Metro North-West JDAP - Agenda - Meeting No 23 ... - City of Stirling

Metro North-West Joint Development Assessment Panel
Agenda
Meeting Date and Time: Thursday 14 February 2013, 10am
Meeting Number: 23
Meeting Venue:
City of Stirling
24 Cedric Street
Stirling
Attendance
DAP Members
Ms Karen Hyde (Presiding Member)
Mr Paul Drechsler (Deputy Presiding Member)
Mr Rory O’Brien (A/Specialist Member)
Cr Rod Willox (Local Government Member, City of Stirling)
Officers in attendance
Mr Craig Shepherd (Department of Planning)
Ms Patricia Wojcik (City of Stirling)
Applicant, Submitters and Members of the Public
Mr Simon Vanyai (Fratelle Group)
Ms Kylee Schoonens (Fratelle Group)
Local Government Minute Secretary
Ms Emma O’Callaghan (City of Stirling)
1. Declaration of Opening
The Presiding Member declares the meeting open and acknowledges the past
and present traditional owners and custodians of the land on which the meeting
is being held.
2. Apologies
Mr Fred Zuideveld (Specialist Member)
Cr Giovanni Italiano (Local Government Member, City of Stirling)
3. Members on Leave of Absence
Nil
Version: 1 Page 1

4. Noting of Minutes
Note the minutes of the Metro North-West JDAP meeting No.22 held on the
4 February 2013 were not available at the time of agenda preparation.
5. Disclosure of Interests
Nil
6. Declarations of Due Consideration
Any member who is not familiar with the substance of any report or other
information provided for consideration at the DAP meeting must declare that
fact before the meeting considers the matter.
7. Deputations and Presentations
Nil
8. Form 1 - Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Application
8.1 Application Details: Two-storey development comprising Office,
Restaurant, Light Industry, Warehouse and
associated car parking.
Property Location: Lot 64, House Number 216, Balcatta Road,
Balcatta
Applicant:
Fratelle Group
Owner:
Schoonens Nominees Pty Ltd
Responsible authority: City of Stirling
Report date: 30 January 2013
DoP File No:
DP/13/00052
9. Form 2 – Responsible Authority Reports - Amending or cancelling DAP
development approval
Nil
10. Appeals to the State Administrative Tribunal
Nil
11. Meeting Closure
Version: 1 Page 2

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report
(Regulation 12)
Application Details:
Two-storey development comprising Office,
Restaurant, Light Industry, Warehouse and
associated car parking.
Property Location:
Lot 64, House Number 216, Balcatta Road,
Balcatta
DAP Name:
Metro North-West JDAP
Applicant:
Fratelle Group
Owner:
Schoonens Nominees Pty Ltd
LG Reference:
DA12/3164
Responsible Authority:
City of Stirling
Authorising Officer:
Ross Povey
Director Planning and Development
Application No and File No: DA12/3164
Report Date: 30 January 2013
Application Receipt Date: 20 December 2012
Application Process Days:
49 days
Attachment(s): Attachment 1
Development Application Plans
a. Drawing SD.1.01 Table of contents date
stamped 30 January 2013
b. Drawing SD.1.02 Architects intent
statement date stamped 30 January
2013
c. Drawing SD.2.01 Location Plan date
stamped 30 January 2013
d. Drawing SD.2.02 Existing development
and surrounds date stamped 30
January 2013
e. Drawing SD.2.03 Existing development
and surrounds date stamped 30
January 2013
f. Drawing SD.2.04 Site opportunities and
constraints date stamped 30 January
2013
g. Drawing SD.2.05 Area calculations date
stamped 30 January 2013
h. Drawing SD.2.06 Perspectives date
stamped 30 January 2013
i. Drawing SD.3.01 Existing site survey
date stamped 30 January 2013
j. Drawing SD.3.02 Existing site
demolition plan date stamped 30
January 2013
k. Drawing SD.3.03 Proposed site plan
date stamped 30 January 2013
l. Drawing SD.3.04 Lower ground floor
plan date stamped 30 January 2013
m. Drawing SD.3.05 Upper ground floor
plan date stamped 30 January 2013
Page 1

n. Drawing SD.3.06 First floor plan date
stamped 30 January 2013
o. Drawing SD.3.07 Office elevations date
stamped 30 January 2013
p. Drawing SD.3.08 Office elevations date
stamped 30 January 2013
q. Drawing SD.3.09 Warehouse elevations
date stamped 30 January 2013
r. Drawing SD.3.10 Warehouse elevations
date stamped 30 January 2013
s. Drawing SD.3.11 Landscaping Plan
date stamped 30 January 2013
t. Drawing SD.3.12 Stormwater Plan date
stamped 30 January 2013
Attachment 2
Aerial Location Plan
Attachment 3
Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Zoning
Map
Attachment 4
City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No. 3
(LPS3) Zoning Map
Attachment 5
City of Stirling Mixed Business Design
Guidelines (Council Policy 4.5)
Attachment 6
City of Stirling Landscaping Policy (Council
Policy 6.6)
Attachment 7
Applicant Submission
Attachment 8
Shawmac Transport Assessment
Attachment 9
City of Stirling Street Tree Policy
Recommendation:
That the Metro North-West JDAP resolves to:
1. Refuse DAP Application reference DA12/3164 and accompanying plans
(ATTACHMENT 1) for an Office, Warehouse, Industry – Light and Restaurant
Development in accordance with Clause 10.3.1 of the City of Stirling’s Local
Planning Scheme No. 3, for the following reasons:
Page 2

a. The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the Mixed
Business zone as defined by the City of Stirling’s Local Planning Scheme
No.3;
b. The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the Mixed
Business Design Guidelines, as prescribed by the City of Stirling Local
Planning Policy 4.4 Mixed Business Design Guidelines);
Background:
Insert Property Address:
Lot 64, House Number 216 Balcatta Road,
Balcatta
Insert Zoning MRS: Industrial
TPS:
Mixed Business
Insert Use Class:
Office, Restaurant, Warehouse, Industry - Light
Insert Strategy Policy:
Not applicable
Insert Development Scheme: Not applicable
Insert Lot Size: 7419m 2
Insert Existing Land Use:
Warehouse, Motor Vehicle Repair, Lunch Bar
Value of Development:
$7.2 million
The subject lot is located in the local municipality of Stirling, approximately 10 km
north of the Perth CBD. Balcatta Road and Natalie Way connect the subject land to
the wider local and regional road network via Wanneroo Road, Erindale Road and
Reid Highway. This provides access to the Mitchell Freeway which services the wider
metropolitan region. (ATTACHMENT 2)
The subject lots have previously been approved (subject to conditions) by the City of
Stirling for the following uses:
• Lunch Bar - M20/754 refers
• Nursery - M20/754 refers (no longer in operation)
• Factory - M20/754 refers
• Warehouse - M20/754 refers
• Change of use to automotive repairs - DA09/2348 refers
The subject lots are zoned ‘Industrial’ under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS)
(ATTACHMENT 3) and ‘Mixed Business’ under the City of Stirling’s Local Planning
Scheme No. 3 (LPS3) (ATTACHMENT 4).
LPS3 provides the following objectives for the Mixed Business zone:
a) To facilitate a development mix of showrooms and service industry of a higher
aesthetic quality located on major traffic routes.
b) To provide a more intense commercial business development form within
established industrial areas of the City.
c) To ensure that traffic management, road safety, site access, onsite parking,
building design and streetscape appearance are not compromised.
Page 3

The City of Stirling’s Mixed Business Design Guidelines (Local Planning Policy 4.4),
herein referred to as the ‘Mixed Business Design Guidelines’, (ATTACHMENT 5)
provide specific development provisions to guide development within the Mixed
Business zone, referred to further in this report.
The Mixed Business Design Guidelines contain the following objectives:
a) To facilitate a development mix of showrooms and service industry of a higher
aesthetic quality located on major traffic routes.
b) To provide a more intense commercial business development form within
established industrial areas of the City.
c) To ensure that the Mixed Business areas are accessible by all modes of
transport.
d) To create attractive and well maintained landscaped areas between the
setback line and the street; and
e) To ensure that buildings facing the street maintain an attractive façade that
enhances the amenity of the streetscape.
Summary of development application (DA12/3164)
The application proposes development of the subject lots for the purpose of a mixed
commercial development, with Office and Industry –Light being the predominant
uses. The development is summarised in the table below:
Development Application DA12/0916
Height
Parking
2 storeys plus and basement car park
148 car bays both undercover and unroofed
200 bicycle parking bays provided in the basement car park
Land uses
Restaurant – 85m 2 gross floor area (GFA) on ground floor
Legislation & policy:
Alfresco area to Restaurant – 38m 2 GFA
Office – 2583m 2 GFA on ground floor and upper floor
Warehouse – 900m 2 GFA on ground floor
Industry – Light - 2111m 2 GFA on ground floor
Legislation
• Planning and Development Act 2005
• Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS)
• Local Planning Scheme No. 3 (LPS3)
State Government Policies
Nil
Local Policies
Page 4

The following Local Planning Polices are applicable to the development:
• Council Policy 4.4 – Mixed Business Design Guidelines
• Council Policy 6.2 – Bicycle Parking
• Council Policy 6.3 – Bin Storage
• Council policy 6.6 - Landscaping
• Council Policy 6.7 – Parking
Consultation:
Public Consultation
Public consultation was not undertaken as part of the assessment.
Consultation with other Agencies or Consultants
Consultation with other agencies was not undertaken as part of the assessment.
Planning assessment:
The development has been assessed against the City of Stirling’s Local Planning
Scheme No. 3 (LPS3) and relevant local planning policies. It should be noted that
LPS3 provides guidance in respect to zoning and objectives of zones, however, more
specific development standards are provided in relevant local planning policies.
The proposed development requires a discretionary decision to be made in respect
to a number of matters, including:
• Proposed uses
• Building setback
• Landscaping
The table below outlines the proposal’s compliance with the development standards
of the Guidelines.
Element
Satisfies
Scheme/
Policy
OR
Variation
Required
Comment
1 BUILT FORM AND DESIGN
Street setbacks
1.5m landscaping strip on
all street frontages; and
20.0m building setback on
primary street frontages*
* Secondary Street
setbacks may be reduced
to 6.0m on lots less than
2000m² in area.
The subject application proposes a
6.0m setback to the proposed
basement car parking. This is
discussed further in the comment
section below.
Street Façade
The Street façade shall be
articulated to break-up
The proposed development
provided openings, the use of
Page 5

Element
Satisfies
Scheme/
Policy
OR
Variation
Required
Comment
straight plain facades
through the use of at
least three of the following:
Openings;
Awnings over windows;
Use of different colours
and textures; or
Indentations and
extrusions with details to
break the building into
individual elements. The
facades of buildings facing
the street shall be
constructed of brick, stone,
glass or painted
or rendered concrete;
Alternative materials may
be approved for the portion
of the facade above 3.6m
from the
ground level; and
The use of taller parapets
and/or awnings is
encouraged above the
entrance of buildings to
clearly identify the entry
point;
Corner Sites
Buildings located on corner
sites are encouraged to
give additional prominence
to the street corner
by using landmark features
such as:
Architectural roof features
that protrude above the
normal roof line;
Increased parapet heights
with additional detail,
colour and textures; and
Increase the number of
storeys at the street
corner.
Roof Features
Developments above 6
storeys in height shall
include distinguishable
roofing to a height of 3
metres and above from the
highest point of the wall to
which it relates and which
is in proportion to the scale
of the building.
Multi-storey car parks
different colours and textures and
indentations and extrusions to the
building. Materials proposed are
acceptable.
This provision encourages
buildings located on street corners
to provide additional prominence to
the street corner. Whilst the
development has not provided an
additional storey at the street
corner, they have provided a
higher parapet at the corner of the
building. The design provides an
architectural feature that protrudes
above the normal roof line and
includes different colours and
textures. The proposed
development is considered to meet
the objectives of this provision.
Development is not above 6
storeys – N/A.
Page 6

Element
Satisfies
Scheme/
Policy
OR
Variation
Required
Comment
Stand alone multi-storey
car parks shall not be
visible from the street and
shall be located behind
buildings. Multistorey car
parks included within the
main building shall be
screened/treated so as to
provide a seamless
appearance between the
car park and other floors.
Designers are to provide
ground level awnings and
landscaping in order to
soften the visual impact of
these structures in
line with the provisions
applying to building
facades, above.
2 STREETSCAPE RELATIONSHIP
Multi- storey car park is not
proposed – N/A.
Activity and uses
Showroom and other
active commercial uses
shall be located on the
ground floor level; and
Office and other non-active
uses shall be located on
upper levels.
The proposed development
incorporates a café and office on
the ground floor and an office on
the upper floor. Land uses are
discussed further in the comment
section below.
Use of setback area
Setbacks shall not be used
for the parking of vehicles
that are being wrecked or
repaired, the
storage of materials,
products, by-products or
wastes or the storage of
fuel, except in
underground tanks; and
The primary and
secondary setback areas
(excluding the landscaping
strip) shall only be used
for the parking of vehicles,
loading/unloading, trade
display, landscaping and
access, and not
for the storage of
materials.
Fencing & Gates
Fencing in the Street
Setback Area
Shall not be permitted.
The setbacks areas are only
proposed to be used for car
parking and landscaping.
Complies.
No fencing is proposed within the
street setback area. The service
areas are appropriately screened
Page 7

Element
Satisfies
Scheme/
Policy
OR
Variation
Required
Comment
Fencing Behind the
Setback Line
Solid fencing up to a height
of 2.0 metres;
Fencing up to a maximum
height of 2.5m (measured
from natural ground level),
provided that
any fencing above 2.0m is
of an open-style. Barbed,
razor or electric wire can
be considered
behind the building setback
line, but must be mounted
on the inside of the fence,
so as not to
be significantly visible from
the street. Electric fencing
must display appropriate
warning and
otherwise comply with all
relevant legislation and
standards.
Service yards visible from
a street must be
adequately screened.
Non Permitted Fencing
Materials
The use of fibre-cement
and timberlap is not
supported, in view of the
inherent proneness to
damage to these materials
in an industrial
environment.
Fencing on Sites Abutting
Non - Industrial Lots
Fencing shall comply with
the standard fencing
requirement of the use
abutting the site.
Landscaping
In the Balcatta Precinct
and the Mixed Business
zone, a minimum of onesixth
of the gross site area
shall be landscaped.
Landscaping should be
provided primarily as
buffers to adjacent
properties, and along the
street boundary;
A minimum of 1 tree per 6
bays (Minimum 45 litre for
exotics and 11 litre for
from the street. The applicant is
proposing a portion of fencing in
excess of 2.0m behind the setback
line. This is discussed further in
the comment section of this report.
The proposed landscaping plan
provides the required 6.0m and
1.5m landscaping strips along the
street frontages. The landscaping
plan does not provide one tree for
every 6 bays and only provides 8%
landscaping in lieu of the 1/6 of the
site required (~16.6% of the site).
This is discussed in the comment
section below.
Page 8

Element
Satisfies
Scheme/
Policy
OR
Variation
Required
Comment
natives) is required in open
parking areas;
In the Balcatta Precinct
and the Mixed Business
zone, a minimum
landscaping strip of 6m
wide along a primary road
and 1.5m wide along a
secondary road shall be
provided, primarily as
planting bed.
Levels
On sloping sites new
developments shall be
stepped so as to avoid
large differences between
the footpath level and the
finished level of the
building; and
Filling up to 1000mm shall
be permitted.
No fill over 1.0m is proposed.
Weather Protection
An awning shall be
provided along the
frontage of all buildings
facing the primary street
covering
the 1.5m wide footpath in
order to afford weather
protection for pedestrians.
No footpaths are adjoining the lot –
N/A.
3 ACCESS AND CAR PARKING
Vehicle Access
All vehicle movements
shall be able to enter and
exit the site in a forward
gear;
Complies.
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian access, in the
form of a footpath, shall be
provided from the parking
area to the
entry point of the proposed
development.
Pedestrian access has been
provided from the parking area to
the entry point of the development.
Crossovers
A maximum of two
crossovers shall be
permitted on any one site
(i.e. one for entry and one
for
exiting).
Two proposed, complies.
Page 9

Element
Satisfies
Scheme/
Policy
OR
Variation
Required
Comment
Development to avoid
street trees
The application proposes the
removal of two street trees. This is
discussed further in the comment
section of the report.
Design of parking bays
Parking bays shall be
designed in accordance
with the relevant Australian
Standard.
Bin storage areas
Shall be in accordance
with the City’s Bin Storage
Area Policy.
Complies.
Compliant bin storage areas have
been provided.
Land Use
The subject lot is zoned ‘Industrial’ under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS)
and ‘Mixed Business’ under the City of Stirling’s Local Planning Scheme No. 3
(LPS3). The applicant has provided the following information with respect to the
proposed use:
“The proposed development aims to accommodate an established national and
international engineering services company and its expanding operations. The
company seeks to relocate their operations from an existing facility in Osborne Park
to Balcatta where the premises will serve as their head office for national and global
operations, offering services to the mineral and mining exploration industry. The
company has a presence in all significant mining and exploration regions, and
provides innovative drilling fluids and advanced downhole survey instrumentation to
the mining, waterwell, oil and gas, horizontal directional drilling (HDD) and civil
engineering industries worldwide.”
The Mixed Business Design Guidelines state:
• Showroom and other active commercial uses shall be located on the ground
floor level; and
• Office and other non-active uses shall be located on upper levels.
The elevation facing Balcatta road proposed proposes a café and office on the
ground floor. The elevation facing Natalie Way proposes industry - light, office and
café on the ground floor. The percentage of the frontage each usage occupies is
detailed in the table below:
Frontage Use Percentage Total compliant Total non
compliant
Balcatta Road Café 16.7% 16.7% 83.3%
Office 83.3%
Natalie Way Café 20% 20% 80%
Office 28.2%
Industry – Light 52.8%
Page 10

As outlined above, the majority of the two frontages are occupied by ‘non-active
uses’. Any variation to the guidelines needs to be considered against the objectives
of the guidelines, which requires development:
- To provide a more intense commercial business development form within
established industrial areas of the City.
- To ensure that the Mixed Business areas are accessible by all modes of
transport.
- To create attractive and well maintained landscaped areas between the
setback line and the street; and
- To ensure that buildings facing the street maintain an attractive façade that
enhances the amenity of the streetscape.
The applicant has stated there are a number of office developments along Balcatta
Road and that this development would be consistent with the existing land use
pattern along Balcatta Road. Whilst this is noted, the majority of these developments
were approved prior to the Mixed Business zoning coming into place. Under District
Planning Scheme No.2, which was replaced by Local Planning Scheme No.3 which
was gazetted on the 6 August 2010. As with any zoning and policy transition, it can
be expected that there may be a conflict between existing uses and new
development.
The applicant cites a recent development approval at 231 Balcatta Road which was
permitted to have office on the ground floor. However it is contended that the
circumstances surrounding that application were different in that the application
proposed the refurbishment of the existing building, as opposed to a new building, as
is the case in this instance. The existing showroom tenancies that had been
approved on the ground floor are no longer feasible as showroom tenancies given
their small size and low ceiling heights. The subject application is a new development
and it the development ought to comply with the provisions of the Mixed Business
Design Guidelines and the intentions of the current zoning.
The applicant further contends that the provision of a café at the corner of the
development provides the active use that the Mixed Business Design Guidelines
seek. Whilst this is acknowledged, this accounts for only a small part of the total
frontage. The applicant believes that the topography of the site limits any potential
interaction with the street, whereby the ground floor of the building is already located
above the street level and therefore the development should not need to strictly
adhere to the requirements of the guidelines. The City does not consider that the
level difference means this requirement should not be achieved as interaction would
still be possible. The applicant argues that the overall design of the building should
be considered on the merits of its overall design and function and that the glazing
along the street frontages will provide an active interface between the office use and
the street.
LPS3 provides the following objectives for the ‘Mixed Business’ zone:
a) To facilitate a development mix of showrooms and service industry of a higher
aesthetic quality located on major traffic routes.
b) To provide a more intense commercial business development form within
established industrial areas of the City.
c) To ensure that traffic management, road safety, site access, onsite parking,
building design and streetscape appearance are not compromised.
Page 11

It is considered that the application meets objective b, as the proposal will provide for
a more intense commercial business development form, within an established
industrial area. Traffic management is discussed further in the parking section of this
report and is considered to be acceptable. In addition the high quality of the design of
the building will ensure that streetscape appearance is not compromised. The
proposal however does not meet objective a which seeks a development mix of
showrooms and service industry, given that these uses are not proposed as part of
this development.
The proposed development has been considered on its individual merit and against
the objectives of the guidelines. The proposal is considered to meet 4 out of the 5
objectives of the zone, as per the table below:
Objective
To facilitate a development
mix of showrooms and
service industry of a higher
aesthetic quality
located on major traffic
routes.
To provide a more intense
commercial business
development form within
established industrial
areas of the City.
To ensure that the Mixed
Business areas are
accessible by all modes of
transport.
To create attractive and well
maintained landscaped areas
between the setback line and
the
street
To ensure that buildings
facing the street maintain an
attractive façade that
enhances the
amenity of the streetscape
No showrooms or service
industry proposed as part
of the development. Given
the proposal will service
one tenant and also
include a café, it cannot be
argued that this objective
has been met.
The proposal will provide a
more intense commercial
business form in an
established industrial area.
The applicant has
provided compliant car
parking bays, provided
more bicycle bays then
required and provided end
of trip facilities.
The proposed design is
considered to be of a high
aesthetic quality and
proposes high quality
landscaping.
The proposed design is
considered to be of a high
aesthetic quality and
proposes high quality
landscaping which will
enhance the amenity of
the street.
Complies
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
It is considered that a variation to the development requirements of the Mixed
Business Design Guidelines in respect to the ground floor office and industry - light
component of the development should not be supported in this instance as it does
not meet the objectives of the policy, nor the objectives for the zone.
Parking
The City of Stirling’s Parking and Access Policy (Local Planning Policy 6.7), herein
referred to as the Parking Policy, provides the relevant development standards for
Page 12

the number of car parking bays required for a particular use. In relation to the uses
proposed as part of this development, the following ratios are applicable:
• Industry – Light - 1 bay per 50m 2 of gross floor area (GFA)
• Warehouse - 1 bay per 50m 2 of gross floor area (GFA)
• Restaurant - 1 bay per 7m 2 of gross floor area (GFA)
• Alfresco Dining - 1 bay per 14m 2 of gross floor area (GFA)
• Office - 1 bay per 30m 2 of gross floor area (GFA)
Furthermore, in accordance with the Parking and Access Policy, development on the
site is permitted a 10% parking concession as the site has provided more bicycle
parking bays than required and end of trip facilities.
Subsequently, parking for the proposed development is summarised in the table
below:
USE POLICY PROVISION VARIABLE (m 2 ) BAYS REQUIRED
Restaurant (Café) 1 bay per 7m 2 GFA 85.44 12.21
Alfresco dining 1 bay per 14m 2 GFA 38 2.71
Office 1 bay per 30m 2 GFA 2598.51 86.62
Industry – Light 1 bay per 50m 2 GFA 2125.52 42.52
Warehouse 1 bay per 50m 2 GFA 898.73 17.97
TOTAL 162.02 (162)
Concessions 10%
Revised total 145.82 (146)
Provided 147
Surplus/Deficit +1
The table demonstrates that the proposal has an onsite car parking surplus of 1 bay.
For developments with more than 50 parking spaces, The Parking and Access Policy
requires a full Transport Assessment (technical report) to be submitted. A full
Transport Assessment has been prepared by Shawmac (ATTACHMENT 8) and
submitted as part of the development application. The report was referred to the City
of Stirling’s Engineering Design Business Unit who provided the following comments:
• The development is expected to generate in the order of 491 daily trips and 64
peak hour trips. The City agrees with the trips rates utilised to calculate the
expected number of trips to be generated. The additional trips generated by the
development can be safely accommodated within the existing configuration and
geometry of Balcatta Road and Natalie Way.
• The additional trips generated by the development will not adversely impact on
queues and delays at the adjacent signalised intersection of Balcatta Road and
Natalie Way.
• The development proposes to provide 148 parking bays, including 4 disabled
bays. If a 10% parking concession is granted on the grounds of end-of-trip
facilities, the proposed number of bays exceeds the required provision in the
City’s Parking Policy.
In general, the report demonstrates that the proposed development is not expected
to have an adverse impact on the safety, efficiency and operation of the adjacent
local road network, and traffic issues should not form an impediment to the approval
of this development.”
Page 13

Landscaping
The City’s Local Planning Policy No. 6.6 - Landscaping (ATTACHMENT 6) requires
that:
- “In the Balcatta Precinct and the Mixed Business zone, a minimum of onesixth
of the gross site area shall be landscaped. Landscaping should be
provided primarily as buffers to adjacent properties, and along the street
boundary;
- A minimum of 1 tree per 6 bays (Minimum 45 litre for exotics and 11 litre for
natives) is required in open parking areas;
- In the Balcatta Precinct and the Mixed Business zone, a minimum
landscaping strip of 6m wide along a primary road and 1.5m wide along a
secondary road shall be provided, primarily as planting bed.”
In relation to the requirement for one tree every 6 bays for open parking areas, the
applicant has advised that they will be provided 26 trees over 3.0m in height in the
landscaped areas. 55 of the bays will be under cover, leaving 92 bays open to the
sun. If we were to consider that 92 unroofed bays would equate to approximately 15
trees (at a ratio of one tree every six (6) bays), the actual number of trees provided
on site which is 26, is more than the required amount. The variation is considered to
be acceptable given that more trees are being provided on site as a whole when
compared to the compliant requirements. Although the trees will not shade and
provide visual relief between all the bays, a sufficient number of the bays will benefit
from the location of the trees. This variation is considered to be acceptable.
In relation to the proposed percentage of landscaping, the proposed landscaping is
approximately half of what is required by the City’s Landscaping Policy. Any
variations to this policy need to be considered against the objective of the policy
which state:
- To promote improved landscaping provision and design;
- To improve the visual appeal of development, screen service areas and
provide a buffer to boundaries;
- To provide shade and ‘green relief’ in built up areas; and
- To promote more environmentally sustainable landscaping.
In considering the landscaping plan provided, the primary landscaped area is
adjacent to the property boundary, facing Balcatta Road. Given that a large amount
of trees are proposed, it is considered that as viewed from Balcatta Road, the
proposed landscaping would provide shade and green relief in a built up area. The
use of larger trees within the street setbacks will also improve the visual appeal of the
development and provide a buffer between the street and the development. The
landscaped areas included grass, shrubs and trees which will provide for varied and
attractive landscaped areas. This variation is considered to be acceptable.
Building setback
The Mixed Business Design Guidelines state that a minimum 20.0m setback is
required to the building on all primary setback frontages and that the setback area is
only to be used for parking and landscaping areas. In this instance the buildings are
maintained at the required setback, however the basement car park is setback 6.0m
from the street, with an open car parking area over the top. The basement parking
area will only be partially visible from the street. As viewed from the street, the 20.0m
Page 14

setback area will only be used for landscaping and car parking and it is considered
that the intention of the policy provision is achieved.
Street Trees
The application proposed the removal of an existing street tree, as it conflicts with the
proposed crossover location. The City’s Street Tree Policy (ATTACHMENT 9)
requires that:
The City will not remove street trees except where retention is considered
undesirable or unreasonable, such as where: exceptional circumstances exist
relating to public risk and safety; the tree species is not an approved variety and is
not acceptable to the City; or the tree precludes redevelopment of an adjoining site,
with no other reasonable alternative to removal.
The application was referred to the City’s Parks and Reserves Business Unit for
comment who have advised the following:
• The tree in question is a mature Rose Gum or Eucalyptus Grandis.
• There are two (2) Rose Gums located within the road reserve adjacent to Lot
64
• Street trees are to be retained in all circumstances. However where trees are
poor of health, structure or measured as high risk due to position and nature
they might then be considered for removal and replacement.
• The proposed landscape plan has nominated tree species, shrubs and
groundcover to be planted within the property but does not show the
remaining Rose Gum within the verge.
• Using the pictures provided it shows the Rose gum situated on the left as you
face the property to have an included union approximately 3m from the
ground. It also shows a secondary branch having died and is poorly attached.
There are several occluding stubs along the apical stems indicating where
other branches have failed or have been removed over its lifetime. The
second tree to the right of the target tree is approximately 22m in height and
width also with recent and aged faults apparent along its apical stems.
Although structurally well balanced a majority of the canopy forms over the
development site.
• These Rose gums were planted in an era where the local’s habits were to
plant anything other than native flora (1970’s) hence an overwhelming
presence of eastern state and exotic trees in WA and Perth metropolitan
areas.
• The tree in question is of poor structure and health. Removal can be justified
for this reason, however due respect might also be made to the larger tree as
to how its form and nature might impact upon the proposed site and design.
Or if retained a condition to impose strict protection conditions upon the
application be made.
• The City requires all approved tree removals to be undertaken by a City tree
contractor. Payment for this process is to be made at the City’s Administration
centre before any work is undertaken.
• An estimate of the cost for the tree work will be supplied by the Parks and
Reserves Business unit to the respective Planning Officer.
• Replacement planting is a natural consequence of tree removal in an effort to
offset the trees loss.
• A condition to make allowances for tree/s must be included and the cost to
plant is the applicant’s responsibility.
Page 15

The tree in question is of poor health and the removal of the tree can be justified on
this basis, in accordance with the provisions of the City’s Street Tree Policy. In
addition the second street tree which is not in the way of the existing crossover, is
also recommended to be removed. This is because the City’s Parks and Reserves
Business unit have advised that the canopy and roots extends into the development
site. Upon development of the site, the tree would not survive the damage caused to
it by the development of the site and a result would begin to decline and would
eventually drop its limbs (as this species is known to drop limbs when in stress).
Given the potential safety hazard posed by the retention of this tree and development
of the site, this tree would also be required to be removed as part of this proposed
development.
The removal of the two trees is conditional upon the applicant/owner bearing all costs
associated with the removal and replacement of these trees. The City would
undertake the work required at the owner/applicants cost. The City would
recommend the replacement of the two existing street trees with five new trees. The
reason for this is that the removal of two existing mature trees which are both in
excess of 20m high, cannot be offset by the planting of only two new trees. The
replacement of five new trees would contribute to offsetting the loss of these existing
mature trees.
Fencing
The applicant is proposing a 2.1m - 3.0m high wall adjacent to the service area and
bin store area. Given this wall will serve the purpose of screening the service and bin
store areas, rather than simply acting as a dividing fence, the proposal is considered
to be acceptable. Furthermore, the applicant would be permitted the extend the
building as a two storey parapet wall if they chose to, which would add more bulk
than the current proposal. The proposed wall is considered to be an extension of the
building, rather than a typical dividing fence and it is considered that the intent of this
policy provision is achieved.
Conclusion:
It is contended that the proposal does not comply with the following policy objective:
To facilitate a development mix of showrooms and service industry of a higher
aesthetic quality located on major traffic routes.
Furthermore, the objectives for the zone state:
a) To facilitate a development mix of showrooms and service industry of a higher
aesthetic quality located on major traffic routes.
A two storey development is proposed, plus a basement car parking, consisting of
Restaurant (café), Industrial – light, warehouse and office uses. The applicant
believes they comply with the objectives of the Mixed Business Design Guidelines.
The applicant has stated there are a number of office development along Balcatta
Road. The majority of these developments were approved prior to the Mixed
Business zoning coming into place. The applicant specifically sites a recent
development approval at 231 Balcatta Road which was permitted to have office on
the ground floor. However it is contended that the circumstance surrounding that
application were different in that the application proposed the refurbishment of the
Page 16

existing building. The existing showroom tenancies that had been approved on the
ground floor are no longer feasible as showroom tenancies given their small size and
low ceiling heights. The subject application is a new development and it is
reasonable for the development to comply with the provisions of the Mixed Business
Design Guidelines.
The City does not support the proposed land use as it does not meet the provisions
of the guidelines as it does not provide an active frontage. The proposed
development has been considered on its individual merit. A number of discretionary
decisions are required to be made and, in some instances, these discretionary
decisions have a favourable recommendation.
Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that a variation to the development
requirements of the Mixed Business Design Guidelines in respect to the ground floor
office and industry - light component of the development not be supported in this
instance as it does not meet the objectives of the policy, nor the objectives for the
zone.
In view of the above, the application is recommended for refusal for the reasons
outlined.
Page 17

ATTACHMENT 1 - Development Application Plans
Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

ATTACHMENT 2 - Aerial Location Plan
Page 39

ATTACHMENT 3 - Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Zoning Map
Page 40

ATTACHMENT 4 - City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No. 3 (LPS3) Zoning Map
Page 41

ATTACHMENT 5 -
City of Stirling Mixed Business Design Guidelines
(Council Policy 4.5)
Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

ATTACHMENT 6 - City of Stirling Landscaping Policy (Council Policy 6.6)
Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

ATTACHMENT 7 - Applicant Submission
Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64

Page 65

Page 66

Page 67

Page 68

Page 69

Page 70

Page 71

Page 72

Page 73

Page 74

Page 75

Page 76

Page 77

Page 78

Page 79

Page 80

Page 81

Page 82

Page 83

Page 84

Page 85

Page 86

ATTACHMENT 8 - Shawmac Transport Assessment
Page 87

Page 88

Page 89

Page 90

Page 91

Page 92

Page 93

Page 94

Page 95

Page 96

Page 97

Page 98

Page 99

Page 100

Page 101

Page 102

Page 103

Page 104

Page 105

Page 106

Page 107

Page 108

Page 109

Page 110

Page 111

Page 112

Page 113

Page 114

ATTACHMENT 9 – City of Stirling Street Tree Policy
Page 115

Page 116

Page 117

Page 118

Page 119

Page 120