City of cockburn
|
|  Yüklə 0.8 Mb.
|
Background The owners of Lots 300, 301 and 121 have requested the road closures in conjunction with subdivisions of their land. In 1999, in conjunction with the subdivision of land in the vicinity of Bramley Way, portions of Prout Way were closed and included in the residential subdivision. Only those portions of road required to be incorporated into the subdivision were closed. The total road closure advertised included those parts of Prout Way south of the subdivision and on the east side of Prout Way. Submission Allerding Burgess Planning Consultants have, on behalf of the owners, requested the road closures advertised that were not included in the 1999 subdivision. The plan of the road closure required by the subdivision was prepared by the subdivision’s consultant surveyor and did not include the full extent of the advertised closure. Report Department for Planning and Infrastructure Asset Management has requested that updated responses be sought from the service authorities and updated plans of the extent of the road closures. All of the service authorities have responded and plans drawn. Conditions sought by the service authorities will be addressed within the associated subdivision. Strategic Plan/Policy Implications The Corporate Strategic Plan Key Result Areas which apply to this item are:- 2. Planning Your City
Budget/Financial Implications N/A Legal Implications N/A Community Consultation N/A Implications of Section 3.18(3) Local Government Act, 1995 Nil. 14.3
Explanation
Background On 11 August 2003, an aeroplane crashed at Jandakot Airport killing one person and injuring five others. The crash site was within the Airport property. The aeroplane caught fire and was attended by the FESA O’Connor Brigade, which is understood to have taken 13 minutes to arrive on the scene. Submission At its meeting of 19 August 2003, Council received a request from Mayor Lee as a matter to be noted for investigation without debate, to have a report prepared on safety issues at Jandakot Airport. In light of recent accidents, the report should address the lack of a fulltime fire service at one of Australia’s busiest Airports, manning hours in the Control Tower and any other issues of safety that may be pertinent to the users of the airport and the residents of the City. Report The primary authority for investigating the fatal aviation accident that occurred at Jandakot Airport on 11 August 2003, is the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). There will also be a Coronial enquiry. The ATSB is a Bureau within the Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services (DoTRS). The ATSB’s Director of Air Safety Investigation is responsible for the investigation of aircraft accidents, serious incidents, incidents and safety deficiencies within the aviation system. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is another Commonwealth Government entity, which has responsibility for the safety regulation of civil air operations. CASA’s role is to investigate regulatory breaches and to assist ATSB with its inquiry Airservices Australia (ASA) is a Commonwealth Government business enterprise providing air traffic management, air navigation infrastructure services and aviation rescue and firefighting. ASA does not have a formal role in the investigation of the accident. A Memorandum of Understanding exists between ATSB and CASA, which sets out the processes and actions to be taken to maximise aviation safety outcomes and enhance public confidence in aviation safety. The Principal Environmental Health Officer has written to ATSB requesting:
Verbal agreement has been given to forward copies of the reports, as they become available. The ATSB recently released a draft report “Aviation Safety Indicators 2002: A report on safety indicators relating to Australian aviation” for public comment. The report and discussion papers are available on the internet at http://www.atsb.gov.gov.au/public/discuss/asi_2002.cfm. This report finds that:
The ATSB also publishes road fatality statistics. An analysis of available data shows that in the ten years between 1992 and 2001, (inclusive) 18,686 people died on Australian roads. The following information has been provided by Jandakot Airport Holdings (JAH):
May-August 0800 - 2000 hours Sept – Apr 0800 - 2100 hours Circuit training hours: Mon – Sat 0600 – 2230 hours Sunday 0800 – 1800 hours
- Jandakot Airport Emergency Committee - District Emergency Management Committee - Perth Airport Emergency Committee
The Airport Rescue and Firefighting Service was closed effective from 30 June 1991. Verbal advice from CASA confirms that under the provisions of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, there is no obligation for such a service to be provided at Jandakot Airport. Jandakot Airport is covered by the Fire and Emergency Services Authority fire services. Verbal advice from the State Department of Planning and Infrastructure indicates that they do not have jurisdiction over safety at Jandakot Airport, they do not have a position regarding safety at Jandakot Airport, nor do they have the expertise to assess or comment on safety at Jandakot Airport. From the above it appears that:
It could be that the ATSB report may make recommendations that satisfy the Mayor’s concerns in respect to a fulltime fire service, manning hours in the control tower and other related safety issues. Because of this, it is considered premature for Council to undertake these investigations. Considering all of this, it is recommended that Council resolve to receive this report and require the Principal Environmental Health Officer to prepare a further report upon receipt of the final Australian Transport Safety Bureau report into the fatal aviation accident that occurred at Jandakot Airport on 11 August 2003. This report will be provided to Elected Members through the Elected Members Info. Strategic Plan/Policy Implications N/A Budget/Financial Implications N/A Legal Implications N/A Community Consultation Information collected from ATSB, JAH and CASA. Implications of Section 3.18(3) Local Government Act, 1995 Regulation and control of aviation safety at Jandakot Airport and in the airspace above the City are the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. Council activity in this area could be interpreted as inappropriate duplication of services provided by the Commonwealth Government. 14.4
Explanation
Background
Submission Council has received an application dated 7 July 2003, from the landowner(s) of the subject property, Ceptre Nominees Pty Ltd & Carew Nominees Pty Ltd, for planning approval to develop a concrete batching plant on the site. The proposed development includes the following site works:
As part of the Development Application the applicant provided the following documents: - Copy of Environmental Protection Authority Code of Practice 1991 – Concrete Batching Plants. - Description of Concrete Batching Plant and elevation drawings. Report The application complies with the car parking, building setbacks, building height/scale, landscaping and amenity provisions of the Scheme. Concrete batching or cement products manufacturing land use require a license under the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987. As a license is required by the Department of Environmental Protection, the proposed use falls within the Use Class Category of “Industry General (licensed)”. The subject site is zoned “Industry” under the City of Cockburn Town Planning Scheme No.3. An “Industry General (licensed)” use is a “D” use within an Industry Zone under the Zoning Table of the Scheme. The Scheme specifies that a “D” use means that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. The application has been referred to Council for determination following receipt of submissions in objection from landowners of neighbouring properties. The nature of the objections relate primarily to dust pollution from the concrete batching plant activities and the inappropriate location of the concrete batching plant in relation to existing neighbouring landuses, especially a grain storage premises and wool storage premises. As part of the application the applicant prepared a Works Approval Application “Notice of Intent” and submitted to the Department of Environment (DOE) for approval as required by the legislation. In addressing the concerns of dust pollution, the applicant has provided Council with a copy of the Department of Environmental Protection Works Approval Application, which provides details on concrete batching dust management on-site. Verbal discussions between Council Health Services and staff of DOE indicate that the proposed concrete batching plant and dust management measures are acceptable in terms of the Environmental Code of Practice for Concrete Batching Plants. To date Council has not received a written response from the DOE in relation to the matter. However, DOE has advised that the proposed noise emissions from the Concrete Plant have been thoroughly addressed and that the proposed dust emissions should be no greater than the current use of the lot. DOE officers also advise that the Works Approval Application submitted is awaiting final approval. To further explain the operations of the proposal with regards to the emission of dust from the operation, the applicant submitted a letter dated 2 September 2003 and this is attached to the Agenda. Conclusion As the application complies with the provisions of the City of Cockburn Town Planning Scheme No.3 and staff at the Department of Environment have verbally indicated that the proposal is acceptable, it is considered that the application can be conditionally approved, subject to conditions such as the implementation of a Dust Management Plan and the sealing of internal roads to address the impacts of dust and noise nuisance from the premises to adjoining properties. Given the above, the application is therefore recommended for approval with conditions. Strategic Plan/Policy Implications The Corporate Strategic Plan Key Result Areas which apply to this item are:- 1. Managing Your City
2. Planning Your City
3. Conserving and Improving Your Environment
The Council Policies which apply to this item are:- Apd17 Standard Development Conditions And Footnotes Budget/Financial Implications N/A Legal Implications N/A Public Consultation In accordance with the requirements of the Scheme, the proposal was advertised for comment in accordance with Clause 9.4.3. At the conclusion of the advertising period on 4 August 2003, five submissions were received, all objecting to the proposal. A copy of the submissions is included in the Agenda attachments. Implications of Section 3.18(3) Local Government Act, 1995 Nil. 14.5
Background Council at its meeting held on 16 March 1999, considered a report on Bush Plan (now Bush Forever) and resolved to forward a submission to the then Ministry for Planning which provided comments on Bush Plan and nominated additional sites for consideration to be included in Bush Plan. Nominated additional Site 6 was the Frankland Reserve. At its meeting held on 17 July 2001 (Item 14.13), Council considered a report on the application to mine sand within Frankland Reserve and a possible land exchange and resolved not to support any proposed exchange and to strongly object to the mining of sand within Frankland Reserve. Council at its meeting held on 21 August 2001, again considered the question of sand mining in Frankland Reserve and resolved to reconfirm its strong opposition to the sand mining within the land and instructed its Solicitor, McLeod & Co, to represent the Council in the Mining Warden’s Court to oppose the issue of a Mining Licence to Amity Holdings Pty Ltd to quarry sand from Frankland Reserve. Council has not received any advice in respect to the determination of the mining application for Frankland Reserve. Submission The Bush Forever Office within the Department for Planning and Infrastructure has reviewed the proposed nomination of Frankland Reserve as a Bush Forever site and has concluded that the property contains bushland of regional significance. The care, control and management of Frankland Reserve rests with the City of Cockburn and accordingly, the Bush Forever Office has sought Council’s formal agreement to include the reserve as a Bush Forever site. A copy of correspondence dated 26 July 2003, is included in the Agenda attachments. Report The following matters are pertinent in considering the nomination of Frankland Reserve as a Bush Forever site: 1. The nomination is in accordance with an earlier resolution of Council. 2. The nomination should be supported by local residents in the area. In response to the proposal to exchange Frankland Reserve for other land, the Frankland Reserve Community Committee in numerous letters, points out the recreational and conservation values of the land. 3. Planning of the future urban area around Frankland Reserve has identified the need for a 4 hectare active recreation area for development of playing fields and provision of clubroom facilities. The alternatives for this are to set aside a significant portion of a number of the private lots in the area which will necessitate difficult public open space provision arrangements, or the incorporation of the facility within Frankland Reserve. Within Frankland Reserve there is an area in the south-eastern corner which has been previously cleared, that is of suitable size and of gentle grade, which has been identified as suitable for that purpose. Given the need for an active recreation area and the suitability of a portion of Frankland Reserve, it is recommended that any acceptance of Frankland Reserve being nominated as a Bush Forever site be conditional upon this activity being acceptable. The letter from the Bush Forever Office dated 26 July 2003, advises that more active recreation such as an oval located in an area that is completely cleared of native vegetation may be suitable if appropriately designed and managed to avoid impact on the surrounding regionally significant bushland. Council has a number of reserves which integrate both conservation and active recreation uses and it is considered that the management of the interface is not an issue. 4. Frankland Reserve has a total area of 24.28 hectares. Of that, an area of approximately 3.5 hectares has been cleared in the south-east corner, 1.5 hectares is reserved for the extension of Frankland/Hammond Road and 2.1 hectares is required for the future alignment of Rowley Road. Of the balance 17.18 hectares of land which is considered to be of conservation value, this is severed by the current alignment of Frankland/Hammond Road, leaving 2 areas being 3.32 hectares on the west and 13.86 hectares to the east. It is considered that if Frankland Reserve is to be retained substantially for conservation purposes as a Bush Forever site, that the alignments of Rowley Road and Frankland/Hammond Road should be realigned and not be allowed to encroach on the reserve. This would maximise the area for conservation, diminish edge impacts and contribute to the easier management of the land. Rowley Road is not in the Region Scheme at this time and accordingly, urgent consideration should be given by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to the repositioning of the road reserve to the immediate south of Frankland Reserve. Frankland Reserve is already in the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the Department for Planning and Infrastructure should be requested to initiate an amendment to the Region Scheme to relocate the road reserve to the west of Frankland Reserve. A sketch showing the possible realignment of Rowley and Frankland Roads is included in the Agenda attachments. The proposed realignment of Rowley and Frankland Roads is a view shared by Mr Jim Scott MLC, who in writing in support of the Frankland Reserve Community Committee’s stance against the proposed mining of Frankland Reserve, states: “to ensure that the reserve gains the protection it deserves, consideration needs to be given to rezoning of the reserve and re-evaluation of road proposals in the vicinity of Frankland Reserve.” 5. Inclusion of Frankland Reserve as a Bush Forever site would provide significant support to the City now and in the future in preventing the mining of the land for sand. 6. Conclusions. It is recommended that Council support the nomination of Frankland Reserve as a Bush Forever site, subject to: (i) Agreement by the Bush Forever Office that the degraded area in the south-east corner be available for development as an active recreation area as and when the surrounding land is developed for residential purposes. (ii) The Department for Planning and Infrastructure support and initiate actions to realign the existing Frankland Avenue reserve in the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the proposed reservation for future Rowley Road so as to avoid Frankland Reserve. Strategic Plan/Policy Implications The Corporate Strategic Plan Key Result Areas which apply to this item are:- 3. Conserving and Improving Your Environment
The Council Policies which apply to this item are:- Nil Budget/Financial Implications N/A Legal Implications N/A Community Consultation Nil to date. Extensive public consultation will be required as part of any proposal to realign existing Frankland Avenue in the MRS and TPS No. 3. Implications of Section 3.18(3) Local Government Act, 1995 Nil. 14.6
Background
Submission Council has received an application dated 23 April 2003, for planning approval to develop a childcare centre on Lot 1 (752) North Lake Road, South Lake. Lot 1 is situated on the corner of North Lake Road and Rimmington Court, South Lake. The proposed childcare centre is designed to cater for up to 72 children from ages 0 – 6 years with up to 11 staff on site. The design of the childcare centre facility has a domestic appearance and will be constructed in brick for the walls and zincalume custom orb for the roof. A total of 19 car parking bays are provided on site with landscape areas along the Rimmington Court frontage and also integrated within the development. The operational hours of the childcare centre would be the same as normal opening hours of childcare centres in Perth, being from 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday. Initially, the applicant proposed the childcare centre to be located on the corner of Lot 1 with frontage to North Lake Road and access/egress from Rimmington Court. The design was amended following discussions between the applicant and Council Planning and Engineering Services, in particular, in relation to traffic planning and management for the future commercial development of the site as a whole and the anticipated future increase in traffic movement along North Lake Road. It was considered more suitable for the childcare centre to be relocated towards the rear of the site with frontage only to Rimmington Court. The reconfiguration of the childcare centre away from the North Lake Road frontage also addressed the safety and health of children attending the facility specifically in relation to noise and possible health implications associated with vehicle emissions. The amended plan also provides opportunity for an internal service road to be developed as part of the future commercial development of the balance of the site. The amended design reflects a better outcome for future traffic movement and flow on-site both in terms of traffic safety, in particular access/egress to and from North Lake Road. A copy of the amended site plan, elevations and concept plan for Lot 1 are contained in the agenda attachments. Report Zoning The subject site is zoned “Mixed Business – Restricted Use 10” (“RU10”) under the City of Cockburn Town Planning Scheme No.3. The provisions of RU10 do not prohibit the development of a “Child Care Premises” however, the “Design and Application Requirements” of RU10 specify certain restrictions and requirements for any development on the site. These are as follows:
A “Child Care Premises” is a “D” use within a Mixed Business Zone under the Zoning Table of the Scheme. The Scheme specifies that a “D” use means that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. The application has been referred to Council for determination following receipt of submissions in objection from landowners of adjoining properties. Community Consultation The proposal was advertised for comment on two occasions due to changes in the location of the Child Care Centre on the site. At the conclusion of the advertising period, six(6) submissions were received, with two of those submissions objecting to the proposal. The following table is a summary of the submissions received:
Compliance with Town Planning Scheme No.3 The application complies with the car parking, building setbacks, building height/scale, landscaping and amenity provisions of the Scheme. The design requirements of RU10 are addressed as follows:
This requirement is included as a recommended condition of planning approval in which the applicant is to construct the wall to the satisfaction of Council.
No vehicular access is proposed to Labyrinth Way as part of the development proposal as shown on the concept plan accompanying the application.
The applicant has engaged the services of Van Der Meer Consulting Engineers to provide a traffic impact study of the proposed development. The report demonstrates that the traffic attracted to the proposed childcare centre will have little impact on the surrounding road network. Analysis shows that the intersection of North Lake Road/ Rimmington Court will operate in an acceptable manner with the proposed development.
It is considered that the child care centre will not have an adverse impact on surrounding residential land uses in regards to lighting as the operational hours are during the day and there is no night time activity proposed as part of the development. The child care centre may generate noise at a level which exceeds that associated with normal residential land use from time to time. However, the requirement under RU10 in Schedule 3 (which is a recommended condition of town planning approval) to construct a masonry wall not less than 2 metres in height along boundaries with land zoned “Residential” should reduce the emission of noise emanating from the childcare centre which may affect adjoining residential land use. It should be noted that the subject site is zoned “Mixed Business – Restricted Use 10” and Use Classes permitted include Commercial Warehouse, Showrooms and Offices, Place of Worship, Restaurant, Health Studio and Medical Centre. Some of these uses could have the potential to generate more noise and traffic than the proposed childcare centre.
In accordance with the provisions of the Scheme, the application was referred by Council to the landowners of surrounding residential properties not only in relation to the original plan submitted, but also for the amended development plan. The application was referred to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure for comment in relation to the subject site having frontage to North Lake Road, which is reserved as “Other Regional Road” under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. The Department of Planning & Infrastructure has no objections to the proposed development. Conclusion The application complies with the provisions of the City of Cockburn Town Planning Scheme No.3. It is considered that the proposed childcare centre will not have a significant impact on traffic movements, safety and convenience and the childcare centre will not emit noise levels in significant excess of landuses which are permitted under the Scheme in a Mixed Business Zone, It is considered therefore, that the application can be conditionally approved. Strategic Plan/Policy Implications The Corporate Strategic Plan Key Result Areas which apply to this item are:- 1. Managing Your City
2. Planning Your City
3. Conserving and Improving Your Environment
The Council Policies which apply to this item are:- Apd17 Standard Development Conditions And Footnotes Budget/Financial Implications N/A Legal Implications N/A Public Consultation Application advertised for comment. Implications of Section 3.18(3) Local Government Act, 1995 Nil. 14.7
Explanation
Background The owner of the Cable Water Ski Park is proposing to redevelop the land for residential development. Submission A submission has been received from Roberts Day on behalf of Australand to amend TPS3 for Lot 501 Troode Street, Munster. The Amendment proposes to rezone the land from ‘Special Use’ to ‘Development Zone and Parks & Recreation Reserve’. A draft Structure Plan outlining the future subdivision and development of the land has also been submitted to Council, together with engineering and environmental details to supporting the rezoning. Extensive discussions have been undertaken between the City officers, representatives from environmental authorities, the proponents and Bowman Bishaw Gorham (BBG) environmental consultants in regard to some outstanding issues presented in the Amendment documents and Structure Plan, with particular concerns on the environmental issues relating to the wetland and Bush Forever sites located on the western and southern portions of the land. The Structure Plan and Amendment map were amended following the discussions to seek Council’s support to proceed with the TPS 3 Amendment (see Agenda attachments). Report Lot 501 Troode Street, Munster is zoned ‘‘Urban’ under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and ‘Special Use 10 – Private Recreation’ in Schedule 4 of Town Planning Scheme No. 3. TPS3 restricts the use of the subject land to ‘Water Ski Park’. The subject land is approximately 14.4 hectares and contains the ‘Cable Water Ski Park’ consisting of two ski lakes and associated facilities. Wetland and Bush Forever Site No. 435 (approximately 33% of the land) are located on the western and southern portions of the site. The applicant initially sought approval to amend TPS3 by rezoning the subject land from ‘Special Use’ to ‘Development Zone” to facilitate future residential development as depicted in the Structure Plan and report received in May. As indicated in the Environmental Assessment Report prepared by BBG Environmental Consultants, the wetland to the south is protected by the Swan Coastal Plain Lakes Environmental Protection Policy and the wetland near the western boundary is a Resource Enhancement category sumpland (see agenda attachments). The proposed Scheme Amendment and development proposal raised significant environmental concerns on the Bush Forever site and wetlands. A meeting was held on 18 July 2003 between representatives from the Bush Forever Office, the Water and Rivers Commission and the City in order to achieve a consistent and considered response to the proposal. At the meeting, general agreement was made between Bush Forever Office and WRC that the Resource Enhanced Wetland (REW) boundary is taken as the current Bush Site boundary given that the original wetland boundary as indicated on the Water and Rivers Commission maps is no longer relevant because of the extensive clearing and earthworks undertaken on the site altering the topography. It was also indicated that the classification of the wetland is likely to be upgraded from Resource Enhancement to Conservation Category Wetland, given that it supports regionally significant bushland recognised in Bush Forever. As such a 50m fully revegetated buffer will be required along Bush Forever boundary between the development and the wetland. The Structure Plan was considered inappropriate as it indicates the development directly abutting the edge of the wetland vegetation without addressing the required 50m buffers. The City has conveyed this consideration to the proponent after the meeting and requested the proponent further explore the opportunity to achieve the required buffer and minimize the potential impact on the wetland from the development, in consultation with the Council and relevant environmental agencies. Further discussions have been undertaken between the City officers, the proponent and environmental consultants from BBG in regard to various issues, with particular concerns on the above mentioned wetland and buffer issues. A site inspection was also undertaken to gain a better understanding on these issues. The proponent subsequently amended the TPS Amendment map and document as well as the Structure Plan, and submitted them on 29 August 2003 to seek Council’s support. The revised TPS3 amendment map indicates rezoning of the subject land from ‘Special Use’ to ‘Parks & Recreation Reserve” for the Bush Forever site and ‘Development Zone’ for the balance. City officers support the inclusion of the Bush Forever site and wetland area as “Parks and Recreation”, which will give statutory force to protect the environmental values present on site. The originally submitted Structure Plan provided minimal wetland buffers. Subsequent to discussions with the City the lot layout and road network were amended to provide an increased buffer albeit still less than the normal 50 metres. The proposal also intends to utilise a portion of the cleared Bush Forever site at the southwest corner of the lot for grouped housing development (see Agenda attachments). The proponent has argued that the proposal was considered reasonable for ceding approximately 33% of the land (Bush Forever site) for conservation and undertaking to rehabilitate approximately 1.5ha of the site as part of the development. An Environmental assessment was undertaken by Council’s Environmental Officer providing comments on the manner in which the proponents delineate the wetland boundary and the development layout. The assessment shows that the reduction of buffer distance will increase the risk of degradation of the respective elements of the wetland and ultimately this could threaten the prospects of upgrading this wetland to Conservation Category and/or may require significant resources from the City in the long term to protect the identified environmental values of the wetland. The identified values are as follows: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||