the owner 

erected the front fence believing it to be permitted and in accordance with their building 

licence. 

The owner has shown disregard to the conditions of their planning approval (DA10/0766) 

and all previous directions from the City’s Health and Compliance Business Unit to remove 

the subject fence to the extent that the City has been forced to commence prosecution 

proceedings against the owner. 

In addition to commencing prosecution proceedings as discussed above, City’s officers are 

currently investigating issuing a direction under the Planning and Development Act 2005 for 

the removal of the existing unauthorised fence. 

Policy and Legislative Implications 

The owner/applicant has exercised their right to have the decision reviewed in accordance 

with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and in relation to reason three (3) of 

their refusal issued by the City on 5 June 2012. The City is required to attend a further 

directions hearing at the SAT on 24 August 2012. 

Financial Implications 

Should Council resolve to refuse the revised proposal, the matter may proceed to a full 

hearing at the SAT. Costs for the hearing may range from $10,000 to $15,000. 

30



Strategic Implications 

Goal 2: 

Objective 2.1: 

SI 2.1.5: 

To plan, develop, enhance and maintain a quality built and natural 

environment based on sustainability principles. 

Position the City as a flagship of sustainable urban local government, 

encouraging innovative, creative and inspirational built form and 

infrastructure. 

Develop and implement policies to support and promote sustainable 

building design. 

Sustainability Implications 

The following tables outline the applicable sustainability issues for this proposal:- 

Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Amenity 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The front fence the subject of this application is considered 

to detract from the aesthetic appeal of the site and 

subsequently the amenity the locality. 

Nil. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Conclusion 

The SAT’s order of the 10 July in respect of the application for a review of the City’s decision 

is noted. As mentioned in the report, the City is of the view that reconsideration of the whole 

application, not only the fencing reason for refusal is appropriate in this instance. 

The proposed 49.9% office component is not considered to be incidental to the predominant 

industrial use of the site and is not considered to safeguard the predominant industrial 

character of the area. Office uses are discretionary subject to the provisions of the City’s 

Industrial Design Guidelines which permit an office use provided it is incidental to the 

predominant industrial use of a tenancy in order to facilitate the administrative component of 

industrial businesses. 

31



The subject front fence is not permitted under the provisions of the City’s Industrial Design 

Guidelines. The owner has shown blatant disregard to the conditions of their planning 

approval (DA10/0766) and all previous directions from the City’s Health and Compliance 

Business Unit to remove the subject fence to the extent that the City has been forced to 

commence prosecution proceedings against the owner, actions which are ongoing. The 

fence is not consistent with the objectives of Balcatta precinct contained within the City’s 

Industrial Design Guidelines and is considered to be injurious to the streetscape. 

For the above reasons, it is therefore recommended that the SAT be advised that the 

Council reaffirms the original decision that the application for a change of use from 

warehouse to office be refused, for the reasons listed in the City’s decision dated 5 June 

2012. 

32



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.1/AP3 - LOT 44, HOUSE NUMBER 16, FOLEY STREET, 

BALCATTA - CHANGE OF USE - WAREHOUSE TO OFFICE - STATE ADMINISTRATIVE 

TRIBUNAL APPLICATION FOR REVIEW DR212 OF 2012 

Attachment 1 - Applicant's report prepared for the City (ECM Document Number 

3143705) 

33



34



35



36



37



10.1/CP5 LOT 201, HOUSE NUMBER 19, GRIBBLE ROAD, GWELUP - 

AMENDMENT 8 - REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL R20 TO SPECIAL USE 

- S13 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 201, House Number 19, Gribble Road, Gwelup 

Department of Planning 

Manager City Planning 

City Planning 

Hamersley 

Gwelup 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 

















Moved Councillor Italiano, seconded Councillor Cooke 

The Council respectfully advises the Minister for Planning, Hon John Day, 

that it DOES NOT support an Amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 3 to rezone Lot 

201, House Number 19, Gribble Road, Gwelup from 'Residential R20' to 'Special Use - 

Uses as per Residential Zone' on the grounds that the decision would be inconsistent with:- 

a. Previous Council Resolution of the 10 November 1998, ITEM: 10.2/PL15, (FILE: 

7.7.1.209)That the strategy for the future zoning, subdivision and development of the 

Careniup Swamp area incorporate the following: 1.4 A limitation on density above R20 

in any future rezonings, as follows:- 

38



Maximum density - R30 

Maximum extent of higher density - 10% of application area 

b. Gwelup - Karrinyup Local Area Plan which does not support increased density in the 

area; and 

c. Directions 2031 as Lot 201 is 1.7 km from Warwick train station, and therefore not 

walkable to public transport. 

The motion was put and declared LOST (5/8). 

For: Councillors Cooke, Italiano, Jenkinson, Proud and Stewart. 

Against: Councillors Boothman, Ferrante, Lagan, Michael, Re, Sargent, Tyzack and Willox. 

During debate, Councillor Michael foreshadowed the following motion:- 


0812/036 

Moved Councillor Michael, seconded Councillor Lagan 

That pursuant to section 76(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005, an 

Amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 3 to rezone Lot 201, House Number 19, 

Gribble Road Gwelup from 'Residential R20' to 'Special Use - Uses as per Residential 

Zone' with the following conditions:- 

a. Residential Density shall not exceed R30; and 

b. Subdivision is to be in accordance with a subdivision concept plan, adopted by 

the Council, which improves road connectivity to the locality and addresses the 

nature of surrounding development, 

be INITIATED and PROCESSED in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations. 


For: Councillors Boothman, Ferrante, Lagan, Michael, Re, Sargent, Tyzack and Willox. 

Against: Councillors Cooke, Italiano, Jenkinson, Proud and Stewart. 

Recommendation 

That pursuant to section 76(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005, an Amendment 

to Local Planning Scheme No. 3 to rezone Lot 201, House Number 19, Gribble Road 

Gwelup from 'Residential R20' to 'Special Use - Uses as per Residential Zone' with the 

following conditions:- 

39



a. Residential Density shall not exceed R30; and 

b. Subdivision is to be in accordance with a subdivision concept plan, adopted by the 

Council, which improves road connectivity to the locality and addresses the nature of 

surrounding development, 



To re-consider initiating a Scheme Amendment to rezone Lot 201, House Number 19, 

Gribble Road, Gwelup from Residential R20 to Special Use Zone, as a consequence of an 

Order made by the Minister for Planning under section 76(1) of the Planning and 

Development Act 2005. 


Attachments 

Attachment 1 - Ministers Orders (ECM Doc No: 3123842) 


Rezoning Application (ECM Doc No: 2602632) 

Background 

At the Council meeting held 22 March 2011, Council considered a request to rezone Lot 201, 

House Number 19, Gribble Road, Gwelup from Residential R20 to Residential R30. The 

original officer's recommendation to the Planning and Development Committee was that an 

Amendment be initiated accordingly. However, Council did not agree with this 

Recommendation and resolved (Council Resolution Number 0311/050) as follows: 

"That Council, pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, DOES 

NOT INITIATE an Amendment to Local Planning Scheme No 3 to rezone Lot 201 House 

Number 19 Gribble Road, Gwelup from 'Residential R20' to Special Use - Uses as per 

Residential Zone." 

Council's reason for a change to the officer's recommendation was that it "considered the 

rezoning not warranted at this location as it is not in close proximity to transport services or 

commercial centres". 

On the 26 June 2012, the City received Orders from the Minister for Planning (refer 

Attachment 1), under section 76(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005, stating:- 

"1. I, the Hon John Day MLA, Minister for Planning, pursuant to section 76(1) of the 

Planning and Development Act 2005 (the Act), order the City of Stirling to initiate an 

Amendment to Local Planning Scheme No 3 as outlined in the representation of Mr. 

Paul Bashall of PlanWest dated 27 July 2011, a copy of which is attached to this order. 

2. The City of Stirling is to comply with this Order on or before 11 July 2012." 

40



The Orders were dated the 21 June 2012 and the cover letter advises the City there is no 

right of appeal against this decision. 

It is noted that the time limitation specified by the Minister has not been met, however, the 

Orders were not received with sufficient time for a report to be prepared for consideration by 

the Planning and Development Committee and subsequently Council in July 2012. This 

issue was discussed with Officers from the Department of Planning who acknowledged that 

the Amendment would be considered by Council on 21 August 2012. 

As a consequence of the Minister's Orders, it is necessary for Council to re-consider the 

rezoning request. 

Summary of Proposal 

Current Zoning: 

Proposed Zoning: 

MRS - Urban 

LPS3 - Residential R20 

LPS3 - Special Use Zone: Uses as per Residential Zone (R30). 

Size of Site: 7843m 2 

Concept Plan: A subdivision concept plan has been submitted for this proposal indicating 18 

single residential lots ranging in size from 300m 2 to 445m 2 (average 336m 2 ). The subdivision 

is in accordance with the Outline Development Plan for this area other than the size of the 

lots proposed. 

Location Plan 

41




The site is currently vacant and is located within the Careniup Swamp Outline Development 

Plan Area. A similar rezoning proposal for Lot 1, House Number 59, Gribble Road, Gwelup, 

(approximately 200m south of this site) from R20 to R30 was required to be advertised by 

the Minister for Planning when amendments to Local Planning Scheme No.3 were being 

considered in late 2009 - early 2010. After conclusion of advertising the City received 32 

submissions of which 29 were objections. At the Council meeting held 16 March 2010, 

Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 0310/050) inter alia that the recoding of the 

Lot not be proceeded with. Although Council rejected the rezoning, the Minister 

subsequently approved the rezoning of the site to ‘Special Use Zone’ with conditions that the 

residential density shall not exceed R30. 

The current Local Planning Scheme No. 3 zonings for the surrounding area are shown 

below:- 

42



Local Planning Scheme No 3 Zonings 

Comment 

1. Applicant's Comments 

The applicant has submitted a planning report justifying the rezoning. The following 

comments have been made by the applicant: 

Council’s resolution on 10 November 1998 (item 10.1/PL15) supports the 

increase in density for a small portion of the locality. 

There are nine (9) R30 zoned sites on the opposite side of Gribble Road that 

have not been developed to their zoned density but to an R20 density (other 

than one (1). 

The proposed subdivision will offer a smaller lot size not currently available 

in the area providing a choice of lot size which is known to be in demand. 

It is a commonly held view that these inner city areas should be more 

efficiently used and that greater consolidation is required making inner city 

development intensification more sustainable. 

The site has good access to the freeway and is within 1.7km of Warwick 

Train Station. 

43



2. City's Karrinyup / Gwelup Local Area Plan 

The Community vision for the Karrinyup-Gwelup Local Area is "an area that is 

interactive and vibrant, with a strong sense of community spirit and responsibility. It is 

a supportive caring community that supports all ages, young and old. The environment 

is enhanced by parks, bush land and biodiversity corridors with a community that cares 

and is proud of their environment". 

One (1) of the key opportunities identified by the Local Area Plan was to maintain the 

character of the area by retaining the majority of residential density and limiting 

rezoning to small and key locations. A recommendation of the Local Area Plan was to 

remove the R30 zoning anomalies to the west of Gribble Road (through a future 

Scheme Amendment to recode those sites to R20). 

3. City Planning Comments 

a) With the exception of lot sizes, the proposed subdivision complies with the 

Careniup Swamp Outline Development Plan. The land is already zoned for 

Residential purposes, and is well served by utility services and infrastructure 

(including sealed roads, reticulated water and sewerage and underground 

power). Allowing for a slightly higher density “pocket” within the Outline 

Development Plan area will serve to widen housing choice. Furthermore, the 

proposed form of development (i.e. single houses) is in keeping with the 

surrounding development. 

b) The Careniup Swamp Area Policy limits density to a maximum of R30 with the 

extent of the higher density being limited to 10% of the application area. This 

policy was adopted 13 years ago and strategic planning relating to densities has 

evolved to encourage higher densities and alternative housing types. The 

density within Gwelup is generally R20 with pockets of R30. The R30 density for 

10% of the area has not been achieved and additional R30 densities could be 

supported. There is little difference in the built-form of single houses developed 

at either the R20 or R30 density. 

c) It is recommended that the site be rezoned to a ‘Special use Zone’ with 

conditions relating to subdivision to an R30 density to ensure the site is 

subdivided for single house sites only. Under the current zoning of R20 the site 

could be subdivided for 12 lots. The subdivision proposes the creation of 18 lots 

at an R30 density which represents an increase of six (6) residential lots. 

d) The proposal will serve to widen the choice of housing provided in Gwelup, 

which is broadly compatible with the Liveable Neighbourhoods design codes and 

the objectives of the City’s Local Housing Strategy. The site is approximately 

1.7km from the Warwick Train Station and is well connected to the station via a 

network of regional bike paths. The area is well serviced by buses with routes 

along North Beach Road and Erindale Road and services to Stirling Station. 

44



4. Minister's Orders 

The Minister provided the following reasons in support of his decision:- 

"1. I consider that the City has not provided reasonable justification as to why this 

Amendment should not be adopted and initiated. 

2. I consider that the proposal to rezone Lot 201 Gribble Road, Gwelup from R20 to 

Special Use zone to facilitate its subdivision at R30 density coding complies with 

the Council's resolution of 10 November 1998 to allow for up to 10 per cent of the 

Careniup Swamp Area to be developed up to a density of R30 (for single 

dwellings only) and, as such it is appropriate that the proposal be initiated to allow 

the Amendment to be advertised for public comment and further detailed 

assessment to be undertaken through the Scheme Amendment process." 

It is evident from the Minister's reasons that he does not agree with the Council's 

reason for not initiating an Amendment. Failure to comply with the Orders of the 

Minister may result in enforcement action being taken, most likely pursuant to section 

212 of the Act, which empowers the Minister to initiate an Amendment as if he were 

the Local Government. 


Should the Amendment be initiated, public consultation would be required in accordance 

with Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Town Planning Regulations 1967 (as 

amended). 


Nil. 


Nil. 

However, it should be noted that as no public open space is provided within the site, cash in 

lieu of public open space would be required as a Condition of Subdivision (with the funds to 

be placed in the Careniup Swamp Public Open Space Rehabilitation Trust Fund). 


Goal 2: 




Encourage and promote a strong sense of place and identity. 

45





Issue 

Vegetation impact 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

The site is vacant and is devoid of significant vegetation. If 

subdivided additional tree planting in verges and setbacks 

will be required which will improve the amenity of the area. 

Amenity. 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The single houses proposed will be in keeping with the 

single residential nature of the locality. 

Issue 

Increased Density. 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Allows for more economic use of the site whilst still retaining 

the single residential character of the area. 

Conclusion 

The Minister under section 76(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005, has Ordered 

the Council to initiate an Amendment. Failure to comply with the orders may result in further 

enforcement action being taken whereby the Minister may initiate the Amendment in place of 

the Council. 

From a planning viewpoint, the development of R30 density single house subdivision for the 

subject site is supported. It is considered that the marginal increase in density by six (6) 

dwellings will not adversely impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood. Accordingly, 

initiation of the rezoning for the purposes of inviting public comment is supported. 

46



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.1/CP5 - LOT 201, HOUSE NUMBER 19, GRIBBLE ROAD, 

GWELUP - AMENDMENT 8 - REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL R20 TO SPECIAL USE 

ZONE 

Attachment 1 - Ministers Orders (ECM Doc No: 3123842) 

47



48



49



50



10.1/CP6 

LOT 235 AND LOT 900, NORTH BEACH ROAD, GWELUP - REZONING 

FROM RESIDENTIAL R20 TO RESIDENTIAL R30 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 235 and Lot 900, North Beach Road, Gwelup 

Department of Planning 



Hamersley 

Gwelup 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 






includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies. 






licences, applications for other permits/licences (e.g. under Health 





Moved Councillor Stewart, seconded Councillor Italiano 

The Council respectfully advises the Minister for Planning, Hon John Day, 

that it DOES NOT support a Scheme Amendment to rezone Lots 235 and 900, North Beach 

Road, Gwelup from 'Residential R20' to 'Residential R30',on the following grounds:- 

a. This is not in accordance with the Local Area Plan as LPS3 has already identified 

Lots as R30 and land set aside as development zones; 

b. The proposed subdivision layout does not comply with the approved structure plan 

lot sizes and zoning requirements as per the Gwelup Residential Structure Plan; 

c. Council reconfirms its position of the 19 November 1998 'a limitation on density 

above R20 in any future rezonings; as follows:- 

51



Maximum density R30; 

Maximum extent of higher density 10% of applicable area; and 

Any R30 zoned land to be divided into single house lots. 


For: Councillors Italiano, Proud and Stewart. 

Against: Councillors Boothman, Cooke, Ferrante, Jenkinson, Lagan, Michael, Re, Sargent, 

Tyzack and Willox. 

During debate, Councillor Tyzack foreshadowed the following motion:- 


0812/037 

Moved Councillor Tyzack, seconded Councillor Lagan 

That pursuant to section 76(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005, an 

Amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 3 to rezone Lots 235 and 900, North Beach 

Road, Gwelup from 'Residential R20' to 'Residential R30', in accordance with the 

Ministers Orders dated 13 July 2012, be INITIATED and PROCESSED in accordance 

with Town Planning Regulations. 


For: Councillors Boothman, Cooke, Ferrante, Jenkinson, Lagan, Michael, Re, Sargent, 

Tyzack and Willox. 

Against: Councillors Italiano, Proud and Stewart. 



to Local Planning Scheme No. 3 to rezone Lots 235 and 900, North Beach Road, Gwelup 

from 'Residential R20' to 'Residential R30', in accordance with the Ministers Orders dated 13 

July 2012, be INITIATED and PROCESSED in accordance with Town Planning Regulations. 



to Local Planning Scheme No. 3 to rezone Lots 235 and 900, North Beach Road, Gwelup 

from 'Residential R20' to 'Residential R30', in accordance with the Ministers Orders dated 13 

July 2012, be INITIATED and PROCESSED in accordance with Town Planning Regulations. 

52




To reconsider initiating a Scheme Amendment to rezone Lot 235 and Lot 900, North Beach 

Road, Gwelup from Residential R20 to Residential R30 as a consequence of an Order made 

by the Minister for Planning under section 76(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005. 


Attachments 

Attachment 1 - Minister's Order (ECM Doc No: 3149697) 


Rezoning Application (ECM Doc No: 3149697) 

Background 

On 27 September 2011, Council considered a request to initiate a rezoning of Lot 235 and 

Lot 900, North Beach Road, Gwelup from Residential R20 to Residential R30. The original 

officer recommendation to the Planning and Development Committee was that an 

Amendment be initiated. However, when this was put to Council, the motion was lost (that 

is, Council did not resolve to initiate an Amendment (Council Resolution Number 0911/039). 

No reason for the decision was made. However, discussion during the Council meeting 

(based on audio recordings) indicates the following:- 

A spot rezoning cannot be justified; 

The rezoning represented a 10.5% increase whereas the Gwelup Residential 

Precinct once permitted a 10% increase. This would set precedence for further 

increases. 

On the 19 July 2012, the City received Orders from the Minister for Planning (refer 

Attachment 1), under section 76(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 stating:- 

"1. I, the Hon John Day MLA, Minister for Planning, pursuant to section 76(1) of the 

Planning and Development Act 2005 (the Act), order the City of Stirling to initiate 

an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 3 as outlined in the representation 

by Gray & Lewis Land Use Planners dated 24 October 2011, a copy of which is 

attached to this order. 

2. The City of Stirling is to comply with this order on or before 22 August 2012." 

The Orders were dated the 13 July 2012 and the cover letter advises the City there is no 

right of appeal against this decision. 

As a consequence of the Ministers Orders, it is necessary for Council to re-consider the 

rezoning request. 

53



Summary of Proposal 

Current Zoning: MRS - Urban 

LPS3 - R20 (95.88%) R30 (4.12%) 

Proposed Zoning: LPS3 - R20 (89.42%) R30 (10.58%) 

Size of site; 5.6288HA 

Concept Plan: The Gwelup Residential Precinct Structure Plan was adopted by the WAPC 

on 4 September 2000. Since then there have been a number of minor modifications 

approved to the Structure Plan. The proposed subdivision layout does not comply with the 

approved Structure Plan (as amended) lot sizes and zoning requirements. 

Portion of the site (4.12% or 2316m 2 ) was rezoned from Rural to Residential R30 in 2004 

(under the previous District Planning Scheme No. 2) with the balance of the land being 

zoned R20. The Western Australian Planning Commission granted a new conditional 

subdivisional approval for the site on 29 July 2011. The State Administrative Tribunal (DR 

185 2009) granted approval for four (4) lots within the subdivision at an R30 size which are 

zoned R20. This rezoning seeks to correct this anomaly as well as requesting two (2) further 

lots to be rezoned R30. As part of Amendment 357A under the previous District Planning 

Scheme No. 2, which rezoned the land from Rural to Residential, Council proposed a 

specific precinct for the Gwelup Residential Precinct with the following qualifying provisions: 

All development and subdivision to be in accordance with the adopted Structure 

Plan; 

No grouped dwellings being permitted at a density greater than R20; and 

Not more than 10% of new lots for any subdivision being created above an R20 

density up to an R30 density. 

The Minister subsequently approved the rezoning amendment on a modified basis deleting 

all reference to the qualifying provisions of the Gwelup Residential precinct. 

54



Location Plan 


55



Rezoning Proposed 

Comment 

1. Applicant's Justification 

The applicant has submitted a detailed planning report justifying the rezoning on the 

following grounds:- 

Network City principles encourage medium density housing to facilitate 

increased housing diversity meeting the needs of the Perth population, to 

revitalise existing suburbs and to maximise service efficiency and use of 

existing urban infrastructure. 

Directions 2031. The proposed amendment will provide for additional pockets 

of medium density development adjacent to an activity centre and is consistent 

with all of the objectives of Directions 2031. 

Strategic Planning. The City is progressing local place planning and there is 

general support and recognition that higher densities are appropriate in 

locations adjacent and surrounding activity centres. 

56



2. Planning Comment 

The State Administrative Tribunal granted subdivisional approval for four (4) 

lots within the subdivision on an R30 size (Av 300m 2 ) within an R20 zoning (Av 

500m 2 ). This rezoning seeks to correct this anomaly. 

The rezoning proposed also requires a modification to the Structure Plan to 

allow an additional R30 density for two (2) 1200m 2 lots located in the northwest 

corner of the site. Each of these two (2) sites could accommodate four (4) 

grouped dwellings. 

The rezoning will optimise the opportunity for new housing with excellent 

access to established shops, services, Primary School and public transport. 

The rezoning proposed is for:- 

Two (2) lots of 1200m 2 each being rezoned from Residential R20 to Residential 

R30 to permit the development of up to four (4) grouped dwellings on each lot. 

Under the R20 zoning the maximum development of the site would be two (2) 

duplex and one (1) single house (five (5) dwellings). Under the R30 zoning a 

maximum of eight (8) grouped dwellings could be permitted, which represents a 

maximum increase in dwellings of three (3) if the rezoning was approved; and 

To correct an anomaly in that four (4) lots approved by WAPC/SAT (DR 185 

2009) at an R30 size in an R20 zone. These lots being 288m 2 , 284m 2 ,328m 2 

and 341m 2 , respectively. 

The following planning comments are made in respect of the proposed rezoning:- 

The total percentage of R30 zoned land will be 10.58% whereas the maximum 

permitted under previously adopted guidelines by Council for the Gwelup 

Residential Precinct is 10%. Notwithstanding this, there is no objection in 

principle as it is considered to be a minor variation to the Guidelines. 

The proposal to develop four (4) grouped dwellings on each of the two (2) 

1200m 2 lots is in conflict with the Gwelup Residential Precinct Guidelines, in 

that, grouped dwellings were not permitted on lots coded R30. However, the 

location of the lots (being in the north west corner of the site) are opposite the 

existing nursing home site and would have minimal impact on the amenity of 

existing residential housing in the area. The grouped dwellings on this site 

would have good views over the nearby primary school site as well as to the 

City. 

As the site is in close proximity to the Gwelup Shopping Centre, there is an 

opportunity to promote increased densities in accordance with the State 

Government's regional strategies (i.e. Directions 2031 and Activity Centre's 

Policy) and the City’s own strategic planning policies to justify the increase in 

density. 

Should Council resolve to initiate the Amendment, it would be appropriate to also 

advertise relevant modifications to the adopted Structure Plan for this area 

concurrently with the Amendment. 

57



3. Ministers Orders 

The Minister for Planning has issued an Order to initiate an Amendment and has 

provided the following reasons in support of this decision:- 

"I, the Hon John Day MLA, Minister for Planning, am satisfied on representations 

before me that the City of Stirling has failed to initiate an amendment to its local 

planning scheme proposed by owners of land in a case where such an 

amendment ought to be initiated for the following reason: 

1. I consider that the proposal to increase the density of portions of lot 235 and 

900 North Beach Road, Gwelup from R20 to R30 complies with Council's 

resolution of 10 November 1998 to allow for up to 10 per cent of the 

Careniup Swamp area to be developed up to a density of R30, and as such 

it is appropriate that the proposal be initiated to allow for the amendment to 

be advertised for public comment and further detailed assessment to be 

undertaken through the scheme amendment process." 

Failure to comply with the orders of the Minister may result in further enforcement 

action being taken, most likely pursuant to Section 212 of the Act, which empowers the 

Minister to initiate an Amendment as if he were the Local Government. 


Consultation on Amendment required in accordance with Town Planning Regulations, if 

endorsed. 


Rezoning Amendment subject to the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2005 

and the Town Planning Regulations 1967 (as amended). 


The applicant will be responsible for all fees associated with the Amendment, including 

advertising costs. 


Goal 2: 







58





Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Equity 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The proposal reflects the needs of a diverse population with 

different housing needs. 

Nil. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Conclusion 

The Minister, under section 76(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005, has ordered 

the Council to initiate an Amendment. Failure to comply with the orders may result in further 

enforcement action being taken whereby the Minister may initiate the Amendment in place of 

the Council. 

The proposed rezoning is relatively minor, with minimal impact on any nearby residents as 

the site abuts a ROW and Nursing Home to the North, North Beach Road and a 1.8m high 

wall to the West and the applicant’s land to the South and East. In this context, the initiation 

of the Amendment is supported. 

59



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.1/CP6 - LOT 235 AND LOT 900, NORTH BEACH ROAD, 

GWELUP - REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL R20 TO RESIDENTIAL R30 

Attachment 1 - Minister's Order (ECM Doc No: 3149697) 

60



61



62




0812/038 

Moved Councillor Italiano, seconded Councillor Proud 

That the balance of the Planning and Development Committee recommendations be 

ADOPTED by exception resolution in accordance with section 4.7 of the City of 

Stirling Meeting Procedures Local Law 2009. 




Against: Nil. 

10.1/AP1 LOT 2, HOUSE NUMBER 196, THE ESPLANADE, SCARBOROUGH - 

ADDITIONS TO BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENT (INCREASE 

FROM FOUR (4) TO SEVEN (7) BEDROOMS) 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 2, House Number 196, The Esplanade, Scarborough 

E Ardon 


Approvals 

Coastal 

Scarborough 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 
















63



Information 

Purposes 




0812/039 


That pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No.3, the application for 

additions to the existing Bed and Breakfast (increase from four (4) to seven (7) rooms) 

at Lot 2, House Number 196, The Esplanade, Scarborough be APPROVED subject to 

the following conditions:- 

a. Seven (7) vehicle parking bays shall be provided within the property boundary, 

as indicated on the approved plan. The two (2) parking bays within the existing 

garage are for the exclusive use of the resident of the dwelling. All guests of the 

Bed and Breakfast shall park in the five (5) parking bays located at the front of 

the lot only; 

b. The resident of the dwelling the subject of this approval is to reside at the 

premise at all times and shall have dedicated bedroom and bathroom facilities; 

c. A maximum of seven (7) bedrooms, as indicated on the approved plan, being 

used for the purpose of Bed and Breakfast; 

d. Communal bathroom and breakfast eating area shall be provided and contained 

within the dwelling; 

e. The Bed and Breakfast rooms shall not contain cooking facilities; 

f. A maximum of one (1) sign not exceeding 0.5m 2 in area, and incorporated into a 

front fence, wall, structure or building, in accordance with the Bed and Breakfast 

Accommodation Policy and Schedule 8 of Local Planning Scheme No.3; and 

The motion was put and declared CARRIED (13/0) by exception resolution (page 63 

refers). 



Against: Nil. 


That pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No.3, the application for additions 

to the existing Bed and Breakfast (increase from four (4) to seven (7) rooms) at Lot 2, House 

Number 196, The Esplanade, Scarborough be APPROVED subject to the following 

conditions:- 

64



a. Seven (7) vehicle parking bays shall be provided within the property boundary, as 

indicated on the approved plan. The two (2) parking bays within the existing garage 

are for the exclusive use of the resident of the dwelling. All guests of the Bed and 

Breakfast shall park in the five (5) parking bays located at the front of the lot only; 

b. The resident of the dwelling the subject of this approval is to reside at the premise at 

all times and shall have dedicated bedroom and bathroom facilities; 

c. A maximum of seven (7) bedrooms, as indicated on the approved plan, being used for 

the purpose of Bed and Breakfast; 

d. Communal bathroom and breakfast eating area shall be provided and contained within 

the dwelling; 


f. A maximum of one (1) sign not exceeding 0.5m 2 in area, and incorporated into a front 

fence, wall, structure or building, in accordance with the Bed and Breakfast 



No complaints have been received in the 10 year operation of the Bed and Breakfast 

Accommodation and the adjoining residents support the application. 


That pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No.3, the application for additions 

to the existing Bed and Breakfast (increase from four (4) to seven (7) rooms) at Lot 2, House 

Number 196, The Esplanade, Scarborough be APPROVED subject to the following 

conditions:- 

a. Seven (7) vehicle parking bays shall be provided within the property boundary, as 

indicated on the approved plan. The two (2) parking bays within the existing garage 

are for the exclusive use of the resident of the dwelling. All guests of the Bed and 

Breakfast shall park in the five (5) parking bays located at the front of the lot only; 

b. The resident of the dwelling the subject of this approval is to reside at the premise at 

all times and shall have dedicated bedroom and bathroom facilities; 

c. A maximum of seven (7) bedrooms, as indicated on the approved plan, being used for 

the purpose of Bed and Breakfast; 

d. Communal bathroom and breakfast eating area shall be provided and contained within 

the dwelling; 


f. A maximum of one (1) sign not exceeding 0.5m 2 in area, and incorporated into a front 

fence, wall, structure or building, in accordance with the Bed and Breakfast 


65



g. This approval is valid for a period of 12 months. After this period the applicant is to 

apply to the City for renewal of the application. 


To consider a development application for additions to the existing Bed and Breakfast 

(increase from four to seven rooms) at Lot 2, House Number 196, The Esplanade, 

Scarborough. The application is referred to Council for determination as the development 

proposes a shortfall in on site car parking, and a variation in respect of the number of rooms 

used for Bed and Breakfast accommodation. 


Attachments 

Nil. 







Nearest Cross Street: Brighton Road 

66



Location Plan 


67




Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS Urban 

LPS3 Residential R160 

Use 

Class Bed and Breakfast 

Type A - Not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting 

planning approval after giving notice in accordance with Clause 9.4 of Local Planning 

Scheme No.3 (LPS3). 



Local Planning Scheme No. 3 contains the following definition of Bed and Breakfast:- 

"Means a dwelling, used by a resident of the dwelling, to provide accommodation for 

persons away from their normal place of residence on a short term commercial basis, and 

includes the provision of breakfast." 

Part 6 – Special Control Areas of Local Planning Scheme No.3 contains the following 

objectives for the Scarborough Special Control Area:- 

a. Recognise the uniqueness and suitability of this area for development as a significant 

tourism and recreational destination in the Metropolitan Coastline. 

b. To provide a sound, coordinated strategy for the integrated development of public and 

private land to facilitate the creation of a safe, vibrant mixed use centre based on ‘main 

street’ design principles. 

c. Development of a range of commercial facilities that will contribute towards economic 

development, local employment and the viability of the area as a commercial centre 

servicing residents, visitors and the local workforce. 

d. Development of a range of versatile, medium and high density accommodation 

suitable for both tourists and permanent residents, so as to maximise accessibility to 

the foreshore and enhance the level of support for a wide range of commercial and 

recreational facilities. 

e. Buildings designed to contribute towards a distinctive urban-coastal character and 

sense of place, and which are evocative of a beach-side town. 

f. Buildings designed to capitalise on the vistas and climatic attributes of the location, but 

which will respect the visual amenities of the street and locality. 

g. Buildings designed to provide an attractive visual frame and sense of enclosure for the 

adjacent street but which are in ‘scale’ with the adjoining public spaces. 

68



h. Buildings designed to provide safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian access and 

egress along the streets and to the foreshore. 

Residential Design Codes 

Nil. 


Bed and Breakfast Accommodation Policy 

The subject application has been assessed in accordance with the City’s Planning Policy 2.3 

Bed and Breakfast Accommodation Policy. The objectives of Policy 2.3 Bed and Breakfast 

Accommodation are as follows:- 

To facilitate the development of appropriately located and high quality bed and 

breakfast accommodation within the City; and 

To ensure that there is no detrimental impact on the amenity of surrounding properties 

from the bed and breakfast accommodation. 

Council Policy 5.6 (Scarborough Redevelopment Zone Design Guidelines) 

An assessment of the proposed development in relation to the provisions of Local Planning 

Scheme No3 3 and relevant policies is discussed in further detail in the Comments section 

below. 

Background 

A development application for additions to the existing bed and breakfast at Lot 2, House 

Number 196, The Esplanade, Scarborough was submitted to the City on the 11 June 2012 

(DA12/1318 refers). The development application proposes to increase the number of Bed 

and Breakfast rooms available from four (4) to seven (7). In addition to this variation to the 

City’s Bed and Breakfast Policy, insufficient on site car parking is proposed as a 

consequence of the increased number of rooms proposed. 

Assessment 

Local Planning Scheme No. 3 and Policy Manual Assessment 

Council Policy 2.3 – Bed and Breakfast Policy 

Element 

Satisfies 

Scheme/ Policy 

OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

1 

Location 

Within 

residential 

zones, bed and 

breakfast 

accommodation 

is a use that is 

not permitted 

 

An existing bed and 

breakfast development 

exists on site. 

69



Element 

Satisfies 


OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

2 

3 

4 

5 

unless Council 

gives it’s 

approval. Linear 

or clusters bed 

and breakfast 

development 

shall not be 

permitted. 

Number of 

rooms 

The maximum 

number of 

rooms shall be 

limited to two. 

Car Parking 

One car bay is 

required per 

room 

Car Parking and 

access 

Access shall 

meet the 

requirement of 

the R-Codes. 

Car parking 

bays, carports 

and garages 

facing the street 

shall not occupy 

more than 60% 

of the frontage 

as viewed form 

the street. 

Signage 

A maximum of 

one sign not 

exceeding 0.5m 2 

in area, and 

incorporated 

onto a front wall, 

structure of 

building shall be 

permitted. 

 

 

 

 

The proposed 

development would 

not result in a liner or 

cluster of bed and 

breakfast 

development. 

Four (4) existing bed 

and breakfast rooms 

exist in site. Approval 

is sought for a total of 

seven (7) rooms. 

Seven (7) car parking 

bays are provided on 

site, including two (2) 

dedicated bays within 

the garage for the 

residents of the 

dwelling. (nine (9) 

bays are required) 

Existing. No change to 

existing car parking 

and 

access 

arrangements. 

Condition to comply 

70



The City’s Bed and Breakfast Policy requires variations to the policy to be considered 

against the objectives of the Bed and Breakfast policy. This is discussed later in the report. 

LPS 3 Clause 6.9 (Scarborough Special Control Area) 

Council Policy 5.6 (Scarborough Redevelopment Zone Design Guidelines) 

Element 

Satisfies 


OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

1 

Site 

Requirements 

N/A 

N/A 

2 Setbacks N/A N/A 


The development 

proposes to utilise vacant 

bedrooms within an 

existing dwelling which 

has development 

approval to operate as a 

bed and breakfast. 




existing dwelling. 

Two (2) car bays are 

required for the owners of 

the dwelling, and once car 

bay per room, requiring a 

total of nine (9) on site car 

parking bays. 

Seven (7) car parking 

bays are provided on site, 

including two (2) 

dedicated bays within the 

garage for the residents 

of the dwelling. 


4 Landscaping N/A N/A 





5 Facades N/A N/A 





6 Service Access N/A N/A 





7 Building Height N/A N/A 




8 Policy 

Variations to the City’s 

Bed and Breakfast Policy 

are referred to above. 

9 Other N/A N/A Nil. 

71



Element 

Satisfies 


OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

Consideration 


The application was advertised for a period of 21 days, in accordance with the City’s 

‘Planning Consultation Procedure’ Policy. No submissions were received. 

Applicant’s justification 

The applicant has provided the following justification in support of the proposed 

development:- 

Beach Manor B&B has become the City’s only 5 star accommodation and is now a 

magnet for tourist who wants quality accommodation on Scarborough Beach. 

Unfortunately, many tourists are being turned away because of lack of capacity. 

We ask for a favorable consideration because at least 50% of our visitors are from 

interstate / overseas and arrive by taxi or bus, so existing car parking bays aren’t fully 

used. 

Further, the Scarborough Beach car park adjoins us with plenty of parking. 

Comment 

Conditional development approval for the existing ‘Bed and Breakfast’ development on the 

subject lot, known as Beach Manor was granted by the City on the 7 August 2002. That 

approval specifically stated that four designated bedrooms could be used for ‘short stay 

accommodation’, and that no more than eight (8) paying guest could be present at any one 

(1) time (M20/6651.3 refers). 

The subject dwelling is considerable in size, containing 10 bedrooms and nine (9) 

bathrooms. No modifications to the dwelling are required to facilitate the additional bed and 

breakfast accommodation. Rather, the owners of the dwelling will be utilising spare capacity 

within the existing dwelling. The following comments are made in respect of the Local 

Planning Scheme No 3 requirements, and assessment in relation to the Bed and Breakfast 

Policy. 

Scarborough Special Control Area 

The proposed development complies with the objectives of the Scarborough Special Control 

Area as referred to previously, specifically as the proposed development provides additional 

(though limited) additional tourist accommodation within the area. 

Bed and Breakfast Policy 

Additional rooms. 

The City’s Bed and Breakfast policy permits a maximum of two (2) rooms to be used for bed 

and breakfast accommodation. 

72



The City has previously approved four (4) rooms to be used for this use, and approval is 

sought for a further three (3) rooms to be permitted to be used also as bed and breakfast 

accommodation – a total of seven (7) rooms. The City’s Bed and Breakfast Policy requires 

variations to the policy to be considered in light of the objectives of the Bed and Breakfast 

policy referred to earlier in this report. 

The location of the existing Bed and Breakfast is considered to be an appropriate location in 

an area where demand for a variety of accommodation types is high. The existing bed and 

breakfast has been operational for approximately 10 years, without any complaints having 

been received in respect to it’s operation. The provision of an addition three (3) bed and 

breakfast rooms is not considered to result in a detrimental impact on the surrounding 

properties. However, a condition is recommended for inclusion limiting the approval to 12 

months in the first instance so that the impact of the development can be ascertained. 

Parking 

As a result of the proposed development, a total of nine (9) car parking bays are required on 

site, with seven (7) bays proposed (the configuration of the five (5) external car bays has 

previously been approved by the City) – a shortfall of two (2) bays. 

As the proposed development is residential rather than commercial in nature, the proposed 

development is not entitled to any car parking variations permitted by the City’s Parking 

Policy. The City’s Bed and Breakfast Policy requires any variations to the on site car parking 

provision to be assessed in relation to the objectives of the Bed and Breakfast Policy. 

The objectives of the Bed and Breakfast Policy do not provide a sound basis for considering 

variations to on site car parking requirements. It is reasonable therefore to apply the 

objectives of the City’s Parking Policy to the on site car parking shortfall in this instance, as 

these objectives reflect the outcomes the City wishes to achieve in respect of on site parking 

provision. 

The relevant objectives of the City’s parking Policy are:- 

To facilitate the development of adequate parking facilities; 

To ensure that a major parking problem is unlikely to occur; 

To ensure that car parking does not have a detrimental impact on the character and 

amenity of a residential area; and 

To ensure that an oversupply of parking does not occur that discourages alternative 

forms of transport and is detrimental to urban design and centre character. 

The proposed development is considered to satisfy the objectives listed above, particularly 

as the applicant has advised that many of the visitors use public transport/or taxi to reach 

their destination. 

The City also notes that the five (5) existing bays on site have previously been approved by 

the City. There is no opportunity to provide any additional car parking on site due to the 

location of the existing dwelling. The City’s officers are of the view that requiring additional 

bays to be provided, for example within the road reserve to the front of the dwelling, is not 

desirable as this is considered likely to detrimentally impact on the local streetscape. The 

City’s officers also note that an existing public car park is located less than 50m from the 

development. 

73



For these reasons, the City’s officers are satisfied that the car parking shortfall is acceptable 

in this instance, and that a major parking problem is unlikely to occur. 

Additionally, the proposed development is considered to meet the objectives of the 

Scarborough Special Control Area through the provision of additional tourist accommodation 

in the area. The application is therefore supported, subject to relevant conditions. 

Building Code of Australia 

Although not relevant to the planning assessment of this proposal, the City has had 

discussions with the applicant in respect of compliance of the proposed development with 

the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia. It should be noted that the Building 

Code of Australia limits the number of people who may reside at the dwelling to 12 persons, 

inclusive of the property owners and their family, unless further substantial modifications to 

the dwelling are carried out, which would allow it’s classification to be amended. The 

applicant has sought independent advice in relation to this issue and has advised the City 

that the numbers of person’s present on site will not exceed 12 persons, due to the 

modifications that would be required. 

A relevant advice note will be placed on any approval which may be issued reiterating these 

facts to the applicant. 


Should the Council refuse the application for development approval, the applicant may have 

the right to have the decision reviewed in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and 



Nil. 


Goal 2: 


SI 2.1.1: 






Implement the Scarborough Environs Area Strategy (SEAS). 

74





ENVIRONMENTAL 

Issue 

Waste generation 

Comment 

The use of the spare capacity within the dwelling reduces 

the need for alternative forms of development to be 

constructed. 

Amenity 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The proposed development is not considered to have a 

detrimental impact on the local amenity. 

ECONOMIC 

Job creation 

Issue 

Comment 

The proposed development will secure employment for an 

occupant of the dwelling. 

Conclusion 

The proposed development has been assessed in relation to the provisions and relevant 

objectives of Local Planning Scheme No 3, and all relevant local planning policies. The 

City’s offers are satisfied that the proposed development will not result in a parking problem 

for the area, and that the amenity of the area will be unaffected by the development, and that 

the development proposal would aid in achieving the objectives of the Scarborough Special 

Control Area. 

The proposed development is therefore supported, subject to relevant conditions. 

75



10.1/AP2 LOT 313, HOUSE NUMBER 11, PINNATA MEWS, CHURCHLANDS - 



Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 313, House Number 11, Pinnata Mews, Churchlands 

Timur Kolchin 


Approvals 

Doubleview 

Churchlands 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0812/040 


That pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 3, the application for Lot 

313, House Number 11, Pinnata Mews, Churchlands be APPROVED subject to the 


a. The boundary wall not to exceed the height indicated on the approved plans. 

The surface finish of the wall facing a neighbour should be to the satisfaction of 

the adjoining neighbour or, in the case of a dispute, to the satisfaction of the 

City; 

76



b. All driveways, parking and maneuvering areas are to be constructed of brick 

paving, drained and maintained to the City’s satisfaction. Alternative finishes 

such as concrete or bitumen are acceptable if it has a decorative type finish to 

the satisfaction of the City; 

c. All boundary fencing behind the front setback line is to be in accordance with 

the provision of the City’s Local Laws pertaining to the provisions of a sufficient 

fence; 

d. All eaves to the proposed development maintaining a minimum setback of 

750mm from the boundary; and 

e. Storm water from all roofed and paved areas to be collected and contained on 

site. 


refers). 



Against: Nil. 


That pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 3, the application for Lot 313, 

House Number 11, Pinnata Mews, Churchlands be APPROVED subject to the following 

conditions:- 

a. The boundary wall not to exceed the height indicated on the approved plans. The 

surface finish of the wall facing a neighbour should be to the satisfaction of the 

adjoining neighbour or, in the case of a dispute, to the satisfaction of the City; 

b. All driveways, parking and maneuvering areas are to be constructed of brick paving, 

drained and maintained to the City’s satisfaction. Alternative finishes such as concrete 

or bitumen are acceptable if it has a decorative type finish to the satisfaction of the 


c. All boundary fencing behind the front setback line is to be in accordance with the 

provision of the City’s Local Laws pertaining to the provisions of a sufficient fence; 

d. All eaves to the proposed development maintaining a minimum setback of 750mm 

from the boundary; and 

e. Storm water from all roofed and paved areas to be collected and contained on site. 


That pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 3, the application for Lot 313, 

House Number 11, Pinnata Mews, Churchlands be APPROVED subject to the following 

conditions:- 

77



a. The boundary wall not to exceed the height indicated on the approved plans. The 



b. All driveways, parking and maneuvering areas are to be constructed of brick paving, 




c. All boundary fencing behind the front setback line is to be in accordance with the 


d. All eaves to the proposed development maintaining a minimum setback of 750mm 


e. Storm water from all roofed and paved areas to be collected and contained on site. 


To consider a development application for a single dwelling at Lot 313, House Number 11, 

Pinnata Mews, Churchlands. The development proposes a variation to the City’s ECU 

Design Guidelines (Stage 3) relating to outdoor living areas, building height, visual privacy, 

overshadowing, the City’s Residential Building Heights Policy and Residential Design Codes 

provisions relating to the setback of buildings generally, buildings setback from the 

boundary, buildings on boundary, outdoor living areas and solar access for adjoining sites. 


Attachments 

Attachment 1: Reports prepared by Applicant in support of application dated 2 July 2012 

Attachment 2: Reports prepared by Applicant in support of application dated 16 July 2012 







Nearest Cross Street: Prionotes Corner 

78



Location Plan 


79



Perspectives of the Proposed Development 

80




Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS 

LPS3 

Use 

Class 

Urban 

Residential 

Single House 

Type P - Permitted 



Nil. 


6.2.1 Setback of Buildings Generally 

The acceptable development standards of the R-Codes require buildings setback from the 

primary street in accordance with Table 1 of the R-Codes. 

6.3.1 Buildings Set Back from the Boundary 

The acceptable development standards of the R-Codes require buildings setback from 

boundaries other than street boundaries in accordance with Tables 2a and 2b and Figure 3. 

6.3.2 Buildings on Boundary 

The acceptable development standards of the R-Codes require buildings on the boundary 

within areas coded R30 to be two-thirds the length of the balance of the boundary behind the 

front setback and to one (1) side boundary only. Additionally, walls are to be no higher than 

3.5m with an average height of 3m. 

6.4.2 Outdoor Living Areas 

The acceptable development standards of the R-Codes require an outdoor living area to be 

provided; and to have at least two-thirds of the required area without permanent roof cover. 

6.8.1 Visual Privacy 

The acceptable development standards of the R-Codes require a 7.5m cone of vision 

setback in the case of unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces. 


Residential Building Height Policy 

Under the ‘acceptable development provisions’ of Council’s ‘Residential Building Heights’ 

Policy, buildings with a pitched roof are acceptable development provided they do not 

exceed a wall height of 6.0m and the ridge height does not exceed 9.0m as measured from 

average natural ground level. Concealed roofs are permitted provided the wall height does 

not exceed 7.0m as measured from average natural ground level. 

81



ECU Design Guidelines Stage 3 

The ECU Design Guidelines Stage 3, permits the maximum permissible heights outlined in 

the ‘Residential Building Heights’ Policy to be exceeded by 0.5m. 

The ECU Design Guidelines Stage 3 also permits zero lot lines (buildings on boundary) to be 

a maximum permissible height of 3.3m (which override the R-Codes provisions referred to 

above). 

In addition, the ECU Design Guidelines Stage 3 require a minimum Outdoor Living area of 

25m² to be provided which is directly accessible from an internal living area and located to 

best facilitate winter solar penetration. 

Background 

An application for a Single Dwelling on Lot 313, House Number 11, Pinnata Mews, 

Churchlands (DA12/0991 refers) was submitted to the City on 4 May 2012. Following an 

initial assessment of the proposal, the applicant was advised that the proposed development 

did not comply with several elements of the R-Codes (as detailed above) and the City’s 

Residential Building Heights Policy. The applicant consequently sought a performance 

based assessment of those elements. 

Assessment 

R-Code Level 1 Assessment – Acceptable Development Criteria 

Design Element 

Complies 

'Acceptable 

Development' 

OR 

'Performance 

Criteria' 

Assessment 

1 Density Complies 

2 Streetscape 

Comment 

R-Code - 6.2.1 

Ground floor – Complies 

First Floor – Average 

setback is 3.9m in lieu 

of 4.0m. 

R-Code – 6.3.1 

South West Boundary: 

Second Floor Roof 

Terrace setback 1.4m in 

lieu of 2.6m. 

3 

Boundary 

Setbacks 

 

North West Boundary: 

First Floor En-Suite and 

Bed 3 setback 1.5m in 



Terrace setback 1.5m in 


North East Boundary: 

82




Complies 

'Acceptable 

Development' 

OR 

'Performance 

Criteria' 

Assessment 

Comment 

First Floor Bedroom 3 to 

Lounge is setback 1.5m 

in lieu of 5.2m. 


Terrace is setback 

1.15m in lieu of 6.3m. 

6.3.2 Buildings on 

Boundary 

South West Boundary 

Ground Floor has 

buildings on the 

boundary at 15.15m in 

length in lieu of 14m 

(2/3rds of the boundary 

length). The building on 

the boundary has a 

maximum height of 

3.27m in lieu of 3.3m. 

No average building on 

the boundary height is 

applicable. 

4 Open Space 

ECU Design Guidelines 

The proposed Outdoor 

Living Area on the Roof 

Terrace is not directly 

accessible from an 

internal living area. 

5 

Access and 

Parking 

 

Complies 

6 Site Works Complies 


ECU Design Guideline 

and Residential Building 

Heights Policy 

The pitched roof section 

of the dwelling has an 

external wall height of 

7.8m in lieu of 6.5m. A 

variation of 1.3m. 

The concealed roof 

section of the dwelling 

has an external wall 

height of 8.85m in lieu of 

7.5m. A variation of 

1.35m. 

8 Privacy 

R-Code - 6.8.1 

The 7.5m cone of vision 

extends from the 

proposed front balcony 

83




Complies 

'Acceptable 

Development' 

OR 

'Performance 

Criteria' 

Assessment 

Comment 

6.3m across the 

neighbouring property to 

the south west. 

9 Design for Climate 

ECU Design Guidelines 

46.98% overshadowing 

in lieu of 40% is 

proposed. 

10 Incidental Complies 

11 Special Purpose Complies 

R-Code Level 2 Assessment – Performance Criteria 


R-Codes 

Performance Criteria 

2. Streetscape 6.2.1 Set Back of 

Buildings 

Generally 

3.Boundary 

Setback 

6.3.1 Buildings Set 

Back from the 

Boundary 

Subclause 

P1 Buildings set back 

an appropriate 

distance to ensure 

they; 

• contribute to the 

desired 

streetscape; 

• provide adequate 

privacy and open 

space for 

dwellings; and 

• allow safety 

clearances for 

easements for 

essential service 

corridors. 

P1 Buildings set back 

from boundaries 

other than street 

boundaries so as 

to: 


direct sun and 

ventilation to the 

building; 

• ensure adequate 

direct sun and 

ventilation being 

available to 

adjoining 

properties; 


direct sun to the 

Satisfies 

Performance 

Criteria 

 

Does Not 

Satisfy 

Performance 

Criteria 

The front street setback 

variation is considered 

acceptable as the variation is 

considered to be minor. 

The proposed setback will 

not adversely impact the 

streetscape, the privacy or 

open space of the adjoining 

dwellings, as a significant 

part of the first floor is set 

behind the 6.0m average line 

and the ground floor and 

second floor both meet the 

average 6.0m setback 

requirement. 

Safety clearances and 

easement for service 

corridors are provided. 

 

South West Boundary: 

The setback variations to the 

second floor on the south 

west boundary are 

considered acceptable as 

the proposed setback to the 

south west boundary affects 

only a small portion of the 

boundary at the western end 

of the site, as a result of the 

irregular lot configuration. 

It is not considered that the 

minor variation will have any 

84




R-Codes 


Subclause 

Satisfies 

Performance 

Criteria 

Does Not 

Satisfy 

Performance 

Criteria 

building and 

appurtenant open 

spaces; 

• assist with 

protection of 

access to direct 

sun for adjoining 

properties; 

• assist in 

ameliorating the 

impacts of 

building bulk on 

adjoining 

properties; and 

• assist in 

protecting privacy 

between adjoining 

properties. 

impact upon the direct 

sunlight or ventilation 

available to the subject or 

adjoining dwellings open 

spaces and bulk. 

Privacy will be protected 

between the properties as a 

screen is proposed to 

prevent direct overlooking of 

the adjoining dwelling. 

North West Boundary: 


first and second floors on the 

north west boundary are 


the north west boundary of 

the site abuts an area of 

vegetation functioning as a 

reserve. The reduced 

setbacks will therefore have 

no impact on an adjoining 

dwelling. 

North East Boundary: 


first and second floors on the 

north eastern boundary are 


the portion of the dwelling 

not complying with the 

setback requirements abuts 

an area of designated as a 

future road reserve. The 

reduced setbacks will 

therefore have no impact on 

the adjoining dwellings. 

3.Boundary 

Setback 

6.3.2 Buildings on 

Boundary 

P2 Buildings built up to 

boundaries other 

than the street 

boundary where it 

is desirable to do 

so in order to: 

• make effective 

use of space; or 

• enhance privacy; 

or 

• otherwise 

enhance the 

amenity of the 

development; and 

• not have any 

 

The variation to the south 

west ground floor building on 

the boundary is considered 

acceptable as the variation is 

minor. 

The additional length is a 

result of the application 

attempting to make effective 

use of the space available 

whilst enhancing the 

properties amenity. 

85




R-Codes 


Subclause 

significant 

adverse effect on 

the amenity of the 

adjoining 

property; and 

• ensure that direct 

sun to major 

openings to 

habitable rooms 

and outdoor living 

areas of adjoining 

properties is not 

restricted. 

Satisfies 

Performance 

Criteria 

Does Not 

Satisfy 

Performance 

Criteria 

The addition wall length is 

not considered to have a 

detrimental impact on the 

amenity of the adjoining 

dwelling and has been 

considered in light of the 

development approval for 

the dwelling on the adjoining 

lot. Access to direct sunlight 

for that property are 

unaffected by the addition 

length of wall. 

4. Open Space 6.4.2 Outdoor Living 

Areas 

7. Building 

Height 

6.7.1 Building Height 

P2.1 An outdoor area 

capable of use in 

conjunction with a 

habitable room of 

the dwelling, and 

if possible, open 

to winter sun. 

P2.2 An outdoor area 

that takes the 

best advantage of 

the northern 

aspect of the site. 

P1 Building height 

consistent with the 

desired height of 

buildings in the 

locality, and to 

recognise the need 

to protect the 

amenities of 

adjoining 

properties, 

including, where 

appropriate: 

• adequate direct 

sun to buildings 

and appurtenant 

 

The outdoor living area for 

the proposed dwelling is 

located within a roof terrace, 

and though not able to be 

used in conjunction with a 

habitable room of the 

dwelling, the roof terrace 

takes advantage of its 

northern orientation and will 

be open to winter sun. 

In this instance, it is 

apparent that the dwelling 

has been designed in an 

unconventional manner to 

suit the needs of future 

residents, and provides 

approximately 90m 2 of 

outdoor living area in lieu of 

the 25m 2 required, which is 

well in excess of the usually 

amount of outdoor living 

area provided for dwellings 

in this area. 

 

The variation to the building 

height requirements is 

considered acceptable for 

the following reasons; 

The proposed dwelling 

height is complimentary to 

building heights established 

within the streetscape and its 

location at the end of a calde-sac 

86




R-Codes 


Subclause 

Satisfies 

Performance 

Criteria 

Does Not 

Satisfy 

Performance 

Criteria 

open spaces; 

• adequate daylight 

to major openings 

to habitable 

rooms; and 

• access to views of 

significance. 

The building height does not 

have any greater impact 

upon the useable open 

spaces or habitable rooms of 

adjoining dwellings in terms 

of access to sunlight than 

would be experienced from a 

dwelling with a compliant 

building height. 

8. Privacy 6.8.1 Visual Privacy 

P1 Direct overlooking 

of active habitable 

spaces and outdoor 

living areas of other 

dwellings is 

minimised by 

building layout, 

location and design 

of major openings 

and outdoor active 

habitable spaces, 

screening devices 

and landscape or 

remoteness. 

Effective location of 

major openings and 

outdoor active 

habitable spaces to 

avoid overlooking is 

preferred to the use 

of screening 

devices or 

obscured glass. 

Where these are 

used they should 

be integrated with 

the building design 

and have minimal 

impact on residents 

or neighbours 

amenity. 

Where opposite 

windows are offset 

from the edge of 

one window to the 

edge of another, 

the distance of the 

offset should be 

sufficient to limit 

There are no views of 

significance affected by the 

proposed building height. 

 

The variation to the visual 

privacy requirements is 


the visual incursion extends 

across the front setback area 

of the adjoining property, 

and to the first floor balcony. 

It is not considered that the 

resultant overlooking would 

exceed what is already 

experienced from the street. 

Furthermore, the adjoining 

properties along Pinnata 

Mews, including House 

Numbers 9, 7 and 5 all have 

balconies in a similar 

location on the front 

elevation. All properties will 

therefore experience the 

same level of overlooking 

from one property to 

another. 

87




9. Design for 

Climate 

R-Codes 


6.9.1 Solar Access 

for Adjoining 

Sites 

Subclause 

views into adjacent 

windows. 

P1 Development 

designed to protect 

solar access for 

neighbouring 

properties taking 

account the 

potential to 

overshadow: 

• outdoor living 

areas; 

• major openings to 

habitable rooms; 

• solar collectors; or 

• balconies or 

verandahs. 

Satisfies 

Performance 

Criteria 

 

Does Not 

Satisfy 

Performance 

Criteria 

The variation to the 

overshadowing requirement 

is considered acceptable as 

the additional 6.98% 

overshadowing experienced 

extends further across the 

roof and front setback area 

of the adjoining property to 

the south west and is not 

considered to unduly impact 

upon the outdoor living 

areas, habitable rooms or 

balconies and verandahs. 


The proposal was advertised for a period of 14 days in accordance with Clause 4.2 of the 

R-Codes. The potentially affected neighbours were contacted by mail and invited to view the 

plans of the proposal at the City’s administration building. Two (2) submissions were 

received and are summarised in the table below. 

Submission 

Number 

1 

2 

Submission Details 

We advise that we have been shown 

copies of the following; 

Site plan showing proposed house 

location on Lot 313. 

Individual floor plans for levels 1-3 of 

house proposed for Lot 313. 

Elevations from each angle of house 

proposed for. 

Interpretive sketches house proposed 

for on Lot 313 on a constructed basis. 

We advise that we have no objections to 

the proposed plans. 

We advise that the owners of Lot 313 

have been open in their communication 

with us and have provided us with copies 

of the following; 

Site plan showing proposed house 

location on Lot 313. 

Site plan showing overshadowing of 

house proposed for Lot 313 as it affects 

Lot 312. 

Individual floor plans for levels 1-3 of 

Comments noted 

Comments noted 

Officer's Comment 

88



Submission 

Number 


house proposed for Lot 313. 

Elevations from each angle of house 

proposed for. 

Interpretive sketches of house proposed 

for Lot 313. 

We are aware that the proposed building 

will have an overshadowing impact on Lot 

312 and we understand that the extent of 

overshadowing is similar to that approved 

elsewhere in the Churchlands Green 

development of this type of site. We 

therefore feel that it is unreasonable to 

object to the proposed overshadowing and 

so we are willing to accept whatever the 

City of Stirling deems to be acceptable on 

this point. 

We are also aware that the building may 

exceed height guidelines for the 

Churchlands Green development. Again 

we are willing to accept the decision of the 

City of Stirling on this aspect of the 

proposal. 


Two (2) Submissions Received – Relative Location 

Submissions 

Received 

Within 100m of 

proposed site 

Remainder of City 

All Submissions 

SUPPORT 50% 0% 50% 

OBJECT 0% 0% 0% 

OTHER 

(Not stated/ 

no opinion/ 

'conditional') 

50% 0% 50% 

Comment 

The applicant is seeking a performance based assessment in relation to the proposed street 

setback, building setback from the boundary, outdoor living area, visual privacy, building 

height and overshadowing. 

The proposed variation to the street setback is minor in nature and as it is located at first 

floor level, it is not considered that it would have a detrimental impact upon the appearance 

of the existing streetscape, and is a result of an irregular lot configuration. The proposed 

variation meets the relevant performance criteria as detailed above. 

The North West boundary of the site abuts a vegetated area which acts as informal public 

open space. The reduced setbacks will therefore have no impact on the amenity of an 

adjoining dwelling. The north eastern elevation abuts an area designated as a future road 

reserve and will therefore have no impact on the amenity of an adjoining dwelling. Both of 

these setbacks meet the relevant performance criteria as detailed above. 

89



The proposed outdoor living area has been designed with the needs of future residents in 

mind, and provides well in excess of the required 25m² of outdoor living area, and is 

consequently supported. 

The proposed dwelling height is complimentary to the established building heights within the 

streetscape and is not considered to result in the loss of any views of significance that would 

not already be lost from that of a dwelling with a compliant building height. The proposed 

building height meets the relevant performance criteria as detailed above. The applicant has 

reduced the finished floor level of the dwelling as much as possible at the request of the City. 

However, the need to connect to sewers in the area limits the ability to further reduce the 

finished floor level. 

The 6.3m visual incursion which extends across the front of the neighbouring property meets 

the relevant performance criteria as detailed above, and the neighbouring properties along 

Pinnata Mews have balconies in a similar location on the front elevation. All properties will 

therefore experience the same level of overlooking from one to another. 

The overshadowing proposed by the development extends across the roof and front setback 

area of the adjoining property to the south west and is not considered to unduly impact upon 

the outdoor living areas, habitable rooms or balconies and verandahs, and consequently 

meets the relevant performance criteria as detailed above 

It is important that the overall merit of the design of the dwelling is also noted. The design 

incorporates both the use of high quality materials and an array of energy efficiency features. 

The overall design of the dwelling is modern and unique. 

The proposed development is therefore supported and recommended for approval, subject 

to relevant conditions. 






Nil. 


Goal 2: 







90





Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Amenity 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The potential impact on the amenity of the adjoining property has 

been considered when assessing this application and the City 

is of the view that the amenity is not significantly adversely 

affected. 

Nil. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Conclusion 

The proposed development for a single dwelling on Lot 313, House Number 11, Pinnata 

Mews, Churchlands is considered to satisfy the performance criteria of the Residential 

Design Codes with respect to building height, visual privacy and overshadowing and the 

objectives of the City’s ‘Residential Building Height’s’ Policy. 

Whilst the proposed outdoor living area fails to meet the Residential Design Codes 

performance criteria, the outdoor living area provided is considered to suit the needs of 

future residents. 

The exceptional design, use of high quality materials and incorporation of energy efficiency 

features adds merit to the proposed development, which is recommend for approval subject 

to conditions. 

91



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.1/AP2 - LOT 313, HOUSE NUMBER 11, PINNATA MEWS, 

CHURCHLANDS – SINGLE DWELLING 

Attachment 1 - Report prepared by Applicant in support of application dated 2 July 

2012 

92



93



94



95



96



97



98



99



Attachment 2 - Report prepared by Applicant in support of application dated 16 July 

2012 

100



101



102



103



104



105



106



107



10.1/AP4 

LOT 297, HOUSE NUMBER 26, ALVER ROAD, DOUBLEVIEW - SINGLE 

DWELLING 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 297, House Number 26, Alver Road, Doubleview 

Building Corporation WA Pty Ltd trading as Giorgi Homes 


Approvals 

Doubleview 

Doubleview 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0812/041 


That pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 3, the application for a 

Single House at Lot 297, House Number 26, Alver Road, Doubleview be APPROVED 

subject to the following conditions:- 

a. The proposed development complying with all details and amendments marked 

in red as shown on the approval plan. Specifically the window to bedroom four 

(4) (northern elevation) is to be fixed and obscure to a minimum height of 1.6m 

above the finished floor level. 

108



b. The boundary wall not to exceed the height indicated on the approved plans. 

The surface finish of the wall facing a neighbour should be to the satisfaction of 

the adjoining neighbour or, in the case of a dispute, to the satisfaction of the 


c. All driveways, parking and maneuvering areas are to be constructed of brick 

paving, drained and maintained to the City’s satisfaction. Alternative finishes 

such as concrete or bitumen are acceptable if it has a decorative type finish to 

the satisfaction of the City; 

d. No walls, fences or letterboxes above 0.75m in height to be constructed within 

1.5m of where:- 

i. walls or fences adjoin vehicular access points to the site, or 

ii. a driveway meets a public street, or 

iii. two (2) streets intersect. 

e. All boundary fencing behind the front setback line is to be in accordance with 

the provision of the City’s Local Laws pertaining to the provisions of a sufficient 

fence; 

f. Any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on 

the approved plans are to be removed. New kerbing and verge to be reinstated 

to the satisfaction of the Manager Engineering Operations; 

g. All eaves to the proposed development maintaining a minimum setback of 

750mm from the boundary; and 

h. Storm water from all roofed and paved areas to be collected and contained on 

site. 


refers). 



Against: Nil. 


That pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 3, the application for a Single 

House at Lot 297, House Number 26, Alver Road, Doubleview be APPROVED subject to the 


a. The proposed development complying with all details and amendments marked in red 

as shown on the approval plan. Specifically the window to bedroom four (4) (northern 

elevation) is to be fixed and obscure to a minimum height of 1.6m above the finished 

floor level. 

b. The boundary wall not to exceed the height indicated on the approved plans. The 



109



110



c. All driveways, parking and maneuvering areas are to be constructed of brick paving, 




d. No walls, fences or letterboxes above 0.75m in height to be constructed within 1.5m of 

where:- 




e. All boundary fencing behind the front setback line is to be in accordance with the 


f. Any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the 

approved plans are to be removed. New kerbing and verge to be reinstated to the 

satisfaction of the Manager Engineering Operations; 

g. All eaves to the proposed development maintaining a minimum setback of 750mm 


h. Storm water from all roofed and paved areas to be collected and contained on site. 


That pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 3, the application for a Single 

House at Lot 297, House Number 26, Alver Road, Doubleview be APPROVED subject to the 


a. The proposed development complying with all details and amendments marked in red 

as shown on the approval plan. Specifically the window to bedroom four (4) (northern 

elevation) is to be fixed and obscure to a minimum height of 1.6m above the finished 

floor level. 

b. The boundary wall not to exceed the height indicated on the approved plans. The 



c. All driveways, parking and maneuvering areas are to be constructed of brick paving, 




d. No walls, fences or letterboxes above 0.75m in height to be constructed within 1.5m of 

where:- 




e. All boundary fencing behind the front setback line is to be in accordance with the 


111



f. Any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the 

approved plans are to be removed. New kerbing and verge to be reinstated to the 

satisfaction of the Manager Engineering Operations; 

g. All eaves to the proposed development maintaining a minimum setback of 750mm 


h. Storm water from all roofed and paved areas to be collected and contained on site. 


To consider a development application for a single house at Lot 297, House Number 26, 

Alver Road, Doubleview. The development proposes a variation to the City’s ‘Residential 

Building Heights’ Policy. 


Attachments 

Nil. 







Nearest Cross Street: Coronation Street 

Location Plan 

112




Front elevation of proposed dwelling 

113



Side elevation of proposed development 


Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS Urban 

LPS3 Residential – R20 

Use 

Class Single House 




Nil. 


6.8.1 Visual Privacy 

The acceptable development standards of the R-Codes require a 4.5m cone of vision 

setback in the case of bedrooms. 


Residential Building Height’s Policy 

Under the ‘acceptable development provisions’ of the City’s ‘Residential Buildings Heights’ 

Policy, buildings with pitched roofs are permitted provided the wall height does not exceed 

6.0m and the ridge height does not exceed 9.0m as measured from average natural ground 

level. 

114



Background 

A development application for a single house on Lot 297, House Number 26, Alver Road, 

Doubleview (DA12/0881 refers) was lodged with the City on 19 April 2012. Following an 

initial assessment the applicant was advised of the requirements of the City’s Policy 

‘Residential Building Heights’ and the R-Codes acceptable development standards relating 

to sight lines at vehicle access points and street corners and buildings setback from the 

boundary. 

The applicant submitted amended plans addressing the issues raised by the City’s officer’s 

assessment of the proposal. However, a performance based assessment of the proposed 

building height was sought. 

The application was subsequently advertised for public comment, with objections to the 

proposed development being received. Accordingly, the development requires Council’s 

determination in respect of the proposed building height. 

Assessment 

R-Code Level 1 Assessment – Acceptable Development Criteria 


Complies 

'Acceptable 

Development' 

OR 

'Performance 

Criteria' 

Assessment 

1 Density Complies 

2 Streetscape Complies 

3 

Boundary 

Setbacks 

 

Complies 

4 Open Space Complies 

5 

Access and 

Parking 

 

Complies 

6 Site Works Complies 


8 Privacy 

9 Design for Climate Complies 

10 Incidental Complies 

11 Special Purpose Complies 

Comment 

The proposed wall 

height is 7.5m in lieu of 

6.0m. 

To ensure compliance 

with the ‘Acceptable 

Development’ 

standards, a condition 

has been added 

requiring the ground 

floor, Bed 4 on the north 

elevation to be 

obscurely glazed to 

1.6m above floor level. 

115



R-Code Level 2 Assessment – Performance Criteria 


R-Codes 


7. Building Height 6.7.1 Building Height 

Subclause 

P1 Building height 

consistent with the 

desired height of 

buildings in the 

locality, and to 

recognise the need 

to protect the 

amenities of 

adjoining 

properties, 

including, where 

appropriate: 

• adequate direct 

sun to buildings 

and appurtenant 

open spaces; 

• adequate daylight 

to major openings 

to habitable 

rooms; and 

• access to views of 

significance. 

Satisfies 

Performance 

Criteria 

 

Does Not 

Satisfy 

Performance 

Criteria 

When viewed from the 

street, the proposed dwelling 

presents as a two (2) storey 

building which is consistent 

with the pattern of new 

dwellings being developed 

within the street and 

immediately surrounding 

locality. 

The proposed dwelling 

meets the acceptable 

development standards 

relation to solar access, and 

it is therefore considered that 

no undue impact on the 

adjoining properties access 

to direct sunlight in open 

spaces and habitable rooms. 

Whilst it is acknowledged 

that some existing views of 

significance may be lost as a 

result of the proposal, it is 

not considered that this loss 

would be worse than the loss 

experienced from a dwelling 

which has a compliant 



The proposal was advertised for a period of 14 days in accordance with Clause 4.2 of the 

R-Codes. The potentially affected neighbours were contacted by mail and invited to view the 

plans of the proposal at the City’s administration building. Three (3) submissions were 

received and are summarised in the table below. 

Submission 

Number 

1 


‘We object to the variation in building 

height as it will affect our views to the city 

and would, we believe, not be in keeping 

with other houses in the street’. 


Whilst it is acknowledged that some of 

the existing views across the vacant lot 

would be affected as a result of the 

proposal, it is not considered that this 

would be any more significant than those 

lost if a height compliant dwelling was 

constructed. 

The proposed dwelling will present as 

being two (2) stories from the street and it 

is therefore considered to be in keeping 

116



Submission 

Number 



with the other houses within the street 

which are a mixture of single and double 

storey. 

2 

3 

‘In principle, we disapprove the proposed 


Our decision is made on the general 

principle of fairness to all current and 

future residents wanting to building, 

should build in accordance with the 

relevant Residential Design Codes. 

The proposed structure would also have a 

major impact on our property, 

neighbouring properties and our privacy.’ 

‘Assuming the height restriction 

application is for a property behind 355 

Huntriss Road, we wish to inform you that 

we have recently sold 355 Huntriss Road, 

unconditionally, and expect the new 

owners to conclude settlement by the end 

of July 2012. 

Based on the above, we suggest that you 

redirect your notification to the new 

owners for their response.’ 

The City has assessed the proposed 

dwelling and considers that it complies 

with the R-Codes performance criteria 

and City policy objectives. 

In respect to privacy, a condition has 

been added requiring the ground floor, 

bed 4 on the north elevation to be 

obscurely glazed to 1.6m above floor 

level. The proposal therefore meets the 

acceptable development provisions of the 

R-Codes relating to visual privacy and it 

is therefore considered that the adjoining 

neighbour’s privacy will not be affected. 

The City issued consultation letters to the 

legal owners of the property at the time. 

The City was not been provided with the 

details of the purchasers of 355 Huntriss 

Road and was therefore unable to consult 

with the new owners. 

The City did, however, contact the 

settlement agent encouraging the 

information of the application to be 

passed on to the future owners of the 

property. 

The City has no knowledge of whether 

this occurred. 

Three (3) Submissions Received – Relative Location 

Submissions 

Received 

Within 100m of 

proposed site 

Remainder of City 

All Submissions 

SUPPORT 0% 0% 0% 

OBJECT 66.66% 0% 66.66% 

OTHER 

(Not stated/ 

no opinion/ 

'conditional') 

33.33% 0% 33.33% 

117



Applicant's Justification 

“In relation to your building heights policy objectives we comment as follows; 

‘To ensure consistency with desired scale in locality and does not overly impact on 

streetscape or neighbouring properties’. The home has been designed with the first floor 

being positioned at the rear of the block so that the home effectively presents as a single 

storey home from the street. This ensures reduced scale and impact to the street and also 

accommodating better view lines to the neighbours on the opposite side of the street. 

The FFL of the proposed garage is at 48.91 (hence GF FFL) which is slightly lower than the 

northern neighbours garage level of 48.98. In addition, this neighbours home is two (2) 

storeys high across the entire depth of the footprint and therefore presenting as a full two (2) 

storey high streetscape. This northern neighbour also has a filled rear garden to FGL 48.6 

approximately 2m above our clients NGL. We have therefore match and not impacted in any 

way to this property. 

The rear setback is 13.4m and the rear neighbour is well clear of this common boundary and 

so the proposed residence does not impact on the rear neighbour. 

The southern neighbour consists of a very old home which would most likely be redeveloped 

soon. Our overshadowing diagram shows that we are approximately 40% below the allowed 

overshadowing. 

The FFL to the garage of 48.91 is already 1.1m below the LHS boundary at the street.” 

Comment 

The applicant is seeking a performance based assessment of the proposed building height. 

The proposed building height is largely a result of the topography of the lot, which falls 3.5m 

from front (50.00 AHD) to rear (46.5AHD). The finished floor levels (FFL) of the dwelling 

have been set at a level which is consistent with the pattern established along the street 

whilst maintaining a driveway gradient which meets the City’s standards. 

The streetscape of Alver Road and the surrounding locality is characterised by a mixture of 

new, large, two (2) storey homes and older single storey dwellings. The applicant’s 

justification indicates that when viewed from the street, the dwelling present as a single 

storey building. The City does not support this point – rather City’s officers are of the view 

that when viewed from the street, the dwelling presents as a two (2) storey building, which is 

consistent with the pattern of new dwelling development established within the streetscape. 

The amenity of the neighbouring properties is not considered to be detrimentally affected as 

a result of the proposal, with the development complying with all relevant acceptable 

development provisions of the R-Codes and the City’s Local Planning Policies. It is important 

to note that to ensure the proposal meets the acceptable development provision relating to 

visual privacy, a condition is recommended to be added should the application be approved, 

requiring the window to bedroom four (4) (northern elevation) to be fixed and obscure to a 

minimum height of 1.6m above floor level. 

Whilst views of significance exist to the south east, towards Perth city, it is not considered 

that the proposed building would have any additional impact upon access to views than 

would be experienced from a dwelling with a compliant building height. 

118



This is especially the case as when viewed from the street, the dwelling presents as a two 

storey building which meets the height requirements from the natural ground level at this 

point. 

The submissions received from the adjoining property owners have been taken into 

consideration when assessing this application however, cannot be substantiated on planning 

grounds. 






Nil. 


Goal 2: 









Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Amenity 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The proposed dwelling is not considered to detract from the 

amenity of the surrounding property owners as the 

development is deemed to be in keeping with developments 

within the area. 

Nil. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

119



Conclusion 

The proposed development for a single dwelling at Lot 297, House Number 26, Alver Road, 

Doubleview is considered to satisfy the performance criteria of the R-Codes and policy 

objectives relating to building height. The objections received have been noted, and cannot 

be substantiated on planning grounds. 

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions. 

120



10.1/AP5 LOT 100, HOUSE NUMBER 10, MAIN STREET, OSBORNE PARK - 

PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOWROOM / OFFICE TO OFFICE 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 100, House Number 10, Main Street, Osborne Park 

Anthony Dunn 


Approvals 

Osborne 

Osborne Park 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0812/042 


1. That pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 3, the application 

for a Partial Change of Use from Office / Showroom to Office on Lot 100, House 

Number 10, Main Street, Osborne Park be APPROVED subject to the following 

conditions: 

a. Road widening of 2.5m is to ceded to the City within 6 months of the date of 

approval, to the satisfaction of the Manager Approvals; 

121



b. All off street parking is to be available during business hours for all 

customers and staff, to the satisfaction of the City; 

c. No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the 

car parking or landscaped areas or within access driveways. All goods and 

materials are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards, where 

provided; 

d. Vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the 

approved plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction of the City, the 

parking spaces being marked out and maintained in good repair. 

2. That pursuant to Clause 5.8.1 of Local Planning Scheme No.3 the requirement for 

cash-in-lieu of parking for four (4) car bays be WAIVED. 


refers). 



Against: Nil. 


1. That pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 3, the application for a 

Partial Change of Use from Office / Showroom to Office on Lot 100, House Number 10, 

Main Street, Osborne Park be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 



b. All off street parking is to be available during business hours for all customers and 

staff, to the satisfaction of the City; 

c. No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the car 

parking or landscaped areas or within access driveways. All goods and materials 

are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards, where provided; 

d. Vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved 

plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction of the City, the parking spaces 

being marked out and maintained in good repair. 

2. That pursuant to Clause 5.8.1 of Local Planning Scheme No.3 the requirement for cashin-lieu 

of parking for four (4) car bays be WAIVED. 


1. That pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 3, the application for a 

Partial Change of Use from Office / Showroom to Office on Lot 100, House Number 10, 

Main Street, Osborne Park be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 

122





b. All off street parking is to be available during business hours for all customers and 

staff, to the satisfaction of the City; 

c. No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the car 

parking or landscaped areas or within access driveways. All goods and materials 

are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards, where provided; 

d. Vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved 

plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction of the City, the parking spaces 

being marked out and maintained in good repair. 

2. That pursuant to Clause 5.8.1 of Local Planning Scheme No.3 the requirement for cashin-lieu 

of parking for four (4) car bays be WAIVED. 


To consider a development application for a partial change of use from Office / Showroom to 

Office on part of the upper floor of Lot 100, House Number 10, Main Street, Osborne Park. 

The application requires the determination of Council with regards to a four (4) bay parking 

shortfall. 


Attachments 

Nil. 




3. Site and floor plans ECM Doc No: 3169865 



Nearest Cross Street: Green Street 

123



Location Plan 



Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS Urban 

LPS3 Local Centre 

Use 

Class Office 


124





The City’s Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS3) provides the basis for land use and 

development control with the City. LPS3 is a policy driven town planning scheme and most 

provisions controlling the development of land, for example, building setbacks are contained 

within Local Planning Policies adopted under the provisions of LPS3. 

LPS3 provides the objectives of the Local Centre zone which are:- 

a) To provide for a limited range of small-scale retail, commercial and community 

facilities to meet the day-to-day needs of the immediate neighbourhood. 

b) To ensure safe and convenient access to facilities, in an environment which is 

conducive to pedestrian movement. 

c) To ensure development is sited and designed so as to reinforce a sense of place and 

attractive streetscapes. 

Clause 5.5.1 of LPS3 gives Council the ability to vary development standards, as follows:- 

"Except for development in respect of which the Residential Design Codes apply, if a 

development is the subject of an application for planning approval and does not comply with 

a standard or requirement prescribed under the Scheme, the Council may, despite the noncompliance, 

approve the application unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the 

Council thinks fit." 

In relation to an application which involves a parking shortfall, Clause 5.8.1 of LPS3 states 

that:- 

"Subject to the remaining provisions of this clause 5.8, an applicant for planning approval for 

a non-residential development or use may, if Council agrees, make a cash payment to the 

Council in lieu of providing all or any of the number of car parking spaces required under a 

Local Planning Policy for the development or use for which planning approval has been 

sought by the applicant." 

Clause 5.8.2 of LPS3 states that:- 

Before Council agrees to accept a cash-in-lieu payment under clause 5.8.1, it must have:- 

"a) 

a reasonable expectation that a cash payment can be applied to provide additional 

transport infrastructure in the vicinity of the development site." 

The subject site is located with the Glendalough Station Special Control Area, and is subject 

to the provisions of part 6.4 of LPS3. The objectives of the Glendalough Station Special 

Control Area are as follows:- 

a. The development of land within the Glendalough Station Special Control Area shall 

comply with the adopted Structure Plan and Local Planning Policy for this area. 

125



b. To encourage development which capitalises on the strategic advantages of the 

Special Control Area’s excellent public transport, accessibility and proximity to the 

Central Business District. 

c. To create a more economically, socially and environmentally sustainable City. 

d. To create a pedestrian friendly environment by having buildings with nil setbacks and 

weather protection. 

Note: The Glendalough Station Special Control Area is zoned Industry, however it is the intention of 

Council to rezone this area in the future to enable the transformation to a Transit Orientated 

Development with a mixture of uses. 


Parking Policy 

The City’s Parking Policy requires parking to be provided for the use of an Office at a rate of 

one (1) bay per 30sqm of gross floor area. 

The City’s Parking Policy allows for parking concessions where development sites meet 

certain criteria (proximity to high frequency bus routes, train stations, etc.). The application 

qualifies for a 20% reduction in the required number of parking bays under the City’s Parking 

Policy, as it is located within a ‘strip’ commercial centre (10% concession), and is within 

800m of the Glendalough railway station (10% concession). 

The Policy specifies that any further parking concessions beyond those allowed for in the 

Policy must be determined by Council, “…having due regard to the circumstances of a 

particular case, any justification submitted by the applicant and the likely impact on the 

amenity of the surrounding area and residents”. 

Background 

On 11 April 2012, an application for a Section 40 certificate for the purpose of obtaining a 

wholesale liquor licence (as required by the Liquor Licensing Act 1988) for a business 

operating from the subject premises was submitted to the City. As part of the section 40 

process, the City’s Approvals Business Unit is required to confirm that the subject business 

is operating in accordance with the approved land uses relating to the subject site. In this 

case, it was determined that the land uses occurring as a result of this business was not in 

accordance with the applicable development approval. Specifically, it occupied a 404sqm 

area of the upper floor of the existing building for the purpose of an office. However, the 

original development approval issued in 1982 was for a dual land use of Office and 

Showroom which limited the Office component to 108sqm (M20/3357 refers). 

The City consequently received a development application for a Partial Change of Use from 

Office / Showroom to Office at Lot 100, House Number 10, Main Street, Osborne Park, on 

25 June 2012 (DA12/1456). Following an initial assessment and discussions between the 

applicant and the City, further information was submitted to the City on 17 July 2012. 

The subject building is existing, and a number of land uses currently operate from tenancies 

within the building, although the property has not been strata titled. The ground floor is 

currently used for the purposes of Showroom, Warehouse, and Manufacturing. 

126



A 310sqm area of the upper floor is approved for the purpose of an Educational 

Establishment (DA08/0925 refers). The remaining 404m2 of the upper floor is currently 

approved as a showroom and office; which limited the Office component to 108sqm 

(M20/3357 refers). 

Assessment 

Non-Residential Assessment - Local Planning Scheme No.3 

1 

Element 

Site 

Requirements 


Policy 

2 Setbacks 

OR 

Variation 

Required 


4 Landscaping 

5 Facades 

6 Service Access 


 

Comment 

The lot is an existing lot 

therefore no assessment 

is required. 

The building is existing 

and no changes are 

proposed. 

The total number of 

parking bays required for 

all uses on the site, 

inclusive of the proposed 

change of use, is 46.94 

(47) bays. Applying the 

20% concession where 

appropriate, the number 

of required bays is 

reduced to 41.81 (42). A 

total of 38 bays are 

provided as identified on 

the submitted plans. A 4 

bay parking shortfall 

therefore exists. 

The landscaping is 

existing and no changes 

are proposed. 

The building is existing 

and no changes are 

proposed. 

Service access is 

existing. 

Building height is not 

proposed to be altered as 

part of this application. 

8 Policy Not Applicable. 

9 

Other 

Consideration 

 

Not Applicable. 

127




Consultation was not required as part of the assessment. 

Applicant’s Justification 

"MGM Wine Distributors are a wholesale company, we are the agents for 17 wineries in 

WA/Eastern States/NZ & a French Champagne. We sell their wines to bottleshops and 

restaurants via our on the road Sales Reps. The wine is held by BevChain in Welshpool and 

orders are processed out of our office in Main Street, Osborne Park, orders come by 

telephone, fax & email. 

We have 4 full-time and 1 part-time staff working out of our Osborne Park office. We also 

employ 6 full-time and 1 part time Sales Reps who are on the road full-time. 

We have 7 staff parking bays undercover and 8 visitors bays at the front of the building. This 

gives a total of 15 parking bays available to us. 

Our Sales Reps have access to computers in the office and come in on different days so 

never more than 2 Sales Reps in the building at any one time. We very rarely have visitors 

as we go to our customers. Therefore in our opinion we have more than enough parking for 

our needs." 

Comment 

Parking 

The area of the existing building the subject of this development application was approved 

as an office and showroom in 1982. At the time of approval, parking for the office use was 

required at a rate of one (1) bay per 30m² of Gross Floor Area, and parking for the 

Showroom use was required at a rate of one (1) bay per 50m² of Gross Floor Area. This 

differs from the current parking requirements for a Showroom use under the provisions of the 

City’s Parking Policy, which is one (1) bay per 30m² of Gross Floor Area, and hence what 

has resulted in the four (4) bay parking shortfall. 

The subject site qualifies for a 20% parking concession, however that concession has only 

been applied to those uses within the building which have been approved following the 

adoption of the City’s Parking Policy. This is considered the most equitable way of assessing 

the proposal, as it is not considered appropriate to apply a parking concession to the ground 

floor Showroom use when all that was required at the time was one (1) bay per 50m² of 

Gross Floor Area. 

The City’s Parking Policy allows for a 20% parking concession for properties within 400m of 

a rail station. The subject site is approximately 550 metres from the Glendalough rail station, 

and therefore only qualifies for a 10% parking concession. 

Further to the above, it is noted that the subject site is located within the Glendalough 

Station Special Control Area, the objectives of which acknowledge the excellent public 

transport links. It is considered that the proposed parking shortfall is consistent with the 

objectives of the Special Control Area and the higher parking concession should, in this 

instance, be supported. 

128



The proposed parking shortfall of four (4) car bays is not considered to have the potential to 

cause parking problems within the locality. The nature of the business is not considered to 

attract a greater number of customers or employees to the site than can be accommodated 

for by the proposed number of parking bays. The applicant has advised that although they 

have a total of 12 employees, only five (5) work out of the subject site. The remaining seven 

(7) employees are sales representatives who work on the road and only attend the office 

intermittently and never more than two (2) at a time. Consequently, up to seven (7) 

employees (five (5) office employees plus two (2) sales representatives) will ever be present 

at the same time within the subject premises. The applicant has further advised that the 

nature of their business means it is rare for clients to attend their premises as the company 

sales representatives go to them, and the bulk or orders are processed via telephone, fax 

and email. 

Comments have been sought from the City’s Community Safety Business Unit with respect 

to whether any parking problems currently exist within this area. They have advised that no 

complaints or problems have been registered on the City’s records pertaining to the subject 

site. 

The City’s Parking Policy permits a cash in lieu of car parking to be considered for non 

residential development. In determining whether to accept cash in lieu of parking, the City is 

specifically required to take the following into consideration:- 

The actual provision of an adequate supply of parking; and 

An identified location (on or off street) within close proximity of the subject site for the 

provisions of additional bays. 

In respect of the provision of the City’s Parking Policy as it applies to cash in lieu of parking, 

the City’s Traffic Design Engineer has confirmed that there is no opportunity to provide 

additional off street car parking in the road reserve along Main Street or to provide additional 

off street parking in the vicinity of the site. Additionally, there is minimal opportunity for the 

provision of transport infrastructure, such as bicycle parking and footpaths, with two (2) 

existing bus shelters within 100m of the subject lot. Consequently, the application of the 

cash in lieu of parking is not considered appropriate in this instance. 

Road Widening 

It is noted that there is a road widening requirement of 2.5m along this section of Main 

Street. Implementation of the subject development application will not impact on this road 

widening, and neither would the implementation of the road widening affect any car parking 

on the subject lot, as the section of land subject to road widening has been approved as 

landscaping area only. A condition is recommended to be imposed should the development 

application be approved requiring the 2.5m road widening requirement to ceded to the City 

within six (6) months of the date of approval of the development application. 





129




Should Council decide that a cash-in-lieu contribution is required for the four (4) bay parking 

shortfall the applicant will be required to pay a contribution to the City based on the 

estimated cost of providing a public parking bay in the locality at current market costs for 

both the land component and construction. The contribution will subsequently be placed in 

the City’s Cash In Lieu Reserve Account. 


Goal 2: 


SI 2.1.5: 






Develop and implement policies to support and promote sustainable 

building design. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Amenity 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The proposed development is not considered to impact on 

the amenity of any surrounding land uses. 

Job creation 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

The proposal will assist the company in securing existing 

jobs. 

Conclusion 

The proposed Partial change of use from Office and Showroom to Office at Lot 100, House 

Number 10, Main Street, Osborne Park is considered appropriate in that the land use is 

permitted and in accordance with objectives of the ‘Local Centre’ zone. The parking shortfall 

of four (4) bays is also supported as it is considered that the number bays that will be 

provided on site are sufficient to accommodate the parking demand generated by the subject 

business, particularly in considering the subject site is located approximately 550 metres 

from Glendalough Train Station. 

130



Councillor Boothman disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.1/CP1 as he is a Woolworths 

share holder. 

Councillor Jenkinson disclosed a Financial Interest in Item 10.1/CP1 as she has Woolworths 

shares through a trust. 

Councillor Willox disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.1/CP1 as he is a share holder 

with Coles and Woolworths. 

10.1/CP1 

DIANELLA CENTRE PLAN - FINAL ADOPTION 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Various lots within area bounded by Alexander Drive, Waverley 

Street, Kerry Street and Grand Promenade. 

Not Applicable 



Inglewood 

Dianella 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 

















131




0812/043 


1. That the Dianella Centre Plan, as amended in Attachment 1 be ADOPTED. 

2. That in respect of the Dianella Centre Plan:- 

a. An amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 3 be PREPARED to align 

zonings consistent with the Centre Plan; and 

b. A local planning policy be PREPARED pursuant to Clause 2.4.1 of Local 

Planning Scheme No. 3 to provide development standards for the 

Centre Plan area. 

3. That the City WRITE to the Department of Transport requesting a timeframe for 

completion of their design of the proposed bus/light rail interchange. 


refers). 



Against: Nil. 



2. That in respect of the Dianella Centre Plan:- 




Planning Scheme No. 3 to provide development standards for the Centre 

Plan area. 

3. That the City WRITE to the Department of Transport requesting a timeframe for 

completion of their design of the proposed bus/light rail interchange. 


To enable the owners of the Dianella Plaza to do some forward planning of any 

improvements they wish to make following adoption of the amendment. 

132





2. That, in respect of the Dianella Centre Plan:- 




Planning Scheme No. 3 to provide development standards for the Centre 

Plan area. 


To consider the outcomes of advertising of the modified Draft Dianella Centre Plan. 


Attachments 

Attachment 1 - Dianella Centre Plan Report - final modifications (as marked). 

Attachment 2 - Schedule of Submissions from 2011 and 2012 advertising periods (Circulated 

to Councillors under separate confidential cover). 


Nil. 

133



Location Plan 

134




Background 

The following timeline of events provides background to the development of the Centre Plan. 

May 2011 

May-Jul 2011 

Nov 2011 

Dec 2011 

Council resolved to advertise the Draft Structure Plan, as presented by 

consultants Hassell Ltd (Council Resolution Number 0511/068). 

The draft plan was advertised for public comment, with 24 submissions 

received, including comments from the City’s Community Development 

Directorate. 

Council resolved, “That the Item be deferred until a meeting has been 

held with local residents, local businesses and other interested residents 

at the Dianella Autumn Centre prior to adoption of the plan and initiation 

of the zonings.” (Council Resolution Number 1111/024). 

Public Meeting held with residents, local businesses, owners and other 

interested parties (with approximately 90 attendees) to discuss the draft 

Dianella Centre Plan. 

135



Feb 2012 

Mar 2012 

Apr-May 2012 

Council resolved, the Dianella Centre Plan be referred to the Planning 

and Development Committee meeting to be held 13 March 2012 "to 

enable further information to be provided to Councillors in respect to 

access to the Centre from Chester Avenue, proposed building heights 

and setbacks and a possible land swap relating to the future location of 

the City’s community facilities” (Council Resolution Number 0212/025). 

Council resolved, the modified draft Dianella Centre Plan be amended to 

include a one (1) way accessway connection from Chester Avenue 

through to Waverley Street to provide pedestrian and traffic circulation. 

The amended plan be re-advertised, subject to conditions (Council 

Resolution Number 0312/035). 

The revised draft Plan was advertised for public comment, with 

submissions received, including comments from the City’s Community 

Development Directorate 

Consultation Implications 

The Draft Centre Plan was initially advertised from 30 May 2011 to 15 July 2011, with 24 

submissions received. The revised draft Plan was advertised from 3 April 2012 until 18 May 

2012, with 10 submissions received. All advertising was conducted in accordance with the 

City’s Planning Consultation Procedure. 

Submissions - 2011 Advertising Period 

24 submissions were received during the 2011 advertising period. The majority of 

submissions were from individual land owners / local residents, the ‘Our Lady’s Assumption’ 

Primary School board members, one (1) service authority (Water Corporation) and the City’s 

Community Development Directorate. A summary of these submissions have been 

previously outlined. A schedule has been circulated under a separate confidential cover. 

Submissions - 2012 Advertising Period 

10 submissions have been received during the 2012 advertising from land owners / local 

residents, the ‘Our Lady’s Assumption’ Primary School, Main Roads WA and the Department 

of Transport. A summary of each submission received is provided in the table below. 

Submission 

Number 


1. • We have reviewed all proposed 

amendments to the Dianella Centre 

Plan and fully support all changes. 

We at this household have 

discussed the proposed 

amendments and have no objection 

to any of them, even the proposed 

amendment for a 3-6 story 

residential development at 36-40 

Chester Ave by the joint Finbar & 

LHK Holdings group. In fact we 

hope Council will approve the 

proposed Dianella Centre Plan in its 


• Noted. No Change. 

136



entirety sooner than later. We fully 

appreciate the requirement for full 

and thorough consultation with the 

community, but let's not allow 

procrastination and red tape get in 

the way of what we believe is an 

essential revitalisation of the 

Dianella district, which is way 

overdue. P.S. Request you also 

hold the Premier to what he stated 

in November 2011 that a light rail 

system will be built between Perth 

CBD and Mirrabooka within the next 

decade. 

2. • The Plan is well conceived in 

relation to planning policy, 

'Directions 2031' and interests of 

urban development, street 

beautification and commercial 

activities, however it’s silent in 

relation to demographic make up 

and interests of diverse groups. 

• The Report acknowledges 

importance of diversity but appears 

to not strategically and creatively 

address diversity issues and 

intersections, particularly on the 

elderly, the disabled and youth. 

• Unclear about how the Plan will 

facilitate people with other 

disabilities. Integration of traffic 

movements, pedestrians, and 

cyclists along with other high levels 

of differently abled individuals needs 

some more consideration. 

Concerned about the lack of 

consideration of young people in the 

area (Not right to ignore). Based on 

own observation, suggest there has 

been a marked shift in level of 

international students in area since 

the move of the Perth Institute of 

Business and Technology to the 

ECU Mt Lawley campus in 2008. 

Providing space for young people to 

collaborate and create would inject 

diverse energy into the community 

and encourage care and 

consciousness of region and in 

habitants. 

• Would like to see Dianella be more 

than a ‘district centre’ and rather a 

place that is inclusive, reflexive, 

multicultural, sustainable and 

• Noted. The Centre Plan report 

presents a broad vision for the 

Centre, and attempts to be 

inclusive of all social aspects 

whilst being mindful that the 

majority of the land holdings are in 

private ownership. The City’s 

Local Area Plan has captured the 

needs and desires of the Dianella 

community, which identified the 

need to prepare a Centre Plan. 

The Centre Plan encourages 

redevelopment of an underutilised 

commercial centre. A detailed 

assessment of the local 

community profile will be 

undertaken should the City wish to 

upgrade its community facilities in 

the future. No change. 

• Noted. The term ‘diversity’ in the 

Centre Plan refers to broadening 

land uses. It is aligned with the 

State Government objective of 

sustaining established commercial 

centres. No change. 

• Noted. The Centre Plan is not a 

development plan detailing 

specifics to accommodate 

disabled or disadvantaged groups. 

The facilitation of people with 

disabilities and or disadvantages 

are generally required by relevant 

legislation or State Government 

Policy and any physical changes 

to the site would be assessed at 

the development application stage. 

No change 

• Noted. The Centre Plan provides 

sufficient intent to provide 

opportunities for all community 

137



productive. 

• The Dianella Local Area Plan report 

clearly attempted to engage with 

diverse voices, but these interests 

are not currently well-framed in the 

revised Dianella Centre Plan report. 

What we need is a way to cohere 

the economic and business interests 

of the development with the 

investments of community identities, 

sustainable outcomes and proactive 

public policy. 

3. • Safe access during & after 

construction for seniors and others 

using walking aids and or who have 

poor vision. 

• Proposed development of huge 

apartment buildings will ruin the 

atmosphere of a quiet retiree area. 

• Trees in the shopping centre parking 

areas are an asset and need to 

remain. 

• Parking areas should be enlarged – 

not reduced. Maybe a covered 2 

storey area. 

4. • The Finbar development will provide 

the area with much needed new 

look. 

• As owner of 20 Kerry Street I will 

apply to have the lot rezoned to 

compliment Finbar’s new 

development. 

• I’ve lived in Dianella for over 50 

years and have invested in 

commercial and residential 

properties. I’m contemplating 

redevelopment my land in 12 

months. 

• The Finbar Development site is 

allegedly used as an unofficial 

school drop off area. A recent 

survey between 8.15am-9.15am 

indicates 60 motor vehicles used the 

area, with visitors attending the 

library and shops as well as the 

school. 

5. • Main Roads commends the City of 

Stirling for developing this plan and 

supports the intent of the proposed 

development. 

• It is noted that a transport 

assessment by ARRB Consulting in 

Oct 2009 – ‘Dianella Plaza Precinct 

groups. No change 

• Noted. The issue raised in terms 

of considering diverse interests / 

groups is more closely related to 

the City's provisions of adaptive 

community services and facilities, 

responsive to a changing 

demographic. No change. 

Noted. The submitter’s points have 

been raised before in 2011 and 

relevant parts of the Centre Plan 

report were strengthened in 

reference to conserving trees and 

access for seniors. No change. 

• Noted. Statement about the 

apartment buildings ruining a quiet 

retiree area cannot be 

substantiated. No change. 

• Noted. Additional car parking can 

be considered at the time when 

development applications are 

lodged. No change. 

• Noted. No change. 

• Noted. Rezoning of any land will 

be subject to parameters set under 

the Centre Plan report. In this case 

the Centre Plan is recommending 

an activity centre code of R-AC3 

be applied to the residential zoned 

lot. No. 20 Kerry Street will be 

recoded as part of a composite 

scheme amendment for various 

parts of the centre area and will be 

dealt with separately if the Centre 

Plan is adopted. No change. 




• Noted. Traffic management plans 

will be developed at the time 

development applications are 

138



Study Plan – Transport Assessment’ 

has been undertaken. From the 

transport related information 

provided, it is unclear how robust 

this assessment is. It is 

recommended that the City assess 

the ‘robustness’ of this transport 

assessment to ensure the potential 

impacts of the proposed 

development are fully understood 

and the appropriate management 

strategies and plans are developed 

and implemented to achieve the 

desired objectives of the proposed 

development in a sustainable 

manner. 

• It is essential that the City consults 

with Main Roads WA when 

considering any potential 

modification to existing infrastructure 

under its responsibility (e.g. traffic 

control signals). 

• It is suggested that a quantitative 

assessment of the transport impacts 

be prepared which can then inform a 

transport management plan and 

access strategy to support the 

proposed development. 

6. Would like to see retirement units for 

over 55's built in the old 'Coles' 

shopping area, which are badly 

needed close to shops for the elderly, 

and non-drivers. Should also have a 

restriction on owner occupiers. 

7. • I do not support the road through 

Waverley Street park as this will turn 

Pola Street into a busy intersection 

and possibly a 'rat run'. 

• I also do not support a six storey 

apartment building on Kerry St / 

Waverley St. I don’t want a high rise 

in my backyard. This is not a 

suitable building for a residential / 

shopping area in the suburbs and 

does to belong in Dianella. You will 

be lowering the amenity standards 

by allowing high density. The 

assumption that the residents in 

lodged. The report currently 

recognises the road hierarchy and 

general traffic issues. A 

modification to the Centre plan is 

recommended which indicates a 

need for traffic impact 

assessments and a traffic 

management and access plan for 

the Centre, when any 

redevelopment is proposed for the 

hotel or shopping centre sites. 

• Noted. Main Roads WA will be 

consulted on any potential 

modification to existing 

infrastructure under its 

responsibility (e.g. traffic control 

signals). No change. 

• Noted. A quantitative assessment 

of the transport impacts will be 

required at the time development 

is proposed for the centre area 

based on realistic floor space 

capacities. It is understood that 

these impact assessment will 

inform the transport management 

and access plan. No change. 

Noted. The former 'Coles' building 

is currently zoned 'District Centre' 

and is proposed to be rezoned to 

'Residential' with a code of R-AC2, 

which can accommodate a variety 

of housing types. The residential 

zoning permits multiple dwellings, 

in a variety of sizes. It is unknown 

if the dwellings will be exclusive to 

seniors (over 55’s) as the parcel of 

land is privately owned. No 

change. 

• Noted. The diagram in the report 

represents constraints and 

opportunity mapping done as part 

of the initial Precinct Study in 

2009. The diagram is in the report 

in order to highlight issues and the 

context of the surrounding 

environment. No change. 

• Noted. The Centre Plan does not 

propose or suggest six storey 

development for the Kerry Street 

and Waverley Street frontages. 

The report indicates a stepping of 

building heights across the centre 

139



these apartments won’t be able to 

view my backyard is also erroneous! 

• The drop-n-ride idea for the school 

is good as at present is not done 

very well with parents driving 

through the car park to drop kids off. 

• You need to consider more parking 

by Alexander Dr, if there is to be a 

light rail services down that road. 

8. • Current version of the revised draft 

Dianella Centre Structure Plan 

proposes to rezone our lots from 

"District Centre" to "Residential R- 

AC3". We have modified our original 

design concept for the site from a 

three storey residential apartment 

development to a mixture of three 

storey and six storey residential 

apartments. 

• The revised concept plan limits the 

six storey height to the centre and 

northern edge of the site thus 

reducing bulk, overshadowing and 

providing for visual privacy through 

a north-south orientation. Three 

level built form to Chester Avenue 

and Waverley Street addresses 

concerns from the local primary 

school as well as aligning with the 

City's podium design intent of the 

neighbouring District Centre and the 

proposed three storey height 

townhouses for the properties to the 

south of our site. 

• We believe this revised concept will 

be a better built form result for the 

site allowing an increase in the 

proposed Open Space (achieving 

from three to six storeys over nonresidential 

zoned land and two to 

three storeys for the majority of the 

residential zoned land, with the 

exception of 36 Chester Avenue 

(the former Coles land). Details of 

height limits applicable to specific 

areas in the centre will be devised 

and incorporated into a policy 

which will be considered by 

Council subject to a separate 

report. No change. 

• Noted. The primary school is 

presently considering its options 

on the provision of a ‘Kiss-n-ride’ 

area. No change. 

• Noted. Car parking will be a 

consideration with any 

redevelopment application within 

the centre area. Parking 

associated with the public 

transport facilities will be a wider 

consideration for the Department 

of Transport along the light rail 

route. No change. 




140



approximately 50% open space), 

align more closely with the 

objectives of the Dianella Centre 

Structure Plan, support local 

retailers and the shopping centre, as 

well as synergising as a transport 

oriented development with the 

proposed light rail connection in 

addition to existing public transport 

on Alexander Drive. 

• In order to realise our revised 

concept, the lots that comprise the 

site need to be rezoned from 

"District Centre" to "Residential R- 

AC2". We would ask that the City 

consider this request to allow this 

zoning modification and six storey 

height on the central portion of the 

site and support its inclusion in the 

Dianella District Centre Structure 

Plan. 

9. • The Department of Transport (DoT) 

and the City have agreed that the 

preferred alignment for the light rail 

would be along Alexander Drive 

past the Dianella Centre, and then 

via Morley Drive to Mirrabooka, 

rather than an alignment along 

Grand Prom. This preferred 

alignment supports a higher density 

mixed use precinct on the Dianella 

Centre site, and it is essential that 

urban redevelopment outcomes on 

this site are achieved. 

• The preferred alignment, however, 

does make designing the associated 

public transport features of the 

proposed Dianella Station more 

complex, particularly in terms of bus 

interchange and layover. The 

Dianella Station would be the 

location where bus services from the 

northern sections of Alexander Drive 

connect with the light rail service as 

well as being the southern terminus 

of these routes and thus requires 

turn-around and layover facilities 

nearby. It is also likely that 

Alexander Drive may require 

widening adjacent to the Dianella 

Centre site in order to fit the light rail 

station within the road reserve. The 

DoT is working closely with City 

Officers to develop a concept design 

• Noted. The Centre Plan identifies 

this subject lot being modified from 

'District Zone' to 'Residential R- 

AC2' which permits full residential 

development over the land 

compatible with adjoining 

residential uses on Kerry Street. 

This action will also consolidate 

residential uses in the eastern part 

of the Centre area. No change. 



141



of the Dianella Light Rail Station, 

with a view to achieving both the 

City’s objectives for the site, and the 

operational requirements for public 

transport. The concept design will 

also address cycling movement 

through the precinct. 

• The DoT and the City are also 

working together to ensure the 

development on the Dianella Centre 

site reflects the proposed 

investment in public transport 

infrastructure. In order to facilitate 

the growth of Perth, it is important to 

locate more people, jobs and 

services close to good public 

transport, and Dianella is a key 

opportunity to do just that. Dianella 

should achieve a medium-high 

density mix of uses and the Plan on 

page 32 should reflect that. DoT 

would like to see the fast food 

outlets relocated away from the 

Light Rail Station, and the density 

and mix of uses to the west of the 

Centro Shopping Centre 

substantially increased from that 

shown on page 32. 

• In section 2.0 discussing Public 

Transport, DoT is happy for the 

document to reflect the preferred 

light rail alignment rather than a 

‘busway’ as the report suggests, 

however it should articulate that this 

is for planning purposes only and a 

government commitment has not yet 

been made. DoT can provide an 

updated image to reflect current 

changes to the diagram and page 

12. 

• Section 3.2 discusses the potential 

light rail along Alexander Drive, that 

this is the preferred alignment and 

that it should connect into and 

reflect the development on the 

Dianella Centre site. DoT agrees 

with this statement. 

• The section goes on to say that a 

light rail alignment through the 

centre rather than along Alexander 

Drive may be more practical, 

however DoT does not support this 

and would like it removed from the 

document. Deviating the alignment 

• Noted. The fast food uses 

indicated on the “Indicative 

Development Opportunities Plan 

for western edge of shopping 

centre, acknowledges existing 

uses in this location. The uses 

may require relocation due to 

changes to Alexander Dr if the 

light rail / bus station is 

constructed. The changes outlined 

in the submission are not 

considered necessary as 

development standards are to be 

applied under a new policy, which 

will be flexible enough to allow 

changes to built form. Also as land 

to the west of shopping centre is 

not part of the Centre Plan area 

cannot support reference to 

increased residential densities in 

this location. No change. 

Noted. The City understands that 

the State Gov’t has not committed 

budget funds to light rail 

construction and that a decision 

maybe forthcoming in future. A 

modification is recommended to 

the Centre Plan report to 

incorporate an updated DoT plan 

on page 12. 

Noted. No change. 

Noted. The changes outlined in 

the submission are not supported. 

The concept of integrating the light 

rail with the shopping centre is a 

valid urban design proposition and 

planning consideration. No 

change. 

142



off Alexander Drive and then back 

on again would substantially delay 

passengers making the service less 

attractive. It would also be difficult to 

achieve an alignment without 

significant impact on private land 

and buildings. What is important is 

that the light rail station / bus 

interchange is closely integrated 

with the Dianella Centre 

development. DoT and the City 

have agreed that the Alexander 

Drive alignment is preferred. 

• In the event that light rail was 

constructed along Alexander Drive 

then a Light Rail Station and Bus 

Interchange would be constructed 

adjacent to the Dianella Centre site. 

A proposed bus network serving the 

station should be discussed in the 

context section, and is as follows: 

- Three bus services would serve the 

northern portion of Alexander Drive 

heading to destinations such as 

Ballajura, Malaga and Gnangara. 

These would terminate at Dianella. 

- The Circle route bus service would 

be re-routed from Grand Prom to 

travel via Morley and Alexander 

Drives, through the Dianella Station. 

- The Station would be the northern 

terminus for Route 16, heading to 

Perth City via Homer Street, Walter 

Road, and Longroyd Street. 

• Section Five discusses Urban Form, 

it is important to focus on the ability 

for the site to achieve a higher 

density and mix of land uses, 

particularly in the area directly 

adjacent to the light rail station. DoT 

would like section 5.1 reworded to 

focus on this opportunity as one of 

the key points. To support the light 

rail, DoT expects that a mediumhigh 

density development be 

planned for, with a mix of residential, 

commercial and service uses. 

Heights should be no less than three 

stories facing Alexander Drive, with 

the built form higher further back 

from the street. The Plan on page 

32 shows fast food outlets and 

relatively low density, predominately 

commercial buildings in proximity to 

• Noted. A modification is 

recommended to the Centre Plan 

report under Part “2.0 Centre 

Context, Public Transportation” as 

per information provided by the 

Department of Transport in 

submission. 

Noted. A modification is 


report incorporating wording 

under “Urban Form – Urban 

Structure” to focus on achieving 

higher density development and 

suitable mix of land uses with 

minimum three storey building 

heights on the hotel and shopping 

centre land facing Alexander Drive 

opposite the light rail station. 

143



Alexander Drive, and DoT considers 

that these are not the types of uses 

appropriate immediately adjacent to 

a major public transport node. 

• Pages 10 and 25 provide some 

analysis of the current PBN routes 

and end-of-trip requirements for the 

Centre. The proposed Light Rail 

would include on-road cycling 

facilities and this would significantly 

change the cycling environment on 

Alexander Drive and Morley Drive 

and reference to this should be 

made in the structure plan as well as 

the impact this will have on cycling 

trips to the centre. Section 2.0 

provides reference to bicycle 

parking policy, the minimum 

requirement for bicycle parking bays 

and the provision of end-of-trip 

facilities. However, it does not 

provide any specific information 

regarding the number of proposed 

bicycle parking bays, how this 

number was calculated in 

comparison to staff numbers and 

expected cycle trips and likewise 

with the type and volume of end-oftrip 

facilities. 

10. • As you are aware, the school has 

been in existence for some 

considerable time and has recently 

been totally rebuilt and significantly 

upgraded. It is noted that in the 

Centre Plan it is intended to rezone 

the school site (Lot 100, Grand 

Promenade) from Private Institution 

to District Centre, which could 

enable the school and Catholic 

Education to, at some future date 

redevelop the site for commercial 

and or high density residential 

purposes. It is, however, the view of 

the school and Catholic Education 

that this site will always remain a 

Catholic School serving the needs of 

the Parish. 

•There is no intention, even in the long 

term that the school will cease to 

operate. It is therefore imperative 

from the operation of the school’s 

perspective that any future 

redevelopment of the adjoining land, 

whether it is the current District 



report indicating introduction of 

light rail transport infrastructure 

should incorporate significant 

improvements to cycling network 

including bicycle parking at all 

stations. Bicycle parking standards 

are stated under the City’s policy 

‘6.2 Bicycle Parking’ and will be 

cross referenced in any new 

development policy prepared for 

the Dianella Centre Plan area. 

Noted. The Centre Plan report 

identifies a ‘District Centre’ zoning 

for the primary school to accord 

with the shopping centre area due 

to its current sharing of the 

facilities and environs. The two (2) 

storey building height limit under 

the ‘Private Institution’ zone is also 

inconsistent to the ‘District Centre’ 

zone. A rezoning will enable some 

consistency and broaden potential 

land use diversity. No change. 


144



Centre or the residential land to the 

east and south, recognises the 

existence of the school and protects 

its amenity in terms of light, air, 

odour, noise and overshadowing. 

• As we are all aware, the school does 

not have adequate parking for 

parents or staff and has relied on 

the goodwill of the adjoining 

commercial and civic uses for 

access and parking. 

• It is appreciated that the Dianella 

Centre Plan is only the precursor to 

a zoning amendment and the 

preparation of a Local Planning 

Policy that will set the standards for 

the development of the land within 

this Dianella Centre Plan. It is 

therefore hoped that the following 

comments on the Draft Dianella 

Centre Plan can be incorporated so 

that as the rezoning and the 

planning policy are developed, the 

matters raised can be considered 

and incorporated in the final 

documents yet to be prepared and 

adopted by the City. 

• In adopting the officer’s 

recommendation the Council 

modified the recommendation to 

incorporate a one-way access 

connection from Chester Avenue 

through to Waverley Street to 

provide for pedestrian and traffic 

circulation which we believe will be 

of considerable benefit to the 

school’s function and operation as 

well as for the centre. Provided that 

this connection is designed and 

constructed to accommodate safe 

vehicular and pedestrian movement, 

the School Board accepts the 

proposed modification. 

• It is considered, however, that as 

part of the design that Chester 

Avenue should be modified to 

provide a drop off zone adjacent to 

the school ground. Also, that where 

the vehicular driveway enters the 

current commercial zone, then 

adequate pedestrian access by way 

of dual use paths be provided 

connecting the Chester Avenue culde-sac 

through to Waverley Street 

• Noted Car parking will be a 

consideration with any 

development application within the 

centre area. Generally, all land 

uses are required to have some 

car parking on site. No change. 



Noted. The design of the 

accessway is not a consideration 

of the Centre Plan report. No 

change. 

145



with limited vehicular crossings. 

• It would be desirable for a dual use 

path to be provided on either side of 

this one way connection. There will 

naturally need to be adequate 

signage to ensure that it remains as 

a one way through route. It would 

also be an advantage if a raised 

zebra crossing could be installed 

connecting the two dual use paths to 

enable pedestrian movement 

through to Waverley Street. The 

raised pavement at this proposed 

zebra crossing would also 

discourage commercial vehicles 

using this route to access the 

centre. 

• Apart from the one way movement 

from Chester Avenue, it may also be 

feasible to allow for two way 

vehicular movement on this internal 

driveway within the shopping centre 

car park. It would also be desirable 

if the connection from the Chester 

Avenue cul-de-sac through to 

Waverley Street could be secured in 

some way, either by dedication of 

that land as a roadway, or 

alternatively an easement in gross 

for vehicular and pedestrian access 

to the public at large to ensure that 

this access is not removed at some 

future date. 

• It is clear that a reasonable 

truncation will be required from the 

adjacent Lot 76, the Finbar land at 

the head of the Chester Avenue culde-sac 

where it meets the proposed 

internal driveway and the two dual 

use paths. Under normal 

circumstances dual use paths 

require a 2.5 metre width and a one 

(1) way road pavement would 

require a minimum four (4) metre 

width, therefore the overall width 

between the corner of the school 

and the Finbar holding would need 

to be at least nine (9) metres. 

• It is also requested that Council 

considers the installation of a dual 

use path along Chester Avenue 

from Kerry Street to provide 

pedestrian access to the shopping 

centre from the land to the south 




change. 




change. 




change. 

Noted. The Centre Plan already 

identifies a preference for better 

pathways and construction of car 

parking long Waverley and Kerry 

Streets. No change. 

146



east. It would also be desirable for 

the dual use path to continue along 

the eastern boundary of the school 

site as this would provide safe 

pedestrian access to the shopping 

centre. 

• It is also noted that in the Draft 

Dianella Centre Plan it is 

recommended that the existing right 

angle embayment's in Chester 

Avenue be retained, and this 

element is supported by the Board. 

It would also be useful if additional 

right angle parking or parallel 

parking was extended along Chester 

Avenue to Kerry Street. Furthermore 

as it is proposed to increase the 

residential density for the area 

between the commercial area to 

Kerry Street then parking 

embayment's should be provided 

along Waverley and Kerry streets 

and where possible along Grand 

Promenade. It would also be 

appropriate if footpaths or dual use 

paths were installed along Waverley 

and Kerry Streets as well as Chester 

Avenue as this would encourage 

safe pedestrian movement around 

this centre. 

• The Board also supports the 

realigned access link between 

Grand Promenade and Waverley 

Street which encourages safe 

pedestrian access as well as parallel 

parking, as this would provide safe 

movement for shoppers and school 

children. If the elements outlined 

above were incorporated then it 

would provide beneficial access to 

the shopping centre and provide a 

kiss and ride facility as well as safe 

walking areas for pedestrians. 

• It is appreciated that the centre 

would be developed over many 

years; however it may be desirable 

to also flag another element that 

would provide safe pedestrian 

crossing from the school ground to 

the shopping centre via the large 

gates in the vicinity of the hardstand 

quadrangle. It is also considered 

appropriate to protect the school’s 

amenity by ensuring that with the 



report to consider opportunities to 

provide on-street car parking in 

Waverley and Kerry Streets. Car 

parking along Grand Promenade 

is considered undesirable as it 

may conflict with traffic flow and 

existing crossovers. 


Noted. The shopping centre uses 

presently have no delivery / 

storage utility areas near the 

school lot and none are proposed 

under the Centre Plan. If the 

shopping centre was redeveloped 

and reconfigured, the impacts on 

adjoining uses are considered 

under Environmental Protection 

(noise regulations) and if 

necessary measures to mitigate 

impact are applied as part of the 

147



redevelopment of the centre, that 

the service core areas are not 

established adjacent to the school 

grounds and buildings, as these 

areas are generally noisy due to 

size of the delivery vehicles and 

unloading equipment that would 

manoeuvre in these areas. The 

service core areas are also areas 

where refuse from the commercial 

centres are stockpiled for disposal 

and these areas can become 

odorous and would create an 

unpleasant environment for the 

school. 

• We are hopeful that you will give due 

consideration to the requests listed 

above as the Centre is progressively 

rebuilt and extended. It would 

therefore be desirable to incorporate 

these requests in the Dianella 

Centre Plan as well as the Local 

Planning Strategy so they can be 

taken into consideration as the 

centre develops stage by stage. 

development process. No change. 


All submitters will be notified of the Councils decision and a copy of the adopted Centre Plan 

will be placed on the City's website for public access 

Comment 

The issues raised in the submissions received during the initial advertising period in 2011 

were presented to Council in March 2012. As previously advised, Council resolved to 

advertise a modified draft Centre Plan. The subsequent submissions received have raised 

several new issues (as outlined in the Table above), some of which require further dialogue 

and are discussed in greater detail below: 

1. Chester Ave Accessway / Library Land 

The Our Lady’s Assumption Primary School submission notes specific issues in 

relation to design for the one (1) way accessway. The one (1) way accessway is for 

the point of entry to the shopping centre car park across the City’s library lot only and 

does not refer to making Chester Avenue a one (1) way street. The School 

acknowledges that some amenity in Chester Avenue may be lost with the introduction 

of the accessway and by increased traffic flow near the school entry. To help minimise 

this, they have requested that the accessway be constructed with dual use paths 

(2.5m wide) either side of a driveway entry to the Library lot from Chester Avenue. A 

path way is also requested connecting Chester Avenue and Waverley Street along the 

accessway and shopping centre car park, together with a drop off area and further 

parking (potentially right angle) and new paths in Chester Avenue. 

148



The one (1) way accessway across the City’s land is supported, as it would be the 

most appropriate way to allow vehicular access into the shopping centre area, whilst 

maintaining some amenity for pedestrians at the crossing point. However, the design 

with two paths may not be possible and requires detailed investigation as part of a 

formal design process. 

There are several issues that need mentioning in considering the design of the 

accessway and requests made by the school. 

• The expected residential development on 36 Chester Avenue site (former Coles 

site) will remove the eastern most crossover to the shopping centre car park 

when demolition of buildings commence. 

• A path connection along the former Coles site boundary between Chester 

Avenue and Waverley Street, will increase the width of the area set aside for 

carriage way purposes to 8.5 metres, and will require further removal of parking 

bays. Six (6) metres for two (2) way vehicle corridor and 2.5m for a dual purpose 

path which can also allow wheel chair and ‘gofers’ vehicles. 

• Three land holdings are affected by the proposed accessway. They are owned 

by the City, Centro Investments Pty Ltd and 36 Chester Avenue Pty Ltd. The 

school land is not affected by the proposal. 

• The shopping centre and former Coles building car parks accommodate the 

majority of school parking during peak times. The removal of the former Coles 

car park will require the transferring of all parking to the shopping centre car park 

and will also place further demand in Chester Avenue. 

• There is no formal agreement between Centro Investments Pty Ltd and the 

Primary School for use of the shopping centre car park. The Roman Catholic 

Archdiocese may wish to pursue an agreement to maintain access rights. 

• The construction of an accessway between Chester Avenue and Waverley 

Street through the library and shopping centre land will require protections under 

crown transfers or easements in gross with legal agreements registered on titles, 

to maintain a public access to the shopping centre land. An agreement will be 

required between the City and Centro Investments Pty Ltd if a crown reserve for 

a roadway is not provided. 

• If an easement is chosen or a road reserve ceded from the City’s land, the value 

will be impacted if the City decides to sell and fund a multipurpose community 

facility elsewhere in the Centre or at another location in the City. 

• Cost contributions to implement the accessway between Chester Avenue and 

Waverley Street require discussion and agreement between the three (3) land 

owners and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese. 

• Cost contributions to implement the ‘drop off’ bays and further car parking in 

Chester Avenue require discussion and agreement between the City and the 

Roman Catholic Archdiocese. 

2. Light rail station / bus interchange 

Discussions have occurred between the Department of Transport, Centro Investments 

Pty Ltd and the City on the potential light rail station / bus interchange on Alexander 

Drive and its interface with the Centre. The interchange area is expected to 

accommodate a bus ‘lay over’ area, due to some routes terminating at the centre, 

which requires widening of Alexander Drive affecting the former hotel, shopping centre 

and TAB sites. 

149



The draft Centre Plan recognises the need for the shopping centre buildings to actively 

interface with Alexander Drive, Waverley Street and Grand Promenade. It is therefore 

important that any light rail station / bus interchange infrastructure not negatively 

impact on this need and that it be suitably notated in the Centre Plan report. The 

Department of Transport has advised that it needs to prepare a concept design for the 

Dianella portion of the light rail route before it could advise the City and Centro 

Investments Pty Ltd of the extent of any road widening on Alexander Drive. The 

interchange design is expected to be completed possibly mid-2013. In this context it 

would be beneficial for the City to advise the Department of Transport that it supports 

the Light Rail Transit infrastructure of the Central Northern Corridor route, passing the 

Dianella District Centre along Alexander Drive to Morley Drive, in preference to using 

Grand Promenade. 

While information regarding the impact of light rail on the building interface with 

Alexander Drive is not available, Council may still adopt the Centre Plan. However, 

this may delay the development of the Hotel site (and potentially the shopping centre 

and TAB sites), until such time as agreement is reached on the quantity of land to be 

exchanged, location of access points and design of all carriageways in Alexander 

Drive. 

3. Building Heights 

Some concern was expressed about the six (6) storey building height maximum for the 

Centre. The original draft plan indicated a four (4) storey height limit across the whole 

Centre including the residential areas. The four (4) storey limit was found to be 

simplistic in respect to compatibility with existing residential areas and failed to achieve 

the intensity of the built form sought by the transit orientated development objectives. 

In particular, under the State Planning Strategy ‘Directions 2031 and Beyond’ and 

State Policy ‘Activity Centres for Perth and Peel’, local government is required to:- 

• plan for increased housing supply for changing population needs; 

• promote increased housing diversity and affordability; 

• plan for diverse mix of services, facilities and housing types in our centres, which 

facilitate employment and economic prosperity; and 

• plan and develop transit oriented development areas of mixed use medium rise 

housing. 

Building heights have been reviewed to indicate a potential maximum of three (3) 

storeys on the peripheral areas for ‘the District Centre’ zoned land (i.e. along Waverley 

Street, Alexander Drive and Grand Promenade), with a maximum of six (6) storeys 

towards the central portion of the site. With the potential light rail station / bus 

interchange along Alexander Drive, some flexibility should be considered when 

drafting development standards for the Alexander Drive and Grand Promenade 

frontages in any future Development Policy. 

A review of the building heights indicated in the draft Centre Plan also recognised the 

need to provide a better interface with the existing single and two (2) storey dwellings 

in Kerry Street and Waverley Street. It is therefore recommended that height limits of 

two (2) storeys (at the street fronts) and three (3) storeys (behind the two (2) storey 

areas) be imposed for the majority of the residential zoned land within the Centre Plan 

area. The exception to this is the former Coles site, which has potential for higher 

residential buildings as it abuts the shopping centre site. 

150



A combination of three (3) and six (6) storeys is proposed for this site, with the lower 

height for areas adjoining existing streets and residential land. 

It should be noted that building heights and built form issues, will addressed in detail 

when a draft local planning policy is prepared following the Centre Plan being adopted 

by Council. 

4. Traffic Management Plan 

Main Roads WA has requested the City assess the ‘robustness’ of the initial transport 

assessment made as part of the City’s original precinct study. This initial assessment 

did not consider in detail the potential of additional floor space and dynamics of 

location in the Centre. A detailed traffic impact and modelling assessment will have to 

be conducted as part of any large scale development proposals within the Centre. At 

that time the City would be in a better position to request a traffic management plan is 

prepared. 

Discussions with the Department of Transport have indicated there will be further 

complications for the traffic management plan due to the potential light rail station / bus 

interchange facility, and its location requiring additional traffic lights and restrictions on 

access points to the Centre. However, undertaking a traffic assessment at this stage, 

without detailed designs for the light rail station / bus interchange and subsequent 

need for road widening, would be problematic. 

5. Modifications 

Subject to the information received during advertising and the discussion above, the 

following modifications to the Centre Plan report are recommended:- 

• indicate a need for further assessments and developing a traffic management and 

access plan for the Centre, when any redevelopment is proposed for the hotel and 

or shopping centre sites. 

• incorporate updated plan ‘Possible Future Light Rail route’ on page 12 (Centre Plan 

report). 

• incorporate under Part “2.0 Centre Context, Public Transportation” references to: 

- Three (3) bus services would serve the northern portion of Alexander Drive 

heading to destinations such as Ballajura, Malaga and Gnangara. These would 

terminate at Dianella; 

- The Circle route bus service would be re-routed from Grand Prom to travel via 

Morley and Alexander Drives, through the Dianella Station; and 

- The Station would be the northern terminus for Route 16, heading to Perth City 

via Homer Street, Walter Road, and Longroyd Street. 

• indicate under “Urban Form – Urban Structure” a focus on achieving higher density 

development, mix of land uses and minimum three (3) storey building heights facing 

Alexander Drive opposite the station for hotel and shopping centre sites. 

• indicate that introduction of light rail transport infrastructure should incorporate 

significant improvements to cycling network including bicycle parking at all stations. 

151




Development standards for the Centre Plan area are to be included in a Local Planning 

Policy which will be prepared pursuant to Clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 3, after 

the Centre Plan is adopted. 


Expected costs to the City to advertise the adoption of the Centre Plan and the associated 

Local Planning Scheme No. 3 Amendment and Local Planning Policy are estimated at 

approximately $5,000. 

The City will examine the demand and implications for replacing the community buildings 

within the Centre area, however, it is premature to quantify the likely costs involved at this 

stage. 

It is also premature to estimate the City’s costs associated with the accessway between 

Waverley Street and Chester Avenue, and parking bays and drop off area in Chester 

Avenue, until agreement is reached on designs and contributions required from other 

parties. 


Goal 3: 


SI 3.2.2: 

To foster the ongoing economic development of the City, encouraging 

investment and employment in a sustainable manner. 

Facilitate enhancements of regional and local centres. 

Develop plans to guide sustainable development of the major activity 

corridors, activity centres and improvements to local centres. 



Issue 

Energy consumption 

Vegetation impact 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

The aims of the Centre Plan are, to promote a more energy 

efficient urban form, better support for public transport and 

increased access within cycling and walking distances, to 

reduce overall need to travel for community services, 

facilities, and employment. 

There are many trees on the site within the shopping centre 

car parking areas that provide shade and added visual 

amenity for the Centre. Many trees are large and starting to 

disrupt paving and barrier kerbing. Redevelopment of the 

shopping centre buildings and surrounding environs will 

impact on these trees and amenity of the Centre Plan area. 

152



Amenity 

Greenhouse emissions 

Issue 

Community engagement 

Community services 

Transport and access 

Issue 

Job creation 

The amenity at the shopping centre will be increased 

through redevelopment and an improved built form, 

including public areas external to the box’ shopping centre. 

Current redevelopment opportunities of residential uses, 

further commercial mix and potential after hour uses can 

provide a true diversified centre. 

The integration of the Centre and the Light Rail will promote 

greater utilisation of public transport both to and from the 

Centre and as a transfer hub to the city centre. This in turn 

will help reduce Greenhouse emissions and traffic 

congestion. 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The potential for greater density residential development 

within the Centre area is likely to increase participation in 

cultural, leisure or recreation activities provided for in the 

locality. 

The potential for residential and externalised commercial on 

the site is likely to increase participation in education, library 

and similar services available to the community. 

The Centre area is located on two major transport corridors 

Alexander Drive and Grand Promenade. The Plan promotes 

improved pedestrian, bicycle and public transportation 

integration with the Centre and between key private and City 

services within. 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

The Centre plan provides for redevelopment of commercial 

and residential land, which will provide for short and long 

term job opportunities in the Centre. 

Conclusion 

The issues outlined the submission table and discussion provide require additional 

modifications to the Draft Centre Plan to those already presented to Council on 30 March 

2012. The modifications clarify direction for the Centre Plan in taking it forward to 

implementation under a Scheme Amendment and Local Planning Policy. The Centre Plan 

report is therefore recommended for adoption with modifications as outlined in section 5 of 

this report and shown in Attachment 2. 

153



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.1/CP1 - DIANELLA CENTRE PLAN – FINAL ADOPTION 

Attachment 1 – Dianella Centre Plan Report - Final modifications (as marked) 

154

155 


21 AUGUST 2012

156 


21 AUGUST 2012

157 


21 AUGUST 2012

158 


21 AUGUST 2012

159 


21 AUGUST 2012

160 


21 AUGUST 2012

161 


21 AUGUST 2012

162 


21 AUGUST 2012

163 


21 AUGUST 2012

164 


21 AUGUST 2012

165 


21 AUGUST 2012

166 


21 AUGUST 2012

167 


21 AUGUST 2012

168 


21 AUGUST 2012

169 


21 AUGUST 2012

170 


21 AUGUST 2012

171 


21 AUGUST 2012

172 


21 AUGUST 2012

173 


21 AUGUST 2012

174 


21 AUGUST 2012

175 


21 AUGUST 2012

176 


21 AUGUST 2012

177 


21 AUGUST 2012

178 


21 AUGUST 2012

179 


21 AUGUST 2012

180 


21 AUGUST 2012

181 


21 AUGUST 2012

182 


21 AUGUST 2012

183 


21 AUGUST 2012

184 


21 AUGUST 2012

185 


21 AUGUST 2012

186 


21 AUGUST 2012

187 


21 AUGUST 2012

188 


21 AUGUST 2012

189 


21 AUGUST 2012

190 


21 AUGUST 2012

191 


21 AUGUST 2012

192 


21 AUGUST 2012

193 


21 AUGUST 2012

194 


21 AUGUST 2012

195 


21 AUGUST 2012

196 


21 AUGUST 2012

197 


21 AUGUST 2012



10.1/CP2 

AMENDMENT TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.3 - LOT 60, HOUSE 

NUMBER 1, MILLDALE WAY, MIRRABOOKA - REZONING 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 60, House Number 1, Milldale Way, Mirrabooka 

City of Stirling 



Balga 

Mirrabooka 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0812/044 


That pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, an 

Amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 3 to rezone Lot 60, House Number 1, 

Milldale Way, Mirrabooka from 'Business' and 'Residential R80' to 'Development' zone, 



refers). 

198





Against: Nil. 


That pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, an Amendment to 

Local Planning Scheme No. 3 to rezone Lot 60, House Number 1, Milldale Way, Mirrabooka 

from 'Business' and 'Residential R80' to 'Development' zone, be INITIATED and 

PROCESSED in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations. 


That pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, an Amendment to 

Local Planning Scheme No. 3 to rezone Lot 60, House Number 1, Milldale Way, Mirrabooka 

from 'Business' and 'Residential R80' to 'Development' zone, be INITIATED and 

PROCESSED in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations. 


To consider initiating an Amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 3 to rezone Lot 60, 

House Number 1, Milldale Way, Mirrabooka from 'Business' and 'Residential R80' to 

'Development' zone. 


Attachments 

Nil. 


Nil. 

199



Reid Highway 

Location Plan 


200



Background 

Lot 60, House Number 1, Milldale Way, Mirrabooka comprises a total area of 58,763m 2 

(5.87ha) of land owned by the Department of Housing. The land is un-developed land and 

located west of the Herb Graham Recreation Reserve. The Herb Graham Reserve contains 

a variety of facilities, softball playing fields, a recreation centre and other playing fields 

providing a service at State and District levels. The Herb Graham reserve is currently zoned 

‘Development’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 3. 

Under Local Planning Scheme No.3, portion of Lot 60, House Number 1, Milldale Way, 

Mirrabooka is zoned 'Residential R80' and the balance being zoned 'Business' (refer Local 

Planning Scheme No. 3 - Zoning Map below). It is proposed that the whole site be rezoned 

'Development' to coincide with the future Structure Plan to be prepared for the Mirrabooka 

Centre and with the existing zoning of the Herb Graham Reserve. 

Herb Graham Centre 

‘Development’ zone 

Lot 60 ‘Residential’ 

& ‘Business’ zones 

Comment 

Local Planning Scheme No. 3 - Zoning 

1. Subdivision 

The Department of Housing obtained conditional approval in 2011 to subdivide Lot 60, 

House Number 1, Milldale Way, Mirrabooka (Application: WAPC 143778) into four (4) 

lots and is currently seeking a subdivision clearance for new titles (refer Proposed 

Subdivision Plan below). 

201



601 

604 

602 603 

Proposed Subdivision Plan - WAPC 143778 

Proposed Lot 601 (2.5ha) is to be transferred to the Department of Health for the 

building of a district health facility. Proposed Lot 604 is planned to be subdivided 

further (construction of further roads) and developed for residential use. Lots 602 and 

603 are also to be developed by Department of Housing, with direct frontage to 

Milldale Way and is proposed to be allocated for mixed use development under the 

preliminary draft Structure Plan. 

2. Local Planning Scheme No.3 - Part 6A 

Under Local Planning Scheme No. 3 - Part 6A ‘Development (Structure Plan) Areas’, 

the proposed ‘Development’ zone will require the preparation of a Structure Plan to 

coordinate future subdivision and development. The preparation of a Structure Plan for 

the Mirrabooka Centre is a mandatory requirement under the Western Australian 

Planning Commission’s 'State Planning Policy 4.2, Activity Centres for Perth and Peel’. 

The City is currently preparing a draft Structure Plan for the Mirrabooka Centre in 

accordance with this Policy and is expected to be presented to Council early 2013. 

3. State Planning Policy - 'Activity Centres for Perth and Peel' 

Under State Planning Policy 4.2 'Activity Centres for Perth and Peel', Mirrabooka is 

identified as a Secondary Centre in the activity centres hierarchy. Secondary Centres 

were previously referred to as ‘Regional’ centres under the State Government’s former 

Commercial Centres Policy (hence the reference to Mirrabooka Regional Centre in 

previous documents). Under the current Activity Centres Policy, Secondary Centres 

are encouraged to comprise of mixed use development and provide a major source of 

employment, particularly where they are located near major public transport hubs. 

202



The City is currently drafting the Structure Plan for the Mirrabooka centre area, which 

is bounded by Reid Highway, Mirrabooka Avenue, Northwood Drive and Yirrigan 

Drive. Lot 60, House Number 1, Milldale Way, Mirrabooka is a landmark site in the 

centre, located in the north-west corner, at the intersections of Reid Highway, 

Mirrabooka Avenue and Milldale Way. 

The purpose of the Structure Plan is to facilitate and co-ordinate future development 

and renewal of the Mirrabooka Centre. The Structure Plan aims to provide for a range 

of development activities and mixed land uses to enable growth as a multi-purpose 

centre. The core of the Centre will form new connected streets in Sudbury Road and 

Milldale Way extension, providing opportunities for a diverse form of residential and 

commercial uses. 

4. Public Transport Plan 

The Department of Transport and the Public Transport Authority in 2011 released a 

draft transport strategy for the Perth metropolitan area called ‘Public Transport for 

Perth in 2031’. A key component of the Plan is the introduction of a light rail transit 

system to cater for growing demand in the central northern corridor and other parts of 

the metropolitan area. 

The final Public Transport Plan is yet to be released by Department of Transport and 

funding for projects has not yet been committed by the State Cabinet. The strategy for 

transit infrastructure for the Central Northern Corridor passes through the Mirrabooka 

Centre and will significantly enhance the range of land use types and intensity which 

may be considered under the draft Structure Plan. 

5. Justification for Rezoning 

The current subdivision of Lot 60, House Number 1, Milldale Way, Mirrabooka is 

primarily to facilitate the transfer of a 2.5ha portion to the Department of Health for 

development of a district health facility. However, under the current zoning of 

'Residential R80' and 'Business', a hospital use is not permitted and therefore requires 

to be rezoned. Discussions with the Department of Health and the Department of 

Housing indicate that both agencies wish to have the subject portion of Lot 60, House 

Number 1, Milldale Way, Mirrabooka rezoned to appropriately reflect future 

development as soon as possible to enable appropriate land transfers and future 

funding arrangements to be undertaken. 

The zoning of the whole site to ‘Development’ is the preferred option as it allows some 

flexibility within the direction set under a Structure Plan. The rezoning of the site prior 

to the advertising of the draft Structure Plan will assist the Department of Health to 

plan for the future health facility and will not compromise preferred development 

outcomes for this section of the Centre or prejudice the overall structure planning 

process for the Centre. 


Should an Amendment be initiated, consultation would be required in accordance with the 

Town Planning Regulations and the Council’s Planning Consultation Procedure. 

203




Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 details procedures for amending an 

existing Town Planning Scheme. In this regard, Council may prepare and initiate a scheme 

amendment that shall then, subject to consent from the Western Australian Planning 

Commission and the Environmental Protection Authority, be advertised for public inspection. 


The City has been working in collaboration with the various State Agencies (i.e. through land 

exchanges, funding, etc) to help achieve the redevelopment objectives of the Centre. In this 

context, the City will incur advertising costs (estimated at $3,500) associated with this 

Amendment as it is being undertaken by the City. 


Goal 3: 


SI 3.2.2: 



Facilitate enhancements of regional and local centres. 

Develop plans to guide sustainable development of the major activity 

corridors, activity centres and improvements to local centres. 



Amenity 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

The amenity of the centre can be improved through 

facilitation of further residential and commercial 

development, including the health department facility. 

Energy Consumption 

The amendment supports the aims of the draft Mirrabooka 

Centre Structure Plan, which promotes a more energy 

efficient urban form, support for public transport and 

increased access within cycling and walking distances, to 

reduce overall travel to community services and 

employment. 

Issue 

Community engagement 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The potential for residential development in the Mirrabooka 

Centre is likely to increase participation in cultural, leisure or 

recreation activities provided for in the locality. 

204




The potential for a health facility along with residential and 

commercial to the site will likely increase participation and 

the range of services available to the community. 

Job creation 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Rezoning the site provides for development of commercial 

and residential land which will provide for short and long 

term job opportunities in the Mirrabooka Centre. 

Conclusion 

It is considered that a ‘Development’ zone for Lot 60, House Number 1, Milldale Way, 

Mirrabooka is appropriate in the context of the proposed development of a health facility on 

the site. In this respect, it is recommended that an Amendment to Local Planning Scheme 

No. 3 be initiated to rezone the site from 'Residential R80' and 'Business' to 'Development'. 

205



10.1/CP3 

LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.3 - AMENDMENT - DISCRETIONARY 

USE OF MEDIA ESTABLISHMENT IN INDUSTRIAL ZONE 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Osborne Park and Balcatta 

The Planning Group 



Osborne and Hamersley Wards 

Osborne Park and Balcatta 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0812/045 


That pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, an 

amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 3, to make the use 'Media Establishment' a 

Discretionary Use on land zoned 'Industry', be INITIATED and PROCESSED in 

accordance with the Town Planning Regulations. 


refers). 

206





Against: Nil. 


That pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, an amendment to 

Local Planning Scheme No. 3, to make the use 'Media Establishment' a Discretionary Use 

on land zoned 'Industry', be INITIATED and PROCESSED in accordance with the Town 

Planning Regulations. 


That pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, an amendment to 

Local Planning Scheme No. 3, to make the use 'Media Establishment' a Discretionary Use 

on land zoned 'Industry', be INITIATED and PROCESSED in accordance with the Town 

Planning Regulations. 


To consider an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 3 (LPS3), which would allow the 

use 'Media Establishment' on land zoned 'Industry'. 


Attachments 

Nil. 


Applicants Rezoning Application (ECM No. 3123843) 

Background 

In June 2012, The Planning Group (consultants) lodged a Scheme Amendment request on 

behalf of their Client, Seven West Media to facilitate the relocation of the Channel 7 Perth 

offices and production studio to Lot 500, House Number 50, Hasler Road Osborne Park 

(West Australian Newspaper site). 

Currently, Lot 500, House Number 50, Hasler Road, Osborne Park is occupied by 

'Newspaper House', the head office of the West Australian Newspaper. The building has 

approximately 12,000m 2 of office floor space built over three (3) levels in addition to the 

printing facilities. The development is served by 459 existing car bays, including visitor bays. 

The site is zoned 'Industry' under LPS3, which prohibits the use 'Media Establishment' being 

located within that zone. In order to allow Channel 7 Perth to relocate to the site, the 

Scheme needs to be modified. 

207



Comment 

Land Use Compatibility 

The Use Class 'Media Establishment' is defined under LPS3 as:- 

"…premises used for radio, television, film and allied media industries including, but not 

limiting the foregoing, the electronic media other than telecommunications, and such other 

administration and entertainment activities as would normally be associated with the 

operation or public image of such industries but does not include such amusements as could 

normally be provided on other land in the Scheme Area and does not include printing 

presses or activities normally associated with the printed media". 

The purpose of the 'Industry' zone under LPS3 is to:- 

"…provide for a range of industrial and business development, as well as facilities for the 

storage and distribution of goods" and, "to ensure a high standard of development 

appropriate to a modern industrial area and which is conducive to a safe and convenient 

access by all clientele". 

The proposed Channel 7 floor space is 2,035m 2 of general office and studio support services 

on the ground floor of the existing West Australian Newspaper south building. It is also 

proposed to construct a 345m 2 single storey extension to the south side of the existing WAN 

building for use as office space. A 246m 2 studio is proposed on the north east side of the 

building, with an ancillary 194m 2 central technical area (which includes the plant spaces for 

the studio as well as the sets and technical stores). 

The use itself is generally considered low impact and is compatible within the industrial area 

of Osborne Park. Channel 7 has been operating in a residential suburb for the past two (2) 

decades (with little disruption to the surrounding neighbourhood), it is considered that a 

move to the West Australian Newspaper site is a more appropriate location for such a use. 

Furthermore, the use is not considered to depart substantially from the current business 

operations at the West Australian Newspaper site and the infrastructure required to assist 

transmission operations (antenna's etc) is better suited in an industrial zone. 

2. Directions 2031 

In August 2010, the State Government released its strategic planning framework for the 

Perth and Peel regions, entitled 'Directions 2031 and Beyond - Metropolitan Planning 

Beyond the Horizon'. The Strategy promotes Osborne Park as the primary industrial area in 

the Central Metropolitan Perth sub-region. The proposed relocation of Channel 7 facilities 

into this area is considered compatible with this direction. 

3. Herdsman - Glendalough Concept Structure Plan 

The Herdsman - Glendalough Concept Structure Plan provides a framework for future 

development in the Osborne Park area. The Structure Plan recognises the importance of 

the area as a major employment centre and aims to create a vibrant and well connected, 

pedestrian friendly environment characterised by more intensive land uses. 

208



In comparison to the current provisions of the City's Industrial Design Guidelines, the 

Structure Plan identifies potential increases in plot ratio, building height and gross floor area 

within the area. Whilst there is no intention to alter the current provisions of the Industrial 

Design Guidelines until such time as the full Structure Plan has been adopted, the proposed 

Amendment does not conflict with the long-term outcomes of the Concept Structure Plan. 

4. Local Planning Scheme No.3 

The site is zoned 'Industry' under the provisions of LPS3, with 'Media Establishment' being 

an 'X' Use (meaning not permitted) in that zone (under Table 1) and a rezoning of the site 

would be required. However, rather than consider a rezoning for just this specific site, there 

is an opportunity to consider a wider, more inclusive amendment to the Scheme which would 

make 'Media Establishment' a 'D' use within an Industry zone. This would then allow the use 

to be 'Discretionary' in all industrial zoned land across the City. 

As both Channel 9 and Channel 10 have indicated their intentions to cease existing 

operations in Dianella in the longer-term, opportunity for their relocation elsewhere within the 

City would be possible should the broader amendment proceed. 


Should an amendment be initiated, consultation would be required in accordance with Town 

Planning Regulations and the Council's Planning Consultation Procedure. 


Should the amendment be initiated, it would enable the use 'Media Establishment' to be 

considered by Council as a 'Discretionary' use on land zoned 'Industry'. 


Cost of advertising and processing the amendment will be met by the applicant. 


Goal 3: 


SI 3.2.1: 



Create and foster an environment that encourages innovation and 

investment. 

Work in collaboration with the Commonwealth and State Governments and 

the private sector to implement the outcomes of the Stirling City Centre 

Structure Plan review and Scarborough Beach Road Activity Corridor 

Study (which includes planning for Herdsman and Osborne Park) to create 

Perth’s second CBD. 

209





Issue 


ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

The provision of local employment opportunities reduces the 

dependence on motor vehicles and makes efficient use of 

industrial zoned land. 

Nil. 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Dvlpmt of key business sectors This Scheme Amendment will encourage television based 

media operators to remain within the City of Stirling following 

the rezoning of the media precincts in Dianella for residential 

uses. 

Conclusion 

A request has been received to rezone Lot 500, House Number 50, Hasler Road Osborne 

Park to allow the relocation of the Channel 7 Perth facilities (Media Establishment) from its 

current location in Dianella. In considering this request, officers recommend that Council 

undertake a broader amendment which will allow the use 'Media Establishment' to be 

discretionary on land zone 'Industry'. 

210



10.1/CP4 

LOT 73, HOUSE NUMBER 135, SWAN STREET AND LOT 62, HOUSE 

NUMBER 198 WANNEROO ROAD, YOKINE - REZONING FROM 

'RESIDENTIAL R30 - ADDITIONAL USE CONSULTING ROOMS' AND 

'RESIDENTIAL R30' TO 'RESIDENTIAL R30 - ADDITIONAL USE MEDICAL 

CENTRE' OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 73, House Number 135, Swan Street and Lot 62, House Number 

198, Wanneroo Road, Yokine 

Peter D Webb and Associates 



Lawley 

Yokine 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 

















211




0812/046 


1. That pursuant to section 17(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, 

Amendment No. 23 to Local Planning Scheme No. 3, to rezone Lot 73, House 

Number 135, Swan Street, Yokine and Lot 62, House Number 198, Wanneroo 

Road, Yokine from ‘Residential R30 – Additional Use Consulting Rooms’ and 

‘Residential R30’ to ‘Residential R30 – Additional Use Medical Centre’, be 

ADOPTED without modification. 

2. That affixing the Common Seal to Amendment No. 23 to Local Planning 

Scheme No. 3 documents be AUTHORISED and the Amendment be REFERRED 

to the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Minister for Planning 

for consideration of final approval. 


refers). 



Against: Nil. 


1. That pursuant to section 17(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, Amendment 

No. 23 to Local Planning Scheme No. 3, to rezone Lot 73, House Number 135, Swan 

Street, Yokine and Lot 62, House Number 198, Wanneroo Road, Yokine from 

‘Residential R30 – Additional Use Consulting Rooms’ and ‘Residential R30’ to 

‘Residential R30 – Additional Use Medical Centre’, be ADOPTED without modification. 

2. That affixing the Common Seal to Amendment No. 23 to Local Planning Scheme 

No. 3 documents be AUTHORISED and the Amendment be REFERRED to the 

Western Australian Planning Commission and the Minister for Planning for 

consideration of final approval. 


1. That pursuant to section 17(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, Amendment 

No. 23 to Local Planning Scheme No. 3, to rezone Lot 73, House Number 135, Swan 

Street, Yokine and Lot 62, House Number 198, Wanneroo Road, Yokine from 

‘Residential R30 – Additional Use Consulting Rooms’ and ‘Residential R30’ to 

‘Residential R30 – Additional Use Medical Centre’, be ADOPTED without modification. 

2. That affixing the Common Seal to Amendment No. 23 to Local Planning Scheme 

No. 3 documents be AUTHORISED and the Amendment be REFERRED to the 

Western Australian Planning Commission and the Minister for Planning for 

consideration of final approval. 

212




To consider the outcomes of public advertising of the proposed rezoning of Lot 73, House 

Number 135, Swan Street and Lot 62, House Number 198, Wanneroo Road, Yokine from 

‘Residential R30 – Additional Use Consulting Rooms’ and ‘Residential R30’ to ‘Residential 

R30 – Additional Use Medical Centre’. 


Attachments 

Nil. 


1. Scheme Amendment No. 23 Formal Documentation (ECM Doc No. 3067329 and 

3067317) 

2. Applicants Amendment Submission and Justification (ECM Doc No. 2907642) 

Property Location 

Location Plan 

213




Background 

In 1992 the existing residential dwelling on Lot 73, House Number 135, Swan Street, Yokine 

was approved for Consulting Rooms subject to relevant planning conditions. It should be 

noted that at that time the use of ‘Consulting Rooms’ was permitted in ‘Residential’ zoned 

land. 

The main difference with the land uses (as per Local Planning Scheme No.3) of Consulting 

Rooms and Medical Centre:- 

‘Consulting Rooms means premises used by no more than two (2) health consultants’ 

‘Medical Centre means premises, other than a hospital, used by more than two (2) 

health consultant(s)’. 

The practice has since expanded and more general practitioners are operating from these 

premises in order to meet local demand. The applicant has advised that the practice has 

reached its capacity and an opportunity to purchase the adjoining residential zoned site at 

Lot 62, House Number 198, Wanneroo Road, Yokine was undertaken. The aim is to use the 

rear of Lot 62, House Number 198, Wanneroo Road, Yokine in the short term to provide 

additional parking and in the long term to convert the residential dwelling to support allied 

health services. 

The owner met with City officers in August 2011 to discuss the proposal. Subsequently, a 

rezoning application was lodged on behalf of the owner from planning consultants 

Peter Webb and Associates. The proposed rezoning was then initiated for advertising by 

Council on 21 February 2012 (Council Resolution Number 0212/087). 

214



The City forwarded the documentation to the Environmental Protection Authority and a 

response was received on 26 April 2012 advising that no formal assessment was required. 


Consultation on the Amendment was carried out in accordance with the Town Planning 

regulations and the City’s Planning Consultation Procedure. The Amendment was 

advertised for public comment between 8 May 2012 and 19 June 2012 inclusive. 

A total of two (2) submissions/comments were received from State Government Authorities. 

No submissions were received from the community during the advertising period. The table 

below provides a summary of the two (2) submissions received: 

Submission Submission Details Officer's Comment 

1. Main Roads Western Australia has no 

objection to the proposal, subject to the 

amalgamation of the lots. 

Noted. The amalgamation of the lots 

will be addressed at the subdivision 

stage following finalisation of the 

amendment process. 

As Wanneroo Road is under care and 

control of Main Roads it requests to be 

consulted during the development 

process. 

Main Roads will seek removal of the 

central crossover to Wanneroo Road at 

the time of amalgamation or 

development application. 

Main Roads requests that a transport 

statement be submitted so a full 

understanding of transport movements 

generated by the proposed development 

can be established. 

2. Water Corporation has no objection to 

the proposal. 

Water Corporation requests the 

consideration of the upgrade of the 

water and sewerage infrastructure at the 

building stage. 

Water Corporation points out that a 

150mm diameter gravity sewer follows 

the boundary between Lots 73 and 62. 

The developer will be required to 

provide adequate physical and legal 

protection of the sewer, or fund its 

relocation. 

Issues of stormwater drainage, 

property signage, vehicle crossover, 

verge restoration etc, will be taken into 

consideration during the development 

assessment stage. 

Noted. This issue will be noted at the 

development assessment stage. 

Noted. This issue will be addressed at 

the development assessment stage. 

Noted. 

Noted. This issue will be addressed at 

the development assessment stage. 

Protection of the Water Corporation 

easement will be addressed at the 

development assessment stage. 

215



In view of the nature of the submission details, the applicant will be advised of the comments 

received from Main Roads WA and Water Corporation for the applicant's consideration at 

the Development Application stage. 

Comment 

During the course of the 42 day advertising period, no objections were received. Two (2) 

submissions were received from State Authorities that identified issues needing to be 

addressed during the Development Assessment stage. In this context, it is considered 

appropriate that the Amendment be adopted without modification. 


Nil. 


The costs of finalisation of the Amendment including publication of a notice in the 

Government Gazette will be in the order of $1,000 (included as part of the application fees). 


Goal 2: 


SI 2.1.4: 






Review and implement the Local Planning Strategy to address changing 

social environmental and economic needs. 



Issue 


ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Provide local facilities reducing the need to travel. 

Issue 


Amenity 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

Provide medical services for the local community. 

It is understood the lots will be redeveloped, which will 

improve the streetscape. 

216



Health, wellbeing and safety 

This rezoning will allow increased medical services for the 

local community. 

Job creation 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Creating local employment opportunities. 

Dvlpmt of key business sectors This proposal will increase key business sector of medical 

which is in high demand in this local area, particularly after 

the closure of several smaller consultancies. 

Conclusion 

It is considered that the potential impacts of the medical centre would be minimal 

considering that part of the site is already established as a medical consultancy, and the 

proposed rezoning is to facilitate a small expansion. No objections were received from 

neighbouring residents. Issues raised by State Authorities will be addressed during the 

development assessment stage and/or during amalgamation of the two (2) lots. It is 

considered that the proposed Medical Centre use will facilitate development which will assist 

in meeting the needs of the aging population and the local community. As such, the 

Amendment is supported and it is recommended that it be adopted without modification and 

forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Minister for approval. 

217



10.1/A1 APPROVALS ACTIVITY REPORT JUNE 2012 


Location: 

Applicant: 

Applicant No.: 



Ward: 





Approvals 



Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0812/047 


That the Approval’s Activity report for the month of June 2012 outlining Development 

Approvals, Survey Strata and Green title Subdivisions, Building Licences and 

Demolition Licences be RECEIVED. 


refers). 

218





Against: Nil. 



Approvals, Survey Strata and Green title Subdivisions, Building Licences and Demolition 

Licences be RECEIVED. 






To present the monthly activity report detailing the outcome of development assessment 

applications Viz:- 

Development Applications 

Subdivisions – Green title and Survey Strata. 

Building Licence Approvals 

Demolition Licence Approvals 


Attachments 

Nil. 


Development, Survey Strata and Green Title Subdivisions and building Licence Approvals 

for the month of June 2012 (Statistics also available on the City of Stirling Web Site). 

Background 

The monthly report includes a listing of all applications valued over $2 million determined 

under delegated authority from Council. 

Comment 

The Approvals Business Unit determined 166 Development Approvals with an estimated 

construction value of $28,712,194 in addition to 118 Building Licence Approvals issued with 

an estimated value of $22,916,393. . 

219



Building Licences approved with values over $2 million for the month of June 2012 

were:- 

Nil. 

Development Approvals determined with values over $2 million for the month of June 

2012 were:- 

Nil. 

The detailed list of Approvals, which include property addresses, builder’s details, values etc, 

is available on the City of Stirling Web Site, and is available for viewing at the meeting. 

(www.stirling.wa.gov.au/development/building+Statistics). 


Nil. 


Nil. 


Nil. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Nil. 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

Nil. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Conclusion 

Monthly Statistics Report is presented to Council for information on development activity. 

220



10.1/A2 APPROVALS ACTIVITY REPORT JULY 2012 


Location: 

Applicant: 

Applicant No.: 



Ward: 





Approvals 



Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0812/048 


That the Approval’s Activity report for the month of July 2012 outlining Development 

Approvals, Survey Strata and Green title Subdivisions, Building Licences and 

Demolition Licences be RECEIVED. 


refers). 

221





Against: Nil. 










To present the monthly activity report detailing the outcome of development assessment 

applications Viz:- 

Development Applications 

Subdivisions – Green title and Survey Strata. 

Building Licence Approvals 

Demolition Licence Approvals 


Attachments 

Nil. 


Development, Survey Strata and Green Title Subdivisions and building Licence Approvals 

for the month of July 2012 (Statistics also available on the City of Stirling Web Site). 

Background 

The monthly report includes a listing of all applications valued over $2 million determined 

under delegated authority from Council. 

Comment 

The Approvals Business Unit determined 153 Development Approvals with an estimated 

construction value of $31,301,561 in addition to 179 Building Licence Approvals issued with 

an estimated value of $47,093,811. . 

222



Building Licences approved with values over $2 million for the month of July 2012 

were:- 

B12/1323 52 Liege Street Woodlands – Parkland Villas : Convert Thirty 

One Bedsits into Fourteen Apartments $3,000,000 

Development Approvals determined with values over $2 million for the month of July 

2012 were:- 

Applications determined by City of Stirling 

Nil. 

Applications determined by Development Assessment Panel (DAP) 

DA12/1090 160 Hale Road Wembley Downs – Addition to Hale School : 

Aquatic Centre $9,000,000 

Applications where a recommendation has been provided to the Western Australian 

Planning Commission (WAPC) 

Nil. 

The detailed list of Approvals, which include property addresses, builder’s details, values etc, 

is available on the City of Stirling Web Site, and is available for viewing at the meeting. 

(www.stirling.wa.gov.au/development/building+Statistics). 


Nil. 


Nil. 


Nil. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Nil. 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

223



Nil. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Conclusion 

Monthly Statistics Report is presented to Council for information on development activity. 

224



10.1/A3 

STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 

UPDATE - JULY 2012 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 



Director Planning and Development 

Planning and Development Administration 




Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0812/049 


That the information report on Planning and Development matters to which the City is 

a respondent currently listed at the State Administrative Tribunal be RECEIVED. 


refers). 

225





Against: Nil. 


That the information report on Planning and Development matters to which the City is a 

respondent currently listed at the State Administrative Tribunal be RECEIVED. 


That the information report on Planning and Development matters to which the City is a 

respondent currently listed at the State Administrative Tribunal be RECEIVED. 


To Provide an update report on Planning and Development matters currently listed in the 

State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). 


Attachments 

Attachment 1 - Monthly listing of Planning and Development matters at SAT. 


Nil. 

Background 

At the Council meeting held 15 April 2008, Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 

0408/055):- 

“That the State Administrative Tribunal hearings affecting the City of Stirling planning or in 

relation to planning issues be LISTED monthly on the agenda for information only” 

Comment 

The current listing of Planning and Development matters where the City is a respondent at 

the SAT is attached. The following information is listed:- 

1. Details of the Matter; 

2. Representation; 

3. Reference – address and development description; and 

4. Status or Outcome. 

226



This listing is provided for information purposes. 

Matters which are currently in mediation at the SAT are required to be treated as confidential 

in accordance with the requirements of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004. 

Additionally, in accordance with the Council’s adopted procedure for dealing with SAT 

Appeals, it is common for the City to appoint legal representation and seek legal advice. 

Legal advice sought on these matters is subject to legal professional privilege and must also 

be treated as confidential. 

Where a Council decision is required in respect to the conduct of a specific matter, a 

separate detailed report will be provided to Committee and Council. 


Nil. 


The City is required to respond to matters listed in the SAT in accordance with the 

requirements of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004. Additionally, the Council has an 

adopted procedure for dealing with SAT matters. 


Nil. 


Nil. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Nil. 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

Nil. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

227



Conclusion 

The State Administrative Tribunal Planning and Development Report is presented to Council 

for information on the status of matters currently being considered by the State 

Administrative Tribunal. 

228



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.1/A3 - STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – PLANNING 

AND DEVELOPMENT UPDATE – JULY 2012 

Attachment 1 - Monthly listing of Planning and Development matters at SAT 

No. Matter Representation Reference Status / Outcome BU 

1. D’Orazio Applicant: Greg DA09/0274 – 102 A hearing was held on 21 and AP 

Enterprises Rowe and Wanneroo Road, Yokine 22 December 2011 to consider 

Pty Ltd v City Associates 

the appropriate land use 

of Stirling 

Meat Lovers Paradise 

classifications for the 

Respondent: (Refusal of change of 

development. 

Matter No: McLeod’s and use) 

DR 74 of 

2011 

Allerding and 

Associates for 


The City is currently awaiting the 

outcome of the hearing. 

2. Gary Wallace 

and City of 

Stirling 

Matter 

DR372 

2011 

No: 

of 

Applicant: 

Gary Wallace 

Respondent: 


133 Fifth Avenue, Mt 

Lawley 

(Additions to single 

dwelling) 

A Full Hearing was held on 

5 April 2012. 

The SAT determined that the 

proposed alterations and 

additions did not satisfy the 

requirements of the City’s 

Character Guidelines, and the 

City’s decision was affirmed. 

AP 

3. Vespoli v City 


Matter No: 

301 of 2011 

4. LandCorp v 


Matter No: 


Applicant: Gino 

Vespoli and 

Arturo Fazio 

Applicant: 

LandCorp 

Respondent: 

RPS Planning 

for City of 


DA10/2719 - 188 Main 

Street, Osborne Park 

(Office Development) 

29 Silica Road, Carine 

(Carine Tafe site) 

A copy of the SAT decision has 

previously been circulated to 

Councillors. 

At the Full Hearing on 12 June 

2012, a preliminary issue was 

raised in respect to the status of 

a Detailed Area Plan for the 

precinct. A further Directions 

Hearing has been scheduled for 

10 August 2012. 

Council at its meeting held 

1 May 2012 reconsidered the 

Structure Plan and adopted it 

subject to modifications. 

The City is currently reviewing 

amended documents provided 

by the applicant. A Directions 

Hearing has been rescheduled 

to 24 August 2012. 

AP 

CP 

5. Longman v 


Applicant: 

Maree Longman 

247 Woodside Street, 

Doubleview 

A full hearing was held on 

20 April 2012. 

AP 

Matter No: 29 

Respondent: 

(Two (2) Grouped 

The SAT determined that the 

229




of 2012 City of Stirling Dwellings) proposed development did not 

satisfy the objectives of eth 

City’s Rights of Way policy, and 

the City’s decision was affirmed. 

6. Foyster v City 


Matter No. 

CC207/2012 

7. The Owners 

of 39 Erindale 

Road v City 


Matter No. 

DR16/2012 

8. PS Structures 

Pty Ltd v City 


Matter 

DR134 

2012 

No. 

of 

9. Mirkovic v 


Matter No. 


2012 

10. Broadview 

Enterprises v 


Matter No. 


2011 

12. Taronga 

Nominees 

Pty Ltd 

v City of 


Matter No. 


2012 

Applicant: 

Foyster 

Respondent: 


Applicant: The 

Owners of 39 

Erindale Road 

Respondent: 


Applicant: 

Structures 

Respondent: 


Applicant: 

Snezana 

Mirkovic 

PS 

Respondent: 

RPS 

Planning 

Consultants for 


Applicant: 

Broadview 

Enterprises 

Respondent: 


Applicant: 

Taranga 

Nominees 

Ltd 

Respondent: 


Pty 

221 Holbeck Street, 

Doubleview 

Numerous unauthorised 

structures 

39 Erindale Road, 


Unauthorised signage - 

Planning 

and 

Development Act 2005 

2 Ledgar Road, Balcatta 

Change of use – 

Warehouse to Office 

12A Wynyard Street, 

Yokine 

Change of use – Use 

Not Listed (Display 

Home) 

401 Scarborough Beach 

Road, Innaloo. 

Partial change of use 

from Showroom to 

Showroom and Shop. 

16 Foley Street, Balcatta 

Office Development 

A transcript of the State 

Administrative Tribunal’s 

decision has previously been 

circulated to Councillors. 

. 

Directions Hearing scheduled for 

4 September 2012. 

Mediation hearing rescheduled 

for 4 September 2012 

An initial Directions Hearing was 

held on 11 May 2012. 

SAT invited Council to 

reconsider it’s decision and at 

it’s meeting on the 10 July 2012, 

Council resolved to refuse the 

application. 

An on site mediation has been 

scheduled for the 8 August 

2012. 

SAT invited Council to 

reconsider it’s decision and at 

it’s meeting on the 10 July 2012, 

Council resolved to approve the 

application. 

The application for review to the 

SAT has subsequently been 

withdrawn. 

A Directions Hearing was held 

on 4 May 2012 where SAT 

decided to determine the matter 

on the documents. 

SAT has reserved its decision. 

The SAT has invited the City to 

reconsider it's decision. 

The Planning and Development 

committee will consider the 

matter at it’s meeting on 14 

August 2012. 

H&C 

H&C 

AP 

AP 

AP 

AP 

230




13. MI 

Applicant: MI 5 Panton Crescent, A Directions hearing was held AP 

Constructions 

(WA) Pty Ltd 

Constructions 

(WA) Pty Ltd 

Karrinyup 

on the 27 June 2012. 


Retaining wall 

A full hearing is scheduled for 


the 22 August 2012. 

Respondent: 

Matter No. City of Stirling 


2012 

14. Dolton Pty 

Ltd 



Matter No. 


2012 

Applicant: 

Dolton Pty Ltd 

Respondent: 


Demolition (Liqourland) 

760 Beaufort Street, 

Mount Lawley 

A Directions hearing is 

scheduled for the 6 July 2012. 

An on site mediation took place 

on the 25 July 2012. 

The SAT has invited the City to 

reconsider it’s decision, 

following the submission of 

additional information by the 

applicant to the City’s planning 

consultants. 

AP 

15. Scope 

property 

Group Pty Ltd 



Matter No. 


2012 

16. Di Pietro v 


Matter No. 

DR261 of 

2012 

17. Perron 

Investments 

Pty Ltd V 


Matter No. 


Applicant: 

Scope property 

Group Pty Ltd 

Respondent: 


Applicant: 

Antonio 

Di Pietro 

Respondent: 


Applicant: 

Perron 

Investments Pty 

Ltd 

Respondent: 

Greg Rowe and 

Associates for 


Office / Showroom 231 

Balcatta Road, Balcatta. 

7 Honeymyrtle Turn, 

Stirling Removal of 

footings from a front 

fence 

43 Yirrigan Drive, 

Mirrabooka 

Removal of conditions 

1-3 from DA11/1982 

(Dan Murphy’s Liquor 

store) 

The report will be presented to 

the September 11 2012 

Planning and Development 

Committee 

A Directions hearing was held 

on the 13 July 2012. 

A mediation hearing is 

scheduled for the 13 August 

2012. 

A Directions hearing is 

scheduled for 1 August 2012 

A Directions hearing was held 

on the 10 August 2012. 

AP 

H&C 

AP 

231




0812/050 

Moved Councillor Tyzack, seconded Councillor Michael 

That the Audit Committee recommendations be ADOPTED by exception resolution in 

accordance with section 4.7 of the City of Stirling Meeting Procedures Local Law 

2009. 




Against: Nil. 

AUDIT COMMITTEE - 15 AUGUST 2012 

10.2/IA1 STRATEGIC AUDIT PLAN 2012-2015 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 



Internal Auditor 

Executive Services 




Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 
















232



Information 

Purposes 




0812/051 


That Council ENDORSE the Strategic Audit Plan 2012 - 2015. 


refers). 



Against: Nil. 






To seek Council approval of the Strategic Audit Plan 2012 - 2015. 


Attachments 

Nil. 


Nil. 

Background 

The three (3) year rolling Strategic Audit Plan is updated on an annual basis. The first year 

of the plan becomes the Annual Audit Plan and guides internal audit activity for the 

forthcoming 12 months. For the first time the plan is based on the City's corporate risk 

register as this is the first time such a document has existed. 

233



The current Corporate Risk Profile identifies the following seven (7) high risk areas:- 

Misconduct, Corruption and Fraud; 

Employee Attraction, Retention and Establishment; 

Dependency on Partners to Deliver Key Projects; 

Management of Assets; 

Occupational Safety and Health; 

Business Continuity; and 

Leadership of Elected Members. 

Where possible audits listed in the Strategic Audit Plan have been selected as a result of the 

high risks in the Corporate Risk Profile. 

Comment 

The Strategic Audit Plan presents an optimal view of the appropriate level of internal audit 

coverage over the next three (3) years, taking account of available resources. 

As a minimum the Strategic Audit Plan needs to provide adequate assurance of the 

appropriateness and effectiveness of financial management systems and procedures in 

order to meet the requirements of regulation 5(2)(c) the Local Government (Financial 

Management) Regulations 1996. That regulation states the CEO is required to "undertake 

reviews of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and 

procedures of the local government regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial 

years) and report to the local government the results of those reviews”. The Internal Auditor 

liaises with External Auditor regularly during the year to ensure the External Auditor is 

satisfied there is adequate coverage of financial systems and processes and identify any 

issues that may have arisen during the annual external audit and require further 

investigation. The Strategic Audit Plan provides for reviews, on a cyclic basis, of those 

systems and procedures covered by regulation 5(2)(c) the Local Government (Financial 

Management) Regulations 1996. Those audits are identified under the heading “Financial 

Process Audits” in the Strategic Audit Plan. 

Responsibility for Internal Control 

It is generally accepted that the primary responsibility for the development and maintenance 

of effective systems of internal control rests with the City’s management. The Internal 

Auditor’s role is to provide an assurance that internal controls are adequate and effective. 

Consistent with that role is the provision of management consultation and advice that assists 

management to develop appropriate internal control systems. According to the Institute of 

Internal Auditors (IIA): 

"Internal auditing is an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity designed to 

add value and improve an organization’s operations. It helps an organization accomplish its 

objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the 

effectiveness of risk management, control and governance process." 

The Strategic Audit Plan attempts to allocate resources equitably between assurance and 

consulting activities while enabling a timely response to those issues that arise during the 

year. 

234



Resources 

The City of Stirling annual budget provides sufficient funds for approximately 600 internal 

audit contractor hours per annum. For 2012/2013 the Internal Auditor also plans to spend 

600 hours on direct internal audit activity. The rest of the Internal Auditor’s available hours 

are spent providing advice to management and staff on appropriate levels of internal 

controls, as discussed above. Accordingly, the Strategic Audit Plan provides for 1,200 hours 

of direct internal audit activity per annum. 

Priorities 

Recent experience indicates a stronger focus is required on the design, documentation and 

compliance with basic internal controls. The Internal Auditor has developed, and will 

continue to develop, computerised audit reports that monitor the application of basic internal 

controls in relation to accounts payable, procurement, payroll and asset management. 

Feedback is provided to Business Units using an educative approach. In time the results of 

this audit reporting will feed into the performance planning system in order to provide 

feedback to all levels of management on the effectiveness of internal control systems. 

The proposed Strategic Audit Plan for 2012-2015 is set out in the table below. 

The approach to Information System audits is top down with audits commencing at the 

higher level and focusing on a more specific level in future years. The first of these audits, 

Data Security and Privacy was conducted during 2011/2012. 

Internal Auditor direct audit hours will be spent on smaller financial process audits focusing 

on basic internal financial controls. Any savings from contracted audits will be used to fund 

smaller audits that will be brought forward from future years. 

STRATEGIC AUDIT PLAN 2012 – 2015 

Estimated Audit Hours 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 

Business Process Audits (Contracted) 

Information Management 120 

Risk Management 120 

Occupational Safety and Health 120 

Staff Performance Management 120 

Contract Management 120 

Business Unit Audits (Contracted) 

Community Services 120 

Health and Compliance 120 

Engineering Operations 120 

Community Safety 120 

Other Audits 

Recruitment and Organisational 

Establishment Maintenance 60 

Stirling Alliance 60 

Council Governance 60 

Carbon Pricing Cost Management 60 

Building Licence and Development 

Application Approvals 60 

Meals on Wheels 60 

Information System Reviews 

(Contracted) 

235



Financial System Interfaces 120 

Proclaim 120 

Finance One 120 

Financial Process Audits (Internal 

Auditor) 

Accounts Payable 60 

Asset Accounting 60 

Payroll 60 

Computer Assisted Audit Techniques 200 200 200 

Followups 100 100 100 

Ad Hoc Audit Projects 200 200 200 

Contingency 40 40 40 

TOTAL 1200 1200 1200 

Ad hoc projects include:- 

Department of Local Government Annual Compliance Return; 

Annual Report QA; 

Performance Planning Inputs QA; 

Tender Probity Audits that may be requested; and 

Tender Probity checks. 

Initial scoping statements for the audits scheduled to be conducted in 2012/2013 are set out 

below. Please note these are subject to confirmation and refinement as part of the audit 

process, which includes a comprehensive risk assessment. 

Information Management 

Focusing Question: How well does the City manage its information? 

Risks to be assessed may include:- 

Clarity of policies and procedures; 

Understanding of responsibilities by staff; 

Efficiency and effectiveness of record keeping systems 

Opportunities to leverage off information resources; and 

Customer service charter and compliance with record keeping requirements. 

Risk Management 

Focusing Question: How effective is the City's risk management program? 


Knowledge and skill of staff conducting risk assessments; 

Understanding of requirements; 

Breadth and depth of documented risk assessments; 

Development and monitoring of risk treatment plans; 

Independence of risk management from other management processes; and 

Adequacy of resources. 

236



Community Services 

Focusing Question: How well does the Community Services Business Unit manage its 

risks? 


Maintaining an optimum level of grant funding to continue to deliver quality services; 

Ensuring the services delivered are most valued by the community; 

Occupational safety and health of staff and clients; 

Documentation of policies and procedures; 

Adequacy of information systems; and 

Maintaining a physical asset base at an appropriate level and consistent with the 

level of services to be delivered. 

This audit will utilise the risk assessment documented by the Business Unit in its Annual 

Business Plan. 

Recruitment and Organisational Establishment Maintenance 

Focusing Question: How well do recruitment and establishment maintenance 

processes provide an appropriate workforce to support the City in meeting business 

objectives? 


Efficiency and effectiveness of recruitment processes; 

Verification of applicant details; 

Adequacy of policy and procedures; 

Compliance with approval processes; and 

Equity between staff. 

Stirling City Centre Alliance 

Focusing Question: How well are the City's risks managed in relation to the Stirling 

Alliance? 


Currency of partnership agreement; 

Protection of City's rights and obligations; 

Value for money in procurement and other expenditures; 

Consistency of corporate functions with the City's policies and procedures; 

Project management and performance accountability; and 

Auditability of cost sharing arrangements. 

Financial System Interfaces 

Focusing Question: How well are financial transactions created and maintained in 

external systems recorded in the Finance One accounting system? 

237




System implementation projects adequately providing for financial system interfaces; 

Completeness and adequacy of financial system interfaces; 

Internal controls over financial related transactions in external systems; and 

Cooperation between Business Units developing and operating financial transactions 

in external systems. 


All members of the Executive Team were given the opportunity to provide input into the 

development of this plan. 


Nil. 


Sufficient funds are available within the Internal Audit budget (A0111). 


Goal 5: 


SI 5.5.1: 

To be a dynamic, effective, customer-focussed organisation, through the 

provision of a positive work culture that leads, values and supports its 

people, thus positioning the City as an Employer of Choice. 

Improve and promote best practice corporate governance and compliance 

throughout the organisation. 

Review corporate compliance and governance to achieve best practice. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Nil. 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

238



Nil. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Conclusion 

Council is requested to approve the updated Strategic Audit Plan 2012 – 2015. The first year 

of this plan becomes the Annual Audit Plan. The plan is risk based and guides the work of 

the Internal Auditor. 

239



10.2/IA2 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT - BUDGET DEVELOPMENT AND 

MANAGEMENT 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 








Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0812/052 


That the item relating to Internal Audit Report - Budget Development and Management 

be REFERRED to a special meeting of the Audit Committee to allow each Director of 

the City an opportunity to address the issues contained within this report relevant to 

their Directorate. 


refers). 

240





Against: Nil. 


That the item relating to Internal Audit Report - Budget Development and Management be 

REFERRED to a special meeting of the Audit Committee to allow each Director of the City 

an opportunity to address the issues contained within this report relevant to their Directorate. 


That Council RECEIVES the Internal Audit Report as indicated in attachment 1 relating to 

the budget development and management. 


To inform Council on the outcome of the Internal Audit Report on budget development and 

management and the Management Action Plan addressing the issues raised. 


Attachments 

Attachment 1 - Internal Audit Report on budget development and management (Circulated to 

Councillors under separate confidential cover). 


Nil. 

Background 

An audit of budget development and management was included in the Strategic Audit Plan 

for completion in 2011/2012. The audit was conducted by Sutherland Rose - Internal Audit 

Consultants in November 2011 under the direction of the Internal Auditor. 

Comment 

The objective of the audit was to conduct a review of the efficiency and effectiveness of the 

City’s annual budget development and management processes and practices. 

Four (4) high and three (3) medium risk issues were identified and are documented in the 

attached Internal Audit Report. 

In consultation with the Internal Auditor the Finance Services Business Unit prepared a 

Management Action Plan to address the issues raised in the audit. The action plan identifies 

responsible officers and target dates and will be monitored on a quarterly basis and reported 

to Council through the Audit Committee. The Internal Auditor has accepted the initial 

Management Action Plan. 

241




Nil. 


Nil. 


Nil. 


Goal 5: 


SI 5.5.1: 






Review corporate compliance and governance to achieve best practice. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Nil. 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

Nil. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Conclusion 

The audit of budget development and management has been completed in accordance with 

the Strategic Audit Plan. Four (4) high risk and three (3) medium risk issues identified by the 

audit have been addressed in a Management Action Plan prepared by the Business Unit. 

Progress in implementation of the Management Action Plan will be reported to the Audit 

Committee on a quarterly basis. 

242



10.2/IA3 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT AUGUST 2012 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 








Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0812/053 


That Council RECEIVES the Internal Audit Activity Report which includes:- 

the Strategic Audit Plan Update; 

current status of the Management Action Plan on the outcomes of the CCC 

Public Hearings; and 

the current status of the Management Action Plans for past audits and reviews. 

243




refers) 



Against: Nil. 




current status of the Management Action Plan on the outcomes of the CCC Public 

Hearings; and 





current status of the Management Action Plan on the outcomes of the CCC Public 

Hearings; and 



This report updates Council on a range of internal audit issues. 


Attachments 

Internal Audit Activity Report 

Management Action Plan on the Outcomes of the CCC Public Hearings (Circulated to 

Councillors under separate confidential cover) 


Nil. 

Background 

Under the Terms of Reference, the Audit Committee assists Council in overseeing the City’s 

internal audit program. 

244



Comment 

Details in relation to the following items are contained in the attached Internal Audit Report:- 

Management consultation and advice; 

Computer assisted audit techniques (CAATS); 

Strategic audit plan update; 

Project plan; 

Misconduct, corruption and fraud hotline; 

Management Action Plan on the Outcomes of the CCC Public Hearings; and 

Management Action Plan updates. 

Consultation/Communication Implication 

Nil. 


Nil. 


Nil. 


Goal 5: 


provision of a positive work culture that leads, values and supports its people, 

thus positioning the City as an Employer of Choice. 

Objective 5.5: Improve and promote best practice corporate governance and compliance 


SI 5.5.2: 

Develop a framework for the implementation of effective risk management 

strategies. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Nil. 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

245



Nil. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Conclusion 

The Internal Audit Activity Report updates Council on the City’s internal audit program. 

246



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.2/IA3 - INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT AUGUST 2012 

247



248



249



250



251



252



253



254

255 


21 AUGUST 2012

256 


21 AUGUST 2012

257 


21 AUGUST 2012

258 


21 AUGUST 2012

259 


21 AUGUST 2012

260 


21 AUGUST 2012

261 


21 AUGUST 2012

262 


21 AUGUST 2012

263 


21 AUGUST 2012

264 


21 AUGUST 2012



10.2/A1 

RISK MANAGEMENT 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 








Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0812/054 


That Council NOTES the Risk Management Report and the minutes of the Corporate 

Risk Management Group meetings held on 29 May 2012 and 26 June 2012. 


refers). 



Against: Nil. 

265




That Council NOTES the Risk Management Report and the minutes of the Corporate Risk 

Management Group meetings held on 29 May 2012 and 26 June 2012. 


That Council NOTES the Risk Management Report and the minutes of the Corporate Risk 

Management Group meetings held on 29 May 2012 and 26 June 2012. 


To update Council on recent Corporate Risk Management Group meetings and other 

corporate risk management activities. 


Attachments 

Minutes of the Corporate Risk Management Group meetings held on 29 May 2012 and 26 

June 2012 (Circulated to Councillors under separate confidential cover). 


Nil. 

Background 

At the Council meeting held 15 April 2008, Council resolved that the minutes of each 

Corporate Risk Management Group meeting should be forwarded to the Audit Committee. 

Comment 

Minutes of the Corporate Risk Management Group meeting held on 31 January 2012 has 

been forwarded to Councillors under separate confidential cover. The April 2012 meeting 

was deferred until May 2012. 

The City is making good progress in the implementation of Enterprise Risk Management in 

accordance with the risk management framework. 

The Risk Management Coordinator continues to work with Managers and staff across the 

City in developing and improving the understanding and application of risk management 

techniques. 

Risk management has been aligned with the strategic planning process. All Business Units 

completed risk assessments as part of their 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 business plans. The 

Risk Management Coordinator is analysing these assessments and to the Corporate Risk 

Register. The Corporate Risk Register has been utilised for the development of the Strategic 

Audit Plan. 

266



Risk management is aligned with the internal audit process. Risk assessments have been 

updated and completed as part of the audit of Governance and Council Support. 

Training has been provided in the form of workshops for the majority of Business Units as 

well as presentations to the Risk Management Working Group on a range of risk 

management topics. Presentations to the Risk Management Working Group are noted in the 

minutes attached to this report. 

Responses have been developed to address specific risk issues identified. The Coordinator 

is working with other relevant Coordinators to ensure a consistent approach to risk 

management in relation to health and safety and projects etc. 

The Risk Management Coordinator is developing tools to assist with business continuity 

planning and is trialling their applicability with the Human Resources Business Unit. This 

should lead to more formalised business continuity planning in other Business Units. 

The 2012/2013 budget provides additional funds for consultancy support in developing 

business continuity plans and to develop an online risk management learning module. 


Nil. 


Nil. 


Nil. 


Goal 5: 


SI 5.5.2: 






Develop a framework for the implementation of effective risk management 

strategies. 

267





Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Nil. 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

Nil. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Conclusion 

The Risk Management Working Group meeting minutes for May 2012 and June 2012 have 

been provided under separate confidential cover. The Coordinator Risk Management 

continues to facilitate risk management education and the adoption of effective risk 

management processes. 

268



11. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 

4.2(4) OF THE MEETING PROCEDURES LOCAL LAW 2009 

In accordance with Section 4.2(4) of the City of Stirling Meeting Procedures Local Law 2009, 

the Chief Executive Officer may include on the minutes of a Council meeting in an 

appropriate place within the order of business any matter which must be decided, or which 

he considers is appropriate to be decided, by that meeting. 

At 7.51pm the Internal Auditor retired from the meeting during consideration of Item 11.1. 

11.1 INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WORLD 

CONGRESS 2013, 10 - 12 APRIL, AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 



Manager Parks and Reserves 

Parks and Reserves 




Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 

















269




0812/055 

Moved Councillor Stewart, seconded Councillor Willox 

That Council APPROVE the attendance of Kym Burgess, Landscape Architect at the 

International Federation of Landscape Architects World Congress 2013, April 10-12 

2013 in Auckland, New Zealand. 




Against: Nil. 

Recommendation 

That Council APPROVE the attendance of Kym Burgess, Landscape Architect at the 

International Federation of Landscape Architects World Congress 2013, April 10-12 2013 in 

Auckland, New Zealand. 


To seek approval for Kym Burgess- Landscape Architect, to attend the International 

Federation of Landscape Architects World Congress 2013 in Auckland, New Zealand. 


Attachments 

Attachment 1 - IFLA World Congress 2013 Programme 

(Website Address: www.ifla2013.com) 


Nil. 

Background 

Kym Burgess, Landscape Architect, has requested permission to attend the International 

Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA) World Congress 2013 in Auckland, New Zealand. 

The Congress is held from 10-12 April 2013. 

The International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA) holds a World Congress every 

year. The 2013 World Congress is to be held in Auckland, New Zealand. The officer 

proposes to take advantage of the close proximity of the 2013 conference and attend with 

the cost of the Congress and site tours to be covered by the City and remaining costs to be 

covered by the officer. 

270



Comment 

The IFLA World Congress events are an annual gathering of landscape architects from 

around the world. Due to the 2013 World Congress being held in New Zealand, the close 

proximity provides a great opportunity for the Landscape Architect to attend this international 

conference at a similar, if not lower, cost than a national conference. 

Numerous issues and topics will be discussed at the 2013 World Congress, along with site 

tours to examine some of the work that has been done in New Zealand. The programme 

consists of a two (2) day conference and one (1) day site tour. There are also optional precongress 

tours which the officer is proposing to participate in. 

An outline of the World Congress is given on the www.ifla2013.com website as below: 

“IFLA is the organization which represents the landscape architectural profession globally, 

providing leadership and networks supporting the development of the profession and its 

effective participation in the realization of attractive, equitable and sustainable environments. 

An IFLA World Congress is an ideal opportunity to share and learn from diverse cultures, 

with attendees from 63 IFLA member countries. 

IFLA 2013 – Shared Wisdom in an Age of Change, will be a celebration twice over. The 

2013 Congress is the 50th IFLA congress and the 40th anniversary of the establishment of 

NZILA in New Zealand. 

The theme for this 50th IFLA World Congress will focus on knowledge sharing around the 

increasingly challenging issues facing our local and global environments in an age of 

considerable and frequently dramatic change. It will provoke thought as to how we as the 

landscape profession can and should participate in the shaping and management of the 

future. 

IFLA50; shared wisdom in an age of change’ provides a framework within which to consider 

our changing landscape through multiple dimensions of wisdom. Whether exploring ancient 

wisdom, reaching across realms of contemporary knowledge, or imagining a more resilient 

future, shared wisdom strengthens our ability to effect positive change.” 

Further information on the International Federation of Landscape Architects World Congress 

2013 can be found at: www.ifla2013.com 

Benefit of attendance to the City of Stirling of Landscape Architect provided by Kym 

Burgess 

Attending an international conference and being exposed to the new ideas and innovations, 

particularly in regards to the rapidly evolving sustainability aspects, will be of direct benefit to 

the City. It will enhance the officer’s knowledge and will influence landscape planning, 

design and management practice with the potential integration of new sustainable ideas and 

technologies presented at the Congress. 

In addition to the conference, the officer proposes to attend the following three (3) optional 

pre-congress site tours:- 

271



Tiritiri Matangi- Landscape change through planting 

Travel to an island that has been the focus of a massive conservation project including 

removal of mammalian predators and converting dilapidated farmland into native vegetation 

and habitat. 

Waiheke- Landscape change through planning controls 

Visit to Waiheke Island where out of control subdivision threatened the character and 

ecological integrity of the island. Planning controls were revised and based on sound 

catchment management principles to integrate development into the native forest. 

Cultural Tour- Maunga tupuna 

Visit the Otuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve heritage landscape and Project Manukauone 

of New Zealand’s largest construction projects. 

The information presented by the International key note speakers and demonstrated on the 

site tours would not be available at an Australian conference. 


Nil. 


Council approval is required for the attendance of a City officer at an international 

conference. 


$924 to be covered by the Parks and Reserves Business Unit conference budget A0184- 

3062. There are funds available in this account for this Congress. It is requested that the 

City contribute to the cost as per the breakdown below: 

City Contribution 

Registration Fee (AILA member) $755NZD $581 

Wednesday,10 April 2012 Congress Site Tour $80NZD $62 

Pre-Congress Site Tours (April 7-9) $365NZD $281 

TOTAL $924 

The officer will be contributing all other expenses including the cost of flights, 

accommodation and meals. 

The cost of the World Congress 2013 registration is comparable to a national landscape 

architecture conference. 

Conversion rates have been provided and calculated at the exchange rate available as of 15 

August 2012 from New Zealand dollars to Australian dollars. 

272




Goal 5: 


SI 5.4.2: 




Embed into the organisation a performance culture that recognises, 

empowers and develops its staff and Councillors to achieve their goals and 

objectives. 

Embed in staff and Councillors a ‘sustainability-focused’ ethos through the 

development of appropriate policies, principles, education, training and 

guidelines with emphasis on innovation and encouragement. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Nil. 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

Nil. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Conclusion 

The IFLA World Congress 2013 is to be held in Auckland, New Zealand. To take advantage 

of the close proximity of the Congress, the officer proposes to attend the conference. 

With the exclusion of flights, accommodation and meals (to be covered by the officer), the 

IFLA World Congress 2013 is comparable in cost to conferences within Australia and 

represents good value for money. 

273



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 11.1 - INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LANDSCAPE 

ARCHITECTS WORLD CONGRESS 2013, 10-12 APRIL, AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND 

Attachment 1 - IFLA World Congress 2013 Programme 

274



275



276



12. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 

Nil. 

13. NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT MEETING 

13.1 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR RE - INCREASING THE MEN'S 

SHED AND WOMEN'S SHED PROGRAM 

Councillor Re submitted the following notice of motion at the Council meeting held 21 August 

2012 for consideration at the next meeting of Council:- 

“That the City CONSIDERS increasing the Men’s Shed and Women’s Shed program and 

that a report be PREPARED and submitted to the Infrastructure and Community 

Development Committee meeting.” 

14. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 

Nil. 

15. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE 

Nil. 

277




0812/056 

Moved Councillor Lagan, seconded Councillor Italiano 

That Item 16.1 be CONSIDERED behind closed doors in accordance with sections 

5.23(2)(c)of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to 

the public for business relating to the following:- 

(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. 



Re, Sargent, Stewart and Willox. 

Against: Councillor Tyzack. 

At 7.53pm the meeting closed to the public. All members of the press and gallery left the 

meeting. 

At 7.53pm the Manager City Planning and Manager Marketing and Communications retired 

from the meeting prior to consideration of Item 16.1. 

16. MATTERS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 

16.1 GOVERNMENT OFFICE ACCOMMODATION - STIRLING CITY CENTRE 

This item was REFERRED to a workshop at the Council meeting held 7 August 2012 to 

enable Councillors to be provided with further information. 

A workshop was held on the 13 August 2012. 

Additional information has been provided at the end of this report. 

Confidentiality 

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(c) of the Local 

Government Act 1995, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business 

relating to the following:- 

(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. 

278




Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Innaloo/Stirling 


Director Planning and Development 

Planning Administration 

Doubleview/Osborne 

Innaloo/Stirling 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 

















Moved Councillor Italiano, seconded Councillor Re 

1. That Council ENDORSE the preparation of an initial response of interest in 

respect of the State Government's recent announcement of 25,000m 2 of office 

accommodation to be located at Stirling. 

2. That Council APPROVE the use of up to $50,000 from the Future Fund Reserve to 

prepare the initial response of interest for the government office accommodation at 

Stirling. 

279



Amendment 

Moved Councillor Proud 

That the number "$50,000" be DELETED and REPLACED with the number "$100,000" 

between the words "to" and "from" in recommendation 2. 

The amendment LAPSED for want of a seconder. 

Moved Councillor Italiano, seconded Councillor Re 

1. That Council ENDORSE the preparation of an initial response of interest in 

respect of the State Government's recent announcement of 25,000m 2 of office 

accommodation to be located at Stirling. 

2. That Council APPROVE the use of up to $50,000 from the Future Fund Reserve to 

prepare the initial response of interest for the government office accommodation at 

Stirling. 


For: Councillors Italiano, Michael, Proud, Re and Sargent. 

Against: Councillors Boothman, Cooke, Ferrante, Jenkinson, Lagan, Stewart, Tyzack and 

Willox. 

280




0812/057 

Moved Councillor Lagan, seconded Councillor Stewart 

That the meeting be REOPENED to the public. 




Against: Nil. 

At 8.14pm the meeting reopened to the public. As no members of the public returned to the 

meeting the resolutions passed behind closed doors were not read out by the Presiding 

Member. 

17. CLOSURE 

The Presiding Member declared the meeting closed at 8.15pm. 

These minutes were confirmed at a meeting on …………………………………… 

SIGNED this day of 2012 

as a true record of proceedings. 

_________________________ 

PRESIDING MEMBER 

281

minutes - City of Stirling

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?