minutes - City of Stirling

MINUTES 

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 

18 SEPTEMBER 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 7 

2. ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE 7 

ATTENDANCE 7 

APOLOGIES 8 

APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE 8 

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS 8 

4. PETITIONS 8 

4.1 PETITION - REQUEST TO INSTALL A SOLAR LIGHT OR TIMED 

ELECTRIC LIGHT INSIDE THE GAZEBO ABOVE THE TABLE/BENCH 

SEATS AT DEANMORE SQUARE, CORNER BAZAAR TERRACE 

AND HARVEST STREET IN SCARBOROUGH 

8 

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 9 

5.1 RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE 

PUBLIC TAKEN ON NOTICE 

9 

5.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 9 

5.2.1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - M DILORITO 9 

5.2.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - J FOSTER 10 

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 11 

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 12 

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER 12 

9. UNRESOLVED BUSINESS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 12 

10. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES 13 

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 11 SEPTEMBER 2012 13 

HEALTH AND COMPLIANCE 13 

10.1/HC1 CITY OF STIRLING POLICY REVIEW - HEALTH AND COMPLIANCE 13 

APPROVALS 28 

10.1/AP1 LOT 500, HOUSE NUMBER 43, YIRRIGAN DRIVE, MIRRABOOKA - 

ADDITIONS TO MIRRABOOKA SHOPPING CENTRE - SHOP (DAN 

MURPHY'S LIQUOR STORE - AMENDMENT TO DA11/1982) - STATE 

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATION FOR REVIEW DR265 

OF 2012 

28


10.1/AP2 

LOT 25, HOUSE NUMBER 760, BEAUFORT STREET, MOUNT 

LAWLEY- PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN 

HERITAGE PROTECTION AREA SECTION 31 STATE 

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL INVITATION TO RECONSIDER (SAT 

MATTER NO. DR221 OF 2012) 

46 

10.1/AP3 LOT 12, HOUSE NUMBER 231, BALCATTA ROAD, BALCATTA - 

ADDITIONS TO OFFICE, WAREHOUSE AND SHOWROOM - STATE 

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATION FOR REVIEW DR232 

OF 2012 

68 

10.1/AP4 

LOT 300, HOUSE NUMBER 20A, HALE ROAD, NORTH BEACH - ONE 

GROUPED DWELLING (ONE ADDITIONAL) 

83 

10.1/AP9 LOT 4, HOUSE NUMBER 388, SCARBOROUGH BEACH ROAD - 

ADDITION TO WESTFIELD INNALOO - (USE NOT LISTED) - MANUAL 

CAR WASH 

96 

CITY PLANNING 128 

10.1/CP2 

MOUNT FLORA WATER TOWER AND LOOKOUT, LAURIE STRUTT 

RESERVE WATERMANS BAY - INTERIM LISTING ON STATE 

REGISTER OF HERITAGE PLACES 

128 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN REGENERATION 155 

10.1/EDUR2 

10.1/EDUR3 

NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR ROBBINS - POTENTIAL TO 

REFURBISH AND USE MAUREEN GRIERSON CENTRE, 

SCARBOROUGH 

SCARBOROUGH BEACH URBAN DESIGN REVISED MASTER PLAN 

- DESIGN BRIEF FOR LANDSCAPE DESIGN SERVICES FOR 

SEPARABLE PORTION 2 

155 

164 

HEALTH AND COMPLIANCE 184 

10.1/HC2 

LOT 116, UNITS 2, 3 AND 4, HOUSE NUMBER 799, BEAUFORT 

STREET, INGLEWOOD - CHANGE OF USE FROM 'OFFICE' TO 

'EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT' (TRAINING SERVICES 

AUSTRALIA) 

184 

10.1/HC3 LOT 8, HOUSE NUMBER 235, MAIN STREET, OSBORNE PARK - 

CHANGE OF USE FROM 'OFFICE' TO 'EDUCATIONAL 

ESTABLISHMENT', 'SHOP', 'CONSULTING ROOMS', AND 

'PERSONAL CARE SERVICES' (UNAUTHORISED DEVELOPMENT) 

195 

APPROVALS 209 

10.1/AP5 LOT 301, HOUSE NUMBER 32, POWELL STREET, JOONDANNA - 

SINGLE DWELLING 

209 

10.1/AP6 

LOT 96, HOUSE NUMBER 74, FROBISHER STREET, OSBORNE 

PARK - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM INDUSTRY GENERAL TO 

INDUSTRY GENERAL AND RESTAURANT 

225


10.1/AP7 LOT 678, HOUSE NUMBER 323, WEST COAST DRIVE, TRIGG - 

HOME BUSINESS (CHIROPRACTIC CARE) 

235 

10.1/AP8 

10.1/AP10 

LOT 14, HOUSE NUMBER 136, WEAPONESS ROAD, WEMBLEY 

DOWNS - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO CONSULTING 

ROOMS 

LOT 7, HOUSE NUMBER 80, SCARBOROUGH BEACH ROAD, 

SCARBOROUGH - CHANGE OF USE - OFFICE TO FAST FOOD 

247 

259 

CITY PLANNING 270 

10.1/CP1 DIANELLA CENTRE PLAN - INITIATION OF SCHEME AMENDMENT 270 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN REGENERATION 284 

10.1/EDUR1 

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WEEKEND COMMUNITY MARKET AT 

THE MIRRABOOKA TOWN SQUARE 

284 

ADMINISTRATION 339 

10.1/A1 APPROVALS ACTIVITY REPORT AUGUST 2012 339 

10.1/A2 

STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - PLANNING AND 

DEVELOPMENT UPDATE - AUGUST 2012 

343 

11. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 

4.2(4) OF THE MEETING PROCEDURES LOCAL LAW 2009 

11.1 STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT PROCESS FRAMEWORK 

TRAINING AND IMPLEMENTATION - APPROVAL OF CONTRACT 

349 

349 

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 356 

12.1 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR SARGENT - REPORT ON HOW 

THE USE OF NON RECYCLABLE PLASTIC BAGS WITHIN THE CITY 

CAN BE REDUCED 

356 

13. NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT MEETING 360 

13.1 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR ROBBINS - TO CONSIDER THE 

FEASIBILITY OF ALLOWING THE SHOP OWNERS/OPERATORS 

FACING THE SECTION OF THE ESPLANADE SCARBOROUGH, TO 

TEMPORARILY CLOSE OFF THAT SECTION OF THE ROAD FOR 

WEEKEND PERIODS TO ENABLE EXTENSION OF ALFRESCO 

TRADING IN THE CLOSED SECTION OF ROAD 

13.2 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR ROBBINS - TO INVESTIGATE 

THE FEASIBILITY OF OFFERING THE MAUREEN GRIERSON 

CENTRE AS A MOBILE POLICE STATION DURING THE SUMMER 

MONTHS 

360 

360


13.3 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR ROBBINS - TO INVESTIGATE 

THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE USE OF THE ROOF OF THE 

MAUREEN GRIERSON CENTRE FOR BUSKERS AND ARTISTS TO 

PRACTISE THEIR CRAFTS 

14. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN 

GIVEN 

360 

361 

15. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE 361 

16. MATTERS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 361 

17. CLOSURE 361

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 

18 SEPTEMBER 2012 

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL OF TUESDAY, 

18 SEPTEMBER 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 

Deputy 

Councillors 

Staff 

Councillor David Michael 

Councillor Sharon Cooke 

Councillor Joe Ferrante 

Councillor Giovanni Italiano JP 

Councillor Samantha Jenkinson 

Councillor David Lagan 

Councillor Stephanie Proud 

Councillor Jason Robbins 

Councillor Keith Sargent 

Councillor Bill Stewart 

Councillor Terry Tyzack 

Councillor Rod Willox AM JP 

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 Asset Management - Abena Attrams (from 7.19pm until 

7.48pm) 

Manager City Planning - Fraser Henderson 

Manager Governance and Council Support – Aaron Bowman 

Coordinator Asset - Kim Quach (from 7.19pm until 7.48pm) 

Communications Advisor - Simone Holmes-Cavanagh 

Governance Officer – Melissa Karapetcoff 

Public 7 

Press 2 

7



APOLOGIES 

Nil. 

APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Councillor Samantha Jenkinson (granted a leave of absence for the period 1 October 2012 

to 12 October 2012 inclusive). 

Councillor Elizabeth Re (granted a leave of absence for the period 18 September 2012 to 

2 October 2012 inclusive). 

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS 

Councillor Boothman disclosed a Financial Interest in Item 10.1/AP1 as he has Woolworths 

Shares in his Superfund. 

Councillor Jenkinson disclosed a Financial Interest in Item 10.1/AP1 as she holds shares in 

Woolworths through a Trust. 

Councillor Willox disclosed a Financial Interest in Item 10.1/AP1 as he is a Woolworths 

Shareholder. 

The Acting Manager Approvals disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.1/AP1 as her 

spouse is an employee of Woolworths Limited. 

Councillor Willox disclosed a Financial Interest in Item 10.1/AP2 as he is a Wesfarmers 

Shareholder. 

Councillor Stewart disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.1/AP4 as the neighbour, 

adjoining, at 22 Hale Road is well known to him. 

4. PETITIONS 

4.1 PETITION - REQUEST TO INSTALL A SOLAR LIGHT OR TIMED 

ELECTRIC LIGHT INSIDE THE GAZEBO ABOVE THE TABLE/BENCH 

SEATS AT DEANMORE SQUARE, CORNER BAZAAR TERRACE AND 

HARVEST STREET IN SCARBOROUGH 

The following petition containing 89 signatures has been received by the City:- 

"We, the undersigned, do respectfully request that the Council please install a solar light or 

timed electric light inside the gazebo above the table/bench seats at Deanmore Square, 

corner Bazaar Terrace and Harvest Street in Scarborough." 

The petition has been forwarded to the Recreation and Leisure Services Business Unit. 

8



Council Resolution 

0912/022 

Moved Councillor Michael, seconded Councillor Lagan 

That Council RECEIVE the petition tabled at the Council meeting held 18 September 

2012 and the petition 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, 

Robbins, 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 

Nil. 

5.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 

5.2.1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - M DILORITO 

The following questions were submitted by Ms M DiLorito, 73 Oswald Street, Innaloo 

WA 6018 at the Council meeting held 18 September 2012. 

The following questions relate to Item 10.1/AP9 - Lot 4, House Number 388, Scarborough 

Beach Road - Addition to Westfield Innaloo - (Use Not Listed) - Manual Car Wash:- 

"Q1. 

After last week's meeting, whether or not a decision has been made as to allowing 

that to go through or not?" 

A1. The Mayor advised that the item was on the agenda for consideration during the 

meeting. 

The Director Planning and Development further advised that the question would be 

taken on notice and a written response provided. 

"Q2. 

We actually gave a petition in with 21 signatures and seven (7) letters against it, as 

they were the homes directly opposite the car wash, would it hold more weight really 

to the objection if we got all 300 - 400 signatures in the area which we actually do 

have their backing, it's just lack of man power getting around to get the petition 

signed? Would that basically give us more sway that you would look more favourably 

upon us and not have the car park there?" 

9



A2. The Mayor advised that the item was on the agenda for consideration during the 

meeting. 

The Director Planning and Development further advised that the submissions and the 

petition had been recorded in the report that is before the Council. The Director 

Planning and Development further advised that the Council needs to make a decision 

based on information that is available and the issues raised in those submissions, 

and that is included in the report. 

"Q3. 

The area of Innaloo where we live is very noisy, the noise carries a lot and it's very 

congested and in fact it's getting more and more difficult to actually be in the area. 

That car wash, the location on the car park is right near the residents. It’s a big car 

park that they could put that car wash on so could we look at moving it somewhere 

else?" 

A3. The Mayor advised that would be up to the proponent and that Councillors have an 

application for the matter to be sighted where it is. 

5.2.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - J FOSTER 

The following questions were submitted by Mr J Foster, 5 Hartog Street, Innaloo WA 

6018 at the Council meeting held 18 September 2012. 

"Q1. 

I've been browsing through the TPS38 and within TPS38 car washes don't come 

within preferred uses or contemplated uses. So my question is why would you use 

your discretion and choice to approve this application?" 

A1. The Director Planning and Development advised that car washes are contemplated 

in TPS38 but they are of the automatic variety, not the manual variety that is the 

subject of the application. The Director Planning and Development further advised 

that in respect to the automatic variety, they are a preferred use in respect to the 

precinct. The Director Planning and Development advised that in relation to the 

manual variety, because they are not described in the Scheme, they are treated as a 

'Use not Listed', and it is up to Council to consider the application on its particular 

merits, taking into account all the facts of both the application and any submissions 

received during the advertising period. 

"Q2. 

As per Scheme objectives in the TPS1.14.1 Part A 'to provide a system for the 

orderly control of development' do you think building this car wash in the area 

complies with that?" 

A2. The Director Planning and Development advised that because the car wash is 'Use 

Not Listed' it is really a matter for Council to determine whether or not it is consistent 

with the objectives of the Scheme. The Director Planning and Development further 

advised that there has been an officer assessment of that, but it is up to the Council 

to determine the specifics of the application. 

10



"Q3. 

As per TPS38, the specific objectives of the Scheme 1.14.2 Part F 'to encourage the 

replacement of inappropriate uses and development not preferred use of a 

contemplated part, to create a visually attractive locality in the Scheme area with 

approach scaled street scapes and elements to providing a diverse but unified urban 

townscape and landscape quantified by high urban design' again do you feel this 

complies with TPS38?" 

A3. The Director Planning and Development advised that there are overall objectives in 

respect to the Scheme, and that there are also specific objectives for Precinct 1 

which is that retail precinct, and that it is detailed in the report on page 163 and 164 

of the agenda. The Director Planning and Development further advised that the use 

of an automatic car wash is indeed a preferred use in that precinct, however, a 

manual car wash is treated as a 'Use Not Listed' and the Council need to make a 

determination as to whether or not that use is acceptable within that precinct. 

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

response provided. 

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Councillor Joe Ferrante requested a leave of absence for the period (29 September 2012 to 

6 October 2012 inclusive). 


0912/023 

Moved Councillor Cooke, seconded Councillor Willox 

That Council APPROVES Councillor Joe Ferrante's leave of absence for the period 

29 September 2012 to 6 October 2012 inclusive. 




Against: Nil. 

11



7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 


0912/024 

Moved Councillor Willox, seconded Councillor Lagan 

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council of 4 September 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 

Nil. 

9. UNRESOLVED BUSINESS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 

Nil. 

12



10. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES 

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 11 SEPTEMBER 2012 

HEALTH AND COMPLIANCE 

10.1/HC1 

CITY OF STIRLING POLICY REVIEW - HEALTH AND COMPLIANCE 

Report Information 

Location: 

Applicant: 

Reporting Officer: 

Business Unit: 

Ward: 

Suburb: 

Not Applicable 


Manager Health and Compliance 

Health and Compliance 

City Wide 


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'). 


0912/025 

Moved Councillor Italiano, seconded Councillor Cooke 

That Council REVOKE the following City of Stirling policies:- 

a. D101101 - Dwellings Unfit for Human Habitation - Orders; 

b. D101102 - Notices – Service for Offences Under the Health Act 1911; 

13



c. D101104 - Itinerant Vendors Licences; 

d. D101201 - Health Licences - Annual Registration Fees; 

e. D101301 - Building Requiring Repairs and Maintenance - Orders; 

f. D101401 - Keeping of Pigeons; 

g. D101501 - Delegation of Authority - Use of Loudspeakers; 

h. G101002 - Caravan Sites - Temporary; 

i. J105102 - Road Reserves – Material On; 

j. N401117 - Prosecutions - Development Contrary to the Building Code of 

Australia; 

k. D101202 - School Canteens; and 

l. D201001 - Child Health Centres - Community Use. 

NB: ABSOLUTE MAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED AT COUNCIL. 

The motion was put and declared CARRIED (13/0) by an Absolute Majority Vote. 



Against: Nil. 

Committee Recommendation 











j. N401117 - Prosecutions - Development Contrary to the Building Code of Australia; 




14



Officer's Recommendation 











j. N401117 - Prosecutions - Development Contrary to the Building Code of Australia; 




Report Purpose 

To consider revocation of Council policies identified as being obsolete or have been 

superseded for reasons outlined in this report. 

Relevant Documents 

Attachments 

Attachment 1 - Council Policies listed to be revoked 

Available for viewing at the meeting 

Nil. 

Background 

The City has undertaken an extensive review of all City of Stirling policies to determine 

whether they should be retained, amended or revoked. 

The review has revealed that a number of existing policies:- 

repeat legislation or have been made redundant and therefore should be revoked; 

where an existing policy is obsolete, the key principles may have been retained and 

amalgamated in a new policy or incorporated in a management practice; 

15



guide operational activities for employees and should be replaced by a suitable 

management practices; and 

repeat the same subject matter and should be amalgamated into one policy document. 

City officers have been progressively actioning those items identified in the review and this 

report details the policies that fall under the responsibility of the Health and Compliance 

business unit. 

Comment 

The justification for revocation of the following Health and Compliance policies is provided 

below under the specific policy headings:- 

D101101 - Dwellings Unfit for Human Habitation - Orders (adopted 2/11/76; last 

amended 24/11/98) 

Section 135 of the Health Act 1911 provides for the City, of its own motion, and shall, when 

required by order of the Executive Director, Public Health by notice in writing, declare that 

any house or specified part thereof, is unfit for human habitation. 

Section 137 of the Health Act 1911 provides the City the ability to serve notice to either 

repair or take down the house within a time limited by the notice and Section 140 of the 

Health Act 1911 contains offence provisions and the ability for the Local Government to act 

in default of a notice. 

In accordance with Section 26 of the Health Act 1911 - Power of local government, relevant 

officers have been appointed Authorised Persons to exercise all powers and function of the 

City pursuant to the Act, Regulations, Local Law and orders made, institute and carry on 

proceedings against any person for an alleged offence. 

The text of the policy is procedural information and relates to reporting service of notice to 

the Planning and Statutory Services Committee. 

It is recommended that this policy be revoked. 

D101102 - Notices - Service for Offences Under the Health Act 1911 (adopted 2/11/76; 

last amended 24/11/98) 

Section 26 of the Health Act 1911 allows the City to appoint relevant officers to exercise all 

powers and functions under the Act, Regulations, Local Laws, and orders made, institute 

and carry on proceedings against any person for an alleged offence. 

Further, Part 6 of the Food Act 2008 has provisions for service of notices by Authorised 

Officers. 

The text of the policy is procedural information and relates to reporting service of notice to 

Council and processes to be followed for breaches of food legislation. 


16



D101104 - Itinerant Vendors Licences (adopted 14/3/77; last amended 1/5/90) 

The classification of Itinerant Vendor no longer exists within the Health Act 1911 and 

provisions now exist within the Food Act 2008 for food premises (includes vehicles). 

Under the Food Act 2008 the City may impose reasonable fees and charges for or in respect 

of licences, registrations and inspections. 

The determination of fees and charges are set during the Annual Budget deliberation 

process. 


D101201 - Health Licences - Annual Registration Fees (adopted 2/11/78; last amended 

24/11/98) 

These matters are addressed in the Schedule of Fees and Charges during the Annual 

Budget deliberation process. 

This policy is no longer required. 


D101301 - Building Requiring Repairs and Maintenance - Orders (adopted 2/11/76; last 

amended 24/11/98) 

This policy deals with notifying the owners of a property that repairs and maintenance are 

required to a building to meet standards laid down in the Health Act 1911, Regulations and 

Local Laws. 

The matters covered in this policy are also dealt with in accordance with Section 135 and 

Section 137 of the Health Act 1911 and City of Stirling Health Local Law 2009. 

The text of the policy is procedural information and relates to determining ownership of 

property and notices to owners of property. 


D101401 - Keeping of Pigeons (adopted 2/11/76; last amended 3/2/98) 

The matters covered in this policy relate to the number of pigeons that can be kept on a 

property. 

The conditions for keeping pigeons are covered in Section 199 of the Health Act 1911 by 

enabling the City to regulate the purpose in accordance with the City of Stirling Health Local 

Law 2009. 


17



D101501 - Delegation of Authority - Use of Loudspeakers (adopted 1/2/77; last 

amended 24/11/98) 

The matter addressed in this policy is more of a procedure to staff on how to assess an 

application, for the use of loudspeakers on a motor vehicle or a stationary system, on a 

public place, or road way. 

This policy relates to the delegation of authority to the Chief Executive Officer to exercise 

powers under the City of Stirling Local Government Property Local Law 2009. 

Matters relating to noise control are also provided within the Environmental Protection 

(Noise) Regulations 1997. 

The text is procedural information and relates to conditions that would be placed on any 

approval granted by an Authorised Officer. 


G101002 - Caravan Sites - Temporary (adopted 15/3/82; last amended 24/11/98) 

This policy tends to focus on administrative matters to approve a temporary caravan site for 

caravan seminars. The text is procedural information and relates to conditions that would be 

placed on any licence approved when an Authorised Officer exercises the authority. 

This policy has no practical direction to staff and is covered by authority granted to the Chief 

Executive Officer to appoint Authorised Persons and exercise powers under Section 17 and 

23 of the Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Act 1995. 


J105102 - Road Reserves - Material On (adopted 17/8/76; last amended 3/7/79) 

This policy deals with an application for temporary storage of materials for building 

construction or other works on a road reserve. 

The matters covered in this policy are dealt with in policy “Permits to Use Verge Areas and 

Protection City Property During Building Works” and permit provisions within the City’s 

Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law 2009. 

It is recommended that the policy be revoked. 

N401117 - Prosecutions - Development Contrary to the Building Code of Australia 

(adopted 18/8/92; last amended 24/11/98) 

The text of the policy is procedural information and relates to notification timeframes and 

escalation for non compliance. 

The Building Act 2011 and the Building Regulation 2012 contain offence provisions and 

requirements for compliance with building standards. 

In these cases where an offence has been committed, Council has given the Chief Executive 

Officer delegation of authority to appoint persons or classes of persons to be authorised for 

the purposes of performing particular functions and in this case, the power to prosecute the 

offender in a court of law. 


18



D101202 – School Canteens (adopted 23/4/74; last amended 1/5/90) 

The policy relates to waiving of fees applicable for registration of food stalls (canteens). 

The Food Act 2008 contains provisions relating to prescribed community activities which 

includes exemption of all or any provisions of the Act for an activity of a charitable or 

community nature. This includes fees and charges. 

School canteens are considered to be an activity of a charitable or community nature and as 

such fees are charges are not applied. 


D201001 – Child Health Centres – Community Use (adopted 18/7/78) 

The policy relates to the use of child health centres by small community groups subject to 

approval by the Departments of Public Health and Community Welfare. 

The City is not aware of any such uses occurring within child health centres within the City. 

Further, given the limited space within these facilities and the high demand by community 

nursing staff, the shared use of such facilities is not considered appropriate. 


Consultation/Communication Implications 

Nil. 

Policy and Legislative Implications 

Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 prescribes in part, that the role of a 

Council is to “determine the local government’s policies”. 

Regulation 10 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 - “Revoking or 

Changing Decisions”, requires the Council to resolve by “Absolute Majority” to revoke a 

decision of the Council. 

Financial Implications 

Nil. 

Strategic Implications 

Goal 5: 

Objective 5.5: 

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. 

19



Sustainability Implications 

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

Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Issue 

Community engagement 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The review of the City’s policy framework will better 

communicate the City’s strategic direction on important 

issues as well as the current decision making processes and 

philosophies. 

Nil. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Conclusion 

The City’s Policies are being reviewed on the basis that as a general rule or set principles, 

they were adopted to provide the City’s position in respect to a matter. This provides clear 

direction to employees on matters that require the application of discretion or provides 

direction to align with community values and aspirations. Further, policies set a guiding 

direction for the operation of the City’s functions and establish a fair and cohesive approach 

to solving issues. 

A number of Health and Compliance Services Policies have been reviewed and based on 

the justification provided within this report the following policies are recommended for 

revocation:- 

D101101 - Dwellings Unfit for Human Habitation - Orders; 

D101102 - Notices – Service for Offences Under the Health Act 1911; 

D101104 - Itinerant Vendors Licences; 

D101201 - Health Licences - Annual Registration Fees; 

D101301 - Building Requiring Repairs and Maintenance - Orders; 

D101401 - Keeping of Pigeons; 

D101501 - Delegation of Authority - Use of Loudspeakers; 

G101002 - Caravan Sites - Temporary; 

J105102 - Road Reserves – Material On; 

N401117 - Prosecutions - Development Contrary to the Building Code of Australia; 

D101202 - School Canteens; and 

D201001 - Child Health Centres - Community Use. 

20



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.1/HC1 - CITY OF STIRLING POLICY REVIEW - HEALTH 

AND COMPLIANCE 

Attachment 1 - Council Policies listed to be revoked 

21



22



23



24



25



26



27



Councillor Boothman disclosed a Financial Interest in Item 10.1/AP1 as he has Woolworths 

Shares in his Superfund and accordingly left the meeting at 7.12pm prior to discussion and 

vote on the matter. 

Councillor Jenkinson disclosed a Financial Interest in Item 10.1/AP1 as she holds shares in 

Woolworths through a Trust and accordingly left the meeting at 7.12pm prior to discussion 

and vote on the matter. 

Councillor Willox disclosed a Financial Interest in Item 10.1/AP1 as he is a Woolworths 

Shareholder and accordingly left the meeting at 7.12pm prior to discussion and vote on the 

matter. 

The Acting Manager Approvals disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.1/AP1 as her 

spouse is an employee of Woolworths Limited. 

APPROVALS 

10.1/AP1 LOT 500, HOUSE NUMBER 43, YIRRIGAN DRIVE, MIRRABOOKA - 

ADDITIONS TO MIRRABOOKA SHOPPING CENTRE - SHOP (DAN 

MURPHY'S LIQUOR STORE - AMENDMENT TO DA11/1982) - STATE 

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATION FOR REVIEW DR265 OF 

2012 

This report has been prepared by consultants Greg Rowe and Associates 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 500, House Number 43, Yirrigan Drive, Mirrabooka 

TPG – Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage 

Greg Rowe and Associates 


Balga 

Mirrabooka 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 








28




Information 

Purposes 











0912/026 

Moved Councillor Italiano, seconded Councillor Tyzack 

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 of 12 June 2012; and That pursuant to 

Clause 8.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No.3, the application for Additions to 

Mirrabooka Shopping Centre - Shop (Dan Murphy’s Liquor Store) at Lot 500, 

House Number 43, Yirrigan Drive, Mirrabooka (Amendment to DA11/1982) be 

APPROVED subject to the following conditions:- 

a. The proposed awning structure to be extended west along the southern 

facing façade as indicated in red on the approved plan; 

b. 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; 

c. All off street parking to be available onsite during business hours for all 

customers and staff to the satisfaction of the City; 

d. All land indicated as landscaped area on the approved plan being 

developed on practical completion of the building/s to the satisfaction of 

the City. All landscaped areas are to be maintained in good condition 

thereafter; 

e. The external façades of the building must be treated with an anti graffiti 

coating on completion; 

f. Any on-site floodlights not being positioned or operated in such a manner 

so as to cause annoyance to surrounding residents or passing traffic; and 

g. No goods or materials being stored either temporarily or permanently in 

the parking or landscape areas or within access driveways. All goods and 

materials are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards where 

provided. 

2. That pursuant to Clause 5.8.2 of Local Planning Scheme No.3, the cash in lieu 

contribution for 107 parking bays be WAIVED for this application (DA12/0992). 


For: Councillors Cooke, Italiano, Lagan, Michael, Proud, Robbins, Sargent, Stewart and 

Tyzack. 

Against: Councillor Ferrante. 

29




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 of 12 June 2012; and That pursuant to Clause 8.3.1 of 

Local Planning Scheme No.3, the application for Additions to Mirrabooka Shopping 

Centre - Shop (Dan Murphy’s Liquor Store) at Lot 500, House Number 43, Yirrigan 

Drive, Mirrabooka (Amendment to DA11/1982) be APPROVED subject to the following 

conditions:- 

a. The proposed awning structure to be extended west along the southern facing 

façade as indicated in red on the approved plan; 

b. 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; 



d. All land indicated as landscaped area on the approved plan being developed on 

practical completion of the building/s to the satisfaction of the City. All 

landscaped areas are to be maintained in good condition thereafter; 

e. The external façades of the building must be treated with an anti graffiti coating 

on completion; 

f. Any on-site floodlights not being positioned or operated in such a manner so as 

to cause annoyance to surrounding residents or passing traffic; and 

g. No goods or materials being stored either temporarily or permanently in the 

parking or landscape areas or within access driveways. All goods and materials 

are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards where provided. 




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


RECONSIDERS its decision of 12 June 2012; and That pursuant to Clause 8.3.1 of 

Local Planning Scheme No.3, the application for Additions to Mirrabooka Shopping 

Centre - Shop (Dan Murphy’s Liquor Store) at Lot 500, House Number 43, Yirrigan 

Drive, Mirrabooka (Amendment to DA11/1982) be APPROVED subject to the following 

conditions:- 

a. The proposed awning structure to be extended west along the southern facing 

façade as indicated in red on the approved plan; 

b. 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; 

30





d. All land indicated as landscaped area on the approved plan being developed on 


landscaped areas are to be maintained in good condition thereafter; 

e. The external façades of the building must be treated with an anti graffiti coating 

on completion; 

f. Any on-site floodlights not being positioned or operated in such a manner so as 

to cause annoyance to surrounding residents or passing traffic; and 

g. No goods or materials being stored either temporarily or permanently in the 


are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards where provided. 




In accordance with directions from the State Administrative Tribunal, pursuant to Section 

31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), the City is invited to reconsider an 

application (DA12/0992) to remove conditions a, b and c of development application 

DA11/1982 for Additions to the Mirrabooka Shopping Centre – Shop (Dan Murphy’s Liquor 

Store) which was approved by Council on 7 February 2012 (Council Resolution Number 

0212/008). Conditions a, b and c which the applicant has sought to be removed read as 

follows:- 

a. The submission of a Contingency Plan to the satisfaction of Manager 

Approvals prior to the commencement of development, indicating how the 

shortfall of 107 car bays could be accommodated on site; 

b. The applicant/owner entering into a legal agreement prior to the 

commencement of development, accepting to provide additional parking of 

107 car bays in accordance with the agreed Contingency Plan, should they 

be required by the City; and 

c. Any legal costs incurred to be borne wholly by the applicant/owner. 


Attachments 

Nil. 


Development application ECM Doc No: 3068451 

Description of Development 

Site Area: 136, 023m 2 

Nearest Cross Street: Sudbury Road 

31



Location Plan 

Aerial Photograph 

32



Principal Statutory Provisions 

Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS 

LPS3 

Use 

Class 

Urban 

Regional Centre 

Shop 

Type P - Permitted 

Development Standards 

Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS3) 

Clause 8.3.1 of LPS3 states:- 

“The Council may, on written application from the owner of land in respect of which 

planning approval has been granted, revoke or amended the planning approval, prior 

to the commencement of the use or development subject of the planning approval.” 

The proposed use is a permitted use under Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS3). The 

Council is therefore not required to exercise its discretion with regards to the proposed use 

itself. 

In relation to the parking shortfall, Clause 5.8.1 of LPS3 states that:- 

“…….. 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. reasonable expectation that a cash payment can be applied to provide additional 

transport infrastructure in the vicinity of the development site.” 

The subject lot is located within the Mirrabooka Regional Centre Special Control Area. The 

objectives for this area are:- 

a. To provide a sound, coordinated strategy for the integrated development of 

public and private land to facilitate the creation of a safe, successful, vibrant 

centre. 

b. Facilitate more residential and mixed use development. 

Development within this area is required to comply with the Local Planning Policy for the 

area, in this instance, the Mirrabooka Regional Centre Design Guidelines (refer below). 

33



Other Policies 

Policy 5.4 - Mirrabooka Regional Centre Design Guidelines 

The Mirrabooka Regional Centre Design Guidelines divides the whole of the centre into a 

series of different precincts, each of which is intended to serve a different role. The following 

statement of intent is relevant to the subject lot:- 

“The intent of this precinct is to allow for front of development parking through the 

creation of a parking "street" environment in the front setback area. In all other 

respects development is expected to provide the same high quality street fronted 

pedestrian friendly development found in the main street.” 

The proposed development is considered to comply with the provisions of the guidelines with 

the exception of the requirement to provide a minimum of 75% glazing to the shop front and 

a maximum permitted setback of 21m from the street boundary. 

Policy 6.7 – Parking 

The City’s Parking Policy requires the use of “Shop” to provide parking for a development in 

excess of 10,000m 2 at a ratio of 750 bays plus six (6) bays per 100m 2 of gross floor area in 

excess of 10,000m 2 . 

The site is eligible for a 10% parking concession based on its location within 400m of a high 

frequency bus stop/station. 

The Policy allows for the provision of cash-in-lieu of parking bays in instances where nonresidential 

developments are unable to meet the Scheme parking requirements. 

The City’s Parking Policy also contains the following objectives:- 

To facilitate the development of adequate parking facilities; 

To ensure safe, convenient and efficient access for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists; 

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 City’s Parking Policy concludes by stating that ‘variations to this policy shall be 

determined by Council in accordance with the objectives of this Policy.’ 

Background 

On the 17 March 1998 Council resolved to support a proposal to extend the Mirrabooka 

Square Shopping Centre by 4,987m 2 . The development approval was issued on the 9 th of 

April 1998. As a result of the approval the shopping centre floorspace increased to 41,157m 2 

with a carparking provision of 2,040 car bays equating to 4.96bays per 100m 2 . The 

development proposal resulted in a shortfall of 601 car bays. A condition of the approval 

required that the applicant submit a contingency plan indicating how the extent of any 

possible parking problems resulting from the development could be quantified, and those 

problems resolved. A further condition required that the applicant enter into a Legal 

Agreement accepting to provide additional parking in accordance with the agreed 

contingency plan should the applicant be required to do so by the City. 

34



In October 1998 Council considered a request by the applicant to apply a reduced parking 

ratio of 5.5 bays per 100m 2 . The City’s staff noted that the Innaloo City Centre was allowed a 

parking ratio of 5 bays per 100m 2 (Town Planning Scheme No.38) and that the reduced 

parking ratio was not unreasonable however the staff also noted that more time was needed 

to assess the situation when the centre was fully developed. Council subsequently agreed 

to apply a parking ratio of 5.5 bays per 100m 2 which had the effect of reducing the parking 

shortfall to 223 car bays. A contingency plan referring to the provision of 223 car bays (if 

they were required) was subsequently prepared by the applicant and endorsed by the City. 

At its meeting on 16 March 2010 Council considered a request by the applicant to extinguish 

the Legal Agreement and effectively extinguish the contingency plan. In considering the 

applicant’s request at the time, the City staff noted that the parking at the centre was 

underutilised. Council supported the applicant’s request and the contingency plan Legal 

Agreement was extinguished (Council Resolution Number 0310/051). 

On 7 February 2012 Council considered a development application for Additions to the 

Mirrabooka Shopping Centre – Shop (Dan Murphy’s Liquor Store) (Council Resolution 

Number 0212/008). The proposal generated a parking shortfall of 107 car bays. Council 

resolved to approve the application subject to the following conditions:- 

"1. That pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No.3, the 

application for a Shop (Dan Murphy’s Liquor Store) at Lot 500, House 

Number 43, Yirrigan Drive, Mirrabooka (Mirrabooka Square Shopping 

Centre) be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:- 

a. The submission of a Contingency Plan to the satisfaction of Manager 

Approvals prior to the commencement of development, indicating 

how the shortfall of 107 car bays could be accommodated on site; 

b. The applicant/owner entering into a legal agreement prior to the 

commencement of development, accepting to provide additional 

parking of 107 car bays in accordance with the agreed Contingency 

Plan, should they be required to by the City; 

c. Any legal costs incurred to be borne wholly by the applicant/owner; 

d. The proposed awning structure to be extended west along the 

southern facing façade as indicated in red on the approved plan; 

e. Vehicular parking, maneuvering 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; 

f. All off street parking to be available onsite during business hours for 

all customers and staff free of charge to the satisfaction of the City; 

g. All land indicated as landscaped area on the approved plan being 

developed on practical completion of the building/s to the satisfaction 

of the City. All landscaped areas are to be maintained in good 

condition thereafter; 

35



h. The external façades of the building must be treated with an anti 

graffiti coating on completion; 

i. Any on-site floodlights not being positioned or operated in such a 

manner so as to cause annoyance to surrounding residents or 

passing traffic; 

j. No goods or materials being stored either temporarily or permanently 

in the parking or landscape areas or within access driveways. All 

goods and materials are to be stored within the buildings or storage 

yards where provided; and 

k. The submission of a sign licence application to the satisfaction of the 

Manager Approvals prior the erection of any signs on site. 

2. That pursuant to Clause 5.8.2 of Local Planning Scheme No. 3, the cash in 

lieu contribution for 107 parking bays be WAIVED for this application 

(DA11/1982)." 

Conditions a, b and c which are the subject of the amended application and the subject of 

the State Administrative Tribunal proceedings, require a parking contingency plan to be 

submitted to the City prior to commencing development. The contingency plan was 

requested by Council in relation to the 107 bay parking shortfall. 

The amended development application (DA12/0992) was lodged on 4 May 2012 and 

proposes to remove conditions a, b and c of DA11/1982. As the original application 

DA11/1982 for Additions to Mirrabooka Shopping Centre – Shop (Dan Murphy’s Liquor 

Store) was approved by Council, any subsequent amendment to that approval requires the 

approval of Council. 

At its meeting of 10 July 2012 Council resolved to approve the amended development 

application however, the approval was subject to all original conditions of approval (Council 

Resolution No 0710/003). 

A mediation hearing was held at the City’s offices on 21 August 2012 in order to ascertain 

whether there was any possibility of arriving at a compromise between the two (2) parties. 

The Mayor and any other interested parties were invited to attend this mediation, though 

none were able to attend. 

In accordance with directions from the State Administrative Tribunal, pursuant to Section 

31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), the City has been invited to 

reconsider the application (DA12/0992) to remove conditions a, b and c of development 

application DA11/1982 for Additions to Mirrabooka Shopping Centre – Shop (Dan Murphy’s 

Liquor Store). The SAT has also scheduled a further directions hearing on 7 September 

2012 to schedule a final hearing date in the event that the applicant is dissatisfied with 

Council’s reconsideration. 

36



Assessment 

Non-Residential Assessment - Local Planning Scheme No.3 

Element 

Satisfies Scheme/ 

Policy 

OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

1 

Site 

Requirements 

 

Already approved. Not 

proposed to change. 

2 Setbacks 





3 Car Parking 

4 Landscaping 

5 Facades 

6 Service Access 

7 Building Height 

8 Policy Nil. 

9 

Other 

Consideration 

 

The removal of 

conditions a, b and c 

from the original 

development approval 

(DA11/2982) as 

proposed will essentially 

approve the 107 car bay 

shortfall without a parking 

contingency plan. 









Nil. 


The application was not required to be advertised. 

Applicant’s Justification 

The applicant has provided justification both in the context of the previous consideration by 

Council at its meeting of 10 July 2012 and in the context of the recent Sate Administrative 

Tribunal Mediation. The initial justification is outlined below followed by the more recent 

additional justification. 

"It is requested that conditions 1, 2 and 3, relating to car parking contingency 

requirements, be removed on the basis that the conditions are unnecessary and 

unduly onerous on the developer. 

37



The City issued the planning approval on the 15 February 2012, following 

consideration of the application by full Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 7 

February 2012. Conditions 1, 2 and 3 relating to car parking contingency requirements 

did not arise as a result of the officer assessment, were not included as part of the 

officer recommendation to Council, and were imposed only as a result of the Council 

determination. 

Conditions 1, 2 and 3 of the planning approval are detailed as follows: 

1. The submission of a Contingency Plan to the satisfaction of Manager Approvals 

prior to the commencement of development, indicating how the shortfall of 107 

car bays could be accommodated on site. 

2. The applicant/owner entering into a legal agreement prior to the commencement 

of development, accepting to provide additional parking of 107 car bays in 

accordance with the agreed Contingency Plan, should they be required by the 

City. 

3. Any legal costs incurred to be borne wholly by the applicant/owner. 

The primary reasons for the removal of the conditions are as follows: 

1. A parking assessment report prepared by transport consultants, Uloth and 

Associates has demonstrated that there is more than adequate on site parking to 

meet demonstrated and projected demand. 

2. Car parking contingency arrangements of a similar nature to those proposed in 

the planning approval conditions have previously been removed by Council on 

the basis that they were not required on the subject site. 

Parking Assessment Report 

Uloth and Associates prepared a parking assessment report to assess the impact of 

the proposed Dan Murphy’s development in November 2011. The key findings from 

the traffic report are summarised below:- 

A total of 2,149 car bays are provided in the existing shopping centre car parks, 

representing a supply ratio of 5.0 spaces per 100m 2 . 

Historically there have been no reports of parking issues on the subject site with 

this parking supply ratio. 

Approved plans to expand the existing car park at the western end of the centre 

would increase the overall parking supply to 2,229 spaces. 

The proposed development will increase the overall shopping centre floorspace 

by 1,020 square metres to 44,351m 2 Gross Lettable Area (GLA). 

Upon completion of the Dan Murphy’s development, a total of 2,173 parking 

spaces will be provided on site, representing a continued supply ratio of 5.0 

spaces per 100m 2 . 

Overall peak parking demand occurs at 11.30am on a Thursday (1,337 spaces) 

and 12.00pm on a Saturday (1,452 spaces). 

The required parking supply to accommodate the worst-case design day parking 

demand is 1,868 spaces. 

38



The City initially advised Uloth and Associates that the Dan Murphy’s development 

would require 52 additional parking spaces. Based on this requirement:- 

A total of 1,920 parking spaces (1,868+52) would be required to accommodate 

both the existing shopping centre parking demand coupled with the proposed 

Dan Murphy’s demand. 

With a proposed overall parking supply of 2,173 spaces, there would be an 

oversupply of 253 spaces (2,173-1,920) following the proposed development and 

therefore the overall centre would provide more than enough parking to 

accommodate the Dan Murphy’s development. 

Subsequently, following lodgement and assessment of the application, the City’s 

technical officers established that the total number of bays proposed onsite is 2,180 

and that the Dan Murphy’s store would require an additional 55 bays. Whilst a minor 

discrepancy exists between the final parking assessment from the City and the original 

parking assessment report, the City’s technical officers ultimately concurred that on 

site parking provision was likely to be in excess of current and future requirements 

under either scenario and that on this basis no contingency arrangements were 

necessary. 

Within this context, the provision of a contingency parking plan is considered 

unnecessary and unduly onerous, given that there is sufficient parking on site to 

service both the existing and proposed use. 

Historical Car Parking Contingency Arrangements 

By way of relevant background to the matter, a historical car parking contingency plan 

for the subject site was extinguished by Council as a result of a determination at its 

meeting on 16 March 2010. 

The historical contingency plan limited the number of parking bays to 223 and was 

required to be implemented by Council upon receipt of two or more written complaints 

regarding parking issues from owners and occupiers within the Mirrabooka Regional 

Centre. 

The requirement for a parking contingency plan arose as a result of a condition of 

development approval for an extension to the Mirrabooka Square Shopping Centre in 

April 1998. The extension to the centre provided an additional 4,987m 2 of floor space, 

bringing the total to 41,157m 2 GLA, with 2,040 car parking bays being provided. 

A subsequent parking strategy for the Mirrabooka Regional Centre Improvement 

Strategy, prepared for the City by TPG in 2006 concluded that:- 

Parking at the Regional Centre was generally underutilised, with an overall 

parking utilisation across all precincts of 60%. 

Parking within the Mirrabooka Square Shopping Centre was underutilised, with a 

parking utilisation of 82%. 

The parking strategy further reinforced the argument that the contingency plan be 

extinguished. The Officer’s report to Council concluded that the extinguishment of the 

Mirrabooka Square Shopping Centre parking contingency plan would have little impact 

and that future development of the shopping centre would need to comply with current 

parking standards with any proposed parking shortfalls to be considered on their 

merits. 

39



The requirement for the reinstatement of a car parking contingency arrangement is 

inconsistent with previous decisions taken by Council and is not reflective of the factual 

car parking situation occurring in the locality as documented in the parking assessment 

report prepared by Uloth and Associates. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the proposed Dan Murphy’s development is considered to be an 

appropriate use for the site. Conditions 1, 2 and 3 relating to a parking contingencies 

are considered unnecessary on the basis that:- 

Current and previous parking assessments have demonstrated that the level of 

proposed parking will be in excess of current and future requirements. 

The City’s technical officers through a detailed assessment concur that the 

proposed level of on site parking provision is adequate to meet projected need. 

No complaints have been received to date regarding parking provision at the 

Mirrabooka Square Shopping Centre. 

A former parking contingency plan similar to that proposed by the planning 

approval conditions was extinguished by Council in 2010 on the basis that 

parking at the Regional Centre was underutilised. 

Consideration of parking provision associated with any particular development 

should be considered on its merits at that time. 

Given the above, we respectfully request that Council amend the planning approval 

and delete conditions 1, 2 and 3 as soon as possible. This will ensure that a time 

consuming and costly application for review to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) 

will not be required in order for the unnecessary conditions to be removed." 

The Applicant provided the following additional justification following the Mediation 

Conference convened on 21 September 2012:- 

“ There is no nexus between car parking contingency conditions 1, 2 and 3 of the 

planning approval and the considerations and requirements as set out within the 

Respondent's planning framework, inclusive of the applicable local planning 

scheme and relevant planning policies. 

The matter has now been considered by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) 

and the SAT has determined that conditions 1, 2 and 3 of the planning approval 

be sent back under Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act, 2004 for 

serious reconsideration by the Respondent. 

All car parking associated with the Mirrabooka Square Shopping Centre, 

including the proposed Dan Murphy's Liquor Store will be a shared (reciprocal) 

resource. Based on the application of accepted planning principles, shared use 

will result in a reduction of overall parking demand. This will occur due to 

different businesses having differing peak periods of operation that do not 

overlap, and also due to patrons visiting multiple tenancies as part of one trip to 

the centre. 

40



The subject site was the subject of a historical car parking contingency plan and 

associated deed between the Respondent and Applicant that would have 

required an additional 223 car parking bays to be provided where complaints 

were received. The Respondent agreed to remove the deed in March 2010 on 

the basis of a lack of complaints and a technically robust parking strategy that 

concluded that parking at the centre was significantly under utilised. This 

situation has not altered with the current parking assessment indicating that 

there would be an additional 315 parking bays in excess of peak demand as a 

result of the current proposal. 

Based on the attributes of the Respondent's planning framework and a proper 

assessment of the proposed development, there is limited planning merit or 

legality associated with the imposition of conditions 1, 2 and 3. 

An additional consideration is the imminent commencement of 7-day retail 

trading across the Perth Metropolitan Area on the 26 August 2012, including at 

the subject site. This will further serve to reduce peak car parking demand in 

shopping centres and in particular will level out demand during current peak 

periods on Thursdays and Saturdays. 

In the event that the Respondent does not remove conditions 1, 2 and 3 from the 

approval, it would be the Applicant's intentions to seek that costs be awarded if 

the matter proceeds to a full hearing. This is on the basis that the Respondent 

would have taken an untenable position based on the extent of expert advice 

provided, and has consequently conducted itself unreasonably in the matter, 

resulting in unreasonable expense to the Applicant.” 

Comments from Independent Planning Consultant 

The application was referred to an independent planning consultant RPS for review prior to 

Council reconsidering the matter at its meeting of 10 July 2012. RPS was requested to 

provide independent comments on the planning merit of the conditions a, b and c of 

DA11/1982 as previously outlined in this report. Below is an extract of the relevant parts of 

the independent report:- 

“- Whilst a minimum standard for car parking requirements is necessary to provide 

developers with a sufficient level of certainty when planning for new developments, the 

number of car parking bays stipulated within most town planning schemes and local 

planning policies is largely generic, and based on historical experience. 

- On this occasion, the applicant has commissioned the services of a traffic consultant to 

evaluate the parking requirements for the proposed development based on a detailed, 

site specific assessment of the proposal, and the surrounding context of the 

Mirrabooka Shopping Centre. 

- Based on what would appear to be a rigorous technical assessment, the traffic 

consultant has concluded that the proposed number of parking bays provided by the 

developer is sufficient. Additionally, the City’s Traffic Design Engineer has concurred 

with the assessment undertaken by the traffic consultant. 

41



- The conclusions of the traffic consultant with respect to the determination of car 

parking demand generated by the proposed development is considered superior to the 

application of the City’s Parking and Access Policy with respect to the number of car 

parking bays required in view of the site specific, and technical manner in which the 

traffic consultant has undertaken the assessment. 

- It is noted that Council, in 2010, had previously agreed to extinguish a parking 

contingency plan on the basis that car parking within the Mirrabooka Regional Centre 

was under-utilised. 

- It is noted that the status quo remains with respect to car parking under-utilisation 

rates within the Mirrabooka City Centre. To this end, the re-introduction of a parking 

contingency plan, with specific application to the proposed development appears to be 

unwarranted, particularly given the nature of the development (small-scale) relative to 

the surrounding context of the Mirrabooka City Centre. Additionally, imposition of 

condition a may also set an undesirable precedent in light of these factors. 

- In conclusion, RPS concurs with the recommendations put forward by the City’s 

officers that Conditions a, b and c of DA11/1992 be removed as they are considered 

unnecessary.” 

Comment 

Conditions a, b and c of Council’s approval on 7 February 2012 were not recommended by 

the City’s officers and were imposed by Council of its own accord. It is however considered 

that there is sufficient parking on site to accommodate the technical parking shortfall and it is 

considered that Conditions a, b, and c should not be applied. 

Ability to Impose Conditions 

A query has been raised by the applicant in regard to the ability for Conditions a, b, and c to 

be imposed. Should the review by the State Administrative Tribunal proceed, a legal opinion 

may be required to consider the conditions relative to the provisions of the City of Stirling 

Local Planning Scheme No.3. 

Applicable Parking Ratio 

The City’s Parking Policy requires that where the land use of “Shop” involves in excess of 

10,000m 2 parking is provided at a ratio of 750 bays plus six (6) bays per 100m 2 of gross floor 

area in excess of 10,000m 2 . In October 1998 Council resolved to apply a parking ratio of 5.5 

bays per 100m 2 which had the effect of reducing the parking shortfall to 223 car bays. At its 

meeting on 16 March 2010 Council agreed to extinguish the contingency plan Legal 

Agreement which effectively accepted the 223 car bay short fall and reduced the parking 

ratio to 4.96bays per 100m 2 . Once the proposed addition to the Centre is implemented, there 

will be a total floorspace of 44,351m 2 with 2,173 car bays provided resulting in a parking 

ratio of 4.9 bays per 100m 2 . 

Although the provisions of the City of Stirling Town Planning Scheme No.38 (TPS38) Stirling 

City Centre Scheme do not apply to the subject site, it is noted that a parking ratio of 5 bays 

per 100m 2 is applicable under TPS38 for shop floorspace. It is also noted that Clause 5.3.2 

(4) of State Planning Policy 4.2 Activity Centres for Perth and Peel, offers as a guide that a 

parking ratio of between four (4) to five (5) bays per 100m 2 could be applied for shop 

floorspace. 

42



Parking Concessions 

Under the provisions of Policy 6.7 – Parking, the site is eligible for a 10% parking concession 

based on its location within 400m of a high frequency bus stop/station. This concession was 

factored in to the car parking calculation which resulted in determining that the proposed 

shop addition will result in a technical shortfall of 107 car bays. There has however been no 

consideration of the potential for reciprocal use of parking bays and the differing operational 

peak periods for the different uses within the overall Shopping Centre. Such an assessment 

was considered unnecessary given the Parking Assessment Report has concluded that 

there is an actual oversupply of parking on site. It is likely that the identified oversupply of 

parking may (at least in part) be as a result of reciprocal parking occurring. 

Parking Assessment Report 

The Parking Assessment Report submitted by the applicant in support of their application 

found that there is ample parking on site and that the actual parking demand generated by 

the shopping centre is less than the current provision on site. The City’s Traffic Design 

Engineer has reviewed the traffic report and concurs with its conclusions. 

The consultants undertook a parking survey during peak periods and found that during the 

busiest period (12.00pm Saturday) the peak utilisation was 1,518 spaces. Based on the 

provision of 2,173 spaces these figures suggest that there is indeed sufficient parking on 

site. Although the Parking Assessment Report could not factor in the proposed shop 

development the subject of the current application, the existing practical excess in parking 

bays on site is considered sufficient to adequately accommodate the proposed shop 

extension. 

The Parking Assessment Report also did not consider the impact of future changes in retail 

trading hours. Whilst the impact of the change in retail trading hours will not be known for 

some time, it is assumed that the parking demand during peak times will reduce to some 

degree. 

Previous Council Decision to Extinguish Mirrabooka Square Parking Contingency Plan 

On 16 March 2010 Council resolved to agree to extinguish the Mirrabooka Square Parking 

Contingency Plan legal agreement with Perron Investments Pty Ltd (Council Resolution 

Number 0310/051). The original Parking Contingency Plan was signed by the City and the 

owners of the Shopping Centre (Perron Investments Pty Ltd) as a condition of Development 

Approval for a significant extension of the centre approved in April 1998. 

Council’s agreement to extinguish the contingency plan was based on the under-utilisation of 

parking in the Mirrabooka Regional Centre. The parking supply and demand at the time was 

analysed and it was generally found that parking at the Regional Centre was under-utilised, 

with an overall parking utilisation across all precincts of only 60%. A figure of 82% utilisation 

was recorded for the shopping centre precinct itself, but this was offset by figures as low as 

16% for other precincts. The justification for extinguishing the original Parking Contingency 

Plan is still considered valid in that the existing car park is not fully utilised and the proposed 

parking ratio is similar to that which was in place when Council agreed to extinguish the 

previous Parking Contingency Plan. The under-utilisation of car bays as outlined in the 

Parking Assessment Report submitted with the original application is considered sufficient to 

accommodate the parking demand of the proposed shop addition to Mirrabooka Shopping 

Centre. 

43



Parking Oversupply 

The City’s Parking Policy contains the following objective in relation to the oversupply of 

parking:- 

To ensure that an oversupply of parking does not occur that discourages alternative 


It has been demonstrated through the Parking Assessment Report that there is a current 

oversupply of parking relative to demand. It could be argued therefore that subject to 

compliance with the remaining objectives of the policy, in order to satisfy the above 

mentioned objective the City ought to be seeking to limit the amount of additional parking 

provided on site particularly given the proximity of the Shopping Centre within 400m of a 

high frequency bus stop/station. 

Mediation hearing 21 August 2012 

As stated previously in this report, a mediation hearing was held at the City’s offices on the 

21 August 2012 in order to ascertain whether there was any possibility of arriving at a 

compromise between the two parties. Although Councillors were invited to attend, none 

were able to do so. 

The lack of Councillor involvement in the mediation hearing represents a lost opportunity to 

achieve a possible compromise situation acceptable to both parties, and may have 

implications in relation to defending the Councils decision, should this matter proceed to a 

full hearing. 

Involvement of independent planning consultant 

The City’s officers were unable to represent Council at the SAT as the Council decision was 

inconsistent with the officer’s recommendations. Consequently, Greg Rowe and Associates 

have been engaged to represents Council at the SAT. 

It should be noted that should Council form a different view to that of its current planning 

consultant in this matter, the City’s officers will need to engage another planning consultant 

to represent Council, should this matter proceed to a full hearing. 


Following the Council’s decision on 12 June 2012, the applicant has lodged an Application 

for Review in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. In 

accordance with Orders made by the State Administrative Tribunal at mediation, this report 

requests the Council to reconsider its decision and agree to delete conditions a, b and c. 

Should the Council decide not to reconsider its decision, the matter will be referred back to 

mediation on 24 September 2012. The matter has also been listed for a Directions Hearing 

on 7 September to deal with a request by the applicant to set a date for a final Hearing. 


Should Council resolve to reaffirm the status of conditions a, b and c it is extremely likely that 

the City will be required to defend its decision at a hearing in the State Administrative 

Tribunal (SAT). The City will be required to engage further legal representatives and 

planning consultants as representatives at the SAT and the costs will likely be in excess of 

$20,000. 

44



Council should also be mindful that in light of the advice it has received from it’s officers, and 

two separate planning consultants, there exists in this situation the very real possibility that 

should the applicant be successful in its application for a review of Councils decisions, costs 

may be awarded against the City. 


Goal 3: 


SI 3.3.1: 

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 and implement a strategy to foster economic development and 

tourism. 



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 create employment in the locality. 

Conclusion 

It is acknowledged that Conditions a, b and c do not require the provision of additional car 

bays but rather seek to create the ability to require additional car bays should they be 

required in the future. The applicant contends that there is a pre-existing buffer of additional 

car bays as is demonstrated through the Parking Assessment Report which identifies that 

during the peak period there is a significant surplus of car bays beyond the actual parking 

bay demand. The City’s Traffic Design Engineer has reviewed the traffic report and concurs 

with its conclusions. 

The imposition of conditions requiring another Parking Contingency Plan to be drafted and 

legal agreement entered into with the City is not considered necessary based on the findings 

of the Traffic Report submitted with the original application. Although there is technically a 

107 bay parking shortfall associated with the proposed application, in a practical sense there 

is considered to be a surplus of parking on site to accommodate the proposed Shop 

addition. For this reason it is recommended that Conditions a, b and c of DA11/1982 be 

removed. 

45



At 7.14pm Councillors Boothman and Jenkinson returned to the meeting prior to 

consideration of Item 10.1/AP2. 

Councillor Willox disclosed a Financial Interest in Item 10.1/AP2 as he is a Wesfarmers 

Shareholder. 

10.1/AP2 

LOT 25, HOUSE NUMBER 760, BEAUFORT STREET, MOUNT LAWLEY- 

PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN HERITAGE 

PROTECTION AREA SECTION 31 STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL 

INVITATION TO RECONSIDER (SAT MATTER NO. DR221 OF 2012) 

This report has been prepared by consultants TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and 

Heritage 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 25, House Number 760, Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley 

Sandtracks Design/Greg Rowe and Associates 

TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage 


Lawley 

Mount Lawley 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 

















46




0912/027 

Moved Councillor Italiano, seconded Councillor Michael 

That pursuant to the Orders made by the 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 partial demolition of the commercial building at Lot 25, House Number 

760, Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:- 

1. The extent of fabric retained shall be no less than that which encompasses the 

original corner store, and one (1) structural bay back from the Beaufort Street 

frontage of the three (3) shops facing Beaufort Street, subject to:- 

a. Certification from a suitably qualified Structural Engineer being provided to 

the satisfaction of the Manager Approvals, which demonstrates how the 

structural stability of the remaining original structure will be maintained. 

2. The internal wall between ‘Shop 2’ and ‘Shop 3’ may be removed subject to:- 

a. Certification from a suitably qualified Structural Engineer being provided to 

the satisfaction of the Manager Approvals, which demonstrates that the 

removal of this portion of wall will not have an adverse impact on the 

structural stability of the remaining original structure; 

b. The parapet ties above the wall being retained in situ; and 

c. The removal of the internal wall does not extend any closer to the front wall 

than the depth of shop entry return wall so that the original door opening 

can be reconstructed. 

3. The existing non-original awning shall be removed and a verandah be reinstated 

based on photographic evidence (with non-structural posts), to the satisfaction 

of the Manager Approvals. 

4. Original door and window openings to the Beaufort Street façade are to be 

reinstated to reflect the original configuration of openings based on 

photographic evidence, to the satisfaction of the Manager Approvals. It is not 

necessary that the doors to Beaufort Street are operable. Further investigation, 

both archival and of the existing fabric, is be undertaken to ascertain whether 

the doors were recessed. If it is found that the doors were originally recessed 

(as is common in the area), they should be reinstated as such. 

5. A door is to be provided in the corner truncation to reflect the original design of 

the shop, to the satisfaction of the Manager Approvals. The existing (nonoriginal) 

entrance doors on Second Avenue may be retained if they reflect the 

original configuration identified in the photographic evidence. 

47



6. Further investigations shall be undertaken, in the form of a Mortar Test, to 

ascertain the condition of the original brickwork and mortar, and the effect the 

removal of the non-original render to the façades would have on the structural 

stability of the facade. The outcome of the Mortar Test shall be submitted to the 

City for consideration. Should the outcome of the Mortar Test confirm that there 

would be no adverse structural implications then the non-original render should 

be removed and the façade should be re-pointed, to reflect the original 

treatment, to the satisfaction of the Manager Approvals. 

7. Any original timber flooring, which is of an acceptable safety and structural 

standard shall be restored and reused. Original timber flooring should be 

salvaged from the demolition of the remaining building and reused in the 

conservation works, where the original flooring is no longer extant, to the 

satisfaction of the Manager Approvals. 

8. Any original ceiling treatments shall be retained in-situ. They may be covered 

with a suspended ceiling, provided that the original ceiling is carefully 

preserved. Photographs should be taken and incorporated into an Archival 

Record, which documents the nature and extent of the remaining pressed tin 

ceiling. 

9. A report from a Structural Engineer shall be submitted to the satisfaction of 

Manager Approvals prior to the issue of a demolition licence, demonstrating that 

any modification to the internal floor levels to create one (1) finished level 

across the tenancy (without internal steps) will not have an adverse impact on 

the structural stability of the building. 

10. An Archival Record of the building shall be undertaken to the satisfaction of the 

Manager Approvals prior to the issue of a demolition licence. Additional images 

of the building should be undertaken during the demolition works to document 

the nature and extent of the pressed tin ceiling. 


For: Councillors Boothman, Cooke, Italiano, Jenkinson, Lagan, Michael, Robbins, Sargent, 

Stewart and Tyzack. 

Against: Councillors Ferrante and Proud. 


That pursuant to the Orders made by the 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 partial 

demolition of the commercial building at Lot 25, House Number 760, Beaufort Street, Mount 

Lawley be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:- 

1. The extent of fabric retained shall be no less than that which encompasses the original 

corner store, and one (1) structural bay back from the Beaufort Street frontage of the 

three (3) shops facing Beaufort Street, subject to:- 

a. Certification from a suitably qualified Structural Engineer being provided to the 

satisfaction of the Manager Approvals, which demonstrates how the structural 

stability of the remaining original structure will be maintained. 

48





satisfaction of the Manager Approvals, which demonstrates that the removal of 

this portion of wall will not have an adverse impact on the structural stability of 

the remaining original structure; 


c. The removal of the internal wall does not extend any closer to the front wall than 

the depth of shop entry return wall so that the original door opening can be 

reconstructed. 


based on photographic evidence (with non-structural posts), to the satisfaction of the 

Manager Approvals. 

4. Original door and window openings to the Beaufort Street façade are to be reinstated 

to reflect the original configuration of openings based on photographic evidence, to the 

satisfaction of the Manager Approvals. It is not necessary that the doors to Beaufort 

Street are operable. Further investigation, both archival and of the existing fabric, is be 

undertaken to ascertain whether the doors were recessed. If it is found that the doors 

were originally recessed (as is common in the area), they should be reinstated as 

such. 

5. A door is to be provided in the corner truncation to reflect the original design of the 

shop, to the satisfaction of the Manager Approvals. The existing (non-original) 

entrance doors on Second Avenue may be retained if they reflect the original 

configuration identified in the photographic evidence. 

6. Further investigations shall be undertaken, in the form of a Mortar Test, to ascertain 

the condition of the original brickwork and mortar, and the effect the removal of the 

non-original render to the façades would have on the structural stability of the facade. 

The outcome of the Mortar Test shall be submitted to the City for consideration. 

Should the outcome of the Mortar Test confirm that there would be no adverse 

structural implications then the non-original render should be removed and the façade 

should be re-pointed, to reflect the original treatment, to the satisfaction of the 


7. Any original timber flooring, which is of an acceptable safety and structural standard 

shall be restored and reused. Original timber flooring should be salvaged from the 

demolition of the remaining building and reused in the conservation works, where the 

original flooring is no longer extant, to the satisfaction of the Manager Approvals. 

8. Any original ceiling treatments shall be retained in-situ. They may be covered with a 

suspended ceiling, provided that the original ceiling is carefully preserved. 

Photographs should be taken and incorporated into an Archival Record, which 

documents the nature and extent of the remaining pressed tin ceiling. 

49



9. A report from a Structural Engineer shall be submitted to the satisfaction of Manager 

Approvals prior to the issue of a demolition licence, demonstrating that any 

modification to the internal floor levels to create one (1) finished level across the 

tenancy (without internal steps) will not have an adverse impact on the structural 

stability of the building. 


Manager Approvals prior to the issue of a demolition licence. Additional images of the 

building should be undertaken during the demolition works to document the nature and 

extent of the pressed tin ceiling. 


That pursuant to the Orders made by the 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 partial 

demolition of the commercial building at Lot 25, House Number 760, Beaufort Street, Mount 

Lawley be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:- 

1. The extent of fabric retained shall be no less than that which encompasses the original 

corner store, and one (1) structural bay back from the Beaufort Street frontage of the 

three (3) shops facing Beaufort Street, subject to:- 


satisfaction of the Manager Approvals, which demonstrates how the structural 

stability of the remaining original structure will be maintained. 



satisfaction of the Manager Approvals, which demonstrates that the removal of 

this portion of wall will not have an adverse impact on the structural stability of 

the remaining original structure; 


c. The removal of the internal wall does not extend any closer to the front wall than 

the depth of shop entry return wall so that the original door opening can be 

reconstructed. 


based on photographic evidence (with non-structural posts), to the satisfaction of the 


4. Original door and window openings to the Beaufort Street façade are to be reinstated 

to reflect the original configuration of openings based on photographic evidence, to the 

satisfaction of the Manager Approvals. It is not necessary that the doors to Beaufort 

Street are operable. Further investigation, both archival and of the existing fabric, is be 

undertaken to ascertain whether the doors were recessed. If it is found that the doors 

were originally recessed (as is common in the area), they should be reinstated as 

such. 

50



5. A door is to be provided in the corner truncation to reflect the original design of the 

shop, to the satisfaction of the Manager Approvals. The existing (non-original) 

entrance doors on Second Avenue may be retained if they reflect the original 

configuration identified in the photographic evidence. 

6. Further investigations shall be undertaken, in the form of a Mortar Test, to ascertain 

the condition of the original brickwork and mortar, and the effect the removal of the 

non-original render to the façades would have on the structural stability of the facade. 

The outcome of the Mortar Test shall be submitted to the City for consideration. 

Should the outcome of the Mortar Test confirm that there would be no adverse 

structural implications then the non-original render should be removed and the façade 

should be re-pointed, to reflect the original treatment, to the satisfaction of the 


7. Any original timber flooring, which is of an acceptable safety and structural standard 

shall be restored and reused. Original timber flooring should be salvaged from the 

demolition of the remaining building and reused in the conservation works, where the 

original flooring is no longer extant, to the satisfaction of the Manager Approvals. 

8. Any original ceiling treatments shall be retained in-situ. They may be covered with a 

suspended ceiling, provided that the original ceiling is carefully preserved. 

Photographs should be taken and incorporated into an Archival Record, which 

documents the nature and extent of the remaining pressed tin ceiling. 

9. A report from a Structural Engineer shall be submitted to the satisfaction of Manager 

Approvals prior to the issue of a demolition licence, demonstrating that any 

modification to the internal floor levels to create one (1) finished level across the 

tenancy (without internal steps) will not have an adverse impact on the structural 

stability of the building. 


Manager Approvals prior to the issue of a demolition licence. Additional images of the 

building should be undertaken during the demolition works to document the nature and 

extent of the pressed tin ceiling. 


The purpose of the report is for Council to reconsider a development application for the 

partial demolition of the commercial building at Lot 25, House Number 760, Beaufort Street, 

Mount Lawley (subject property) under Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 

(2004). 

It is to be noted that whilst, the City has been invited to ‘reconsider’ its previous decision, the 

proposal is significantly different from that which was previously considered by Council at its 

Ordinary Meeting held on 15 May 2012 for complete demolition of the existing building. As a 

consequence, Council is now considering a new development proposal, which has been 

developed through mediation as part of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) process, as 

outlined in this report. 

51




Attachments 

Attachment 1 - Floor Plan of 760 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley identifying the extent of 

original fabric to be retained 

Attachment 2 - Letter from Greg Rowe and Associates dated15 August 2012 


1. Photographs of the site and surrounding area ECM Doc No: 3048103 


Site Area: 645m 2 

Nearest Cross Street: Second Avenue 

Location Plan 

52




Photograph of Building 

53




Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS Urban 

LPS3 Mixed Use 

Use 

Class 

Type 

Shop 

P-Permitted 


Local Planning Scheme No.3 

Clause 6.6 of LPS3 “Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area” requires all 

development with the Heritage Protection Area to conform with the following:- 

a. "The objectives of the Heritage Protection Area Special Control Area (clause 6.6.1); 

and 

b. The Local Planning Policy adopted for the Heritage Protection Area Special Control 

Area (Character Guidelines Mt Lawley, Menora and Inglewood)." 

The objectives of Clause 6.6.1 are as follows:- 

a. "To ensure the conservation and retention of buildings within the Heritage Protection 

Area Special Control Area dating from early 1900’s to the 1950’s where the 

architectural style of the building is generally intact; 

b. To ensure the retention of existing buildings referred to in (a) above to maintain the 

existing character of the streetscape; 

c. To ensure that new buildings (where permitted), alterations, additions to existing 

buildings, carports, garages and front fences are in keeping with the heritage character 

of the area, respect the scale and proportions of surrounding buildings, and are 

designed to fit into the existing streetscape; 

d. To maintain and improved existing street trees, grass verges and front gardens; and 

e. To retain mature trees wherever possible." 


The Character Retention Guidelines Mt Lawley, Menora and Inglewood aim to “ensure that 

the heritage character of Mt Lawley, Menora and Inglewood is retained and protected, as 

well as being reflected in new development.” 

In relation to Commercial Development within the Heritage Protection Area, the Character 

Retention Guidelines Mt Lawley, Menora and Inglewood aim to:- 

a. “Ensure the conservation and retention of existing traditional shops and commercial 

buildings; 

54



b. Ensure new commercial development consistent with ‘main street’, mixed-use design 

principles, and consistent with the heritage character of the locality; and 

c. Ensure refurbishment of more recent development in a manner in keeping with 

traditional heritage-character commercial buildings.” 

Background 

A development application for the demolition of the existing commercial building at Lot 25, 

House Number 760, Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley was submitted to the City on 

29 December 2011 (DA11/3271). The subject property is located in the Mount Lawley 

Heritage Protection Area, and more specifically the Mount Lawley (East) area. The subject 

property comprises a single storey commercial building, which was formerly four (4) 

individual shops built between c.1905 - 1914. The shops have been altered over the years. 

The development application (DA11/3271) to demolish the building was refused by the 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on the 15 May 2012 (Council Resolution 0512/054) for 

the following reason:- 

“the demolition would be contrary to the requirements of the Heritage Protection Area 

Special Control Area and the City’s Character Guidelines (Mt Lawley, Menora and 

Inglewood) of Local Planning Scheme No.3.” 

Following this decision, the development proponent appointed Greg Rowe and Associates to 

submit an application for review of the City’s decision to the SAT. An initial Directions 

Hearing was held on 6 July 2012, where the matter was referred to meditation. The City 

appointed TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage (TPG) to act on its behalf at the 

review in relation to both town planning and heritage issues. 

An onsite mediation was held on 25 July 2012, which was attended by the City’s engaged 

planning and heritage consultants. This mediation provided scope to discuss both the 

applicant and respondent’s views, to refine key concerns and to assist in developing a 

negotiated/revised proposal. 

As a consequence of discussions and negotiations that took place at this mediation, the 

applicant advised that they were prepared to consider the partial retention of the building. 

Orders were subsequently made by the SAT, requesting that the Respondent’s consultant 

provide the Applicant a ‘marked up plan which identifies the original fabric which the 

respondent believes should be retained and notes which sets out the parameters for 

conservation.’ 

Orders were then set to enable the Applicant to respond to the marked up plan and 

conservation parameters, and for the matter to be reconsidered by the Council under a 

Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). 


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

55



Comment 

As required by Order 1 of the SAT dated, 26 July 2012, the City’s heritage consultant in 

consultation with the City’s Administration provided the Applicant with a ‘marked up plan 

which identifies the original fabric which the respondent believes should be retained and 

notes which sets out the parameters for conservation.’ The marked up plan is contained as 

an attachment to this report and the proposed parameters for conservation are set out 

below:- 

“Should partial demolition be approved, it is recommended that the following parameters be 

put in place:- 

1. The extent of fabric retained should be no less than that which encompasses the 

original corner store, and one structural bay back from the Beaufort Street frontage of 

the three shops facing Beaufort Street (refer to attached drawing). 

2. The existing non-original awning should be removed and a verandah be reinstated 

from photographic evidence (with non-structural posts). 

3. Original door and window openings to the Beaufort Street façade should be reinstated 

to reflect the original configuration. It is not necessary that the doors to Beaufort Street 

are operable, subject to tenant requirements. Further investigation, both archival and 

of the existing fabric, should be undertaken to ascertain whether the doors were 

recessed. If it is found that the doors were originally recessed (as is common in the 

area), they should be reinstated as such. 

4. The main entrance should be from the original entrance at the corner truncation. The 

existing (non-original) entrance doors on Second Avenue may be retained or replaced 

with window openings to reflect the original configuration. 

5. Non-original render to the façades should be removed. The façade should be repointed, 

to reflect the original treatment (as is evident in the historical photograph of 

the corner store, c. 1912). 

6. Any original timber flooring should be restored. Original timber flooring should be 

salvaged from the demolition of the remaining building and reused in the conservation 

works, where the original flooring is no longer extant. 

7. Any original ceiling treatments should be retained and restored. As with flooring, 

original pressed tin should be salvaged from the demolition of the remaining building 

and reused in the conservation works, where the original ceiling is no longer extant. 

In addition to the above, the Applicant should consider the following: 

1. Reinstating a portion of weatherboard to the Second Avenue façade, as is evident in 

the historical photograph (c. 1912). It is noted that a panel of weatherboard is still 

extant at the rear of the place, which may have been moved from the original place 

seen in the historical photograph, or may otherwise date from the early development of 

the site. The reuse of this fabric would be beneficial to the conservation of the place.“ 

56



As required by Order 2 of the SAT dated, 26 July 2012, the Applicant has provided a written 

response to the Respondent’s marked up plan and associated conservation parameters. In a 

letter dated 15 August 2012, the applicant stated that ‘in an effort to reach an outcome that 

might be acceptable to both parties, and despite the financial implications for the 

redevelopment of the site, the Applicant is prepared to agree to a partial demolition of the 

building, generally in accordance with the Respondent's Conservation Parameters, but 

subject to a number of conditions.’ These disputed ‘parameters’ and responsive comments 

are detailed below:- 

Conservation Parameter No. 1: The extent of fabric retained should be no less than that 

which encompasses the original corner store, and one structural bay back from the Beaufort 

Street frontage of the three shops facing Beaufort Street. 

Applicants Comment 

The applicant agrees to the above, subject 

to the internal wall between "Shop 2" and 

"Shop 3" being removed, to meet the stated 

requirements of the prospective tenant. The 

Applicant has advised that they will retain 

columns and the stays above the wall, even 

if the wall is removed. 

City’s Heritage Consultant Comment 

This request is considered acceptable as it 

will not have an adverse impact on the 

place’s contribution to the character of the 

Mount Lawley (East) Heritage Protection 

Area. However, the removal of this internal 

wall should only be undertaken after 

certification from a suitably qualified 

Structural Engineer has been submitted to 

the City to demonstrate that the removal of 

this wall will not have an adverse impact on 

the structural stability of the remaining 

original structure. 

Conservation Parameter No. 4: The main entrance should be from the original entrance at 

the corner truncation. The existing (non-original) entrance doors on Second Avenue may be 

retained or replaced with window openings to reflect the original configuration. 


In relation to the above, the applicant has 

advised that the prospective tenant has a 

requirement for a new double-door entry on 

the Second Avenue frontage of the 

premises, meaning the reinstated corner 

entrance would not be the primary entry to 

the premises, and more likely, would be 

non-operable to meet tenant requirements. 


This request is considered acceptable, as a 

door will be provided in the truncation, 

ensuring an authentic visual reconstruction 

and enabling the door to be made operable 

in the future if required. 

57



Conservation Parameter No. 5: Non-original render to the façades should be removed. The 

façade should be re-pointed, to reflect the original treatment (as is evident in the historical 

photograph of the corner store, c. 1912). 


The applicant has requested that the above 

be subject to the Applicant undertaking an 

investigation, in the form of a Mortar Test, to 

ascertain the condition of the original brick 

work and mortar, and the effect of this 

conservation outcome on the structural 

stability of the facade. The applicant 

requests that results of the Mortar Test shall 

be to the Applicant's satisfaction. 


This request is considered reasonable, as it 

will ensure that the removal of render won’t 

have any avoidable adverse impacts on the 

structural stability of the façade. However, 

the results of the Mortar Test and 

subsequent action (to retain the render or 

remove the render) should be subject to the 

satisfaction of the Manager Approvals. 

Conservation Parameter No. 6: Any original timber flooring should be restored. Original 

timber flooring should be salvaged from the demolition of the remaining building and reused 

in the conservation works, where the original flooring is no longer extant. 


The applicant agrees to the above, subject 

to the original timber flooring being of an 

acceptable safety and structural standard, 

and the finished level of the tenancy being 

one level (without internal steps) to meet the 

requirements of the prospective tenant. 


This request is considered acceptable as it 

will not have an adverse impact on the 

place’s contribution to the character of the 

Mount Lawley (East) Heritage Protection 

Area. However, modification of the floor 

levels should only be undertaken after 

certification from a suitably qualified 

Structural Engineer has been provided to 

the City to demonstrate that these works 

won’t impact on the structural stability of the 

building and its footings. 

58



Conservation Parameter No. 7: Any original ceiling treatments should be retained and 

restored. As with flooring, original pressed tin should be salvaged from the demolition of the 

remaining building and reused in the conservation works, where the original ceiling is no 

longer extant. 


The applicant has advised that the 

prospective tenant do not wish to re-use any 

of the existing ceilings within their tenancy 

and therefore, has proposed two 

alternatives:- 

Re-use an element of the original 

pressed tin ceiling within the entry 

lobby to the upper level office and/or 

residential uses, as a means to 

interpret the building's history; or 

Leave the ceiling in-situ but cover it 

with a suspended ceiling to meet 

tenant requirements, whilst 

preserving the original ceiling for 

resurrection at a later date. 


The latter alternative is the preferred 

solution, as it will enable the ceiling to be 

reinstated at a later date. During the works it 

is recommended that the Applicant take 

photographs documenting the nature and 

extent of existing pressed tin ceiling. 

In relation to the suggestion to reinstate a 

portion of weatherboard to the Second 

Avenue façade, the applicant has advised 

that they will consider this request, but 

cannot make any commitment with respect 

to retaining this element of the building's 

fabric. 


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

with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. The City is required to attend a 

further directions hearing at the SAT on 5 October 2012. 


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. 


Goal 2: 


SI 2.1.6: 

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 improve the identification, retention and 

restoration of heritage buildings, streetscapes and areas. 

59





ENVIRONMENTAL 

Issue 

Nil. 

Comment 

SOCIAL 

Issue 

Nil. 

Comment 

ECONOMIC 

Issue 

Nil. 

Comment 

Conclusion 

As a result of the mediation in relation to this matter, a revised proposal has been negotiated 

between the applicant’s and City’s heritage consultants, which involves the partial retention 

of the existing building, whereby the original fabric at the front of the premises would be 

retained and conserved, with the remainder of the building demolished to make way for new 

development. 

This negotiated outcome addresses the objectives of the City’s Character Retention 

Guidelines Mt Lawley, Menora and Inglewood, relating to Commercial Development, which 

seeks to conserve and retain existing traditional shop fronts. Furthermore, the amended 

proposal will enable the traditional shop front to continue to contribute to the character of the 

Mount Lawley (East) Heritage Protection Area. As a result, the application is recommended 

for approval, subject to relevant conditions. 

60



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.1/AP2 - LOT 25, STREET NUMBER 760, BEAUFORT 

STREET, MOUNT LAWLEY- PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN 

HERITAGE PROTECTION AREA SECTION 31 STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL 

INVITATION TO RECONSIDER (SAT MATTER NO. DR221 OF 2012) 

Attachment 1 - Floor Plan of 760 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley identifying the extent 

of original fabric to be retained 

61



Attachment 2 – Letter from Greg Rowe and Associates dated 15 August 2012 

62



63



64



65



66



67



At 7.15pm Councillor Willox returned to the meeting prior to consideration of Item 10.1/AP3. 

At 7.19pm the Manager Asset Management and the Coordinator Asset arrived at the 

meeting during consideration of Item 10.1/AP3. 

10.1/AP3 LOT 12, HOUSE NUMBER 231, BALCATTA ROAD, BALCATTA - 

ADDITIONS TO OFFICE, WAREHOUSE AND SHOWROOM - STATE 

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATION FOR REVIEW DR232 OF 

2012 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 12, House Number 231, Balcatta Road, Balcatta 

MGA Town Planners 

Acting Manager Approvals 

Approvals 

Hamersley 

Balcatta 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 












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





Moved Councillor Italiano, seconded Councillor Willox 

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 Additions to Office, Warehouse and Office at Lot 12, House Number 231, 

Balcatta Road, Balcatta be REFUSED for the following reasons:- 

a. The application proposes numerous ground floor office tenancies which is contrary to 

the requirements of the City’s Mixed Business Design Guidelines which requires office 

uses to be located on upper levels and for ground floor levels to be utilized by 

showroom and other active commercial uses; and 

68



b. The proposed development application is not consistent with the objectives of the 

City’s Mixed Business Zone as set out under Clause 4.2.8 of Local Planning Scheme 

No.3. 

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

For: Councillors Ferrante, Italiano, Michael, Stewart and Willox. 

Against: Councillors Boothman, Cooke, Jenkinson, Lagan, Proud, Robbins, Sargent and 

Tyzack. 

During the debate, Councillor Cooke foreshadowed the following motion 


0912/028 

Moved Councillor Cooke, seconded Councillor Jenkinson 

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


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

Scheme No.3, the application for Additions to Office, Warehouse and Office at Lot 12, 

House Number 231 Balcatta Road, Balcatta be APPROVED subject to the following 

conditions:- 

a. Vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the 

approved plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction of the City, the 124 

parking spaces being marked out and maintained in good repair. 

b. Any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on 

the approved plan are to be removed. New kerbing, footpath and verge to be 

reinstated to the satisfaction of the Manager Engineering Operations. 

c. All land indicated as landscaped area on the approved plan being developed on 


landscaped areas are to be maintained in good condition thereafter. 

d. Existing vegetation being retained in accordance with the approved landscape 

plan. 

e. The street verge/s being landscaped and reticulated to the satisfaction of the 

City and maintained in good condition thereafter. 

f. The internal partitions between factory, showroom, office or warehouse units 

not being altered without the written consent of the City first being obtained. 

g. All off street parking to be available onsite during business hours for all 

customers and staff to the satisfaction of the City. 

69



h. No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the 


are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards, where provided. 

i. No showroom being used for the display or sale of foodstuffs, liquor or 

beverages; items of clothing or apparel; magazines, newspapers, books or 

paper products; medicinal or pharmaceutical products; china, glassware or 

domestic hardware; or items of personal adornment. 


For: Councillors Boothman, Cooke, Ferrante, Jenkinson, Lagan, Proud, Robbins, Sargent, 

Stewart and Tyzack. 

Against: Councillors Italiano, Michael and Willox. 

Reasons for change 

1. The established low ceiling heights and small tenancy sizes of the existing building are 

not conducive to operating as a showroom. 

2. The predominant established land use pattern along Balcatta Road is Office. 

3. The Application meets the objectives of LPS3 Mixed Business Zone and Council 

exercises its discretion with the Mixed Business Design Guidelines. 


That the item relating to Lot 12, House Number 231, Balcatta Road, Balcatta - Additions to 

Office, Warehouse and Showroom - State Administrative Tribunal Application for Review 

Dr232 of 2012 be REFERRED to the Council meeting to be held 18 September 2012 to give 

Councillors the opportunity to inspect the site and to clarify some of the issues that appear to 

be unresolved. 


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 Additions to Office, Warehouse and Office at Lot 12, House Number 231, 

Balcatta Road, Balcatta be REFUSED for the following reasons:- 

a. The application proposes numerous ground floor office tenancies which is contrary to 

the requirements of the City’s Mixed Business Design Guidelines which requires office 

uses to be located on upper levels and for ground floor levels to be utilized by 

showroom and other active commercial uses; and 

b. The proposed development application is not consistent with the objectives of the 

City’s Mixed Business Zone as set out under Clause 4.2.8 of Local Planning Scheme 

No.3. 

70




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

delegated authority for Additions to Office, Warehouse and Office under Section 31 of the 

State Administrative Tribunal Act (2004) at Lot 12, House Number 231, Balcatta Road, 

Balcatta (DA12/0477). The City’s officers have previously approved the subject development 

application subject to conditions. 


Attachments 

Nil. 


1. Development application ECM Doc No: 3004076 


3. Site, floor and elevation plans ECM Doc No: 3192497 



Nearest Cross Street: Kenhelm Street 

Location Plan 

71




Current Façade 

72



Proposed Façade 


Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS 

LPS3 

Use 

Class 

Industrial 

Mixed Business 

Office, Showroom and Warehouse 

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

granting planning approval 

Showroom P - Permitted 

Warehouse P - Permitted 



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. 

73



Clause 4.2.8 of LPS3 sets out the objectives of the Mixed Business Zone which are as 

follows:- 

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; and 

c) To ensure that traffic management, road safety, site access, onsite parking, building 

design and streetscape appearance are not compromised. 

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:- 

b) The requirements of orderly and proper planning; 

f) Any Local Planning Policy adopted by Council under Clause 2.4; 

i) The compatibility of a use or development within its setting; and 

o) The relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in 

the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, 

orientation and appearance of the proposal. 


Local Planning Policy 4.4 - Mixed Business Design Guidelines 

In relation to the use of commercial floor space within the Mixed Business Zone the 

guidelines contain the following provisions under the heading of “Streetscape Relationship: 

Activity and Uses”:- 

Showroom and other active commercial uses shall be located on the ground floor 

level; and 

Background 

Office and other non-active uses shall be located on upper levels. 

The subject application (DA12/0477) was lodged with the City on 12 March 2012. The City’s 

initial assessment identified the proposed ground floor office use as being contrary to the 

City’s Mixed Business Design Guidelines. The applicant proceeded to lodge further 

information in support of their claim that office uses on the ground floor should be permitted. 

The City considered the additional information and advised the applicant that the proposed 

office uses on the ground floor would not be supported. 

The City subsequently approved the development proposal, with a condition imposed 

requiring the ground floor tenancies to be used as showrooms. The condition was imposed 

after liaising with the applicant, and the applicant provided confirmation in writing that they 

were agreeable to the imposition of this condition. The City subsequently issued an 

approval subject to conditions on 21 June 2012 under delegated authority. The applicant has 

since lodged an application for review with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). 

74



The applicant has requested that SAT remove condition 1 of development approval 

(DA12/0477) and subsequently have the floor plan amended to show offices on the ground 

floor. Condition 1 of the City’s approval currently states:- 

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

as shown on the approved plan. Specifically:- 

a) The ground floor tenancies are approved for use as “showroom” in accordance 

with the Showroom definition of the City of Stirling’s Local Planning Scheme 

No.3; 

b) The ground floor tenancies operating in accordance with the Showroom 

definition of the City of Stirling’s Local Planning Scheme No. 3 being, “premises 

used to display, sell by wholesale or retail, or hire, automotive parts and 

accessories, camping equipment, electrical light fittings, equestrian supplies, 

floor coverings, furnishings, furniture, household appliances, party supplies, 

swimming pools or goods of a bulky nature”. 

The City attended an initial mediation at the SAT on 13 August 2012. At the mediation the 

SAT member issued the following orders:- 

1. Pursuant to s 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the respondent 

is invited to reconsider its decision at its meeting on 18 September 2012. 

2. The proceeding is adjourned to a further directions hearing at 11am on Friday 24 

August 2012 in order to programme a final hearing. 

At the directions hearing on 24 August 2012 the SAT made the following orders:- 

1. The matter is listed for hearing on 2 November 2012 commencing at 9:30am on site. 

2. The parties are to file within 7 days a set of agreed programming orders (for the 

hearing). 

3. If necessary, a directions hearing is listed for 12 noon on 19 September 2012. (this 

directions hearing is only necessary if the programming orders can not be agreed to). 

The proposal currently before Council is a modified proposal as it proposes a mix of office 

and showroom development. 

Assessment 


Element 


Policy 

OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

1 

Site 

Requirements 

 

Not proposed to change 

of part of this 

reconsideration. 

2 Setbacks 




75



Element 


Policy 



5 Facades 



OR 

Variation 

Required 

8 Policy 

9 

Other 

Consideration 

 

Comment 
















The Mixed Business 

Design Guidelines 

require showroom and 

other active commercial 

uses to be located on the 

ground floor level and 

office and other nonactive 

uses to be located 

in upper levels. 

The proposal the subject 

of this reconsideration 

proposes six (6) out of 

eight (8) ground floor 

tenancies facing Balcatta 

Road as office. 

Nil. 


The application was not required to be advertised. 


"On the basis of this revised proposal, Council is asked to reconsider Condition 1 of its 

approval of 21 June 2012, making condition 1 applicable only to Units 1 and 2 and 

allowing Units 3-8 inclusive to be used as offices. 

In support of this request, we provide the following information. 

1. The subject premises are ageing and tired and no longer an aesthetic asset to 

the Balcatta area. Scope Property Group has acquired the site in order to carry 

out a major upgrade. Figure 1 shows a photo of the premises as they currently 

exist and a perspective drawing of the renovations proposed for comparison. It 

can be seen that the renovations represent a major upgrading of the site. 

76



2. The ground floor units are unsuited to use as showrooms. All except one of the 

of the ground floor units are vacant and some have been vacant for up to a year 

despite being advertised for lease at rates reflective of the showroom rents in the 

area. Simply, the tenancies do not conform to contemporary standards for 

showrooms. An attached document prepared by the Bulky Goods Retailers 

Association reveals that typical showroom tenancies should be 1,000 – 3,500m 2 

in area with minor tenancies occupying 300-500m 2 . 

Tenancies within the subject building are around 250m 2 and structural walls 

separate each with the result that it is not practical to combine tenancies. 

Further, ceiling heights in the subject premises are 2.7m versus recommended 

heights of 4.5m to 6.0m. 

The premises are also disadvantaged by the lack of truck manoeuvring space to 

the rear preventing convenient receipt /dispatch of bulky goods. The extra 

handling of goods in loading and unloading is a significant economic impediment 

to successful showroom use. 

Finally, the lack of truss height restricts space above the windows/doors for the 

installation of advertising panels where they can be seen. The mature 

landscaping adjacent to Balcatta Road further inhibits visibility. 

All in all, the premises are unsuited to showroom use, a conclusion verified by 

the lack of interest in leasing tenancies over a 12 month period. 

3. In addition to showrooms (and offices), there are various uses that could 

potentially be permitted under Local Planning Scheme No. 3 to occupy the 

premises. However, over the previous 12 months during which the premises 

have been advertised for showrooms, there has not been one enquiry regarding 

alternative uses. 

Nevertheless, even if such an enquiry were to be received, a large number of 

these potential alternative uses require parking at much higher ratios than 

showrooms/offices and are therefore problematic. Such potential uses requiring 

much more parking include: 

Club Premises 

Convenience Store 

Drive through Fast Food Outlet 

Fast Food Outlet 

Hardware Showroom 

Medical Centre 

Place of Worship 

Reception Centre 

Private Recreation (Health Studio) 

Restaurant 

Tavern 

Veterinary Centre 

77



Other potentially permissible uses are simply impractical such as Service 

Stations, Motor Vehicle Wash, Motor Vehicle Repair and Motor Vehicle, Boat or 

Caravan Sales. In short, whilst under the Scheme there may be multiple “D” (not 

permitted unless Council exercises its discretion) or “P” (permitted) uses 

applicable to the subject premises, the practical reality is that there are little to no 

viable alternatives to the combination of showroom and office uses which Scope 

Property Group now proposes. 

4. Scope Property Group are commercial property developers intending to market 

strata titled units in the refurbished building. They cannot market units as 

potential “Convenience Store”/”Medical Centre”/”Fast Food Outlet” when such 

uses may not be approved because of a lack of parking, as they do not wish to 

engage in any misleading or deceptive advertising. 

If someone wished to use the subject premises for such purposes they would 

need to make separate application. As the premises are generally unsuited to 

showroom use, there are few realistic alternatives for the purposes of marketing 

other than to promote the units as office tenancies. 

5. In its current form, the development is inconsistent with Scheme Objectives and 

Policy positions. Both Council’s Scheme and Policy 4.4 promote a more intense 

commercial business development form. However, under the existing use 

regime of “Showrooms”, the majority of ground floor units are vacant despite 

attempts to secure tenants. This commercial business development is anything 

but “intense” under the showroom use regime. 

The development will also deliver other Scheme/Policy objectives, achieving a 

much higher aesthetic quality, enhancing pedestrian/vehicular safety and 

accessibility by deleting an existing crossover as well as enhancing onsite 

parking and streetscape appearance through an upgraded building and the 

replacement of a crossover with landscaping. Provision will also be made for 

bicycle parking and disabled access and amenities will be provided at the site 

which otherwise wouldn’t happen if the refurbishment doesn’t proceed. 

6. Noting previous comments, it is no accident that the surviving showroom use 

(fitness equipment) occupies Unit 1. This business also has use of the 

warehouse to the rear of the premises, increasing onsite storage. It also uses 

offices above. It therefore occupies a significant floor area, a luxury not available 

to other units. 

7. As foreshadowed, the proponents are prepared to compromise their original 

proposal by retaining Unit 1 as a showroom. They are also prepared to retain 

Unit 2 as a showroom even though it will be extremely difficult to secure a tenant 

given the shortcomings previously identified. 

This will retain a mix of uses at ground floor level including 2 showrooms, a 

warehouse and 6 offices. 

With regard to development intensity and ground floor activation, the proposed 

offices are all glass-fronted and therefore likely to be appealing to office activities 

that attract people to the site throughout the day such as estate agents. 

78



Certainly, employment density in offices is generally high, ensuring that there will 

be many people at the site during the day with people moving around and 

activating the area, particularly at lunch times. 

Overall, the mix of uses at ground floor level will be: 

Showrooms 539m 2 22% 

Warehouse 438m 2 18% 

Offices 1,494m 2 60% 

8. In March this year, Council apparently approved an “Office” use in premises next 

door at the corner of Balcatta Road and Geddes Street. This development is 

single storey and therefore, the office was approved on the ground floor. 

Moreover the approved office occupies the entire Balcatta Road frontage as well 

as a large section of the Geddes Street frontage. Overall, offices in the building 

occupy 864m 2 or 63% of ground floor space. Details are:- 

Offices 864m 2 63% 

Lunch Bar 156m 2 12% 

Workshop 344m 2 25% 

Under Scope Property Group’s revised proposal, only the side street (Kenhelm 

Street) frontage and 25% of the Balcatta Road frontage will be used for 

showrooms. They feel that there is considerable inconsistency in the way their 

proposal is being assessed versus what has been approved next door – 

particularly when the respective land use percentages are compared. 

9. The stretch of Balcatta Road on which the subject premises are located; (ie east 

of the Bunnings outlet) is simply not a showroom area. Ground floor offices are in 

fact consistent with the existing land use pattern in the locality (and indeed, 

consistent with previous approvals issued by the City). 

In other localities, showrooms tend to congregate along particular sections of 

major roads where they can “feed-off” one another and allow comparison 

shopping. This situation does not apply to the eastern leg of Balcatta Road. 

For the above reasons, Council is asked to favourably reconsider this proposal 

having regard to the changes which have been introduced to meet the City’s 

planning objectives. We are hopeful that Council will give its approval to the 

modified floor plan enclosed." 

79



Comment 

The applicant’s submission makes reference to a recent approval (DA12/0546) on the 

adjoining lot at House Number 235, Balcatta Road, Balcatta. The City has issued an 

approval for an office on the adjoining site however the circumstances relating to the 

adjoining lot differ to the position of the applicant for the subject property, for the following 

reasons:- 

The adjoining site is single storey therefore providing no opportunity to allocate office 

uses on an upper floor whereas the subject site is two (2) storey thus enabling office 

uses to be located on an upper floor; 

Office occupies approximately 50% of the adjoining site (House Number 235) and 

does not constitute the predominant use. The subject proposal involves 67% of the 

gross floor area on site being office (including upper floor) with 71% of ground floor 

tenancies facing the street (Balcatta Road) as office space; and 

The adjoining site (House Number 235) maintains a mix of uses other than office that 

attract customers to the site. The proposed development (House Number 231) would 

result in 71% office and 29% showroom uses at ground level. 

The City’s Mixed Business Design Guidelines contain the following provisions in relation to 

land uses on site:- 

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 requirements are clear and explicit yet the proposal directly contravenes the intended 

land use function for the Mixed Business Zone (with the exception of two (2) ground floor 

showroom tenancies). The applicant has argued that the current individual tenancies are not 

suitable for any uses that are approvable within the Mixed Business Zone other than office. 

The stated reasons for the properties unsuitability include commercial leasing prospects, 

tenancy size and the inability for the site to accommodate uses that require more intensive 

parking requirements. The City’s view is that parking is considered to be the only valid 

planning consideration raised – however the City would assess the car parking requirements 

and provision for any development proposal involving a commercial development on its 

merit. The suggestion that insufficient parking would be available is not considered sufficient 

justification for departing from the requirements of the Mixed Business Design Guidelines in 

this instance. The proposed use of office encompasses a wide range of potential business 

types, and it is difficult to ensure that the uses on site would be “active commercial uses”. By 

virtue of its wording “Office and other non-active uses shall be located on upper levels” the 

City’s Mixed Business Design Guidelines imply that office is generally a non-active use. 

It has been stated that the proposed office uses are consistent with other approved business 

types along Balcatta Road. A search of the City’s records has not been undertaken in 

relation to what land uses have been approved by the City along Balcatta Road, though it is 

acknowledged that different land uses exits in this area. Irrespective of what land uses may 

or may not have been approved in the area, the City amended its District Planning Scheme 

No.2 (DPS2) in 2008 to create the Mixed Business Zone which consists of lots fronting the 

major traffic routes Erindale Road and Balcatta Road. These lots were previously zoned 

Special Garden Industrial under DPS2. The development application is required to be 

assessed in relation to the current statutory framework. 

80



The Mixed Business Zone and its associated objectives are quite recent in the context of the 

City’s planning scheme. The objectives and changes in land use patterns that the Mixed 

Business Zone has been created to facilitate are obviously not widespread and are yet to 

materialise given the limited time since DPS2 was amended (Amendment 492 in 2008) and 

the introduction of LPS3. Based on the relatively new zoning provisions and the associated 

objectives, existing land use patterns that have been established under the previous zoning 

(Special Garden Industrial) do not justify the approval of applications that are consistent with 

established land use patterns rather than the current scheme and policy requirements and 

objectives. 

As previously stated, Clause 4.2.8 of LPS3 sets out the objectives of the Mixed Business 

Zone which are as follows:- 

o) To facilitate a development mix of showrooms and service industry of a higher 

aesthetic quality located on major traffic routes; 

p) To provide a more intense commercial business development form within established 

industrial areas of the City; and 

q) To ensure that traffic management, road safety, site access, onsite parking, building 

design and streetscape appearance are not compromised. 

The proposed development does not facilitate a development mix of showrooms and service 

industry located on major traffic routes, as 71% of the ground floor space fronting the street 

is proposed as office. “Showroom” and “Industry – Service” are two (2) distinct and defined 

land uses under LPS3. The proposed predominant use of “office” is not considered to meet 

these definitions. 

The proposed use of office as compared to the existing use of showroom is not considered 

to “provide a more intense commercial business development form” within the area. Intense 

commercial uses attract high volumes of customers and clientele to a site during trading 

hours by the nature of their operations i.e. showrooms (permitted use) attract customers 

viewing and purchasing goods whilst medical centres (discretionary use) attract people 

seeking medical treatment. The very natures of these businesses rely on people coming to 

the site. Office uses however, do not necessarily involve a regular turnover of customers to 

the site, reducing its ability to be considered ‘a more intense commercial business 

development form”. The proposal is therefore not considered to provide a more intense 

commercial business development form within the locality. 

The proposed development application directly contravenes the objectives of the Mixed 

Business Zone as set out under LPS3, and directly contravenes the land use controls as set 

out within the Mixed Business Design Guidelines. The City is therefore unable to consider 

the application for approval. The application is subsequently recommended for refusal. 


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

with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 in relation to condition 1 of their 

approval dated 21 June 2012. 

81




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. 


Goal 2: 


SI 2.1.5: 






Develop and implement policies to support and promote sustainable 

building design. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Nil. 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

Issue 

Development of key business sectors 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

The subject proposal will not result in land use 

patterns developing in line with the City’s current 

Scheme and Policy objectives. 

Conclusion 

The proposed development application directly contravenes the objectives of the Mixed 

Business Zone as set out under LPS3, and directly contravenes the land use controls as set 

out within the Mixed Business Design Guidelines. The applicant’s submission and 

justification in support of the subject proposal such as land use patterns established under a 

previous zoning and previous planning scheme, commercial leasing prospects and 

precedent do not have any statutory planning basis or merit by which the City may consider 

approving the application. For the above reasons the application is recommended for 

refusal. 

82



Councillor Stewart disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.1/AP4 as the neighbour, 

adjoining, at 22 Hale Road is well known to him. 

10.1/AP4 

LOT 300, HOUSE NUMBER 20A, HALE ROAD, NORTH BEACH - ONE 

GROUPED DWELLING (ONE ADDITIONAL) 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 300, House Number 20A, Hale Street, North Beach 

Ben Hoffman 


Approvals 

Coastal 

North Beach 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 

Quasi- 

Judicial 

Information 

Purposes 






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. 




0912/029 

Moved Councillor Italiano, seconded Councillor Stewart 

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

One Grouped Dwelling (One Additional) at Lot 300, House Number 20A, Hale Street, 

North Beach be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:- 

a. All driveways, parking and manoeuvring 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; 

83



b. 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; 

c. All eaves to the proposed development maintaining a minimum setback of 

750mm from the boundary; 

d. Storm water from all roofed and paved areas to be collected and contained on 

site; 

e. All privacy screening is to be visually impermeable and to comply in all respects 

with the requirements of clause 6.8.1 of the Residential Design Codes (Visual 

Privacy); and 

f. Gradients to driveways and ramps serving parking areas to comply with City’s 

Specification for Residential Vehicle Crossings. 




Against: Nil. 


That the item relating to Lot 300, House Number 20A, Hale Road, North Beach - One 

Grouped Dwelling (One Additional) be REFERRED to the Council meeting to be held 18 

September 2012 to enable further consideration by Councillors. 


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

Grouped Dwelling (One Additional) at Lot 300, House Number 20A, Hale Street, North 

Beach be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:- 

a. All driveways, parking and manoeuvring 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; 

b. 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; 

c. All eaves to the proposed development maintaining a minimum setback of 750mm 

from the boundary; 

d. Storm water from all roofed and paved areas to be collected and contained on site; 

e. All privacy screening is to be visually impermeable and to comply in all respects with 

the requirements of clause 6.8.1 of the Residential Design Codes (Visual Privacy); and 

f. Gradients to driveways and ramps serving parking areas to comply with City’s 

Specification for Residential Vehicle Crossings. 

84




To consider a development application for One (1) Grouped Dwelling (One (1) Additional) at 

Lot 300, House Number 20A, Hale Street, North Beach. The development proposes 

variations to the City’s ‘Residential Building Heights’ Policy and Clause 6.3.1 - Buildings 

Setback from the Boundary of the Residential Design Codes. 


Attachments 

Nil. 





4. Diagrams prepared by Applicant in support of application ECM Doc No: 3203840 



Nearest Cross Street: 

Flora Terrace 

Location Plan 

85




Perspective of proposed grouped dwelling 

86




Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS 

LPS3 

Use 

Class 

Urban 

Residential – R20 

Grouped Dwellings 




Nil. 

Residential Design Codes 

6.3.1 Buildings Setback from the Boundary 

The ‘acceptable development standards’ of the R-Codes require buildings to be setback 

from the boundaries other than street boundaries in accordance with Table 2a, Table 2b and 

Figure 3. 


Residential Building Height Policy (Policy 2.6) 

Under the ‘acceptable development standards’ of the City’s ‘Residential Building Heights’ 

Policy, buildings with skillion roofs are permitted when the external wall height does not 

exceed 6.0m to the lower side of the skillion and 8.0m to the upper side of the skillion as 

measured from the Average Natural Ground Level. 

The Policy also requires that at any point, the difference between the Average Natural 

Ground Level and Natural Ground Level does not exceed 1.5m. 

Background 

A development application was submitted to the City on 29 May 2012 for One (1) Grouped 

Dwelling (One (1) Additional) at Lot 300, House Number 20A, Hale Street, North Beach 

(DA12/1224 refers). 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 buildings setback from the boundary. 

The applicant submitted justification addressing the issues raised by the City’s officer’s 

assessment of the proposal. However, a performance based assessment of the proposed 

building height and boundary setbacks was sought. 

The application was subsequently advertised for public comment in accordance with the R- 

Codes. In light of the comments received, the applicant amended the proposal and 

submitted additional justification. 

87



Assessment 

R-Code Level 1 Assessment – Acceptable Development Criteria 

Design Element 

Complies 

'Acceptable 

Development' 

1 Density 

OR 

'Performance 

Criteria' 

Assessment 

Comment 

Complies 

2 Streetscape 

Complies 

3 

Boundary 

Setbacks 

 

Ground floor Bed 3 – 

En-suite is setback 

1.5m in lieu of 1.8m 

from the eastern 

boundary. 

4 Open Space 

Complies 

5 

Access 

Parking 

and 

 

Complies 

6 Site Works 

Complies 


The skillion roof 

height is 7.0m to the 

lower side in lieu of 

the permitted 6.0m by 

Council policy. 

8 Privacy 

Complies 

9 

Design 

Climate 

for 

 

Complies 

10 Incidental 

Complies 

11 Special Purpose 

Complies 

88



R-Code Level 2 Assessment – Performance Criteria 


3. Boundary 

Setback 

R-Codes 

Performance 

Criteria 

6.3.1 Buildings 

Set Back from the 

Boundary 

Subclause 

P1 Buildings set 

back from boundaries 

other than street 

boundaries so as to:- 

• provide 

adequate direct sun 

and ventilation to the 

building; 

• ensure 

adequate direct sun 

and ventilation being 

available to adjoining 

properties; 

Satisfies 

Performance 

Criteria 

Does Not 

Satisfy 

Performance 

Criteria 

 

The setback variation to 

the ground floor eastern 

elevation is considered 

acceptable as it is minor 

in nature. 

It is not considered that 

the variation will have any 

impact upon the direct 

sunlight or ventilation 

available to the subject or 

adjoining dwellings open 

spaces. 

• provide 

adequate direct sun to 

the building and 

appurtenant open 

spaces; 

• assist with 

protection of access 

to direct sun for 

adjoining properties; 

The 

proposed 

development complies 

with all acceptable 

development standards of 

the R-Codes as they 

apply to visual privacy. 

• assist in 

ameliorating the 

impacts of building 

bulk on adjoining 

properties; and 

• assist in 

protecting privacy 

between adjoining 

properties. 

89




7. Building 

Height 

R-Codes 

Performance 

Criteria 

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; 

Satisfies 

Performance 

Criteria 

Does Not 

Satisfy 

Performance 

Criteria 

 

The proposed grouped 

dwelling meets the 

acceptable development 

standards of the R-Codes 

relating to solar access 

and it is therefore 

considered that the 

proposed development 

has no undue impact on 

the adjoining properties 

access to direct sunlight in 

open spaces and 

habitable rooms. 

• adequate 

daylight to major 

openings to habitable 

rooms; and 

• access to 

views of significance. 

Whilst it is acknowledged 

that some loss of views of 

significance may be 

experienced by the 

dwellings to the rear of the 

subject lot towards the Mt 

Flora Regional Museum, 

these are no greater than 

that which would be lost 

as a result of a dwelling 

with a compliant building 

height. 

90




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. One (1) submission was received 

and is summarised in the table below:- 

Submission 

Number 

Submission Details 

‘I strongly object to the proposed 

variations to the building height and 

setbacks because it will adversely 

affect the amenity of the surrounds of 

my property, including but not limited 

to increased shadow dimension and 

time in shadow, increased visual 

pollution by way of larger and closer 

building imposing on the landscape, 

increased intrusion on privacy, by way 

of more elevated and closer sight 

lines, and possibly encroachment on a 

water corporation easement. I believe 

the building should comply to the 

building heights requirement and the R 

Code.’ 

Officer's Comment 

The City has assessed the proposed 

grouped dwelling and considers that it 

complies with the R-Codes 

performance criteria and the City 

Policy objectives as it applies to 

building height. 

In respect to over shadowing, 17.95% 

of the property directly to the rear will 

be overshadowed as a result of the 

proposed grouped dwelling. This is 

within the R-Codes acceptable 

development standard of 25% 

permitted in the R20 zone. The 

neighbouring properties solar access 

will therefore not be affected to an 

unacceptable degree. 

The setback of the upper floor eastern 

boundary has been amended by the 

applicant in light of the objection 

received and is compliant with the 

acceptable development provisions of 

the R-Codes. This is considered to 

address the issues raised by the 

objector. 

In respect to visual privacy, all major 

openings and balconies are proposed 

to be provided with obscure glazing to 

a minimum height of 1.65m above 

upper finished floor level. This 

exceeds the relevant acceptable 

development standards of the R- 

Codes and therefore privacy of the 

neighbouring properties will not be 

affected. 

The ground floor has been 

adequately setback from the Water 

Corporation easement which runs 

across the rear of the property, 

protecting the easement. 

91



One (1) Submission Received – Relative Location 

Submissions Within 100m of Remainder of 

Received proposed site City 

All Submissions 

SUPPORT 0% 0% 0% 

OBJECT 100% 0% 100% 

OTHER 

'conditional') 

(Not stated/ 

no opinion/ 

0% 0% 0% 

Applicant's Justification 

The applicant has provided the following justification in support of the proposed 

development. 

“The proposed external wall height for the low side of the skillion roof of the proposed 

residence is 7m (Wall + Roof height) which is 1m higher than the City’s Residential 

Building Height Policy (2.6) regulation recommends. 

While on the surface this would appear to negatively impact neighbouring houses I 

have taken this into account in the design process and have increased the relevant 

setbacks to at least offer the same (if not improved) outcome to the neighbours. If I 

had designed the house to the required height and the minimum setbacks it would 

have greater negative impact than the proposed design. 

Here are the responses to each objection: 

1. Increased shadow dimension and time in shadow 

As demonstrated on page 2 of the accompanying document, the proposed 

design actually results in a smaller overshadowing area (8.76m2) than if the 

house was designed to the maximum 6m height with the rear boundary minimum 

setbacks. Please note. If this is not acceptable, the setback of the upper story 

could be reduced by 75mm which would eliminate the increased shadow length 

of 120mm. 

2. Increased visual pollution by way of larger and closer building imposing on the 

landscape 

As demonstrated on page 3 of the accompanying document, the proposed 

design also results in a reduced visual impact than if the house was designed to 

the maximum 6m height with the rear boundary minimum setbacks. The 

diagrams show that any persons in the rear courtyard of the rear property (or 

looking through windows) would actually see the same (or in most cases) less of 

the upper story in spite of the increased height because of the increased 

setbacks and the absence of eaves. 

3. Increased intrusion on privacy, by way of more elevated and closer sight lines 

This is addressed by using obscured glass to 1.6m on all windows that overlook 

neighbouring properties as per the R-Code requirements. The increased height 

of the windows is also somewhat offset by the increased setbacks. 

92



4. Possibly encroachment on a water corporation easement 

The Water Corporation has indicated that the setbacks from the sewer line are 

adequate. Structures on the ground level are over 2.6m from the sewer line. 

General streetscape and visual impact consideration (see page 1 of the 

accompanying document) 

In designing the house I have attempted to minimise the visual impact of the 

building on the neighbours while attempting to meet out design requirements. 

The height of the building at the front of the house (north elevation) is regulation 

height and does not affect the streetscape. The property is a rear block and is at 

a lower level than the road. This results in a design that does not impose itself on 

the streetscape. 

Impact to the side and rear neighbours is minimal with increased setbacks (west) 

and removal of eaves (east). Impact to the rear neighbour has been addressed 

with increasing the boundary setbacks. 

Rational for the increased building height 

In the design process we have attempted to take advantage of the existing contours of 

the block and design a building that requires a minimum amount of siteworks (either 

excavation or in-fill). By taking advantage of the 2m drop from the front of the block to 

the rear I have been able to locate parking, storage and living space in the basement. 

The benefit of this that we have not needed to push the size of the building out to the 

minimum setbacks on all boundaries or introduce any parapet walls. 

If we were required to drop the building height to the regulation 6m, the driveway grade 

to the basement would be to great and we would have to redesign the house with a 

more traditional 2 story configuration. In that process we would inevitably push the 

house to the minimum setbacks along the side and rear boundaries and probably also 

look at a parapet wall on one of the boundaries. This would result in a house of greater 

mass and have a greater visual and overshadowing impact than the proposed design.” 

Comment 

The applicant is seeking a performance based assessment of the proposed building height 

and building setback from the boundary. 

The proposed building height is largely a result of the topography of the lot which falls 2.48m 

from front (27.73 Australian Height Datum) to rear (25.25 AHD Australian Height Datum). 

The finished floor levels (FFL) of the dwelling have been set at a level which is consistent 

with the need to maintain a driveway gradient which meets the City’s standards. 

The surrounding locality is characterised by a mixture of new, large, two (2) storey homes 

and older single storey dwellings. Although the proposed grouped dwelling is located to the 

rear of the property, and the frontage is not visible from the street it is important to note that 

the height of the dwelling is consistent with those in the immediate area. 

The amenity of the neighbours is not considered to be detrimentally affected as a result of 

the proposal, with the development complying with all the relevant acceptable development 

provisions of the R-Codes (with the exception of the minor setback variation sought). 

93



Whilst it is acknowledged that some loss of views of significance may be experienced by the 

dwellings to the rear of the property towards the Mt Flora Regional Museum, these are no 

greater than that which would be lost as a result of a dwelling with a compliant building 

height. 

The submission received from the adjoining property owner has been taken into 

consideration when assessing this application however; it cannot be substantiated on 

planning grounds. 


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 

Development Act 2005. 


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 

94



Conclusion 

The proposed development for One (1) Grouped Dwelling (One (1) Additional) at Lot 300, 

20A Hale Street, North Beach 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. 

95



10.1/AP9 LOT 4, HOUSE NUMBER 388, SCARBOROUGH BEACH ROAD - 

ADDITION TO WESTFIELD INNALOO - (USE NOT LISTED) - MANUAL 

CAR WASH 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 4, House Number 388, Scarborough Beach Road, Innaloo 

Westfield Leasing 


Approvals 

Doubleview 

Innaloo 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0912/030 

Moved Councillor Italiano, seconded Councillor Proud 

1. That pursuant to Clause 2.8 of Town Planning Scheme No.38, the as-constructed 

car parking layout containing 1851 bays at Lot 4, House Number 388, 

Scarborough Beach Road, Innaloo, be APPROVED. 

2. That pursuant to Clause 2.8.2 of Town Planning Scheme No.38, the application 

for a Use Not Listed (Manual Car Wash) at Lot 4, House Number 388, 

Scarborough Beach Road, Innaloo, be REFUSED, as the proposal development 

would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents. 

96




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

Sargent, Stewart, Tyzack and Willox. 

Against: Councillor Jenkinson. 


That the item relating to Lot 4, House Number 388, Scarborough Beach Road - Addition to 

Westfield Innaloo - (Use Not Listed) - Manual Car Wash be REFERRED to the Council 

meeting to be held 18 September 2012 to enable further information to be provided to 

Councillors. 


1. That pursuant to Clause 2.8 of Town Planning Scheme No.38, the as-constructed car 

parking layout containing 1851 bays at Lot 4, House Number 388, Scarborough Beach 

Road, Innaloo, be APPROVED. 

2. That pursuant to Clause 2.8.2 of Town Planning Scheme No.38, the application for a 

Use Not Listed (Manual Car Wash) at Lot 4, House Number 388, Scarborough Beach 

Road, Innaloo, be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:- 

a. Vehicular washing, parking and manoeuvring areas indicated on the approved 

plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction of the Manager Approvals; 

b. The hours of operation for the Manual Car Wash are restricted to the opening 

hours of the shopping centre; and 

c. All waste water to be discharged by sewer. 

3. That the Western Australian Planning Commission be ADVISED of Council’s decision. 


To consider a development application for a Use Not Listed (Manual Car Wash) at Lot 4, 

House Number 388, Scarborough Beach Road (Westfield Innaloo), which is a “Use Not 

Listed” under the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No.38. Council’s consideration of the 

application is also required due to a modification to the previously agreed parking ratio for 

the subject site. 


Attachments 

Nil. 





4. Traffic Report ECM Doc No: 3173960 

97




Site Area: 72,253m 2 

Nearest Cross Street: Oswald Street & Ellen Stirling Boulevard 

Location Plan 

Location of 

Manual Car 

Wash 


98




Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS Central City Area 

TPS38 Precinct 1 Stirling City Centre Scheme 

Use 

Class 

Type 

Use Not Listed (Manual Car Wash) 

Neither ‘preferred’ or ‘contemplated’ uses 


Town Planning Scheme No.38 

The subject site is located within Precinct 1: Retail Commercial Precinct of Town Planning 

Scheme No.38 (TPS38). The Statement of Intent for this Precinct is as follows:- 

"Major development emphasis within this Precinct delineated on the Scheme Map will 

be to expand the retailing component of the Shopping Centre north and east to the 

realigned Oswald Street. 

It is considered that this area which is in excess of four hectares can readily 

accommodate additional Net Lettable Area in a prominent landmark building with 

associated carparking and extensive landscape and group housing buffers to abutting 

residential properties. Access will primarily be off the realigned Oswald Street and 

strong pedestrian areas are required within the proposed retail expansion to facilitate a 

direct continuous pedestrian link between Scarborough Beach Road and the Stirling 

Railway Station through the Shopping Centre Precinct. 

Opportunity also exists for retail expansion westward into Precinct 2 across the 

Transperth bus station site to Odin Road and Scarborough Beach Road. 

Facilities such as a further discount department store are envisaged in the vicinity of 

the existing Shopping Centre. 

The proposed northerly expansion of the existing Innaloo Shopping Centre should 

occur only on the basis that the development is functionally integrated with the existing 

Centre. 

The design of the expansion will need to be integrated with pedestrian links proposed 

between the existing Centre and the public transport/commercial nodes to the north. 

Alterations to the existing Shopping Centre will have to be undertaken to facilitate 

external retailing facilities such as al fresco cafes. The extent and impact of hard stand 

parking should also be reduced by providing decked or undercroft parking, and 

extensive landscaping, where possible. 

99



It is envisaged that the extensions would be designed as a feature pod building clearly 

identifiable from the freeway/railway systems and the realigned Oswald Street as a 

landmark building within the Centre, with offices or residential components constructed 

above retail facilities, and improvements undertaken to the external facades of the 

existing Centre to provide opportunities for additional strip shopping located along the 

primary pedestrian axis. 

With changing retail hours and shopping trends, the potential exists to create a major 

after hours retail focus linking the Railway Station (and development to the north) to 

restaurant and cinema development south of Scarborough Beach Road. 

In recognition of resident concerns, existing remnant vegetation should be 

incorporated into the design (and into the landscaped buffer areas) where possible. 

Group housing up to R60 density is also required as a transitional buffer between the 

proposed retail facilities and the existing residential areas (Precinct 3). 

The area of land that will be created between the realigned Oswald Street and the 

eastern boundary of the established residential development in Shawford and Staveley 

Places which is presently set aside as Public Open Space should be developed as 

landscaped parkland but community facilities such as arts and crafts and public 

exhibition areas should be provided to maintain a strong pedestrian theme between 

the shopping centre Precinct and the Stirling Railway Station, across the realigned 

Oswald Street." 

TPS 38 provides the following definition for an “Automatic Car Wash”:- 

Means a building or portion of a building wherein vehicles are washed and cleaned by 

or primarily by mechanical means. 

An “Automatic Car Wash” is a “Preferred” use within Precinct 1. However as the 

proposed land use does not wash vehicles by mechanical means, it does not 

constitute an “Automatic Car Wash”. Consequently, the proposed use is required to be 

considered as a “Use Not Listed” in accordance with clause 5.4.5 of TPS38, which 

states:- 

"Where in this Part a use is not a Preferred Use or Contemplated Use in a Precinct or 

is a use that is not mentioned or defined in the Scheme or is not included in the 

general terms of the uses defined or is not normally part of the conduct of any of the 

uses defined them in dealing with a development application in that Precinct involving 

that use the Council: 

a) May consider the application only after appropriate advertising for public 

submissions and notification of affected landowners in accordance with Clause 

2.7. The time period specified in Clause 2.7 shall apply. 

b) May approve the application after due consideration of the matters referred to in 

Clause 2.8 and any relevant submission, subject to any conditions it considers 

appropriate; or 

c) May refuse the application." 

100



Clause 2.8.1 requires Council, in undertaking determination of a development 

application, to have regard to the following:- 

a) Any matter which it is required by the Scheme to consider; 

b) Any submission received as a result of a referral or notification of a development 

application pursuant to Clause 2.7; 

c) Any relevant Policy made pursuant to this Scheme; 

d) The requirements of orderly and proper planning; 

e) The preservation of the amenity of the area; and 

f) The provisions of Clause 4.5.1. 

The following matters contained within Clause 4.5.1 of TPS38 are considered most relevant 

to this application:- 

The intensity and nature of the proposed use, including its environmental impact by 

way of noise, emissions, illumination and hours of operation; 

Whether excessive loads would be placed on any existing or projected servicing 

infrastructure, community infrastructure or similar services; 

The number of employees likely to be accommodated; 

The parking accommodation as provided for in Table 1 – Parking Requirements; 

The form, layout, appearance and materials of buildings; 

Vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation; and 

Whether parking for vehicles is adequate, convenient, safe, unobtrusive, landscaped 

and adequately surfaced and marked. 

TPS38 does not contain any parking standards for car wash facilities, though it does require 

a minimum of one (1) bay per 50m 2 and a maximum of one (1) bay per 30m 2 gross floor area 

for the office component of the proposal. However, in relation to the subject site, Council 

have previously resolved, in agreement with the owners of the subject site, that an agreed 

parking ratio of one (1) bay 18.38m 2 Net Lettable Area (NLA) be maintained. This is to apply 

to the Westfield Innaloo shopping centre as a whole, notwithstanding the particular land uses 

contained within. This ratio was approved based on parking analysis undertaken as part of 

past developments, and the maintenance of the agreed parking ratio formed a condition of 

approval as resolved by Council on 31 May 2005 in relation to a 1350m 2 addition to the 

centre (DA05/0252 refers). This agreed parking parking ratio has had the practical effect of 

superseding the parking requirements specified in Table 1 of TPS38, which for a Shop is a 

minimum of one (1) bay per 20 m 2 NLA, and a maximum of one (1) bay per 14.5m 2 NLA. 

Metropolitan Region Scheme 

The subject site is located within the Stirling Station Precinct of the Metropolitan Region 

Scheme (MRS). The development is therefore subject to clause 32 of the MRS which has 

the effect of requiring the application to also be determined by the Western Australian 

Planning Commission (WAPC). 

The application was referred to the WAPC on 9 May 2012, however their decision has been 

deferred pending the City’s determination of the application. 

101



Background 

The subject development application (DA12/0342) was submitted on 15 February 2012. 

Following a preliminary assessment, the proposal was advertised in accordance with 

clauses 5.4.5 and 2.7 of TPS38 and Council’s ‘Planning Consultation Procedure’. 

Assessment 

Non-Residential Assessment – Town Planning Scheme No.38 

1 

Element 

Height, Scale and Density of 

Buildings 

Satisfies 

Scheme/ 

Policy 

2 Appearance and Orientation 

3 

4 

Function 

Floor Area, Plot Ratio and 

Site Cover for Nonresidential 

and Partially Nonresidential 

Development 

5 Setbacks 

 

 

 

OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

6 Landscaping Not applicable. 

7 

Car Parking and Access 

 

The built form predominantly 

exists. The only addition is that of 

a single storey office building 

(24m 2 ), and a single storey 

equipment room (15m 2 ). As these 

will be located within the existing 

decked car park, they are 

considered to be consistent with 

the existing built form. 

The built form exists. Apart from 

the construction of two (2) single 

storey structures within the 

existing car park, no changes 

proposed. 





proposed. 





proposed. 





proposed. 

The existing development has a 

Net Lettable Area of 34,705m 2 . 

Based on the agreed parking 

ratio for this site, being one (1) 

bay required per 18.38m 2 Net 

Lettable Area (condition 1 of 

Council’s approval from 31 May 

2005 in relation to DA05/252 

refers), the existing parking 

requirement is 1,888 bays. 

102



Element 

Satisfies 

Scheme/ 

Policy 

OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

As a result of the increase in floor 

area of the car wash the parking 

requirement will increase by two 

(2) bays to 1,890. 

The reconfiguration of the 

existing parking area, including 

new aisle, widening of existing 

bays to facilitate cleaning, and 

the construction of the office over 

existing bays, means that there is 

a loss of 14 bays. 

8 Pedestrian / Cycle Access Not Applicable. 

Car parking is discussed in detail 

further in this report. 

9 

Relationship to Other 

Precincts and Development 

Outside the Scheme Area 

 

Not Applicable. 

10 

Major Requirements Prior to 

Development 

Commencement 

 

Not Applicable. 


The application was advertised for a period of 21 days, in accordance with Clause 2.7 of the 

TPS38 and the City’s ‘Planning Consultation Procedure’ Policy. At the conclusion of the 

advertising period, 10 submissions were received and are summarised in the table below:- 

Submission 

Number 

1 

2 


We have no objections, however 

approval from the Water Corporation will 

be required for any increase in servicing 

capacity. 

The proposal will result in a reduction in 

the number of available parking bays 

available at a centre where parking is 

already at a premium. 

The car wash will have result in 

additional traffic coming to and from the 

site and travelling through the 

surrounding residential area. 

Two other car washes already exist in 

close proximity – there is no need for an 

additional car wash in this area. 


The comment of no objection is noted. The 

applicant has been advised of the Water 

Corporation’s comments with respect to 

their requirements. 

It is acknowledged that the proposed 

development, in conjunction with parking 

provided on site not being in accordance 

with the previously approved layout, results 

in a technical parking shortfall on site. Car 

parking is discussed in further detail later in 

this report. 

The proposed motor vehicle wash is not 

considered to exacerbate the current levels 

of traffic on the basis that the vehicles 

being washed will be visiting the site for 

shopping purposes in any case. 

Commercial viability and business 

competition are not valid planning 

considerations. 

103



Submission 

Number 



3 We have no objections to the proposal. The comment of no objection is noted. 

4 





The proposed car wash will result in 

noise pollution due to additional vehicle 

movements and noise of machines used 

to clean the cars. 







this report. 

The car wash is manual with all cleaning 

completed by hand-held equipment, and 

the development will be required by the 

City’s Health and Compliance Business 

Unit to comply with the Environmental 

Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Noise 

impacts are therefore expected to be 

minimal and controllable. 

5 

An application for a car wash here has 

previously been rejected by Council. 

Trading hours, particularly once Sunday 

trading is introduced, will result in an 

adverse impact upon the ability for 

surrounding residents to have “quiet 

time” in the area. 




surrounding residential area, including 

exacerbating the existing problem of “rat 

running”. 

Increased traffic will conflict with the 

existing child care centre on Oats Street, 

putting children at risk. 








Potential target for anti-social behaviour. 

Adverse impact upon property values. 

Does not form part of the strategic plan 

for Precinct 5 of TPS38. 

The application previously refused by 

Council on 27 September 2005 was in a 

different location, being the underground 

car park accessed via Ellen Stirling 

Boulevard. That application was refused by 

Council, partly because the City’s Traffic 

Design Engineer was not supportive of the 

proposed location as it was not considered 

to facilitate a safe shopping centre car park 

environment. The Traffic Design Engineer 

has reviewed the subject application and is 

supportive of the location proposed as part 

of the subject application. 

Trading hours are not a valid consideration 

as these are determined by the State 

Government. 

The proposed motor vehicle wash is not 













104



Submission 

Number 






The proposed development is not expected 

to be a target for antisocial behaviour, but 

rather may enhance security in this area as 

the business will be manned, thereby 

providing passive surveillance of the 

vehicles parked in this area. 

Impact upon property values in not a valid 

planning consideration. 

The subject site is located within Precinct 1 

of TPS38, within which an Automatic Car 

Wash is a Preferred Use. The fact that the 

car wash is manual does not change the 

nature of the land use significantly enough 

to no longer be considered in accordance 

with the objectives of that precinct. 

6 

7 






running”. 

The lack of footpaths in the area already 

puts pedestrians at risk – additional 

vehicle traffic as a result of the car wash 

will increase this risk. 










running”. 

The proposed manual vehicle wash is not 




shopping purposes in any case. The 

proposal is therefore not expected to have 

an adverse impact upon pedestrian safety. 







this report. 






105



Submission 

Number 



8 

9 

10 









running”. 

Additional vehicle traffic as a result of the 

car wash will increase the existing risk to 

pedestrians. 















running”. 

The lack of footpaths in the area already 

puts pedestrians at risk – additional 

vehicle traffic as a result of the car wash 

will increase this risk. 










The car wash should be located in an 

alternative location, such as 

underground off Ellen Stirling Boulevard. 





















Government. 


















Government. 

The City is required to determine the 

application based on the proposed location. 

Notwithstanding that, an application has 

previously been considered by Council for 

a car wash in the recommended location, 

however that was refused by Council on 27 

September 2005 because the facility was 

not expected to be able to operate safely in 

that location. The proposed location is 

therefore considered a preferable location 

to that previously proposed. 

106



In addition to the above, a 20 signature petition was also submitted objecting to the 

proposed development. It is noted that five (5) of the people who signed the petition also 

made their own separate submissions. The petition specified that the grounds for objection 

were as follows:- 

"We the undersigned oppose the construction of a car wash as advertised by the Shire 

at the rear of Westfield Innaloo Shopping Centre. 

We, the community of Innaloo (Precinct 2 and 5) already have a petition lodged with 

the Shire regarding traffic calming and the lack of footpaths in our area. We feel the 

location and building of a car wash will influence and increase traffic in our local 

streets, including the amount of rat running that is prevalent." 

The comments made in the petition are noted, and the lead petitioner has been advised that 

the petition has been received by the City, and that they will be advised when the matter is to 

be considered by the Planning and Development Committee. The concerns raised in the 

petition are addressed in the City’s comments further in this report. 

Ten Submissions Received* – Relative Location 

Submissions 

Received 

Within 100m of 

proposed site 

Remainder of City 


SUPPORT 20% 0% 20% 

OBJECT 40% 40% 80% 

OTHER 

(Not stated/ 

no opinion/ 


0% 0% 0% 

* Does not include petition. 

Applicant's Response to Submissions 

The applicant has provided the following response to the reasons for objections identified in 

the submissions received during the consultation period:- 

Reason for objection 

The proposal will result in a reduction in the number of available parking bays available at a 

centre where parking is already at a premium. 

Applicant’s response 

This issue should be dealt with reference to the Car parking report already submitted. 


The car wash will have result in additional traffic coming to and from the site and travelling 

through the surrounding residential area, including exacerbating the existing problem of “rat 

running”. 


As noted in the letter from the Car Wash operators, the provision of a car wash within 

shopping centres is generally considered by centre operators as a ‘service’ to customers 

who are already visiting the centre. It is our experience (and reinforced by the operators 

comments) that there should be little or no effect of incremental traffic due to this usage. 

107




The lack of footpaths in the area already puts pedestrians at risk – additional vehicle traffic 

as a result of the car wash will increase this risk. 


The location chosen for the car wash operator was specifically selected as it is at the end of 

a car park and does not interfere with the accessibility from surrounding car parking areas 

into the centre entrances. There should be no increase (or any) risk associated with the 

proposal. 


Two (2) other car washes already exist in close proximity – there is no need for an additional 

car wash in this area. 


Again, we see this as service to customers providing the convenience of being able to have 

your car washed whilst in the centre. The locations of competing car washes do not offer this 

convenience. Further the majority of competing car washes (such as BP) are of an 

automatic wash which is a different product. 


The proposed car wash will result in noise pollution due to additional vehicle movements and 

noise of machines used to clean the cars. 


The car wash is a hand car wash rather than automatic or mechanical. Please see operators 

letter for more detailed response. 


Trading hours, particularly once Sunday trading is introduced, will result in an adverse 

impact upon the ability for surrounding residents to have “quiet time” in the area. 


Not relevant. This application is about a car wash, not about trading hours. 


Adverse impact upon property values. 


Subjective. Cannot see how a car wash on the roof of an existing structure would affect land 

values. 


Potential target for anti-social behaviour. 


The car wash is manned full time by a number of car wash staff. If anything the visual 

presence of permanent staff in the car park should deter anti-social behaviour. 

108




Does not form part of the strategic plan for Precinct 5 of TPS38. 


Automatic Car Wash does form a ‘preferred use’ under TPS38. The fact that this is a hand 

car wash is more likely a case of the definition not being considered at the time of preparing 

the TPS38. 


In addition to the above, the proposed operator of the development, Magic Hand Car Wash, 

have provided the following additional information in support of the proposal:- 

"Magic Hand Car Wash is a franchised network of 30 stores in shopping centre car 

parks nationally. Data in relation to daily and hourly vehicle numbers is held by head 

office for all stores. We can confirm that vehicle holding times across all stores are 

consistent with centre average visit times. This suggests the behaviour of the car wash 

clients is the same as the particular centres. We can confirm that the business’ serve 

the regular shopping centre customers and we do not have any data to suggest that 

the car wash drives increased traffic. 

The car wash operation is a “hand car wash” model. All aspects of the vehicle cleaning 

and detailing is being completed by hand. The use of equipment is limited to the 

following: 

a. Central ducted vacuum cleaner 

b. High pressure cleaners 

c. Hand held buff machine 

d. Extraction steam clean unit 

Equipment is held in an equipment room and the hand held buff and steam clean unit 

are used in the cleaning bays. To date we are yet to receive a complaint from noise 

and believe that the design of the sites and use of machinery complies with EPA 

regulations." 

Comment 

The proposed manual car wash will operate during the business hours of the shopping 

centre. The applicant has indicated to the City that the business model of the proposed car 

wash will involve the cleaning of customers’ vehicles who have visited the shopping centre 

for the purpose of shopping. The cleaning of customers vehicles is therefore considered to 

be ancillary to the main reason for customers visiting the site. It is possible that some 

customers may visit the motor vehicle wash for the sole purpose of having their vehicle 

cleaned however the applicant has advised that this type of clientele is not anticipated to 

make up a significant share of the customer base. Additionally it is considered that the 

proposed location of the car wash, being on the decked parking level and therefore not 

visible or immediately accessible from any of the surrounding streets, will help prevent washonly 

vehicle trips. Based on the business model, the car wash is not considered to generate 

any additional amount of traffic to the shopping centre and is therefore unlikely to have a 

detrimental impact on the amenity of the locality. 

109



The operation of the manual car wash itself is not considered to impact on the amenity of the 

locality. Vehicles will be washed by hand using equipment limited to a central ducted 

vacuum cleaner, high pressure cleaners, hand held buff machine, and extraction steam 

clean unit. As vehicles will not be mechanically washed, the operation will not emit excessive 

noise, and is therefore not expected to detract from the amenity of the residential properties 

within the locality. Although the car wash will be located approximately 23m from the nearest 

residential property boundary, as it is on the decked parking level, it is not expected to be 

visible from that property. Additionally as the existing vehicle access ramp to the upper floor 

decked parking is located inbetween the proposed car wash and the closest residential 

property, it is considered this will act to sufficiently screen views, particularly as the adjoining 

residential property’s ground level is up to approximately 4.0m lower that the level of the 

decked parking. These factors will ensure that the residential amenity of those located 

closest to the proposed car wash is not adversely affected. 

As previously mentioned, the proposed motor vehicle wash will result in the loss of 14 car 

bays as a direct result of the construction of the physical structures and reconfiguration of 

manoeuvring areas and parking bays in the existing parking area. An additional two (2) car 

bays are also required for the office use. The submitted plans indicate that of the 

reconfigured layout, 17 bays will be used for the exclusive purpose of the car wash, being 

either in the drop off area, the wash area, or the pick up area. If the vehicles are waiting to 

be collected it is reasonable to assume that the drivers are in the shopping centre. As they 

would have to park their vehicle somewhere in the car park in any case, the 17 bays that 

have been allocated for vehicle drop off, washing, and collection will not result in a decrease 

in parking on site. 

The approved plans from the most recent substantial development application for a 1350m 2 

addition to the shopping centre approved by Council (DA05/0525 refers) required a total of 

1890 parking bays to be provided on site. However, as a result of the assessment process 

undertaken as part of the subject development application, it has become apparent that the 

parking provided on site does not equate to the required 1890 bays. This is, as advised by 

the applicant, presumably due to the parking bays not being marked out in accordance with 

the approved plans. 

This application seeks approval for the existing unauthorised parking layout, in addition to 

the further reduction in parking resulting from the proposed development. The actual number 

of parking bays provided on site, as currently constructed, is 1851 bays. The total number of 

parking bays required, inclusive of the subject development application is 1890. This 

requirement is based on the agreed parking ratio of 1 bay per 18.38m 2 Net Lettable Area 

(refer condition 1 of Council’s approval for DA05/0525), rather than the parking requirements 

specified in Table 1 of TPS38. 

The parking ratio proposed as a result of the as-constructed parking layout, and this current 

car wash application, is 1 bay per 18.935m 2 Net Lettable Area. However, it is noted that 

where the minimum parking requirements of TPS38 for a Shop use applied to the subject 

site (1 bay per 20m 2 Net Lettable Area), a total of 1737 bays would be required. On this 

basis given the provision of 1835 bays (as proposed), a 98 bay parking surplus would be 

evident on the subject site. 

110



In view of the above, whilst the parking ratio has altered from the ratio previously approved 

by Council the application still complies with the City’s minimum parking requirements as 

outlined in TPS38. Notwithstanding the minimum parking requirements of TPS38, to address 

the variation to the previously agreed parking ratio, the applicant engaged the engineering 

consultancy Cardno to provide a parking study on the subject site. The Executive Summary 

of this report is as follows:- 

"Cardno has been engaged by Westfield Limited to conduct a parking assessment for 

the Westfield Innaloo shopping centre in order to ascertain the sufficiency of the 

existing parking quantum. 

This assessment was undertaken based on peak parking demands, determined from 

parking occupancy survey data collected at the site. Thursday was found (by 

patronage counts) to represent the busiest trading day of the week, so surveys were 

undertaken for a nominal Thursday within the assessment period. 

A number of adjustment factors were applied to the observed peak parking demand in 

order to account for seasonal variation, parking efficient and peak spreading during the 

busiest retail trading days of the year. Application of these derived factors to the 

observed parking demand allowed the required parking supply to be determined. 

Based on this information, the parking supply required to cater for the design day 

parking demand was determined to be 1,762 bays. As the parking supply at Westfield 

Innaloo consists of 1,851 bays, a surplus of 89 bays currently exists at the site for the 

designated design day. 

While the impact of Sunday trading and land-use changes were not incorporated into 

this analysis, it is understood that these changes would result in a lower parking 

demand." 

The full report is Attachment 1. 

Engineering Design Business Unit Comments 

The development application was referred to the City’s Traffic Design Engineer, for a review 

of the proposed revised car park layout as well as the contents of the parking study by 

Cardno in support of the parking provision. 

In relation to the revised car parking layout, the following comments were made:- 

"The car wash facility has been completely separated from the adjacent car spaces 

and circulating aisle, which effectively eliminates the potential conflict between car 

wash staff and circulating vehicles, and results in little to no general pedestrian traffic 

through the car wash facility. Also, the increased number of storage bays within the car 

wash facility would allow drop off, washing, drying and pick up of vehicles to be 

undertaken separately." 

Based on the amended plan, it is considered that the proposed car wash facility can be 

supported by Engineering Design. 

111



In relation to the submitted parking study, the following comments were made:- 

The methodology for assessing the peak design parking demand is indicated as 

follows:- 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Analyse door counts to understand the existing profile of activity over an entire 

year; 

Undertake parking utilisations surveys to determine existing usage patterns; 

Derive factors that model the impacts of peak spreading, Sunday trading and 

operation efficiency. 

Apply these factors to observed parking demand to determine required supply of 

car parking on design day. 

This methodology is considered sound and has been utilised previously by other 

engineering consultants to determine the peak car parking supply on the designated 

design day. 

Westfield Innaloo Shopping Centre (WISC) includes a total parking provision of 1,851 

spaces. Under the heading Existing Parking Demand Surveys on page 2 of the 

Assessment, it is indicated that the observed peak parking demand for WISC was 

1,482 spaces. Figure 1 under this heading plots the theoretical and observed parking 

occupancy. While this is noted, the vertical axis in Figure 1 shows only 0-3% for Total 

Daily Occupancy – this appears to be an error, as it is unlikely that the maximum Daily 

Occupancy is within the 0-3% range. 

The daily Door Count on the survey date (5 July 2012) was 19,326 patrons. On the 

90 th percentile Thursday (which is described as the 5 th busiest Thursday of the year), 

the daily Door Count was 22,682 patrons. As such, a factor of 1.17 has been applied 

to the parking utilisation figures (i.e. 22,682/19,326 = 1.17). 

The Assessment provides evidence from previous shopping centre surveys to show 

that the percentage of daily visits that occurs during the single peak hour reduces 

during the busier days of the year. Based on the door counts, it has been found that 

the observed parking survey date was equivalent to the 25 th busiest Thursday of the 

year, whereas the ‘design day’ is the 5 th busiest Thursday of the year. Previous 

shopping centre surveys showed that the peak hour percentage of daily door counts 

was 11.9% on the 25 th busiest Thursday and 11.5% on the 5 th busiest survey. Thus a 

3.4% reduction factor has been applied to account for this peak hour spreading (i.e. 

11.5/11.9=0.966). 

The Assessment applies a 95% parking efficiency factor to account for vehicles that 

are manoeuvring, waiting or circulating the car park. It is understood that this parking 

efficiency factor is described in the Urban Land Institute & National Parking 

Association’s document titled “The Dimensions of Parking”, and is therefore accepted. 

The parking efficiency factor is 1.052 (i.e. 1/0.95 = 1.052) 

Based on these three (3) factors, the Design Parking Requirement for WISC would be 

1,762 spaces (i.e. 1,482 spaces x 1.17 x 0.966 x 1.052). 

112



Summary 

Based on the surveys, door counts and various adjustment factors, the Design Parking 

Requirement for the WISC is 89 bays in excess. The rationale behind this argument is 

considered reasonable. 

The Assessment indicates that the introduction of Sunday trading in Perth will result in 

a spreading of the demand for shopping. Based on trends from a similar sized 

shopping centre in the eastern states (where Sunday trading occurs already), the peak 

parking demand on Thursday would decrease by approximately 7%. As such, the 

peak parking demand (which is based on surveys when Sunday trading was not in 

operation) is considered a worst case scenario. 

The proposed development is considered to meet the Statement of Intent for the Retail 

Commercial Precinct as referenced earlier in the report. The proposed land use is consistent 

with, and could in fact be considered less detrimental to the amenity of the locality, than an 

Automatic Car Wash, which is a preferred use with Precinct 1. The proposed manual car 

wash will create an additional service available to customers of the shopping centre and 

create additional employment within the locality. The proposed development is not 

considered to reduce the degree of accessibility to and from the centre, including pedestrian 

access. The application is accordingly recommended for approval subject to conditions. 

Stirling Alliance Comments 

The application is located within the Stirling City Centre and was consequently referred to 

the Stirling Alliance for their comments, as follows:- 

"The subject site is located within ‘Precinct 1’ of Town Planning Scheme No. 38 and 

the ‘Southern Precinct’ of the Draft Stirling City Centre Structure plan. While a manual 

car was is not a preferred or contemplated use under TPS No. 38, an ‘automatic’ car 

wash is a preferred use, and so the proposed land use is considered appropriate. 

While the nature of the proposed development is not entirely consistent with the vision 

for the Stirling City Centre outlined in the Draft Structure Plan, given the small scale of 

the proposed development, there are no objections to the proposal." 

Petition opposing development 

The City acknowledges that the signatories of the petition object to the proposed 

development, on the grounds that the development will increase traffic in the local streets. 

As stated in the applicant’s submission, the business model for the development relies upon 

the majority of users of the car wash being patrons who are visiting the shopping centre. 

The City accepts this proposition, and the resultant outcome that the proposed development 

will not result in additional traffic visiting the shopping centre as a result of the proposed 

development. 





113




Nil. 


Goal 3: 


SI 3.2.2: 




Develop plans to guide sustainable development of the major activity 

corridors, activity centres and improvements to local centres. 



Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Water consumption and quality The proposal is expected to allow for more efficient use of 

water than individuals who wash their vehicles using noncommercial 

means, which typically results in a grey water 

run off into drainage systems and the environment. The 

development also has the potential to incorporate the use of 

waste water recycling. 

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 in fostering job creation within the 

Stirling City Centre area. 

Conclusion 

The objections received by the City have been taken into account and it is considered that 

the comments cannot be substantiated based on planning grounds. 

The variation to the previously agreed parking ratio has been addressed through the 

submission of a technical report by Cardno, the findings of which have been endorsed by the 

City’s Engineering Design Business Unit. 

The proposed Manual Car Wash is considered an appropriate use at the Westfield Innaloo 

site and is not considered to increase the number of vehicles visiting the site so as to detract 

from the amenity of the locality. The application is therefore recommended for approval 

subject to conditions. 

114



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.1/AP9 - LOT 4, HOUSE NUMBER 388, SCARBOROUGH 

BEACH ROAD, INNALOO – ADDITION TO WESTFIELD INNALOO – MANUAL CAR 

WASH 

Attachment 1 - Parking Study of Westfield Innaloo by Cardno 

115



116



117



118



119



120



121



122



123

124 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

125 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

126 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

127 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012



CITY PLANNING 

10.1/CP2 

MOUNT FLORA WATER TOWER AND LOOKOUT, LAURIE STRUTT 

RESERVE WATERMANS BAY - INTERIM LISTING ON STATE REGISTER 

OF HERITAGE PLACES 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 202, House Number 30, Elvire Street, Watermans Bay 

Lot 50, House Number 30A, Elvire Street, Watermans Bay 


Manager City Planning 

City Planning 

Coastal 

Watermans Bay 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 

















Moved Councillor Italiano, seconded Councillor Robbins 

That the Heritage Council of Western Australia be ADVISED that:- 

1. Council SUPPORTS the Interim Listing of the ‘Mount Flora Water Tower (Former) and 

Lookout’ located on Lot 50, House Number 30A, Elvire Street Watermans Bay into the 

State Register of Heritage Places. 

2. Council DOES NOT support the inclusion of Lot 202, House Number 30, Elvire Street, 

Watermans Bay within the curtilage of the 'Mount Flora Water Tower (Former) and 

Lookout' as part of the Interim listing of that Place. 

128



Procedural Motion 


0912/031 

Moved Councillor Willox, seconded Councillor Jenkinson 

That the item relating to the Mount Flora Water Tower and Lookout, Laurie Strutt 

Reserve Watermans Bay - Interim Listing on State Register of Heritage Places be 

REFFERED to the Planning and Development Committee meeting to enable further 

information to be provided to Councillors. 




Against: Nil. 


That the item relating to the Mount Flora Water Tower and Lookout, Lauire Strutt Reserve 

Watermans Bay - Interim Listing on State Register of Heritage Places be REFERRED to the 

Council meeting to be held 18 September 2012 to enable further clarification to be provided. 


That the Heritage Council of Western Australia be ADVISED that:- 

3. Council SUPPORTS the Interim Listing of the ‘Mount Flora Water Tower (Former) and 

Lookout’ located on Lot 50, House Number 30A, Elvire Street Watermans Bay into the 

State Register of Heritage Places. 

4. Council DOES NOT support the inclusion of Lot 202, House Number 30, Elvire Street, 

Watermans Bay within the curtilage of the 'Mount Flora Water Tower (Former) and 

Lookout' as part of the Interim listing of that Place. 


To seek Council support for the possible Interim Listing of the ‘Mount Flora Water Tower 

(Former) and Lookout’ (also known as Laurie Strutt Reserve) Lot 202, House Number 30, 

Elvire Street, and Lot 50, House Number 30A, Elvire Street, Watermans Bay, into the State 

Register of Heritage Places. 


Attachments 

Attachment 1 - Draft Assessment Documentation 

Attachment 2 - Curtilage Plan 

Attachment 3 - Zones of Significance Plan 

Attachment 4 - Heritage of Western Australia Amendment Regulations 2012 


Nil. 

129



Background 

The ‘Mount Flora Water Tower (Former) and Lookout’ (also known as Laurie Strutt Reserve) 

Lot 202, House Number 30, Elvire Street, and Lot 50, 30A Elvire Street, Watermans Bay 

(referred herein as the place), is to be considered by the Register Committee of the Heritage 

Council of Western Australia for possible Interim Listing into the State Register of Heritage 

Places (State Register). The land and buildings are owned in Fee Simple by the City of 

Stirling. 

The State Register is a list of places throughout the State which have a high level cultural 

heritage significance. Places on the State Register have statutory protection under the 

Heritage of Western Australia Act (1990). 

Laurie Strutt Reserve – Lots 202 and 50 Elvire Street Watermans Bay 

Aerial Photograph – Laurie Strutt Reserve (February 2012) 

130



Any person can nominate a place for consideration for possible entry into the State Register 

of Heritage Places. A preliminary heritage assessment of the Place determines whether the 

Place meets the threshold for further consideration. If it meets this threshold, it is included in 

the State Office of Heritage’s Assessment and Registration Program. The Program is staged 

over each financial year. As part of the registration process, a full heritage assessment is 

undertaken and presented to the Heritage Council’s Register Committee with a 

recommendation for registration. If endorsed by the Register Committee, consultation with all 

stakeholders (e.g. owners, lessees and the local government authority) is undertaken. The 

outcomes of that consultation are presented to the Register Committee which then proceeds 

to make a recommendation on the interim listing of the Place to the Minister for Heritage. 

Upon Ministerial approval, the place is deemed to be entered into the State Register of 

Heritage Places on an Interim basis. As such, the same statutory protection is afforded to 

places with either an interim listing or a permanent listing. 

The ‘Mount Flora Water Tower (Former) and Lookout’ has been identified by the City as 

having local cultural heritage significance and is included on the City’s Municipal Inventory 

(as Category 2A – Conservation Recommended). 

Other City assets currently listed on the State Register of Heritage Places include the 

'Memorial Gardens and Recreation Reserve Mount Lawley' (including the Mount Lawley 

Bowling Club and War Memorial) and the 'Scarborough Clock Tower'. 

Comment 

1. Heritage Council Advice 

The State Office of Heritage has advised the City that as part of the registration process, a 

full heritage assessment of the ‘Mount Flora Water Tower (Former) and Lookout’ and the 

surrounding Laurie Strutt Reserve has now been completed. The Heritage Council’s 

Registration Committee has resolved that the place is of cultural heritage significance in 

terms of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, and that stakeholders should be 

consulted on the proposed registration. 

The State Office of Heritage is now seeking the comments of the City, as both the Owner, 

and Local Government Authority. The Register entry will be based on:- 

Heritage assessment documentation; 

Curtilage plan – showing the area of land that is proposed to be registered; and 

Zones of significance plan – showing level of significance of the various areas. 

All documentation is attached to this report. 

The draft assessment documentation (Attachment 1) details the criteria on which the 

significance of the place has been based, as well as other supporting and documentary 

evidence. The Statement of Significance for the place is:- 

“Mount Flora Water Tower (Former) and Lookout, a former 220,000 gallon reservoir 

water tank which has been adapted into a local history museum, located within a 

landscaped reserve with associated buildings, has tangible and intangible cultural 

heritage significance for the following reasons: 

The place was an important component in the development of the metropolitan 

scheme water supply, and enabled the expansion of the north west suburban 

corridor following its construction in 1942; 

131



The place has landmark value and provides a rare 360 degree uninterrupted 

panoramic view of the Perth coastal plain from Fremantle, to Rottnest, the 

northern suburbs and the Darling Range; 

The place is representative of heritage conservation in terms of its adaptive 

reuse as a community facility, which was instigated and supported by the local 

community; 

The place has associations with the Hamersleys', an important colonial family 

who established a holiday home in the area, which is recognised in the urban 

development of the site with Mount Flora named after Flora Hamersley (1862 – 

1950); and 

The place is highly valued by the local and wider community as a place of social 

and cultural recreational activity, and contributes to their sense of place. 

An associated separate conference building which includes a conference room, 

workshop and toilets, landscape elements of a playground, park bench, picnic seating 

and a mobile phone base station inclusive of tower and antennas, which has been 

fenced off from the public are regarded as having low significance.” 

The curtilage plan (Attachment 2) shows that the entirety of Laurie Strutt Reserve, which 

comprises Lots 202 and 50, Elvire Street, bounded by Elvire Street, Hugh Street and Hale 

Street will be registered. The zones of significance plan (Attachment 3) shows that all areas 

of the reserve are considered to be of primary significance, except for the separate 

conference buildings which are identified as secondary significance, and the mobile phone 

base including tower and antennas as intrusive. 

It should be noted that the request for comment relates to the content of the heritage 

assessment documentation and, although the Heritage Council will consider and refer any 

comments in relation to economic or management issues, the Minister’s final decision on 

entry is primarily based on the cultural heritage significance of the place. 

2. Implications 

a) Use of the Site 

The Water Tower Building currently houses the City’s Mount Flora Regional 

Museum, which is managed by the City’s Library Services Business Unit. The 

Library Services Business Unit also occupies portion of the conference buildings 

and workshop areas for office and storage purposes. 

The balance of the reserve is bushland area, an open parkland area with 

associated playground and picnic equipment which are managed by the City’s 

Parks and Reserves Business Unit and the Leisure and Cultural Services 

Business Unit. 

The area of bushland on the south eastern portion of the reserve is classified as 

‘Local Natural Areas’ under the City’s Biodiversity Strategy. 

A Telecommunications Facility comprising a mobile phone base with tower and 

antennas is also located on the reserve. The telecommunications carrier operates 

the facility under the terms and conditions of a lease with the City. 

132



b) Maintenance and Future Works 

The interim registration of the place would have implications on the overall 

management of the reserve. The recent introduction of new heritage regulations to 

the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 includes a list of maintenance and 

minor works that no longer require referral to the Heritage Council (Attachment 4). 

General on-going maintenance would not require the approval of the Heritage 

Council. Any proposed works not listed in these regulations would require referral 

to the Heritage Council. 

The State Office of Heritage has verbally indicated that the ongoing management 

of the museum would not be unduly restrained by either interim or permanent 

registration of the place. It is the intention that heritage places continue to function 

and owners are not unduly restrained from maintaining the functioning of such 

places. 

The heritage assessment identifies within the scientific value criteria that “ the 

area around Mount Flora Water Tower (former) and Lookout may provide 

archaeological evidence of both Noongar and early European activities.” The City 

has sought clarification from the State Office of Heritage on the implications of this 

statement. Verbal advice from State Office of Heritage officers has indicated that 

the requirement for an archaeological assessment would only be activated if major 

redevelopment of the reserve was proposed. The commissioning of suitably 

qualified practitioners to undertake the assessment, and associated costs, would 

be the responsibility of the City. 

Should the Reserve be given interim listing, it is recommended that the City 

investigate funding sources for the commissioning of a conservation plan for the 

place. The conservation plan would then guide any future works to be 

undertaken. 

3. Officer Comment 

Officers support the Interim registration of the place and consider that the ongoing 

management and functioning of the Mount Flora Museum will not be unduly restrained. 

However, the extent of the reserve included in the curtilage of the place is questioned, 

particularly the inclusion of the surrounding bushland, parklands, playground, conference 

buildings and mobile phone base. 

The Executive Team supports the inclusion of the Mt Flora Water Tower and Lookout on the 

State Register, exclusive of the office building, surrounding park and bushland. 


Should the Minister for Heritage approve Interim registration of the place, the City will be 

given another opportunity to comment prior to permanent registration. 


Upon Ministerial approval the place is deemed to be entered into the State Register of 

Heritage Places on an interim basis. As such, the same statutory protection under the 

Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 is afforded to places with either an interim or a 

permanent registration. 

133




The preparation of a conservation plan for the place (should one be required) by a heritage 

professional would be in the vicinity of $14,000. Specific funding has not been allocated 

under the current budget, but there is no urgency at this point of the process. 

Cultural heritage grants may be available to the City, for example Lotterywest Cultural 

Heritage Grant for the commissioning of conservation plans, undertaking conservation or 

interpretative works which ensure the heritage value and on-going use of the place. 

As future works may have to match original materials, construction techniques and finishes 

to reflect the heritage character of the site, additional costs may be incurred. These costs 

could only be quantified once a conservation plan has been prepared. 

Cost implications for the commissioning of an archaeological assessment that may be 

required as part of any major proposed redevelopment of the reserve in the future has not 

been investigated. 


Goal 2: 


SI 2.1.6: 






Develop and implement policies to improve the identification, retention and 

restoration of heritage buildings, streetscapes and areas. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Issue 

Cultural and heritage value 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

Inclusion of the Mt Flora Water Tower (Former) and Lookout 

will ensure the City continues to sustain a high level of 

heritage management for those areas and places 

considered to be of cultural heritage significance. 

Nil. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

134



Conclusion 

Interim registration of the place is generally supported, particularly as ongoing management 

and functioning of the Mount Flora Museum will not be unduly restrained. However, the City 

believes that the curtilage of the place should not include the surrounding bushland, 

parklands, playground, conference buildings and mobile phone base. 

135



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.1/CP2 - MOUNT FLORA WATER TOWER (FORMER) AND 

LOOKOUT, LAURIE STRUTT RESERVE - INTERIM LISTING ON STATE REGISTER OF 

HERITAGE PLACES 

Attachment 1 - Draft Assessment Documentation 

136



137



138



139



140



141



142



143



144



145



146



147



148



149



150



151



Attachment 2 - Curtilage Plan 

152



Attachment 3 - Zones of Significance Plan 

153



Attachment 4 - Heritage of Western Australia Amendment Regulations 2012 

154



ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN REGENERATION 

10.1/EDUR2 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR ROBBINS - POTENTIAL TO 

REFURBISH AND USE MAUREEN GRIERSON CENTRE, SCARBOROUGH 

This item was REFERRED to the Planning and Development Committee meeting to be held 

5 June 2012 at the Council meeting held 1 May 2012 to allow officers to provide comment on 

the alternative motions put forward. 

Additional information has been provided at the end of this report. 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Scarborough 


Manager Economic Development and Urban Regeneration 

Economic Development and Urban Regeneration 

Coastal 

Scarborough 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 

















155



Procedural Motion 


0912/032 

Moved Councillor Robbins, seconded Councillor Stewart 

That the item relating to the Notice of Motion - Councillor Robbins - Potential to 

Refurbish and Use Maureen Grierson Centre, Scarborough be REFFERED to the 

Infrastructure and Community Development Committee meeting to be held 

25 September 2012 to allow further information to be provided highlighting the current 

maintenance needs/requirements of the centre and the associated costs in rectifying 

the maintenance issues. 




Against: Nil. 


That Council NOT REFURBISH the Maureen Grierson Centre as the building is planned to 

be demolished in accordance with the Council's adopted Scarborough Beach Urban Design 

Master Plan. 


That Council NOT REFURBISH the Maureen Grierson Centre as the building is planned to 

be demolished in accordance with the Council's adopted Scarborough Beach Urban Design 

Master Plan. 


To respond to the Notice of Motion on the potential to refurbish and use the Maureen 

Grierson Centre in Scarborough as an attraction or multiple attractions. 


Attachments 

Nil. 


Nil. 

156



Background 

At its meeting held on 8 February 2011, Council approved a Notice of Motion from Councillor 

Robbins (Council Resolution Number 0211/073):- 

“That the City’s Officers provide a report by the end of March 2011 into the 

Maureen Grierson Centre and the opportunities to refurbish and utilise the centre 

as an attraction or multiple attractions to the Scarborough Beach area.” 

Background information/Reason for the Motion (provided by Cr Robbins) 

"The current state of the centre is a public and tourism “turn off” whilst the façade, 

toilets and internals of the centre have been neglected and are open to vandalism. The 

centre has massive potential on many levels as a ‘Tourism Centre’ and offer ‘Tourism 

WA’ an opportunity to be public at the beach adding to our recent partnership, the upstairs 

balconies have potential to provide income streams and public amenity. Indeed 

by opening the centre up to tourists, customers or beach users will also provide 

passive surveillance which creates opportunity to keep the area and toilets clean and 

user friendly. It is not of any benefit to the City in its current form and is an underutilised 

potential income stream.” 

At that time the City was fully engaged in community consultation regarding the review 

Scarborough Beach Urban Design Master Plan and a report could not be prepared within the 

timeframe required in the resolution. The purpose of the review was to guide future 

development of Scarborough Beach and an outcome from that process was required to 

enable City Officers to provide this report. The revised Master Plan was adopted by Council 

on 2 August 2011 (Council Resolution Number 811/0113). 

The Maureen Grierson Centre was built in 1986 at the same time as the Observation City 

Hotel complex was completed and was constructed on the Coastal Reserve Lot 10541, in 

Scarborough Beach. The building was provided as a community facility in the Scarborough 

area by the hotel developer and has operated as such since that time. The Maureen 

Grierson Centre is shown on the following aerial photograph:- 

Maureen 

Grierson 

157



In 2005 in response to community concerns the City produced the original Scarborough 

Beach Urban Design Master Plan to address various issues relating to urban design and 

amenity in Scarborough. With regard to the Maureen Grierson Centre the original plan 

recommended demolition of the building and the attached walkway connected to the existing 

hotel. Under this plan the new Scarborough amphitheatre was built as an event venue, 

attraction and comfortable shade area. Since its construction it has accommodated many 

international, national, state and local events based around the beach itself. 

In 2008 Council resolved to review the original master plan (Council Resolution Number 

0408/041) to retain the existing surf club in its current location, simplify the design and 

reduce the overall cost of the project. This review required a complex public consultation 

process and highlighted some potential new opportunities along The Esplanade for 

commercial developments that would also act as attractions to the beach front. 

This consultation process involved several meetings with Councillors and the potential to 

refurbish and use the Maureen Grierson Centre was discussed in various forums as were 

the possible types of attractions that could be considered e.g. a surf museum. At the same 

time discussion took place on improving the urban design of the public realm in and around 

Scarborough Beach including the operation of The Esplanade. 

This process led to the development of a revised Scarborough Beach Urban Design Master 

Plan developed with substantial community input that was adopted by Council on 

2 August 2011 (Council Resolution Number 811/0113). The revised Master Plan confirms 

the intent to demolish the Maureen Grierson Centre to allow for changes to the road network 

and creation of a street feel along that section of The Esplanade. Council has also since 

granted development approval for the existing hotel site that involves demolition of the 

existing walkway from the hotel, refurbishment of the hotel tower and construction of new 

apartments on that site. The City has also submitted the revised Master Plan to the Western 

Australian Planning Commission seeking approval of that plan and the matter is due to be 

considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission in April 2012. 

Comment 

The adopted plan involves demolition of Maureen Grierson Centre and filling the site to bring 

it level with The Esplanade to provide proposed new commercial buildings with road frontage 

and sea views to enhance the attractiveness and appeal for likely hospitality or retail based 

business. The existing Maureen Grierson Centre sits in a hollow and is constructed to be 

almost hidden from The Esplanade. This location makes it less attractive when the potential 

to refurbish and use as an attraction or multiple attractions is concerned. The current 

location has little or no street appeal and refurbishment of the centre would not improve the 

precinct or development of street appeal as envisaged in the revised Master Plan. 

As stated previously the existing Maureen Grierson Centre was gifted to the City as a 

community centre and is located on Crown land. In considering the potential to use it for 

another purpose the City must refer to zoning of the land and what can be done based on 

existing approvals. The Crown reserve the centre is built on is designated for recreation. It 

could be argued that locating an attraction or multiple attractions there could be argued to 

provide an avenue for recreation. This assumes the City would operate the facility itself 

rather than leasing it out to a private operator as the recently adopted Master Plan 

advocates. The City does not currently have the power to lease the centre and as a donated 

community building it could be argued that it should not be doing so. 

158



In discussing potential uses for the Centre, one (1) option put forward was a Tourist Visitor 

Centre and it was further suggested that funding may be available through Tourism Western 

Australia for that purpose. It has since been confirmed that Tourism Western Australia does 

not provide funding for the establishment or operation of Tourist Visitor Centres. 

Since the adoption of the revised Master Plan several private sector parties have expressed 

interest in becoming involved in the redevelopment of Scarborough, in particular interest has 

been shown in the proposed commercial developments along The Esplanade and above the 

Scarboro Surf Life Saving Club. This type of development along with redevelopment of 

existing land holdings would create a new look and feel to Scarborough. Refurbishment of 

the existing Maureen Grierson Centre would not contribute positively to the overall Master 

Plan for the area. Interested parties have considered the possible refurbishment but 

discounted this due to the high cost and limited life of such a project given the intent of the 

Master Plan to demolish the building. 

The outcome proposed in the Master Plan is to demolish the building and provide 

opportunities to develop three commercial activities. These would most likely be hospitality 

based (café, restaurant or small bars) or retail activities and would act as additional nonbeach 

attractions to Scarborough. This would therefore support the intent of the Notice of 

Motion to increase activity and vitality in the precinct however, the proposal to refurbish the 

centre is not in line with the Master Plan. Refurbishment would not create this increased 

activity or vitality to the extent that the proposal contained within the Master Plan would. A 

more effective option would be to progress an application to the Minister for Lands for power 

to lease the site as per the adopted Master Plan. 


The proposal to refurbish the Maureen Grierson Centre is not in line with the revised Master 

Plan adopted by Council in August 2011. The revised Master Plan was developed with 

significant input and support from the public. A refurbishment of the existing building was not 

supported through community consultation and the community was advised in public forums 

and through the Master Plan itself that the building would be demolished. 

Following Council adoption of the Master Plan the document was submitted to the Western 

Australian Planning Commission seeking endorsement of the overall plan which includes the 

proposed development of commercial opportunities on the current Maureen Grierson Centre 

site. This requires State Government support and approval as the subject land is Crown 

land. The outcomes of this process are expected in May 2012 and a positive endorsement 

would facilitate an approach by the City to Minister for Lands for power to lease. 


The City does not have power to lease the existing Maureen Grierson Centre but could apply 

to the Minister for Lands to obtain such power. 


The financial implications of refurbishing the existing Maureen Grierson Centre would be 

significant as would be the cost of operating any attraction or multiple attractions established 

in the refurbished building. Any expenditure on refurbishment and establishment of an 

attraction or attractions would have a limited life cycle given that it would contradict the 

adopted Master Plan and could be viewed as wasteful. It is unlikely that any external 

funding could be generated for operational or capital purposes which would require the total 

cost to be met by the City. 

159



Without power to lease all capital and operating costs would have to be met by the City. The 

capital cost would be dependent upon the use the building would be put to and is likely to be 

in the $1 million to $2 million range. Operating costs would also be dependent upon the use 

and spread of operating hours required. In order to add to the vibrancy of the area the 

operating hours would have to be lengthy and include weekends and would therefore 

become a significant cost to the City. Without knowing the use and its requirements it is not 

possible to provide an accurate estimated cost of this proposal. 


Goal 2: 


SI 2.1.1: 






Implement the Scarborough Environs Area Strategy (SEAS). 

It is unlikely that refurbishment of the Maureen Grierson Centre would encourage innovative, 

creative and inspirational built form and infrastructure. 



Issue 

Energy consumption 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

The refurbishment of a building is less energy intensive than 

building a new building however this action would not meet 

the objectives of the adopted Master Plan. 

Amenity 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The Scarborough Environs Area Strategy aims to improve 

the amenity of the Scarborough public realm. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Dvlpmt of key business sectors The project seeks to increase the variety of attractions at 

Scarborough Beach. 

160



Conclusion 

This report examines the feasibility of refurbishing the Maureen Grierson Centre in 

Scarborough to be used as an attraction or multiple attractions. This proposal is not 

compatible with the adopted Scarborough Beach Urban Design Master Plan and the intent to 

demolish the existing building to provide sites for proposed future commercial activities in 

that location. At the current time all capital and operating costs associated with the proposal 

would have to be met by the City and no budget provision for this exists. It is recommended 

that the proposal to refurbish and use the centre as an attraction or multiple attractions not 

proceed. 

Additional Information - 11 September 2012 

When the matter of refurbishing the Maureen Grierson Centre in Scarborough was 

considered by Council at its meeting on 1 May 2012 Council resolved that additional Officer 

input was required to be able to consider the alternative motions put forward (Council 

Resolution Number 0512/011). The alternative motion is set out below and each 

recommendation discussed. 

“Moved Councillor Robbins, seconded Councillor Stewart 

1. That the City BEGIN the process of advertising for 'Expressions of Interest' 

and contacting local community groups/artists for the opportunity to 

PROVIDE public art in the form of a 'Community Mural Project' to be 

completed on the full facade of the Maureen Grierson Centre:- 

The 'Community Mural Project' on the Maureen Grierson Centre is to be 

completed during the summer of 2012/2013. 

2. That the City WRITE to the minister of Tourism to investigate partnering 

with the City of Stirling to create a Tourist Centre/Events Centre to operate 

out of the Maureen Grierson Centre during the summer months Oct - 

March each year:- 

that a further report be PRESENTED to Council providing the response 

from the Minister or Ministers office, what would be required to operate 

such a centre and the associated costs to do so. 

3. That the City look to utilise the roof of community centre for the purpose of 

promoting local artists in form of solo musicians, bands and art works etc:- 

that a further report be PRESENTED to Council providing an over-view of 

how this would be achieved including the costs associated in providing this 

amenity. 

4. That the City WRITE to the Minister of Lands to request the approval for 

the City of Stirling to have the ability of 'power to lease' the Maureen 

Grierson Centre as a matter of priority and report back the response to the 

Council ASAP:- 

If approval is granted by the Minister of Lands that within the report 

providing the response, further information be provided on potential lease 

figures and associated opportunities. 

161



5. That the City ADVERTISE for 'Expressions of Interest' from local and nonlocal 

community groups in order to provide a more consistent and diverse 

usage of the centre. 

6. That the public toilets that form part of the Maureen Grierson Centre be 

MAINTAINED to provide a usable facility all year round. 

As part of the process of maintaining these facilities, a strategy be 

developed to provide 'best practise' for maintenance on the City's public 

toilet facilities.” 

The original Notice of Motion sought to retain the Maureen Grierson Centre by refurbishing 

the building. This is not in keeping with the adopted Scarborough Beach Urban Design 

Master Plan which indicates demolition of the building and replacement with a street level 

building or buildings that would create activity along The Esplanade. The Master Plan 

generated wide community support and has since been endorsed by the Western Australia 

Planning Commission. The City is actively seeking funding for the proposed infrastructure 

through the State and Federal Government and proposing fundamental changes to the plan 

so soon after its adoption has the potential to create doubt about the project and its support 

in Council. 

Recommendation 1 seeks to initiate a community art project to produce a mural on the 

building to improve the appearance of the façade. This project has been funded through 

Councillors discretionary funding at a cost of $27,000 and has recently been completed. 

Recommendation 2 recommends writing to the Minister for Tourism to seek a partnership to 

establish a Visitor Centre in the building for six months of the year. The original report 

highlighted that Tourism Western Australia does not fund local Visitor Centres. Follow up 

enquiry to staff at Tourism Western Australia indicates that they only fund the Western 

Australian Visitor Centre located in Perth. Tourism Western Australia has restructured and 

shifted its emphasis and confirms that there is no opportunity to achieve funding for such a 

partnership. Writing to the Minister on the subject would not be a worthwhile exercise. 

Recommendation 3 seeks to encourage artists and musicians to use the roof of the building 

as a performance space. Advice received from the City’s Marketing Business Unit on the 

potential use of the roof of Maureen Grierson Centre is set out below:- 

“The Cultural Services unit has already committed this financial year budget to a range 

of events held around the City including a number at Scarborough Beach. 

Unfortunately due to extremely limited resources, financial implications and safety 

issues, the roof of Maureen Grierson can not be utilised for the purpose of promoting 

local artists in 2012/2013. 

If additional resources and budget are allocated in 2013/2014, the Maureen Grierson 

Centre may be considered a venue as part of the Buskers Competition in 2014. 

The suitability and safety of the venue will also need to be assessed by an external 

resource.” 

Recommendation 4 refers to writing to the Minister for Lands seeking power to lease the 

Maureen Grierson building and to provide a report back to Council on the outcomes. 

162



The Master Plan envisages redevelopment of the site to provide up to three commercial 

sites in the same general area as the Maureen Grierson Centre. City staff have met with 

staff from the Department of Lands to commence these negotiations based on the adopted 

Master Plan. The action of writing to seek power to lease the current building would create 

some confusion in the negotiation process. It would also impact upon current users of the 

centre as the end result of seeking power to lease would be seeking interest from potential 

lessees. The leasing activity would mean the building would be unavailable for any current or 

future community uses between now and proposed demolition. When this matter was 

considered at the Planning and Development Committee a deputation was made by the C3 

Church Scarborough seeking Council support for their continued use of the facility to hold 

services and offer community programmes. This recommendation is not consistent with the 

current community use of the building or the future redevelopment of the site. 

Recommendation 5 would seem to flow on from Recommendation 4 in that it stipulates that 

local and non local groups be canvassed to use the building and hence create more activity 

in Scarborough. It is not clear if this is aimed at simply generating additional uses or possibly 

entering into a lease. The latter is likely to involve exclusive use of the facility by one group 

or commercial entity and hence would impact on current users by excluding them from using 

the centre. If the aim of the alternative Recommendation 4 is to lease the centre out then 

seeking a wider range of users would actually complicate that process. Recommendation 5 

would seem to contradict recommendation 4. 

Recommendation 6 relates to the maintenance of toilet facilities attached to Maureen 

Grierson Centre. Advice received from the City Buildings and Waste and Fleet Business 

Units on the maintenance of toilet facilities at the Maureen Grierson Centre is set out below: 

Waste and Fleet advise that:- 

“the City currently cleans public toilets along the costal strip Monday to Sunday, 

between 5.00am and 7.00am, including the Maureen Grierson Centre. The beach crew 

monitor the cleanliness throughout the remainder of the day. The Waste Business Unit 

has an existing procedure for the cleaning of toilets that, along with all activities within 

the Waste and Fleet Business Unit, is currently being reviewed to maintain/meet best 

practice and will include a Safe Work Method Statement evaluation. Public perception 

regarding the effectiveness of toilet cleaning is diminished when the toilet facility is in 

need of general maintenance.” 

City Buildings Business Unit advise that the Maureen Grierson Centre is an aging facility and 

they are in the process of upgrading these toilets at a cost of approximately $100,000. This 

upgrade is likely to change the community perception of the toilet facility and its cleanliness 

for its remaining lifespan. 

This additional information provides feedback to Councillors on the proposed alternative 

recommendation and its potential impact on existing users of the facility. Some of the items 

recommended have been or are being actioned already (Recommendations 1 and 6). 

Feedback from Tourism WA has been received several times to indicate that no funding is 

available to establish any tourist visitor centres other than the Perth Tourist Information 

Centre (Recommendation 2). The City’s Events team has no further budget or resources to 

provide additional activities at Scarborough during 2012/13 (Recommendation 3). Seeking 

power to lease and advertising for Expressions of Interest would impact on current users and 

could confuse the process required to implement the Scarborough Beach Urban Design 

Master Plan (Recommendations 4 and 5). Action is being taken by City Building to upgrade 

the existing toilet and Waste and Fleet to review the toilet cleaning procedure would address 

Recommendation 6. 

The original officer recommendation is therefore reaffirmed. 

163



10.1/EDUR3 SCARBOROUGH BEACH URBAN DESIGN REVISED MASTER PLAN - 

DESIGN BRIEF FOR LANDSCAPE DESIGN SERVICES FOR SEPARABLE 

PORTION 2 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Scarborough 




Coastal 

Scarborough 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0912/033 

Moved Councillor Italiano, seconded Councillor Tyzack 

That Council ENDORSE the amended Design Brief for the provision of Landscape 

Design Services to develop the Scarborough Beach Urban Design Masterplan – 

Separable Portion 2. 




Against: Nil. 

164




That the item relating to the Scarborough Beach Urban Design Revised Master Plan - 

Design Brief for Landscape Design Services for Separable Portion 2 be REFERRED to the 

Council meeting to be held 18 September 2012 to enable further consideration by 

Councillors. 


That Council ENDORSE the attached Design Brief for the provision of Landscape Design 

Services to develop the Scarborough Beach Urban Design Master Plan – Separable 

Portion 2. 


To seek Council endorsement of the ‘Request for Quotation’ design brief for landscape 

detailed design services for Separable Portion 2 only to facilitate the implementation of the 

Scarborough Beach Urban Design Master Plan. 


Attachments 

Attachment 1 – Design brief for the provision of landscape detailed design services for 

Separable Portion 2 only to facilitate the implementation of the Scarborough Beach Urban 

Design Master Plan 

Attachment 2 - Amended Design brief for the provision of landscape detailed design services 

for Separable Portion 2 only to facilitate the implementation of the Scarborough Beach 

Urban Design Master Plan 


Nil. 

Background 

On the 3 April 2012 the Executive Team approved the design brief to procure landscape 

design services for the Scarborough Beach Urban Design Master Plan. Following this, a 

consultant was appointed from the City’s panel of consultants to prepare a finishing palette 

for Separable Portion (SP) 1, 2 & 3 and landscape detailed design documentation for 

Separable Portion (SP) 1 only. The value of this consultancy was $80,000. The design brief 

attached in Appendix 1 contains a plan indicating the areas referred to as separable 

portions. These are: 

Separable Portion (SP) 1 – Scarborough Beach Road/Entry plaza 

Separable Portion (SP) 2 – Southern Esplanade 

Separable Portion (SP) 3 – Northern Esplanade 

Separable Portion (SP) 4 – West Coast Highway 

165



The City’s Engineering Design Business Unit is currently undertaking engineering detail 

design of the civil components for Separable Portion 1 as part of their work scope and are 

now in a position to commence engineering detail design of Separable Portion 2, the 

Southern Beach and Esplanade. 

On the 6 August 2012, the Executive Team approved the design brief to procure Landscape 

Design Services for Separable Portion 2 be submitted to Council for consideration. The 

City’s Purchasing and Tender Management Practice section 5.8.2 required that a design 

brief for consultancy services with an estimated value of over $100,000 must be approved by 

Council. 

Comment 

To progress detailed design of further stages and ensure consistency between the 

engineering and landscape design, it is recommended that the City seek quotations for a 

consultant to provide landscape detail design services for Separable Portion 2. Two 

consultants are available for selection from the City’s Infrastructure panel and as such no 

tender is required. 

The scope of works involves the preparation of full landscape detailed design, specification 

and tender documentation for Separable Portion (SP) 2. The design brief for the provision of 

Landscape Design Services to develop the Scarborough Beach Urban Design Master Plan 

Separable Portion 2 is attached in Appendix 1. 


Nil. 


The consultancy services will be procured in accordance with the City’s Purchasing and 

Tender Policy and the Local Government Act 1995. 


Quotes will be sought from two (2) consultants from the City's approved consultancy panel. It 

is estimated that cost for detailed design will be in the order of $150,000, based on previous 

quotation received for landscape detailed design services for Separable Portion 1. 

Funds have been budgeted for this purpose in Account H0028-3321. 


Goal 2: 


SI 2.1.1: 






Implement the Scarborough Environs Area Strategy (SEAS) 

166





Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Water consumption and quality During detailed design, an irrigation strategy will be 

prepared and the possibility of water re-use will be 

investigated. 

Amenity 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The Scarborough Environs Area Strategy aims to improve 

the amenity of the Scarborough public realm. 

Transport and access 

Detailed design will provide improved pedestrian access to 

the South Beach. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Dvlpmt of key business sectors The project seeks to increase the variety of attractions at 

Scarborough Beach. 

Conclusion 

In order to progress detail design of the Scarborough Beach Urban Design Master Plan the 

development of landscape detailed designs and supporting documentation of Separable 

Portion 2 is required. 

Council approval is sought for the provision of landscape detailed design services for 

Separable Portion 2 only to facilitate the implementation of the Scarborough Beach Urban 

Design Master Plan. It is intended quotes will be sought from two (2) consultants from the 

City's approved consultancy panels and the anticipated completion for the detail design is 

March 2013. 

167



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.1/EDUR3 - SCARBOROUGH ENVIRONS AREA STRATEGY 

REVISED MASTER PLAN – DESIGN BRIEF FOR LANDSCAPE DESIGN SERVICES FOR 

SEPARABLE PORTION 2 

Attachment 1 - Design brief for the provision of landscape detailed design services for 

Separable Portion 2 only to facilitate the implementation of the Scarborough Beach 

Urban Design Master Plan. 

168



169



170



171



172



173



174



175



Attachment 2 - Amended Design brief for the provision of landscape detailed design 

services for Separable Portion 2 only to facilitate the implementation of the 

Scarborough Beach Urban Design Master Plan 

176



177



178



179



180



181



182



183




0912/034 


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. 

HEALTH AND COMPLIANCE 

10.1/HC2 

LOT 116, UNITS 2, 3 AND 4, HOUSE NUMBER 799, BEAUFORT STREET, 

INGLEWOOD - CHANGE OF USE FROM 'OFFICE' TO 'EDUCATIONAL 

ESTABLISHMENT' (TRAINING SERVICES AUSTRALIA) 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 116, Units 2, 3 and 4, House Number 799, Beaufort Street, 

Inglewood 

Geoff Trott 



Inglewood 

Inglewood 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 








184




Information 

Purposes 











0912/035 


1. That pursuant to Clause 8.4 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.3, the 

retrospective application for a Change of Use from ‘Office’ to ‘Educational 

Establishment’ (Training Services Australia) at Lot 116, Units 2, 3 and 4, House 

Number 799, Beaufort Street, Inglewood, be APPROVED subject to the following 

conditions:- 

a. Vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on 

approved plan being sealed, marked and drained to the satisfaction of the 


b. All off street parking to be available on site 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 parking or landscape areas or within access driveways. All goods and 

materials are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards, where 

provided; and 

d. Any on site floodlights not being positioned or operated in such a manner 

so as to cause annoyance to surrounding residents, passing traffic or 

nearby businesses. 

2. That pursuant to clause 5.8 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.3, the cashin-lieu 

contribution in relation to the six (6) car bay shortfall be WAIVED for the 

application at Lot 116, Units 2, 3 and 4, House Number 799, Beaufort Street, 

Inglewood. 

3. That the applicant BE ADVISED that the development is to comply in all respects 

with the Building Code of Australia and relevant Australian Standards in respect 

of access and facilities for the disabled. 

The motion was put and declared CARRIED (13/0) by exception resolution (page 184 

refers). 



Against: Nil. 

185








conditions:- 

a. Vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on approved plan 

being sealed, marked and drained to the satisfaction of the City; 



c. No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the 


are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards, where provided; and 

d. Any on site floodlights not being positioned or operated in such a manner so as 

to cause annoyance to surrounding residents, passing traffic or nearby 

businesses. 

2. That pursuant to clause 5.8 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.3, the cash-in-lieu 

contribution in relation to the six (6) car bay shortfall be WAIVED for the application at 

Lot 116, Units 2, 3 and 4, House Number 799, Beaufort Street, Inglewood. 

3. That the applicant BE ADVISED that the development is to comply in all respects with 

the Building Code of Australia and relevant Australian Standards in respect of access 

and facilities for the disabled. 






conditions:- 

a. Vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on approved plan 

being sealed, marked and drained to the satisfaction of the City; 



c. No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the 


are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards, where provided; and 

d. Any on site floodlights not being positioned or operated in such a manner so as 

to cause annoyance to surrounding residents, passing traffic or nearby 

businesses. 

186



2. That pursuant to clause 5.8 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.3, the cash-in-lieu 

contribution in relation to the six (6) car bay shortfall be WAIVED for the application at 

Lot 116, Units 2, 3 and 4, House Number 799, Beaufort Street, Inglewood. 

3. That the applicant BE ADVISED that the development is to comply in all respects with 

the Building Code of Australia and relevant Australian Standards in respect of access 

and facilities for the disabled. 


To consider a retrospective development application seeking approval for a Change of Use 

from ‘Office’ to ‘Educational Establishment’ (Training Services Australia) at Lot 116, Units 2, 

3 and 4, House Number 799, Beaufort Street, Inglewood. 


Attachments 

Nil. 







Nearest Cross Street: Wenberi Lane, Fifth Avenue and Beaufort Street 

Location Plan 

187





Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS 

LPS3 

Use 

Class 

Urban 

Business 

Educational Establishment 

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

planning approval. 



The following Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS3) and Local Planning Policy provisions are 

relevant to the retrospective application. 

Clause 5.5 Variations to Site and Development Standards and Requirements states:- 

"5.5.1 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 non-compliance, approve the 

application unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Council thinks 

fit." 

188



Clause 8.4 pertaining to unauthorised developments states:- 

“8.4 Unauthorised Existing Developments 

8.4.1 The Council may grant planning approval to a use or development 

already commenced or carried out regardless of when it was 

commenced or carried out, if the development conforms to the 

provisions of the Scheme. 

8.4.2 Development which was unlawfully commenced is not rendered 

lawful by the occurrence of any subsequent event except the 

granting of planning approval, and the continuation of the 

development unlawfully commenced is taken to be lawful upon the 

grant of planning approval.” 

The retrospective proposal involves a change of use to ‘Educational Establishment’ which is 

has the following definition in LPS3:- 


“… premises used for the purposes of education and includes a school, tertiary 

institution, business college, academy or other educational centre.” 


Planning Policy 6.7 Parking 

The City's Parking Policy prescribes parking concessions for commercial developments. In 

this instance the subject site is entitled to parking variations. The Policy also stipulates car 

parking requirements for various land uses including Educational Establishments. 

Finally, the Policy provides for the provision of cash-in-lieu of parking bays in instances 

where non-residential development are unable to meet Scheme parking requirements. 

Consideration of this clause is required with respect to this application. 

Background 

Development Approvals 

A search of the City’s records reveals that planning approval was granted for an Office 

building on 3 December 1997 subject to conditions. 

In January 2012 a complaint was lodged with the City raising concerns about parking at the 

subject site. Inspection of the premises revealed that units 2, 3 and 4 had been converted 

from office into training rooms and were occupied by a business named Training Services 

Australia. Unit 1 is utilised as offices and is not part of this application. 

The site provides a total of 21 bays servicing four (4) tenancies. There are a further four (4) 

on street bays directly adjoining the premises. However, these bays cannot be included as 

part of the car parking calculations. 

189



Unauthorised Building Works 

The applicant has admitted to undertaking unauthorised building works by “fitting out” the 

tenancies to accommodate the training facility business. When the Training Services 

Australia moved into the building the three (3) tenancies were essentially a shell. Works 

undertaken include partitioning to provide offices, extension of the half-height partitioning on 

the upper floor to full height, a ground floor reception area and a disabled toilet. There may 

be other unauthorised building works, however this will be subject to lodgement of an 

application for a Building Approval Certificate by a registered building surveyor contractor. 

Applicant's Justification 

It is considered relevant to include excerpts from the applicant’s submission in support of the 

retrospective proposal as it provides a comprehensive background summary of the business 

and its operations. 

“Nature of our Business 

“Training Services Australia is a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) with scope to 

deliver: 

Cert IV in Training and Assessment 

Cert IV in Frontline Management 

Cert III in Occupational Health and Safety 

Our courses are modularised and individual modules are 2-5 days duration. The 

majority of our clients are from the resources sector and many trainees are flown to 

Perth to attend our courses. Consequently, they use taxis to commute to our venue 

from their hotel accommodation. A significant proportion of the training we conduct is 

at our clients premises throughout Australia and overseas. 

Operating hours 

Our courses run from 8.30am to 4.30pm on Monday – Friday, although trainees often 

opt for a shorter lunch break and leave by 4pm. 

We do not conduct courses every working day of every week. Additionally, even when 

training is being conducted, a number of our training rooms are often vacant and those 

which are in use are often not used to full capacity. 

We commenced operating from: 

Unit 3 in 1998 



Number of employees 

190



Training Services Australia’s workforce comprises:- 

4 full-time employees (one of these commutes via public transport) 

3 part-time employees 

We also engage the services of contract trainers on an as-needs basis (one per 

training room as required). 

We have four training rooms. The capacity of our training rooms is:- 

Training Room 1 (Unit 3) 14 




The total number of trainees:- 

Reached 50 on 1 day only 

Total 50 

Exceeded 40 on 20 days only 

There were 30 or less trainees on 161 days 

These figures were extracted from our enrolment data-base which illustrate that for the 

whole of last year we were within the ‘Educational Establishment (Technical)’ parking 

bay requirement. Furthermore, we do not expect any significant change to this 

attendance pattern.” 

Assessment 


Element 


Policy 

OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

1 

Site 

Requirements 

 

Not applicable 

2 Setbacks 

Existing. 

proposed. 

No change 


Proposal results in a 

shortfall of six (6) parking 

spaces. Refer to 

Comment section for 

further discussion. 


Existing. 

proposed. 

No change 

191



Element 


Policy 

OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

5 Facades 

Existing. 

proposed. 

No change 


There is alternative 

vehicular access 

provided at the rear of via 

Wenberi Lane. 


Existing. 

proposed. 

No change 

8 Policy 

Parking Policy 6.7 

prescribes the parking 

requirements and 

variations 

to 

development standards 

for non-residential 

development. 

9 

Other 

Consideration 

 

Development will be 

required to comply in all 

respects with the Building 

Code of Australia and 

relevant Australian 

Standards in respect of 

access and facilities for 

the disabled. 


The application was not required to be advertised for public comment. 

Comment 

Car parking 

The site accommodates four (4) units with Training Services Australia occupying units 2, 3 

and 4. An assessment of car parking requirements on site reveals the following:- 

Unit 1 (Office) 

5 bays 

Units 2, 3 and 4 (Educational Establishment) 28.62 (29) bays 

In accordance with Planning Policy 6.7 Parking, the subject site is entitled to a number of 

concessions in view of its location to a high frequency bus route (15%) and the premises 

falling within a ‘Strip’ Commercial Centre (10%). 

With the concessions applied (totalling 25%), the parking requirement for the training facility 

is reduced to 21.46 (22) car bays from 29 car bays. 

The lot accommodates 21 car parking spaces, five (5) of these are apportioned to the offices 

within Unit 1 leaving the remaining 16 bays to Training Services Australia. The resultant 

parking shortfall is six (6) bays for units 2, 3 and 4. 

192



Engineering Comment 

A brief transport statement was submitted by the applicant in support of the proposal. The 

following comment was made by the City’s Engineering Design Business Unit in relation to 

the statement and retrospective application:- 

“Transport Statement demonstrates that the change of use is not expected to have an 

adverse impact on the operation of the local road network, particularly since the trips 

generated by this development are primarily concentrated within the ‘commercial’ 

section of Fifth Avenue between Wenberi Lane and Beaufort Street. The site is also 

well serviced by high frequency public transport and reasonably good 

pedestrian/cyclist access. 

According to my calculations, and based on 100% capacity for all four training rooms, 

the number of private parking bays provided on-site is slightly less than the required 

provision for a ‘Technical Education Establishment’ in LPS3. However, there are 

public on-street parking bays within close proximity to the site and the owners have 

advised that if required they would seek reciprocal parking arrangements for the use of 

private bays with adjacent sites (hotel, health club, video library) that have parking 

demands that do not coincide with this site.” 

It is considered that a six (6) bay shortfall will unlikely have an adverse impact on the site, 

nearby properties or local road network. 

People attending the training programs (including staff) have the option of catching public 

transport as the site is located on Beaufort Street. 

The four (4) training rooms provided by Training Services Australia are rarely used at the 

same time and attendees within each class is low. 

It is considered that clauses 5.5 and 5.8 of the City’s LPS3 may be exercised. It is the 

opinion of the City’s Compliance section that the non-compliance will not have an adverse 

effect upon the occupiers of the development, the inhabitants of the locality or the likely 

future development of the area. Waiving the cash-in-lieu contribution for the six (6) car bay 

shortfall is appropriate in this instance. 

In view of the above it is considered that the retrospective proposal has merit and is 

recommended for support. 









193




Goal 1: 


SI 2.1.4: 

To create and develop a responsive and inclusive community that provides 

opportunities for all, balancing the competing needs of local and wider 

communities. 

Provide and promote activities, programs and services designed to meet 

the needs of Stirling's diverse community. 

Review and implement the Local Planning Strategy to address changing 

social environmental and economic needs. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Amenity 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

It is considered that amenity impacts are minimal as a result 

of the development. There is a small shortfall in parking on 

site and the proposal is unlikely to have any adverse or 

detrimental impact on the local road network or adjoining 

properties. 

Community services The retrospective proposal provides an important 

educational service to the resource sector and wider 

community. 

Job creation 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

The retrospective proposal provides employment to a 

workforce of seven (7) people. The training programs 

offered at the facility provide opportunities for further career 

and personal development for attendees in areas of 

management and occupational health and safety. 

Conclusion 

The retrospective development application seeks approval for a change of use from ‘Office’ 

to ‘Educational Establishment’ to support Training Services Australia at Lot 116, Units 2, 3 

and 4, House Number 799, Beaufort Street, Inglewood. 

The application results in a parking deficiency of six (6) parking spaces. 

It is considered that clause 5.8 of the City's LPS3 may be exercised and the cash-in-lieu 

requirement for the parking shortfall be waived. 

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions as outlined in the 

Officers recommendation. 

194



10.1/HC3 LOT 8, HOUSE NUMBER 235, MAIN STREET, OSBORNE PARK - 

CHANGE OF USE FROM 'OFFICE' TO 'EDUCATIONAL 

ESTABLISHMENT', 'SHOP', 'CONSULTING ROOMS', AND 'PERSONAL 

CARE SERVICES' (UNAUTHORISED DEVELOPMENT) 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 8, House Number 235, Main Street, Osborne Park 

Whelans 



Osborne 

Osborne Park 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 






includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies. 












0912/036 


1. That pursuant to Clause 8.4 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 3, the 


Establishment’ (West End Music Academy), ‘Shop’ (Civic Video), ‘Consulting 

Rooms’ (Podiatrist), and ‘Personal Care Services’ (Hairdresser) at Lot 8, House 

Number 235, Main Street, Osborne Park, be APPROVED subject to the following 

conditions:- 

195



a. That the applicant submit a revised acoustic consultants report to the 

satisfaction of the Manager Health and Compliance within 45 days of the 

approval date demonstrating that the use of Tenancy 3 as an 

‘Educational Establishment’ (West End Music Academy) complies with 

the provisions of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 

1997; 

b. In relation to condition a above, any remedial works that are required as 

part of the acoustic consultants report to be completed within 90 days 

of the approval date; 

c. Vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on 

approved plan being sealed, marked and drained to the satisfaction of 

the City; 

d. All off street parking to be available on site during business hours for all 


e. No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, 

in the parking or landscape areas or within access driveways. All goods 

and materials are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards, 

where provided; and 

f. Any on site floodlights not being positioned or operated in such a 

manner so as to cause annoyance to surrounding residents, passing 

traffic or nearby businesses. 

2. That pursuant to clause 5.8 of the City's Local Planning Scheme No.3, the cashin-lieu 

contribution in relation to the 25 car bay shortfall be WAIVED for the 

application at Lot 8, House Number 235, Main Street, Osborne Park. 

3. That the applicant be ADVISED that the development is to comply in all respects 

with the Building Code of Australia, relevant Australian Standards in respect of 

access and facilities for the disabled and the Environmental Protection (Noise) 

Regulations 1997. 


refers). 



Against: Nil. 




Establishment’ (West End Music Academy), ‘Shop’ (Civic Video), ‘Consulting Rooms’ 

(Podiatrist), and ‘Personal Care Services’ (Hairdresser) at Lot 8, House Number 235, 

Main Street, Osborne Park, be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:- 



approval date demonstrating that the use of Tenancy 3 as an ‘Educational 

Establishment’ (West End Music Academy) complies with the provisions of 

the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997; 

196



b. In relation to condition a above, any remedial works that are required as part 

of the acoustic consultants report to be completed within 90 days of the 

approval date; 

c. Vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on approved 

plan being sealed, marked and drained to the satisfaction of the City; 



e. No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the 

parking or landscape areas or within access driveways. All goods and 


provided; and 

f. Any on site floodlights not being positioned or operated in such a manner so 

as to cause annoyance to surrounding residents, passing traffic or nearby 

businesses. 

2. That pursuant to clause 5.8 of the City's Local Planning Scheme No.3, the cash-in-lieu 

contribution in relation to the 25 car bay shortfall be WAIVED for the application at Lot 

8, House Number 235, Main Street, Osborne Park. 

3. That the applicant be ADVISED that the development is to comply in all respects with 

the Building Code of Australia, relevant Australian Standards in respect of access and 

facilities for the disabled and the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. 




Establishment’ (West End Music Academy), ‘Shop’ (Civic Video), ‘Consulting Rooms’ 

(Podiatrist), and ‘Personal Care Services’ (Hairdresser) at Lot 8, House Number 235, 

Main Street, Osborne Park, be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:- 



approval date demonstrating that the use of Tenancy 3 as an ‘Educational 

Establishment’ (West End Music Academy) complies with the provisions of 

the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997; 

b. In relation to condition a above, any remedial works that are required as part 

of the acoustic consultants report to be completed within 90 days of the 

approval date; 

c. Vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on approved 

plan being sealed, marked and drained to the satisfaction of the City; 



197



e. No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the 

parking or landscape areas or within access driveways. All goods and 


provided; and 

f. Any on site floodlights not being positioned or operated in such a manner so 

as to cause annoyance to surrounding residents, passing traffic or nearby 

businesses. 

2. That pursuant to clause 5.8 of the City's Local Planning Scheme No.3, the cash-in-lieu 

contribution in relation to the 25 car bay shortfall be WAIVED for the application at Lot 

8, House Number 235, Main Street, Osborne Park. 

3. That the applicant be ADVISED that the development is to comply in all respects with 

the Building Code of Australia, relevant Australian Standards in respect of access and 

facilities for the disabled and the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. 


To consider a retrospective development application seeking approval for a Change of Use 

from ‘Office’ to ‘Educational Establishment’ (West End Music Academy), ‘Shop’ (Civic 

Video), ‘Consulting Rooms’ (Podiatrist), and ‘Personal Care Services’ (Hairdresser) at Lot 8, 

House Number 235, Main Street, Osborne Park. 


Attachments 

Nil. 







Nearest Cross Street: Eldorado Street & Rodin Lane 

198



Location Plan 


199




Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS 

LPS3 

Use 

Urban 

Mixed Use 

Class and Type Educational Establishment ('D' use) 

Shop ('P' use); 

Consulting Room ('P' use); and 

Personal Care Services ('P' use). 



The following Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS3) and Local Planning Policy provisions are 

relevant to the retrospective application. 

Clause 5.5 Variations to Site and Development Standards and Requirements states:- 

"5.5.1 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 non-compliance, approve the application 

unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Council thinks fit." 

“8.4 Unauthorised Existing Developments 

8.4.1 The Council may grant planning approval to a use or development already 

commenced or carried out regardless of when it was commenced or carried 

out, if the development conforms to the provisions of the Scheme. 

8.4.2 Development which was unlawfully commenced is not rendered lawful by the 

occurrence of any subsequent event except the granting of planning approval, 

and the continuation of the development unlawfully commenced is taken to be 

lawful upon the grant of planning approval.” 

The retrospective proposal involves various change of uses listed herein which have the 

following definitions as defined by LPS3:- 


“… premises used for the purposes of education and includes a school, tertiary 

institution, business college, academy or other educational centre.” 

200



Personal Care Services 

Shop 

“… premises used for the provision of services of a personal nature involving care 

and/or treatment of clients, and includes hairdressing, beauty therapy, manicure and 

massage, but does not include consulting rooms, medical centre or sex services 

involving prostitution." 

“… premises used to sell goods by retail, or hire goods, but does not include a 

showroom or fast food outlet.” 


Planning Policy 6.7 Parking 

The City's Parking Policy prescribes parking concessions for commercial developments. The 

subject site is entitled to a number of these parking variations. The Policy also stipulates car 

parking requirements for various land uses including Educational Establishments and 

Personal Care Services (refer to Comment section of this report). 

Finally, the Policy provides for the provision of cash-in-lieu of parking bays in instances 

where non-residential development are unable to meet Scheme parking requirements. 

Consideration of this clause is required with respect to this application. 

Background 

In 2010 the City received a complaint alleging unauthorised land use for one (1) of the units 

at the subject site operating as an 'Educational Establishment' (West End Music Academy). 

The complaint was received from an existing tenant at the same site and was lodged in 

response to an investigation into an unauthorised activity occurring at the complainants 

premises. That complainant no longer occupies the premises. 

A subsequent investigation of the complaint and a search of City records revealed that 

three (3) other businesses operating from the premises; a video store, a podiatrist and a 

hairdresser also did not have the requisite approvals. 

A review of the existing approvals at the site indicated planning approval was granted for a 

three (3) storey office building on 4 March 1970 subject to conditions. Further, approval also 

was granted for a storage area within the under croft area at the rear of the site on 

4 February 1986. This area has previously been occupied by a ceramic tiles distribution 

business and is now occupied by a Safe company (Warehouse). This existing use does not 

form part of this application for consideration. 

In addition to the above, the City has received complaints (predominantly from nearby 

residents) since September 2002, in relation to noise emanating from West End Music 

Academy. Whilst some measures have been taken by the business proprietor to address 

noise complaints, further control measures are likely to be required. 

201



Assessment 


Element 


Policy 

OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

1 

Site 

Requirements 

 

Not applicable. 

2 Setbacks 


Existing. Not applicable. 

The development 

requires provision of 41 

parking spaces. The site 

accommodates 16 car 

bays resulting in a 

parking shortfall of 25 

bays. 


Existing. No change 

proposed. 

5 Facades 

Existing building. 

applicable. 

Not 


There is alternative 

vehicular access 

provided at the rear via 

Rodin Lane. 


Existing building. 

applicable. 

Not 

8 Policy 

Parking Policy 6.7 

prescribes the parking 

requirements and 

variations 

to 

development standards 

for non-residential 

development. 

9 

Other 

Consideration 

 

Development will be 

required to comply in all 

respects with the Building 

Code of Australia and the 

Environmental Protection 

(Noise) Regulations 

1997. 

202




The application was advertised for a period of 21 days, in accordance with the Council’s 

‘Planning Consultation Procedure’. At the conclusion of the advertising period, seven (7) 

submissions were received and are summarised in the table below. A petitioning letter 

containing five (5) signatures was also submitted (ECM Doc No. 2911833). 

Submission 

Number 

1 

2 

3 


No objections with this proposal and has 

no further recommendation for this 

application. 

The noise of having students learning 

musical instruments behind a housing 

residential area which is within an earshot 

is not an ideal situation especially during 

summer when windows and doors are 

open. Object to after hour sessions. 

The proposed development would 

increase parking. At times parking is 

overflowing from one (1) side of the road 

to the other. 

The Music Academy could also cause 

noise disturbance to adjoining tenants. 


Noted. No further comment. 

Noted. The applicant has provided the 

operating hours of the Music Academy. 

Noise emissions will be required to 

comply with the Environmental Protection 


Noted. The proposal results in a parking 

shortfall in terms of Scheme 

requirements. However, there appears to 

be no perceived or actual parking issues 

on site. 

The development will be required to 



Noted. Noise emissions will be required 

to comply with the Environmental 

Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. 

4 

5 

6 

Concerned about noise and parking. 

Concerned that the noise will affect 

property values. 

As a nearby landowner concerns are 

raised in relation to noise, in particular 

drumming. At times unable to open doors 

and windows in the evening or on the 

weekend. 

Concerned that the Music Academy will 

have an adverse impact on the re-sale 

value of the property. 

Object on the basis that the noise levels 

are too high and cause problems. 

The proposal results in a parking shortfall 

in terms of Scheme requirements. 

However, there appears to be no 

perceived or actual parking issues on 

site. 

The reduction in property values cannot 

be substantiated and is not a planning 

argument to refuse a development. 

Noted. It is understood that the room 

used for drum tuition is no longer located 

at the rear of the premises. In addition 

noise emissions will be required to 



The reduction in property values cannot 

be substantiated and is not a planning 

argument to refuse a development. 

Noted. Noise emissions will be required 

to comply with the Environmental 

Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. 

203



Seven (7) Submissions Received – Relative Location 

Submissions 

Received 


proposed site 



SUPPORT 14.3% 0% 14.3% 

OBJECT 85.7%% 0% 85.7% 

OTHER 

(Not stated/ 

no opinion/ 


N/A N/A N/A 

In relation to the submissions received by the City, it would appear that most submitters are 

concerned about the Music Academy and associated noise. The submissions do not raise 

concerns with the other businesses on the site. Parking is also cited as an area of concern 

(refer to Comment section below). 

Comment 

Operating hours 

The applicant has provided the operating hours of the various unauthorised businesses 

occupying the ground and first floors:- 

Hairdresser – Monday to Friday, and Saturday mornings; 

Podiatrist – Monday to Friday 8.30am to 5.00pm; Wednesday 8.30am to 6.00pm; 8.30am to 

12.00pm every second Saturday; 

Video Store – 10.00am to 10.00pm Monday to Saturday, 10.00am to 9.00pm Sundays; and 

Music Academy – Monday to Thursday 2.30pm to 9.00pm, Friday 2.30pm to 6.00pm and 

Saturday 9.00am to 3.00pm. 

The applicant has also provided information as to how long each business has been in 

operation at the premises:- 

Hairdresser – 13 years; 

Podiatrist – 9 years; 

Video Store – 25 years; and 

Music Academy – 20 years. 

It is evident that the current businesses have been operating (with limited complaint) for a 

number of years. The main concerns, which have been directed towards the City are for the 

most part, in relation to noise emanating from the music school. This is discussed in more 

detail in this report. 

204



Car Parking 

Proposed Use Area Car Parking requirement Car bays 

required 

1.25 car bays per 

N/A classroom, plus one (1) 

bay per 3.5 students 

Educational 

Establishment 

(Music Academy) 

Shop 

(Video store) 

275.63m² Eight (8) bays per 100m² 

of gross leasable area 

(GLA) 

Car bays 

provided 

7 Refer to total 

below 


below 

Consulting Rooms 

(Podiatrist) 

44m² Six (6) bays per one (1) 

Health Consultant 


below 

Personal Care 35m² Eight (8) bays per 100m² 3.5 Refer to total 

Services 

of gross leasable area 

below 

(Hairdresser) 

(GLA) 

Office 

128m² One (1) bay per 30m² of 4.2 Refer to total 

(part of Music 

gross floor area (GFA) 

below 

Academy - does not 

require approval) 

Warehouse 

(Safe Company not 

464.23m² One (1) bay per 50m² of 

GFA 

8.3 Refer to total 

below 

part of this 

application) 

TOTAL 51 16 

The subject site is entitled to a number of concessions in accordance with Planning Policy 

6.7 Parking in view of its location to the Main Street car park on the corner of Main and 

Royal Streets (10%), and the premises falling within a ‘Strip’ Commercial Centre (10%). 

With the concessions applied (totalling 20%), the parking requirement for the development is 

reduced to 40.8 (41) car bays from 51 car bays. The resultant car parking shortfall is 25 

bays. 

The parking requirements for most of the land uses are considered excessive given the 

nature of the business. The music academy for example is classified under the generic land 

use classification of ‘Educational Establishment’. This use class is normally applicable to 

schools and tertiary institutions where students occupy a number of rooms or classrooms at 

the one (1) time, and not the one (1) on one (1) style of tuition provided by the music 

academy. Similarly the requirement for six (6) parking bays per Health Consultant is 

considered slightly onerous in this instance as there will be a maximum of four (4) persons 

on the premises at any one (1) time (i.e. one (1) podiatrist, one (1) receptionist and one (1) 

or two (2) patients). 

The video store falls under the use class activity of ‘Shop’. However, it does not tend to 

operate like a traditional shop in that customers only stay for a short period of time to choose 

a DVD, thereby having very little affect on parking demand. 

Planning Policy 6.7 Parking prescribes reciprocal parking as a consideration in varying the 

parking standards. Some of the various unauthorised uses have differing hours of operation. 

This commercial strip accommodates uses where parking does not reasonably coincide, or 

the peak hours of operation do not substantially conflict. For example, the Music Academy 

does not open until 2.30pm, with classes commencing at 3.30pm. Most of the other 

businesses are closing shortly after this time. It is also noted that the property would be 

reasonably quiet in terms of parking and traffic on Sundays as the Barber, Podiatrist and 

Music Academy are closed. 

205



Engineering Comment 

The following comment was made by the City’s Engineering Design section in relation to the 

retrospective application:- 

“It is noted that the supporting Transport Statement has not been provided by a 

qualified traffic consultant. However, it is acknowledged that the WAPC Guidelines do 

not require these Statements to be prepared by specialists in transport planning or 

traffic engineering. 

The Transport Statement covers the recommended WAPC Guidelines for such a 

Statement but it is uncertain whether daily traffic volumes are based on surveys of 

existing land uses or based on trip generation rates for each specified land use. The 

description of trips to the Music Academy indicates that students do not contribute to 

parking demand as they are dropped off and picked up. However, these still require 

the use of parking bays to do so and vehicle trips in and out of the site. 

Notwithstanding the above, it is unlikely that the traffic volumes generated by these 

specific land uses will have an adverse impact on the operation of the existing roads 

and access points. 

I understand from your preliminary assessment that there is a 36 - bay shortfall on site 

based on the current land uses (14 bays provided and approximately 50 bays 

required). Engineering Design generally does not make comment on parking 

shortfalls, as this is a matter that is determined by Approvals. However, there is also 

no supporting documentation in the Transport Statement to indicate whether the 

current parking provision is sufficient for these land uses and how often these bays are 

fully utilised, thus requiring the use of parking bays within adjacent properties. 

I understand that this is a retrospective development application, and the ‘proposed’ 

land uses may have been in operation for some time.” 

Environmental Health Comment 

Various acoustic consultant reports have been prepared in relation to the existing Music 

Academy due to issues/concerns from adjoining residents pertaining to noise emissions. 

The most recent report submitted by acoustical consultants in May 2012 was referred to the 

City’s Environmental Health section for comment. An extract from the comment received 

reads:- 

“The report refers to an acoustic upgrade to the rear tutoring room six (6) years ago. 

The report prepared by Gabriels Environment Design in December 2006 included 

recommendations for an acoustic upgrade “representing the requirements to meet the 

assigned levels” and also recommendations for an interim upgrade predicted to 

achieve a relatively minor reduction in noise levels. As far as I am aware none of the 

recommended works have been undertaken. A submission from Whelans received in 

May 2012 included a list of noise attenuation works that will be undertaken upon 

receipt of planning approval – the works listed are basically the same as those 

recommended for the interim upgrade in 2006. 

It is reasonable to expect a business of this type, as a minimum standard, to be able to 

fully comply with the requirements with respect to noise emitted from the premises 

contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and Environmental Protection 

(Noise) Regulations 1997. To date the applicant has not provided evidence of being 

able to meet these requirements.” 

206



The majority of complaints received to date relate to the Music Academy and noise 

generated from the premises. 

Accordingly should retrospective planning approval be issued a condition may be imposed 

requiring submission of a revised acoustic consultants report to the satisfaction of the 

Manager Health and Compliance. The development will also be required to comply in all 

respects with the Building Code of Australia and the Environmental Protection (Noise) 

Regulations 1997. 

Given the above discussion it is considered that clauses 5.5 (variations to site and 

development standards) and 5.8 (cash in lieu of car parking) of the City’s LPS3 may be 

exercised. It is considered by City officers that the car parking non-compliance will not have 

an adverse effect upon the occupiers of the development, the inhabitants of the locality or 

the likely future development of the area. Waiving the cash-in-lieu contribution pertaining to 

the 25 car bay shortfall is appropriate in this instance. 

In view of the above it is considered that the retrospective proposal has merit and is 

recommended for support. 






Should Council choose to consider a cash-in-lieu payment as per the City's Parking Policy, 

financial implications would result from land and construction costs of the required bays. 


Goal 1: 


SI 2.1.4: 

To create and develop a responsive and inclusive community that provides 

opportunities for all, balancing the competing needs of local and wider 

communities. 

Provide and promote activities, programs and services designed to meet 

the needs of Stirling's diverse community. 

Review and implement the Local Planning Strategy to address changing 

social environmental and economic needs. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

207



Amenity 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

Complaints have been received from nearby residents in the 

past, however these are to be related to noise from the 

Music Academy. The applicant will be required to submit a 

revised acoustical consultants report for approval. 

Job creation 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

The site currently provides employment to a vast array of 

individuals in the medical, music and retail industry. It is 

considered that many jobs will be lost as a result of any 

refusal given. 

Conclusion 

The retrospective development application seeks approval to change the uses of four (4) 

tenancies at Lot 8, House Number 235, Main Street, Osborne Park. 

The application results in a parking deficiency of 25 parking spaces, however it is considered 

that there is no perceived or actual parking problems on site despite non-compliance with 

the City’s parking requirements. 

It is considered that clause 5.8 of the City's LPS3 may be exercised and the cash-in-lieu 

requirement for the parking shortfall be waived. 

In view of the above, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to 

conditions. 

208



APPROVALS 

10.1/AP5 LOT 301, HOUSE NUMBER 32, POWELL STREET, JOONDANNA - 

SINGLE DWELLING 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 301, House Number 32, Powell Street, Joondanna 

Mile Savic and Aleksa Savic 


Approvals 

Osborne 

Joondanna 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0912/037 


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

single dwelling at Lot 301, House Number 32, Powell Street, Joondanna be 

APPROVED subject to the following conditions:- 

a. The boundary walls are not to exceed the height identified in the proposed site 

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 City; 

209



b. All driveways, parking and manoeuvring 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 accord with the 

provisions of the City’s Local Laws pertaining to the provision of a sufficient 

fence; 

d. All street trees located in the verge areas adjoining the subject lots are to be 

retained and protected; 

e. Stormwater from all roofed and paved areas to be collected and contained on 

site; 

f. All eaves to the proposed development maintain a minimum setback of 750mm 

from the boundary; and 

g. Solid fences within any street setback area in excess of 1.2m in height are not 

permitted unless they comply with the City's Policy "Streetscape (including 

Fencing)". Fences higher than 1.2m will only be considered where the fence is 

essentially "see through" above 750mm (eg solid piers with wrought iron 

inserts). Where pickets are used as a form of insert for the front fence, the 

pickets are to be no wider than 75mm and spaced at not less than half the width 

of the pickets. 


refers). 



Against: Nil. 


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

dwelling at Lot 301, House Number 32, Powell Street, Joondanna be APPROVED subject to 

the following conditions:- 

a. The boundary walls are not to exceed the height identified in the proposed site 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 City; 

b. All driveways, parking and manoeuvring areas are to be constructed of brick paving, 




c. All boundary fencing behind the front setback line is to accord with the provisions of 

the City’s Local Laws pertaining to the provision of a sufficient fence; 

d. All street trees located in the verge areas adjoining the subject lots are to be retained 

and protected; 

210



e. Stormwater from all roofed and paved areas to be collected and contained on site; 

f. All eaves to the proposed development maintain a minimum setback of 750mm from 

the boundary; and 


permitted unless they comply with the City's Policy "Streetscape (including Fencing)". 

Fences higher than 1.2m will only be considered where the fence is essentially "see 

through" above 750mm (eg solid piers with wrought iron inserts). Where pickets are 

used as a form of insert for the front fence, the pickets are to be no wider than 75mm 

and spaced at not less than half the width of the pickets. 


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

dwelling at Lot 301, House Number 32, Powell Street, Joondanna be APPROVED subject to 


a. The boundary walls are not to exceed the height identified in the proposed site 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 City; 

b. All driveways, parking and manoeuvring areas are to be constructed of brick paving, 




c. All boundary fencing behind the front setback line is to accord with the provisions of 

the City’s Local Laws pertaining to the provision of a sufficient fence; 

d. All street trees located in the verge areas adjoining the subject lots are to be retained 

and protected; 

e. Stormwater from all roofed and paved areas to be collected and contained on site; 

f. All eaves to the proposed development maintain a minimum setback of 750mm from 

the boundary; and 


permitted unless they comply with the City's Policy "Streetscape (including Fencing)". 

Fences higher than 1.2m will only be considered where the fence is essentially "see 

through" above 750mm (eg solid piers with wrought iron inserts). Where pickets are 

used as a form of insert for the front fence, the pickets are to be no wider than 75mm 

and spaced at not less than half the width of the pickets. 


To consider a development application for a single dwelling at Lot 301, House Number 32, 

Powell Street, Joondanna. The development proposes a variation to the City’s Residential 

Building Height Policy and provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) relating to 

open space, buildings setback from the boundary, buildings on boundary, and sightlines at 

vehicular access points and street corners. 

211




Attachments 

Nil. 







Nearest Cross Street: Kyanite Lane 

Location Plan 

212





Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS Urban 

LPS3 Residential R30 

Use 

Class 

Type 

Single House 

P - Permitted 



Nil. 

213



Residential Design Codes 

6.2.6 Sightlines at Access Points and Corners 

The acceptable development standards of the R-Codes require walls and fences be 

truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of where walls and fences adjoin 

vehicle access points of where a driveway meets a public street and where two (2) streets 

intersect. 

6.3.1 Building Setback from Boundary 

The acceptable development standards of the R-Codes require buildings setback from 

boundaries other than street boundaries to be in accordance with Tables 2a and 2b, and 

Figure 3. 

6.3.2 Building on Boundary 

The acceptable development standards of the R-Codes require boundary walls to have a 

maximum height of 3.5m with an average of 3.0m for two-thirds the length of the balance of 

the boundary behind the front setback, to one (1) side boundary only. 

6.4.1 Total Open Space 

The acceptable development standards of the R-Codes require R30 zoned properties to be 

provided with 45% open space. 


Local Planning Policy 2.6 Residential Building Heights 

Under the acceptable development provisions of Council’s ‘Residential Building Heights 

Policy’, walls with a pitched roof are acceptable development provided they do not exceed a 

wall height of 6.0m and a ridge height of 9.0m as measured from average natural ground 

level of the site. Building height shall be measured from the average natural ground level, 

provided that at any point of the difference between average natural ground level and natural 

ground level does not exceed 1.5m. In instances where the difference between average 

natural ground level and natural ground level exceeds 1.5m, stepped finished ground and 

upper floor levels are required. 

Background 

A development application for a single dwelling on Lot 301, House Number 32, Powell 

Street, Joondanna (DA11/0872 refers) was submitted to the City on 24 April 2012. Following 

an initial assessment, the applicant was advised that the initial design did not meet the 

acceptable development standards in relation to vehicular access, building height, buildings 

setback from the boundary, buildings on boundary, and excavation and fill. The application 

was advertised for public comment and a number of objections were received. 

The applicant made several design changes following the initial round of consultation, 

including a reduction to the building wall height and the removal of the rear retaining wall. 

Certain variations remained despite these amendments, including variations to building 

height, buildings setback from the boundary, buildings on boundary, sight lines at vehicle 

access points, and total open space. 

The development application was subsequently readvertised with one (1) objection being 

received. Accordingly, the development application requires Council determination for 

building height, building setback from the boundary, buildings on boundary, sight lines at 

vehicle access points, and total open space. 

214



Assessment 

R-Code Level 1 Assessment – Acceptable Development Criteria 


Complies 

'Acceptable 

Development' 

OR 

'Performance 

Criteria' 

Assessment 

1 Density Complies 

2 Streetscape 

Comment 

There is a 1.8m high 

pier within the 1.5m 

sight line truncation in 

lieu of the required 

0.75m. 

Buildings Setback from 

the Boundary 

West Boundary: 

Ground Floor 

The Entry is setback 

1.26m in lieu of the 

required 1.5m. 

The Family and Alfresco 

are setback 1.28m in 

lieu of 1.5m. 

Upper Floor: 

The Void is setback 

1.18m in lieu of 1.2m. 

The Study, Bath, WC 

and Bed 3 are setback 


3 

Boundary 

Setbacks 

 

East Boundary 

Upper Floor: 

The Master Suite is 

setback 1.2m in lieu of 

the required 1.6m 

The Retreat is setback 


Building on the 

Boundary 

The development 

proposes two (2) 

buildings on two (2) 

boundaries in lieu of one 

(1). 

The average height of 

the western building on 

boundary has an 

average wall height of 


215




Complies 

'Acceptable 

Development' 

OR 

'Performance 

Criteria' 

Assessment 

Comment 

4 Open Space 

43.2% Open Space in 

lieu of 45% is proposed. 

5 

Access and 

Parking 

 

Complies 

6 Site Works 

Complies 


The dwelling proposes a 

wall height of 6.4m in 

lieu of the required 6.0m 

as required by Council 

Policy. 

8 Privacy 

9 Design for Climate 

10 Incidental 

11 Special Purpose 

Complies 

Complies 

Complies 

Complies 

R-Code Level 2 Assessment – Performance Criteria 


R-Codes 

Performance Criteria 

Subclause 

Satisfies 

Performance 

Criteria 

Does Not 

Satisfy 

Performance 

Criteria 

2. Streetscape 6.2.6 Sightlines at 

Vehicle 

Access Points 

and Street 

Corners 

P6 Walls or fences to 

primary or 

secondary streets, 

rights-of-way or 

communal streets 

so that adequate 

sightlines are 

provided at vehicle 

access points. 

 

The reduced truncation is 

considered acceptable as 

the proposed front fence has 

a high degree of 

permeability, and the piers 

are only 350mm wide, 

ensuring adequate sightlines 

are maintained. 

There are no footpaths 

running along the front of the 

subject site, so pedestrian 

traffic will not be at risk. 

The issue was discussed 

with Engineering Design and 

the proposed variation was 

deemed permissible. 

216




3. Boundary 

Setback 

R-Codes 


6.3.2 Buildings on 

Boundary 

Subclause 

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 

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 buildings on boundaries 

make effective use of space 

on a narrow lot; therefore it 

is considered the boundary 

wall will enhance the 

amenity of the dwelling. 

There is likely to be 

enhanced privacy between 

the proposed development 

and adjoining properties due 

to the positioning of the 

boundary wall. 

Overshadowing will only 

occur to the south due to the 

orientation of the lots. 

The variation to the western 

building on boundary wall 

height is considered 

acceptable as the variation is 

minor (100mm). 

Due to the north south 

orientation of the site, the 

proposed variation is not 

considered to significantly 

impact the adjoining 

properties direct sun access. 

The buildings on boundaries 

make effective use of space 

on a narrow lot; therefore it 

is considered the boundary 

wall will enhance the 

amenity of the dwelling. 

4. Open Space 6.4.1 Open Space 

Provision 

P1 Sufficient open 

space around 

buildings:- 

• to complement 

the building; 

• to allow 

attractive 

streetscapes; 

 

The proposed open space is 

considered to complement 

the building and will allow for 

an attractive streetscape. 

The reduced open space is 

caused by the Alfresco being 

partially enclosed to suit the 

needs of future applicants. 

217




R-Codes 


Subclause 

• to suit the future 

needs of 

residents, 

having regard to 

the type and 

density of the 

dwelling. 

Satisfies 

Performance 

Criteria 

Does Not 

Satisfy 

Performance 

Criteria 

7. Building 

Height 

6.7.1 Building Height 

P1 Building height 

consistent with the 

desired height of 

buildings in the 

locality, and to 

recognise the need to 

protect the amenities 


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. 

 

The proposed building wall 

height is considered to be 

consistent with desired 

height of buildings within the 

locality; specifically, the 

adjoining property at 32A 

Powell Street, which has a 

wall height of 6.0m. 

The lot and design of the 

property are orientated in 

such a way that the building 

height is not considered to 

significantly affect the impact 

upon direct sun and daylight 

to major openings to 

habitable rooms of the 

adjoining properties. 

The section of the dwelling 

with a wall height of 6.4m is 

located on at a higher level 

of the site whilst the majority 

of the wall height is 6.2m. 

This results in the dwelling 

reflecting the natural ground 

level of the site as seen from 

the street. 

The ridge height of the 

dwelling complies with the 

acceptable development 

provisions of the Building 

Height Policy. 

The building height does not 

significantly impact adjoining 

properties access to views of 

significance. 

The finished floor level of the 

garage cannot be lowered 

further while retaining an 

acceptable driveway 

gradient. 

218




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. In light of modifications made to 

the proposed development, the application was readvertised for a further 14 days. 

Submissions received are summarised in the table below:- 

Submission 

Number 

First Round of Advertising 

1 


After viewing the plans I have concern for 

the wall height (including the retaining wall 

in the south west corner of the subject 

site. As my property is considerably 

lowered compared to that of the subject 

site there is a concern that the wall height 

will directly affect my property 


The proposed building height variation 

has been assessed and is considered to 

be consistent with the desired height of 

buildings within the locality while 

imposing no significant adverse impacts 

upon the amenity of adjoining properties. 

The finished floor level of the garage 

cannot be lowered without otherwise 

impacting on an acceptable driveway 

gradient. 

2 

3 

I have considered the proposal and wish 

to advise that I have no objections to the 

variations to the R-Codes proposed. 

Residential Building Height- Wall Height 

exceeding 6.0m – The proposed height 

will impact on natural light from the 

North/East to our home theatre/Living, 

bedroom and bathrooms- we are therefore 

unhappy with the proposal. 

Variation to clause 6.3.2.- Proposed 

parapet wall runs along our home theatre/ 

living room border, the extended height 

will significantly reduce natural sunlight 

from North/East, also making Kitchen 1 

meter away from our Theatre/Living area, 

thus also creating noise pollution- we are 

therefore unhappy with the proposal. 

Variation to clause 6.3.1- The proposed 

wall setback on the ground floor is 

significantly less than standard. This will 

create noise pollution to our bedrrom due 

to close proximity of proposed entertaining 

areas, privacy and any natural sunlight to 

the bedrooms and bathrooms will be 

impacted- we are therefore unhappy with 

the proposal. 

The proposed retaining wall referred to in 

the objection was removed as part of a 

subsequent design amendment. 

Comments noted. 

The lot and design of the property are 

orientated in such a way that the 

increased building height is not 

considered to increase the impact upon 

direct sun and access for habitable rooms 

of the adjoining properties. 

The building on boundary has now been 

reduced to an average of 3.1m. It is 

considered that this minor variation now 

meets the performance criteria of clause 

6.3.2 of the R-Codes. 

The dwelling meets the performance 

criteria for building setbacks as set out in 

the R-Codes (see table above). 

The reduced setbacks will not have a 

significant adverse impact on the 

adjoining property as the adjoining 

dwelling does not have any major 

openings abutting the proposed 

development. The living area is setback 

sufficiently as to not be adversely 

affected. 

219



Submission 

Number 


Variation to clause 6.3.1- The proposed 

wall setback on the Upper floor is less 

than half the standard. This raises 

concerns of proximity of the windows to or 

home theatre/ living, bedrooms and 

bathrooms this affecting privacy, close 

proximity of the proposed dwelling to 

bedrooms creating noise pollution and 

concerns of affect on natural sunlight to 

our home theatre/ living room, bedroom 

and bathroom from the North/ East- we 

are therefore unhappy with the proposal. 

Variation to clause 6.6.1- Our concerns 

are that the natural ground level of the 

proposed dwelling is already higher than 

our property. Now with an increase in 

height of retaining the boundary wall is 

extremely high from our side - we are 

therefore unhappy with this proposal. 


The retaining wall identified in the 

objection has now been removed by the 

applicant as part of a design amendment. 

The proposed development has been 

reviewed in relation to the approved plans 

of the objectors dwellings. Based on this 

review, the City’s officers are satisfied 

that the proposed development will not 

adversely impact on the objectors 

dwelling. 

Second Round of Advertising 

4 

In summary, we as owners of a 

neighbouring property have concerns that 

the proposed variations to normal/ 

standard are significant variations- and are 

not merely minor variations. As such we 

would appreciate these proposed 

variations be reviewed with our concerns 

considered. 

Residential Building Height- Wall Height 

Exceeding 6.0m 

The proposed height has only been 

reduced by 100mm, with the wall height 

still 400mm above the required 6m. This 

will still have an impact on natural light 

from the North/East to our home 

theatre/living, bedroom and bathrooms we 

thus request a further reduction in this wall 

height. 

Variation to clause 6.3.1- Buildings 

setback from the boundary 

The proposed wall setback on the ground 

floor is still 540mm less than the standard 

i.e) 1.26m in lieu of 1.8- and not been 

amended. 

This will create noise pollution to our 

bedrooms due to the close proximity of the 

proposed entertaining areas being 

alfresco and family which are high noise 

areas used for entertaining, privacy, and 

any natural sunlight to our bedrooms and 

bathrooms will be impacted- we therefore 

still request that this be amended. 

Ground Floor Setbacks: The proposed 

variations have been assessed in relation 

to the relevant R-Code performance 

criteria, and are considered to meet those 

criteria. 

The proposed minor variation is not 

considered to have a significant adverse 

impact on the amenity of the adjoining 

property. 

Upper Floor Setback: The proposed 

variations have been assessed in relation 

to the relevant R-Code performance 

criteria, and are considered to meet those 

criteria. The proposed minor variation is 

not considered to have a significant 

adverse impact on the amenity of the 

adjoining property. 

The objection refers to the impact the 

reduced setback would have on the 

privacy of the adjoining property’s theatre 

room; however, there are no major 

opening to habitable rooms included 

within proposed upper storey and 

adjoining neighbour’s theatre room. 

220



Submission 

Number 


Variation to clause 6.3.1- Buildings 

setback from boundary 

The proposed wall setback on the Upper 

Floor is almost less than half of the 

standard ie) 1.26m in lieu of 2.8m and not 

been amended. This is a significant 

variation from the norm, this raises 

significant concerns of the proximity of the 

windows to our home theatre/living, 

bedrooms and bathrooms thus affecting 

privacy, close proximity of proposed 

dwellings to bedrooms creating noise 

pollution and concerns of affect on any 

natural sunlight to our home theatre/ living 

room, bedroom and bathroom from the 

North/East- we are therefore extremely 

unhappy with this proposal and request 

this to be amended. 


Four (4) Submissions Received – Relative Location 

Submissions 

Received 


proposed site 




OBJECT 75% 0% 75% 

OTHER 

(Not stated/ 

no opinion/ 


25% 0% 25% 


“I accept the importance of building R-Codes and I also understand neighboring 

residences must be informed and invited to comment on proposed building application 

that don’t meet them however the objections listed below from my adjoining neighbors 

objecting to my building proposal I believe there is no considerable impact to their 

properties, please see my response and justifications. 

Adjoining neighbor objection 1: 

The proposed building height exceeds the permitted 6m. The building height will have 

an impact on natural light to adjoining properties. 

My response and justification: 

The proposed building wall heights being 6400mm would not be of considerable 

impact to the adjoining properties natural light if the wall heights were at the permitted 

6000mm. 


The proposed wall setback on the ground floor is less than standard and will create 

noise pollution to the adjoining property. 

221




This objection should not even be considered a valid objection as all adjoining 

properties have the same/similar ground floor setbacks. 


The proposed upper storey setback is less than the standard setback and affects the 

adjoining property’s privacy and sunlight. 


The proposed building lot/land size is 10,000mm in width, this is considerably less than 

the standard building lots so I feel consideration should be made when addressing 

standard setbacks on non-standard lots and as for privacy there is no overlooking into 

adjoining properties and as for sunlight I have justified this in the first response 

regarding wall heights. 

I first submitted my planning application on April 18 th 2012 since then I have made 

substantial changes to my proposed building design including the orientation of the 

plan left to right due to refusal of verge tree to be moved, reducing the RL of the 

building, reducing retaining wall heights, reducing floor levels down towards the rear of 

the lot and reducing parapet wall heights. 

After all the compromises and design changes to date I have demonstrated that I am 

more than willing to work with the City of Stirling council and also appease the 

adjoining neighbors regarding their objections, even after all the changes my 

application has now been recommended for review at City of Stirling’s next council 

meeting on September 11 th 2012 therefore delaying planning approval again, almost 5 

months thus far is a long time to obtain planning approval especially when the same 

plans had been approved for construction on the previously owned adjoining lot which 

was subdivided and sold little over a year ago. 

In closing I would like City of Stirling to look favorably upon my current planning 

application and consider granting approval before the next council meeting in 

September.” 

Comment 

The application is seeking a performance based assessment in relation to proposed building 

height, buildings setback from the boundary, buildings on boundary, sightlines at vehicular 

access, and total open space. 

A performance based assessment of these particular elements has been undertaken 

previously in this report, and the proposal is considered to meet the relevant performance 

criteria of the R-Codes. 

The City notes that the objections have been received for proposed dwelling. These have 

been considered cannot be supported on planning grounds. 

The proposed development is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the relevant 

conditions. 

222








Nil. 


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 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 

in the area. 

Nil. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

223



Conclusion 

The City notes that the objections have been received for proposed dwelling. These have 

been considered cannot be supported on planning grounds. 

The proposed development of a single dwelling on Lot 301, House Number 32, Powell 

Street, Joondanna is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria of the 

Residential Design Codes with respect to buildings setback from the boundary, buildings on 

boundary, building height, sightlines at vehicle access points, and total open space. 

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions. 

224



10.1/AP6 LOT 96, HOUSE NUMBER 74, FROBISHER STREET, OSBORNE PARK - 

PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM INDUSTRY GENERAL TO INDUSTRY 

GENERAL AND RESTAURANT 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 96, House Number 74, Frobisher Street, Osborne Park 

Urban and Regional Perspectives 


Approvals 

Osborne 

Osborne Park 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0912/038 


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

Lot 96, House Number 74, Frobisher Street, Osborne Park, for a partial change of use 

from Industry General to Industry General and Restaurant be APPROVED subject to 


a. All off-street parking to be available for all customers and staff, to the 

satisfaction of the City; and 

225



b. No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the 

parking or landscape areas or access driveways. All goods and materials are to 

be stored within the buildings or storage yards, where provided. 


refers). 



Against: Nil. 



Lot 96, House Number 74, Frobisher Street, Osborne Park, for a partial change of use from 

Industry General to Industry General and Restaurant be APPROVED subject to the 

following conditions:- 

a. All off-street parking to be available for all customers and staff, to the satisfaction of 

the City; and 

b. No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the parking 

or landscape areas or access driveways. All goods and materials are to be stored 

within the buildings or storage yards, where provided. 



Lot 96, House Number 74, Frobisher Street, Osborne Park, for a partial change of use from 

Industry General to Industry General and Restaurant be APPROVED subject to the 

following conditions:- 

a. That the applicant make a cash in lieu payment of $18,000 for the car parking four (4) 

bay shortfall; 

b. All off-street parking to be available for all customers and staff, to the satisfaction of 

the City; and 

c. No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the parking 

or landscape areas or access driveways. All goods and materials are to be stored 

within the buildings or storage yards, where provided. 


To consider a development application for a partial change of use from Industry General to 

Industry General and Restaurant on the ground floor of Lot 96, House Number 74, Frobisher 

Street, Osborne Park. The proposed change of use results in a four (4) bay car parking 

shortfall for the site. 

226




Attachments 

Nil. 







Nearest Cross Street: Roberts Street West 

Location Plan 

227





Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS Industrial 

LPS3 Industry 

Use 

Class 

Type 

Industry General and Restaurant 

P - Industry General 

D – Restaurant - Not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by 

granting planning approval. 



Under LPS3, the objectives of the Industry zone are defined as:- 

"a. 

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.” 

228



Under LPS3 Industry General is defined as:- 

“means an industry other than a cottage, extractive, light, mining, noxious, rural or 

service industry.” 

Restaurant is a discretionary (D) use, meaning that the use is not permitted unless the 

Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. 

Under LPS3 Restaurant is defined as:- 

“premises were the predominant use is the sale and consumption of food and drinks 

on the premises and where seating is provided for patrons, and includes a restaurant 

licenced under the Liquor Licencing Act 1988.” 

Restaurant is a discretionary (D) use, meaning that the use is not permitted unless the 

Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. It should be noted that 

the City considers a ‘café’ as a Restaurant land use, as defined by LPS3. 


Local Planning Policy 4.3 - Industrial Design Guidelines 

The Industrial Design Guidelines provide the following statement in respect of the Osborne 

precinct:- 

The Osborne Precinct is all the remaining industrial land not contained within any of the 

above (Balcatta, Herdsman or Stephenson) precincts. This area is designed to allow for a 

broad range of large scale and small scale industrial uses on a variety of lot sizes. In the 

short term, large scale offices shall be permitted within 500m of Glendalough Train Station. 

Local Planning Policy 6.7- Parking 

Parking for the uses on site is required to be provided at the following rate:- 

Industry General – one (1) bay per 50m 2 gross floor area; and 

Restaurant – one (1) bay per 7m 2 gross floor area. 

Development on the site is permitted a 5% parking concession as five (5) bicycle parking 

bays in excess of the required number are proposed as permitted by the City’s Parking 

Policy. 

The Parking Policy allows for the provision of cash-in-lieu of parking bays in instances where 

non-residential developments are unable to meet the Scheme parking requirements. 

Variations to the City’s Parking Policy need to be considered against the objectives of the 

policy. These are:- 

To facilitate the development of adequate parking facilities; 

To ensure safe, convenient and efficient access for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists; 

To ensure that a major parking problem is unlikely to occur; 

229



To ensure that car parking does not have a detrimental impact on the character and 

amenity of a residential area; and 

To ensure than an oversupply of parking does not occur that discourages alternative 


The Policy allows for the provision of cash-in-lieu of parking bays in instances where 

non-residential developments are unable to meet the Scheme parking requirements. 

Background 

The City approved the existing ‘Industry general’ use under delegated authority on 17 March 

2010 (DA10/0167 refers), when approval for a coffee roasting facility was given within the 

existing building on site. That approval contained a condition with prevented the use of the 

premises as a restaurant or for the sale of take away coffee to the general public. 

The subject development application (DA12/1036) was submitted to the City on the 14 May 

2012, and seeks approval of partial change of use of the existing building from Industry 

General to Restaurant. 


Element 


Policy 

OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

1 

Site 

Requirements 

 

Unchanged as part of 

this application. 

2 Setbacks 



There is currently a one 

(1) car parking bay 

shortfall associated with 

the existing approved 

development. 


The proposed 

development requires 14 

bays to be provided. 10 

bays to be provided on 

site. 

As a result of the 

proposed development, 

the on site car parking 

shortfall will increase to 

four (4) bays. 




230



Element 


Policy 

OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

5 Facades 









8 Policy 



9 

Other 

Consideration 

 

Not applicable 


Consultation was not required as part of the processing of the application. 


The applicant has provided the following comments in relation to the proposed Restaurant 

use:- 

“The restaurant/café is to be located on the ground floor adjacent the lobby to the 

upper floors of the building and is proposed to be approximately 33m 2 in area. 

The restaurant/café’s opening hours are subject to the specific tenant’s wishes, though 

it would be expected that as a minimum the café or restaurant would operate from 

7.30am – 3.00pm providing coffee’s, drinks, snacks and lunches." 

The applicant has provided the following comments in relation to the parking associated with 

the proposed Restaurant land use:- 

"In considering this request we ask that the City have due regard for the following key 

points: 

The proposed restaurant (i.e. café) is small in scale and unlikely to generate a 

significant level of demand for on-site car parking; 

The proposed restaurant (i.e. café) is aimed primarily at catering for the day-today 

needs of the local workforce in the Osborne Park Industrial Area. Given this 

‘localised’ catchment area it is reasonable to expect that many customers will in 

fact walk to the premises thereby alleviating some of the demand for the car 

parking bays proposed to be provided on Lot 96; 

It is contended that the proposed restaurant (i.e. café) is incidental to the current 

approved predominant use of Lot 96 (i.e. ‘industry general’). As such the number 

of on-site car parking bays proposed to be provided (i.e. 11 bays) is considered 

sufficient to accommodate the car parking demand likely to be generated by the 

current and proposed uses; 

231



The current approved predominant use of Lot 96 (i.e. ‘industry general’ - coffee 

roasting plant) is ‘low key’ in nature and has comparatively low patronage 

volumes meaning that limited pressure is being placed on existing on-site car 

parking facilities. As such it is contended that the total number of on-site car 

parking bays proposed to be provided (i.e. 11 bays) is capable of satisfying the 

car parking demand likely to be generated by the current and proposed uses; 

The shortfall of two (2) on-site car parking bays is considered unlikely to have a 

detrimental impact upon the current amenity, character, functionality and safety 

of the immediate locality; 

The payment of a cash-in-lieu contribution for the two (2) bay car parking 

shortfall is considered unnecessary in this particular instance given that Lot 96 

has good accessibility to public transport (i.e. buses & trains) and existing onstreet 

car parking along Roberts Street West; 

Roberts Street West contains approximately fourteen (14) on-street car parking 

bays that are not allocated to a specific property or land use and are freely 

available for use by the general public during normal business hours; and 

A key objective of the City’s ‘Parking Policy’ is to ensure the provision of suitable 

and adequate car parking facilities throughout the municipality. It is contended 

that the provision of eleven (11) on-site car parking bays will adequately service 

the needs of the existing and proposed uses on Lot 96 in a manner consistent 

with the City’s key policy objective." 

Additionally, the applicant has advised that the following staff breakdown is applicable to the 

existing operations on site:- 

OFFICE 

One (1) Director 

One (1) Fulltime Reception 

One (1) Part Time Accounts: 

FACTORY 

One (1) Fulltime - Coffee Roaster/Despatch 

SALES (On the road) 

One (1) Director 

One (1) Sales Rep 

DELIVERY/SERVICE (On the road) 

Two (2) Fulltime 

Comment 

The proposal requires consideration in relation to the proposed Restaurant use and the 

parking shortfall the proposed use creates. 

232



Land Use 

A Restaurant land use is a ‘D’ use in the Industry zone, meaning that the use is not 

permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. In 

considering the appropriateness of the land use, reference is to be made to the objectives of 

LPS3 as they relate to the Industrial Zone and the statement contained in the Industrial 

design Guidelines for the Osborne Precinct. 

The proposed land use is considered appropriate in light of these requirements. The 

proposed development is considered to provide an additional local amenity for existing 

occupiers of the industrial area. 

Car Parking 

The proposed development requires the provision of 14 car parking bays, following the 

application of a 5% variation as a result of the on site provision of seven (7) bicycle bays. 11 

bays are proposed on site, however, the City’s Traffic Design Engineer has advised that the 

location of the proposed disable bays within a corner truncation area cannot be supported, 

and consequently, only 10 bays can be accommodated on site, resulting in a four (4) car 

parking bays shortfall. 

Any variation to the City’s Parking Policy is to be considered against the objectives of the 

policy. In this instance, it is considered that the proposed development, although resulting in 

a shortfall of on site parking, will still maintain adequate parking facilities for the site and will 

not result in a major parking problem in the locality. The City accepts the applicant’s 

contention that the proposed restaurant will serve the local area, and that many of the 

customers are likely to walk to the site, which is a common feature of this type of 

development in this area. 

Additionally, it is noted that there currently exists informal on street parking on the southern 

side of Roberts Street West, opposite the subject lot, which can be utilised by customers. 

For these reasons, the City is satisfied that the proposed development will not result in a car 

parking problem in the area. 

Notwithstanding the above, the car parking shortfall is noted, and the Parking Policy does 

provide for the City to require cash in lieu of car parking where the full amount of car parking 

cannot be accommodated on site. Specifically, the policy provides for cash in lieu where 

existing on street parking has been constructed, as it the case with the on street parking on 

the southern side of Roberts Street West. 

Consequently, a condition is recommended to be imposed requiring the applicant to make a 

cash in lieu contribution in respect of the four (4) car parking bays shortfall. Where formal or 

informal parking exists, the City has historically required a payment of $4,500 per bay 

shortfall, and this approach is considered appropriate in this instance. 





233




Nil. 


Goal 3: 


SI 3.3.1: 



Create and foster an environment that encourages innovation and 

investment. 


tourism. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Amenity 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The proposed Restaurant use will provide a more active 

ground floor and will provide an additional amenity for the 

surrounding locality. 

Job creation 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

The proposed Restaurant use will provide for more diverse 

employment opportunities for the site. 

Conclusion 

The application requires Council to exercise its discretion in considering a Restaurant land 

use and resultant shortfall in parking for the site. It is considered that the proposed land use 

is consistent with the provision of LPS3 and the Industrial Design Guidelines, and is 

therefore supported. 

The resultant shortfall in parking is considered unlikely to result in a major parking problem 

for the area as it is reasonable to anticipate predominant patronage will arrive on foot and 

therefore not generate a parking demand. Notwithstanding the above, a condition is 

recommended to be imposed requiring cash in lieu of car parking payment in relation to the 

proposed car parking shortfall. 

The application for a partial change of use from Industry General to Industry General and 

Restaurant on the ground floor of Lot 96, House Number 74, Frobisher Street, Osborne Park 

is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. 

234



10.1/AP7 

LOT 678, HOUSE NUMBER 323, WEST COAST DRIVE, TRIGG - HOME 

BUSINESS (CHIROPRACTIC CARE) 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 678, House Number 323, West Coast Drive, Trigg 

Dr Lorraine Combrinck 


Approvals 

Coastal 

Trigg 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0912/039 


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

678, House Number 323, West Coast Drive, Trigg, for a Home Business (Chiropractic 

Care) be REFUSED. 


refers). 

235





Against: Nil. 

Reason for change 

Council forms the view that the proposed activity fronting West Coast Drive within a 

residential zone may result in nuisance or annoyance to the neighbours. 


That pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No.3, the application at Lot 678, 

House Number 323, West Coast Drive, Trigg, for a Home Business (Chiropractic Care) be 

REFUSED. 

Reason for change 

Council forms the view that the proposed activity fronting West Coast Drive within a 

residential zone may result in nuisance or annoyance to the neighbours. 


1. That pursuant to Clause 10.3.1 of Local Planning Scheme No.3, the application at Lot 

678, House Number 323, West Coast Drive, Trigg, for a Home Business (Chiropractic 

Care) be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:- 

a. The residential appearance of the premises being maintained; 

b. The Home Business must NOT attract customers other than by appointment 

only; 

c. The Home Business not exceeding the area as indicated on the approved plan; 

d. No persons not in permanent residence at the site being employed by the 

business; 

e. No deliveries/customers being received on the site outside the hours of 

8.30am to 6.00pm Monday to Saturday or on Public Holidays; 

f. No goods being sold, displayed or hired from the premises; 

g. No more than one (1) advertising sign being erected on the premises. Such sign 

to be incorporated into an existing structure such as a fence wall or building and 

not to exceed an area of 0.5m 2 ; 

h. No more than one (1) customer vehicle is to be attracted to the site at any one 

(1) time and no more than a total of eight (8) customers vehicles are to be 

attracted to the site within a one (1) day period; and 

i. The garage door is to remain open during operating hours for the required 

parking of client vehicle/s. 

2. That the applicant be ADVISED notwithstanding this approval, in the event of this 

activity causing nuisance or annoyance to neighbours the Council may rescind the 

approval pursuant to Clause 8.3.2 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.3. 

236




To consider a development application for a Home Business (Chiropractic care) at Lot 678, 

House Number 323, West Coast Drive, Trigg. The application proposes to vary the operating 

hours to allow the Home Business to operate until 6.00pm during weekdays. An objection on 

the grounds of adverse impact on the adjoining property owners was received. 


Attachments 

Nil. 







Nearest Cross Street: Bennion Street 

Location Plan 

237





Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS Urban 

LPS3 Residential R20 

Use 

Class 

Type 

Home Business 

A - Not permitted unless approval is granted by the Council 


The objectives of the Residential zone as set out under Clause 4.2.12 of Local Planning 

Scheme No.3 (LPS3) are:- 

"a. 

To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of 

housing type and size, to meet the current and future needs of the community. 

b. To provide for a range of non-residential uses, which are compatible with and 

complementary to residential development." 

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 compatibility of a use or development within its setting; 

Any social issues that have an effect on the amenity of the locality; 

238



The preservation of the amenity of the locality; 

The relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in 

the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, 

orientation and appearance of the proposal; and 

Any relevant submissions received on the application. 


Local Planning Policy 2.4 - Home Office, Home Occupation and Home Business Policy 

The objectives of the Policy are:- 

To ensure that low scale businesses do not have a detrimental impact on the amenity 

of surrounding areas; and 

To enable low scale businesses the opportunity to conduct a business from home. 

With specific reference to Home Businesses, the Policy prescribes that the business must:- 

Not employ more than two (2) people not members of the occupier’s household; 

Not occupy an area greater than 50m² within the dwelling; 

Not display a sign exceeding 0.5m2, which must be incorporated into a front fence, 

wall, structure or building and be sympathetic to the streetscape in design; 

Not involve the presence, use or calling of a vehicle more than 3.5 tones tare weight; 

Provide adequate on-site car parking and manoeuvring areas to the satisfaction of the 

Council; 

Attract no more than two (2) customers’ vehicles at any given time; and 

Attract no more than a total of eight (8) customers’ vehicles on any given day. 

Background 

The subject application DA12/1254 was lodged with the City on 31 May 2012. Following an 

initial assessment of the application, it was required to be advertised for a period of 21 days. 

The advertising period for the application closed on 9 August 2012. 

Assessment 

Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Home Office, Home Occupation and Home Business 

Common Provisions:- 

PROVISION 

COMPLIES 

/ N/A 

1. Is operated by a permanent resident of the dwelling. 

DOES 

NOT 

COMPLY 

2. The predominant use of the site remains residential. 

239



PROVISION 

3. Does not involve the sale, display or hire of goods of any 

nature. 

4. Does not involve the storage, preparation, handling or 

packaging of food. 

5. Does not involve the use of an essential service of greater 

capacity than normally required in the zone. 

6. Does not involve the fuelling, repair or maintenance of motor 

vehicles. 

7. Does not cause injury to or adversely affect the amenity of 

the neighbourhood including emission of light, noise, 

vibration, odour, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, 

dust, grit, oil, waste water or waste products. 

8. Does not, in the opinion of Council, by reason of its nature or 

scale, constitute a use that would be more appropriately 

located in a zone other than a Residential Zone. 

9. Does not require modifications to the dwelling such that it 

does not retain a residential character. 

10. Does not involve the penetration of skin (including body 

piercing, tattooing and electrolysis). 

COMPLIES 

/ N/A 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DOES 

NOT 

COMPLY 

Specific Provisions - Home Business:- 

PROVISION OFFICER COMMENT COMPLIES 

/ N/A 

1. Not employ more than two (2) 

people not members of the 

occupiers household. 

The Home Business does 

not propose to employ any 

people, as the applicant has 

the ability to run the 

business herself. 

 

DOES 

NOT 

COMPLY 

2. Not occupy an area greater 

than 50m 2 . 

The applicant is proposing 

to use an existing bedroom, 

which will be fit-out to 

function as a treatment 

room. The room has an 

area of 16m 2 and access is 

proposed via the adjoining 

rear door of the dwelling. 

 

240




/ N/A 

3. Not display a sign exceeding 

0.5m 2 , to be incorporated into 

a front fence, wall, structure or 

building and sympathetic to 

the streetscape in design. 

The proposed sign is 

0.25m 2 in area and will be 

located on the existing wall 

of the dwelling adjacent to 

the garage. 

 

DOES 

NOT 

COMPLY 

4. Not involve the presence, use 

or calling of a vehicle more 

than 3.5 tonnes tare weight – 

The applicant will be 

working from home and will 

not involve the use or 

calling of a vehicle more 

than 3.5 tonnes tare weight. 

 

5. Provide adequate on-site car 

parking and manoeuvring 

areas to the satisfaction of 

Council 

Manoeuvring for the existing 

parking areas on site is as 

per the existing 

arrangement and therefore 

acceptable. 

Two (2) bays total are 

provided on site within the 

existing tandem garage. As 

the residential use requires 

two (2) bays, it is 

acknowledged that no 

dedicated parking bays can 

be accommodated entirely 

on the subject site for the 

purpose of the proposed 

Home Business. However, 

the applicant has advised 

that only one residential 

vehicle will be parked on 

site during the Home 

Business’ operating hours, 

therefore the client vehicle 

can be accommodated 

within the garage. The 

garage door will be required 

to remain open during the 

business’ operating hours to 

ensure that sufficient 

parking is available on the 

subject site. The parking 

provided on site is therefore 

considered adequate in this 

instance. 

 

241




/ N/A 

8. No more than two (2) 

customer vehicle at any given 

time - 

No more than one (1) 

clients proposed at any one 

(1) time – recommend as a 

condition of approval. 

 

DOES 

NOT 

COMPLY 

9. No more than eight (8) 

customer’s vehicles on any 

given day – 

The applicant has advised 

that up to five (5) clients will 

be seen on any given day 

proposed – recommended 

as a condition of approval 

that a maximum of eight (8) 

be permitted as per the 

Policy. 

 

10. Customers by appointment 

only 

Customers proposed to be 

by appointment only - 

recommended as a 

condition of approval. 

 

11. No customers outside the 

hours 8.30am to 5.30pm 

Monday to Saturday, or on 

public holidays 

Hours of operation 

proposed to be one (1) shift 

per day, either in the 

morning (8:30am – 

12.00pm) or afternoon 

(3.00pm – 6.00pm), Monday 

– Friday. The additional 

half-hour operating period 

until 6.00pm is not expected 

to detract from the amenity 

of the locality, particularly as 

West Coast Drive carries a 

high volume of traffic during 

this after-work period. 

 


The application was advertised for a period of 21 days, in accordance with the City’s 

‘Planning Consultation Procedure’ Policy. At the conclusion of the advertising period, two (2) 

submissions were received and are summarised in the table below:- 

Submission 

Number 

1 


We strongly object to the proposed 

development. Business activities within a 

residential area should not be supported 

as this is likely to disturb the 

peacefulness of the locality. 


The proposed Home Business is consistent 

with the objectives of the Residential zone, 

as the proposed use is considered both 

compatible with and complementary to the 

existing residential development in the 

locality. 

242



Submission 

Number 



If the activities of the proposed home 

business result in a nuisance being caused 

in the locality, or if the home business 

operates in a manner other than that with 

which it was approved, the City may 

rescind the approval pursuant to Clause 

8.3.2 of LPS3. 

The proposed development has been 

categorised correctly as a Home Business, 

in accordance with the land use definitions 

provided in the City’s Local Planning 

Scheme No.3. 

2 

The proposed use has been categorised 

incorrectly and should be considered a 

Consulting Rooms, which is an “X” use 

within a Residential zone. 

The proposed land use is incompatible 

with the subject locality, which is entirely 

Residential (apart from Yelo and Soda 

cafes). The incompatibility would be 

evident due to the erection of advertising 

signage on the site, increased traffic 

volumes, and damage to the City’s road 

reserves as clients would use the verge 

for manoeuvring. 

There are already 6 established 

chiropractic centres within the 

surrounding area (Karrinyup, North 

Beach and Beach Road) – there is 

clearly no need for additional chiropractic 

services in the area. 

Approval of this proposal would result in 

additional traffic movements along West 

Coast Drive. As this road already carries 

a high volume of traffic, it is 

inappropriate for the approval of a 

development which would result in 

additional vehicle trips. 

The site does not have an adequate 

manoeuvring area to enable vehicles to 

enter the street in forward gear. 

Approval of this application would act as 

a precedent for other inappropriate land 

uses. 




If the activities of the proposed home 

business results in a nuisance being 

caused in the locality, or if the home 

business operates in a manner other than 

that with which it was approved, the City 

may rescind the approval pursuant to 

Clause 8.3.2 of LPS3. The proposed 

signage, parking, and number of clients are 

all in accordance with the requirements of 

the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.4. 

Under the Local Planning Policy 2.4. 

a home business is permitted to attract up 

to eight (8) customers a day. The proposed 

businesses will attract a maximum of five 

(5) customers per day and therefore 

complies with the provisions of the Policy. 

The additional traffic as a result of the 

proposal is unlikely to be any more evident 

than visitors to a residential dwelling. 

Additionally, in considering the subject site 

is located on West Coast Drive, any 

additional vehicles to the site are unlikely to 

have an adverse impact upon the amenity 

of this locality due to the high volume of 

traffic which West Coast Drive already 

carries. 

It is proposed that any customer’s vehicles 

visiting the site will park on the applicant’s 

property and not on the verge or within the 

street. The existing parking on the site has 

been constructed in accordance with the 

historical approvals, therefore 

notwithstanding the current requirement of 

the R-Codes to provide a manoeuvring 

area for vehicles entering a District 

Distributor Road in forward gear, this is not 

something which can be retrospectively 

enforced. 

243



Submission 

Number 



As previously stated, LPS3 contains 

provisions by which residents are able to 

lawfully operate a home business with the 

approval of the City. The application has 

been assessed against the City's LPS3 and 

Local Planning Policy 2.4. 

Two (2) Submissions Received – Relative Location 

Submissions 

Received 


proposed site 




OBJECT 100% 0% 100% 

OTHER 

(Not stated/ 

no opinion/ 


0% 0% 0% 


The applicant has provided the following response to the four principle reasons for the 

objections having been made:- 

1. Businesses should not be located in residential areas as it will disturb our enjoyment of 

these areas. 

"This point is mute, as several businesses have been approved in residential areas. 

For example, four houses south of 323 West coast Drive, Yello Café has been 

approved with an exuberant amount of traffic and only 6 designated car parks. Dr. Lisa 

De Kauwe is another Chiropractor working from home in Karrinyup, who’s home 

business has been approved by the council. The enjoyment of the residential area will 

not be disturbed as the business is fully contained inside the house, with no aesthetic 

change to the property and no extra traffic." 

2. There are already 6 established chiropractic care businesses within Karrinyup, North 

Beach and Beach Road, all in close proximity to the site and all is non-residential 

zones. There is therefore no demonstrated need for an additional chiropractic practice 

and this application is an attempt to circumvent the fact that consulting rooms are not 

permitted in a residential zone. 

"This information is incorrect. Being in the chiropractic profession, which is a small 

community I am well aware that there are currently only three chiropractors all 

practicing in the same commercial building (Karrinyup Wellness centre). The 

chiropractors mentioned working in North Beach are now practicing in Wanneroo. 

Essentially there is only a choice of attending Karrinyup wellness centre or Dr. Lisa De 

Kauwe (home business) to all residence of Trigg, Karrinyup and north beach. This 

information above can be easily confirmed." 

244



3. The use is incompatible with the residential zone and would have a detrimental impact 

of the amenity of the area due to additional signage and additional traffic. 

"Prior to renting this property there were 5 male tenants living at 323 West Coast 

Drive, each with a car. None of these tenants had full time jobs and thus there was 

much more traffic from just the tenants coming and going than would ever be with our 

proposed business. If anything the neighbours would notice less traffic than there was 

3 months prior. My partner is also working full time and thus only my car would be in 

the garage, leaving the other bay free for our one client per hour. There would never 

be patient cross over at the same time thus no additional traffic." 

4. It is not appropriate to allow a home business on West Coast Drive which results in 

additional vehicles reversing onto this busy road, as well as causing damage to the 

road reserve due to manouevring. 

"Like mentioned above, this business would not lead to any more traffic than a 

residential property. The amount of traffic reversing onto west coast drive would not be 

more than any other residential traffic. For example there are houses on west coast 

drive with multiple tenants and cars, with friends and family visiting. Thus. An 

additional few cars a day coming from a property with only 1 full time tenant will not 

make an impact on the traffic or road reserves." 

Comment 

The application has been assessed in accordance with the City’s Home Office, Home 

Occupation and Home Business Policy and is considered to generally comply with the 

provisions of the Policy. 

The proposed home business is considered to facilitate the objectives of the Residential 

zone in that it will “provide for a range of non-residential uses, which are compatible with and 

complementary to residential development.” 

The main theme of the neighbours comments received is the potential for the proposed 

home business to have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity of the locality, by 

way of additional noise and traffic. As previously stated the proposed home business meets 

the parking requirements of the policy, and with the appropriate conditions applied all 

customer vehicles will be parked within the applicant’s property. As a District Distributor 

road, West Coast Drive carries a high volume of vehicles, so the additional vehicles attracted 

to the locality as a result of the proposed development is not expected to be evident. Given 

the nature of the home business (being chiropractic services provided by a medical 

professional on a part time basis only) and the fact that customer’s vehicles will not be 

parked on the verge or the street, the proposal is not considered to have the potential to 

detract from the amenity of the locality. 





245




Nil. 


Goal 3: 


SI 1.2.5: 




investment. 

Support small business development by ensuring advice, training and 

business incubation services are available. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Amenity 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The proposal is not considered to have an undue 

detrimental impact on the amenity of the area. 

Issue 

Business innovation 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

The proposed home business will provide a service in an 

alternative environment to commercial centres that may suit 

certain clientele and cater for certain elements of the 

community. 

Conclusion 

The objections received have been considered but cannot be substantiated on planning 

grounds. 

The application is considered to comply with the provisions of the City’s Home Office, Home 

Occupation and Home Business Policy and is not considered to have the potential to detract 

from the amenity of the locality. The proposal is also considered to be consistent with the 

objectives of the Residential zone. The application is therefore recommended for approval 

subject to conditions. 

246



10.1/AP8 

LOT 14, HOUSE NUMBER 136, WEAPONESS ROAD, WEMBLEY DOWNS 

- CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO CONSULTING ROOMS 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 14, House Number 136, Weaponess Road, Wembley Downs 

TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage 


Approvals 

Doubleview 

Wembley Downs 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0912/040 


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

at Lot 14, House Number 136, Weaponess Road, Wembley Downs for a Change 

of Use from Office to Consulting Rooms be APPROVED, subject to no more than 

two (2) practitioners occupying the tenancy. 


contribution for four (4) parking bays be WAIVED for this application 

(DA12/1206). 

247




refers). 



Against: Nil. 



14, House Number 136, Weaponess Road, Wembley Downs for a Change of Use 

from Office to Consulting Rooms be APPROVED, subject to no more than two (2) 

practitioners occupying the tenancy. 


contribution for four (4) parking bays be WAIVED for this application (DA12/1206). 



14, House Number 136, Weaponess Road, Wembley Downs for a Change of Use 

from Office to Consulting Rooms be APPROVED, subject to no more than two (2) 

practitioners occupying the tenancy. 


contribution for four (4) parking bays be WAIVED for this application (DA12/1206). 


To consider an application for a change of use from Office to Consulting Rooms at Lot 14, 

House Number 136, Weaponess Road, Wembley Downs with regards to a reciprocal car 

parking arrangement with the adjoining property in respect of a four (4) car parking bay 

shortfall. (Wembley Downs Shopping Centre). 


Attachments 

Nil. 






Nearest Cross Street: Bournemouth Crescent 

248



Location Plan 


249




Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS Urban 

LPS3 Local Centre 

Use 

Class 

Type 

Consulting Rooms 

P - Permitted 



Under Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS3) Consulting Rooms “means premises used by no 

more than 2 health consultants for the investigation or treatment of human injuries or 

ailments and for general outpatient care.” 

The City may consider reciprocal parking arrangements under Clause 5.9 of LPS3 which 

states:- 

"5.9.1 Subject to the remaining provisions of this clause 5.9, where an application for 

planning approval is made for a non-residential development or use which does 

not provide the number of car parking spaces required by the Local Planning 

Policy, Council may permit the car parking spaces for that development or use 

to be provided jointly with one or more other developments or uses whether or 

not those other developments or uses have the number of car parking spaces 

required by the Local Planning Policy. 

5.9.2 In considering an application under clause 5.9.1, Council shall be satisfied: 

a) that the peak hours of operation of the developments or uses which are the 

of the application and the developments or uses with which it is proposed 

to jointly provide car parking spaces are different and do not substantially 

overlap; 

b) that the number of car parking spaces to be provided by the development 

or use which is not the subject of the application does not exceed the 

number of car parking spaces reasonably anticipated to be in excess of the 

requirement of that development or use during its off-peak hours of 

operation; and 

c) any other matters which, in the circumstances of a proposed development 

or use, are considered relevant by Council. 

5.9.3 Council may require, and the applicant shall provide, information concerning 

the matters referred to in clause 5.9.2. 

250



5.9.4 Where Council exercises its discretion under clause 5.9.1, it may require the 

owner of the land to which the application relates and the owner of the land 

which is not the subject of the application and which is to provide car parking 

spaces and any other person specified by the City, to enter into a legal 

agreement, to which the City may also be a party, which provides for the 

provision and use of car parking spaces. The legal agreement: 

5.9.5 If: 


a) must be to Council’s satisfaction; 

b) must be prepared at the expense of the applicant; 

c) must, if required by Council, provide for easements, restrictive covenants, 

rights of way and reciprocal access and circulation arrangements; and 

d) must ensure that the agreement and any easement, restrictive covenant, 

right of way or reciprocal access and circulation arrangement made under 

the agreement are not amended, removed or terminated without the prior 

consent of the Council. 

a) a restrictive covenant, easement or right of way is made with respect to 

any land or building pursuant to an agreement entered into under clause 

5.9.4; and 

b) that land or building is subject to another restrictive covenant, easement or 

right of way which: 

i) exists for the purpose of regulating the parking, access or circulation of 

vehicles; and 

ii) is inconsistent with the restrictive covenant, easement or right of way 

referred to in clause 5.9.5(a), 

then the restrictive covenant, easement or right of way (as the case may be) 

referred to in clause 5.9.5(b) is hereby extinguished or varied to the extent that 

it is inconsistent with the restrictive covenant, easement or right of way referred 

to in clause 5.9.5(a)." 

Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking and Access 

The City’s Parking and Access Policy requires parking to be provided for the use of 

Consulting Rooms at a rate of 10 bays for two (2) practitioners. Under the Parking Policy the 

application is eligible for a 20% parking concession as the subject lot is located within 50m of 

an existing car parking place with in excess of 50 parking spaces. The adjoining car park, 

known as the Wembley Downs car park, is identified in the City’s Planning Policy as a public 

car park with in excess of 50 spaces. 

The Parking and Access Policy states that ‘all parking requirements are to be rounded to the 

nearest whole number. 

251



Background 

The existing development currently operates with a technical parking shortfall of five (5) 

bays. The five (5) bay parking shortfall has been approved by Council as a result of an 

original application DA10/1072 (Council Resolution Number 0810/004) for 11 office 

tenancies and eight (8) multiple dwellings and a subsequent change of use application 

DA10/3008 (Council Resolution Number 0311/045) which amalgamated two (2) of the office 

tenancies and changed the approved use from “office” to “medical centre”. As part of the 

original approval for the actual building (DA10/1072) the City approved a two (2) bay parking 

shortfall. 

In considering the medical centre change of use application (DA10/3008) the City approved 

a further three (3) bay parking shortfall taking the overall technical parking shortfall to five (5) 

bays. The City approved the five (5) bay parking shortfall on the basis that the application 

demonstrated, via a Parking Study that practically there was a sufficient number of parking 

spaces in the adjoining car park to accommodate the five (5) bay parking shortfall. As a 

condition of approval, the applicant was required to enter a sub-lease with the Wembley 

Downs Shopping Centre to the effect that the five (5) bay parking shortfall could be 

accommodated within the adjoining car park. 

The public car park which abuts the subject property is the subject of a lease agreement 

between the City and the Wembley Downs Shopping Centre. The Wembley Downs 

Shopping Centre was approved based on the public car park providing a significant portion 

of the required parking bays for the shopping centre. The lease agreement was 

subsequently drafted between the City and the Wembley Downs Shopping Centre to 

facilitate the use of the public car park in association with the shopping centre. 

As a result of the medical centre approval (DA10/3008) at the subject site however, the 

owners of the subject lot (Lot 14) have subsequently entered a sub-lease with the Wembley 

Downs Shopping Centre (Lot 30) that grants them equal rights of access and parking over 

the car park. 

The subject application (DA12/1206) was lodged with the City on 28 May 2012. The 

applicant has submitted the subject application on the basis that the increased parking 

requirement as a result of the proposed consulting rooms can be accommodated for within 

the adjoining public car park referred to above. 

Assessment 


1 

Element 

Site 

Requirements 


Policy 

2 Setbacks 

 

OR 

Variation 

Required 


Comment 


as part of this application. 



The proposed use of 

consulting rooms 

requires parking to be 

provided at a rate of 10 

bays for two (2) 

practitioners. 

252



Element 


Policy 

OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

The application proposes 

that two (2) practitioners 

will operate from the site. 

This equates to a parking 

requirement of 10 bays. 

Applying the 20% parking 

concession under the 

Parking Policy the 

proposed consulting 

rooms use requires eight 

(8) bays. 

The existing office 

tenancy that the 

proposed consulting 

room is to occupy 

requires 3.6 (four (4) 

parking bays (rounded up 

to four (4) as per the 

Parking Policy). 

The shortfall over the site 

as part of the subject 

application is therefore 

proposed to increase 

from five (5) bays to 9.4 

(9) bays. (rounded up to 

10 as per the Parking 

Policy). 


Parking is discussed in 

further detail later in this 

report. 



5 Facades 









8 Policy 

Nil. 

9 

Other 

Consideration 

 

Nil. 

253




The application was not required to be advertised under LPS3. 


"Background 

On the 6 August 2010 an approval was issued by the City of Stirling (the City) Council, 

for a two to three storey building consisting of 11 office tenancies, eight (8) residential 

units and associated car parking, to be located on the subject site. As part of this 

approval, Council approved a parking shortfall of 2.1 bays. No cash in lieu was sought 

as a condition of approval. 

On the 24 May 2011 a second approval was issued to change the use on two of the 

office tenancies to ‘Medical Centre’. Council approved a shortfall of five (5) bays on the 

basis that the shortfall can be incorporated into the adjoining shopping centre car park. 

Three (3) conditions were placed on this approval relating to a ‘licence agreement’ 

being reached between the owner of the subject site and the owner of Lot 30 

Bournemouth Crescent, Wembley Downs (being the nearby ‘The Downs’ Shopping 

Centre’). On the 6 September 2012 and following a request from TPG, conditions 1-3 

of this approval were amended to remove the reference to a ‘licence agreement’ and 

replace with the following: 

1. The owners of Lot 30 Bournemouth Crescent, Wembley Downs as a lessee of 

Lot 500 Bournemouth Crescent, Wembley Downs and the owners of Lot 14 

Weaponess Road, Wembley Downs enter into a sub-lease with the City of 

Stirling to use a minimum of five (5) car bays within Lot 500. 

2. Prior to the occupation of the Medical Centre an absolute caveat shall be lodged 

on the Certificate of Title of Lot 14 to the benefit of the City to ensure that the 

sub-lease referred to in condition 1 is maintained for the benefit of Lot 14 so long 

as the shortfall in car parking in respect to Lot 14 exists. 

3. The sub-lease referred to in condition 1 shall be prepared to the City’s 

satisfaction with the owner of Lot 14 being responsible to pay all costs of and 

incidental to the preparation (including all drafts) and the stamping of the 

agreement and the preparation and lodgement of the absolute caveat referred to 

in condition 2. 

Since this approval, the required sub-lease (refer enclosed) has been made between 

WDSC Pty Ltd (being the owner of Lot 30 Bournemouth Crescent) and Cityplay 

Nominees Pty Ltd (the owner of the subject site, Lot 14) for the use of parking bays on 

land owned by the City of Stirling, with the City identified as the ‘Head Lessor’. This 

sub-lease allows for Cityplay Nominees Pty Ltd to use the bays located in the adjoining 

car park so long as there is parking available. The owner of Lot 14 pays half of the 

costs associated with the lease and upkeep of the parking area and on this basis the 

car parking is effectively shared between both developments. 

Proposal 

This application proposes to change the use of one (1) of the approved office 

tenancies, being unit ‘a’ or ‘Commercial Unit 11’ the attached plan, to ‘Consulting 

Rooms’. No more than two (2) practitioners will use the Consulting Rooms at any one 

time. 

254



Justification 

The subject site is zoned ‘Local Centre’ pursuant to the City of Stirling Local Planning 

Scheme No. 3 (the Scheme). The objectives of the Local Centre zone are defined in 

section 4.2.7 of the Scheme and are as follows: 

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; and 

c. To ensure development is sited and designed so as to reinforce a sense of place 

and attractive streetscapes. 

‘Consulting Rooms’ is defined in the Scheme as: 

“…premises used by no more than 2 health consultants for the investigation or 

treatment of human injuries or ailments and for general outpatient care.” 

‘Consulting Rooms’ are a ‘P’ permitted use pursuant to Table 1, and as no greater 

shortfall of parking is proposed it is therefore considered that the application can be 

determined under delegated authority by the City’s planning officers. 

The proposed use of the site as a ’Consulting Rooms’ is consistent with the objectives 

of the Local Centre zone. The proposal will provide medical services to the local 

community in a convenient location, being in close proximity to the Medical Centre 

(which are likely to complement one another), the Wembley Downs Shopping Centre, 

Offices (located in the same building as per the approved plans) and other community 

facilities such as the nearby childcare centre. 

Provision of Car Parking 

The City’s Parking Policy (Policy 6.7) states the parking requirement of ‘Consulting 

Rooms’ and ‘Medical Centres’ is 10 bays plus two (2) bays for each practitioner in 

excess of two. As the Medical Centre already approved on the subject site is to have 

no more six (6) practitioners work on the premises at any one time, the proposed 

additional ’Consulting Rooms’, which will be used by a maximum of two (2) 

practitioners at any one time results in only an additional four (4) bays being required. 

This requirement can then be further reduced by 20% based on the previous ‘Medical 

Centre’ approval, and the City’s Parking Policy, as the development is within 50m of an 

existing public car park of more than 50 bays (being the nearby shopping centre). The 

total additional requirement for the proposed ’Consulting Rooms’ is therefore 3.2 bays. 

As part of the previous approved development application, the car parking requirement 

for the same area as offices was one (1) bay per 30m 2 of gross floor area, less the 

10% reduction for proximity to an existing public car park (which was applied at the 

time under the City’s Parking Policy). The car parking required, and subsequently 

provided, for the subject site as an office was therefore 3.6 bays. 

255



Based on the above calculations, no additional bays are required to be provided as 

part of this change of use application as it actually results in a small surplus of 0.4 

bays. It is however noted that the above calculations are based on the assumption that 

the parking for the additional Consulting Rooms would be calculated together with the 

Medical Centre. It is believed that this best reflects the actual use of the parking, as in 

terms of the demand, it makes no difference whether these two additional practitioners 

operate out of the existing Medical Centre or a separate tenancy on the same lot. 

There will still be the same additional demand, with any overflow captured by the 10 

bays. It is also noted that, based on the definition of Medical Centre it could be argued 

that the additional Consulting Rooms form a part of the Medical Centre as they are 

located on the same premises. 

If the parking for the ‘Consulting Rooms’ were calculated separately from the ‘Medical 

Centre’ the requirement would be for 8 bays to be provided (10 bays minus 20%). 

Taking into account the parking provision under its previous use as an Office this 

would mean the shortfall would be increased by 4.4 bays, bringing the overall ‘shortfall’ 

for the development to 9.4 bays. 

The above parking calculations as summarised in the table below:- 

Description 

Overall shortfall resulting from initial 

approval (6 August 2010) 

Overall shortfall resulting from 

‘Medical Centre’ approval (24 May 

2011) 

Parking provided for unit ‘a’ under its 

approved ‘Office’ use 

Parking required for unit ‘a’ as 

‘Consulting Rooms’ for two 

practitioners. 

Number of car parking bays 

2.1 

5 

3.6 

Overall shortfall 4.6 

Assuming requirement for 

‘Consulting Rooms’ is calculated 

together with the ‘Medical Centre’ 

3.2 

It is furthermore noted that any potential ‘shortfall’ should not be considered as such 

due to the lease arrangement which is in place which allows for the owners of Lot 14 to 

utilise the adjacent shopping centre car park, which is located on land actually owned 

by the City. In terms of there being sufficient actual parking bays it is considered that 

the excess bays required can easily be accommodated in the nearby Shopping Centre 

car park, which has an historic over-supply of parking. A parking study was prepared 

as part of the previous application for the ‘Medical Centre’ which documented this 

oversupply, stating that the parking area typically operates at a maximum capacity of 

65% even at peak times. 

The shopping centre has recently been re-built following a fire, and has now been in 

operation for over a year. Recent aerial photography indicates that the carpark is still 

operating with a considerable surplus of bays. On this basis, there is significant 

capacity and a lease arrangement already in place to allow for any additional parking 

which may be required to be incorporated into the existing shopping centre car park. 

The development should therefore not be considered as resulting in any actual 

shortfall as all required parking is accounted for. 

256



Conclusion 

The proposed use of the site as Consulting Rooms for a Chiropractor is in line with the 

objectives of the Scheme for the ‘Local Centre’ zone and will provide important 

medical facilities for the local community in a strategic location where people can 

access a variety of facilities in one stop. While it is not anticipated that the assessment 

of the application against the provisions of the City’s Parking Policy will result in any 

additional parking shortfall, it is considered that, even if this is not the case, any 

additional parking can easily be accommodated in the nearby shopping centre carpark, 

where subleasing arrangements are already in place. 

Based on the above, it is respectfully requested that the City approve this change of 

use application at its earliest convenience to enable the tenancy to be occupied and 

street activated." 

Comment 

As previously stated, the proposed change of use application will result in an increased 

parking shortfall on site. The parking shortfall is proposed to increase from five (5) bays to 

9.4 (nine (9) – an increase of 4.4 (four (4) bays. The application does not propose to provide 

any additional parking bays on site. 

The owner of the subject lot (Lot 14) has entered in a sub-lease with the Wembley Downs 

Shopping Centre (Lot 30) which effectively grants them equal rights of access and parking 

over the adjoining car park. A copy of this sub-lease has been provided to the City as part of 

the application. The applicant’s submission claims that the increased parking shortfall can be 

accommodated for within the adjoining car park by virtue of the sub-lease. In order to 

substantiate this claim the applicant submitted a parking study of the adjoining car park 

which was prepared by an independent traffic consultant. The parking study found that over 

the peak period (10.00am to 2.00pm Saturday) there was a minimum of 48 unoccupied 

parking bays and a maximum of 75 unoccupied parking bays. The City’s Traffic Design 

Engineer has reviewed the parking study and concluded the proposed increased parking 

shortfall from five (5) bays to 9.4 (9) bays can be accommodated for within the adjoining car 

park by virtue of the reciprocal parking arrangement. 

It is considered that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that the additional parking 

bays required by the proposed consulting rooms can be accommodated for within the 

adjoining car park. The parking study confirms that there are a minimum number of 45 

unoccupied parking bays during the peak period. This statistic indicates that there is clearly 

a surplus of parking bays within the adjoining car park to comfortably accommodate an 

increased technical parking shortfall of 4.4 (4) bays on site. The proposed change of use 

from office to consulting rooms is not considered to result in a parking problem within the 

vicinity, and will therefore not detract from amenity of the locality. 





257




Should Council be of a mind to approve the subject application, it may decide that a cash-inlieu 

contribution for the 4.4 (4) bay parking shortfall increase is required. In this case, 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. It should be noted that the approval for the Wembley Downs 

Shopping Centre and the mixed use development on the subject site did not require a cashin-lieu 

payment for the associated parking shortfall. 


Goal 3: 


SI 1.2.3: 




investment. 

Facilitate health and wellbeing in the community. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Amenity 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The proposed change of use is not considered to have the 

potential to detract from amenity of the area. 

Job creation 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

The use will provide employment opportunities and services 

that will benefit the local community. 

Conclusion 

The applicant has demonstrated to the City’s satisfaction that the proposed increased 

parking shortfall can be accommodated for within the adjoining car park by virtue of a sublease 

with the Wembley Downs Shopping Centre where sufficient capacity exists to meet the 

shortfall. The proposed consulting rooms are considered to provide a local service to the 

community without detracting from the amenity of the locality. The application is therefore 

recommended for approval. 

258



10.1/AP10 LOT 7, HOUSE NUMBER 80, SCARBOROUGH BEACH ROAD, 

SCARBOROUGH - CHANGE OF USE - OFFICE TO FAST FOOD 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Lot 7, House Number 80, Scarborough Beach Road, Scarborough 

Caroline Worner 


Approvals 

Coastal 

Scarborough 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0912/041 



Change of use from ‘Office’ to ‘Fast Food Outlet’ at Lot 7, House Number 80, 

Scarborough Beach Road, Scarborough be APPROVED subject to the following 

conditions:- 

a. No dine in facilities are to be provided on site. The take away nature of the 

proposal being maintained; and 

b. The business is not to operate outside the hours of 6.30am - 4.00pm. 

259




refers). 



Against: Nil. 



Change of use from ‘Office’ to ‘Fast Food Outlet’ at Lot 7, House Number 80, Scarborough 

Beach Road, Scarborough be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:- 

a. No dine in facilities are to be provided on site. The take away nature of the proposal 

being maintained; and 




Change of use from ‘Office’ to ‘Fast Food Outlet’ at Lot 7, House Number 80, Scarborough 

Beach Road, Scarborough be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:- 

a. No dine in facilities are to be provided on site. The take away nature of the proposal 

being maintained; and 



To consider a development application for a change of use from “Office” to “Fast Food 

Outlet” at Lot 7, House Number 80, Scarborough Beach Road, Scarborough. The application 

requires the determination of Council with regards to a parking shortfall. 


Attachments 

Nil. 







Nearest Cross Street: 

Joyce Street 

260



Location Plan 


261




Use Table 

Zoning 

MRS 

LPS3 

Use 

Class 

Urban 

Mixed Use 

Fast Food Outlet 




Under Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS3) Fast Food outlet is defined as: ‘a premises used 

for the preparation, sale and serving of food or beverages to customers in a form ready to be 

eaten without further preparation, primarily off the premises.’ 

The site is located in the Mixed Use - Upper Scarborough Beach Road Precinct of the 

Scarborough Special Control Area. Clause 6.9.9 of LPS3 outlines provisions for cash-in-lieu 

for parking in the Scarborough Special Control Area. Specifically Clause 6.9.9 b) iii) states:- 

“In the case of non-residential development the cash-in-lieu contribution shall be 25 per cent 

of the total number of parking spaces required for the relevant use.” 

Clause 6.9.9 b) iv) of LPS3 states:- 

“The amount of cash-in-lieu contribution payable for developments shall be determined by 

Council on the basis of the estimated cost of providing an equivalent number of commercial 

parking spaces and manoeuvring areas in the form of decked parking in terms of land and 

construction cost, and for non-residential development the amount payable shall be reduced 

by half. 

Note: This means that where for example 25% of the total non-residential parking 

requirement is to be subject to a cash-in-lieu payment, the actual cash payment will be 

based on only 12.5% of the requisite number of parking spaces.” 

Clause 6.9.9 c) i) of LPS3 states:- 

“Where cash-in-lieu of parking is payable, there shall be no reduction in parking standards 

otherwise applicable under the Scheme, except for the reduction in on-site parking as a 

consequence of the contribution to the cost of off-site parking.” 

Clause 5.5 of LPS3 – Variations to site and development standards, provides Council with 

the ability to waive the cash in lieu of parking contribution as mentioned under the LPS3 

Development Standards. 

262




Local Planning Policy 5.6 – Scarborough Design Guidelines – Scarborough Redevelopment 

Zone 

These guidelines incorporate the provisions of the City’s LPS3 requirement as well as 

providing additional design guidelines. 

Local Planning Policy 6.7 – Parking 

The City’s Parking Policy contains the following objectives:- 

a) To facilitate the development of adequate parking facilities; 

b) To ensure safe, convenient and efficient access for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists; 

c) To ensure that a major parking problem is unlikely to occur; 

d) To ensure that car parking and access ways do not have a detrimental impact on the 

character and amenity of an area; and 

e) To ensure that an oversupply of parking foers not occur that discourages alternative 

forms of transport and is detrimental to the urban design and character of the locality. 

Part 11 of Parking Policy gives Council the power to vary parking standards for small scale 

developments within the Scarborough Special Control Area in certain instances. The Policy 

specifies that all of the following items would need to be met in order to void the cash-in-lieu 

requirements:- 

a) The addition is non-residential; 

b) The change of use is to a non-residential use, or occurs upon a site which is zoned 

mixed use; 

c) The addition and/or change of use would not require more than 3 additional parking 

bays; 

d) The addition does not increase the non-residential floor space of a building by more 

than 50m²; 

e) The applicant satisfies Council that the addition will not substantially increase the 

intensity of the use of the site. 

Part 12 of the Policy gives Council the ability to consider variations in accordance with the 

objectives of the Policy. 

Background 

A development application for a change of use from Office to Fast Food Outlet was received 

by the City on 16 July 2012 (DA12/1640 refers). 

The subject site is located on the ground floor of an existing development along 

Scarborough Beach Road. The existing site comprises of two (2) ground floor shops, one (1) 

office, 

one (1) ground floor residential unit and one (1) upper floor residential unit. 

263



Assessment 


Element 

Satisfies 

Scheme/ 

Policy 

OR 

Variation 

Required 

Comment 

1 

Site 

Requirements 

 


2 Setbacks Not Applicable 

The car parking requirement has been 

assessed on the basis of the current 

uses on site which require the following 

car parking to be provided:- 

Residential 

Two (2) bays per dwelling. Two (2) 

dwellings existing = four (4) car bays 

required for residential units. 


Shop 

Eight (8) bays per 100m² of gross 

leasable area. 102.7m² of gross leasable 

area existing = 8.2 car bays required for 

the shop uses. 

Proposed Fast Food Outlet – One (1) bay 

per 7m² of gross floor area. 82m² of 

gross floor area = 11.7 car bays required 

for the proposed fast food outlet. 

4 Landscaping Not Applicable 

5 Facades Not Applicable 

Car parking is discussed later in the 

report. 

6 

Service 

Access 

 


7 

Building 

Height 

 


8 Policy 

Scarborough Design Guidelines – 

Scarborough Redevelopment Zone 

The design of the building generally 

complies with the guidelines of the 

Scarborough Redevelopment Zone, 

given the proposal involves an existing 

building. 

9 

Other 

Consideration 

 


264




Consultation was not required as part of the assessment of this application. 


"I would like to construct Milk and Paper at 3/80 Scarborough Beach Road, 

Scarborough. I plan to provide takeaway coffee, tea, milkshakes, fresh juices and the 

sale of fresh bread, newspapers, packaged gourmet jams, olive oils and other shelf 

stable items. I do not plan on selling any seafood, ice creams, processed meats or 

eggs. The food sold on the premises will be outsourced from WA bakeries. I do not 

plan to install a full commercial kitchen because food preparation will not be carried 

out. The only processing done on site will be the chopping and storing of fresh fruit and 

vegetables for the juices and toasting of sandwiches. 

Milk and Paper’s plan is to have customers come inside, buy milk, paper, coffee, a loaf 

of bread, browse the gourmet products for sale and leave the premises. I do not plan 

to have any dine-in facilities, but there will be 1 or 2 chairs provided for people waiting 

for items. I plan to be open seven (7) days a weeks from 6.30am – 4.00pm on 

weekdays and 7.00am – 3.00pm on Saturdays and Sundays. The car park which is 

adjacent to the building is owned by the City of Stirling, all the bays are unallocated 

and there are up to 30 car bays approximately. There are also five (5) car bays directly 

in front of the shop which are restricted in time but not in allocation. I have personally 

researched the usage of the car bays through the week days and weekends, and 

during ‘peak hour’ times 8am – 10am and 12pm – 2pm the car park was only ever 

30% full (10 cars at most) at any time. The impact of Milk and Paper’s use of these car 

bays for the owner, employees and customers will be minimal, and of quick turnover 

due to the nature of the venue’s products being takeaway. The restaurant in the 

adjacent lot called La Vela is open from 5.00pm, so their car parking requirements in 

the adjacent car park won’t affect Milk and Paper since it will close at 4.00pm each day 

(3pm on weekends). Furthermore the nature of the venue will be high turnover, so cars 

will be coming and going from stays of 5 minutes up to an hour. As I live close by to 

the development the majority of the time I will be walking/riding to work." 

Comment 

The proposal for a Change of Use from ‘Office’ to ‘Fast Food’ is classified as a “P” 

(permitted) use under the City’s LPS3. The proposal is considered to fit into the fast food 

outlet definition as the idea of the proposal is for food and drink sold on the premises to be 

consumed off site. 

The proposed change of use requires existing on site car parking provisions to be 

reassessed. A car parking shortfall currently exists on site, given there are six (6) parking 

bays on site located to the rear of the existing building fronting Scarborough Beach Road. It 

has been noted there are approximately five (5) car bays located within the road reserve 

fronting the strip commercial centre, these would be available to customers using all the 

uses on site. Additionally there is a large car park in the City’s ownership at Lot 5, House 

Number 84, Scarborough Beach Road which is used by customers visiting the businesses 

located within the strip commercial area between Joyce Street and Scarborough Police 

Station. This car park has space for approximately 30 car bays. 

265



Although a parking shortfall exists on site, it is considered there is sufficient car parking in 

the immediate vicinity to ensure that a major parking problem does not arise. However a 

condition should be placed on the approval that the site is not to be used for “dine in” 

purposes to ensure that vehicles are not located in the parking spaces for extended periods 

of time. Although a restaurant use is located in the adjoining lot the times the restaurant is 

open (from 5.30pm) is outside the times the proposed fast food outlet is intended to operate 

(6.30am – 4.00pm). Therefore it is not considered a parking issue would arise if an approval 

was granted for the proposed fast food outlet. 

Notwithstanding the above, as the subject lot is located within the mixed use upper precinct 

of the Scarborough Special Control Area, Clauses 6.9.9 b) iii) and iv) and Clause 6.9.9 c) i) 

are relevant to this proposal. These Clauses of LPS3 relate to cash in lieu for car parking, 

which is a mandatory requirement and cannot be varied. Clause 6.9.9 allows for a reduction 

in the number of car bays required. Where cash-in-lieu is payable the number of car bays is 

reduced by the number of car bays that the cash-in-lieu is applicable for. 

The proposed change of use requires 11.71 bays. Clause 6.9.6 b) iii) of LPS3 requires 25% 

of the required bays to be subject to the cash in lieu requirements of LPS3, reducing the on 

site requirement to 8.79 bays and in accordance with the parking policy this number is 

rounded up to nine (9) bays. Therefore this results in a contribution payable for three (3) 

bays. Clauses 6.9.9 b) iv) states that the amount of cash in lieu contribution payable for 

development shall be determined by Council based on the estimated cost of providing an 

equivalent number of commercial parking spaces and manoeuvring areas in the form of 

decked parking in terms of and construction cost, and for non residential development the 

amount payable shall be reduced by half. 

Mandatory Cash in lieu requirement 

The construction cost of a single bay has previously been determined to be $25,000 per bay. 

This equates to a construction cost for three (3) bays of $75,000, however as the 

development is non-residential the payment can be reduced by half resulting in a total 

payment of $37,500.00. Additionally, a land component of 24m 2 is applicable, at a cost of 

$2150m 2 (based on the most recent valuation available to the City), resulting in a land 

component of $51,600. 

Cash in lieu for remainder of parking shortfall. 

Clause 6.9.9 c) i) of LPS3 states that there is no reduction in parking standards otherwise 

applicable under the Scheme, except for the reduction in on-site parking as a consequence 

of the contribution to the cost of off-site parking. Therefore Clause 5.8 of LPS3 would also be 

applicable to the remaining shortfall. Therefore the remaining nine (9) bays would be subject 

to a cash-in-lieu requirement of $225,000 (nine (9) bays x $25,000). 

Part 11 of the City’s Parking Policy provides the following standards relating to minor 

developments within the Scarborough Special Control Area:- 

When considering an application for a minor addition or a change of use within the 

Scarborough Special Control Area (as defined under Cluse 6.9 of Local Planning Scheme 

No 3), parking bays in addition to those already existing on site will not be required where 

the application meets all of the following 

a. The addition is non-residential 

b. The change of use if to a non-residential use, or occurs upon a site which is zoned 

mixed use 

266



c. See below 

d. The addition does not increase the non-residential floor space of a building by more 

than 50m² 

e. The applicant satisfies Council that the addition will not substantially increase the 

intensity of the use of the site 

Part 12 of the City’s Parking Policy provides for the opportunity to exercise discretion and 

consider variations to the Policy. The Policy states that:- 

Applications seeking variations to this policy shall be determined by Council in accordance 

with the objectives of this Policy and, in doing so, Council may seek the comments of 

adjoining or nearby owners. 

The proposed development meets all of the requirements of Part 11 of the Policy with the 

exception of the following:- 

c) The addition and/or the change of use would not require more than 3 additional 

parking bays. 

The proposed change of use from office to fast food requires 12 additional car bays to be 

provided, with three (3) bays existing on site. 

Notwithstanding the requirements of LPS3 previously discussed relating to the cash-in-lieu 

requirements in the Scarborough Special Control Area; Part 12 of the Parking Policy gives 

Council the power to vary the requirements of the Policy provided that the objectives of the 

Parking Policy are met. Specifically in this instance, Part 12 allows Council to waive the 

requirements to provide the nine (9) car bay shortfall on site. It is important to note that this 

is different to waiving the cash in lieu requirement of LPS3. 

In this instance, it is considered that the proposed fast food outlet meets the objectives of the 

policy stipulated previously in this report. Sufficient parking is already located within the 

immediate vicinity in the form of a parking lot in the City’s ownership (located at Lot 5, House 

Number 84, Scarborough Beach Road, Scarborough) as well as the provision of on street 

car parking. Both these parking areas are considered to allow for sufficient vehicle parking 

for visitors to the commercial strip development in which the proposal is located without 

causing a major parking problem. 

The reduced parking on site can be supported as this will ensure that an oversupply of 

parking does not occur that discourages alternative forms of transport and therefore having a 

detrimental impact on the character of the area. The nature of the proposal is such that it is 

considered that a large proportion of the customers will actually access the site by walking. 

The proposal is considered to be a return to the traditional ‘corner store’ which was typical of 

the Scarborough area within the 1960’s and 1970’s and given the location of the store 

amongst a predominantly residential area it is reasonable to consider that persons will walk 

to the site in the morning to buy a coffee, some milk and a paper. 

It should be noted that the Local Area Plan for Scarborough identified commercial centres 

along Scarborough Beach road as playing an important role in economic diversity within the 

City of Stirling. The participants involved in the Local Area Plan workshops wanted the City 

to encourage local businesses to locate within the local area and revitalising commercial 

centres should be a matter of priority. Therefore it is considered this proposal will not only 

provide a diverse range of facilities within the local area but assist in meeting the needs of 

local residents. 

267








Should Council form the view not to exercise its discretion in relation to the Policy provisions 

outlined above the applicant will be required to make a cash-in-lieu contrition payment as 

required by the provisions LPS3 of $314,100.00. 

The figure of $314,100.00 is derived from the following:- 

A mandatory 25% cash in lieu of car parking based on a cost of $25,000 per bay, which is 

then halved. This figure is based on land and construction costs = $37,500.00. 

Additionally, a land component of 8m 2 per pay is applicable to the mandatory cash in lieu 

requirement, at a cost of $2150m 2 (based on the most recent valuation available to the City). 

Consequently, a three (3) bay shortfall equates to 24m 2 resulting in a land value requirement 

of $51,600. The total mandatory cash in lieu requirement is therefore $89,100. 

A 9 bay shortfall based on construction cost of $25,000 per bay equates to $225,000. 


Goal 3: 


SI 3.3.1: 




investment. 


tourism. 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

268



Issue 

Community services 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

This proposal will provide a greater amount of local services 

available o the immediate community. It will foster a greater 

sense of local community by provision a local fast food outlet 

for the prevision of necessary items. 

Job creation 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

The proposal will foster the creation of local jobs within the 

local area. 

Conclusion 

The proposed change of use from ‘Office’ to ‘Fast Food Outlet’ meets all the requirements of 

LPS3 with the exception of the on site car parking requirements. Although a parking shortfall 

is proposed, it is not considered that a parking problem would arise from the approval of the 

fast food outlet. It is deemed that the proposed change of use will provide a range of 

services for the local community and appears to be in accordance with the findings of the 

Local Area Plan for Scarborough. It is recommended that Council exercise its discretion and 

waive the cash-in-lieu requirements under the Scarborough Special Control Area and the 

Parking Policy and grant an approval subject to conditions. 

269



CITY PLANNING 

10.1/CP1 

DIANELLA CENTRE PLAN - INITIATION OF SCHEME AMENDMENT 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Various lots within area bounded by Alexander Drive, Waverley 

Street, Kerry Street and Grand Promenade. 


Manager City Planning 

City Planning 

Inglewood 

Dianella 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0912/042 


That pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, an 

Amendment to Local Planning Scheme No.3 for the Dianella Centre Plan area, as 

detailed in Attachment 2 of the Manager City Planning's report, be INITIATED and 

PROCESSED in accordance the Town Planning Regulations 1967. 


refers). 

270





Against: Nil. 


That pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, an Amendment to 

Local Planning Scheme No.3 for the Dianella Centre Plan area, as detailed in Attachment 2 

of the Manager City Planning's report, be INITIATED and PROCESSED in accordance the 

Town Planning Regulations 1967. 


That pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, an Amendment to 

Local Planning Scheme No.3 for the Dianella Centre Plan area, as detailed in Attachment 2 

of the Manager City Planning's report, be INITIATED and PROCESSED in accordance the 

Town Planning Regulations 1967. 


To consider modifications to the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS3) for 

implementation of the Dianella Centre Plan. 


Attachments 

Attachment 1 - Dianella Centre Plan - Proposed Zoning and Code Changes Location Map 

(ECM Doc No: 3181578) 

Attachment 2 - Dianella Centre Plan Scheme Amendment - Proposed Modifications to Local 

Planning Scheme No.3 Text and Maps (ECM Doc No:3194912) 

Available for viewing at the Meeting 

Nil. 

Background 

The potential for redevelopment of the Dianella commercial area, corner of Alexander Drive 

and Grand Promenade, has been a focus for the City since the Dianella Local Area Plan was 

completed in 2007. 

After completing a precinct study in 2009, the City engaged Hassell consultants to prepare a 

draft Centre Plan for the precinct to define a vision for and direct future redevelopment at the 

Centre. The draft Dianella Centre Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Western 

Australian Planning Commission’s 'State Planning Policy - Activity Centre’s for Perth and 

Peel’. The draft Plan was first prepared in 2011 and has been amended several times and 

undergone community consultation on two (2) occasions, May - July 2011 and April - May 

2012. The Dianella Centre Plan was adopted by Council on 21 August 2012 (Council 

Resolution Number 0812/043). 

271



Dianella Centre Plan Boundary 

Dianella Centre Plan Aerial 

272



Comment 

1. Dianella Centre Plan Adoption 

The Dianella Centre Plan report recommends several changes to the City’s Local 

Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS3) to encourage and guide development of the Centre. As 

previously mentioned, the Draft Centre Plan was adopted by Council on 21 August 

2012 (Council Resolution Number 0812/043). The Scheme amendment forms part of 

the implementation process. 

2. Zoning Changes 

It is proposed that a special control area be created over the whole Dianella Centre 

Plan area to enable specific objectives and development standards. 

There are also several specific zoning changes required, to accommodate 

implementation of the Dianella Centre Plan. 

Key zoning changes required affect two particular sites, each of which have significant 

and immediate development potential for the Centre area. These sites are:- 

the former 'Alexander Hotel' corner Alexander Drive and Waverley Street - 

proposed to change from ‘Hotel’ to ‘District Centre’; and 

the former 'Coles' shopping centre site between Chester Avenue and Waverley 

Street - proposed to change from ‘District Centre’ to ‘Residential’ with a coding of 

‘R-AC2’. The R-AC code is a residential ‘Activity Centre’ standard identifying 

maximum density permitted in either non-residential or residential zones. The 

R-AC code is discussed in detail below. 

There are three (3) City owned sites proposed to be rezoned:- 

the library is proposed to change from ‘Civic’ to ‘District Centre’; 

the Dianella Community Centre site Lot 49, Kerry Street, is proposed to change 

from ‘Civic’ to ‘Residential’; and 

Lot 48, Kerry Street, abutting the community centre is proposed to change from 

‘R30’ to ‘R-AC3’. 

There are also a variety of privately owned sites proposed to be re-coded or rezoned 

as follows:- 

Existing residential zoned sites in Kerry Street, Waverley Street, Chester Avenue 

and Grand Promenade are proposed to change from ‘R30’ to ‘R-AC3’ code; 

Service Station site on Grand Promenade is proposed to change from ‘Service 

Station’ to ‘District Centre’; and 

Our Lady’s Assumption Primary School site between Grand Promenade and 

Chester Avenue is proposed to change from ‘Private Institution’ to ‘District 

Centre’. 

The zoning and coding changes are necessary to facilitate a consolidated 

development form and to apply consistent development standards across the Centre. 

There are two (2) zones ‘District Centre’, and ‘Residential’. There are two (2) code 

types proposed, ‘R-AC2’ and ‘R-AC3’ as identified in the Western Australian Planning 

Commission Statement of Planning Policy 3.1, ‘Residential Design Codes’. The R-AC 

codes are discussed in detail below. 

273



3. Special Control Area 

Together with the zoning map changes Scheme text amendments are proposed 

introducing a new special control area for the Dianella Centre Plan and minor changes 

to existing clauses. A new clause is proposed to specify development standards under 

Part 6 - Special Control Areas, Clause 6.11. 

Amendments are necessary to introduce minimum standards for desired built-form to 

give effect of the Centre Plan vision. Clause 6.1.1 is required to be amended and new 

Clause 6.11 inserted, with development provisions on height and variations to the R- 

AC3 code. 

The following height and building form standards are proposed under the new Clause 

6.11:- 

All development within the District Centre zone shall have a minimum floor to 

ceiling height of 3.5m from natural ground level for the ground floor; 

The minimum height of buildings fronting Alexander Drive, Grand Promenade 

and Waverley Street, within the Special Control Area, shall be 15m, from the 

natural ground level of the verge (street level); 

The maximum height of buildings fronting Chester Avenue shall be a maximum 

of 15m; 

The maximum height of buildings fronting Kerry Street shall be 9.5m; 

The maximum height of buildings fronting Waverley Street (for residential zoned 

lots) shall be 15m; and 

Except as otherwise required in the Scheme the minimum building form in 

residential zones shall be three (3) storeys. 

Clause 6.11 also proposes to apply specific development objectives for the Dianella 

Special Control Area for clarity not provided under the Centre Plan, as follows:- 

To promote a diversity of uses and services in the Centre to encourage reduced 

car travel, shorter trips and better social interaction; 

To promote a centre that has multiple functions benefiting the community 

through appropriate social services and business mixes; 

To promote integration of built form and land uses with public transport 

infrastructure; 

To encourage building forms that provide for a long life span and adaptability for 

use, changing with time; and 

To apply the activity centre standards of the Residential Design Codes, to 

encourage consolidated housing forms and diversity. 

274



4. R-AC Codes 

The Scheme currently permits residential development to a maximum density of R80 

within a District Centre zone. As the Dianella Centre Plan proposes an improved built 

form and better land use mix the maximum standard of R80 has become redundant 

and requires change to reflect the desired vision. The Centre Plan recommends 

introducing the activity centre standards of the Western Australian Planning 

Commission Statement of Planning Policy 3.1, ‘Residential Design Codes’ (R-AC2 and 

R-AC3 codes) which is to be the first for the City. 

The Centre Plan proposes an R-AC2 code for the District Centre zone and a portion of 

the former Coles site in Waverley Street zoned residential. The R-AC3 code is 

proposed for the remainder of the residential zoned land in Chester Avenue and Kerry 

Street. 

The major differences between the existing R80 and the R-AC2 and R-AC3 codes 

are:- 

increased plot ratio from 1.0 to 1.5 (R-AC3) and 2.5 (R-AC2) (as outlined in table 

below); and 

increased maximum building height from 15m to 23m (R-AC2). Maximum height 

is proposed to remain the same for R-AC3 at 15m (as outlined in table below). 

R-AC2 will use the development provisions of Western Australian Planning 

Commission Statement of Planning Policy 3.1, ‘Residential Design Codes’. The R-AC3 

code is proposed to be modified, to reduce maximum height from 18m to 15m and 

maximum plot ratio from 2.0 to 1.5:- 

275



R-AC2 (as per Statement of Planning Policy 3.1- Residential Design Codes) 

Max 

Plot 

Ratio 

Min 

Open 

Space 

Primary 

Street 

Setback 

Secondary 

Street 

Setback 

Top of 

external 

wall 

Maximum Height 


external 

wall 

height 

(conceale 

d roof) 


pitched 

roof 

Max Height of built 

to boundary walls 

Max 

Height 

2.5 - 2m 4m 20m 21m 23m 7m 6m 

Average 

R-AC3 (modified) 

Max 

Plot 

Ratio 

Min 

Open 

Space 

Primary 

Street 

Setback 

Secondary 

Street 

Setback 


Top of Top 

external 

wall 


external 

wall height 

(concealed 

roof) 

Top 

pitched 



Max Height of built 

to boundary walls 

Max 

Height 

1.5 - 2m 2m 9.5m 11m 15m 7m 6m 

Average 

The above Tables are not the sole standards to apply to residential development within 

the Centre. Other development provisions also apply, under the general clauses of the 

Scheme, the Residential Design Codes (RD Codes) - Part 7 (design elements for 

multiple dwellings) and a new local planning policy yet to be adopted for the Dianella 

Centre Plan area. 

The RD Codes design provisions are not required to be reiterated within proposed 

Clause 6.11. The table for the R-AC2 code is also not required to be inserted into 

Clause 6.11 as it will be consistent with the RD Codes and included in the proposed 

local planning policy. The location of the R-AC2 and R-AC3 codes will be identified 

under a figure to be inserted into proposed Clause 6.11. 

5. Dianella Centre Plan Local Planning Policy 

The introduction of the R-AC codes over the Dianella Centre Plan area will encourage 

a more efficient and intense building form and opportunity for residential - commercial 

land use mix. The R-AC Codes also encourage integration with future public transport 

infrastructure (i.e. light rail and bus interchange). 

As noted above, the majority of the development standards will be applied under the 

Local Planning Policy for the area. The Policy will guide non-residential and residential 

development. The Policy will be presented to Council under a separate report at a later 

meeting. 

It is intended that the Scheme amendment and the Policy will be advertised 

concurrently. 

276



6. Setbacks 

Minimum setbacks standards apply to residential uses under the Residential Design 

Codes through the Scheme. Minimum standards do not apply to commercial 

development and are generally determined by the presentation and availability of 

parking as attractors for most retail centres. 

As one (1) of the objectives for the centre is to achieve external facing floor space a 

maximum setback is recommended to maintain contact with the surrounding street 

environs. The maximum setback still provides some opportunity for limited car parking 

within the setback area (if required), better surveillance from vehicles in the street and 

maintenance of a higher level of amenity for uses not directly within the busier traffic 

environments of Waverley Street, Grand Promenade and Alexander Drive. Specifically 

it is recommended that the maximum setback to Waverley Street and Grand 

Promenade boundaries shall be 16.5m and Alexander Drive boundary be 10m for 

better interaction with the proposed light rail station and bus interchange. 


Should Council initiate an Amendment, it will need to be advertised for public comment in 

accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Town Planning 

Regulations 1967 for 42 days. 


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 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: 




Develop plans to guide sustainable development of the major activity 

corridors, activity centres and improvements to local centres. 

277





Issue 

Greenhouse Emissions 

Issue 

Community engagement 


Issue 

Job creation 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

The provision of local employment opportunities reduces the 

dependence on motor vehicles and reduces greenhouse 

emissions. 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

The potential for development in the Dianella Centre area is 

likely to increase participation in cultural, leisure or 

recreation activities provided for in the locality. 

The potential for renewal of some disused buildings along 

with introducing a mix of residential and commercial uses to 

the site will likely increase the range of services available to 

the community. 

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 Centre. 

Conclusion 

The proposed scheme amendment is consistent with the vision of the Dianella Centre Plan 

and forms the initial part of its implementation. The amendment requires several changes to 

the Scheme Maps and Text, including changing zones, introducing R-AC codes of the 

Residential Planning Codes, inserting a new clause 6.11 and modifying others. It is 

recommended that the amendments to the LPS3 Maps and Text be initiated for the reasons 

out lined in the comments section of this report. 

278



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.1/CP1- DIANELLA CENTRE PLAN INITIATION OF SCHEME AMENDMENT 

Attachment 1 - Dianella Centre Plan – Proposed Zoning and Code Changes Location Map 

279



Attachment 2 - Dianella Centre Plan Scheme Amendment - Proposed Modifications to 

Local Planning Scheme No.3 Text and Maps 

a. The Scheme Maps be amended by changing the zoning of Lot 70 (House 

Number 160) and Lot 71 (House Number 158) Alexander Drive, Dianella 

from ‘Hotel’ to ‘District Centre’; 

b. The Scheme Maps be amended by changing the zoning of Lot 78 (House 

Number 360) Grand Promenade, Dianella from ‘Service Station’ to ‘District 

Centre’; 

c. The Scheme Maps be amended by changing the zoning of Lot 79 (House 

Number 44) Chester Avenue, Dianella from ‘Civic’ to ‘District Centre’; 

d. The Scheme Maps be amended by changing the residential coding for Lot 

53 (Strata Lot 1, House Number 59A) and (Strata Lot 2, House Number 

59B) Waverley Street, Lot 52 (House Number 57) Waverley Street, Lot 51 

(Strata lot 1, House Number 55) Waverley Street, Lot 51 (Strata Lot 2, 

House Number 22) Kerry Street, Lot 50 (House Number 20) Kerry Street, 

Lot 48 (House Number 16) Kerry Street, Lot 65 (Strata Lot 1, House Number 

14) Kerry Street and Lot 65 (Strata Lot 2, House Number 34) Chester 

Avenue, Dianella from ‘R30’ to ‘R-AC3’; 

e. The Scheme Maps be amended by changing the zoning of Lot Pt 49 (House 

Number 18) Kerry Street, Dianella from ‘Civic’ to ‘Residential’ with a coding 

of ‘R-AC3’; 

f. The Scheme Maps be amended by changing the residential coding for Lot 

501 (House Number 39) Chester Ave; Lot 62 (House Number 37) Chester 

Avenue; Lot 63 (Strata Lot 1, House Number 33), (Strata Lot 2, House 

Number 33A), (Strata Lot 3, House Number 33B) Chester Avenue; Lot 45 

(Strata Lot 1, House Number 10A) and (Strata Lot 2, House Number 10B) 

Kerry Street; Lot 44 (House Number 8) Kerry Street; Lot 43 (Strata Lots 1 

and 2, House Numbers 6 and 6a) Kerry Street; Lot 42 (Strata Lot 1, House 

Number 4) and (Strata Lot 2, House Number 4A) Kerry Street; Lot 41 (Strata 

Lot 1, House Number 338B, Strata Lot 2, House Number 338A) and (Strata 

Lot 3, House Number 338) Grand Promenade; Lot 40 (Strata Lots 1- 4, 

House Number 340) Grand Promenade; Lot 56 (House Number 342) Grand 

Promenade; Lot 500 (House Number 344) Grand Promenade, Dianella from 

‘R30’ to ‘R-AC3 (as modified)’; 

g. The Scheme Maps be amended by changing the zoning of Lot 76 (House 

Number 40) Chester Avenue, Lot 101 (House Number 36) Chester Ave and 

Lot 77 (House Number 61) Waverley Street, Dianella from ‘District Centre’ 

to ‘Residential’ with a coding of ‘R-AC2’; 

h. The Scheme Maps be amended by changing the zoning of Lot 100 (House 

Numbers 346-356) Grand Promenade from ‘Private Institution’ to ‘District 

Centre’; 

i. The Scheme Text be amended by inserting under 'Part 6 - Special Control 

Areas', clause 6.1.1 an additional dot point stating, Dianella Centre; 

280



j. The Scheme Maps be amended by including a reference to the ‘Dianella 

Centre Special Control Area’; and 

k. The Scheme Text be amended by inserting under 'Part 6 - Special Control 

Areas', a new Clause 6.11, with the following wording:- 

"6.11 Dianella Centre Special Control Area 

6.11.1 Objectives 

a) To ensure a diversity of uses and services which encourage 

reduced car travel, shorter trips and better social interaction. 

b) To ensure the development of multiple functions benefiting the 

community through appropriate social services and business mix. 

c) To ensure integration of intensive building form and land uses with 

public transport infrastructure. 

d) To ensure building forms provide for a long life span and 

adaptability for use, changing with time. 

e) To apply the activity centre standards of the Residential Design 

Codes, to encourage consolidated housing forms and diversity. 

f) To apply minimum development standards to achieve the desired 

intensive building form and land use mix. 

6.11.2 Special Control Area 

The Dianella Centre Special Control Area is the land delineated as such on 

the Scheme Map. 

6.11.3 Centre Plan 

The Dianella Centre Plan is to be read in conjunction with the provisions of 

Clause 6.11. Where there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the 

Scheme and the Dianella Centre Plan, the Scheme provisions shall prevail. 

6.11.4 Development 

a) Building Height 

i) All development within the District Centre zone shall have a 

minimum floor to ceiling height of 3.5m from natural ground 

level for the ground floor. 

ii) 

The minimum height of buildings fronting Alexander Drive, 

Grand Promenade and Waverley Street, within the Special 

Control Area, shall be 15m, from the natural ground level of 

the verge (street level). 

281



iii) 

iv) 

The maximum height of buildings fronting Chester Avenue 

shall be 15m from natural ground level. 

The maximum height of buildings fronting Kerry Street shall 

be 9.5m. 

v) The maximum height of buildings fronting Waverley Street 

and Grand Promenade (for residential zoned lots) shall be 

15m. 

vi) 

Except as otherwise required in the Scheme, the minimum 

building form in residential zones shall be three (3) storeys. 

b) Residential Design Codes 

i) Figure 1 outlines the applicable R-AC2 and R-AC3 codes 

and locations within the Dianella Special Control Area:- 

ii) 

R-AC3 

Max 

Plot 

Ratio 

In addition to the general provisions of the Scheme, Local 

Planning Scheme No. 3, a local planning policy and Part 7 of 

Statement of Planning Policy 3.1, ‘Residential Design 

Codes’ the following standards shall apply to all residential 

development on land coded R-AC3:- 

Min 

Open 

Space 

Primary 

Street 

Setback 

Secondary 

Street 

Setback 


Top of Top 

external 

wall 


external 

wall height 

(concealed 

roof) 

Top 

pitched 



Max Height of 

built to boundary 

walls 

Max Average 

Height 

1.5 - 2m 2m 9.5m 11m 15m 7m 6m 

282



c) Land use 

i) all buildings to be designed to have external facing uses. 

d) Setbacks 

i) Maximum setback to Waverley Street and Grand Promenade 

boundaries shall be 16.5m. 

ii) 

Maximum setback to Alexander Drive boundary shall be 

10m. 

283



ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN REGENERATION 

10.1/EDUR1 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WEEKEND COMMUNITY MARKET AT THE 

MIRRABOOKA TOWN SQUARE 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 

Mirrabooka 




Balga Ward 

Mirrabooka 


Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 

Quasi- 

Judicial 

Information 

Purposes 






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 





0912/043 


1. That Council RECEIVES the report outlining the resources required to reexamine 

the feasibility of establishing weekend markets in the Mirrabooka 

Regional Centre. 

2. That a submission seeking the additional resources required to undertake the 

Expression of Interest process BE MADE during the 2013/2014 budget process. 

3. That Council APPROACH interested local community groups in establishing 

markets in Mirrabooka to set up a car boot based market in the Mirrabooka 

Library Carpark until a formal Expression of Interest is prepared. 

284




refers). 



Against: Nil. 


1. That Council RECEIVES the report outlining the resources required to re-examine the 

feasibility of establishing weekend markets in the Mirrabooka Regional Centre. 


Expression of Interest process BE MADE during the 2013/2014 budget process. 

3. That Council APPROACH interested local community groups in establishing markets 

in Mirrabooka to set up a car boot based market in the Mirrabooka Library Carpark 

until a formal Expression of Interest is prepared. 


1. That Council RECEIVES the report outlining the resources required to re-examine the 

feasibility of establishing weekend markets in the Mirrabooka Regional Centre. 


Expression of Interest process BE MADE during the 2012/2013 mid-year budget 

review. 


To respond to the Council resolution (Council Resolution Number 0811/112) that a report 

outlining the resources required to re-examine the feasibility of establishing weekend 

markets in Mirrabooka Regional Centre. 


Attachments 

Attachment 1 - Mirrabooka Regional Centre Improvement Strategy Town Square 

Multicultural Markets Draft Concept Plan: Creating Communities, May 2005. 


Nil. 

Background 

At the meeting of 30 August 2011, Council considered a report on the establishment of a 

community market in Mirrabooka and subsequently resolved (Council Resolution Number 

0811/112) that:- 

“A report outlining the resources required to re-examine the feasibility of 

establishing weekend markets in Mirrabooka Regional Centre BE PRESENTED 

to the Mirrabooka Project Steering Committee in November 2011”. 

285



Comment 

Mirrabooka Town Square is a pivotal element to the revitalisation of the Mirrabooka Regional 

Centre and was designed to accommodate events such as markets with the necessary 

services including communications, power and water. Markets could play a significant role 

in activating the Mirrabooka Regional Centre and creating a sense of place. 

A report was produced by consultants Creating Communities Pty Ltd (as attached) in May 

2005 to determine the feasibility of establishing markets in Mirrabooka. This report 

highlighted the need to support the establishment of markets and estimated the cost to the 

City to be approximately $54,000. Markets did not proceed at the time due to objections from 

local retailers. 

The City has received interest from two (2) local community groups; the Rotary Club of 

Morley and Nollamara RSL; both expressed their willingness to establish weekend markets, 

demonstrating that the opportunity to seek expressions of interests is feasible. 

The following report will outline the options and resource requirements for the establishment 

of a community market in Mirrabooka for Council’s consideration. 

Site Options 

Officers have undertaken a preliminary review of potential sites for a weekend community 

market in Mirrabooka. This considered criteria including appropriate land use zoning, current 

ownership status, car parking capacity, size requirements and ‘fit-for-purpose’ measure. The 

results of this initial review are as follows. 

Option 1 - Mirrabooka Town Square - Lot 15, 16 Sudbury Road, Mirrabooka 

The Town Square (area marked by a dashed line in Aerial Photograph 1 below) was 

originally designed as part of the Mirrabooka Regional Centre Improvement Strategy to be 

used for markets with connections for power and water. It provides the best space for 

‘activating’ the centre and could further attract commuters from the Mirrabooka Bus Station 

and be accessible to drivers with the Mirrabooka Library and retail car parking nearby. 

Further, the Mirrabooka Square Shopping Centre specified their preference for a site centred 

around the Town Square site if markets were to be held on Friday evening as this would 

provide flow-on benefits to the major shopping stores open after hours (Big W, Kmart, Coles 

and Woolworths). They also indicated that Centre Management may consider the use of a 

portion of the car park for market activity if a proposal were presented to them that did not 

adversely impact their retailers. 

It should be noted that a Development Application has been submitted by the Mirrabooka 

Square Shopping Centre to create car park space backing up to the Town Square and on 

the old Town Square site which would prohibit the establishment of markets on this site until 

these works are complete. 

Under Local Planning Scheme No.3 the site is currently zoned ‘Civic’ which specifically 

prohibits markets as a use on this site. Officers recognise the important role that weekend 

community markets could contribute to the sense of place and community vibrancy in a local 

area and that the Town Square was created to cater for such activities. Therefore to resolve 

this issue so that markets may be an approved use on this site in the future, a proposal has 

been included in the Omnibus Amendment to Local Planning Scheme No.3 to provide for 

‘Market’ uses as a discretionary (‘D’) use able to be considered in the Civic Zone. 

286



The amendments are expected to be adopted in the next six (6) to nine (9) months and until 

modifications are made to the Scheme it is not possible for Council to endorse a market on 

this site. It is likely markets could be a considered for the 2013/2014 summer period. 

Stage 

Spectators/ 

Seating 

Aerial Photograph 1 – Town Square site 

Option 2 - Sudbury Road Street Verge - Lot 401 and Lot 53, Sudbury Road, Mirrabooka 

The street verges along Sudbury Road (Aerial Photograph 2) were upgraded as part of the 

Mirrabooka Regional Centre Improvement Strategy and are zoned ‘Mixed Use’ which allows 

for a market use. As part of the improvements, the pavements have been widened and could 

easily accommodate the stalls for a community market. 

To establish markets at this site, a number of additional challenges need to be addressed 

which would include closing the road for the duration of the markets to allow for pedestrian 

flow along Sudbury Road. Traffic, including the buses from the Mirrabooka Bus Station, 

would need to be re-routed. The greatest impact would be on retail businesses in the area 

as well as the Public Transport Authority. 

It has been determined that the cost of closing Sudbury Road for the duration of the markets 

on a weekly basis for the proposed six (6) month season is estimated at over $20,000. The 

associated costs include two (2) traffic management personnel for the duration of the 

markets, monthly advertisement of road closure in the Stirling Times and use of a Variable 

Message Board once a month for six (6) months. This is deemed to be cost prohibitive to the 

establishment of a community market on this site. 

287



Based on factors not associated with the cost of the road closure, the Sudbury Road site 

was identified as the preferred option after the Town Square given that the pavement would 

also be a good space for ‘activating’ the Mirrabooka Centre and the Town Square under its 

current zoning could be utilised for entertainment purposes. It would also acknowledge the 

preference of the Mirrabooka Square Shopping Centre to have a market near the centre to 

provide flow-on benefits to their major retailers open until 9.00pm (if held on a Friday 

evening). 

Sudbury road is a prime location for the establishment of a community market given the 

reasons mentioned above, however the road closure is too cost prohibitive to use the site for 

this purpose. 

Re-route traffic 

Road Closure 

Market Stalls 

Pedestrians 

Entertainment/ 

Stage 

Road Closure 

Spectators/ 

Seating 

Aerial Photograph 2 – Proposed Sudbury Road Markets with Town Square used for 

entertainment 

288



Option 3 - Mirrabooka Library site - Lot 101, 21 Sudbury Road, Mirrabooka 

Under the Local Planning Scheme No.3, the Mirrabooka Library Site, shown in Aerial 

Photograph 3, is zoned ‘Mixed Use’ and ‘Community Purposes’ and ‘Markets’ are a 

permitted use within this zone. The site also offers space for approximately 107 bays 

allowing for a combination of stall holders and parking as well as an additional 21 car parking 

bays along Sudbury Road. The Library is closed on Sundays which would negate conflict 

with parking bays should the markets be held during this time. Friday night markets would 

conflict as stallholders would be required to set-up prior to library close. 

Whilst visible from Sudbury Road, the site is approximately 120m from the Town Square and 

set back from the road and would not provide street activation. As the car park is a 

dominant feature of this site, it does not promote a ‘stay-a-while’ atmosphere and therefore 

may be more suited to a wares or convenience style market such as car boot set-up. 

Whilst this site provides for the easy establishment of markets and some activation of the 

area given its proximity to the Town Square, stall set-up would conflict with Library opening 

hours if a Friday night market were to be established and would further conflict with retail 

trade were it to open on a Saturday or Sunday. 

Market 

Stalls 

Car Parking 

Aerial Photograph 3 – Mirrabooka Library Car Park site 

Option 4 – Herb Graham Recreation Centre - Property Number 259072, Mirrabooka 

A short walking distance from the Town Centre, the Herb Graham Recreation Centre would 

provide suitable space for the establishment of a community market (see Aerial Photograph 

4). The area provides a grassed frontage that could be utilised for market stalls and seating 

areas and also has ample parking that is not expected to conflict with sporting activities 

regardless of the day held. The market could activate the Recreation Centre and provide an 

on-flow of patrons from sporting activities. 

289



Classed as a ‘Development Zone’, the land use is to be in accordance with the Structure 

Plan however the Structure Plan for this area is currently under development. In order to use 

the land for the purpose of a community market, Council would have to conclude that the 

use is in accordance with the intent of the Structure Plan and would not compromise the 

objectives of the Structure Plan 

Whilst a site that is fit for purpose and allows for easy establishment, it is on the outskirts of 

the Town Centre and would not activate the Town Centre. It is close to residential 

development which could lead to objections from local residents. 

Market Stalls 

Aerial Photograph 4 – Herb Graham Recreation Centre 

Conclusion of Site Options 

The assessment of the identified sites indicates the most appropriate site for the 

establishment of markets is the Mirrabooka Town Square (Option 1). Given the current 

‘Civic’ zoning does not allow for markets, it is proposed that the establishment of a weekend 

community market be pursued in the 2013/14 summer period following the amendments to 

Local Planning Scheme No.3 to permit this land use. 

Market Style and Type 

There are a significant number of market styles and types to choose from however not all 

would provide a best fit for the Mirrabooka area. The style of market would need to reflect 

the area’s character but also appeal to and attract patrons from a regional catchment to 

create additional economic benefits for the region. 

290



The “Markets Business Case” presented by Creating Communities in 2005 identified the 

core theme of the markets to be a celebration of cultural diversity with products limited to a 

cultural nature. This is further supported through consultation for the Mirrabooka Local Area 

Plan whereby the community identified cultural expression through community markets as a 

key priority. 

It is proposed that markets which celebrate the areas diversity and vibrancy should be 

encouraged which would include celebration of food styles and culture. Food vendors add 

further atmosphere to markets and entice participants who wish to experience a range of 

cultural foods. 

Consultation with the Mirrabooka Square Shopping Centre identified that the sale of wares 

would not be of concern to their operations, however the provision of food would directly 

compete with their food court during opening hours. 

They advised that they would not object to a food style market if the event was held on a 

Friday evening. The following comment was received from the Centres Marketing Manager: 

“As discussed we support these markets in principle and based upon the current 

discussions. In regards to your point about the likelihood of these markets having a strong 

food component to them it is our preference that the Friday evening proposed timing be 

utilized. To hold a food based market on a Saturday or Sunday would likely have a negative 

impact on the many food based small businesses within the area.” 

Nollamara RSL as well as the Rotary Club of Morley have advised that there are two (2) 

main types for a community market which are ‘car boot’ and ‘stalls’. The car boot type 

involves individuals arriving with their items, setting up in an allocated car bay and then 

selling items from their car or the ground area. This would be suitable if a market were to be 

established in the Mirrabooka Library car park and would generally include only wares and 

would not be suitable for food vendors. 

The freestanding stall type involves no vehicles and typically shade structures and tables. 

This is suitable for surfaces which are not designed for car traffic such as paving and grass 

and would be required for the Mirrabooka Town Square, Sudbury Road and Herb Graham 

Recreation Centre scenario. 

These groups have provisionally expressed interest and seek more detail and certainty from 

the City in terms of the type of market, proposed operating times, location and issues such 

as market theme. 

It is recommended, if a market were to be established at Mirrabooka, the market should be 

culturally themed, and that it allow for wares, food stalls and entertainment to ensure it is a 

key attraction for both local residents and a wider catchment. The ‘stall’ type market would 

be more suited to the proposed cultural themed market. 

Operating Hours 

It is proposed that the Mirrabooka Markets would be trialled for one summer season, from 

October to March. This would be on a weekly basis and would be further reviewed by 

Council at the conclusion of the season. 

291



The following are the options and key considerations for the proposed operating hours for 

the Mirrabooka Markets:- 

Friday Evening 4.00pm to 9.00pm 

Friday Night Markets could provide the following key benefits:- 

The attraction of after work commuters from the Mirrabooka Bus Station (subject to 

being held either along Sudbury Road or at Mirrabooka Library car park); 

Would not directly conflict with the daily trade of the centre and surrounding retailers; 

No conflict with food court operators within these hours; 

Would not compete for car parking space; 

Could potentially have ‘flow-on’ benefits for Big W, Coles, Kmart and Woolworths that 

are all open until 9.00pm at the Mirrabooka Square Shopping Centre (subject to being 

held at the Town Square, Sudbury Road or at the Mirrabooka Library car park); 

Preferred day and time of existing local retailers; 

The provision of shade protection for patrons and stallholders would not be an issue at 

this hour of the day; 

Night-time entertainment could promote a ‘festive’ type atmosphere; 

If held along Sudbury Road, road closures would cause less impact to traffic and bus 

services than if held on a Saturday; and 

Provide an active and lively space at a time when anti-social behaviour is most 

prevalent, thereby potentially improving the safety of the area. 

The disadvantages of a Friday-night market would be:- 

Stallholders may prefer a day market as opposed to night time to trade; 

Additional security measures may need to be implemented; and 

Patrons such as families may be less willing to visit the markets at night. 

Saturday 10.00am to 2.00pm 

Saturday Markets have been suggested at the times of 10.00am to 2.00pm given previous 

experience of hosting events in Mirrabooka. This experience has shown that the Mirrabooka 

community have preference for events held later in the day (generally after 10.00am). This 

would also be the recommended timing for the Sunday markets. 

Saturday Markets could provide the following key benefits:- 

Being a busy shopping day the markets would benefit from increased customers; 

Could provide flow-on benefits to local retailers; 

Could attract patrons from sport activities at the Herb Graham Recreation Centre; and 

Less likely to have anti-social behaviour issues in the daylight hours. 

The disadvantages of a Saturday market would be:- 

Potential conflict with Mirrabooka Square Shopping and local retailers, particularly if 

food stalls were an aspect of the market; 

292



Car parking conflict given this is the busiest shopping day of the week; 

The provision of shade would be an issue in the summer months and lack of natural 

shade in the locations identified; and 

If held along Sudbury Road, there would be increased implications with regard to traffic 

and bus services from road closure. 

Sunday 10.00am to 2.00pm 

Sunday Markets could provide the following benefits:- 

Could attract patrons from sport activities at the Herb Graham Recreation Centre; 

Less likely to have anti-social behaviour issues in the daylight hours; 

If held along Sudbury Road, road closures would cause less impact to traffic and bus 

services (prior to Sunday Trading commencing at 11.00am) than if held on a Saturday; 

and 

This is the preferred day for the Public Transport Authority. 

The disadvantages of a Sunday Market would be:- 

With the implementation of Sunday Trading, there would be direct competition with 

local retailers and car parking from 11.00am onwards; 

This time could conflict with the attendance of church; and 

The provision of shade would be an issue given the summer months and lack of 

natural shade in the locations identified. 

Market Management 

The City has not made provision to support or promote markets at Mirrabooka in the 

2012/2013 budget. 

The City has been approached by the Nollamara RSL and Rotary Club of Morley. Both are 

experienced in the successful establishment of markets and are likely to respond to a 

potential call for expressions of interest for such a project. 

It is proposed that an Expression of Interest be submitted by parties wishing to establish 

markets in Mirrabooka. 

In order to test the market, the City could call for expressions of interest in establishing and 

operating a market in Mirrabooka. The research contained in this reports suggests a Friday 

evening culturally themed market would have the best opportunity of success. 

Internal Resources 

Several Business Units would be involved in this project from an operational perspective as 

outlined below:- 

Activity Description Lead Business Unit 

Overall 

coordination 

Internal liaising between Business Units and the 

external organising group and the development 

and assessment of the Expressions of Interest. 

Economic Development 

and Urban Regeneration 

Marketing Monthly advert in Stirling Scoop for a eight (8) 

month period. 

Marketing 

293



Parking 

traffic 

and 

Weekly patrol at the site to monitor traffic and 

parking. Note the nominated organisation will 

take responsibility for traffic wardens and be 

required to submit a traffic management plan. 

Community Safety 

Waste 

Management 

Site 

inspection 

Additional collection of waste generated from 

the weekend activity or alternatively nominated 

organisation running the markets are required to 

provide commercial waste collection service as 

part of the waste management plan. 

Regular site inspection to ensure site is left neat 

and tidy with no damage and conduct street 

cleaning (to be at cost of market organiser). 

Waste & Fleet 

Engineering Operations 

It should be noted that the overall coordination and the development and assessment of the 

Expression of Interest would be the responsibility of the Economic Development and Urban 

Regeneration Business Unit. 

Currently the only resource this Business Unit has with the ability to complete such a project 

is a 0.6 FTE position. This is not sufficient resources given other projects of a higher priority 

taking precedence and it would therefore be required to provide additional resources to 

manage the Expression of Interest process that are set out in the Financial Implications 

section of this report. 


The Mirrabooka Square Shopping Centre and the Public Transport Authority have been 

identified as the most likely to be affected with the establishment of a community market. 

The Mirrabooka Square Shopping Centre’s comments are noted in this report. 

With regard to the Sudbury Road site, discussions have occurred with the Public Transport 

Authority who indicated that they would not be supportive of the road closure as it would 

view this as a poor statement from the City on the value of public transport. They did 

however state that if Sudbury Road proved to be the most feasible option for the 

establishment of the markets, they would adhere to the road closures for the duration of the 

markets. The Public Transport Authority’s preferred day would be Sunday as this would least 

disrupt its bus services. 

It would be a requirement that the Mirrabooka Market Management conduct further 

consultation with the local community. In the event Sudbury Road is the chosen site, 

ongoing collaboration with the Public Transport Authority would also be required to minimise 

disruption to the local bus services. 


There may be some implications in relation to National Competition Policy. 

294




Item Description Cost 

Additional 

Resources to seek 

This could be done by appointing a parttime 

officer or appointing an external 

Expressions of consultant to carry out this role for a period 

Interest 

of four (4) to five (5) months. This would 

involve:- 

Write Brief; 

Advertise for Expressions of Interest; 

Circulate brief to interested parties and call 

for proposals; 

Review Proposals; 

Appoint preferred market management 

group; and 

Liaison with appointed market 

management group to develop application. 

Advertisement in the 

Stirling Times 

Facilitation of 

Entertainment 

To call for expressions of interest. $1,027 

Council could consider the facilitation of 

entertainment for the markets. There are a 

number of local community groups who 

could be considered and have provided 

entertainment at community events such 

as Harmony Day. This would come at an 

approximate cost of $500 per market 

event. 

Appointment of a 0.4 

FTE Level 5 Officer for 

a four (4) month period 

– $6,593 plus 

advertising cost of 

approximately $3,000. 

Appointment of a 

consultant at an 

estimated $150 per 

hour for 62 hours 

approximately – 

$9,300 

$12,000 for the full 

season 

If the City were to support establishment and promotion in the market as highlighted in the 

table the estimated cost would be up to $22,327. 


Goal 2: 



Objective 2.1: Position the City as a flagship of sustainable urban local government, 



SI 2.1.2: 

Implement the Mirrabooka Regional Centre Improvement Strategy (MRCIS). 

295





Issue 

Waste generation 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

This project has the potential to generate additional waste. 

As a means to reduce this waste production stall holders 

could be encouraged to utilise biodegradable catering items 

and the messages of plastic bag free markets reinforced, 

potentially with reusable bags branded by the City 

distributed. 

Issue 

Cultural and heritage value 

Health, wellbeing and safety 


SOCIAL 

Comment 

The facilitation of community weekend markets would 

celebrate cultural diversity in the Mirrabooka area. The stalls 

could promote cultural foods, items and crafts which reflect 

the various stall holders and cultural heritage. 

Facilitating community weekend markets in the Mirrabooka 

Regional Centre would activate the local area which would 

result in more people accessing the area. More people in an 

area increases passive surveillance and is a mechanism to 

reduce crime and increases a sense of public safety. 

Weekend community markets would offer the ability to link 

into future services offered by the Library and Community 

Centres in the Mirrabooka Regional Centre and an 

opportunity to promote City services via a direct link to local 

residents. 

Issue 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Dvlpmt of key business sectors The markets would provide economic opportunities by 

encouraging new, small enterprises. 

Business innovation 

The facilitation of weekend community markets offer local 

development benefits which encourage small business 

enterprise due to low set up costs and also multiplier effects 

in attracting people into an area with other commercial 

enterprises. 

Conclusion 

The completion of Stage 1 and 2 of the Mirrabooka Regional Centre Improvement Strategy 

has resulted in a new Town Square, Sudbury Road and streetscape improvements which 

provides the ideal space for community programs. Weekend community markets offer local 

economic opportunities, a mechanism for increasing safety, activating the area and 

celebrating cultural diversity and heritage whilst providing fun, entertainment and a sense of 

place for the local community. 

296



The above research indicates that a Friday night, culturally themed market located at the 

Town Square would be the preferred format for the establishment of a community market in 

Mirrabooka given key stakeholder preference, community feedback and ‘fit for purpose’ 

measure. 

The assessment of identified sites indicates that the Town Square is the best location for the 

establishment of markets; this site however requires an amendment to the Town Planning 

Scheme No.3 which is currently underway. It is proposed to postpone the establishment of a 

market until the 2013/2014 summer period to allow for the amendment to permit the use of 

markets on this site to be completed. 

The City has already received interest from two (2) not-for-profit groups capable of 

establishing markets in Mirrabooka. Expressions of Interests could be called following the 

approval of the required rezoning to seek proponents to establish, operate and manage the 

markets using the criteria outlined above. 

Additional resources to facilitate this proposal would be requested at 2012/2013 Budget 

Review and should Council support this funding request then an Expression of Interest 

process would be commenced with the aim of establishing a community market in 

Mirrabooka for the 2013/2014 summer period. 

297



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM EDUR1 - THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WEEKEND COMMUNITY MARKET AT THE MIRRABOOKA TOWN 

SQUARE 

Attachment 1 - Mirrabooka Regional Centre Improvement Strategy Town Square Multicultural Markets Draft Concept Plan: Creating 

Communities, May 2005 

298

299 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

300 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

301 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

302 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

303 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

304 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

305 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

306 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

307 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

308 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

309 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

310 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

311 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

312 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

313 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

314 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

315 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

316 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

317 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

318 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

319 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

320 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

321 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

322 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

323 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

324 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

325 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

326 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

327 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

328 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

329 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

330 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

331 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

332 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

333 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

334 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

335 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

336 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

337 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012

338 


18 SEPTEMBER 2012



ADMINISTRATION 

10.1/A1 APPROVALS ACTIVITY REPORT AUGUST 2012 


Location: 

Applicant: 

Applicant No.: 



Ward: 




Manager Approvals 

Approvals 



Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0912/044 


That the Approval’s Activity report for the month of August 2012 outlining 

Development Approvals, Survey Strata and Green title Subdivisions, Building Permits 

and Demolition Permits be RECEIVED. 


refers). 

339





Against: Nil. 


That the Approval’s Activity report for the month of August 2012 outlining Development 

Approvals, Survey Strata and Green title Subdivisions, Building Permits and Demolition 

Permits be RECEIVED. 


That the Approval’s Activity report for the month of August 2012 outlining Development 

Approvals, Survey Strata and Green title Subdivisions, Building Permits and Demolition 

Permits 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 August 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 228 Development Approvals with an estimated 

construction value of $46,476,541 in addition to 470 Building Permit Approvals issued with 

an estimated value of $83,522,312. . 

340



Building Permits approved with values over $2 million for the month of August 2012 

were:- 

Certified Building Permits 

B12/1849 House Number 267, Hector Street, Tuart Hill - Grenville Reserve : 

Multi Use Community and Sports Facility $4,895,414 

B12/1488 House Number 2, Tassels Place, Innaloo - Mixed Use Development : 

Commercial Office, Restaurant and Car Park $19,800,000 

Uncertified Building Permits 

Nil. 

Development Approvals determined with values over $2 million for the month of 

August 2012 were:- 

Applications determined by City of Stirling 

Nil. 

Applications determined by Development Assessment Panel (DAP) 

DA12/1251 House Number 240, Balcatta Road, Balcatta - Additions to Office 

$13,000,000 

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. 

341





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. 

342



10.1/A2 

STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 

UPDATE - AUGUST 2012 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 



Director Planning and Development 

Planning and Development Administration 




Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 


















0912/045 


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). 



Against: Nil. 

343




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. 

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. 

344



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. 

Nil. 

Nil. 

Issue 

Issue 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

SOCIAL 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Comment 

Comment 

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 


345



ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.1/A2 - STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – PLANNING 

AND DEVELOPMENT UPDATE – AUGUST 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 

classifications for the 

Respondent: 

development. 

Matter No: 

DR 74 of 

2011 

2. Vespoli v City 


Matter No: 

301 of 2011 

3. LandCorp v 

City of Stirling 

Matter No: 


McLeod’s and 

Allerding and 

Associates for 


Applicant: Gino 

Vespoli and 

Arturo Fazio 

Applicant: 

LandCorp 

Respondent: 

RPS Planning 

for City of 

Stirling 

Meat Lovers Paradise 

(Refusal of change of 

use) 

DA10/2719 - 188 Main 

Street, Osborne Park 

(Office Development) 

29 Silica Road, Carine 

(Carine Tafe site) 

The City is currently awaiting the 

outcome of the hearing. 

At the Directions Hearing on the 

10 August 2012, the applicant 

withdrew their application for a 

review of the City’s decision. 

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 28 September 2012. 

AP 

CP 

4. Foyster v City 


Matter No. 

CC207/2012 

5. The Owners 

of 39 Erindale 

Road v City 


Matter No. 

DR16 of 2012 

6. PS Structures 

Pty Ltd v City 


Matter No. 

DR134 of 

2012 

7. Broadview 

Enterprises v 


Matter No. 


2011 

Applicant: 

Foyster 

Respondent: 


Applicant: The 

Owners of 39 

Erindale Road 

Respondent: 


Applicant: 

Structures 

Respondent: 


Applicant: 

Broadview 

Enterprises 

Respondent: 


PS 

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 

401 Scarborough Beach 

Road, Innaloo. 

Partial change of use 

from Showroom to 

Showroom and Shop. 

Date of directions hearing yet to 

be determined. 

Date of directions hearing yet to 

be determined. 

The applicant has withdrawn 

their application for a review of 

the City’s decision. 

A Directions Hearing was held 

on 4 May 2012 where SAT 

decided to determine the matter 

on the documents. 

SAT has reserved its decision. 

H&C 

H&C 

AP 

AP 

346




8. Taronga 

Nominees 

Applicant: 

Taranga 

16 Foley Street, Balcatta Council resolved, at its meeting 

on the 21 August 2012 to 

AP 

Pty Ltd Nominees Pty Office Development approve the proposed 

v City of Ltd 

development. 


Matter No. 


2012 

Respondent: 


Consequently, the applicant has 

withdrawn their application for a 

review of the City’s decision. 

9. MI 

Constructions 

(WA) Pty Ltd 

v City of 


Matter No. 


2012 

Applicant: MI 

Constructions 

(WA) Pty Ltd 

Respondent: 


5 Panton Crescent, 

Karrinyup 

Retaining wall 

A full hearing was held on the 

August 2012. 

SAT has reserved its decision. 

AP 

10. Dolton Pty 

Ltd 



Matter No. 


2012 

Applicant: 

Dolton Pty Ltd 

Respondent: 


Demolition (Liquorland) 

760 Beaufort Street, 

Mount Lawley 

An on site mediation took place 

on 25 July 2012. 

The SAT has invited the City to 

reconsider its decision, following 

the submission of additional 

information by the applicant to 

the City’s planning consultants. 

AP 

A revised development proposal 

will be considered at the 11 

September 2012 Planning and 

Development Committee. 

11. Scope 

property 

Group Pty Ltd 



Matter No. 


2012 

Applicant: 

Scope property 

Group Pty Ltd 

Respondent: 


Office / Showroom 231 

Balcatta Road, Balcatta. 

A mediation was held on 13 

August 2012. 










AP 

12. Di Pietro v 


Matter 

DR261 

2012 

No. 


Applicant: 

Antonio 

Di Pietro 

Respondent: 


7 Honeymyrtle Turn, 


Removal of footings 

from a front fence 

A Directions hearing was held 

1 August 2012. 

Further mediation hearing 

scheduled for 4 September 

2012. 

H&C 

347




13. Perron Applicant: 43 Yirrigan Drive, A Mediation hearing was held on AP 

Investments Perron 

Mirrabooka 

the 21 August 2012. 

Pty Ltd V Investments Pty 

City of Stirling Ltd 

Matter No. 


Respondent: 

Greg Rowe and 

Associates for 


Removal of conditions 

1-3 from DA11/1982 

(Dan Murphy’s Liquor 

store) 










14. The 

Inglewood 

Community 

Church v City 


Matter No. 


Applicant: The 

Inglewood 

Community 

Church 

Respondent: 


144 Sixth Avenue, 

Inglewood (DA12/1248) 

Demolition of Inglewood 

Community Church. 

A Directions Hearing scheduled 

for 2 October 2012. 

AP 

15. Matter No 

DR278 of 

2012 

Kakulas & 

Ors v City of 


Applicant: 

Kakulas & Ors 

Respondent: 


1 Manning Street, 

Scarborough 

(DA11/3071) 

Application for a review 

of conditions relating to 

cash in lieu of car 

parking. 

A Directions Hearing is 

scheduled for 28 September 

2012. 

AP 

16. Cedar 

Property 

Group v City 


Matter No. 


Applicant: Cedar 

Property Group 

Respondent: 


Demolition of dwelling at 

House Number 149 

Railway Parade, Mount 

Lawley (DA12/1248) 

. 

A Directions Hearing scheduled 

for 5 September 2012. 

AP 

17. Abdel - 

Messih v City 


Matter No. 


Applicant: Mr 

Raouf Abdel- 

Messih 

Respondent: 


77 Manning Street, 

Scarborough 

Installation of decking. 

On site mediation scheduled for 

28 September 2012. 

H&C 

348



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. 

11.1 STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT PROCESS FRAMEWORK TRAINING 

AND IMPLEMENTATION - APPROVAL OF CONTRACT 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 



Asset Manager 

Asset Management 




Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 

















349




0912/046 

Moved Councillor Lagan, seconded Councillor Tyzack 

That the item relating to the Strategic Asset Management Process Framework 

Training and Implementation - Approval of Contract be REFFERED to the Resource 

Management Committee meeting to be held on 25 September 2012 for the 

presentation of a more detailed report showing all associated costings relating to the 

ASSETIC platform. 




Against: Nil. 


1. That Council APPROVE entering into a contract with ACEAM Pty Ltd for the 

development and delivery of training and implementation of Strategic Asset 

Management Process Framework for the total cost of $160,000. 

2. That Council APPROVE the transfer of $80,000 from the consultancy budget (A0267- 

A-3321-0000) of Strategic and Business Planning budgeted for Local Government 

Reform to Asset Management Business Unit external contract services budget 

(A0123-A-3324-0000). 

NB: ABSOLUTE MAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED AT COUNCIL 


To seek approval to enter into a contract of over $100,000 with ACEAM Pty Ltd for the 

development and delivery of training and implementation of a Strategic Asset Management 

Process Framework in accordance with the Department of Local Government Integrated 

Planning and Reporting Framework (IPR) and the Fair Value mandates required by the 

Accounting Standards. 


Attachments 

Nil. 


Proposed Contract with ACEAM. 

350



Background 

All Local Governments are currently required to produce a plan for the future under Section 

5.56(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act). 

The IPR provides the basis for improving the practice of strategic planning in Local 

Government. It addresses the minimum requirements to meet the intent of the Act and 

outlines processes and activities to achieve an integrated strategic plan at the individual 

Local Government level. 

Implementing the IPR addresses two (2) main key Local Government planning processes:- 

Strategic Community Planning and Corporate Business Planning. 

The process through which the Corporate Business Plan is developed incorporates:- 

Activating the Strategic Community Plan; 

Operations Planning – including:- 

o Asset Management; 

o Financial Management; and 

o Workforce Management. 

The City has embraced the requirements set by the IPR and is actively working towards 

achieving Advanced Practices with respect to Asset Management by 30 June 2013. 

Comment 

Data collection and analysis is an integral part of Asset Management. In 2008, the City 

identified the need to undertake economic investment analysis on its infrastructure and 

building assets for the purpose of identifying improvement programs and developing 

optimum maintenance strategies rather than continuing with the traditional methods based 

on a flat annual allocation for asset renewals or the rule of thumb of renewing of assets 

based on age with little or no consideration given to condition, function, capacity or use of 

the asset. 

Sound economic investment analysis can only be carried out within Asset Management 

Systems. This necessitated the City to research available Asset Management Systems 

based on the City’s requirements, whole of life cost, benefits, technical support. Feedback 

was obtained from sites using different Asset Management Systems. The ASSETIC software 

emerged as the most appropriate system for the City's needs. In 2011 TechnologyOne 

entered into a strategic partnership with ASSETIC to deliver a total Asset Management 

package. The TechnologyOne Suite provides majority of the City’s core systems. 

The City acquired the ASSETIC Software in 2010 and expects to generate the following 

outputs:- 

Network modelling and optimised analysis used in the preparation of renewal and 

preventive maintenance programs; 

Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) - 10 year forecast as required by IPR; 

Current network condition with impacts on the costing of levels of service; 

351



Determine the current value and remaining useful life as required for reporting in the 

City’s Financial Statements; and 

Formulate Asset Management Plans with in-house skills. 

Contract Services and not Consultancy Services 

The City’s Corporate Strategic Asset Management System - ASSETIC Software is user 

definable software. It is critical the City develops its Strategic Asset Management 

Frameworks to align with the science and principles underlying ASSETIC. ACEAM is a 

company related to ASSETIC to deliver training as part of ASSETIC implementations. In light 

of this the City is proposing we engage ACEAM to develop and deliver training and 

implementation of Strategic Asset Management Process Framework which includes:- 

Asset componentisation; 

Asset hierarchy structures; 

Level of Service Framework and KPI structure; 

Asset assessment criteria - condition, functionality and Capacity; 

Service Hierarchy definitions; 

Treatment decision matrices; 

Life profiles; 

Degradation models for long term analysis and valuations; and 

Fair Value methodology. 

This approach combines industry expertise with significant specific operational knowledge of 

ASSETIC allowing seamless import into ASSETIC. 

In this process, the focus will be to engage Infrastructure Services Directorate, Finance and 

Asset Management Business Units and facilitate frameworks via training, templates, 

documentation and implementation. The methodology is to transfer knowledge, so that at the 

end of the process the City is self-sustainable in best practice Asset Management. 

The key deliverables of this Contract are:- 

Developing and equipping key Officers in service-centric asset management thinking; 

Developing a total Asset Management framework based on National Asset 

Management Framework core competency requirements; 

Developing service level frameworks and financial modelling that enable long term 

rationalisation of service delivery; 

Supporting long term financial planning as required by the IPR and enable accurate 

reporting of Fair Value; and 

Preparation for the development of Asset Management Plans. 

352



Tender Waiver 

ASSETIC acknowledges ACEAM Pty Ltd Step-Watch program as its preferred program of 

implementation for this framework. It is in the City’s interest that the framework is developed 

around the City’s Corporate Strategic Asset Management System – ASSETIC. ACEAM by 

the nature of their relationship with ASSETIC is a sole supplier for the delivery of training and 

implementation of the Strategic Asset Management Process Framework. ACEAM has 

effectively implemented these Frameworks at over 30 Local Government sites. 

ACEAM’s Training Division is internationally recognised and delivers a specifically tailored 

certified training package in asset management through Bond University in Queensland. 

ACEAM understands the urgent nature of the City’s requirements in this core compliance for 

asset planning and will provide specialized training through its Step-Watch training program 

that has assisted many Council’s in the last 10 years to achieve similar outcomes. 

The City contacted the following four (4) Local Governments based on their demographics 

and relevant ASSETIC implementation projects using ACEAM:- 

Logan City Council – Queensland; 

Casey City Council – Victoria; 

Bankstown City Council - New South Wales; and 

Brimbank City Council - Victoria. 

All four (4) Council’s confirmed ACEAM's commitment to project timelines, quality 

assurance, key personnel used and very good working relationships during and after project 

delivery. 

The reference checks also established ACEAM's performance with respect to being very 

successful in working collaboratively with Local Governments to develop grass-root asset 

management plans, strategies and policies including operational levels of service and long 

term models for service planning all of which fit with the Integrated Planning outcomes and 

highlights best value. 


The Asset Management Business Unit has consulted with the Asset Management Working 

Group and relevant staff from the Infrastructure directorate in order to develop the project 

scope. 


This project is critical to achieving compliance with the following:- 

Local Government Act 1995 by developing strategies and practices for long term 

economic sustainability; and 

Financial accounting standards (AAS116) by revaluation of Roads, Drainage and 

Building Assets based on Fair Value. 

353



The City’s officers understood that ACEAM was available to contract under either the 

WALGA panel contract for Asset Management Consultancy Services and the Department of 

Local Government IPR Consultancy Panel. After ACEAM had commenced this project and 

held the first workshop it was discovered that both panels had expired and were in the 

process of being renewed. 

The fundamental benefit of this project approach enables the grass root development of the 

City of Stirling specific service oriented Strategic Asset Management Framework in line with 

the Asset Management Policy and Strategy. 

Council is required to approve all contacts exceeding $100,000 in accordance with the City’s 

Purchasing Policy and Delegation Register. 

As this is a contract over $100,000 the City’s Internal Auditor is in the process of conducting 

a probity check. 


The $160,000 required for this contact will be funded by $80,000 from the Asset 

Management Business Unit budget and $80,000 from the Strategic and Business Planning 

budget. 


Goal 2: 


SI 2.4.1: 



Ensure Council assets are developed and maintained to an appropriate 

standard to meet community needs. 

Develop a framework for the management of the City’s assets 



Nil. 

Issue 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Comment 

Nil. 

Issue 

SOCIAL 

Comment 

354



Issue 

Transport and infrastructure 

ECONOMIC 

Comment 

Delivery of training and documentation of Strategic Asset 

Management Process will ensure the following:- 

Provision of asset management practices which reflect the 

community’s expectations regarding service levels; and 

Provision and Maintenance of timely and sustainable 


Conclusion 

As a City our approach to Asset Management is to focus on ensuring that our assets are 

capable of providing services, of an agreed quality, in a sustainable manner, for present and 

future communities. This is not merely a matter of spending more money but instead 

spending money wisely in a targeted manner to achieve the service levels that the 

community both needs and can afford. 

ACEAM’s organisational approach to Strategic Asset Management is based on the servicecentric 

asset management philosophy framework which aligns with the City’s approach. 

ACEAM’s strength lies in its ability to deliver Strategic Asset Management Services through 

its Step-Watch Program which has also been embraced by Bond University to incorporate 

into a Graduate Certificate in Asset Management. 

The City is recommending that Council approves a contract of $160,000 for the development 

and delivery of training and implementation of Strategic Asset Management Process as 

required by the Department of Local Government IPR and the Fair Value mandates required 

by the Accounting Standards. 

355



At 7.48pm the Manager Asset Management and the Coordinator Asset retired from the 

meeting prior to consideration of Item 12. 

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 

12.1 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR SARGENT - REPORT ON HOW THE 

USE OF NON RECYCLABLE PLASTIC BAGS WITHIN THE CITY CAN BE 

REDUCED 

Councillor Sargent submitted the following notice of motion prior to the Council meeting held 

18 September 2012:- 

“That a report be PROVIDED to Council on how the use of non recyclable plastic bags within 

the City can be reduced.” 


Location: 

Applicant: 



Ward: 

Suburb: 








Definition 

Advocacy 

Executive 

Legislative 


Information 

Purposes 

















356




0912/047 

Moved Councillor Sargent, seconded Councillor Proud 

That a report be SUBMITTED to the Planning and Development Committee Meeting to 

be held in February 2013 on the status of State and Local Government legislation 

regarding the use of non recyclable plastic bags and how the use of non recyclable 

plastic bags within the City could be reduced. 




Against: Nil. 

Reason for Alternative Recommendation 

To allow staff time to carry out research, await the outcome of the City of Fremantle's Local 

Law and produce a report on the matter. 

Notice of Motion Recommendation (refer Alternative Recommendation page 

359) 

That a report be PROVIDED to Council on how the use of non recyclable plastic bags within 

the City can be reduced. 


To respond to the Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Sargent requesting a report on 

how the use of non recyclable plastic bags within the City can be reduced. 


Attachments 

Nil. 


Nil. 

Background 

Plastic bags are currently popular with consumers and retailers as a way to transport food 

and other products. After use, plastic bags end up in landfill, as litter in the environment or 

are recycled. Once plastic bags enter the environment, they can create visual pollution 

problems and can have harmful effects on aquatic and terrestrial animals. 

In Western Australia, there have been recent proposals at both the State and Local 

Government levels aiming to reduce the effect of plastic bags on the environment. In March 

2012, the West Australian State Government considered a proposed Plastic Shopping Bags 

(Waste Avoidance) Bill 2010 that aimed to restrict the supply of single use shopping bags. 

This proposed legislation was not passed by the State Government. 

357



Conversely, the City of Fremantle has pursued establishing a local law, the Plastic Bag 

Reduction Local Law 2012. This was considered on 25 July 2012 and was approved for 

public advertising which closes on 10 October 2012. The City of Fremantle identified several 

financial, legal, operational and organisation risks and implications in relation to this 

proposal. 

Comment 

The City is aware of the effect that plastic bags can pose to the environment and is 

supportive of efforts to reduce plastic bag consumption in the community. There are several 

ways that this could be achieved through community education and potential regulatory 

approaches to behaviour change. 

In regards to community education, the City of Stirling is currently delivering waste education 

workshops at schools, community events, TAFE and community centres. These workshops 

focus on raising awareness on the issues related to plastic bags in landfill and the 

environment. The City is also delivering fun activities in schools where students are 

encouraged to bring lunches to school without plastic packaging. These approaches are 

assisting residents to reduce plastic bag consumption and increase the recycling of plastic 

bags after use. 

Currently there is no State Government legislation that restricts the supply of single use 

plastic shopping bags. The City does not have direct control over the supply of single use 

plastic shopping bags and efforts by other Local Governments are as yet unproven. 

It is important to note that currently it is unclear whether Local Governments have the 

authority or ability to implement local laws that regulate plastic bag use. 

Resource Implications 

The Sustainability Team has limited staff resources and does not have the immediate 

capacity to action any new projects at the present time. It is estimated that it would take the 

Sustainability Team three (3) weeks to research the issue in more depth and produce a 

more detailed report as requested by the Notice of Motion. 


Goal 4: 

To foster the use of alliances and partnerships committed to achieving 

sustainable economic benefits and enhanced expertise to benefit the 

community. 


SI 4.1.2: 

Actively build and expand the City's relationship with local, State and 

Commonwealth Governments and the private sector and positively seek to 

align strategic objectives. 

Provide industry leadership in waste management strategies and 

initiatives, and influence the development of legislation in Western 

Australia. 

358



Conclusion 

Time spent researching this area would impact directly on core functions and strategic 

activities approved in the City’s Strategic Plan 2009/12. The Sustainability Team does not 

currently have the immediate capacity to research the plastic bag issue in more depth to 

provide a more detailed report or to commence the process of considering the formation of a 

local law to regulate plastic bag consumption. A further report on that matter including any 

progress made on State and Local Government legislation could be provided to the Planning 

and Development Committee meeting to be held in February 2013. 

Suggested Alternative Recommendation 

That a report be SUBMITTED to the Planning and Development Committee Meeting to 

be held in February 2013 on the status of State and Local Government legislation 

regarding the use of non recyclable plastic bags and how the use of non recyclable 

plastic bags within the City could be reduced. 

Reason for Alternative Recommendation 

To allow staff time to carry out research, await the outcome of the City of Fremantle's Local 

Law and produce a report on the matter. 

359



13. NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT MEETING 

13.1 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR ROBBINS - TO CONSIDER THE 

FEASIBILITY OF ALLOWING THE SHOP OWNERS/OPERATORS FACING 

THE SECTION OF THE ESPLANADE SCARBOROUGH, TO 

TEMPORARILY CLOSE OFF THAT SECTION OF THE ROAD FOR 

WEEKEND PERIODS TO ENABLE EXTENSION OF ALFRESCO TRADING 

IN THE CLOSED SECTION OF ROAD 

Councillor Robbins submitted the following notice of motion at the Council meeting held 

18 September 2012 for consideration at the next meeting of Council:- 

"That a report be PROVIDED to enable Council to CONSIDER the feasibility, prior to the 

implementation of the SEAS Masterplan, of allowing the shop owners/operators facing the 

section of the Esplanade Scarborough, between the south entrance to the north lower car 

park and Manning Street, to temporary close off that section of the road for weekend periods 

(that being Friday 3.00pm to Monday 9.00am) during the Summer months December 

through to February) to enable extension of alfresco trading in the closed section of road." 

13.2 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR ROBBINS - TO INVESTIGATE THE 

FEASIBILITY OF OFFERING THE MAUREEN GRIERSON CENTRE AS A 

MOBILE POLICE STATION DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS 



"That a report be PROVIDED to Council investigating the feasibility of offering the Maureen 

Grierson Centre as a mobile police station during the Summer months." 

13.3 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR ROBBINS - TO INVESTIGATE THE 

OPPORTUNITY FOR THE USE OF THE ROOF OF THE MAUREEN 

GRIERSON CENTRE FOR BUSKERS AND ARTISTS TO PRACTISE THEIR 

CRAFTS 



"That a report be PROVIDED to Council to investigate the opportunity for the use of the roof 

of the Maureen Grierson Centre for buskers and artists to practise their crafts." 

360



14. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 

Nil. 

15. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE 

Nil. 

16. MATTERS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 

Nil. 

17. CLOSURE 

The Presiding Member declared the meeting closed at 7.50pm. 

These minutes were confirmed at a meeting on …………………………………… 

SIGNED this day of 2012 

as a true record of proceedings. 

_________________________ 

PRESIDING MEMBER 

361

minutes - City of Stirling

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?