minutes - City of Stirling

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL
18 SEPTEMBER 2012
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.
Policy and Legislative Implications
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.
Financial Implications
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.
193