minutes - City of Stirling
minutes - City of Stirling
minutes - City of Stirling
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL<br />
18 SEPTEMBER 2012<br />
Submission<br />
Number<br />
Submission Details<br />
Officer's Comment<br />
If the activities <strong>of</strong> the proposed home<br />
business result in a nuisance being caused<br />
in the locality, or if the home business<br />
operates in a manner other than that with<br />
which it was approved, the <strong>City</strong> may<br />
rescind the approval pursuant to Clause<br />
8.3.2 <strong>of</strong> LPS3.<br />
The proposed development has been<br />
categorised correctly as a Home Business,<br />
in accordance with the land use definitions<br />
provided in the <strong>City</strong>’s Local Planning<br />
Scheme No.3.<br />
2<br />
The proposed use has been categorised<br />
incorrectly and should be considered a<br />
Consulting Rooms, which is an “X” use<br />
within a Residential zone.<br />
The proposed land use is incompatible<br />
with the subject locality, which is entirely<br />
Residential (apart from Yelo and Soda<br />
cafes). The incompatibility would be<br />
evident due to the erection <strong>of</strong> advertising<br />
signage on the site, increased traffic<br />
volumes, and damage to the <strong>City</strong>’s road<br />
reserves as clients would use the verge<br />
for manoeuvring.<br />
There are already 6 established<br />
chiropractic centres within the<br />
surrounding area (Karrinyup, North<br />
Beach and Beach Road) – there is<br />
clearly no need for additional chiropractic<br />
services in the area.<br />
Approval <strong>of</strong> this proposal would result in<br />
additional traffic movements along West<br />
Coast Drive. As this road already carries<br />
a high volume <strong>of</strong> traffic, it is<br />
inappropriate for the approval <strong>of</strong> a<br />
development which would result in<br />
additional vehicle trips.<br />
The site does not have an adequate<br />
manoeuvring area to enable vehicles to<br />
enter the street in forward gear.<br />
Approval <strong>of</strong> this application would act as<br />
a precedent for other inappropriate land<br />
uses.<br />
Commercial viability and business<br />
competition are not valid planning<br />
considerations.<br />
If the activities <strong>of</strong> the proposed home<br />
business results in a nuisance being<br />
caused in the locality, or if the home<br />
business operates in a manner other than<br />
that with which it was approved, the <strong>City</strong><br />
may rescind the approval pursuant to<br />
Clause 8.3.2 <strong>of</strong> LPS3. The proposed<br />
signage, parking, and number <strong>of</strong> clients are<br />
all in accordance with the requirements <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>City</strong>’s Local Planning Policy 2.4.<br />
Under the Local Planning Policy 2.4.<br />
a home business is permitted to attract up<br />
to eight (8) customers a day. The proposed<br />
businesses will attract a maximum <strong>of</strong> five<br />
(5) customers per day and therefore<br />
complies with the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Policy.<br />
The additional traffic as a result <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposal is unlikely to be any more evident<br />
than visitors to a residential dwelling.<br />
Additionally, in considering the subject site<br />
is located on West Coast Drive, any<br />
additional vehicles to the site are unlikely to<br />
have an adverse impact upon the amenity<br />
<strong>of</strong> this locality due to the high volume <strong>of</strong><br />
traffic which West Coast Drive already<br />
carries.<br />
It is proposed that any customer’s vehicles<br />
visiting the site will park on the applicant’s<br />
property and not on the verge or within the<br />
street. The existing parking on the site has<br />
been constructed in accordance with the<br />
historical approvals, therefore<br />
notwithstanding the current requirement <strong>of</strong><br />
the R-Codes to provide a manoeuvring<br />
area for vehicles entering a District<br />
Distributor Road in forward gear, this is not<br />
something which can be retrospectively<br />
enforced.<br />
243