Metro Inner-North Joint Development Assessment Panel Agenda

Meeting Date and Time: Friday, 25 June 2021; 9.30am Meeting Number: MINJDAP/93 Meeting Venue: City of Bayswater 61 Broun Avenue, Morley

1 Table of Contents

1. Opening of Meeting, Welcome and Acknowledgement ...... 2 2. Apologies ...... 2 3. Members on Leave of Absence ...... 2 4. Noting of Minutes ...... 2 5. Declarations of Due Consideration ...... 2 6. Disclosure of Interests ...... 2 7. Deputations and Presentations ...... 3 8. Form 1 – Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Applications ...... 3 Nil ...... 3 9. Form 2 – Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Amendment or Cancellation of Approval ...... 3 Nil ...... 3 10. State Administrative Tribunal Applications and Supreme Court Appeals ..3 10.1 Lot 100 (293) Guildford Road, Maylands ...... 3 11. General Business ...... 3 12. Meeting Closure ...... 3

Version: 1 Page 1

Attendance

DAP Members

Ms Francesca Lefante (Presiding Member) Ms Lee O’Donohue (Deputy Presiding Member) Mr John Syme (Third Specialist Member) Mayor Dan Bull (Local Government Member, City of Bayswater) Cr Catherine Ehrhardt (Local Government Member, City of Bayswater)

Officers in attendance

Ms Alisa Spicer (City of Bayswater) Ms Helen Smith (City of Bayswater)

Minute Secretary

Ms Elizabeth Breen (City of Bayswater)

Applicants and Submitters

Mr Greg Rowe (Rowe Group) Mr Nathan Stewart (Rowe Group)

Members of the Public / Media

Nil

1. Opening of Meeting, Welcome and Acknowledgement

The Presiding Member declares the meeting open and acknowledges the traditional owners and pay respects to Elders past and present of the land on which the meeting is being held.

2. Apologies

Nil

3. Members on Leave of Absence

Nil

4. Noting of Minutes

Signed minutes of previous meetings are available on the DAP website.

5. Declarations of Due Consideration

Any member who is not familiar with the substance of any report or other information provided for consideration at the DAP meeting must declare that fact before the meeting considers the matter.

6. Disclosure of Interests

Nil

Version: 1 Page 2

7. Deputations and Presentations

The City of Bayswater may be provided with the opportunity to respond to questions of the panel, as invited by the Presiding Member.

8. Form 1 – Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Applications

Nil

9. Form 2 – Responsible Authority Reports – DAP Amendment or Cancellation of Approval

Nil

10. State Administrative Tribunal Applications and Supreme Court Appeals

10.1 Lot 100 (293) Guildford Road, Maylands

Development Description: Mixed Use Development Summary of Modifications: Three (3) Storey Mixed Use Development One (1) Restaurant, Nine (9) Offices, and 18 Multiple Dwellings - Modification to JDAP Approval - Reconsideration of Condition 3(c) & Change of Use to Restaurant (Tenancy 3) Applicant: Rowe Group Owner: Luminous Holdings Pty Ltd Responsible Authority: City of Bayswater DAP File No: DAP/15/00712

Current SAT Applications File No. & LG Name Property Location Application Date SAT Description Lodged DR No. DAP/19/01651 City of Lot 1 (80) Stirling Shopping Centre 21/07/2020 DR160/2020 Nedlands Highway, Lots 21- 23 (2, 4 & 6) Florence Road and Lots 33 & 33 (9&7) Stanley Street, Nedlands DAP/19/01722 City of Lot 1 (331) West 4 Storey Mixed Use 16/07/2020 DR155/2020 Stirling Coast Drive, Trigg Development

11. General Business

In accordance with Section 7.3 of the DAP Standing Orders 2020 only the Presiding Member may publicly comment on the operations or determinations of a DAP and other DAP members should not be approached to make comment.

12. Meeting Closure

Version: 1 Page 3

Lot 100, 293 Guildford Road Maylands – Mixed Use Development

State Administrative Tribunal Reconsideration – Responsible Authority Report (Regulation 12)

DAP Name: Metro Inner-North Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) Local Government Area: City of Bayswater Summary of Modifications: Three (3) Storey Mixed Use Development One (1) Restaurant, Nine (9) Offices, and 18 Multiple Dwellings - Modification to JDAP Approval - Reconsideration of Condition 3(c) & Change of Use to Restaurant (Tenancy 3) Applicant: ROWE Group Owner: Luminous Holdings Pty Ltd Value of Development: $30,000 approximate cost of verge bays. (Amendment to previously approved JDAP development application) Responsible Authority: City of Bayswater Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals LG Reference: DA14-0926.05 DAP File No: DAP/15/00712 SAT File No (DR reference): DR 21 of 2021 Date of Decision under Review: 18 January 2021 Application for Review 11 June 2021 Lodgement Date: Attachment(s): 1. Location Plan 2. Development plans 3. Applicants supporting documentation 4. Previous JDAP Determination Notices Is the Responsible Authority ☐ Yes Complete Responsible Authority Recommendation the same as the ☒ N/A Recommendation section Officer Recommendation? ☐ No Complete Responsible Authority and Officer Recommendation sections

Responsible Authority Recommendation

That the Metro Inner-North JDAP Development Assessment Panel, pursuant to section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 in respect of SAT application DR 21 of 2021, resolves to:

Reconsider its decision dated 18 January 2021 and SET ASIDE the decision and substitute a new decision for DAP Application reference DAP/15/00712 and amended plans (revised 13 May 2021) in accordance with Clause 68 of Schedule 2 (Deemed Provisions) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the provisions of Clause 1.6 of the City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No. 24, subject to the following conditions:

1. This decision constitutes planning approval only and is valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of approval. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the specified period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. This approval is subject to all conditions, advice notes and accompanying plans approved by the Metro Central Joint Development Assessment Panel on 31 August 2015 and as amended on 30 November 2015 and by the City of Bayswater on 6 March 2020, with the exception of Conditions 3(c), 18 and 21 which are amended as follows:

Condition 3(c) - A minimum of 22 commercial, 18 residential, and four (4) visitor car bays, and one service bay shall be provided on site.

Condition 18 - Visitor car parking spaces shall be clearly signposted as dedicated for 'residential visitor use only', prior to occupation, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

Condition 21 - The new residential car parking bay allocations to each dwelling shall be registered on the strata plan for the development, prior to occupation, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

3. A minimum of four (4) office bay car parking bays are to be made available for the restaurant use from 5:30pm to 7:30am Monday to Friday and at all times on Saturday and Sunday, and signage shall be erected to these bays clearly detailing the times of these bays being available for restaurant use prior to the first occupation of tenancy 3 for a restaurant, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

4. The six (6) restaurant bays shall be clearly signposted as dedicated for 'restaurant use only' prior to occupation of tenancy 3 for a restaurant, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

5. A Car Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved, prior to submission of a building permit application, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater detailing:

(a) Control of resident parking in restaurant and office bays, and vice versa;

(b) Which office tenancies are restricted to opening hours from 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday and closed Saturday and Sunday;

Page | 1

(d) Communication to future office tenants on reciprocal car parking arrangement; and

(e) Other matters required to be managed to mitigate undue impacts affecting the use of the development and surrounding area.

6. Five standard trees with a minimum pot size of 35L shall be provided within the lot, between the main building and the Guildford Road street boundary, prior to occupation of tenancy 3 for a restaurant, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

7. Prior to occupation of tenancy 3 for a restaurant, the owner/applicant is to pay the City of Bayswater the amount of $2,300 for the City of Bayswater to purchase five trees and to plant and maintain these trees within the Charles Street Reserve.

8. A minimum of four (4) bicycle bays shall be provided onsite prior to occupation of tenancy 3 for a restaurant, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

9. The verge car parking bays shall be designed and constructed at the full cost of the owner/applicant prior to occupation of tenancy 3 for a restaurant, to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

10. An amended refuse and recycling management plan shall be submitted to and approved, prior to submission of a building permit application, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater. The plan shall include details of predicted waste volumes, bin numbers, size and storage within the compound, bin collection frequency, potential nuisance odour issues, and details of the private waste service provided responsible for collecting the commercial waste including the scheduled collection days.

11. An Acoustic Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved, prior to submission of a building permit application, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater. The plan shall include details of potential noise impacts to residential land uses and mitigation measures.

12. The applicant/owner shall execute and provide to the City of Bayswater, a notification pursuant to section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act to be registered on the title of the property as notification to proprietors and/or (prospective) purchasers of the property of the following:

‘The City of Bayswater will not issue car parking permits to any occupier, staff or visitor of the commercial tenancies.' 'The use or enjoyment of the property may be affected by noise, traffic, car parking and other impact associated with nearby non-residential activities'

This notification shall be lodged and registered in accordance with the Transfer of Land Act prior to occupation of tenancy 3 for a restaurant.

Page | 2

13. All street tree(s) within the verge adjoining the subject property are to be retained and shall have measures consistent with AS 4970-2009 undertaken to ensure its/their protection during construction of the subject development to the satisfaction of the City, including but not limited to the following:

(a) A minimum 2.0m radius tree protection zone (TPZ) shall be provided through 1.8m high fencing around the verge trees (chain mesh panels or other suitable material) during construction of the subject development.

(b) The above fencing is not to be moved or removed at any period during construction, and this zone is not to be entered for any reason; signage notifying people of the TPZ and the associated requirements is to be placed on each side of the fencing.

(c) All activities related to construction of the subject development, including parking of vehicles, storage of materials, and washing of concreting tools and equipment is prohibited within the designated TPZ.

(d) Any roots identified to be pruned shall be pruned with a final cut to undamaged wood outside of the TPZ. Pruning cuts shall be made with sharp tools such as secateurs, pruners, handsaws or chainsaws. Pruning wounds shall not be treated with dressings or paints. It is not acceptable for roots to be ‘pruned’ with machinery such as backhoes or excavators.

(e) The tree(s) shall be provided with supplemental water during any construction period falling over summer, with a minimum of 150 litres being provided per week.

(f) Should any works be required to be undertaken within the TPZ, approval must be given by the City prior to entering this zone. You may be required to seek advice from an Arborist in regard to the type of works being undertaken, this information is to be assessed by the City as part of the approvals to enter.

(g) Any new crossover shall maintain a minimum clearance of 2.0m from the base of a street tree(s).

Advice Notes

1. The three 90 degree verge car parking bays located within the Charles Street verge adjacent to the subject site are public and are not for the exclusive use by residents and/or patrons of the adjacent development.

2. This approval is not an authority to ignore any constraint to development on the land, which may exist through contract or on title, such as but not limited to an easement or restrictive covenant. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner to investigate any such constraints before commencing development.

3. This approval is not a building permit or an approval under any other law than the Planning and Development Act 2005. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner to obtain any other necessary approvals, consents and/or licenses required under any other law, and to commence and carry out development in accordance with all relevant laws.

Page | 3

4. The use hereby permitted shall comply with the Environmental Protection Act 1986, the Health Act 1911, Food Act 2008 and any relevant environmental protection or health regulations.

5. The applicant is to ensure noise emissions from the site comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (as amended).

Details: outline of development application

Region Scheme Metropolitan Region Scheme Region Scheme Zone/Reserve Urban Local Planning Scheme City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No. 24 Local Planning Scheme Medium and High Density Residential Zone/Reserve Structure Plan/Precinct Plan Special Control Area 9 (SCA9) Structure Plan/Precinct Plan Permitted (P): Residential, Office, Shop, Land Use Designation Consulting rooms (Medical) Discretionary (D): Restaurant Use Class (proposed) and Discretionary (D): Restaurant permissibility: Lot Size: 2299m2 Gross Leasable Area (GLA): 94.9m2 of Tenancy 3 Number of Dwellings: 18 Multiple Dwellings Existing Land Use: 18 Multiple Dwellings and 10 Offices State Heritage Register No Local Heritage ☒ N/A

☐ Heritage List ☐ Heritage Area Design Review ☒ N/A ☐ Local Design Review Panel ☐ State Design Review Panel ☐ Other Bushfire Prone Area No Swan River Trust Area No

Proposal:

The proposed modifications to the approved development by the JDAP on 30 November 2015 include: • Amend Condition 3(c):

o The following condition was imposed on the determination notice dated 31 August 2015:

3(c) A minimum of 18 commercial, 22 residential, and five (5) visitor car bays, and one service bay shall be provided onsite.

o This condition was amended and approved by the JDAP on 30 November 2015:

Page | 4

1(c) A minimum of 18 commercial, 21 residential, and five visitor car bays and one service bay shall be provided on site.

o The following details the proposed further amendment to condition 3(c):

(c) A minimum of 18 25 commercial (including three (3) within the Charles Street verge, 21 18 residential, and five four (4) visitor car bays, and one service bay shall be provided on site.

• Change of use from Office to Restaurant (Tenancy No. 3).

Background:

Application to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT)

On 5 February 2021 an application was lodged with the SAT to review a JDAP decision to refuse the application to amend Condition 3(c) and Change of Use to Restaurant (Tenancy 3) at its meeting held on 18 January 2021.

This matter was the subject of two mediations held on the 22 March 2021 and the 29 April 2021.

The State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) has made orders inviting the decision-maker, under Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (SAT Act) to reconsider its decision on or before 25 June 2021. The decision-maker may: • affirm the previous decision, • vary the decision, or • set aside the decision and substitute a new decision.

Legislation and Policy:

Legislation

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 Planning and Development Act 2005 Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No. 24 (TPS24)

State Government Policies

State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 - Apartments (SPP7.3 V2)

Structure Plans/Activity Centre Plans

Town Planning Scheme No 24 - Special Control Area 9 (SCA9)

Local Policies

N/A

Consultation:

Page | 5

Public consultation

The previous proposal refused by JDAP on 18 January 2021 was advertised for a period of 14 days. At completion of the advertising period, a total of 22 submissions were received, 20 being objections and 2 being support.

The amended development application does not propose further greater variations to the TPS24 requirements which constitute readvertising. The submitters will be informed however of this SAT review and scheduled meeting date for the JDAP to reconsider its decision.

Referrals/consultation with Government/Service Agencies

The previous proposal was referred to Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER). The amended development application does not propose further amendments which constitute further comments from referral agencies.

Planning Assessment:

The proposal has been assessed against all the relevant legislative requirements of TPS24 including Special Control Area 9 (SCA9) and relevant Planning Policies as outlined in the Legislation and Policy section of this report. The following matters have been identified as key considerations for the determination of this application:

Land Use

The subject site is developed with a three-storey mixed use development comprising 10 offices and 18 multiple dwellings, ground floor car parking and five offices fronting Charles Street and Guildford Road, and offices and residential apartments above. Commercial tenancy 3 has a total gross floor area (GLA) of 94.9m² and is situated at a prominent location on the corner of the lot fronting both Charles Street and Guildford Road. The tenancy has an approved land use of office.

The proposed restaurant is anticipated to operate 7 days a week from 6.00am to 10pm. The operating hours have not changed from the original proposal considered by the JDAP on 18 January 2021. Minor internal fit out works are proposed however no physical alteration to the tenancy is proposed.

The proposed restaurant is located on the ground floor adjacent to the bin enclosure, office tenancies and car parking bays. Immediately above the subject tenancy are office tenancies. Residential units are located on the first and third floor of the mixed use development.

SCA9 applies to the subject site where a restaurant is a discretionary use. The purpose of SCA9 is to allow for mixed use development on the site including residential, office, shop, consulting rooms and restaurant, whilst preserving the amenity of adjacent residential development and the mixed use character along Guildford Road. Under development requirements, restaurant uses are to be located on the ground floor and not exceed 100m2 of GLA. The proposed restaurant is proposed to be located in tenancy 3 on the ground floor with a 94.9m2 GLA and therefore complies with this provision.

Page | 6

Existing approved land uses within close proximity to the subject site includes single houses, grouped dwellings, multiple dwellings and a special purpose zone which permits office and storage land uses. The special purpose zone which comprises one lot with a land area of 621m2 is located directly adjacent to the subject site to the west. The location of the proposed restaurant land use is considered appropriate provided that noise is effectively managed.

Given the subject tenancy's proximity to residential land uses and concerns raised during public consultation relating to amenity impacts relating to noise, an effective noise management and mitigation measures are required to be demonstrated to the City. It is considered that noise can be suitably managed through the provisions of an acoustic report. A condition for an acoustic report is recommended to ensure the restaurant use does not result in undue amenity impacts relating to noise during the day and evenings.

Parking

The following details the proposed amendment to condition 3c:

(c) A minimum of 25 commercial (including three (3) within the Charles Street verge, 18 residential, and four (4) visitor car bays, and one service bay shall be provided on site.

The below table refers to the current car parking rates.

Provision Requirement Proposal Assessment SPP7.3 V2 Residential 17.5 (18) car bays 18 car bays Complies dwellings Residential 3.75 (4) car bays 4 car bays Complies visitor TPS 24 Office 15.6 (16) car bays 16 car bays Complies Restaurant 9.97 (10) car bays 6 car bays Non-compliant On-street - 3 car bays - embayment car bays

When considering the car parking rate prescribed under SPP7.3 V2 and the City's car parking provisions under TPS24, the allocation of car bays to the residential apartments, visitors, the service bay and offices, comply and are therefore acceptable.

When considering the car bay allocation to the proposed restaurant, the proposed restaurant requires 10 onsite car parking bays in accordance with TPS24 whereas 6 onsite car parking bays are provided. This results in a 4 car parking bay shortfall (40% shortfall).

The following details a summary of the amendments to the development application originally considered by JDAP on 18 January 2021: • Rearranging onsite car parking to provide the 6 car parking bays for the restaurant land use within close proximity to tenancy 3. • Repositioning three embayed car parking bays within the Charles Street verge to comply with sightlines.

Page | 7

Reciprocal car parking arrangement: TPS24 allows for parking facilities to be provided jointly where peak hours of operation are substantially different.

The applicant has provided an amended technical note prepared by Shawmac. The technical note reviews the ten offices and the operating hours within the surrounding locality. This review details the operating hours as generally falling on weekdays from 8am to 5 or 5:30pm, with one office operating to 6pm during the week and one operating on a Saturday.

The applicant has advised that they have not secured office tenancies within the development to date and therefore are not able to provide future anticipated office operating hours from the office tenancies.

In considering the technical note, given there are nine office tenancies on the subject site (excluding tenancy 3), seven offices may open after 8am and close by 5pm on weekdays and be closed on weekends, making 12 bays available for reciprocal car parking use outside of these times. However as there is no certainty that the future office tenants will operate within these hours, a condition is recommended which requires the reciprocal car parking bays being made available from 5.30pm to 7:30am Monday to Friday and at all times on weekends.

A car parking management plan is required to clearly detail which bays will be made available for reciprocal car parking and how the applicant will communicate the car parking arrangement and restricted office hours with the future affected office tenancies. Signage is also required to be installed on a minimum of four car parking bays to be made available for reciprocal car parking for the restaurant use to clearly communicate to customers that these bays are available for use during the specified times. Conditions are recommended to reinforce this.

Given that a minimum of four car parking bays will be made available between 5.30pm and 7.30am on weekdays and at all times on weekends, in addition to the six car parking bays provided for the restaurant's exclusive use, the impact on car parking to surrounding residential streets including Charles Street is considered to not be unduly impacted during the early mornings, evenings and weekend.

Day time use: During the hours of 7.30am and 5.30pm Monday to Friday, six car parking bays are to be made available for the restaurant. The Shawmac technical note has referred to the Transportation Engineers Parking Generation which provides information on parking demands for various land uses based on surveys of existing developments. The parking generation rates for a quality restaurant and a high-turnover restaurant has been provided which shows varying peak demand times on weekdays during mid- morning, lunch and evenings.

The technical note also provides 'popular times' for restaurants and cafes within the locality. The City does not fully support these findings as they are based on Google Location History which relies on customers using Google Location on smart phones, whereas there is no guarantee that each customer has the location function on their phones and/or have a smart phone on them when visiting the restaurant or café. In addition, the City does not accept the justification based on other local government policies and 'suggested' reductions outlined under section 3.3.4 of the technical note.

Page | 8

As previously outlined in the RAR considered by the JDAP on 18 January 2021, The City's Car Parking in the Town Planning Scheme No 24 Area Policy provides dispensation for particular uses to have reduced car parking if the use meets the relevant criteria. The subject site is not located within a nominated Town Centre or a high frequency public transport as defined by this policy, hence a car parking dispensation cannot be applied under this policy.

The car parking bays embayed in the verge are not counted towards car parking for the restaurant as these are not provided onsite and cannot be set aside for the exclusive use of the subject development. However it is accepted that customers of the restaurant are likely to use these bays where available.

The technical note outlines the mixed-use nature of the development where customers or visitors of a particular use may be generated internally and the actual parking demand would be less than that of a standalone development. It also notes that of customers of Tenancy 3 will be from the [9] offices and [18] dwellings of the same development. The applicant has also advised that they are willing to provide an additional 4 bicycle parking bays onsite to further compensate any shortfall in car parking.

Given the unique factors of the site with a number of customers visiting the restaurant being generated from within the site itself, and the provision of an additional 4 bicycle parking bays providing for an alternative mode of transport to the restaurant for external customers, the provision of 6 car parking bays between 7.30am and 5.30pm on weekdays is considered to be acceptable.

Verge parking bays The three embayed car parking bays within the Charles Street verge have been repositioned and now comply with vehicle sightlines as required by Australian Standard AS 2890.5 (Parking facilities - On-street parking) and Australian Standard 2890.1 (Parking facilities - Off-street car parking). The City's Engineering team are supportive of these three verge parking bays subject to the following: • Detailed design will need to be prepared by the applicant/ owner and consider how stormwater drainage run-off is captured. • Wheelstops will be required for each parking bay. • Minimum footpath width to be 1.5m. • Existing bin collection hardstand to remain as is. • All costs associated with design/construction of the proposed verge parking bays to be borne by the applicant.

The loss of green space within the verge is required to be compensated. A 3.3 metre wide landscaping strip within the subject site is available along Guildford Road where five standard trees are capable of being accommodated. This area between the building and the Guildford Road lot boundary was previously required by Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) to be reserved for road widening purposes. In June 2017 plans for road widening along this section of Guildford Road were withdrawn and this space is now available to be used for high quality landscaping treatments. Trees being accommodated within this space will improve the amenity and activate this side of the development to Guildford Road.

In addition to the five trees to be provided on the subject site, five trees are recommended to be planted within Charles Reserve, which is located on the opposite

Page | 9

side of Charles Street, to further improve the amenity of this open space. A condition is recommended to this effect.

Based on the above reasons, the previous concerns with the verge bays relating to sightlines and loss of green space are considered to now be resolved.

Resident concerns For the reasons outlined in the preceding sections of this report, concerns raised during the public consultation period relating to overflow parking into the adjoining residential area, traffic and safety are now considered to be resolved.

Given the above reasons, the proposed car parking arrangement is recommended to be supported subject to conditions.

Waste collection / verge bin stand:

The amended plan dated 13 May 2021 modifying the location of the proposed embayed car parking bays on the Charles Street verge no longer proposes to modify the bin hard stand within the verge. In addition, the verge bays are located 4.8m from the existing semi mature Corymbia ficifloa (Red Flowering Gum), which is a sufficient distance to protect the existing root growth zone and trunk girth protecting the longevity of this verge tree. Therefore the City's concerns with the verge bays conflicting with the bin hard stand and verge tree are now resolved.

Other Matters

Environmental Health Services' Comments

Given the subject tenancies proximity to residential land uses, an acoustic report is required to be submitted to the City for consideration and approval to ensure the restaurant use does not result in undue noise impacts.

Due to the use likely resulting in larger volumes of waste and the verge bin stand being modified, if the JDAP determine to approve this application, a condition will be recommended requiring an amended Waste Management Plan.

Conclusion:

For the reasons outlined in the recommendation, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in this report.

Page | 10

Whilst all care has been taken in the compilation of this document, Rowe Group disclaim any responsibility for errors or omissions. This document is and remains property may not be reproduced transmitted, whole part, without written consent Group. All areas dimensions are subject to survey.

LEGEND

SUBJECT SITE EXISTING BOUNDARIES 7 EXISTING LOT NUMBERS

CHARLES N:\TOWN PLANNING\8000-8999\8195\DRAFTING\A-CAD · WILLIAM CLEMENTS · 2020.08.04 · N:\TOWN PLANNING\8000-8999\8195\DRAFTING\A-CADWILLIAM CLEMENTS ·

9 3

STREET 48.1 60.2

100 2294m²

35.3

54.2 GDA94 · CADASTRE: LANDGATE AERIAL PHOTO: EAGLEVIEW

ROAD MGA50 · PROJECTION:

GUILDFORD 2020.08.04 2020.08.04 · DATE CREATED: WILLIAM CLEMENTS WILLIAM CLEMENTS · DRAWN: 229

228 8195_FIG03B_20200804_Maylands (Site Plan)

0 12.5 m FIGURE 3 N SCALE @ A4: 1:500 SITE PLAN Document Set ID: 3785828 Version: 1, Version Date: 19/10/2020

Job Ref: 8195 21 May 2021

City of Bayswater 61 Broun Avenue MORLEY WA 6943

Attention: Helen Smith – Manager Planning Services

Dear Ms Smith

Reconsideration under S.31 of State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 Lot 100 (No. 293) Guildford Road, Maylands (DAP/15/00712)

We refer to the above Application (DAP/15/00712) which is currently the subject of an Application for Review in the State Administrative Tribunal (DR 21 of 2021).

In accordance with orders made at the Mediation session held on 29th April 2021, we provide the following additional information to assist the Metro Inner North JDAP in the reconsideration of its previous decision:

Additional information and modifications

Repositioning of proposed verge bays and internal parking bays Within the R.17 request initially submitted for approval by the JDAP, the modified application proposed the provision of three (3) additional parking bays, to be positioned within the Charles Street verge at a 90 degree angle to the road pavement.

The City’s comments within its Responsible Authority Report presented to the Metro Inner-North JDAP meeting of 18th January 2021 noted that the City did not support the proposed 90 degree verge car bays for three reasons. These reasons are detailed below (in bold italic font), together with the applicant’s response to each:

• The three 90 degree bays would result in sightline issues to Charles Street and therefore will result in undue safety for vehicles entering Charles Street from the adjacent Right Of Way and the development itself as well as vehicles entering and existing these bays from Charles Street.

During the mediation process, the above has been subject to further discussion involving the project Traffic Engineer and the City’s Engineering Co-ordinator. The outcome of this was that the City advised it would be prepared to consider support to the provision of the three verge bays, subject to the repositioning of the bays to maximise sight lines for motorists accessing the development and the laneway and the retention of the bin collection pad in its current ‘rectangular’ orientation.

In accordance with the above, a modified site plan has been prepared which incorporates the City’s requested amendments and is included as Attachment 1.

Page 1 8195_21May01L_jh

A sight line analysis in association with the repositioned parking bays has also been prepared, which is included at Attachment 2. The analysis demonstrates that sight lines for motorists accessing Charles Street from the adjacent laneway and internal driveway meet the standard specified in AS 2890.1. The repositioned bays will maintain waste collection in accordance with current arrangements and will also enable a greater separation between the proposed verge bays and existing verge trees, thereby avoiding disturbance and preserving the health of the trees.

In addition to the above, the modified site plan illustrates the sixth parking bay, formerly located adjacent to the southern boundary, being repositioned to a new location immediately adjacent to Tenancy No.3. This will ensure that all bays are clearly identified and available for use by staff and customers of the Restaurant.

Refer Attachment 1 – updated site plan and refer Attachment 2 – updated site plan illustrating sight lines for motorists entering Charles Street

• The use of verge area for commercial car parking in this location will reduce green space within this vicinity contributing to the heat island effect.

With respect to the above, the loss of green space within the verge in association with the proposed verge parking bays amounts to approximately 40m2. In this regard, it must be acknowledged that the 2015 approval was based upon a ‘Land Protection Plan’ imposed by Main Roads WA for the potential future widening of Guildford Road which required a 6m wide portion of the site adjacent to the Guildford Road frontage to be set aside for road widening purposes.

Following the determination of the application by the JDAP in December 2015, the WA Planning Commission subsequently initiated MRS Amendment 1310/41 in December 2016 for the widening of Guildford Road from East Parade to Tonkin Highway, which was ultimately withdrawn by the Minister for Planning following considerable opposition by landowners and the City of Bayswater. Accordingly, it is our understanding that the ‘Land Protection Plan’, which accompanied MRS Amendment 1310/41 has also been withdrawn and there are no “firm” plans to widen Guildford Road in the near future.

The ‘road widening’ area will now remain as part of the site and incorporates an area of over 300m2, which is significantly greater than the 40m2 portion of the Charles Street verge required to accommodate the proposed parking bays. In addition, the proponent is prepared to undertake additional tree planting within the Charles Street reserve opposite the proposed verge bays, to further offset any loss of vegetation in proximity to Charles Street.

• The provision for car parking should be contained wholly within the boundaries of the development.

Whilst the City’s position is acknowledged, the proponent has endeavoured to accommodate additional parking bays and amend the distribution of parking bays within the site in order to achieve a compliant parking provision. It was not possible to accommodate the full provision as detailed in the City’s LPS24 however the provision of verge parking bays in association with Commercial developments is not an unusual occurrence and will assist in facilitating the efficient operation of the proposed use and has been accepted in various other areas by the City.

In addition, it is specifically referenced as an option in the City of Bayswater ‘Cash in Lieu of Carparking Policy’, Clause 13 which states as follows:

Page 2 8195_21May01L_jh

“13. Where an application proposes a shortfall in the required number of on-site car parking bays and cash in lieu of car parking is not applicable, the City may require:

a) If considered practical by the City, the construction by the developer of on-street car parking bays, associated landscaping and street trees for some or all of the on-site car parking shortfall; or b) A cost recovery payment from the developer equal to the construction cost of on-street car parking bays and associated landscaping and street trees for some or all of the on-site car parking shortfall; or c) A combination of the construction and payment of on-street car parking bays as outlined in Clauses 13 a) and 13 b).” In accordance with Clause 13.a) above, an amended site plan has been prepared which incorporates three (3) additional parking bays within the Charles Street road verge. The provision of these bays as illustrated in the updated plan meets the standard specified in AS 2890.1 and will not result in any obstruction to the existing footpath, nor will they result in any conflict with existing crossovers to the development, the Right of Way or the intersection with Charles Street and Guildford Road.

The provision of the three verge bays, in conjunction with the six (6) bays within the site to be allocated to the Restaurant use, would result in a total provision of nine (9) bays. This represents a shortfall of only one (1) bay, in comparison to the requirement within the City’s LPS24 of ten (10) bays. The potential impact of this shortfall has been subject to further consideration which is outlined in the subsequent section.

Refer Attachment 1 – updated site plan

Reciprocal use of parking During the mediation process, Shawmac Traffic Engineers (on behalf of the applicant) undertook an assessment of the potential for reciprocal use of parking between the Office tenancies and the Restaurant. This is detailed in a Technical Note which is included at Attachment 3.

The Technical Note demonstrates that: • Based upon an analysis of existing cafe/restaurants in the Maylands area, the peak trading period for the restaurant is anticipated to be in the evenings on weekdays and on weekends, with weekday trading anticipated to be 30%-60% of peak operations; • Based upon an analysis of existing offices in the Maylands area, these tenancies are generally closed by 6pm during the week and rarely operate on weekends; • In a mixed-use environment, a significant proportion of trade for the restaurant would be obtained from dwellings and other commercial tenancies within the development, with this principle demonstrated within the parking policy adopted by the City of South Perth which supported a reduced parking provision in these instances.

In accordance with the above, the trading patterns of other restaurants in proximity to the site indicates that the proposed restaurant would require a maximum of six (6) parking bays to accommodate the anticipated demand associated with weekday trading. During these periods, the proposed restaurant would actually have a surplus of three (3) bays. This does not take into account the proportion of trade associated with the dwellings and other commercial tenancies within the development, which would likely further reduce the need for on-site parking.

The peak period of operation for the restaurant would occur during weekday evenings and weekends, when a total of ten (10) bays would be required to cater for anticipated demand. At these times, it is likely that the majority (if not all) of the office tenancies within the development would be closed. Consequently, the one (1)

Page 3 8195_21May01L_jh

bay parking shortfall associated with the restaurant would be addressed through the use of the eight (8) bays allocated to the office tenancies which would be available at this time.

Given that the shortfall relates to only one bay, it is not considered necessary to impose a restriction on the use of office parking bays outside business hours.

Refer Attachment 3 – Technical Note

Response to reasons for refusal In its previous consideration of the application, the Metro Inner-North JDAP at its meeting of 18th January 2021 resolved to refuse the application for six (6) reasons.

In accordance with S.31(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act, upon being invited by the Tribunal to reconsider the reviewable decision, the decision maker may:

(a) affirm the decision; or (b) vary the decision; or (c) set aside the decision and substitute its new decision.

With respect to the above, the Applicant considers that the most appropriate outcome would be in accordance with S.31(2) (c) above. To assist the JDAP in this process, its previous refusal reasons are outlined below (in bold italic font) together with the Applicant’s response to each:

1. The proposal does not comply with Table 2 of the City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No 24 relating to car parking.

Amongst other things, the application involves the re-introduction of the ‘Restaurant’ land use within Tenancy No.3 of the development. The parking requirement and parking proposed for the Restaurant land use is outlined below:

Required

Restaurant 10 bays per 100m2 of GLA (LPS24)

Total Required 10 car parking bays (94m2 GLA rounded up)

Total Provided 9 Car parking bays

Shortfall 1 (10% reduction)

The provision of parking for the proposed Restaurant land use within Tenancy No.3 is to consist of: 1) the current allocation of two (2) bays (representing an approved shortfall of two (2) bays); 2) the re-allocation of four (4) bays associated with the approved Multiple Dwelling development; and 3) the construction of three (3) bays within the Charles Street road verge.

The proposed parking provision of nine (9) bays represents a shortfall of 1 bay or 10%, which is significantly less than the current approved shortfall.

Page 4 8195_21May01L_jh

Within the previous RAR, the City stated that “…the allocation of car bays to the residential apartments, visitors, the service bay and offices, comply and are therefore acceptable.” Consequently, this aspect has not been the subject of consideration within the SAT mediation process.

As detailed within the previous sections, the updated material for consideration by the JDAP consists of an updated site plan incorporating repositioned verge parking bays and a Technical Note examining the anticipated parking demand for the uses and demonstrating the ability for reciprocal use of parking bays within the development.

The repositioning of the three proposed verge bays satisfies the potential safety concerns previously expressed by the City, whilst the Technical Note demonstrates that the development will incorporate sufficient parking bays to address the anticipated parking demand associated with the approved and proposed land uses.

2. The proposal results in an undue impact on the amenity of the area.

Please refer to our response to Reason No.3 below.

3. The proposal is inconsistent with the purpose of Special Control Area 9 as it results in an undue impact on the amenity of the adjacent residential development.

Under the provisions of TPS No. 24, the subject site is zoned ‘Medium and High Density Residential’ and is further identified as ‘Special Control Area 9’ (‘SCA9’).

TPS No. 24 states that the purpose of SCA9 is;

“To allow for mixed use development on the site including residential, office, shop, consulting rooms (medical) and restaurant, whilst preserving the amenity of adjacent residential development and the mixed use character along Guildford Road adjacent to the site”.

The previous Responsible Authority Report prepared by the City did not incorporate any assessment of the proposal in relation to potential impacts to the amenity of adjacent residential development, aside from the final paragraph within the section titled ‘Land use’ on page 7 of the RAR. Within this section, reference was made to concerns raised by neighbouring residents with respect to potential noise impacts associated with the ‘Restaurant’ use, with the City indicating that an acoustic report would ensure that the use does not result in undue amenity impacts.

The proponent does not support the City’s view that the provision of an acoustic report is required prior to determination of the application. We note that the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 would be applicable to the Restaurant land use and also to the adjacent residential development. The proposed restaurant would be capable of complying with the relevant provisions of the Regulations and would not adversely affect adjacent residential development for the following reasons:

• Tenancy No.3 incorporating the proposed Restaurant is set well back from existing dwellings on neighbouring properties and residential apartments within the site;

Page 5 8195_21May01L_jh

• The site is zoned ‘Mixed Use’ and is therefore suitably zoned to accommodate commercial land uses in conjunction with/proximity to residential living; and • The Restaurant largely relates to dining within the premises, which is likely to contain noise and minimise any potential noise impacts to neighbouring properties.

Should it be required, the provision of an Acoustic Assessment could be suitably addressed as a condition of development approval.

4. The proposal does not provide adequate parking of vehicles in accordance with clause 67(s) of the deemed provisions under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

With respect to the above, Clause 67(s) of the deemed provisions is reproduced below:

“(s) the adequacy of —

i. the proposed means of access to and egress from the site; and ii. arrangements for the loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles;”

Reason No.4 of the refusal is no longer relevant, based upon the repositioning of the proposed verge bays and the technical assessment undertaken by Shawmac which demonstrates that the parking demand associated with the development will be suitably addressed.

5. The proposal does not ameliorate concerns raised by submissions received by the surrounding landowners and occupiers in accordance with clause 67(y) of the deemed provisions under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

With respect to the above, Clause 67(y) of the deemed provisions is reproduced below:

“(y) any submissions received on the application;”

A summary of the issues raised and the City’s responses to each was detailed within a table included at pages 4- 6 of the previous RAR. A review of the City’s responses and also the applicant’s responses (included at Attachment 4 within the previous RAR) demonstrates that the concerns of residents are either not sustained or are capable of being addressed through suitably worded approval conditions. Moreover, the amended plan addresses matters relating to the location of parking bays allocated to the Restaurant use and also the any potential safety concerns associated with the proposed verge parking bays.

In view of the above, the proponent considers that concerns raised by submitters have been suitably addressed and therefore the imposition of Reason No.5 is not justified in this instance.

6. The proposal is inconsistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality in accordance with clause 67(b) of the deemed provisions under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

With respect to the above, Clause 67(b) of the deemed provisions is reproduced below:

Page 6 8195_21May01L_jh

“(b) the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any proposed local planning scheme or amendment to this Scheme that has been advertised under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving;”

With respect to the above, we note that the phrase “orderly and proper planning” is not defined within the City’s LPS24 nor is it defined within any Western Australian legislation. However, it was the subject of consideration as part of Marshall v Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority (2015) WASC 226 in the Supreme Court of Western Australia (CIV 1951 of 2014). Paragraphs 178 – 186 of the decision examine this aspect and note as follows:

Paragraph 179 of the decision states (in part) that: “…to be orderly and proper, the exercise of discretion within the planning context should be conducted in an orderly way – that is, in a way which is disciplined, methodical, logical and systematic, and which is not haphazard or capricious.”

Paragraph 182 of the decision states (in part) that: “If the exercise of discretion is to be an orderly one, the planning principles identified as relevant to an application should not be lightly departed from without the demonstration of a sound basis for doing so, which basis is itself grounded in planning law or principle.”

With respect to the subject application, the applicant considers that the proposal is consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality as:

• The applicant has provided a detailed application which is supported by the relevant technical assessment to enable consideration by the decision maker; • The Responsible Authority has undertaken an assessment process which is disciplined and methodical, including referral to relevant stakeholders; • The discretion sought is capable of approval and is consistent with prior determinations made for the site and also the planning framework applicable to the site.

For the reasons noted above, the applicant considers that it is not reasonable to state that the proposal is inconsistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality.

Conclusion The proposed modifications to the DAP approval (DAP/15/00712) are considered to be consistent with the intent of R.17 of the Regulations. We consider that the previous decision of the JDAP should be set aside and substituted with a new decision to approve the proposal, for the following reasons:

• The proposal will result in a reduction to the overall parking shortfall for Tenancy No.3 from two bays to one bay, with the parking for the residential dwellings being compliant with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes. • The Technical Note in relation to the potential for reciprocal parking between the commercial land uses demonstrates that the development will incorporate sufficient parking bays to address the anticipated parking demand associated with the approved and proposed land uses.

Page 7 8195_21May01L_jh

• The repositioning of the three verge parking bays will ensure that the sight lines for motorists accessing Charles Street from the adjacent laneway and internal driveway meet the standard specified in AS 2890.1 and will maintain waste collection in accordance with current arrangements. • The provision of the three verge bays will not adversely affect the provision of landscaping in association with the development due to the retention of green space adjacent to Guildford Road. It will also be offset by additional tree planting within the Charles Street verge; • Matters raised during the advertising process are either not sustained or are capable of being addressed through suitably worded approval conditions; • The proposal is consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality in accordance with clause 67(b) of the deemed provisions under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and • The Restaurant/Café use is consistent with the Special Control Area No.9 that is applicable to the site and will facilitate much needed activation of the street corner.

We trust that this will facilitate the favourable reconsideration of our application, but should you require any further information or clarification in relation to this matter, please contact Jeremy Hofland on 9221 1991.

Yours faithfully,

Jeremy Hofland Rowe Group

Copy - DAP Secretariat - Attn: Presiding Member Metro Inner-North JDAP

Page 8 8195_21May01L_jh

Attachment One Updated site plan

Page 9 8195_21May01L_jh

Attachment Two Updated site plan illustrating sight lines for motorists entering Charles Street

Page 10 8195_21May01L_jh SIGHT LINE ANALYSIS - EXITING VEHICLE FROM R.O.W.

35m SIGHT LINE ANALYSIS - EXITING VEHICLE FROM INTERNAL ACCESSWAY 35m

Attachment Three Technical Note prepared by Shawmac

Page 11 8195_21May01L_jh

Technical Note

Subject: Mixed Use Development at 293 Guildford Road, Maylands Parking Demand Assessment Date: 21st May 2021 Author: Paul Nguyen Reviewer Richard Jois Client: Rowe Group

1. Background

The proposed mixed-use development at 293 Guildford Road in Maylands was recently completed and partially occupied. The site is located within the City of Bayswater.

The development includes 18 multiple dwellings and 10 commercial (office) tenancies. The approved on-site parking provision consists of 45 car bays allocated as follows:

• 21 bays for residents.

• 5 bays for residential visitors (includes one accessible bay).

• 18 bays for the commercial (office) tenancies.

• 1 service bay.

The client is proposing to change the use of tenancy 3 from office to restaurant to allow this tenancy to be used as a café / restaurant. The resulting car parking allocation would be as follows:

• 18 bays for residents.

• 4 bays for residential visitors.

• 16 bays for office tenancies.

• 6 bays for the café / restaurant.

• 1 service bay.

Shawmac have been engaged to demonstrate whether the on-site parking provision could accommodate the proposed change in use.

The proposed parking allocation is also shown in Figure 1.

1 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

Figure 1: Site Plan and Parking Allocation

2 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

2. Parking Requirements Technical Note

The modified parking requirements for the proposed change in use are detailed in Table 1.

Table 1: Calculated Parking Requirement

Land Use Policy Requirement Proposed Compliance

State Planning Policy SPP 7.3 18 resident bays 18 resident bays Complies Residential Residential Design Codes V2 4 visitor bays 4 visitor bays Complies Office Town Planning Scheme TPS24 16 bays 16 bays Complies Café / Restaurant Town Planning Scheme TPS24 10 bays 6 bays 4 bays short

As shown, the calculated parking requirement for the café / restaurant is 10 bays and so the provision of 6 bays is 4 bays short.

The City’s Town Planning Scheme provides advice on the joint use of parking facilities as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: TPS Advice on Joint Use of Parking Facilities

3 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

3. Parking Assessment

3.1. Operating Hours

As there are no confirmed tenants for the office or café / restaurant tenancies, the likely hours of operation have been determined from similar existing uses nearby.

3.1.1. Office The typical operating hours and peak periods of operation for office type uses are detailed in Table 2.

Table 2: Review of Existing Office Uses

Business Hours of Operation Mon - Thurs: 9:30am - 4pm Perth Realty (197 Guildford Rd, Maylands) Fri: 9:30am - 3pm NTY Property Group Real Estate (43 Eighth Ave, Maylands) Mon - Fri: 9am - 5pm Milan Travel (191 Guildford Rd, Maylands) Mon - Fri: 9am - 5pm Sat: 9am - 12pm A&E Legal (7/168 Guildford Rd, Maylands) Mon - Fri: 8:30am - 5pm Masters Finance Group (10/168 Guildford Rd, Maylands) Mon - Fri: 9am - 5:30pm McMahon Mining Title Services (28/168 Guildford Rd, Mon - Fri: 8:30am - 5:30pm Maylands) Admiral Building Consultants (168 Guildford Rd, Maylands) Mon - Fri: 8:30am - 4:30pm DTS Legal (5/168 Guildford Rd, Maylands) Mon - Fri: 9am - 6pm My Way Community Alliance (23/168 Guildford Rd, Maylands) Mon - Fri: 9am - 5pm Motorcycling WA (25/168 Guildford Rd, Maylands) Mon - Fri: 8am - 4pm

As shown, the majority of office type uses only operate on weekdays starting around 8 to 9am and generally closing around 5 to 5:30pm. Only one of the reviewed businesses operated on a Saturday morning and no businesses were open on a Sunday.

There was limited data on the peak period of operations but it is reasonable to conclude that by 5pm on weekdays most or all of the office parking bays would be vacant.

Similarly on a weekend, even if some of the office tenancies were operating, it is likely that the majority of the 16 bays allocated for office uses would be available for use by the proposed restaurant or café.

Based on the above, the proposed shortfall of 4 bays associated with Tenancy 3 would be adequately compensated through joint use of the office parking bays on a weeknight or on a weekend.

4 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

3.2. Restaurant / Café Parking Demand

As the proposed shortfall in parking bays associated with Tenancy 3 is adequately compensated on-site outside of the typical office hours (on weekday evenings and on weekends), the parking demand during office hours has been reviewed in more detail.

The typical parking demand profile for restaurants and cafés has been obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation, 5th Edition. Parking Generation provides information on parking demands for various land uses based on surveys are existing developments including:

• The typical periods of peak parking demand

• The average peak parking demand

• For some uses, a parking demand profile detailing the percentage of the peak parking demand throughout the day.

Two uses have been considered including:

• Quality Restaurant (Land Use 931) which are restaurants mostly serving dinner and sometimes lunch.

• High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant (Land Use 932) which off more casual, high-turnover dining. These restaurants typically serve lunch and dinner and sometimes breakfast.

5 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

3.2.1. Quality Restaurant The weekday parking demand profile is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Weekday Parking Demand Profile for Quality Restaurants

6 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

The corresponding parking demand for the proposed restaurant or café is then calculated in Table 3 on the basis that 100% demand equates to all 10 bays being required.

Table 3: Calculation of Tenancy 3 Parking Demand on a Weekday – Quality Restaurant

Hour Weekday Friday Beginning Percent of Peak Period Bays Required Percent of Peak Period Bays Required 5am - - - - 6am - - - - 7am - - - - 8am - - - - 9am - - - - 10am - - - - 11am 20% 2 11% 1 12pm 51% 5 37% 4 1pm 56% 6 54% 5 2pm 40% 4 29% 3 3pm 27% 3 22% 2 4pm 27% 3 14% 1 5pm 39% 4 18% 2 6pm 71% 7 42% 4 7pm 100% 10 91% 9 8pm 97% 10 100% 10 9pm - - - - 10pm - - - - 11pm - - - -

As above, the maximum parking demand of the Tenancy 3 as a restaurant during office hours (before 5pm) is 6 bays throughout the week which would be satisfied by the 6 bays allocated to Tenancy 3.

7 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

3.2.2. High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant The weekday parking demand profile is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Weekday Parking Demand Profile for High Turnover Restaurants

8 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

The corresponding parking demand for the proposed restaurant or café is then calculated in Table 4.

Table 4: Calculation of Tenancy 3 Demand on a Weekday – High Turnover Restaurant

Family (breakfast, lunch and dinner) Family (lunch and dinner) Lounge or Bar Hour Beginning Percent of Peak Bays Required Percent of Peak Bays Required Percent of Peak Bays Required Period Period Period 5am ------6am 10% 1 - - - - 7am 25% 3 - - - - 8am 68% 7 - - - - 9am 72% 7 - - - - 10am 77% 8 26% 3 9% 1 11am 83% 8 42% 4 15% 2 12pm 100% 10 95% 10 100% 10 1pm 91% 9 95% 10 81% 8 2pm 56% 6 49% 5 54% 5 3pm 42% 4 39% 4 33% 3 4pm 42% 4 37% 4 26% 3 5pm 64% 6 62% 6 29% 3 6pm 87% 9 99% 10 58% 6 7pm 79% 8 100% 10 70% 7 8pm 65% 7 83% 8 77% 8 9pm 42% 4 51% 5 61% 6 10pm 21% 2 28% 3 41% 4 11pm ------

As above, the maximum parking demand of the Tenancy 3 during office hours (before 5pm) would be 10 bays for all restaurant type.

It is noted that the surveyed restaurants are standalone restaurants. Once consideration has been given to the mixed-use development, the higher than standard proportion of internal customers and the accessibility for non-car transport modes, the actual parking demand during office hours is likely to be less than 10 bays. This is discussed in later sections of this report.

9 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

3.2.3. Google Popular Times The peak periods of operation of existing similar restaurants and cafes have also been reviewed. These were derived from the “Popular Times” feature from Google Maps which plots the hourly levels of activity at businesses over the previous few months. The feature aggregates data from users who opt in to Google Location History and the feature only appears when there is sufficient data. The busiest hour is used as a benchmark with all other hours during the week plotted relative to the busiest hour.

Example profiles from the nearby Garden Café on Guildford is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Example Popular Times Profile from Google

The above profile shows that the weekday peak period of operation is about half as busy as the peak period of operation on a Saturday. This indicates that the peak parking demand on a weekday would be approximately half of the overall peak parking demand.

The City advises that it does not accept the use of Google Maps’ Popular Times feature as it relies on algorithms based on data collected from smart phone users who have opted into Google Location history. While it is agreed that the reliability depends on the number of users that opt in, the level of smart phone usage in Australia is relatively high (approximately 75.8% of Australian population in 2017 according to Statista) and the feature only appears when there is enough data. That is, when there are enough smartphone users that have opted in and have visited the site. It is unlikely that the proportion of smartphone users that opt in would change significantly over the week.

This information has been included only as broad indicator of activity levels so that a general comparison can be made between the weekday and weekend activity at similar existing cafés and restaurants.

10 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

The demand profile at Rifo’s (189 Guildford Rd, Maylands) is shown in Figure 6. As shown, the typical demand during the day on weekday is about 50% to 60% of the peak demand which occurs on a Saturday night.

Figure 6: Peak Periods of Operation at Rifo’s

The demand profile at Garden Café on Guildford (317 Guildford Rd, Maylands) is shown in Figure 7. As shown, the typical demand during the day on weekday is about 40% to 50% of the peak demand which occurs on a Saturday morning.

Figure 7: Peak Periods of Operation at Garden Café on Guildford

11 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

The demand profile at The Coffee Corner (68/1 Kennedy St, Maylands) is shown in Figure 8. As shown, the typical demand during the day on weekday is about 30% to 60% of the peak demand which occurs on a Saturday morning.

Figure 8: Peak Periods of Operation at The Coffee Corner

The demand profile at Rotana Garden Café (42 Eighth Ave, Maylands) is shown in Figure 9. As shown, the typical demand during the day on weekday is less than 30% of the peak demand which occurs on a Saturday night.

Figure 9: Peak Periods of Operation at Rotana Garden Café

12 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

It is clear that the peak period of operation for most restaurants and cafés is on the weekend and that the peak weekday demand is generally between 30% to 60% of the weekend demand. If a restaurant or cafe is open for more than one of the main meal services (breakfast, lunch and dinner), then one period is always much busier than the other. For example, Rifo’s is open for most of the day but the dinner period has a much higher demand than the lunch and breakfast service.

As the proposed restaurant or café requires 10 parking bays, the peak parking demand of 10 bays is likely to occur on a Saturday.

It is reasonable to assume that the proposed restaurant or café would have a similar demand profile to other existing restaurants and cafés and so the demand during the weekday day would be between 30% and 60% of the peak demand. The weekday parking demand would therefore be 3 to 6 bays which would be satisfied by the proposed 6 bays allocated to this tenancy.

To summarise, the peak periods of operation and parking demand of the uses on the site are likely to be sufficiently staggered such that the parking demand of the café or restaurant could be accommodated on the site throughout the week through the joint use of the commercial parking bays.

13 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

3.3. Parking Reductions for Mixed-Use Developments and Alternative Transport Use

The parking ratio applied to Tenancy 3 (10 bays per 100sqm of GLA) is the same rate applied to any restaurant development regardless of the circumstance (standalone restaurant or a restaurant in a mixed use development).

Although Clause 8.4.2 of the Town Planning Scheme accounts for the joint use of parking where adjoining uses have differing peak periods of operation, there is no provision for reduced parking requirements for mixed-use development. In mixed-use developments, many customers or visitors of a particular use may be generated internally and the actual parking demand would be less than that of a standalone development. In this particular development, it is considered likely that many customers of Tenancy 3 will be from the offices and the dwellings within the same development. It is understood that several potential office tenants have held off from leasing the site due to the lack of café or restaurant use.

There is also no provision within the applicable planning framework implemented by the City for reductions based on alternative transport use including public transport or provision of bicycle parking even though the site has good access to alternative transport (Meltham Station, Bus Routes 48 & 55 and a principal shared path along Whatley Crescent).

However, other Perth metropolitan local governments areas have recognised the potential for reduced parking demand arising from this. Examples where such reductions are applied in or similar local government areas are detailed in the following sections.

14 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

3.3.1. City of Stirling The City of Stirling Policy 6.7 Parking and Access allows for parking reductions based on certain criteria including proximity to public transport, provision of additional bicycle parking and mixed uses. The potential reductions are shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: City of Stirling Parking Reduction Criteria

15 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

3.3.2. City of South Perth The City of South Perth Policy 315 Car Parking Reductions for Non-Residential Development allows for parking reductions for non-residential development where are opportunities to promote alternative transport modes or to utilise existing infrastructure. The potential reductions are shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11: City of South Perth Parking Reduction Criteria

16 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

3.3.3. Town of Cambridge The Town of Cambridge Local Planning Policy 3.13 Parking sets out the access and parking provisions for non- residential development (including commercial and mixed-use developments). For both environmental and practical reasons, the policy includes measures to provide for and encourage greater use of alternative transport modes, reducing reliance on the car, notwithstanding the need for suitable parking to be provided as part of a proposed development.

Consideration for parking reductions are shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Town of Cambridge Provision for Reduced Parking

Previous versions of the policy permitted a reduction of up to 20% based on the availability of alternative transport modes.

17 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

3.3.4. Potential Reductions for Tenancy 3 Based on similar provisions in other metropolitan local councils, the following reductions are considered to be reasonable for the proposed restaurant or café. Where other councils had varying reductions, the average or most common percentage reduction has been suggested.

• 15% reduction as the site is within 800m walking distance of Meltham Station.

• 10% reduction as the site is within 400m of a bus stop / station.

• 15% reduction as the proposed development contains a mix of uses, at least 45 percent of the gross floor is residential and the required provision of visitor bays for each use is available to visitors at all times.

• 5% reduction based on the provision of additional bicycle parking over and above the minimum requirements. The amount of additional bicycle parking can be agreed with the City.

Based on the above, the parking requirement would then reduce to 6 bays which matches the number of bays allocated to the proposed restaurant or café. It is recommended that the City considers the above concessions with regards to applicability for this proposed use.

18 | P a g e

Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineers

4. Conclusion and Recommendations

The shortfall of 4 car parking bays for the proposed restaurant / café tenancy at 293 Guildford Road, Maylands is considered to be justifiable for the following reasons:

• A review of the operating hours at existing office developments indicates that these businesses typically close by around 5pm and do not operate on weekends. As such, the majority of the 16 bays allocated to the office tenancies are likely to be available on weeknights and weekends and would adequately compensate the 4 bay shortfall during these periods.

• A review of the likely parking demand based on ITE Parking Generation estimates that the maximum parking demand during office hours would vary between 6 to 10 bays depending on the type of restaurant.

• A review of the likely parking demand based on Google Maps’ “Popular Times” information from similar existing restaurants indicates that parking demand during office hours would be between 3 and 6 bays.

• The parking ratio applied is the same rate applied to any restaurant development regardless of the circumstance and there is no provision for reduced parking requirements based on the mix of uses or the potential for alternative transport use. If reductions available in other similar local councils were applied, then the actual parking requirements for the propose use could reduce to 6 bays which is satisfied by the proposed allocation of parking.

• It is understood that the client is willing to provide additional bicycle parking in an effort to encourage cycling and to reduce the demand for car parking.

19 | P a g e

LG Ref: DA14-0926.05 DAP Ref: DAP/15/00712 Enquiries: (08) 6551 9919

Mr George Hajigabriel Rowe Group Level 3/369 Newcastle Street, NORTHBRIDGE WA 6003

Dear Mr Hajigabriel

METRO INNER-NORTH JDAP - CITY OF BAYSWATER - DAP APPLICATION - DA14-0926.05 - DETERMINATION

Property Location: Lot 100, 293 Guildford Road, Maylands Application Details: Three (3) Storey Mixed Use Development One (1) Restaurant, Nine (9) Offices, and 18 Multiple Dwellings - Modification to JDAP Approval Amendment Details: Reconsideration of Condition 3(c) & Change of Use to Restaurant (Tenancy 3)

Thank you for your Form 2.3 Development Assessment Panel (DAP) application and plans submitted to the City of Bayswater on 20 October 2020 for the above-mentioned development.

This application was considered by the Metro Inner-North JDAP at its meeting held on 18 January 2021, where in accordance with the provisions of the City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No. 24, it was resolved to refuse the application as per the attached notice of determination.

Please be advised that there is a right of review by the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. Such an application must be made within 28 days of the determination, in accordance with the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004.

Should you have any queries with respect to the reasons for refusal, please contact Ms Alisa Spicer on behalf of the City of Bayswater on 9272 0627.

Yours sincerely,

DAP Secretariat

20 January 2021

Encl. DAP Determination Notice Refused Plans

Cc: Ms Alisa Spicer City of Bayswater

Postal address: Locked Bag 2506 Perth WA 6001 Street address: 140 William Street Perth WA 6000 Tel: (08) 6551 9919 Fax: (08) 6551 9961 TTY: 6551 9007 Infoline: 1800 626 477 [email protected] www.dplh.wa.gov.au ABN 68 565 723 484

Planning and Development Act 2005

City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No. 24

Metro Inner-North Joint Development Assessment Panel

Determination on Development Assessment Panel Application for Planning Approval

In accordance with regulation 8 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011, the above application for planning approval was refused on 18 January 2021, subject to the following:

1. Refuse that the DAP Application reference DAP/15/00712 as detailed on the DAP Form 2 dated 20 October 2020 is appropriate for consideration in accordance with regulation 17 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011;

2. Refuse DAP Application reference DAP/15/00712 and accompanying plan dated 14th October 2020 in accordance with Clause 68 of Schedule 2 (Deemed Provisions) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, and the provisions of Clause No. 1.6 of the City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No. 24, for the proposed minor amendment to the approved Three Storey Mixed Use Development at Lot 100 (293) Guildford Road, Maylands, for the following reasons:

Reasons

1. The proposal does not comply with Table 2 of the City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No 24 relating to car parking.

2. The proposal results in an undue impact on the amenity of the area.

3. The proposal is inconsistent with the purpose of Special Control Area 9 as it results in an undue impact on the amenity of the adjacent residential development.

4. The proposal does not provide adequate parking of vehicles in accordance with clause 67(s) of the deemed provisions under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Page 1 of 2

Page 2 of 2

7500 5840 2500 2500 2500 1000 4840 CHARLES STREET BINS COLLECTION CHARLES STREET (hatched area) NEW VERGE PARKING Extent of existing Existing Verge Tree EXISTING VERGE 1 2 3 EXISTING VERGE Verge Bin Stand EXISTING Shown Dotted CROSSOVER Modified Existing EXISTING 4340 Verge Bin Stand EXISTING VERGE EXISTING VERGE 5400 CROSSOVER

Existing Verge Tree 1500 Existing Footpath Existing Footpath Existing Footpath

Site Boundary Site Boundary Site Boundary

C3 Extent of Alfresco Area shown hatched

V1 Existing Footpath Existing R.O.W. Disabled R9 R1 Carbay CAFE (C3) 93m2 R10 C3 C3

R2 Allocated Site Boundary R11 car bays to Cafe

R3 C3 EXISTING VERGE R12 C3

C2 R13 R4 C4 C2 R14 R5 C5

R15 R6 C6

EXISTING PROPERTY R16 C6 R7 R17 C1

R8 R18 C1 GUILDFORD ROAD

C7 Service Bay

C8 Allocated car bay C8 to Cafe

C9 C9 C10 C7 C3 V4 V3 V2 R.O.W.

PROPOSED VERGE CAR PARKING - CHARLES STREET (cnr GUILDFORD ROAD) - MAYLANDS SCALE 1:200 @A2 size SK. 04 SEPTEMBER 2020 - revised 14th October 2020

NOTE: - Exact location of existing Power Poles, Crossovers & Verge Trees etc are to be established on site

Document Set ID: 3785828 Version: 1, Version Date: 19/10/2020

LG Ref: DA14-0926 DoP Ref: DAP/15/00712 Enquiries: Development Assessment Panels Telephone: (08) 6551 9919

State Administrative Tribunal [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam

State Administrative Tribunal Review Outcome – DR 184 of 2015 Lot 100, No. 293 Guildford Road, Maylands Three (3) Storey Mixed Use Development Comprising 10 Offices, and 18 Multiple Dwellings

Please be advised that the Metro Central Joint Development Assessment Panel reconsidered the above mentioned development application pursuant to section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 on 21 August 2015.

The Notice of Determination is attached.

Yours sincerely

Zoe Hendry

DAP Secretariat

31/08/2015

Encl. Amended DAP determination notice

Cc: Jeremy Hofland Company Details Address

State Solicitors Officer GPO Box F317 PERTH WA 6001

Mr Steven de Piazzi City of Bayswater

Planning and Development Act 2005

City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No.24

Metro Central Joint Development Assessment Panel

Determination on Development Assessment Panel Application for Planning Approval

Location: Lot 100, No. 293 Guildford Road, Maylands Description of proposed Development: Three (3) Storey Mixed Use Development Comprising 10 Offices, and 18 Multiple Dwellings

Pursuant to section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, the Metro Central Joint Development Assessment Panel, at its meeting on 21 August 2015, has reconsidered its decision dated 18 May 2015 in respect to the above application, SAT Ref. DR 184 of 2015 and has resolved to:

Reconsider its decision dated 18 May 2015 and approve DAP Application reference DAP/15/00712 and amended plans dated 15 July 2015 in accordance with clause 3.7 of the City of Bayswater Town Planning Scheme No. 24, subject to the following conditions:

Conditions 1. This decision constitutes planning approval only and is valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of approval. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the two (2) year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the terms of the application as approved herein, and any approved plan.

3. Revised plan(s) addressing the following matters to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the lodgement of a building permit application, and not result in any greater variation to the requirements of the Residential Design Codes, Town Planning Scheme No. 24 and the City's policies:

(a) A 0.715m wide right of way shall be provided along the north-west boundary of the subject land by way of easement on the title, however, allowing for building projections above a height of 3.4m, prior to occupation of the development. All costs associated with the provision of the easement are to be at the cost of the developer. (b) A 2.0m x 2.0m truncation is to be provided at the northern corner of the lot in accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission's Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy. The truncation is to be applied after right of way widening has been taken into account. (c) A minimum of 18 commercial, 22 residential, and five (5) visitor car bays, and one service bay shall be provided on site. (d) All commercial car bays shall be communally accessible. (e) Car bays 1, 14, and 15 shall have a minimum trafficable width of 2.7m.

Document Set ID: 3785828 Version: 1, Version Date: 19/10/2020

(f) The commercial car bay located within the Charles Street setback area being removed from the plans. The area previously occupied by the car bays shall be appropriately landscaped. (g) All balconies with a cone of vision encroaching a residentially zoned lot shall be setback or screened in accordance with the visual privacy deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes. (h) Commercial car bay 8 shall be amended to comply with the requirements of AS2890.1.

4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Bayswater, prior to the submission of a building permit application. For the purpose of this condition, the plan shall be drawn with a view to reduce large areas of hard stand in passive areas and show the following:

(a) The location and species of all trees and shrubs proposed, to be retained and/or removed. (b) The location of any lawn areas to be established. (c) Landscaping within areas required for sight lines to comprise of low lying vegetation as to not obstruct sight lines. (d) Those areas to be reticulated or irrigated.

Landscaping and reticulation shall be completed in accordance with the approved detailed landscape plan prior to occupation of the development and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

5. The owner shall execute and provide to the City of Bayswater, a notification pursuant to section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act to be registered on the title of the multiple dwelling property as notification to proprietors and/or (prospective) purchasers of the property of the following:

(a) The use or enjoyment of the property may be affected by noise, traffic, car parking and other impact associated with nearby non-residential activities.

The Section 70A Notification shall be prepared by the City’s solicitors to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater. All costs of, and incidental to, the preparation of and registration of the Section 70A Notification, including the City’s solicitor’s costs, shall be met by the applicant/owner of the land. This notification shall be lodged and registered in accordance with the Transfer of Land Act prior to the first occupation of the respective multiple dwelling(s).

6. The owner, or the applicant on behalf of the owner, shall comply with the City of Bayswater policy relating to Percent for Public Art, and provide public art with a minimum value of 1% ($40,000) of the estimated total construction cost of the development ($4,000,000). Details of the public art, including plans of the artwork, its cost and construction, and other matters relating to the artwork's on-going maintenance and acknowledgements in accordance with the City's Percent for Public Art Policy shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the lodgement of a building permit application.

7. A detailed schedule of external finishes (including materials and colour schemes and details) shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Bayswater, prior to the submission of a building permit application.

Document Set ID: 3785828 Version: 1, Version Date: 19/10/2020

8. A construction management plan, detailing how the construction of the development will be managed to minimise the impact on the surrounding area, shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Bayswater, prior to the submission of a building permit application.

9. A refuse and recycling management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Bayswater, prior to commencement of any works. The plan shall include details of predicted waste volumes, bin numbers, size, and storage within the compound, bin collection frequency, potential nuisance odour issues, and details of the private waste service provider responsible for collecting the commercial waste including the scheduled collection days.

10. A suitably screened refuse bin area shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater. The bin area is to be provided with a permanent water supply and drainage facility for wash-down and is to be screened by a gate and brick walls or other suitable material to a height of not less than 1.8m.

11. A designated hard-paved area is to be provided immediately adjoining the Charles Street alignment for the placement of all 240L waste receptacles for collection. This paved area shall be setback as far as practical from the Charles Street/Guildford Road intersection as practical.

12. Windows, doors and adjacent areas fronting Guildford Road and Charles Street shall maintain an active and interactive relationship with these streets, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

13. The bin store wall directly facing Charles Street shall incorporate design features such as varying materials, finishes, colours, or attaching/integrating features into the walls design to reduce its visual impact on the streetscape, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

14. All vehicle crossings being designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

15. Redundant vehicle crossover(s) to be removed and the kerbing, verge and footpath (where relevant) reinstated to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

16. The vehicle parking area shall be constructed in asphalt, concrete, or brick paving, drained, kerbed and line-marked, together with suitable directional signs, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

17. The right of way widening as required by condition 3 (a) shall be constructed and drained to the specifications and satisfaction of the City of Bayswater at the owner's/applicant's cost, prior to occupation.

18. Visitor car parking spaces shall be clearly signposted as dedicated for visitor use only, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

19. Any proposed vehicular entry gates shall be a minimum 50% visually permeable, and shall be either open at all times or suitable management measures shall be implemented to ensure access is available for visitors at all times. Details of the management measures shall be submitted to and

Document Set ID: 3785828 Version: 1, Version Date: 19/10/2020

approved by the City of Bayswater, prior to the submission of a building permit application.

20. Servicing and reversing bays as shown on the approved plan(s) shall be line- marked accordingly and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

21. Each resident car parking bay is to be allocated to a dwelling, and this is to be registered on the strata plan for the development to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

22. A separate application including plans or description of all signs for the proposed development (including signs painted on a building) shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Bayswater, prior to the erection of any signage.

23. The approved parapet/boundary wall(s) and footings abutting lot boundaries must be constructed wholly within the subject allotment. The external surface of the parapet/boundary wall(s) shall be finished to a professional standard to complement development on the adjoining lot, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

24. All stormwater and drainage runoff produced onsite is to be disposed of onsite via the use of soakwells. The size of the soakwells is to be calculated by use of the formula VOL(m³) = AREA (m²) x 0.0125, where VOL is total storage volume of soakwells and AREA is total roofed and paved areas. Connection to the City’s stormwater system, where available, may be permitted as an overflow only, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

25. No street verge trees shall be removed. The street verge trees are to be retained and protected from any damage including unauthorised pruning.

26. On completion of construction, all excess articles, equipment, rubbish and materials being removed from the site and the site left in an orderly and tidy condition, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

27. No earthworks shall encroach onto the Guildford Road reserve.

28. The development will be required to undertake a transport noise assessment in accordance with the guidelines of the WAPC State Planning Policy 5.4 "Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning", to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater. This noise sensitive development adjacent to an existing major transport corridor must pay special considerations in addressing noise amelioration measures.

29. No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Guildford Road reserve.

30. The ground levels on the Guildford Road boundaries are to be maintained as existing.

31. The balconies are not to be used for the drying or airing of clothes and/or manchester.

Document Set ID: 3785828 Version: 1, Version Date: 19/10/2020

Advice Notes

1. This approval does not authorise any interference with dividing fences, nor entry onto neighbouring land. Accordingly, should you wish to remove or replace any portion of a dividing fence, or enter onto neighbouring land, you must first come to a satisfactory arrangement with the adjoining property owner. Please refer to the Dividing Fences Act 1961.

2. This approval is not a building permit or an approval under any other law than the Planning and Development Act 2005. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner to obtain any other necessary approvals, consents and/or licenses required under any other law, and to commence and carry out development in accordance with all relevant laws.

3. Where a permit is required under the provisions of the Building Act 2011 and Building Regulations 2012, all relevant approvals and/or requirements to be satisfied prior to the lodgement of a building permit application with the Permit Authority, otherwise prior to commencement of any building works onsite.

4. The proposed meter boxes shall be located as to not be visually obtrusive from the streetscape, to the satisfaction of the City of Bayswater.

Where an approval has so lapsed, no development shall be carried out without further approval having first been sought and obtained, unless the applicant has applied and obtained Development Assessment Panel approval to extend the approval term under regulation 17(1)(a) of the Development Assessment Panel Regulations 2011.

Document Set ID: 3785828 Version: 1, Version Date: 19/10/2020 DESIGNATED BIN PICK UP AREA CHARLES STREET DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT4180 PANELS18300 APPROVED6300 21 AUGUST 2015 EXISTING TREE EXISTING TREE EXISTING TREE

715 785 5590 6000 5500 1210 N REAR LANE CROSSOVER EASEMENT

FOOTPATH FOOTPATH LINE OF BALCONIES OVER LINE OF CANOPY OVER

LINE OF CANOPY OVER 35.57

9.89 COMMERCIAL 4 BAY FOOTPATH 3000

SETBACK C19 METER BOXES METER

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS DRIVEWAY COMPACTOR 6700 COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL MAX. HEIGHT 3.6m 2.02 m2 ENTRY 5 (OFFICE) 2 4 (OFFICE) 4300 35.42 m BIN 2 8 COMMERCIAL 4 BAY AREA . 30.04 m 48 ACCESS BIN AREA C5 COMMERCIAL 3 (OFFICE)

2750 COMMERCIAL 5 BAY

3000 100 m2 C6 9 1 200 150

COMMERCIAL 1 BAY COMMERCIAL 3 BAY LINE OF 2 BICYCLE BAYS

BALCONIES 2400 2400

2700 1600 OVER 10 C7 C1 RESIDENTIAL

CARPARK COMMERCIAL 3 BAY COMMERCIAL 3 BAY 2500 2400 COMMERCIAL STR 11 2 C8 2500 C2 CARPARK FOOTPATH

COMMERCIAL 6 BAY COMMERCIAL 2 BAY 2400 2400

12 3 C9 2500 C3 LINE OF BUILDING 200 200 OVER COMMERCIAL 2 COMMERCIAL 6 BAY 200 2400 2400 COMMERCIAL 2 BAY (OFFICE) 13 4 C10

2800 C4 DRIVEWAY 73.12 m2 COMMERCIAL 7 BAY 2400 2500 LINE OF CANOPY OVER

14 5 C11 BICYCLES 5

6 STR 48 . 08 COMMERCIAL 7 BAY 1 2 3 4 5 REAR LANE REAR 2500 2400 FOOTPATH 15 6 PEDESTRIAN C12 200 200 LINE OF BUILDING OVER STR

2 BICYCLE BAYS COMMERCIAL 7 BAY 2200 2400 COMMERCIAL 1 LINE OF BALCONIES 16 C13 OVER (OFFICE)

40 COMMERCIAL 8 BAY .

2400 42 2500 7 RESUMPTION AREA 29100 17 C14 58.84 m2

ENTRY COMMERCIAL 8 BAY 2700 2400 6000 18 8 C15 GROUND FLOOR 200 GATE GUILDFORD ROAD 2 BICYCLE CARS & SRV BAYS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2500 Guildford RD Guildford REVERSING BAY FOOTPATH 19 293 Guildford Road 2400 20 Maylands WA

LINE OF REV DATE BY REVISIONS MADE BALCONIES OVER 2400 # 293 REV 0 01 DEC 14 JMM ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 21 6100

200 CANOPY WIDTH REDUCED TO 1600mm TO LOT 100 REV 3 26 FEB 15 PM GUILDFORD ROAD MAILBOX

COMERCIAL UPDATE REVERSING BAY TO FIT SMALL RIGID VEHICLES, REV 4 10 MAR 15 JMM REDUCE RESTAURANT LOADING AREA & ADD NEW CARBAY, 2400 MODIFY STAIRCASE (RESIDENTIAL) 22 UPDATE COMMERCIAL CARBAYS AND BIN AREA LAYOUT, V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 C16 C17 C18 REV 5 02 APR 15 JMM CHANGE COMMERCIAL 3 TO OFFICE, REMOVE ALFRESCO 3966 AREA FROM COMMERCIAL 3 STORE 7 STORE 18 BICYCLES

300 CHANGES AS PER SAT MEDIATION. REMOVE 1x CARBAY ON REV 6 13 JUL 15 ES CHARLES ST. CARBAY ALLOC. UPDATE. SECURE GND FL 4.05 m2 4.05 m2 STORES. (DA CONDITION - RELOCATING GATE POSITION.)

COMMERCIAL COMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL 1100 MAILBOX

5400 ACCESS RESIDENTIAL 10 BAY 10 BAY 9 BAY RESIDENTIAL PEDESTRIAN 1200

5180 STORE 16 STORE 15 STORE 14 VISITORS 200 DESIGN: JMM PROJECT 14-016 CARPARK GROUND FLOOR 2 2 2 DRAWN: JMM SCALE: 1:200 @ A3 4.21 m 4.00 m 4.97 m 1994 SCALE 1:200 80

293 29.06 0 1m 2m 3m 4m CHECKED: ESPJS DATE: 15/07/2015 200 206 Document Set ID: 3785828715 785 6950 2700 2400 2900 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 398 6200 Version: 1, VersionREAR Date: LANE 19/10/2020 DA-02 REV 7 EASEMENT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANELS APPROVED 21 AUGUST 2015

DESIGNATED BIN PICK UP AREA CHARLES STREET 4180 18300 6300 EXISTING TREE EXISTING TREE EXISTING TREE 715 785 5590 6000 5500 1210 N REAR LANE CROSSOVER EASEMENT

FOOTPATH FOOTPATH LINE OF BALCONIES OVER LINE OF CANOPY OVER

LINE OF CANOPY OVER 35.57

9 COMMERCIAL 4 BAY .89 FOOTPATH SETBACK 3000

METER BOXES METER C19

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS DRIVEWAY COMPACTOR COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL MAX. HEIGHT 3.6m2.02 m2 6700 ENTRY 2 4300 5 (OFFICE) 35.42 m 4 (OFFICE) BIN 2 COMMERCIAL 4 BAY 30.04 m ACCESS AREA 8 BIN AREA . 48 C5 COMMERCIAL 3

COMMERCIAL 5 BAY (OFFICE)

2750 2 3000 100 m

9 1 C6 200 150

LINE OF 2 BICYCLE BAYS COMMERCIAL 1 BAY COMMERCIAL 3 BAY BALCONIES 2400 1600 2400 OVER 10 C7 2700 C1 RESIDENTIAL CARPARK COMMERCIAL 3 BAY COMMERCIAL 3 BAY 2500

2400 STR

COMMERCIAL 2500 C8 C2 11 2 FOOTPATH CARPARK COMMERCIAL 6 BAY COMMERCIAL 2 BAY 2400 2400 12 3 C9 LINE OF BUILDING 2500 C3 200 200 OVER COMMERCIAL 6 BAY COMMERCIAL 2 200 2400 2400 COMMERCIAL 2 BAY 13 4 C10 (OFFICE) DRIVEWAY C4 73.12 m2 COMMERCIAL 7 BAY 2400

2500 LINE OF CANOPY OVER C11 2800 BICYCLES 14 5 5 48 . 08

REAR LANE REAR STR

COMMERCIAL 7 BAY 1 2 3 4 5 2500 2400 FOOTPATH 15 6 PEDESTRIAN C12 200 200 LINE OF BUILDING OVER STR

2 BICYCLE BAYS COMMERCIAL 7 BAY 2200 LINE OF 2400 COMMERCIAL 1 BALCONIES 16 C13 OVER (OFFICE) 40 . COMMERCIAL 8 BAY 42 2400 2500 7 RESUMPTION AREA 29100 17 C14 58.84 m2

R 5800 ENTRY COMMERCIAL 8 BAY 2700 2400 6000 18 8 C15 GUILDFORD ROAD 200 GATE CARS REVERSING DIAGRAM 2 BICYCLE CARS & SRV BAYS

2500 FOOTPATH 19 REVERSING BAY VEHICLE CIRCULATION DIAGRAMS R 5800

2400 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 20 Guildford RD Guildford

LINE OF BALCONIES R 5800 OVER 2400 # 293 293 Guildford Road 21 6100 200 R 5800 LOT 100 MAILBOX Maylands WA COMERCIAL 2400 22 REV DATE BY REVISIONS MADE V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 C16 C17 C18 STORE 7 STORE 18 BICYCLES

300 3966 REV 0 01 DEC 14 JMM ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2 2

4.05 m 4.05 m 1200 COMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL MAILBOX CANOPY WIDTH REDUCED TO 1600mm TO REV 1 26 FEB 15 PM RESIDENTIAL 5400 ACCESS 1100 RESIDENTIAL 10 BAY 10 BAY 9 BAY PEDESTRIAN GUILDFORD ROAD UPDATE REVERSING BAY TO FIT SMALL RIGID VEHICLES, 5180 STORE 16STORE 15STORE 14 REV 2 10 MAR 15 JMM VISITORS 200 SRV CIRCULATION DIAGRAM REMOVED FROM THIS SHEET 2 2 2 4.00 m 4.97 m UPDATE COMMERCIAL CARBAYS AND BIN AREA LAYOUT, 4.21 m CARPARK 80 1994 REV 3 02 APR 15 JMM CHANGE COMMERCIAL 3 TO OFFICE, REMOVE ALFRESCO 29.06 200 AREA FROM COMMERCIAL 3 206 CHANGES AS PER SAT MEDIATION. REMOVE 1x CARBAY ON 715 785 6950 2700 2400 2900 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 398 6200 REV 4 13 JUL 15 ES CHARLES ST. CARBAY ALLOC. UPDATE. SECURE GND FL REAR LANE STORES. (DA CONDITION - RELOCATING GATE POSITION.) EASEMENT

DESIGN: JMM PROJECT 14-016 GROUND FLOOR - VEHICLE CIRCULATION DIAGRAMS DRAWN: JMM SCALE: 1:250 @ A3 SCALE 1:250 293 CHECKED: ESPJS DATE: 15/07/2015 Document Set ID: 3785828 Version: 1, Version Date: 19/10/2020 DA-02.1 REV 3

LG Ref: DA14-0926 DoP Ref: DAP/15/00712 Enquiries: Development Assessment Panels Telephone: (08) 6551 9919

Mr Jeremy Hofland Rowe Group 3/369 Newcastle Street Northbridge WA 6003

Dear Mr Hofland

Metro Central JDAP – City of Bayswater – DAP Application DA14-0926 Lot 100, 293 Guildford Road, Maylands Three-Storey Mixed Use Development Comprising 10 Offices and 18 Multiple Dwellings

Thank you for your application and plans submitted to the City of Bayswater on 1 October 2015 for the above development at the abovementioned site.

This application was considered by the Metro Central Joint Development Assessment Panel at its meeting held on 30 November 2015, where in accordance with the provisions of the City of Bayswater District Planning Scheme No.24, it was resolved to approve the application as per the attached notice of determination.

Should the applicant not be satisfied by this decision, a DAP Form 2 application may be made to amend or cancel this planning approval in accordance with regulation 17 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011.

Please also be advised that there is a right of review by the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. An application must be made within 28 days of the determination in accordance with the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004.

Should you have any queries with respect to the conditions of approval please contact Mr Steven De Piazza at the City of Bayswater on (08) 9272 0627.

Yours sincerely

Zoe Hendry

DAP Secretariat

2/12/2015

Encl. DAP Determination Notice Approved plans

Cc: Mr Steven De Piazza City of Bayswater

Planning and Development Act 2005

City of Bayswater District Planning Scheme No.24

Metro Central Joint Development Assessment Panel

Determination on Development Assessment Panel Application for Planning Approval

Location: Lot 100, 293 Guildford Road, Maylands Description of proposed Development: Three-Storey Mixed Use Development Comprising 10 Offices and 18 Multiple Dwellings

In accordance with regulation 8 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011, the above application for planning approval was granted on 30 November 2015, subject to the following:

1. Accept that the DAP Application reference DAP/15/00712 as detailed on the DAP Form 2 dated 23 September is appropriate for consideration in accordance with regulation 17 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011.

2. Approve the DAP Application reference DAP/15/00712 as detailed on the DAP Form 2 date 23 September 2015 and accompanying plans received 17 November 2015 in accordance with the provisions of the City of Bayswater District Town Planning Scheme No 24 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, for the proposed minor amendment to the approved three-storey mixed use development comprising 10 offices and 18 multiple dwellings at lot 100, 293 Guildford Road, Maylands, subject to:

Amended Conditions

1(c) A minimum of 18 commercial, 21 residential, and five visitor car bays, and one service bay shall be provided on site. 1(e) Car bays R1, R9, and C12 shall have a minimum trafficable width of 2.7m. 1(h) Car bay C11 shall comply with the requirements of AS2890.1.

Additional Conditions

1(i) Car bay R22 shall be removed from the plans, and a service bay of minimum dimension 6.4m x 3.5m shall be provided. The service bay shall not protrude into the parking isle. 1(j) Each class of car bay shall be grouped together within the parking area. 1(k) All door/window swing paths shall be designed so as to not encroach the Guildford Road resumption area.

Advice Notes

Document Set ID: 3785828 Version: 1, Version Date: 19/10/2020

1. MRWA Road and Technical Engineering standards require that a 2.5 metre clearance from the proposed face of the kerb is required to house various roadside furniture (i.e. light poles, footings, cabling and conduits to directional signage).

All other conditions and requirements detailed on the previous approval dated 31 August 2015 shall remain unless altered by this application.

Document Set ID: 3785828 Version: 1, Version Date: 19/10/2020 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANELS APPROVED 30 NOVEMBER 2015

BUILDING AREAS FLOOR ZONE AREA GROUND , COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL 01 73.06 COMMERCIAL 02 74.62 COMMERCIAL 03 101.99 COMMERCIAL 04 31.60 COMMERCIAL 05 37.19 318.46 m2 LEVEL 1 , COMMERCIAL 35.57 COMMERCIAL 06 75.84 9.89 COMMERCIAL 07 77.28 COMMERCIAL 08 71.00

8 COMMERCIAL 09 72.05 . 48 COMMERCIAL 10 61.29 357.46 m2 LEVEL 1 , RESIDENTIAL UNIT 1 73.15 UNIT 2 73.19 UNIT 3 71.57 UNIT 4 71.57

COMMERCIALCARBAYS

08 . UNIT 5 71.57 48 UNIT 6 71.57

RESIDENTIAL CARBAYS UNIT 7 55.63

COMMERCIALCARBAYS

RESIDENTIAL CARBAYS UNIT 8 71.70 40 .

42 UNIT 9 72.01 overshadowing 631.96 m2 LEVEL 2 , COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL 7 - MEZANNINE 71.89 71.89 m2 LEVEL 2 , RESIDENTIAL UNIT 10 73.15

RESIDENTIAL CARBAYS UNIT 11 73.19 UNIT 12 71.57 UNIT 13 71.57 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL UNIT 14 71.57 CARBAYS VISITOR CARBAYS UNIT 15 71.95 28.96 UNIT 16 55.63 UNIT 17 71.70 overshadowing UNIT 18 71.73 632.06 m2 2 2,011.83 m SITE PLAN ISSUE FOR ART TENDER SITE PLAN SCALE 1:500 293 Guildford Rd Maylands WA

REV DATE BY REVISIONS MADE

REV 0 01 DEC 14 JMM ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ADD DIMENSIONS FOR TRUNCATION, UPDATE REV 1 09 FEB 15 JMM AREA CHART UPDATE COMMERCIAL CARBAYS AND BIN AREA REV 2 02 APR 15 JMM LAYOUT, UPDATE AREA CHART UPDATE PARKING CARBAYS AND LAYOUT, REV 3 05 NOV 15 SD DELETE ALFRESCO, RELOCATE FIP

DESIGN: JMM PROJECT 14-016 DRAWN: JMM

CHECKED: PJS DATE: 9/11/2015 Document Set ID: 3785828 Version: 1, Version Date: 19/10/2020 DA-01 REV 3 CHARLES STREET DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANELS

1,500 5,590 6,000 5,500 1,210 5,490 APPROVED5,500 1,520 6,700 30 NOVEMBER 2015

LINE OF BALCONIES OVER LINE OF CANOPY OVER

LINE OF CANOPY OVER 3,000

FIP FIP BOOSTER DRIVEWAY LOT 23 LOT 22 COMPACTOR MAX. HEIGHT 3.6m 2 6,700 COMMERCIAL 5 COMMERCIAL 4 2.0 m 4,300 (OFFICE) 1,120 (OFFICE) ACCESSIBLE PARKING BAY 31.4 m2 2 BIN ENCLOSURE

26.8 m ACCESS

BIN AREA 300 300 2,400 V1

700 LOT 21 COMMERCIAL 3 2,450 2,500

2,700 (OFFICE) R9 R1 V2 200 94.9 m2 150 1,000 1,000 2,840 750 LINE OF

BALCONIES 2,400 2,700 1,600 2,400 OVER 2,700 R10 V3 C1 COMMERCIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL CARPARK LIFT 2,500 2,400 COMMERCIAL R11 2,500 R2 C2 COMMERCIAL 2 CARPARK FOOTPATH COMMERCIAL 4 2,700 2,400 2,400

R12 R3 C5 2,500 DP LINE OF BUILDING C3 COMMERCIAL 2 200 200 OVER LOT 20 750 800 3,950 COMMERCIAL 2 200 2,500 2,400 2,400 (OFFICE) R13 R4 COMMERCIAL 5 C6 70.5 m2 DRIVEWAY C4 COMMERCIAL 3 2,400 2,500 2,500 LINE OF CANOPY OVER R14 R5 COMMERCIAL 6 C7 2,800 COMMERCIAL 6

REARLANE 2,500

2,400 6,100 R15 R6 C8 2,500 200 200 LINE OF BUILDING OVER HYD 2,200 2,500 LINE OF 2,400 R16 COMMERCIAL 7 C9 BALCONIES OVER LOT 19 COMMERCIAL 1

2,400 (OFFICE) 2,500 R17 R7 C10 2,500 RESUMPTION AREA 29,100 COMMERCIAL 7 68.3 m2 COMMERCIAL 7 2,700 2,400 R18 6,000 R8 C11 2,500 DP 200 GROUND FLOOR GATE GUILDFORD ROAD

2,500 R22 SERVICE BAY ISSUE FOR ART TENDER FOOTPATH 3,600 R19 1,100 6,610 293 Guildford Rd

2,400 # 293 R20 LOT 100 Maylands WA LINE OF BALCONIES REV DATE BY REVISIONS MADE OVER 2,400

6,400 REV 0 01 DEC 14 JMM ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

R21 6,200 6,000

200 UPDATE REVERSING BAY TO FIT SMALL RIGID VEHICLES, REV 4 10 MAR 15 JMM MAILBOX REDUCE RESTAURANT LOADING AREA & ADD NEW CARBAY,

COMERCIAL MODIFY STAIRCASE (RESIDENTIAL) UPDATE COMMERCIAL CARBAYS AND BIN AREA LAYOUT, 2,400 REV 5 02 APR 15 JMM CHANGE COMMERCIAL 3 TO OFFICE, REMOVE ALFRESCO COMMERCIAL 10 C12 AREA FROM COMMERCIAL 3 230 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 V4 V5 CHANGES AS PER SAT MEDIATION. REMOVE 1x CARBAY ON

700 REV 6 13 JUL 15 ES CHARLES ST. CARBAY ALLOC. UPDATE. SECURE GND FL 9 9 8 8 1 1 STORES. (DA CONDITION - RELOCATING GATE POSITION.) INCORPARATE B.C.A, FIRE, DISABLED ACCESS 190 3,630 REV 7 15 SEP 15 ES REQUIREMENTS

MAILBOX UPDATE PARKING CARBAYS AND LAYOUT,

5,400 ACCESS RESIDENTIAL PEDESTRIAN REV 8 05 NOV 15 SD SUB STATION 1,190 DELETE ALFRESCO, RELOCATE FIP 4,400 COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL 200 DESIGN: JMM PROJECT 14-016

2,000 GROUND FLOOR 80 DRAWN: JMM SCALE 1:200 200

190 200 CHECKED: IM DATE: 16/11/2015 715 785 6,970 2,400 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,500 2,400 2,400 2,400 178 6,200 Document Set ID: 3785828REAR LANE 2,490 Version: 1, Version Date: EASEMENT19/10/2020 DA-02 REV 8 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANELS

7,250 4,050 4,050 7,250 APPROVED18,800 CHARLES STREET 30 NOVEMBER 2015

16.0 m2 16.0 m2

LOT 24 LOT 25 COMMERCIAL 6 COMMERCIAL 7 (OFFICE) UNIT 2 UNIT 1 (OFFICE) 66.5 m2 70.0 m2 2 LOT 25 66.5 m2 70.9 m COMMERCIAL (OFFICE MEZZANINE) SCREEN 1.6M 66.1 m2 1,600 2 1 14,600 UNIT 3 STORE 2 STORE 16.3 m 65.1 m2 OPAQUE GLASS 1.6M LOT 26 LOT 25 LIFT COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL 8 PLANT AREA HYD (OFFICE) (OFFICE DECK) SCREEN 1.6M (SUSPENDED SLAB) 67.3 m2 32.7 m2

LOT 27 SCREEN 2.3M 2 COMMERCIAL 9 65.1 m (OFFICE) OPAQUE GLASS 1.6M UNIT 9 67.6 m2 2 16.2 m2 65.1 m HYD UNIT 4

15,000 STORE 9 HYD UNIT 5 2 16.2 m 65.1 m2 STORE 3 17.1 m2

REARLANE LOT 28 OPAQUE GLASS 1.6M STORE 4 COMMERCIAL 10 SCREEN 2.3M (OFFICE) STORE 5 55.1 m2

STORE 6 2 DP 17.1 m

STORE 8 GUILDFORD ROAD SCREEN 2.3M FIRST FLOOR ISSUE FOR ART TENDER

2 16.2 m2 65.1 m OPAQUE GLASS 1.6M UNIT 8 293 Guildford Rd

11,600 UNIT 6 65.1 m2 Maylands WA STORE 7 REV DATE BY REVISIONS MADE OPAQUE GLASS 1.6M REV 0 01 DEC 14 JMM ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2 18.4 m ADD NEW STORE NEXT TO UNIT 1, INCREASE UNIT 7 REV 1 09 FEB 15 JMM OPAQUE GLASS 1.6M AREA OF BALCONIES (to 4X4), Opaque glass 1.6 m 2 CANOPY WIDTH REDUCED TO 1600mm TO 51.1 m REV 2 26 FEB 15 PM GUILDFORD ROAD MODIFY STAIRCASE (RESIDENTIAL, NEXT TO REV 3 10 MAR 15 JMM STORE) 2,500 SCREEN 2.3M REV 4 04 JUN 15 ES STORE ALLOCATIONS

INCORPARATE B.C.A, FIRE, DISABLED ACCESS REV 5 15 SEP 15 ES REQUIREMENTS DESIGN: JMM PROJECT 14-016 FIRST FLOOR DRAWN: JMM SCALE 1:200 CHECKED: ES DATE: 9/11/2015 Document Set ID: 3785828 Version: 1, Version Date: 19/10/2020 DA-03 REV 5 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANELS APPROVED CHARLES STREET 30 NOVEMBER 2015

16.0 m2 16.0 m2

UNIT 11 UNIT 10 66.5 m2 66.5 m2

SCREEN 1.6M 11 10 ELEVATION 1 - CHARLES STREET UNIT 12 SCALE 1:200 STORE 2 STORE 16.3 m 2 OPAQUE GLASS 1.6M 65.1 m LIFT

SCREEN 1.6M HYD

SCREEN 2.3M 65.1 m2 OPAQUE GLASS 1.6M UNIT 18 16.2 m2 65.1 m2 HYD UNIT 13

STORE 18 UNIT 14 2 ELEVATION 2 - GUILDFORD ROAD 16.2 m 65.1 m2 STORE 12 17.1 m2

REARLANE

SCALE 1:200 OPAQUE GLASS 1.6M STORE 13

SCREEN 2.3M

STORE 14

STORE 15 2 DP 17.1 m

STORE 17

SCREEN 2.3M SECOND FLOOR & ELEVATIONS ISSUE FOR ART TENDER

2 16.2 m2 65.1 m UNIT 17 293 Guildford Rd OPAQUE GLASS 1.6M UNIT 15 65.1 m2 Maylands WA STORE 16 REV DATE BY REVISIONS MADE OPAQUE GLASS 1.6M REV 0 01 DEC 14 JMM ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 18.4 m2 INCREASE HEIGHT OF COMMERCIAL AREA (GROUND REV 2 18 FEB 15 JMM UNIT 16 FLOOR MAX. HEIGTH - FROM 3.3M TO 3.5M ) OPAQUE GLASS 1.6M 2 MODIFY STAIRCASE (RESIDENTIAL, NEXT TO 51.1 m REV 3 10 MAR 15 JMM STORE) RELOCATION OF BIN AREA, ALFRESCO AREA REV 4 02 APR 15 JMM REMOVED FROM COMMERCIAL 3 SCREEN 2.3M REV 5 04 JUN 15 ES STORE ALLOCATIONS

INCORPARATE B.C.A, FIRE, DISABLED ACCESS REV 6 15 SEP 15 ES REQUIREMENTS DESIGN: JMM PROJECT 14-016 SECOND FLOOR PLAN DRAWN: JMM SCALE 1:200 CHECKED: ES DATE: 9/11/2015 Document Set ID: 3785828 Version: 1, Version Date: 19/10/2020 DA-04 REV 6 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANELS APPROVED 30 NOVEMBER 2015

ELEVATION 3 - REAR LANE

FEATURE COLOUR PAINTED WALL

ELEVATION 4 - SOUTH WEST ELEVATION

ELEVATIONS ISSUE FOR ART TENDER ELEVATION 5 - INTERIOR ELEVATION A 293 Guildford Rd Maylands WA

REV DATE BY REVISIONS MADE

REV 0 01 DEC 14 JMM ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

PATTERN PAINTED WITH FEATURE COLOUR ON SOUTH REV 1 09 FEB 15 JMM WEST ELEVATION. 1.6M OPAQUE GLASS ON BALCONIES (REAR LANE) UPDATE REVERSING BAY TO FIT SMALL RIGID VEHICLES, REV 2 10 MAR 15 JMM REDUCE RESTAURANT LOADING AREA & ADD NEW CARBAY, MODIFY STAIRCASE (RESIDENTIAL) RELOCATION OF BIN AREA, ALFRESCO AREA REV 3 02 APR 15 JMM REMOVED FROM COMMERCIAL 3

DESIGN: JMM PROJECT 14-016 DRAWN: JMM

CHECKED: PJS DATE: 9/11/2015 Document Set ID: 3785828ELEVATION 6 - INTERIOR ELEVATION B Version: 1, Version Date: 19/10/2020 DA-05 REV 3 CHARLES STREET DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANELS

1,500 5,590 6,000 5,500 1,210 5,490 APPROVED5,500 1,520 6,700 30 NOVEMBER 2015

LINE OF BALCONIES OVER LINE OF CANOPY OVER

LINE OF CANOPY OVER 3,000

FIP FIP BOOSTER DRIVEWAY LOT 23 LOT 22 COMPACTOR MAX. HEIGHT 3.6m 2 6,700 COMMERCIAL 5 COMMERCIAL 4 2.0 m 4,300 (OFFICE) 1,120 (OFFICE) ACCESSIBLE PARKING BAY BIN ENCLOSURE

ACCESS

BIN AREA 300 300 2,400 V1

700 LOT 21 COMMERCIAL 3 2,450 2,500

2,700 (OFFICE) R9 R1 V2 200 150 1,000 1,000 2,840 750 LINE OF

BALCONIES 2,400 2,700 1,600 2,400 OVER 2,700 R10 V3 C1 COMMERCIAL 3 RESIDENTIAL CARPARK LIFT 2,500 2,400 COMMERCIAL R11 2,500 R2 C2 COMMERCIAL 2 CARPARK FOOTPATH COMMERCIAL 4 2,700 2,400 2,400

R12 R3 C5 2,500 DP LINE OF BUILDING C3 COMMERCIAL 2 200 200 OVER LOT 20 750 800 3,950 COMMERCIAL 2 200 2,500 2,400 2,400 (OFFICE) R13 R4 COMMERCIAL 5 C6 DRIVEWAY C4 COMMERCIAL 3 2,400 2,500 2,500 LINE OF CANOPY OVER R14 R5 COMMERCIAL 6 C7 2,800 COMMERCIAL 6

REARLANE 2,500

2,400 6,100 R15 R6 C8 2,500 200 200 LINE OF BUILDING OVER HYD 2,200 2,500 LINE OF 2,400 R16 COMMERCIAL 7 C9 BALCONIES OVER LOT 19 COMMERCIAL 1

2,400 (OFFICE) 2,500 2,500 RESUMPTION AREA R17 R7 COMMERCIAL 7 C10 29,100 COMMERCIAL 7 R 5800 2,700 2,400 R18 6,000 R8 C11 2,500 DP 200 VEHICULAR CIRCULATION DIAGRAMS GATE CARS REVERSING DIAGRAM GUILDFORD ROAD

2,500 R22 SERVICE BAY ISSUE FOR ART TENDER FOOTPATH 3,600 R19 1,100 6,610 R 5800 293 Guildford Rd

2,400 # 293 R20 LOT 100 Maylands WA LINE OF R 5800 BALCONIES REV DATE BY REVISIONS MADE OVER 2,400

6,400 REV 0 01 DEC 14 JMM ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

R21 6,200 6,000 200 CANOPY WIDTH REDUCED TO 1600mm TO R 5800 REV 1 26 FEB 15 PM MAILBOX GUILDFORD ROAD COMERCIAL

2,400 REV 2 10 MAR 15 JMM UPDATE REVERSING BAY TO FIT SMALL RIGID VEHICLES, COMMERCIAL 10 C12 SRV CIRCULATION DIAGRAM REMOVED FROM THIS SHEET 230 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 V4 V5 UPDATE COMMERCIAL CARBAYS AND BIN AREA LAYOUT, REV 3 02 APR 15 JMM CHANGE COMMERCIAL 3 TO OFFICE, REMOVE ALFRESCO 9 9 8 8 1 1 AREA FROM COMMERCIAL 3

700 CHANGES AS PER SAT MEDIATION. REMOVE 1x CARBAY ON 3,630 REV 4 13 JUL 15 ES CHARLES ST. CARBAY ALLOC. UPDATE. SECURE GND FL STORES. (DA CONDITION - RELOCATING GATE POSITION.) MAILBOX UPDATE PARKING CARBAYS AND LAYOUT,

5,400 ACCESS RESIDENTIAL PEDESTRIAN REV 5 05 NOV 15 SD SUB STATION 1,190 DELETE ALFRESCO, RELOCATE FIP 4,780 COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL 200 DESIGN: JMM PROJECT 14-016

2,000

80 DRAWN: JMM 200 200 CHECKED: ES DATE: 9/11/2015 715 785 6,970 2,400 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,500 2,400 2,400 2,400 178 6,200 Document Set ID: 3785828REAR LANE 2,490 Version: 1, Version Date: EASEMENT19/10/2020 DA-02.1 REV 5