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

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