DS 20052014 MIN AT - City of Armadale · 2020. 5. 11. · CITY OF ARMADALE MINUTES OF DEVELOPMENT...

CITY OF ARMADALE

MINUTES OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM, ADMINISTRATION CENTRE, 7 ORCHARD AVENUE, ARMADALE ON TUESDAY, 20 MAY 2014 AT 7:00 PM. PRESENT: Cr C M Wielinga (Chair)

Cr C A Campbell JP Cr M Geary Cr J H Munn JP CMC Cr M H Norman Cr H A Zelones JP Cr J A Stewart (Deputy for Cr Shaw)

APOLOGIES: Cr D M Shaw (Leave of Absence) OBSERVERS: Cr C Frost IN ATTENDANCE: Mr I MacRae Executive Director Development Services

Mr P Sanders Executive Manager Planning Services Mr G Dine A/Health Services Manager Mr N Gundry A/Building Services Manager Mrs N Cranfield Executive Assistant

PUBLIC: 26 “For details of Councillor Membership on this Committee, please refer to the City’s website – www.armadale.wa.gov.au/your council/councillors.”

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014

DISCLAIMER The Disclaimer for protecting Councillors and staff from liability of information and advice given at Committee meetings was read. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS Nil. QUESTION TIME 1. Mr R Baker – 29 Arania Place, Bedfordale In regards to the report re the Place of Worship, Lot 81 Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale, the report notes that Council has the ability to control the opening hours down to four hours each week, my question is, does the Council have the authority to control both noise from the Place of Worship as well as the number of persons attending the venue? Chair referred the question to the Executive Director Development Services. The Executive Director Development Services advised that noise issues were controlled by the Environmental Protection Noise Regulations (clarification of this was provided by the Manager Health Services below) and that the number of persons in attendance was controlled by planning conditions applied to the proposed development. The Executive Director Development Services also advised that Council has the authority to instigate appropriate legal action in respect to non-compliance issues. The A/Health Services Manager further advised that Noise from Place of Worship is classified as Community Noise under the Noise Regulation and is therefore generally exempted from prescribed standard for noise. However, the Chief Executive Officer has authority under Regulation 16 of the (Noise Regulation) to impose conditions on any application or premises if a type of community noise has, or is likely to have, a detrimental effect on the neighbouring community. 2. Ms N Baker – 29 Arania Place, Bedfordale In regards to the report re the Place of Worship, Lot 81 Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale, in regards to the options if the proposed development gets conditional approval, one of the conditions is to move the Place of Worship and to the change the lot size of the subdivision so it has less of a noise impact and therefore would no longer need to have an earth mound or masonry wall. Will there be a new application or will the Council pre-approve an application that is going to have radical changes? In regards to the acoustic measurements, in what areas were the measurements taken from? Chair referred the question to the Executive Director Development Services.


The Executive Director Development Services advised that there will be a revised site plan illustrating an amendment to the disposition of the car parking areas and lot design to meet the recommended separation distances between the activity and the closest residence. The acoustic consultant advised that acoustic barriers would not be necessary if a separation distance of 23m could be achieved from the proposed car park to any boundary. Noise would be mitigated by distance as opposed to walls and it too would not detrimentally affect the amenity of the area. The main issues raised in the submissions would be addressed and the application would meet the current requirements of the Scheme. The Executive Director Development Services advised that the matter “in what areas were the acoustic measurements were taken from” would be taken on notice (Mr Dykstra subsequently provided the advice concerning the method of undertaking the noise study during his Deputation). 3. Ms M Laurence – 310 Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale In regards to the report re the Place of Worship, Lot 81 Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale, this development is proposed to be erected next door to my property. Given that the number of existing Bedfordale residences who have objected to the application exceeds by approximately 4 to 1 those who are in favour of it and given that Council serves the Bedfordale community, would Council consider encouraging the applicant to seek a site for its Church in a community where it would support this development proposal? Will the residents have another opportunity to address the new proposal? Chair referred the question to the Executive Director Development Services. The Executive Director Development Services advised that if the objections could be satisfactorily addressed then Council could argue that these concerns are no longer a concern with the proposed development. It is entirely up to the landowner to submit an application for a proposal on a piece of land which the Council is bound to consider. It is not for the Council to propose alternative sites but has to deal with the specific application as submitted. The proposal before the Committee is the amended proposal which has been provided in response to community submissions. It is not proposed that the revised application be readvertised. 4. Ms V Read – 55 Dmietrieff Rd, Bedfordale (formerly of 9 Wallangarra Dr North) In regards to the report re the proposed subdivision and sale of portions of Lot 108 Springfield Road, Bedfordale, considering the overwhelming support of the members of the Bedfordale Residents Association at last year’s AGM when this proposal was first presented with the retention of the area as it is, why is Council considering this proposal given that the City’s plan for the future was mentioned in the attachment of the Agenda which partly states that “to provide and promote Council sport, recreation and leisure facilities; maintain and improve where required the quality, amenity and accessibility of open spaces; develop, implement and report on Council’s strategic and business plans; and actively pursue alternative sources of revenue for Council’s assets and operation”, are the latter two initiatives more important to Council when the overwhelming responses from the residents in that area was to retain as reserve?


Chair referred the question to the Executive Director Development Services. The Executive Director Development Services advised that there is a fairly extensive report, where the City has had a programme for the past 12 years to make sure that the City more fully utilises its assets particularly public open space assets. Where the POS is under-utilised the City is considering a better use for and to procure funds from a list of requirements so that our POS elsewhere can be improved and better provided to the community. In this regard, it has been concluded that the pony club would be better provisioned elsewhere, as has happened, and the balance of the lot is to be used to provide funds to improve other places within the locality and where the local community is benefitting. There is also an opportunity for the community to comment on the proposal and on how/where the City spends the funds. The City needs to go through this process to enable the City to make these steps. On balance, what is proposed seems to be of benefit to the community. MOVED Cr Munn That public question time be extended MOTION CARRIED 5. Ms V Read – 55 Dmietrieff Rd, Bedfordale (formerly of 9 Wallangarra Dr North) I understand that 70% of the funds derived through these land sales will be invested into recreation upgrades to parks in Bedfordale Precinct M area, I don’t consider that to be within the locality of the lot where the proposal is? The Executive Director Development Services advised that the extremities of the localities are unlikely to be subject to any open space improvement. The likely option for the expenditure is where existing POS and facilities exists. The community may suggest that new recreation facility be provided such at the Bedfordale Hall. Chair advised that there would be further public consultation in regards to this proposal. 6. Ms R Rendell – 36 Wallangarra Drive, Bedfordale In regards to the report re the proposed subdivision and sale of portions of Lot 108 Springfield Road, Bedfordale, when Council is assessing where this money can be used better, is it deemed in terms of the location of the population because there is not much population in Bedfordale. If the land is not currently open space can it be zoned open space because this is what it has been used as for several years. I feel that the understanding is that this money will not be used for any facilities in this area. How does the Council assess why the money would be better spent somewhere else? Chair referred the question to the Executive Director Development Services. The Executive Director Development Services advised that it was uncertain at this time where the funds would be spent within Precinct M and this would be determined after canvassing community views. However, the likelihood would be that the funds would be expended within existing reserves in the locality - this effectively excludes areas on the fringes of the precinct.


7. Landowner – 9 Waterwheel Road, Bedfordale In regards to the report re the Place of Worship, Lot 81 Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale, how will the Council monitor the number of tenants and compliance with the nominated times of the meetings? The Executive Director Development Services advised that the City has the authority to instigate appropriate legal action in respect to non-compliance issues. The City’s Compliance officers would investigate any written complaints from nearby residents. 8. Ms E Wallis – 27 Arania Place, Bedfordale In regards to the report re the Place of Worship, Lot 81 Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale, specifically TPS No.4 Amendment No.69, what level of regard does the Council have to this Amendment which stated that there be no Place of Worship in Special Residential zones? The Executive Director Development Services advised that the situation with an Amendment that has been proposed is that it does not actually become part of the Scheme until the WAPC and the Minister for Planning on the recommendation from the Commission approves the Amendment, and then it is subsequently gazetted. At this stage the Council has only proposed this change. An Application received by the City in the interim period has to be dealt with on the merits of the case at the time. While the City takes into account the proposed Amendment we have to consider the application as though it was approvable because the current Town Planning Scheme provisions have it as an approvable use. DEPUTATION – 7.15pm Proposed Development Application - Place of Worship - Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale - Mr Henry Dykstra, Manager of Planning & Projects Harley Dykstra Planning Mr Henry Dykstra (Harley Dykstra Planning) addressed the Committee at 7.26pm. Mr Dykstra thanked Committee for the opportunity to provide further assurance that the proposed Place of Worship by this particular religious group has a proven track record within the City of Armadale of being an unnoticeable neighbour. Being a good neighbour is very important to this particular group and this is the third application for a similar proposal within the City of Armadale. Mr Dykstra provided the following comments in support of the proposed development - The religious group associated with this proposed place of worship has maintained

various Places of Worship within the City of Armadale for many years. Their search for a suitable Place of Worship in Bedfordale to provide for their Bedfordale local group was done with careful consideration. Quite a number of sites were looked at including sites within the Churchman Brook Estate itself and prior consultation with City representatives and also with ourselves as the local town planners.


Ultimately this particular site in Churchman Brook Road was chosen and was purchased by the group because it is located outside of any estate, it also has a frontage to a major road, is somewhat larger than other Special Residential lots in the area and it is in close proximity to the homes of the local members that will be attending this facility;

In purchasing the site the landowners and applicants do understand that there is a possibility that a planning approval for a Place of Worship could be declined and they accept this responsibility. One possibility that neither they nor I were aware of was that Council would soon be considering a proposed Amendment to the Special Residential zoning table. This is something that only became apparent to us a month after the application was lodged;

During and following the public advertising of the proposal this particular group has

always been open to meetings and discussions with neighbours and other community members to provide further information and address concerns where possible. The Schedule of Submissions has been responded to carefully and respectfully to each concern that has been raised by the community. We have also modified the scale of the proposal and various design aspects to further reduce any negligible impact that this use may have. The proponents are intent to own their particular premises to serve only their one local group of no more than 30 persons and only for two relatively short gatherings per week. Parking and driveway locations have been modified so that it complies with the recommendation and the independent acoustic report.

The nature of worship activity during the two gatherings per week is a very peaceful and

very subdued activity. It does not involve any amplified speaking or any musical instruments. The Sunday morning gathering is for communion and the Monday evening gathering is a prayer meeting only. The larger church services themselves are held in the larger meeting hall in Seville Grove.

The experience of neighbours associated with the two other Places of Worship that I have

been involved with is that the reaction from the community in those cases was initially somewhat cautious, perhaps a little bit apprehensive of the unknown, but in both of those cases when once approved and once operating the response from the community members was very supportive even to say that they did not realise that the activity had commenced.

In regards to the Omnibus Amendment, this application was lodged at the end of the

advertising period of the Omnibus Amendment and at Council’s last meeting the Omnibus Amendment was recommended for final approval and is now being assessed by the WAPC and ultimately it will go through to the Minister for Planning. The Omnibus Amendment included a list of changes throughout different parts of the Town Planning Scheme and until such changes are finally accepted by the Minister and Gazetted, Council is still working under its current Scheme in its current form. Obviously Council may have regard to various proposals under that Omnibus Amendment for making decisions but Council is certainly not bound by the Omnibus Amendment. It is not yet known whether all of the proposals in that Amendment will be accepted by the WAPC and the Minister for Planning nor is the timeframe of the Amendment known at this stage.


Mr Dykstra concluded with a request to the Committee to consider the application against the current provisions of the Town Planning Scheme, and for this reason I request on behalf of the owners that a decision be made on this proposal at this month’s meeting if possible. CHAIR thanked Mr Dykstra for his presentation. Deputation retired at 7:48pm. At the request of the Committee and in regards to questions received from the public, Mr Dykstra subsequently provided advice concerning the method of undertaking the noise study - The Acoustic Reports are undertaken by Acoustic Modelling;

The Acoustic Engineer is provided with information regarding the land, the surrounds of the land, topography and vegetation etc.

The Acoustic Engineer then visits the site and then they do there modelling based on the information received.

The acoustic modelling device throws out a type of noise plume which is tested from various angles on the site.

This process will provide information in regards to boundaries, setbacks, location of car park, types of fencing etc to achieve compliance.

Mr Dykstra further advised that the Environmental Noise Assessment recommended that the driveway and car park be relocated. The assessment indicated that in order to avoid noise walls, a distance of 23m from any boundary to the car park would need to be maintained.


CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES RECOMMEND

Minutes of the Development Services Committee Meeting held on 23 April 2014 be confirmed.

Moved Cr J H Munn MOTION CARRIED (7/0) ITEMS REFERRED FROM INFORMATION BULLETIN - ISSUE 8 / 2014

Outstanding Matters & Information Items Report on Outstanding Matters - Development Services Committee Health Health Services Manager’s Report - April 2014 Planning Planning Applications Report - April 2014 Town Planning Scheme No.4 - Amendment Action Table Subdivision Applications - WAPC Approvals/Refusals - April 2014 Subdivision Applications - Report on Lots Registered for 2013/2014 PAW Closure Report - Significant Actions during April 2014 Compliance Officer’s Report - April 2014 Building Building Services Manager’s Report - April 2014 Building/Health Compliance Report - April 2014 Building Applications Monthly Statistics - April 2014 Committee noted the information and no further items were raised for discussion and/or further report purposes.

CONTENTS

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

20 MAY 2014

1. HEALTH

1.1 DRAFT PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING PLAN .............................................................. 53

2. DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PLACE OF WORSHIP - LOT 81 CHURCHMAN BROOK RD, BEDFORDALE ....................... 10

3. PAW CLOSURE/ROW CLOSURE 3.1 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY (PAW) BETWEEN LOTS 719 & 2 URANA RD,

ARMADALE .................................................................................................................................. 59

4. STRATEGIC PLANNING 4.1 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND SALE OF PORTIONS OF LOT 108

SPRINGFIELD ROAD, BEDFORDALE ...................................................................................... 38

5. MISCELLANEOUS 5.1 **LOCAL LAW REVIEW - REMOVAL OF REFUSE, RUBBISH AND DISUSED

MATERIALS .................................................................................................................................. 70

5.2 PLANNING INSTITUTE AUSTRALIA WA STATE CONFERENCE - 25 JULY 2014 ................................................................................................................................. 73

6. COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS 6.1 CR WIELINGA - URBAN FOREST STRATEGY ........................................................................ 77

7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT 7.1 PLANNING COMPLIANCE – UNAUTHORISED COMMERCIAL VEHICLE

PARKING - LOT 360 (166) WESTFIELD ROAD, KELMSCOTT ............................................. 78

7.2 PROGRESS REPORT ON KEANE ROAD DEDICATED ROAD RESERVE, FORRESTDALE - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR COMPLETION OF SEALED ROAD ............................................................................................ 79

7.3 REFERRAL OF MRS AMENDMENT PROPOSAL FOR PRIVATE LOTS IN ANSTEY, ARMADALE AND KEANE ROADS FORRESTDALE - WAPC REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY COMMENT ............................................................................ 81

SUMMARY OF “A” ATTACHMENTS ...................................................................................................... 83

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 10 20 MAY 2014 COMMITTEE – Development COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 2014


2.1 - PLACE OF WORSHIP - LOT 81 (296) CHURCHMAN BROOK ROAD, BEDFORDALE WARD

: JARRAH In Brief: The City received an application for a

‘Place of Worship’ in January 2014. The proposal was advertised for two (2)

weeks to 35 surrounding residents. A total of 138 submissions were received including 113 objections, twenty 20 letters of support and five (5) letters of conditional support/comments.

A Noise Impact Assessment Report submitted by the applicant demonstrates that the noise from the church associated activities can be mitigated if additional actions are undertaken.

There is an issue of incompatibility with Amendment No.69, which has been finally adopted by Council, but not by the WAPC / Minister.

Recommend Council approve the proposed development subject to appropriate conditions.

Committee additionally recommended that Council refuse the application for Planning Approval for a Place of Worship on Lot 81 (296) Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale.

FILE No.

: M/159/14

APPLN NO.

: 10.2014.24.1

DATE

: 15 May 2014

REF

: EP / PRR

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: EDDS

APPLICANT

: Harley Dykstra Planning

LANDOWNER

: Bend-Tech Investment P/L

SUBJECT LAND

: Property size 5000sqm

ZONING MRS / TPS No.4

: :

Rural Special Residential

Tabled Items

Nil

Officer Interest Declaration

Nil

Strategic Implications

2.3 Diverse and attractive development that is integrated with the distinctive character of the City.

Legislation Implications

Planning and Development Act 2005 Town Planning Scheme (TPS) No.4 Local Planning Strategy 2003 Metropolitan Region Scheme Environmental Protection Act 1986 Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997


Council Policy/Local Law Implications

City’s Fencing Local Law 2011 Budget/Financial Implications

Nil

Consultation

Development Control Unit Surrounding Landowners Council’s Health Department BACKGROUND The City received an application for a “Place of Worship” on the subject site in January 2014, which is presently an ‘A’ (discretionary) land use requiring public advertising within Town Planning Scheme (TPS) No.4. The application originally proposed the following (which has since been updated and those additional details are outlined under the ‘Details of Proposal’ section of this report): The construction of a church building (on the western most lot of the three lot subdivision

proposed for Lot 81 Churchman Brook Road) as a purpose built facility, but in a manner that will allow it to be converted to a residential dwelling should the ‘Armadale Gospel Trust’ decide that the facility is no longer required for their intended purpose;

The building will be located central to the lot and will be adequately set back from the neighbouring lot boundaries with parking at the front of the building, but not encroaching on the 40m wide landscaping buffer proposed for the front portion of the lot;

Strategic landscape buffers will be planted along the northern and eastern boundaries to mitigate sound and visual impact on the adjoining residential lots;

Additional landscaping will also be provided around the proposed building; A 40m (30/10m) ‘screen fence’ to the north of the proposed building, internal to the lot; The architectural design of the building will be such that its outward appearance and scale

will resemble a residential building; A sealed driveway and parking area, which was to include 25 vehicle parking bays to

service the development; This ‘Place of Worship’ was originally proposed to accommodate between 30 - 40 persons

during weekly services which would have occurred every Sunday morning; Additional gatherings on Sunday afternoons were originally proposed to accommodate a

total of 80 to 100 people, occurring approximately 6-8 times per year; The duration of all services will be between 1 and 2 hours, and church attendees will leave

the premises shortly after the completion of each service; and 80 - 100 people were proposed to use the premises on Friday evenings from 7.30pm -

8.30pm approximately 12 -15 times per year. As a result of advertising the above to the public and the submissions of objections received from the surrounding landowners during the advertising period, the applicant has proposed to substantially scale down the activities of the development in terms of attendance capacity, number of parking bays, days/times of operation and length of service times.


DETAILS OF PROPOSAL The revised application as submitted on 14 April 2014 proposed the following alterations to the details outlined previously: The proposal will accommodate a maximum of 30 – 40 persons; Meeting times will be Sunday between 6:00am and 7:15am and Monday evenings

between 6:00pm and 8:00pm; and Reduction in the number of car parking bays at the front of the building to 13 (11 bays in

front of the building and 2 under a carport) in line with the reduction to total attendees. In addition to the above, an Environmental Noise Assessment was submitted on 7 May 2014, which recommended the following: The construction of a physical noise barrier (masonry wall) to the east of the proposed

building to achieve compliance with the Environmental Protection Act / Noise Regulations;

If a Masonry wall is not considered suitable, a double layered colorbond fence (possibly with brushwood attached for screening purposes) or an earth bund would also be appropriate;

These alternatives could only be used if the driveway and car park are relocated internal to the site so they sit more centrally, increasing distance to neighbouring properties; and

The use of 6mm glazing for all windows on the building. Revisions to the Noise Assessment were received 15 May 2014. The revisions indicated that in order to avoid noise walls, a distance of 23m from any boundary to the car park would need to be maintained. COMMENT Health Services Health Services advised that a commercial Treatment System Application would need to be approved by the City and Health WA. The Environmental Protection Noise Regulations were also discussed and whilst there would be some exemptions applicable, some likelihood of some impact on the amenity of the area would result. Public Advertising The application was advertised for two weeks, closing on 28 February 2014. Advertising was carried out by way of letters to affected and nearby landowners, a sign on site and details being available on the City’s website and at the front counter. Total No. of letters sent to residents/owners : 35 Total No. of submissions received : 138 No. of submissions of conditional support/no objection : 25 No. of submissions of objection : 113


The main issues raised in submissions, together with comments and responses on each issue are outlined below. Key Issues Issue 1 – Omnibus Amendment Recently adopted omnibus amendment recommended that ‘Place of Worship’ be made an “X” use within the “Special Residential” zone. This indicates that the Council has already agreed that this use is detrimental to the ‘Rural Feel’ of this zone. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: Although Council has adopted the amendment, there is no certainty that it will be

finalised in its current form and there is no clear timeframe for its finalisation; This Development Application was lodged prior to Council’s final adoption of the

Omnibus Scheme Amendment, so the application can be assessed having due regard for the amendment, but also having regard for the current Town Planning Scheme provisions and policies;

In response to the public interest, the application has now been scaled back (refer to above) and can be restricted to this scale of use and to this particular group only by way of conditions on the Planning Approval;

This small scale of meeting activity is not a place of worship in the full sense of the word, and it is doubtful that Council was seeking to exclude this type of activity scale when considering the Omnibus Scheme Amendment. The actual worship services of this group are held in a larger meeting place located in the urban area of Armadale.

The primary motivation for Council to contemplate on such an amendment was not related to retaining the “rural feel”, as Council has retained the discretion for such a use to occur within the Rural Living zone (which occurs immediately adjoining and surrounding the Hills Special Residential zones).

Response/Recommendation The applicant is not entirely accurate in their assertions. Within the Rural Living zone, lots are larger and as such, there is a higher probability of greater separation between land uses. Generally speaking, greater separation and space makes it possible for proposed developments to meet minimum requirements, address issues such as the impact the development may have on the amenity of the surrounding area and ensure the maintenance of the enjoyment of that amenity by surrounding land owners and the public and as such, preserve the “rural feel” of the area. The scaled back details certainly assists this proposal to reduce the impacts it will generate, however impacts are not eliminated entirely and the City and Council are required to have regard for Amendment No.69. This issue is addressed in detail later in the report. The issue is supported in part.


Issue 2 – Zone Objectives Encouraging these types of non-residential uses is contrary to the objectives of the ‘Special Residential’ zone as stated in the TPS No.4. The proposed use is incompatible and out of character within the ‘Special Residential’ (semi - rural residential) zoning and will detract from the amenity of the area. This use will impact on the peace and tranquillity which currently exists within this locality. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: As this particular proposal represents a relatively small Place of Worship (i.e. a 100m2

maximum sized meeting hall) located on a 5000m2 lot that only has frontage to Churchman Brook Road, there will be no detrimental impact on the enjoyment of residents and maintenance of ecological and landscape values.

Given that the lot is not located within an estate as such, this small scale proposal will not be incompatible with achieving integrated and harmonious character within each of the estates.

Given the small scale and incidental nature of this particular land use activity, it is arguable that this activity will offer a higher degree of peace and tranquillity on the subject land, in comparison to the establishment of a family home and associated domestic activities (e.g. outdoor family activity, daily domestic vehicle movements, domestic shed/workshop activity, domestic social functions/parties, etc.).

Response/Recommendation The objectives of the Special Residential zone are to be read in conjunction with the Use Class Table for that zone. The current TPS No.4 Use Class Table does provide discretion for approval of a ‘Place of Worship’ within this zone, however Proposal 5 within Amendment No.69 proposes to change that, which is addressed in detail later in the report. Regardless of Amendment No.69, the City is required to consider the potential impact of the proposal on the amenity of the locality via Clause 10.2 of TPS No.4. Through a residential style building, reduced attendance numbers, reduced operating times, additional noise attenuation measures, screen fencing and landscaping, the applicant has argued that the impacts the proposed development will generate on the surrounding area are managed in such a way as to be negligible. The City is of the view that there will still be an impact on the amenity of the area and that the impact is primarily visual, with further discussion on the proposed use of screen and acoustic fencing outlined later in the report. In turn, the City believes that the visual impact would compromise the zoning objectives, which is of concern in terms of the consideration of this proposal. The issue is supported.


Issue 3 – Traffic Impact/Volume Contrary to the applicant’s argument that the traffic impact would be less than a residential use, the influx of 100 cars at the same time for church activity will have a far more detrimental impact in terms of traffic obstruction. This narrow road with no footpaths lined by ditch/drains and trees is shared by rubbish trucks, school buses, cows, kangaroos, horse riders, motor bikes and general motoring public. Further traffic increase in large numbers will introduce a more hazardous situation. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: The issue identified in this submission is based upon incorrect information. Upon reviewing the scale of the application it should be noted that any worship service/meeting would now attract approximately 8 - 10 cars. Utilising the same property for the purpose of a single dwelling would result in approximately 10 vehicle movements per day, and the numbers would increase if other uses were added to the dwelling, such as a home business and/or ancillary accommodation. Response/Recommendation The additional traffic generated by the amended proposal is limited and would not compromise the level of service the surrounding road network is designed to provide. The issue is not supported. Issue 4 – Parking Do not believe that 25 parking bays will be sufficient to cater for a maximum of 100 congregations. A large number of vehicles arriving and departing at the same time will create traffic conflict with the surrounding residential traffic given that Churchman Brook Road is the only access route to this site. Churchman Brook Road being a narrow road lined with trees attempting to park on the verge by patrons would potentially create a traffic hazard. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: In addition to the matters already discussed under Issue No.3 above, the revised provision of 11 car bays (including 1 disabled bay) for this size of meeting place is in accordance with the Local Scheme/Policy requirements. Regarding the parking issue, the venue will only accommodate 40 persons and therefore we have provided parking for 40 people as opposed to a 100m² meeting hall. Further, we are happy for a condition to be included on an approval that limits the amount of people using the venue to 40 people. Therefore as it will be limited to this number there is no need for (the originally proposed) 25 parking bays and as a result 10 plus 1 disabled bay will be sufficient, particularly when it is considered that the families attending these meetings are larger than average and generally travel to the venue in one car, or even in one case by walking.


Response/Recommendation Schedule 11A of TPS No.4 requires 1 space for every 2.5m² seating area, plus 1 space for every staff member present in peak operation. The proposed 11 bays equate to 27.5m² floor space, or the equivalent of 0.69m² per person for a maximum capacity gathering of 40 persons, which appears inadequate at face value. To look at it another way, each car would have to carry at least three people and some would need to carry 4, or people would have to walk, and this assumes a car has the right to park in the proposed disabled bay. The City notes the applicant did not include the two bays under the curtilage of the carport in their count, (presumably for staff) which brings the total number of bays provided to 13, however it is apparent that the proposed parking arrangement generally has to be considered a minor variation to the applicable standard and not fully compliant as the applicant states. As there is room on site to accommodate additional parking (formal or informal), the variation is seen as one that could be granted. The issue is not supported. Issue 5 – Danger to local wild life The wild life (flora and Fauna) in the area such as echidnas, kangaroos, Red Tail Cockatoos and bobtails are already at risk by the current amount of traffic. Mother Kangaroos use Churchman Brook Road and Canns Road to walk their young. Increasing traffic to cater for this type of activity would increase the danger to wild life. The traffic volume driving past and increased number of people visiting will also have an adverse impact on the Heritage listed ‘Settlers Common’. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: As already identified in the response to Issue 3 above, this proposal will not result in a significant increase of traffic volumes when compared with the development of the lot for normal residential purposes. Further, the majority of the activity and vehicle movements will be during daylight hours, at which time the risk of traffic and wildlife conflict is significantly lower. Response/Recommendation The additional traffic generated by the amended proposal is limited and would not represent a significantly greater risk than the traffic being generated by the nearby residential areas. The issue is not supported.


Issue 6 – Noise Residents in Special Residential zones choose such locations for its quiet and peaceful nature. Building a church, which starts operating from early hours of the morning till late night with music and services held late at night will disrupt and compromise the very life style the resident’s desire and pay for in these types of peaceful localities. As the applicant feels the need to establish measures to reduce the noise impact, it clearly demonstrates that noise will be an issue. Place of Worship being exempt from Noise Regulation is a major concern in this instance as the neighbours will not have a right to complain. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: The religious group associated with this proposed place of worship have maintained various places of worship within the City of Armadale for approximately 40 years. During this time they have continuously held 6.00am meetings and have never received a noise complaint from any of the surrounding neighbours at any of the meeting places. They are very conscious of the fact that their meetings are early in the morning, and as a result, try their utmost to ensure that noise is kept to an absolute minimum. Additionally, there will be no playing of musical instruments or amplification of voices during any of the meetings held at the proposed place of worship, including during the 6.00am meeting. Further, there will be no late night services held at the premises. In terms of traffic impact, many of the people that will use this place of worship live in the Bedfordale Hills area, and therefore, if it is refused they will be travelling to other places of worship within the City of Armadale, using Churchman Brook Road to get there. Therefore, there will be no additional traffic impact as a result of any approval. Please also note that the adjoining lot 2 will accommodate a residential dwelling occupied by a member of this organisation, as indicated earlier. It should also be noted that these meetings at this particular time are a religious requirement for the group, and therefore the start time is non-negotiable. Response/Recommendation The applicant’s response was provided prior to the submission of an Environmental Noise Assessment. The assessment is reviewed in detail later in the report, however in short, the report acknowledges there are potential noise impacts and outlines they can be adequately dealt with via mitigation measures. The appropriateness of such measures is reviewed later in the report. The issue is supported in part.


Issue 7 – Visual Impact Constructing colorbond fencing on this property would impact on the rural feel of the estate (estate covenants preclude such fencing) and be detrimental to the open rural/residential type lifestyle of the residents. Visually unappealing screened fencing is a major concern within this zone, which will be ignored in this instance. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: Construction of screen fencing well within the boundaries of the property, as courtyard style fencing, is not uncommon within Special Residential areas. In terms of visual impact the construction of an internal courtyard style colorbond fence is far less visually apparent than the construction of a standard sized colorbond shed or garage. There are no covenants on this particular lot that preclude the construction of an internal courtyard style screen fence. Response/Recommendation This is an issue the City has spent some considerable time on over the years since development of these Special Residential areas commenced. The City’s Fencing Local Law stipulates a requirement for open style, rural fencing for all lots to maintain an “open” feel to the area, without solid fences breaking up the landscape. However, this is at odds with the need to screen drying areas, or people’s desire for privacy when utilising areas such as alfresco spaces, so the City has pragmatically accepted and approved applications for small sections of solid screen fencing immediately adjacent to such areas. The development plan shows a section of screen fencing 30m long, with a return of 10m representing a length considerably longer than the City would normally consider appropriate. In addition, the Environmental Noise Assessment recommends a 2m high masonry fence along the eastern boundary, from the northern edge of the 40m vegetation buffer to the proposed screen fencing behind the proposed building, which represents a distance of approximately 45m (noting that this would be to address the “worst case scenario” of a dwelling on the proposed lot next door being within 20m of the boundary). The report notes that a 6m long Colorbond fence would be required adjacent to the western end of the car park to achieve compliance should the land to the west ever be developed for Special Residential purposes. Whilst the noise component is discussed later in the report, the issue here is that what was to be another visually open, Special Residential lot much like those around it will be surrounded on two sides by solid fencing. Discounting the “what if” scenario to the west (as a 6m length is relatively similar to those “privacy screens” the City has accepted in the past), the fencing proposed to the north and east at 40m and 45m is not comparable to the small sections of screen fencing the City has given permission for on other lots as the applicant claims. The objective of the Special Residential zone talks about a “rural setting”, “maintenance of landscape values” and “an integrated and harmonious character”. The open style fencing requirement of the City’s Fencing Local Law supports those objectives. The City’s officers believe screen fencing / masonry walls are at odds with maintaining that objective. It is acknowledged the Noise Assessment provides alternatives and these are considered later in the report. The issue is supported in part.


Issue 8 – Hours of Operation Administering church hours, times and attendance capacity is a difficult task. As such the potential increase of activities and numbers will have an increasing detrimental impact on the surrounding residents. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: The times of worship services and meetings would not go beyond that stipulated in the application, and if necessary the planning approval could stipulate the requirement prohibiting services and meetings outside of particular agreed hours. This level of commitment and control offers surrounding residents with a far greater peace of mind than normal residential/domestic use of the property, where night time domestic activities and social gatherings can take place at any time and at all hours of the night. Response/Recommendation The City concurs with the applicant’s statement. Conditions are regularly imposed on planning approvals to address operating hours and are statutorily enforceable. The issue is not supported. Issue 9 – Property Value Concern is raised that this type of non-residential activity will de-value the properties within the special residential zones, which are residents’ life investments. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: There is no evidence to support the idea that a low scale occasional land use activity such as proposed would have any detrimental impact on land values within Special Residential zones. Land values within Special Residential zones also take into account the Town Planning Scheme Provisions for that zone, and the Scheme Provisions provide for a Place of Worship as a discretionary Land Use. Notwithstanding this, it is also noteworthy that this particular development is being designed to assume a built form that has the appearance and scale of a normal residential dwelling. Response/Recommendation There is no evidence to support this claim and the issue is not a matter that can be considered as part of development application assessment. The issue is not supported.


Issue 10 – Lifestyle The main reasons for choosing to build and live in this area is for the tranquil and peaceful life style, less noise, less traffic and less pollution. Residents in Bedfordale are willing to drive long distances and work remotely or commute a long way because of the serenity of the area. It is a natural bush setting with minimal residential infrastructure. Establishment of developments of this nature compromises such life style and resident expectations that the residents have worked hard all their lives to achieve. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: The clarifications and corrections detailed in the responses to Issues 1-8 above show that this proposal is not at odds with the local resident aspirations of a peaceful lifestyle, less noise, less traffic and less pollution. Response/Recommendation The City does not entirely agree with the applicant’s statement. There is less impact as a result of the amended proposal in comparison to the original proposal, but there is still an impact which should be considered. The City may use different terms such as ‘amenity’ and ‘objectives of the zone’, but the meaning is similar. The submission is correct in its assertion that the lifestyle in the City’s Special Residential zones is different to a standard residential environment where the proposed use is regularly found. Noise and visual impact, which can have a negative effect on lifestyle, are addressed further later in the report and as stated previously for Issues 1, 2, 6 and 7, the City does not entirely agree with the applicant’s point of view. The issue is supported in part. Issue 11 – Emergency Exit Churchman Brook estate comprises only of two entrance/exit points. Evacuation of a congregation of 100 people in an emergency situation (bush fire) may pose a problem and a danger to all involved. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: The subject land is not located within the Churchman Brook Estate, but rather is located along Churchman Brook Road. Accordingly, there are more than 2 choices in the case of exiting the locality. Further, the number of congregation members is significantly less than has been claimed in the submission, and it is noteworthy that for the majority of the time the premises will not (be occupied). Response/Recommendation The City concurs with the applicant’s statement. The proposal has been revised from the figures quoted and there are multiple directions of travel available in the event of an emergency. The issue is not supported.


Issue 12 – Establishing Precedent Approval of this type of semi-commercial development will set a precedent to encourage similar type of uses in the future detrimental to rural character of this area. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: This proposal does not represent a semi-commercial development, but rather is a community based activity that is discretionary within the Special Residential zone of this area. There is no issue of precedent as Council has the right and responsibility to consider each application on its own merits, having due regard to the scale and potential impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. Approval of a small development of a particular kind does not establish a precedent or expectation that a larger development of the same or different kind may also be approved. Response/Recommendation The applicant is correct in that each application is considered on its merits and precedent only exists where the circumstances of applications are very similar. The issue is not supported. Issue 13 – Sewerage As we are on septics and/or biomax systems we believe the extra waste from this property will adversely affect the groundwater and catchment runoff into Churchman Brook Dam and the creek in the area. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: The subject land is almost twice the size of the most common Special Residential lot size within the Churchman Brook Estate and surrounding Special Residential areas, and yet will only accommodate a 100m2 meeting hall that will be used only 1 hour at a time twice per week. Unlike a residential dwelling, this use will not involve showering and laundry functions. The Health Department will need to approve the onsite system and will require it to be of a suitable capacity and standard. The submission has incorrectly assumed that the property lies within the catchment of the Churchman Brook Dam. Response/Recommendation The applicant is correct in that a separate application for approval of an effluent disposal system will need to be made to the Department of Health WA. The issue is not supported.


Issue 14 – Exclusive Organisation Armadale Gospel Trust (a.k.a. Plymouth Brethren) are an exclusive organisation who close ranks against outsiders which contradict the meaning of a church. They do not assimilate with the neighbours/community and will not provide any benefit to the surrounding neighbourhood or the Bedfordale community. This will be a direct threat to all our young children in Bedfordale. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: The doctrines and practices of a church group are not a town planning consideration. The activity on the land and its impact on the surrounding area is a planning consideration. The suggestion that this church group will be a direct threat to all the young children in Bedfordale is extremely hurtful. Response/Recommendation The City concurs with the applicant’s statements. The issue is not supported. Issue 15 – Specific Events All specific events dates and times of the activities are not detailed in the application. This uncertainty leaves open the possibility that the facility may be used at unsuitable times. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: This particular facility is not a church building in the traditional sense of the word, but is a smaller facility that will host 2 small meetings (30 - 40 persons) a week. Any other special events such as weddings and funerals etc. will be held in the larger district facility located within the municipality. Response/Recommendation As described in response to Issue 8, conditions are regularly imposed on planning approvals to address operating hours and are statutorily enforceable. The issue is not supported.


Issue 16 – Security Wherever there is a building which is infrequently used, there is an increased risk of crime occurring such as vandalism, theft etc. An empty car park would be an invitation to hoons to have burnouts, donuts etc. What measures would the Trust take to ensure this does not happen? Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: The premises will be secured in a similar fashion to other residential properties within the Bedfordale area, and the property will be appropriately fenced and gated and locked. The car park itself will be relatively discreet and will be separated from the road by a 40m wide landscaped buffer. Further, one of the families within the congregation is currently in the process of establishing a family home on the adjoining property, which will further improve security and surveillance. Response/Recommendation Such measures would be adequate to address this issue. However the City notes there is an inconsistency here with the Environmental Noise Assessment, which indicates that it is “understood that access to the car park will remain unhindered (i.e. no gate)” (page 3). The Noise Report outlines this understanding in order to technically exempt noise from vehicle engines from assessment, but ultimately considered such noise anyway, so it should not make a difference from the point of view of the Noise Report if the driveway is gated. The issue is not supported. Issue 17 – Future Use of Second Vacant Lot We are extremely concerned about what could be proposed for the vacant lot of land (assuming the subdivision occurs) next to the proposed church. What restrictions would be put in place for future developments? Will the church be allowed to build residential unit for the church purpose. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: The adjoining vacant lot within the subdivision will be used for a family home (refer to Response 16 above). Response/Recommendation The issue is noted. Such would be subject to a separate application and approval.


Issue 18 – Additional Use The current land is one lot which already contains a house, pool and outbuildings. As the proposed new lot has not yet been created a proposal cannot be assessed against a planned future but the current situation. The Town Planning Scheme No.4 does not allow a second dwelling on this lot. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: This application does not propose a second dwelling on the lot. Notwithstanding this, it is the intention for the subdivision to be implemented (resulting in the creation of three (3) lots) and the Place of Worship would occur on its own separate title. Response/Recommendation The City concurs with the applicant’s statements. The issue is not supported. Issue 19 – Lighting Concerned about the outdoor lighting burning at night and its impact on surrounding residences. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: Outdoor lighting is not proposed to be any different than a normal residential dwelling within the neighbourhood. Response/Recommendation If the application was approved, the City would impose a standard advice note, noting the development would have to comply with Australian Standard 4282-1997 “Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting” (or its equivalent) and the City’s Environment, Animals and Nuisance Local Laws. The issue is supported in part. Issue 20 – Do Not Need More Similar Churches There are a number of Gospel (similar) churches within the City of Armadale. Being a shift worker who regularly drives past one of such churches (cnr Patterson and Canns Roads) on a Sunday morning I have witnessed the number of cars driving in and out of the church before 6:00am in the morning. Do not think we need more similar churches of this nature in Armadale. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: This is a subjective opinion that is not supported by any planning considerations.


Response/Recommendation The proposed land use is one that can be considered via the development application process. The issue is not supported. Issue 21 – Vandalism The property being unattended during most of the day and night will be an attraction to vandalism and burglaries. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: Refer to the response to issue 16, which details security measures similar to that of a normal residential dwelling. Response/Recommendation The issue is not supported. Issue 22 – Disturb Sleep As an employee in the retail sector working 6 days a week early morning start of church activity on a Sunday will disturb the only day of ‘sleep in’. Comment The applicant has provided the following comments in response: Refer to the response to Issue 6, where noise management is detailed. Response/Recommendation The submitted Environmental Noise Assessment acknowledges there are potential noise impacts and outlines they can be adequately dealt with via mitigation measures. The appropriateness of such measures is reviewed later in the report. The issue is supported in part. ANALYSIS Proposal 5 of Amendment No.69 to TPS No.4 – Omnibus Amendment No.4 Initiated at the Council meeting of September 2013, the above omnibus amendment to TPS No.4 included Proposal 5 to modify the permissibility of a ‘Place of Worship’ in the Special Residential zone from ‘A’ (discretionary) to ‘X’ (not permitted). The following explanation was provided in justifying such proposal:

“‘Place of Worship’ is defined as “means premises used for religious activities such as a church, chapel, mosque, synagogue or temple”. The objectives of the Special Residential zone under Clause 4.2.2 of TPS No.4 are as follows: (a) to provide for low density residential development in a rural setting, in which natural

environmental values are conserved as far as possible for the enjoyment of residents as well as the maintenance of ecological and landscape values”.


(b) to ensure development is sited and designed to achieve an integrated and harmonious character within each of the estates.

When considering the broad objectives of the Special Residential zone at the initiation stage of this amendment, it was difficult to justify the retention and permissibility of the land use ‘Place of Worship’ in this zone. The Special Residential zoned areas/estates of the City are well established and consist of predominately low density residential development. It should also be noted that there has been minimal intrusion of non-residential development in such areas to date. This is the main point of distinction when compared to other zones, such as “Residential”, “Rural Living” and “General Rural”, which already contain a mix of compatible non-residential land uses and are further supported by an additional TPS No.4 objective as follows: “to provide for a range of associated compatible activities and development…”.

In addition, the main issues associated with Place of Worship including increased traffic and noise (particularly on weekends and outside of normal business operating hours) were seen as sturdy grounds to prohibit this activity from occurring in the future.

Notwithstanding the above, it is now acknowledged that there may be unforeseen instances where such issues could be mitigated and the activity conducted without any adverse impacts on the amenity of residents within the Special Residential zone. Retaining the use as “D” (discretionary) use under TPS No.4 still affords Council the ability to consider an application on its individual merits and/or refuse any application that is deemed to pose adverse impacts on the local amenity”.

After advertising of Amendment No.69, the City recommended Council reconsider its position on Proposal 5, which would have left ‘Place of Worship’ as a discretionary land use within the zone. This was discussed at length and the following was recorded in the Minutes:

“Committee discussed Proposal 5 of the Omnibus Amendment and the proposed change after the advertising period to delete a portion of Proposal 5. Committee further discussed the requirements of the Special Residential zone, the officer’s original report which included a proposal to prohibit Place of Worship within the Special Residential zone. When considering the objectives of the zone, general lot sizes, the established residential nature, quiet and peaceful environment and the residents expectations living in a special residential area, establishment of such a land use may be inappropriate within this zone. Such uses also require parking areas etc. that generate issues such as traffic and noise, which makes it an inappropriate use within this zone”. MOVED “That Proposal 5 be modified to what was previously advertised “Modify the permissibility of ‘Place of Worship’ in the Special Residential zone from ‘A’ (discretionary) to ‘X’ (not permitted) and in the Strategic Regional Centre Zone from ‘X’ to ‘D’ (discretionary).” MOTION CARRIED


Amendment No.69, inclusive of the original Proposal 5 to make ‘Place of Worship’ an ‘X’ (not permitted) land use was adopted to be forwarded to the WAPC for Minister’s approval in March 2014 (D11/3/14). Town Planning Scheme (TPS) No.4 The property is zoned ‘Special Residential’ under the City’s TPS No.4 and ‘Rural’ under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. The proposed “Place of Worship” is presently a discretionary ‘A’ use, meaning the use is not permitted unless the City has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval after giving special notice in accordance with clause 9.4 under TPS No.4. In assessing the current application for development, the City and Council are required to have regard for Amendment No.69, as Clause 10.2(b) of Town Planning Scheme No.4 states: “The City in considering an application for planning approval is to have due regard to such of the following matters as are in the opinion of the City relevant to the use or development the subject of the application — (b) the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any relevant proposed new town planning scheme or amendment, or region scheme or amendment, which has been granted consent for public submissions to be sought;”. As Amendment No.69 has completed public advertising, been adopted by Council and is due to be returned to the WAPC for final consideration, the changes proposed within are relevant to the current application. If the amendment proposal is approved, then Place of Worship would become an ‘X’ not permitted land use in the proposed location, which is Council’s publically advertised and adopted position. As this is clearly the intent, whether approval should be granted in those circumstances is an issue that should be considered. Amendment No.69 mentioned that there has been “minimal intrusion of non-residential development” within Special Residential zoned areas, and this refers to two non-residential uses that exist at present, and one other considered likely to occur. They are very specific land uses planned from the outset of the respective Special Residential estates, being the local shop proposed to service the Churchman Brook estate, the Araluen Golf Club within the Araluen Estate, and potentially, the future holiday accommodation associated with the Araluen Golf Club. Proposal 5 of Amendment No.69 was put forward in that context, as the Special Residential zone is largely intact in respect of being primarily residential in nature, and it is noted this application will introduce a further non-residential land use if approved. Noise and Mitigation Measures The applicant has submitted an Environmental Noise Assessment prepared by Lloyd George Acoustics to address the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. There are several key aspects the Noise Assessment addresses, and these can be summarised as follows: Regulation 3 – Access to the car park will remain unhindered by a gate, and as such, the

driveway and car park fall under the definition of a road and noise from vehicles engines technically does not need to be assessed. Nevertheless, the noise from slow moving vehicles has been considered. Car doors must be considered irrespective of this clause. (Refer to the City’s response to Issue 16 earlier in the report);


Regulation 16 – Schedule 2 defines ‘exempt noise’, which includes reference to noise

emitted from an assembly convened solely for the purpose of divine worship. As such, all noise within the building may be considered exempt. However the City requested comment on this issue regardless and an acceptable noise level can be achieved by utilising 6mm glazing to all windows;

The ‘worst case’ scenario would be if a dwelling was constructed on the proposed lot to the east of the subject site (once subdivided) within 20m of the boundary;

If that was the case a 2m high masonry wall would need to be constructed along the eastern boundary starting from the 40m revegetation area up to the proposed screen fencing at the rear of the building (approximately 45m);

If masonry is not practicable or acceptable, then alternatives have been considered. The Report is inclusive of an annotated copy of the development plan showing modifications to the driveway and car park that would mean a 1.8m double layered Colorbond fence (with any gaps sealed) or an earth bund of the same height may be used as a compliant alternative;

The residence on the proposed adjacent lot to the east of the subject site should be located as far north-east as practicable; and,

The City requested consideration of the land to the west as well, to address a “what if” scenario of that land also being developed for Special Residential purposes. Levels at the nearest point on that boundary are predicted to exceed the assigned level such that noise control would be necessary to achieve compliance if future development occurs. A sufficient control measure would be to construct a 1.8m earth bund or Colorbond type fence next to the western most parking bay (labelled No.6 in the plan marked by Lloyd George Acoustics) and running its full length (approximately 6m).

The objectives of the ‘Special Residential’ zone (Clause 4.2.2) are as follows: “To provide for low density residential development in a rural setting, in which natural

environmental values are conserved as far as possible for the enjoyment of residents as well as the maintenance of ecological and landscape values.

To ensure development is sited and designed to achieve an integrated and harmonious character within each of the estates”.

In addition to the objectives of the zone, among other issues outlined by Clause 10.2 of TPS No.4, the City is obliged to consider “the preservation of the amenity of the locality”. Amenity is defined by TPS No.4 as “all those factors which combine to form the character of an area and include the present and likely future amenity”. Noise is a part of that, and though there are exemptions that may be applicable under the Regulations, even if that is the case, noise can still be considered to negatively impact an individual’s enjoyment of the amenity of the area. As such, the City asked that the Noise Assessment consider those factors regardless, and the Assessment demonstrates compliance can be achieved with the Regulations if a wall, fence or bund (or plural of that should the land to the west be rezoned) is constructed. The applicant has indicated the owners are happy to have those requirements imposed as conditions of any Planning Approval issued. However, what this does raise is the issue discussed earlier under Issue 7 – Visual Impact. The landscape values of the Special Residential zone are important, as stipulated within the zoning objectives. The City’s Fencing Local Law requires open style rural fencing within the zone in order to maintain those landscape values.


Applications for privacy screens on individual special residential properties are limited as far as is possible to the area they relate to, such as an alfresco, swimming pool or clothes drying area. In that context, even with the reduced numbers, this application is requesting 40m of screen fencing to the north of the proposed building and 45m of acoustic fencing to the east of the proposed building (worst case). It is difficult to argue that the screen and acoustic fencing meet the zoning objectives in their entirety. The proposed expanses of fencing do not in the City’s opinion ensure the “maintenance of… landscape values”, or development being “sited and designed to achieve an integrated and harmonious character”. The need for these fences points more to the proposed land use being inappropriate for the zone, or at least inappropriate for the size of lot the proposal relates to. The applicant argues that the screen fence would be “less visually apparent than the construction of a standard sized colorbond shed or garage”. The difference is that residents move to that area expecting to be allowed to have a larger shed (in comparison to a residential zone). They do not move there expecting lots to be able to be largely fenced in. It is the City’s opinion that the proposed development cannot be located on proposed Lot 1 and the open landscape value within the Special Residential zone maintained at the same time. The development does not achieve an integrated and harmonious character with the surrounding estate as it needs walls in order to comply, while other properties do not. Even the earth bund, whilst not fencing per se, would create a visual barrier contrary to the zone objectives, though in the City’s opinion if an option had to be chosen the bund (appropriately landscaped) would have the greatest potential to fit with the surrounding character of the area. Alternative Option As the attachments to this report show, a subdivision has been considered and approved on the subject site to create three (3) lots. It is on ‘proposed Lot 1’ that the current application is situated.

To date, the subdivision has not been acted on. It is worth mentioning that if the subject lot were larger, with increased separation distances to surrounding residences, then there would be no need for screen fencing or acoustic barriers to address noise and so there would be no related visual impact or inconsistency with the zone objectives. Noise would be mitigated by distance as opposed to walls and it too would not detrimentally affect the amenity of the area. The main issues raised in the submissions would be addressed and the application would meet the current requirements of the Scheme.

This scenario was put to the applicant, who in consultation with the acoustic consultant, advised that acoustic barriers would not be necessary if a separation distance of 23m could be achieved from the proposed car park to any boundary. The applicant advised that this could be achieved in one of two ways, modify the car park shape, and/or modify the location of the subdivision boundary between proposed Lots 1 and 2.

The applicant further advised that on speaking with the owners/proponents, the preference would be to have a condition imposed along the following lines; “A revised site plan is to be submitted, depicting the car-parking area set back from the side boundaries of the (proposed) lot in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the Acoustic report prepared by Lloyd George Acoustics, to achieve compliance with the Noise Regulations without requiring additional acoustic barriers”.


The City has reviewed this suggestion and notes that proposed Lot 1 is 45m wide at the rear and 53m wide at the front. A distance 23m from either boundary excludes 46m width, which leaves a limited area for an amended car park. Therefore, if this option is to be pursued it appears the most realistic alternative is to review the lot layout to create the required space. In doing so, the City notes that Provision 11.3 of Development (Structure Planning) Area No.11 requires any lot fronting Churchman Brook Road to have a minimum area of 5000m². OPTIONS

Option 1 – Council may conditionally approve the proposal for a Place of Worship at Lot 81 (296) Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale if it is satisfied the resultant visual impact will not be detrimental to the amenity of the area, and complies with the Scheme.

Option 2 – Council may refuse the application if it is satisfied the proposal for a Place of Worship at Lot 81 (296) Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale, will result in a detrimental visual impact on the amenity of the area therefore will not meet the objectives of the zone, noting that this determination also reflects its position in respect of Proposal 5 within Amendment No.69.

Option 3 – Council may conditionally approve the proposal for a Place of Worship at Lot 81 (296) Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale on the basis that the lot size is increased to a point where no solid fencing is required (to be confirmed by an acoustic consultant). This would ensure the maintenance of the objectives of the zone by ensuring there is no visual impact, and would mean noise would not significantly affect the amenity of the area.

CONCLUSION

The proposed land use is currently discretionary within the Special Residential zone. Council has publically advertised (via Amendment No.69) its intent to change that land use to not permitted.

The public advertising of the development application yielded a number of submissions of objection, some of which have raised valid issues of concern relating to the objectives of the zone and the preservation of the amenity of the area. The applicant has designed the building to appear residential and has scaled back the proposed attendance numbers and operating times in an attempt to minimise potential adverse impacts.

The Environmental Noise Assessment indicates acoustic fencing should be utilised despite the reduced capacity and the owners are committed to providing such, however the City considers the proposed screen and acoustic fencing and the alternatives proposed (colorbond or an earth bund) have the potential for a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area.

Without any of those measures, noise will still have the potential to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding area and therefore, the objectives of the Special Residential zone are not met by the proposal. As presently proposed, the development should not be supported. However, given the applicant / owner’s willingness to consider revisiting the overall layout for the proposed lots / development that would result in the issues of concern being addressed, the proposal could be supported in that context. As such, Option 3 is recommended.


ATTACHMENTS 1. Subdivision Plan - Scan 1 - 81 Churchman Brook Rd, Bedfordale2. Site Plan - Scan 2 - 81 Churchman Brook Rd, Bedfordale 3. Floor Plan - Scan 3 - 81 Churchman Brook Rd, Bedfordale 4. Elevation Plan - Scan 4 - 81 Churchman Brook Rd, Bedfordale 5. Elevation Plan - Scan 5 - 81 Churchman Brook Rd, Bedfordale 6. Development Site Plan - Scan 6 - 81 Churchman Brook Rd, Bedfordale 7. Confidential - Submitter Plan - Lot 81 Churchman Brook Rd, Bedfordale - This matter is

considered to be confidential under Section 5.23(2) (b) of the Local Government Act, as the matter relates to the personal affairs of a person

Officer’s Recommendation – That Council: A) Approve the application for Planning Approval for a Place of Worship on Lot 81 (296)

Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the submission of a Building Permit, revised plans shall be submitted to and

approved by the City’s Planning Services department, in-accordance with Clause 10.8 of the City's Town Planning Scheme No.4, that modify the proposal by: a) Removing the proposed screen fencing north of the proposed building and the

proposed acoustic fencing east of the proposed building; b) Relocating the development within a larger lot of adequate size that noise mitigation

measures are not necessary, which has been confirmed as a 23m separation between the car park and any boundary by an acoustic consultant; and

c) Ensuring Provision 11.3 of Schedule 12 – Development (Structure Planning) Areas which requires a minimum lot size of 5000m² for any lot abutting Churchman Brook Road is met.

2. The Place of Worship shall be limited to a maximum capacity of 40 persons to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

3. Operating hours shall be limited to Sunday between 6:00a.m. and 8:00a.m. and Monday evenings between 6:00p.m. and 8:00p.m. to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

4. The development shall include 6mm glazing to all windows, which shall be maintained thereafter, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

5. The building shall be constructed in-accordance with Australian Standard 3959 – Construction of Buildings in Bush Fire Prone Areas (or superseding standard) and the approved Fire Management Plan.

6. A schedule of external colours and materials shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Services department and approved by the Executive Director Development Services. The development shall be completed and maintained in accordance with the approved schedule to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

7. External colours and materials shall be in keeping with the surrounding character/amenity of the locality and maintained to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

8. No building or structure shall use zincalume, galvanised or unpainted steel surfaces as an exterior finish.

9. To meet drainage requirements the developer/owner shall submit a stormwater management plan incorporating water sensitive design principles for approval and implement the approved plan thereafter to the specifications and satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

10. A landscape plan to enhance screening of the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved by the Executive Director Development Services. Such plan shall include:

a) Plant species (predominantly West Australian natives); b) Numbers, location, container size;


c) Method of irrigation of the landscaped areas; d) Revegetation of the 40m landscape buffer as deemed appropriate by the City; e) The provision of shade trees within the car park at the rates of at least 1 tree per 10

metre interval along any line of car parking; and f) Retention of existing trees, as does not conflict with the requirements of the approved

Fire Management Plan. All landscaping shall be installed prior to occupancy of the development and maintained as per the approved plan thereafter.

11. All vehicle manoeuvring spaces shall be constructed, sealed, kerbed and drained in accordance with the approved site plan to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services and continuously maintained thereafter. Relocation/removal of any services/infrastructure will be at the cost of the developer.

12. No materials shall be stored in car parking areas. 13. ‘End of trip bicycle facilities’ in accordance with Clause 5.12.1 and Schedule 11.B of Town

Planning Scheme No.4 shall be provided prior to occupation of the development in a location agreed to by the City and continuously maintained thereafter.

14. All Conditions shall be complied with prior to exercising the right of this approval. B) That, in addition to standard advice notes, the applicant be advised:

1. A separate application is required for all signs associated with the development. 2. Compliance with the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992 is required. In this regard,

a Public Building application shall be submitted to the City’s Health Department and approved prior to occupation of the proposed building.

3. The applicant will be required to submit an Effluent Treatment System Application to the City’s Health Services Department which is available on the City’s website: www.armadale.wa.gov.au/Home/Services_and_Facilities/Health

4. Compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 is required. 5. Lighting shall comply with Australian Standard 4282-1997 “Control of the obtrusive effects

of outdoor lighting” or its equivalent and the City’s Environment, Animals and Nuisance Local Laws.

6. With regard to Condition requiring construction in-accordance with AS3959, it is highly recommended that ember protection screens be installed to any evaporative air conditioning unit. Further information can be obtained at: http://www.dfes.wa.gov.au

7. The owner is advised that compliance with the approved Fire Management Plan for the area is required. A copy of the Fire Management Plan should have been provided to you by the developer at the time of purchase, however a copy can be obtained from the City at no charge.

8. With regard to Condition requiring submission of a colour and material schedule, it is expected that the colour and material schedule will be submitted and approved prior to the submission of a Building Permit Application.

9. With regard to Condition requiring a Landscape Plan, please refer to the City’s Landscaping Guidelines – (Screening and/or Grouped Dwellings and/or Industrial and Commercial) and the Landscaping Guidelines – Plants to Avoid, to assist you to formulate a satisfactory landscaping proposal. Copies of these documents are available on the City’s website at: www.armadale.wa.gov.au/publications/

10. With regard to Condition regarding vehicle manoeuvring spaces, the City’s Technical Services Directorate should be contacted in order that the appropriate crossover application may be made.

C) That the submitters be advised of the Council’s decision.

Committee considered the Officer’s Recommendation in the context of the recent support by Council of Amendment No.69 which sought the exclusion of such uses from the Special Residential zone, although it was recognised that the amendment may not receive Ministerial support. It was considered that the amenity of such zones was contrary to Places of Worship. Committee noted that previous experience with similar facilities had


been positive and a number of examples of the use as being benign were cited by councillors. On balance it was considered that it was important to be consistent with the previous Scheme Amendment resolution noting that in the event of such not proceeding then the applicant could resubmit. Accordingly Committee agreed to a modified recommendation that the application be refused. D18/5/14 RECOMMEND

That Council refuse the application for Planning Approval for a Place of Worship on Lot 81 (296) Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale for the following reasons:

1. Council has adopted a position on the proposed alteration of the land use classification of a ‘Place of Worship’ within a Special Residential zone from ‘A’ (discretionary and requires notice) to ‘X’ (not permitted) in Proposal 5 of Amendment 69.

2. Taking into account of the objectives of the Special Residential Zone under TPS No.4

MOVED Cr M Geary SECONDED Cr Norman Opposed Cr Munn MOTION CARRIED (4/3)

Council resolved at its Ordinary Meeting on 26 May 2014 that Recommendation D18/5/14 be not adopted and replaced as follows - D18/5/14 RECOMMEND

That Council:

A) Approve the application for Planning Approval for a Place of Worship on Lot 81 (296) Churchman Brook Road, Bedfordale subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to the submission of a Building Permit, revised plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City’s Planning Services department, in-accordance with Clause 10.8 of the City's Town Planning Scheme No.4, that modify the proposal by:

a) Removing the proposed screen fencing north of the proposed building and the proposed acoustic fencing east of the proposed building;

b) Relocating the development within a larger lot of adequate size that noise mitigation measures are not necessary, which has been confirmed as a 23m separation between the car park and any boundary by an acoustic consultant; and

c) Ensuring Provision 11.3 of Schedule 12 – Development (Structure Planning) Areas which requires a minimum lot size of 5000m² for any lot abutting Churchman Brook Road is met.

2. The Place of Worship shall be limited to a maximum capacity of 40 persons to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

3. Operating hours shall be limited to Sunday between 6:00a.m. and 8:00a.m. and Monday evenings between 6:00p.m. and 8:00p.m. to t

DS 20052014 MIN AT - City of Armadale · 2020. 5. 11. · CITY OF ARMADALE MINUTES OF DEVELOPMENT...

Documents

Transcript of DS 20052014 MIN AT - City of Armadale · 2020. 5. 11. · CITY OF ARMADALE MINUTES OF DEVELOPMENT...