DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT Minutes of the Development

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT Minutes of the Development Assessment Unit

Shire of Augusta Margaret River On 13 February 2018

ATTENDANCE

Chris McAtee, Chris Wenman, Jason Heine, Jared Drummond, Angela Satre, Lara Hoole PLANNING APPLICATIONS RECEIVED

Date Rec’d Assess No.

Address Proposal DA No.

06/02/2018 A7330 104 Colyer Drive, Hamelin Bay Dwelling Addition (Outbuilding) and Home Occupation

P218058

06/02/2018 A10538 23 (Lot 712) Burke Circle, Cowaramup

Unauthorised Use of Dwelling for Short Stay Accommodation

P218061

08/02/2018 A51 147 (Lot 147) Bussell Highway, Margaret River

Alterations & Additions to Existing Restaurant

P218062

08/02/2018 A4677 6 (Lot 3) Peake Street, Cowaramup Local Law Permit – Cowaramup Playgroup

P218063

08/02/2018 A7411 18 (Lot 23) Seahawk Rest, Cowaramup

Building Envelope Variation P218064

08/02/2018 A5815 107 (Lot 7) Connelly Road, Margaret River

Holiday House (Large) P218065

08/02/2018 A11322 12 (Lot 61) Investigator Avenue, Augusta

Dwelling P218066

09/02/2018 A12168 67 (Lot 102) Rowcliffe Road, Forest Grove

Caretaker's Dwelling P218067

09/02/2018 A5881 21 Larch Loop, Margaret River Dwelling Additions (Study / Dining Room / Veranda)

P218068

09/02/2018 A6741 13 (lot 295) Fantail Place, Margaret River

Dwelling Additions (Shed and Patio)

P218070

BUILDING LICENCE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED

Date Rec’d Assess No.

Address Proposal BLDG No.

05/02/2018 A3787 Lot 41 Ryans Road, Margaret River Unauthorised Works - Store, patio, lounge and bathroom / laundry

218053

06/02/2018 A9194 Lot 30 Tinglewood Court, Cowaramup

Single Dwelling 218055

06/02/2018 A5622 Lot 7 Heron Drive, Margaret River Single Dwelling with attached Carport

218056

06/02/2018 A6586 Lot 4 Holben Road, Cowaramup Cellar Door Sales 218057

09/02/2018 A6146 Lot 61 Granny James Road, Cowaramup

Unauthorised Works - Patio 218058

09/02/2018 A8393 Lot 201 Burnside Road, Burnside Storage Shed 218059

09/02/2018 A2602 Lot 65 Le Souef Street, Margaret River

Renovations and Additions - Bathroom

218060

09/02/2018 A9798 Lot 352 Olearia Cres, Margaret River

Earthworks 218061

08/02/2018 A12466 Lot 384 Pimelia Drive, Margaret River

Storage Shed 218062

07/02/2018 A3451 Lot 71 Barrett Road, Margaret River Swimming Pool 218063

07/02/2018 A3451 Lot 71 Barrett Road, Margaret River Swimming Pool Fencing 218064

SUBDIVISIONS DETERMINED

Date Rec’d

Officer DA No. Address Description of Matter Recommendation

LEVEL 1 APPLICATIONS determined under delegation

Date Rec’d

Officer Address Proposal Outcome DA No.

11/08/2017 Angela Satre

56 (Lot 150) Hermitage Drive, Margaret River

Bed and Breakfast

Approved P217494

18/08/2017 Lucy Gouws

27 (Lot 332) Flora Grove, Molloy Island

Outbuilding Ancillary to Dwelling

Cancelled P217508

22/11/2017 Matt Slocomb

13 (Lot 4) Cross Street, Augusta

Dwelling Addition (Outbuilding)

Approved P217722

29/11/2017 Angela Satre

25 (Lot 37) Tinglewood Court, Cowaramup

Dwelling Addition (Outbuilding)

Approved P217752

11/12/2017 Lara Hoole 4 (lot 117) Lesueur Place, Gnarabup

Dwelling Additions (Storeroom Retrospective)

Approved P217773

13/12/2017 Jared Drummond

2 (Lot 101) Trinder Drive, Margaret River

Bed & Breakfast

Approved P217781

01/02/2018 Clare Hamilton

37 (Lot 4404) Beck Road, Courtenay

Section 40

Approved P218051

LEVEL 2 APPLICATIONS for determination under delegation

Date Rec’d

Officer Address Proposal Outcome of DAU Meeting

DA No.

5/10/2017 LH 6 (Lot 892) Allnut Terrace, Augusta

Dwelling Conditional Approval

P217609

19/9/17 LH 43 (Lot 25) Horseford Road, Burnside

Home Occupation (Wedding Ceremonies)

Refusal P217446

2/11/17 JD 30 (Lot 107) Blackwood Avenue, Augusta

Bed and Breakfast Conditional Approval

P217682

LOCAL LAW PERMITS

Date Rec’d Officer Address Proposal Outcome DA No.

OTHER APPLICATIONS determined under delegation

Date Rec’d


COMPLIANCE

Date Rec’d


ELECTED MEMBERS ATTENTION

Date Rec’d

Officer Address Proposal Outcome of DAU Meeting

DA No.

19/9/17 LH 43 (Lot 25) Horseford Road, Burnside

Home Occupation (Wedding Centre)

Refusal P217446

CLOSURE OF MEETING

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ASSESSMENT (DAU) Report to Manager Planning and Development Services

Proposed Dwelling: 6 (Lot 892) Allnut Terrace, Augusta

Major (Level 2) P217609: PTY/4334

REPORTING OFFICER : LH DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST : Nil

General Information

Lot Area 892sqm

Zone Residential (R17.5)

Proposed Development Planning approval is sought 4 x bedroom, 2 bathroom raised dwelling with an under-croft (includes a carport).

Permissible Use Class ‘P’ (permitted)

Heritage/Aboriginal Sites Not listed

Encumbrance N/A

Date Received 5/10/2017

Aerial extracts

Policy Requirements

Is the land or proposal referred to in any Council Policy? ☐ Yes √ No

Structure Plans and Local Development Plans (DAP)

Is the land in any Structure Plan Area or subject to a DAP? ☐ Yes √ No

Advertising/Agency Referrals

Has the application been referred to adjoining landowners/agency? √ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

Has a submission been received by Council? √ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A No. received: 2

Have agency or authority comments been received? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

http://intranet/Logos/Forms/AllItems.aspx

Name Nature of Submission Officer Comment

Private Submission

No comment Noted

Private Submission Objection to the close proximity of the

southern side boundary. The major opening setback of 4.409m from southern boundary for the kitchen is a substantial variation and far to close.

The back verandah is also far too close to the rear boundary and the minimum requirement of 7.5m must be maintained.

View will be restricted.

The original application proposed variations to the privacy provisions of the Rcodes due to:

Unscreened balconies on three elevations; and

major openings on the south side elevation.

The application was referred to neighbours for comments. As an outcome of the notification period, and the assessment of the application, revised plans were submitted. The revised plans include privacy screening to balconies on two elevations and a reduction in the size of openings on the south side elevation. The revised proposal met the acceptable development standards in relation to privacy for the development with the exception of the proposed rear deck. The proposed rear deck does not pose overlooking concerns and meets the design principles under the Rcodes for the reasons discussed below.

Has the application been referred to internal departments? ☐ Yes √ No ☐ N/A

Officer Comment Reticulated water and sewer are available to this site.

Assessment of Application

Is the land referred in the Heritage Inventory? ☐ Yes √ No

Are there any Contributions applicable? ☐ Yes √ No

Are there any compliance issues in relation to existing development? ☐ Yes √ No

R Codes

Are R Codes applicable? √ Yes ☐ No

Design Element Policy / R Codes Req Provided Officer comment

Front Setback 6m 6.32m Complies

Sides Setback North: 1.5m South: 1.8m

4.174m 3.407m

Complies Complies

Rear Setback 1.5m 5.105m Complies

Garage/Carport Setback 4.5m 6.296m Complies

Driveway Width 3m to 6m 3m Complies

Outdoor Living Area 36m² 147m² Complies

Open Space Requirement 50% 76% Complies

Upgrade Landscaping ☐ Required √ Not Required

Overlooking √ Yes ☐ No

Variation to privacy provisions of the Rcodes at clause 5.4.1.

Street surveillance √ Yes ☐ No

Street Walls and Fences ☐ Yes √ No

Overshadowing ☐ Yes √ No

Energy efficiency/solar access √ Yes ☐ No

Other Variations ☐ Yes √ No

Officer comments against design principles

Privacy Provisions Clause 5.4.1 - The proposed rear deck has a finished floor level of 650mm above natural ground. The deck would be setback less than the 7.5m ‘acceptable development’ standard:

to the rear boundary (5.1m setback proposed); and

to the north side boundary (7m setback proposed). The proposed variations meet the ‘design principles’ of the Rcodes in relation to overlooking due to the following:

The building layout and location of the neighbouring dwelling. The site slopes from the rear to the front of the property. The rear of the site continues to rise up to a two storey dwelling on the adjoining lot. This neighbouring dwelling is substantially setback (10m from the adjoining boundary), has a ground floor finished floor level approximately 2metres higher than the ground level at the common rear boundary, and the neighbouring rear lot contains screening vegetation along the common boundary. There is no overlooking potential from the proposed dwelling toward the existing rear dwelling

given the substantial setback, the higher floor level of the neighbouring dwelling and the presence of vegetation.

The north elevation of the proposed rear deck could potentially over look a 3m2 area of the northern neighbouring property. This view is however screened by a boundary fence and existing vegetation. The proposed separation distance of 7m (to the side boundary), and the existing fence will screen the neighbouring property up to a distance of 14metres. The main outdoor living areas of the adjoining property are not located in the backyard but are located forward of the site accessing ocean views. Given the presence of vegetation screening and the fence, the variation meets the relevant design principles of the Rcodes.

Due to the topography, separation distances and orientation of dwellings on adjoining properties, the proposed variations will not cause overlooking of active habitable spaces or outdoor living areas of adjacent dwellings. The variations are considered to meet the ‘design principles’ of the RCodes.

Development Standards (Schedule 9)

Are the Development Standards applicable? ☐ Yes √ No

Car Parking

LPS1 / R Codes Requirement

Car Bays Required - 2 Car Bays Proposed -2

Dimensions 2.5 x 5.5m √ Complies ☐ Doesn’t Comply

Building Height

Scheme / Policy Requirement Wall - 7m Roof - 8m

State the proposed building height Wall - 5m Roof – 6.9m

√ Complies ☐ Doesn’t Comply

Clause 67

A. In the opinion of the officer, would approval of the planning consent be appropriate under Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions of the Scheme?

Officer Comment

Yes.

B. In the opinion of the officer:

i. Are utility services available and adequate for the development?

Yes.

ii. Has adequate provision been made for the landscaping and protection for any trees or other vegetation on the land?

N/A

iii. Has adequate provision been made for access for the development or facilities by disabled persons?

N/A

iv. Is development likely to cause detriment to the existing and likely future amenity of the neighbourhood?

No.

v. Is the development likely to comply with AS3959 at the building permit stage?

Yes. A BAL 12.5 rating has been provided.

Officer Comment

The proposal was amended in response to concerns raised during the notification period. The amended proposal meets the design principles of Rcodes. The topography, fencing and existing vegetation will prevent overlooking of adjacent properties. The application is recommended for conditional approval.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That the Acting Statutory Planning Coordinator GRANTS Planning Consent under Delegated Authority Instrument No. 16 pursuant to Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 for a Dwelling at 6 (Lot 892) Allnut Terrace, Augusta subject to compliance with the following conditions: CONDITIONS

1. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent.

Plans and Specifications

P1 to P3 received at the Shire on 12 January 2018.

2. If the development, the subject of this approval, is not substantially commenced within two (2) years from

the date of this letter, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect. Where an approval has lapsed, development is prohibited without further approval being obtained. (P)

3. All stormwater and drainage run-off from the development shall be contained within the lot boundaries or

disposed offsite by an approved connection to the Shire's drainage system. (I) ADVICE NOTES

a) You are advised of the need to comply with the requirements of the following other legislation:

(i) This is not a Building Permit. A Building Permit must be issued by the relevant Permit Authority before any work commences on site as per the Building Act 2011;

(ii) Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911 and Department requirements in respect to the development and use of the premises; and

(iii) The Bush Fires Act 1954 as amended, Section 33(3), Annual Bush Fires Notice applies to this

property.


Proposed Home Business (Wedding Ceremonies): 43 (Lot 25) Horseford Road, Burnside

Major (Level 2) P217446; PTY/1268

REPORTING OFFICER : LH DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST : Nil

General Information

Lot Area 12590.984sqm

Zone Rural Residential

Proposed Development

A planning application was lodged for a ‘Home Business’ to hold wedding ceremonies as follows:

Ceremonies to be held in a 50sqm section of a 225sqm walled formal garden;

Maximum 30 guests;

Up to 6 events per year;

Ceremonies to be completed by evening;

No service or food or alcohol is proposed to be provided by the hosts. Below is a set of plans submitted with the application.

Site Plan

Floor Plan

Building

Envelope

Ceremonial Area

& Guest Toilet


Aerial Plan A toilet is proposed for guest use within the dwelling and would be separate to the 50m2 ceremonial area (refer to floor plan). A parking area (500sqm) is proposed to be located in front of the dwelling (refer to site plan). The applicant anticipates approximately 12 cars per event.

Permissible Use Class

Home Business is an ‘A’ (discretionary use that requires advertising).

Heritage/Aboriginal Sites

Not listed.

Encumbrance Nil – landowners not listed on title.

Date Received 21/07/2017

Location plans

Policy Requirements



The Site

Is the land in any Structure Plan Area or subject to a DAP? √ Yes ☐ No

If yes, state the Policy/Policies

‘Subdivision Guide Plan Woodyche Falls Estate Location. 412 & Lot 2 of Location 336 Burnside Road, Margaret River’ adopted 25/02/2002.

Officer Comment The plan designates a building envelope on this site. The proposed parking area for guests is located partly outside the building envelope (refer to site plan) and on the side of the property in closest proximity to Horseford Road (the entry access to the site).


Has the application been referred to adjoining landowners/agency?

√ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

Has a submission been received by Council? √ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A No. received: 2

Have agency or authority comments been received? ☐ Yes √ No ☐ N/A

Name Nature of Objection Officer Comment

Private Submission x 2 (Objection)

Noise & Amenity Noise concerns. When the residents are currently entertaining in the courtyard proposed for the reception and entertainment areas, the noise carries significantly. This is with a small number of guests. With 30 guests the noise level and enjoyment of our home will be significantly compromised. Excessive number for an exposed residence in a quiet residential area. Entertainment venue for 30 people will impact the peaceful amenity of the area. Alcohol Who will monitor responsible use of alcohol? Guest Numbers 30 people is a small wedding and rare that functions will be limited to this. No-one will be counting as guests enter and Council will not know whether this is adhered to or not. Parking Cars parked for 30 people in the area will have negative visual, noise and increase in traffic impacts. Visual Impacts Portable toilets will have a negative visual impact and spoil the amenity of the area.

Noise & Amenity The subject lot is just over 1ha in size. This is the smallest lot size permitted in some areas zoned Rural Residential. Further to this, the adjoining lot to the north is only 4045sqm, an anomaly in lot size for the Rural Residential zone. Other properties surrounding the subject site range in size from 1.18ha to 2.7ha. The lot sizes in the area are relatively small for the Rural Residential zone in this Shire. A property to the east has Holiday House approval for up to 4 guests. A property across the road to the southwest has Holiday House approval for 8 guests. This does not prevent an approved Holiday House being used as a dwelling. The maximum number of guests approved for these Holiday Houses emphasizes the type of low-key residential use that is considered appropriate in the locality. The density of these approved land uses is far less than the density proposed for ceremonial occasions on the subject site. The proposed ceremonial area is located outside the dwelling and within 60m and 70m of the nearest neighbouring dwellings. Noise will carry from 30 guests arriving and leaving, opening and closing car doors, people congregating, and from the likelihood of amplification / speakers. The noise arising will impact the amenity of the area particularly given the ceremonies are located outside and in proximity to the two nearest neighbouring dwellings. Given the relatively smaller lot sizes in the locality, the low density nature of residential development in the area and the proposed location and scale of the ceremonies, the use will have unreasonable adverse impacts to the amenity of the area to the detriment of neighbouring properties. Alcohol No alcohol is proposed to be provided by the host. The proponent advises that guests may bring their own alcohol. A licence is not required from the Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor. The applicant has advised that food is not proposed to be provided by the host, ceremonies are expected to take approximately 3hours and are likely to be completed by mid-afternoon. Guest Numbers It is the responsibility of the proponent to adhere to maximum number of guests. Parking Vehicles used for 30 guests will increase traffic and increase noise on the site. This will have an

adverse impact to the amenity of the low density residential area. Visual Impacts An existing toilet within the dwelling is proposed to be available for guest use. No portable toilets are proposed. A toilet accessible to the disabled may be required under the Building Code of Australia and the Health (Public Building) Regulations 1992. The toilet in the dwelling that is proposed to be used does not meet the BCA specifications for an ‘accessible’ toilet.

Has the application been referred to internal departments?


Environmental Health Comments: The proposal for an outdoor event, or for public gatherings, is classified as a public building under the Health

(Public Building) Regulations 1992. Public buildings are inspected for safety by Shire staff and are subject to specific requirements including but is not limited to disabled access, exit signs, certificate of electrical compliance, waste disposal and provision of one unisex ‘accessible’ toilet.

The effluent disposal system on site may be required to be upgraded in accordance with the Health (Treatment of Sewage and Disposal of Effluent & Liquid Waste) Regulations 1974.

Infrastructure Services: Vehicle parking areas would be required to be designed, constructed and drained.

Community Fire & Emergency Services: The proposed use is classified as a ‘vulnerable land use’ given it involves groups of people congregating on site who are unware of their surroundings and/or may have reduced capacity to respond in the event of an emergency and may require assistance or direction in the event of a bushfire. Vulnerable land uses require a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) to be prepared by a professional and approved by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES). The proponent has declined to submit a BMP, however, this would be required prior to any determination to grant approval for a development of this type.

Building Services: Emergency lighting and toilet facilities would be required in accordance with Australian Standards ‘AS1428.1 Access and Mobility’.




Are there any compliance issues in relation to existing development?

☐ Yes √ No

Local Planning Scheme No. 1

Land Use Classification

A ‘Home Business’ is defined in Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme) to mean: “…a business, service or profession carried out in a dwelling or on land around a dwelling by an occupier of the dwelling which –

(a) Does not employ more than 2 people not members of the occupier’s household; (b) Will not cause injury to or adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood; (c) Does not occupy an area greater than 50square metres; (d) Does not involve the retail sale, display or hire of goods of any nature; (e) In relation to vehicles and parking, does not result in traffic difficulties as a result

of the inadequacy of parking or an increase in traffic volumes in the neighbourhood, and does not involve the presence, use or calling of a vehicle more than 3.5 tonnes tare weight;

(f) Does not involve the use of an essential service of greater capacity than normally required in the zone; and

(g) Does not display a sign exceeding 0.2 square metres in area”.

The proposal does not comply with the Home Business definition specifically parts (b), (c) and (e) for the following reasons:

(b) The noise of 30 guests and associated vehicles will adversely impact the amenity

of the area. (c) The ceremonial area is proposed within 50m2, of a 225m2 walled garden, and

is to be defined with seats and bordered with ribbon. The proposed guest toilet in the dwelling will increase the area occupied by the Home Business. The parking bays are proposed to be located in a larger 500sqm area (refer to site plan above) further increasing the area occupied by the Home Business above the 50m2 provided in the definition. The proposed site has extensive well maintained gardens. The applicant has advised that guests that wanted to, could walk around the property. It is considered unrealistic that guests will be contained within a small ribboned area in such a large open garden or that guests will stay in this garden for the duration of the ceremony before leaving the site.

(e) The proposal will result in increased traffic to a 6metre wide low order road

designed and utilised for the purpose of providing access to the low density residential area.

The Scheme provides a section on Interpretation of the Zoning Table and states:

“4.4.1 Where a specific use is mentioned in the Zoning Table, it is deemed to be excluded from the general terms used to describe any other use”.

The proposal to host wedding ceremonies is clearly defined in the Scheme as a ‘Reception Centre’ which means:

“…premises used for functions on formal or ceremonial occasions but not for unhosted use for general entertainment purposes…”

The proposal is classified as a ‘Reception Centre’ and therefore is excluded from being described as any general term or definition. A ‘Reception Centre’, is an ‘X’ use (not permitted). The Scheme further states that the local government must refuse to approve any ‘X’ use. The proposed use is not permitted in the Rural Residential zone. Uses that may be considered within the Rural Residential zone in the Scheme’s Zone Table 1 are very limited. Of the 98 uses listed, only 18 may be considered. This further highlights the objective of the Scheme which is to protect the high amenity of the Rural Residential zone. It also provides a guide of what development can be anticipated in the Rural Residential zone. A Reception Centre, and land uses of this type, are not discretionary land uses in the zone demonstrating their unsuitability in low density rural residential localities.

Purpose and Objectives of the Rural Residential Zone

Objective (c) of the Rural Residential Zone is: “(c) To provide opportunities for a range of limited rural and related ancillary pursuits on rural residential lots where those activities will be consistent with the amenity of the locality and the conservation and landscape attributes of the land”.

The proposal is inconsistent with the objective of the zone by virtue of: the use being unrelated to or ancillary to the residential activities on the site; the unreasonable adverse impact the use will have to the amenity of the area

due to excessive noise, traffic and visual impacts; and the adverse impact the proposal will have to the landscape attributes of the area

by the excessive 500m2 parking area proposed on site and the view of vehicles parked onsite in the front setback area and outside the building envelope.

Development in Rural Residential zone.

The proposal for parking to be provided outside the building envelope on site is in conflict with the intention of the zone and provisions of the Scheme, specifically clause 4.22.2, which requires all development to be contained within the envelope unless otherwise approved by the local government.

Clause 67

A. In the opinion of the officer, would approval of the planning consent be appropriate under Clause 67 of Deemed Provisions of the Scheme?

Officer Comment The proposal is inconsistent with the Deemed Provisions of the Scheme, Matters to be Considered at clause 67, specifically:

a) the aims and provisions of this Scheme; b) the requirements of orderly and proper planning; c) the compatibility of the development within its setting including the

relationship of the development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including, but not limited to, the likely effect of height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development;

d) the amenity of the locality including the following – ii) the character of the locality iii) social impacts of the development;

e) the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the development, particularly in relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probable effect on traffic flow and safety;

f) the impact of the development on the community as a whole notwithstanding the impact of the development on particular individuals.

Summary The proposal was lodged as a Home Business and was advertised to neighbours. Two objections were received. The application was assessed and the use was found to be inconsistent with the definition of a Home Business nor is the use consistent with the intention of the Scheme with regard to Home Businesses. The purpose of a Home Business is to facilitate the development of a small business where it can be clearly established that the use is incidental to the residential use of the land and is consistent with the residential nature of the associated zone (including rural residential). The limitations in the definition of a Home Business ensure that the size and scope of business activity are contained to a point where impacts and traffic generated are not adverse to the amenity of the area. An activity that results in 30 people being on a site at any one time is not consistent with the Scheme intention for a Home Business. The proposal is classified as a Reception Centre which is an ‘X’ (not-permitted) use in the Rural Residential zone. The Rural Residential zone is considered to have a high level of amenity typified by low density residential development. Lots are developed and occupied for residential lifestyle purposes and the area is typified by low-key residential uses on relatively small sized lots for this land use zone. The proposal is out of character with the zone and in conflict with the intent and provisions of the Scheme as they apply to the Rural Residential zone. The

proposed use is inconsistent with the objectives of the zone and order and proper planning of the area. The application is recommended for refusal.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That the Acting Manager of Planning and Development Services REFUSES TO GRANT Planning Consent under Delegated Authority Instrument No. 16 pursuant to Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 for a Home Business (Wedding Ceremonies) at 43 (Lot 25) Horseford Road, Margaret River for the following reasons: REASONS FOR REFUSAL 1. The proposal does not comply with the definition of a ‘Home Business’ under Local Planning Scheme No.

1, specifically parts (b), (c) and (e) of the definition, for the following reasons: (a) The noise of 30 guests attending, celebrating a wedding ceremony and associated vehicles arriving

and leaving will adversely impact the amenity of the area. (b) The area proposed to be used for ceremonies, in addition to the toilet facilities and parking area

exceeds the 50m2 permitted for a Home Business. Furthermore, insufficient evidence has been provided, nor would it be realistic to expect, that guests could be contained within the 50m2 ceremonial area.

(c) The proposed use will result in a significant increase in traffic volumes in a low density quiet residential area.

2. The proposed use is classified as a ‘Reception Centre’ under Local Planning Scheme No. 1 which means

“…premises used for functions on formal or ceremonial occasions but not for unhosted use for general entertainment purposes”. A ‘Reception Centre’, is an ‘X’ use (not permitted) in the Rural Residential zone. Local Planning Scheme No. 1 provides that the local government must refuse to approve any ‘X’ use.

3. The proposal is inconsistent with objective (c) of the Rural Residential Zone due to the following: (a) the use being unrelated to or ancillary to the residential activities on the site; (b) the unreasonable adverse impact the use will have to the amenity of the area due to excessive noise,

traffic and visual impacts; and (c) the adverse impact the proposal will have to the landscape attributes of the area due to the excessive

500m2 parking area and the view of vehicles parked onsite in the front setback area and outside the building envelope.

4. The proposal is inconsistent with the Deemed Provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1, Matters to be

Considered, at clause 67 with specific regard to the following subclauses: (a) The proposal is in conflict with the aims and provisions of the Scheme as they apply to the Rural

Residential zone. (b) The proposal is inconsistent with the orderly and proper planning of the Scheme area. (c) The proposal is incompatible with the low density rural residential setting particularly with regard to

the proximity and likely adverse impacts to occupiers of neighbouring properties. (d) The proposal would have an unacceptable adverse impact to the character of the area and would

have adverse social impacts arising from noise, traffic and visual impacts as a consequence of the use.

(e) The proposal for 30 guests is considered to generate an unreasonable and excessive volume of traffic for the area beyond the anticipated traffic volumes considered acceptable in a rural residential locality.

(f) Approval to the application will set an undesirable precedent for similar applications for Reception Centres on lots in the Rural Residential zone.

(g) The proposal is unacceptable when assessed with regard to the objections received during the advertising period for the application.

5. The proposal for parking outside the building envelope is inconsistent with clause 4.22.2 (i) of Local Planning

Scheme No. 1, which requires all development in the Rural Residential zone to be confined within an approved building envelope.


Proposed Bed and Breakfast at 30 (Lot 107) Blackwood Avenue, Augusta

Major (Level 2) P217682; PTY/6297

REPORTING OFFICER : JD DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST : Nil

General Information

Lot Area 700sqm

Zone Residential – R20

Proposed Development Planning approval is sought for a Bed and Breakfast consisting of two guest bedrooms and a maximum of four short stay guests.

Permissible Use Class The application was lodged originally for three guest rooms and was advertised as a ‘Residential Building’. In response to the submissions received during the advertising period the application has been revised to a Bed and Breakfast, with two guest bedrooms.

Heritage/Aboriginal Sites Nil

Encumbrance Easement not impacted

Date Received 2 November 2017


Policy Requirements



Is the land in any Structure Plan Area or subject to a DAP? ☐ Yes √ No


Has the application been referred to adjoining landowners/agency? √ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

Has a submission been received by Council? √ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

No. received: 10

Have agency or authority comments been received? ☐ Yes √ No ☐ N/A

Officer comments The application was advertised to surrounding landowners as a Residential Building (which may include development of backpacker accommodation). There were ten submissions received, (nine against and one in support). The majority of submissions raised concerns about the potential backpacker accommodation in a residential area. Following the submission period, the application was revised to a two bedroom Bed and Breakfast. The proposed Bed and Breakfast is not expected to impact the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Issues raised Nature of Submission Officer Comment

Backpacker accommodation

Backpacker accommodation does not fit within the R20 residential area. It is considered more appropriate within the town centre zone.

There are several vacant blocks in the town centre that could be developed as a commercial back packers without moving itinerants into residential areas.

If supported, it opens the door for other backpackers to be supported in a residential area.

There is already sufficient and under-utlised backpacker accommodation in Augusta.

These objections are noted. As stated, the preferred location for backpacker accommodation is within the town centre areas of Augusta. The application has been revised from a three bedroom Residential Building accommodating up to six guests to a Bed and Breakfast consisting of two guest bedrooms and four guests. A Holiday House (Large) approval was granted for this property in 2012, accommodating a maximum of eight (8) guests. Unlike holiday houses, a requirement of the planning approval for a Bed and Breakfast requires a manager to reside on site. As such, the impacts of a Bed and Breakfast are expected to be far less than an off site managed holiday house.

Noise and amenity Our property is located adjacent to the subject lot, and has been subject to loud music and inappropriate language over the past 12 months or so. I am concerned that the backpacker accommodation guest type will increase with the proposed land use.

This house has an elevated position and projects noise throughout the neighbourhood.

The proposal will affect property values. It will also affect our peace and quiet lifestyle.

Potential overlooking impacts from people congregating on the front balcony in close proximity to property to the south.

The proposed Bed and Breakfast will be owner-occupied. This is considered preferable than re-applying for an un-occupied short-term accommodation approval. The applicant has advised that the business model will revolve around mature-aged couples and solo travellers who want to experience what Augusta has to offer, rather than groups of un-accompanied holiday makers who can create noise and disrupt the surrounding residents. It should be noted that the initial approval recommended is for twelve (12) months only after which an application to renew this use is required. Approval of a Bed and Breakfast is not expected to impact property values as the approval is limited to four guests with on site management. The applicant proposes to install established pot plants along the southern elevation of the front balcony to address privacy issues to the southern property.

Access to/from the dwelling.

The house in question is raised on stilts and only has one exit to ground level via a wooden stairway. This appears to be unsafe from a fire perspective, particularly for a commercial operation involving an unrelated group of guests.

The dwelling has been approved in accordance with the Building Code of Australia. In addition to on site management, an emergency evacuation plan is also required to be prepared to assist guests in the case of an emergency.

The proposed development is not suitable for access to disabled persons.

There are no requirements for a Bed and Breakfast to be designed for disabled access.

Traffic The proposed use will increase traffic on a busy and steep street.

A condition of planning approval is for all vehicles/boats to be parked within the boundaries of the property. The short stay use is limited to a maximum of four short stay guests which is expected to generate less traffic than the previously approved eight (8) person holiday house. Furthermore, the intensity of land use for a Bed and Breakfast is consistent with the expected intensity of use for a residential dwelling.

Management (Objection)

The owner does not appear to be on the premises when the property is rented.

There is no information given regarding a contact number for lodging complaints.

A requirement of the planning approval is for the manager to reside on site at all times short stay guests are present.

LPG gas bottle location (Support)

The entrance and outdoor entertainment area is situated directly above LPG gas bottle storage facilities. Any fire ignition in this area is significantly dangerous due to the proximity of gas bottles.

The applicant has advised that the gas bottles are located under the house against the brickwork rather than underneath the entertaining deck as suggested in submissions. The location of the gas bottle is not a consideration of the planning assessment. There are specific requirements (outside planning regulations) on the siting of gas bottles.

Support Support for the application. Noted

Has the application been referred to internal departments?





Are there any compliance issues in relation to existing development? ☐ Yes √ No

R Codes

Are R Codes applicable? ☐ Yes √ No

Development Standards (Schedule 9)

Are the development Standards applicable? ☐ Yes √ No

Car Parking

LPS1 / R Codes Requirement

Car Bays Required - 3 Car Bays Proposed -3

Dimensions 2.5 x 5.5m √ Complies ☐ Doesn’t Comply

Turning Bay/Circles and vehicle manoeuvring

√ Complies ☐ Doesn’t Comply

Officer Comment

The site plan indicates that there is sufficient area to accommodate three vehicles within the property boundaries. These areas are identified as the carport, and car bay/turning area.

Clause 67

A. In the opinion of the officer, would approval of the planning consent be appropriate under Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions of the Scheme?

Officer Comment

Yes.

B. In the opinion of the officer:

i. Are utility services available and adequate for the development?

Yes.

ii. Has adequate provision been made for the landscaping and protection for any trees or other vegetation on the land?

N/A

iii. Has adequate provision been made for access for the development or facilities by disabled persons?

N/A

iv. Is development likely to cause detriment to the existing and likely future amenity of the neighbourhood?

No.

v. Is the development likely to comply with AS3959 at the building permit stage?

Yes. The development proposal for a change of use to a Bed and Breakfast is classified as a ‘Vulnerable’ land use under Statement of Planning Policy 3.7 Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP3.7). The land use is classified as ‘vulnerable’ because it is tourist development that involves short stay accommodation where people who are less able to respond in a bushfire emergency will be visiting and inhabiting.

Although the proposal is considered as ‘Vulnerable’ land use under SPP3.7 the proposal presented is to provide for a bed and breakfast which is wholly contained within the existing dwelling. The scale of the development is typical to that found within a residential dwelling. As per clause, 5.5.1.1 of SPP3.7 the bed and breakfast for the purpose of this assessment is considered as ‘minor development’. There is limited ability to achieve the bushfire protection criteria for the existing dwelling, built prior to the Guidelines coming into effect in December 2015. The site is mostly devoid of vegetation. There is no ability for full compliance with the Guidelines. The proponent has prepared an acceptable Emergency Evacuation Plan.

Other Comments

Any further comments in relation to the application?

Officer Comment

Adjoining landowners who objected to the initially advertised Residential Building were advised by email that the application had been revised to a Bed and Breakfast. No responses were received. The application received approval for a holiday house in 2012, expiring in May 2013. This approval has now lapsed. The applicant now intends to occupy the dwelling and operate it as a Bed and Breakfast. The proposal is consistent with a definition of a Bed and Breakfast in the Scheme, and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That the Acting Statutory Planning Coordinator GRANTS Planning Consent under Delegated Authority Instrument No. 16 pursuant to Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 for a Bed and Breakfast at 30 (Lot 107) Blackwood Avenue, Augusta subject to compliance with the following conditions: CONDITIONS

1. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent.

Plans and Specifications

P1 – P2 received at the Shire 2 November 2017 and P3 received at the Shire on 7 February 2018

2. The Bed & Breakfast use is limited to a period of twelve (12) months from the date of this approval. (P)

(Refer to advice note ‘a’)

3. The dwelling, in which the Bed & Breakfast use is approved, shall be occupied as a residence by the operator of the Bed & Breakfast whenever there are one or more guests in the Bed & Breakfast.(P)

4. A maximum of two bedrooms (as marked on the approved plans) shall be used for short stay

accommodation purposes and the total number of guests shall not exceed four persons or one family at

any one time (refer to advice note ‘g’).

5. An Emergency Response Plan (i.e. fire escape route maps and other details as required) shall be prepared and submitted to Council prior to commencement of the use. The Emergency Response Plan shall be displayed in a conspicuous location within the dwelling. (P)

6. The Bed and Breakfast rooms are not approved to be equipped or modified as self-contained

accommodation (refer to advice note ‘d’). 7. All vehicles & boats connected with the premises shall be parked within the boundaries of the property. (P) ADVICE NOTES

a) Following satisfactory performance of the approved use, and in the absence of any substantiated complaints over the 12 month approval period, the Shire may grant further planning approval for the continuation of the use for a further three (3) years. A new planning application seeking such approval should be submitted 90 days before the expiry of this approval, along with the appropriate planning fee.

b) You are advised of the need to comply with the requirements of the following other legislation:

(i) This is not a Building Permit. A Building Permit must be issued by the relevant Permit Authority before any work commences on site as per the Building Act 2011;

(ii) Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911 and Department requirements in respect to the development and use of the premises; and

(iii) The Bush Fires Act 1954 as amended, Section 33(3), Annual Bush Fires Notice applies to this

property.

c) This approval allows rooms to be used as short stay accommodation based on centralised facilities being

provided for food preparation. The dwelling should not be modified in a way that results in additional self contained cooking areas.

d) Those rooms proposed to be utilised for Bed and Breakfast purposes should meet the minimum requirements specified by the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River Health Local Laws 1999. (EH)

e) Provision of food – should food be provided to guests, registration is required under the Food Act 2008.

Make application to the Shire’s Environmental Health department. (EH)

f) Short stay means tourist accommodation set aside either continuously or from time to time for temporarily living purposes but which are not occupied by the same person or group of persons for a period in excess of three (3) months in any one 12 month period. (P)

Documents

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT Minutes of the Development