City of Subiaco Attachments Development Services

CITY OF SUBIACO

ATTACHMENTS

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS 241 ROKEBY ROAD, SUBIACO

TUESDAY, 13 JUNE 2017

CONTENTS PAGE

ITEM PAGE REPORT TITLE AND ATTACHMENT DESCRIPTION NO. NUMBER(S) D1 No. 136 (Lot 82) Gloster Street Subiaco – Extension to Term of 10 pages Development Approval for Single Storey Dwelling with Basement (7.2017.29)

Attachment 1 – Development approval (8 March 2017) Attachment 2 – Location plan Attachment 3 – Site photographs D2 No. 2A (Lot 300) Cunningham Terrace, Daglish – Proposed Garage to 7 pages Single House – DA 7.2017.18

Attachment 1 – Plans for Determination Attachment 2 – Original development application plans (withdrawn) D3 No. 11 (Lot 35) Austin Street, Shenton Park – Two Storey Additions to 17 pages an Existing Two Storey Dwelling

Attachment 1 – Development plans (8 February 2017) Attachment 2 – Development plans (22 May 2017) D4 Proposed Daglish First Land Release Heritage Area and Draft 25 pages Planning Policy 3.13 ‘Daglish First Land Release Heritage Area’ – adoption post advertising

Attachment 1 – Map of proposed Daglish First Land Release Heritage Area Attachment 2 – Draft planning policy 3.13 ‘Daglish First Land Release Heritage Area’ – with tracked modifications Attachment 3 – Schedule of submissions including officer response D5 Proposed Daglish Workers’ Homes Board Heritage Area and Draft 6 pages Planning Policy 3.14 ‘Daglish Workers’ Homes Board Heritage Area’ – adoption post consultation

Attachment 1 – Map of proposed Daglish Workers’ Homes Board Heritage Area Attachment 2 – Draft Local Planning Policy 3.14 ‘Daglish Workers’ Homes Board Heritage Area’ – with tracked modifications D6 Draft Revised Local Planning Policy 3.6 ‘Development Guidelines for 34 pages Residential Heritage Areas’ – Final Adoption

Attachment 1 – Draft Planning Policy 3.6 ‘Development Guidelines for Residential Heritage Areas’ (as advertised) Attachment 2 – Draft Planning Policy 3.6 ‘Development Guidelines for Residential Heritage Areas’ (tracked changes) Attachment 3 – Schedule of Submissions D7 Town Planning Scheme 4 – Draft Local Planning Policy 1.8 10 pages ‘Development Approval Exemptions’ – Final Adoption

Attachment 1 – Local Planning Policy 1.8 ‘Development Approval Exemptions’ – for final adoption Attachment 2 – Schedule of submissions D8 Town Planning Scheme 4 – Draft Local Planning Policy 1.7 2 pages ‘Amendment and Extension to the Term of Development Approval’ – Final Adoption

Attachment 1 – Local Planning Policy 1.7 ‘Amendment and Extension to the Term of Development Approval’ D9 Re-nomination of (P11923) Subiaco Oval for entry on the State 26 pages Register of Heritage Places

Attachment 1 – HCWA Heritage Assessment Attachment 2 – HCWA Curtilage map Attachment 3 – HCWA Zones of significance map D10 Nomination to include 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park (S/L: 1 S/P: 14 pages 41938) on the Town Planning Scheme Heritage List

Attachment 1 – Heritage Assessment Attachment 2 – Nomination form D13 Submission on WALGA Discussion Paper – Third Party Appeal 31 pages Rights in Planning

Attachment 1 – WALGA Discussion Paper ‘Third Party Appeal Rights in Planning’ Attachment 2 – ‘Third Party Appeal Rights: Past and Future’, Judge Christine Trenorden, 2009

REPORT ITEM NO. D1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1

REPORT ITEM NO. D1 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Subiaco City Council does not warrant the accuracy 30/05/2017 of information in this publication and any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that Subiaco shall bear no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or 1:1000 omissions in the information. REPORT ITEM NO. D1 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 No. 146 Gloster Street (subject site)

No. 148 Gloster Street

No. 146 Gloster Street (subject site)

No. 144 No. 146 Gloster Street (subject site) Gloster Street

REPORT ITEM NO. D2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 LANDGATE COPY OF ORIGINAL NOT TO SCALE Wed Oct 12 21:42:13 2016 JOB 52177964

www.landgate.wa.gov.au 2110 4870

250 250 4370

106

177534166

1 3410

3 NEW FAMILY 16774996

2 6740

BED

FAMILY BED 0

BTH 112342150 2710

KIT WC

MEALS L'DRY 110 25250

ENS REMOVE LIVING EXIST'G CARPORT 4240

PORCH BED 8650 8990

6 8 NEW DOUBLE 1 GARAGE 0 0

5400 4

5 5520

48426254 230

6 470 5000 470 3 8 5940 0 1772 4390 TCE HAM NING CUN

SITE / FLOOR PLAN 1:100

DATE REVISIONS TITLE: DATE: 15-2-17 VISTA DESIGNS PROPOSED ADDITIONS AT SCALE: 1:100 Building Designers #2 A (LOT 300) DRAWN BY: T.M SUITE 3 , 279 LORD STREET CUNNINGHAM Tce EAST PERTH 6004 DAGLISH DWG. No.: 3002 TEL./FAX: 92277415 0 1 2 3 4 5 c COPYRIGHT SHEET No.: 2 OF 3 SITE CALCULATIONS

LOT AREA= 350m²

NEW TOTAL BUILDING AREA= 177.53m²

OPEN SPACE=172.47m², 49.28%

14.74m B'DARY 6 7 7 . 6 8 9 . 8 9 SEWE 6 R

1 SE WER EA SEMENT 2110 PROPOSED LIVING EXTENSION 25.25m B'DARY 25.25m

NEIGHBOURING RESIDENCE 2000 RESIDENCE ffl 10.59 ffl 10.10 14m B'DARY 14m 0 .9 9 NEIGHBOURING REMOVE EXIST'G RESIDENCE CARPORT 0 .0 ffl 10.49 0 1 6 . 8 CARPORT 1 0 .0 m 0 PROPOSED 1 DOUBLE 1 B 5 0 GARAGE ' 0 GARAGE ffl 10.014 D 3 A 5 6 R 8 1 Y .3 0 Y1 2 AR 6 'D 3 B 8 m 8 .72 .2 7 0 1 5 4 1 2 2

5 3

0 0

7 ATH .2 P 0 1

exist'g crossover

TCE ASSUMED M DATUM HA 10.00 NING CUN

SITE PLAN 1:200

DATE REVISIONS TITLE: DATE: 15-2-17 VISTA DESIGNS 15-2-17 ISSUED FOR "DA" SCALE: 1:200 Building Designers PROPOSED ADDITIONS AT DRAWN BY: T.M SUITE 3 , 279 LORD STREET #2 A (LOT 300) EAST PERTH 6004 CUNNINGHAM Tce DWG. No.: 3002 TEL./FAX: 92277415 DAGLISH 0 1 2 3 4 5 c COPYRIGHT SHEET No.: 1 OF 3 PROPOSED GARAGE EXIST'G

CEILING LEVEL FACE BWK 2486 2425 3900nom. 2229 p of bwk of p o t FLOOR LEVEL WEST ( FRONT) ELEVATION

PROPOSED FAMILY EXTENSION

EXIST'G

GUTTER ON BWK CEILING LEVEL

PROPOSED 3688 3942 FACE BWK BOUNARY WALL 2496 2486 2761

N.G.L @ B'DARY FLOOR LEVEL 10.10 AVERAGE,(3m Max) 3.5m 7 2 (3m AVERAGE,(3m Max) 3.5m . 0 0 1 0 .0 9 0 . 1 9 8990 NORTH ELEVATION

EXIST'G

FACE BWK GABLE 3900nom.

EAST ( REAR) ELEVATION 3900nom.

SOUTH ELEVATION

DATE REVISIONS TITLE: DATE: 15-2-17 VISTA DESIGNS 23-2-17 ADD GARAGE RIDGE HEIGHTS PROPOSED ADDITIONS AT SCALE: 1:100 Building Designers #2 A (LOT 300) DRAWN BY: T.M SUITE 3 , 279 LORD STREET CUNNINGHAM Tce EAST PERTH 6004 DAGLISH DWG. No.: 3002 TEL./FAX: 92277415 0 1 2 3 4 5 c COPYRIGHT SHEET No.: 3 OF 3 REPORT ITEM NO. D2 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 2110 4870

250 250 4370

106

1 3410

3 NEW FAMILY

2 6740

BED

FAMILY BED 0

BTH

2710

KIT WC

MEALS 270 112556500 L'DRY 25250

ENS REMOVE LIVING EXIST'G CARPORT 4240 8150 7650

PORCH BED

6 8 NEW 1 GARAGE 3600 0 230

590 4280 590 4 6 120 1 5460 7 6310 0 1772 TCE HAM NING CUN

SITE / FLOOR PLAN 1:100

DATE REVISIONS TITLE: DATE: 2-2-17 VISTA DESIGNS PROPOSED ADDITIONS AT SCALE: 1:100 Building Designers #2 A (LOT 300) DRAWN BY: T.M SUITE 3 , 279 LORD STREET CUNNINGHAM Tce EAST PERTH 6004 DAGLISH DWG. No.: 3002 TEL./FAX: 92277415 0 1 2 3 4 5 c COPYRIGHT SHEET No.: 2 OF 3 SITE CALCULATIONS

LOT AREA= 350m² NEW TOTAL BUILD. AREA = 167.34m² OPEN SPACE = 182.66m², 52.19%

14.74m B'DARY 6 7 7 . 6 8 9 . 8 9 SEWE 6 R

1 SE WER EA SEMENT 2110 PROPOSED LIVING EXTENSION 25.25m B'DARY 25.25m

NEIGHBOURING RESIDENCE 2000 RESIDENCE ffl 10.59 ffl 10.10 14m B'DARY 14m 0 .9 9 NEIGHBOURING RESIDENCE 0 .0 ffl 10.49 0 1 8150 PROPOSED 6 . GARAGE 8 CARPORT 1 0 ffl 10.014 .0 m 0 1 1

3600 B 5 0 ' 0 GARAGE D

3 A 5 6 R 8 2400 1 Y 4 .3 6 0 1 1 7 Y 9 AR 7 'D carbay 4 B

5 m 8 .72 6310 .2 7 0 1 5 1 2

7 ATH .2 P 0 1 GE VER

B KER

exist'g crossover

TCE ASSUMED M DATUM HA 10.00 NING CUN

SITE PLAN 1:200

DATE REVISIONS TITLE: DATE: 2-2-17 VISTA DESIGNS 3-2-17 ISSUED FOR "DA" SCALE: 1:200 Building Designers PROPOSED ADDITIONS AT DRAWN BY: T.M SUITE 3 , 279 LORD STREET #2 A (LOT 300) EAST PERTH 6004 CUNNINGHAM Tce DWG. No.: 3002 TEL./FAX: 92277415 DAGLISH 0 1 2 3 4 5 c COPYRIGHT SHEET No.: 1 OF 3 PROPOSED GARAGE EXIST'G

CEILING LEVEL FACE BWK 2486 2425 2229

FLOOR LEVEL WEST ( FRONT) ELEVATION

PROPOSED FAMILY EXTENSION

EXIST'G

GUTTER ON BWK CEILING LEVEL

PROPOSED FACE BWK BOUNARY WALL 2556 2486 2788

FLOOR LEVEL 10.10 N.G.L @ B'DARY (3m AVERAGE,(3m Max) 3.5m 7 2 (3m AVERAGE,(3m Max) 3.5m . 0 0 1 0 .0 .9 0 9 1 NORTH ELEVATION

EXIST'G

FACE BWK GABLE

EAST ( REAR) ELEVATION

SOUTH ELEVATION

DATE REVISIONS TITLE: DATE: 20-1-17 VISTA DESIGNS PROPOSED ADDITIONS AT SCALE: 1:100 Building Designers #2 A (LOT 300) DRAWN BY: T.M SUITE 3 , 279 LORD STREET CUNNINGHAM Tce EAST PERTH 6004 DAGLISH DWG. No.: 3002 TEL./FAX: 92277415 0 1 2 3 4 5 c COPYRIGHT SHEET No.: 3 OF 3 REPORT ITEM NO. D3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 REVISIONS DATE DESCRIPTION REV 30/04/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR APPROVAL A 04/05/16ISSUED TO CUENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION B 12/09/16ISSUED TO CUENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION C 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL C 08/02/17RE-ISSUETO COUNCIL C

RIDaE_RI 2827.. 31aGE _ r-: BRICK & METAL ROOF HOUSE

71 FFL 22: W W LOT 36 CARPORT P2901 FFL 22.02 RIDGE f5764-- GUTTER RL 25.05 RL CONCRE SERVICE -0 PI 42.79 43(/' 91 84 21..87 22.02 ------teg22.24 (11 TIMBER FENCE .1.84 WALL21.8 21.92---- 2.25 TOP OF 21. BRICK SCREEN 21.84 71 .9 STEPS 0 POWER RL 225Y In lu, • DOME rtfr CV IO P1 21.9414: EI c0 Thi 4 c‘i .TEPS PAVED AREA 1 ,‘„,°)Ix RL .21.85 W 21.94ct . SEWER PROPERTY Iw FFL v 0) CONNECT101 TIMBER c) PAVED AR /5 DECK P' lc, RL 21.9 RL 18.90 al IEc) cv GUTTER RL 25.13 21.81 1=lp POND. j C.) LOT41 'Z I 1(5 ct 1.7C I Lt Ui FFL 21.93 cn ice P2901 I TOP OF WALL,- I3 r:t RL 21.94 - GROUND LEvg. L.Y.J POOL 1E1 LOT 35 CS) GARDEN RL 20.3 BRICK & METAL ROOF -f4 POND ILd P2901 (.1 cr HOUSE 1E AREA 653m2 1E2 (15) I 21.46 2" .33 t.ri 21.34- FFL 21.95 RIDGE RL 28.88 2129 21.4 21.83 RIDGE RL 28.83 21.14 LIMES NE RET FFL 22.26 WA 22. ,r5Ci STEPS i 00 .2 o

BRICK & METAL VERANDAH LOT 34 I HOUSE FFL 22.0 P2901 1:200 @ A3

SITE SURVEY

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS 11 Austin Street, Shenton Park FEBRUARY 2017 DA.00c N REVISIONS DATE DESCRIPTION REV 30/04/16ISSUED TO CUENT FOR APPROVAL A 04/05/16ISSUED TO CUENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION B 12/09/16ISSUED TO CUENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION C 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL C 08/02/17REVISEDBALCONY D

42790 BOUNDARY

NOTE: FLOOR AREA AND OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS SITE AREA 653m2 - 186m2 BUILDING FOOTPRINT - TOTAL FLOOR AREA (GROUND AND FIRST FLOORS) - 297m2 NEW STEEL FRAMED OPEN SPACE 467m2 (71.5%) VERANDAH TO - REPLACE EXISTING STEEL AND ALUMINIUM ADJACENT RESIDENCE r- SUNSHADING NEW STEEL FRAMED 0 PATIO TO REPLACE i Ii ADJACENT AND EXTEND EXISTING L STEEL AND ALUMINIUM CARPORT SUNSHADING

I 1 EX. A/C UNIT GARDENRL 21.34 1 EXISTING WALLS TO BE ii RETAINED TIMBER PAVED ALFRESCO AREA I I PAVED COURTYARD NEW BRICK WALL TO RL 21.85 I I RL 21.93 SURROUND RUBBISH BINS DECK LI- 13 COURSES HIGH (1.1m) I I POND BOUNDARY 71'STREET6020 NEW PERFORATED SCREEN SWIMMING POOL TO FUTURE DETAIL. I-1(EXISTINGSETBACK GARDEN NEW BRICK LETTERBOX 11 15250 POND COURSES HIGH (0.9m). s RL 21.34 EXISTING RESIDENCE FL 21.95 STREET 0 LAWN CD ENTRy CD LAWN CONCRETE CROSSOVER 21.361 AGE ti)NRETE, RL tRL 24.85 'DRIVEWA AUSTIN ° EX. POOL PUMP EX. A/C UNIT 4 EX. 1.8MHIGH BOUNDARY FENCE a- NEW STEEL FRAMED 1 PROPOSED AREA OF GROUND - VERANDAH TO NEW CEMENT I EXISTING BRICK CD REPLACE EXISTING FLOOR ADDITION. (9.5m2) RENDERED PIER. ENTRY AND P STEEL AND ALUMINIUM ROLLER-DOOR OF I NEW STEEL MECHANIZED SUNSHADING ADJACENT RESIDENCE STEPS TO BE AMENDED TO SUIT CARPORT TO BE I SLIDING GATE WITH NEW LAUNDRY DOOR. DEMOLISHED. ADJACENT PERSONNEL 111 ROOF OVER TO c..)6 GATE. 6625 BE REPLACED. ADDITION 15435 14460 SETBACK FROM BOUNDARY SITE PLAN 42790 BOUNDARY 1:200 @ A3

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS DI-V,UA noi 11 Austin Street, Shenton Park FEBRUARY 2017 D N REVISIONS

ADJACENT RESIDENCE DATE DESCRIPTION REV EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE 30/04/16ISSUED TO CUENT FOR APPROVAL A BRICKED IN AND EXTERNAL 04/05/16 ISSUED TO CUENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION B NEW ALUMINUM FRAMED NEW WALL FINISHED MADE GOOD TO 12/09/16ISSUED TO CUENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION C GLAZING TO EXISTING SER VERY MATCH SURROUNDS 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL C NEW STEEL FRAMED OPENINGS. ALUMINIUM WINDOW 08/02/17REVISEDBALCONY D SUNSHADING TO REPLACE COVER PLATES OVER AND EXTEND EXISTING. TO L_ EXISTING COLUMNS TO FUTURE DETAIL. SITE BOUNDARY MATCH FENESTRATION. 6- 0 Lc-) r-- NEW DOOR AND WINDOWS cs) TO EXISTING OPENINGS.

ALFRESCO EXISTING STEEL AND PAVED KITCHEN II EX. FL 21.94 ALUMINIUM SUNSHADING STRUCTURE TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW. SWIMMING POOL MEALS NEW DOUBLE NEW KITCHEN INTERIOR COURTYARD DOOR WATER GARDEN NEW WINDOWS TO EX. EX. FL 21.95 EXISTING OPENINGS. -DP—c\--* L DASHED LINE 77--- If NEW ALUMINUM FRAMED GLAZING SLIDING SLIDING EX. FL 21.93 SLIDING INDICATES LINE BOUNDARY TO EXISTING OPENINGS. I OF BALCONY ALUMINIUM COVER PLATES OVER I EXTENSION EXISTING COLUMNS TO MATCH. OVER. SITE UVING DINING EXISTING NEW BRICK GUEST BEDROOM TIMBER GATE LETTERBOX AND NEW DOOR AND W.I.R. WINDOWS TO ADJACENT WATER GARDEN r EXISTING PERFORATED ENSUITE IF= N 1.1m HIGH -= SCREEN 0• OPENINGS. BIKI V) TILE N SC EEN W LL STORE 1 LJ _ GARDEN LILLIZZ2L1 FL JJ 11- -L-11 --f --ff --if —rrs khpp— I 1 II II I II II II ENTRY I E•J• II II II VI II II II E.J. E.J. E.J. 11 ii STUDY LAUNDRY STORE II 11 1 II 11 F.4 11 11 II II 11 11 11 TILE 1 I 41$1.11,0'41411,11411#1 1=t11 I 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 j 1 I1 I 1I I1 I I1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I III UP FL 21.98 1 I DRIVEWAY CD GARAGE CONCRETE ,\\\\,\\\ 1 z CONCRETE EX. E.J. E.J. E.J. DP DP E.J. C_) 1 1IN0" cy• L -

SITE BOUNDARY NEW SINGLE STOREY TIMBER CLAD ENTRY. NEW CEMENT RENDERED PIER NEW STEEL NEW DOUBLE STOREY MASONRY SURROUND TO EXISTING COLUMN. MECHANIZED EXTENSION TO EXISTING STRUCTURE. SLIDING GATE FOR EXISTING CARPORT TO BE VEHICLE ACCESS 4190 2435 REFURBISHED. STEEL STRUCTURE AND ADJACENT TO REMAIN AND NEW ROOF TO BE STEEL PERSONELL CONSTRUCTED. GATE 13000 TO STOREY WALL 6020

ADJACENT RESIDENCE BOUNDARY SETBACK GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1:100 @ A3

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS 11 Austin Street, Shenton Park FEBRUARY 2017 DA.02D REVISIONS DATE DESCRIP110N REV 7020 3470 5195 30/04/16ISSUED TO CUENT FOR APPROVAL A 04/05/16ISSUED TO CUENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION B jr 2140 I/ 1330 If 1945 12/09/16ISSUED TO CUENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION 0 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL C BALCONY 08/02/17REVISEDBALCONY D 1930 11/ 1180 If NEW ALFRESCO ROOF ON LINE OF ROOF OVER SHOWN STEEL FRAMED STRUCTURE. DASHED NEW LIGHTWEIGHT CONSTRUCTION EXTENSION OVER EXISTING GROUND FLOOR. SITE BOUNDARY 1111111.111111111.1.1.W. IW1D NEW ROOF SHEETING TO EXISTING STRUCTURE. NEW STEEL FRAMED \ \ \ • \ \ SUNSHADING TO REPLACE EXISTING STEEL AND ALUMINIUM STRUCTURE, • >- I .:CE NEW MASTER BEDROOM CD WITHIN WIDTFI OF EXISTING ROOF SPACE. W.I.R. CD c> • :403 'FRAMELESS' GLASS 17) g FL 24.52 BALUSTRADE TO AUS STD. AND BCA REQUIREMENTS

NEW STEEL FRAMED SUNSHADING TO REPLACE EXISTING STEEL AND ALUMINIUM STRUCTURE,

VOID VOID ENSUITE MASTER BEDROOM TILE FL 24.50 FL 24.52

WALKWAY EX. FL 24.52

BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BATHROOM NEW BALCONY TO BE CD 11LE CONSTRUCTED OVER EXISTING GROUND FLOOR STAIR GUEST ENSUITE.

H H 4 OPEN BETWEEN TIMBER BATTENS EX EX CD DID NEW HIGH LEVEL WINDOWS DP '0 TO BE CUT INTO EXISTING CEMENT RENDERED FASCIA OVER BRICKWORK SHOWN DASHED. CARPORT ENTRY. REFER ELEVATION. CO V) W.WWWWWWW SITE BOUNDARY [1 NEW HIGH LEVEL NEW ROOF TO NEW ROOF TO EXISTING STEEL 350 WINDOWS SHOWN SINGLE STOREY STRUCTURE (NO CHANGE TO EXTENT) 1, 1810 0610590,1f610,1„ 1810 DASHED. ENTRY EXTENSION 1930 1180 2675 1165

FIRST FLOOR PLAN 5500 EXTENSION

1:100 @ A3 13000 7895 BOUNDARY SETBACK

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS 11 Austin Street, Shenton Park DA.03D FEBRUARY 2017 REVISIONS

DATE DESCRIPTION REV >— >— NEW ROOF TO BE SET ON EXITING RIDGE LINE. 'CHARCOAL' STAINED 'FRAMELESS' GLASS 30/04/16ISSUED TO CUENT FOR APPROVAL A c) SHEETING TO MATCH EXISIING CUSTOM ORB TIMBER CLADDING TO BALUSTRADE TO 04/05/16ISSUED TO CUENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION B E PROFILE AND COLORBOND COLOUR. EXTERNAL WALL BEYOND AUS. STD. AND 12/09/16 ISSUED TO CUENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION C BCA REQ'S CO 15/12/16 WALL, GATE AND SCREEN TO FRONT BOUNDARY SHOWN D w 'OFF—WHIT' PAINTED, SAND FINISHED PARAPET WALL HEIGHT REVISED EX. RIDGE 28.88 (-75 RENDERED BRICKWORK TO EXTENSION EX. RIDGE 28.79 (1) 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL D 08/02/1-REVISED BALCONY E PAINTED STEEL RIDGE 28.10 PERGOLA STRUCTURE. NEW ROOF TO EXTENSION. COLORBOND CUSTOM EXISTING ROOF TO BE IIIIII IIII M ORB ROOF SHEETING TO MATCH EXISTING. EXTENDED EAST. 60c GUTTER-26.74 'CHARCOAL' STAINED TIMBER CLAD LIGHTWEIGHT 72" HEIGHT CONSTRUCTION TO FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION ENTIRETY OF THE EXTERNAL OF 'OFF—WHITE' NOTE: PAINTED HEIGHT THE HOUSE TO BE REPAINTED BAGGED FINISHED EXISTING ROOF TO BE RE—SHEETED. COLORBOND CUSTOM HEIGHT WALL BRICKWORK TO ORB ROOF SHEETING TO MATCH EXISTING. MATCH EXISTING. II WALL DP 11111111 32C PET FL.24.52 30c ,, 111111111111111111111 WALL 6175 NEW CEMENT RENDERED NEW 'CHARCOAL' STAINED TIMBER CLADDING PIER AND FASCIA TO 5350 OVER EXISTING GROUND FLOOR BRICKWORK. CARPORT ENTRY.EXISTING STEEL CARPORT STRUCTURE BEYOND. NEW ROOF OVER EXISTING BRICK SCREEN WALL AT FRONT CARPORT. BOUNDARY. FL.21.95 Oc

1.775m HIGH METAL MOTORIZED NEW 0.9m HIGH BRICK — 1.775m HIGH METAL GATE AND FENCE PANEL. VISUALLY SLIDING GATE. VISUALLY PERMEABL LETTERBOX. PERMEABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE R—CODES AND TO COUNCIL REQUIREMENTS. PANEL SHENTON PARK PRECINCT POLICY. PANEL DETAIL INDICATIVE DETAIL TO FUTURE SELECTION ONLY, DESIGN TO FUTURE SELECTION ADDITION TO EXTEND LINE EXISTING ROOF LINE AND FINISH OF EXISTING SHOWN DASHED STREET) ROOF (COLORBOND CUSTOM EAST ELEVATION (AUSTIN INDICATES LINE OF NEW HIGH LEVEL WINDOWS TO DASHED LINE ORB) AND WALL (BAGGED EXISTING NEW ROOF AT DASHED LINE 12' PITCH TO BE SIGHT TO EXISTING RIDGE BE CUT INTO EXISTING BRICK INDICATES EXTENT AND PAINTED BRICKWORK). —/\ WINDOW OF EXISTING WALL SET FROM WALL. 'OFF—WHITE' PAINTED, SAND—FINISHED RENDERED AND ROOF EXISTING RIDGE BRICKWORK TO FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION RIDGE 28.88 EX. RIDGE 28.79

"c3 PAINTED STEEL 27.95 70c (q) EXISTING AERIAL PERGOLA STRUCTURE LOCATION EXISTING 60c GUTTER 26.74 55c FOLDED METAL SUMP AND DOWN 'FRAMELESS' PIPE TO BOX GUTTER BEYOND. GLASS AS 48c POWDERCOAT FINISH. BALUSTRADE EXISTING NO NEW WORK TO — TO AUS. STD. 1— HEIGHT, WESTERN END OF 0) 40c — C,1 AND BCA RESIDENCE CO REQ'S 32c C_D AS FL.24.52 30c — LTJ OVERaL HEIGHT,: 25c : LO

WALL + a LC) Is-- co a CO (I) re) +4 r-- + EX. - • 5275 EX. + COL FL.21.95 Oc Oc DP 'v• DP Ls_

NEW PERFORATED 1000 NEW DOOR TO LAUNDRY 'CHARCOAL' STAINED EXISTING BRICK EXISTING GATE SCREEN TO AND BRICK FUTURE DETAIL. — TIMBER CLADDING TO WALL. BAGGED SINGLE STOREY ENTRY CEMENT RENDER, SCREEN WALL OF EXISTING STEEL STRUCTURE TO BE RETAINED. NEW ROOF EXTENSION PAINT FINISH. NEW STEEL MECHANIZED \LINESIGHT OVER TO REPLACE EXISTING. NEW 1.1m HIGH BRICK SLIDING GATE FOR VEHICLE CALCULATION SOUTH ELEVATION SCREEN WALL ACCESS. REFER SITE PLAN.

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS 1:100 @ A3 11 Austin Street, Shenton Park DA.04E FEBRUARY 2017 REVISIONS

DATE DESCRIPTION REV 'CARCOALI STAINED TIMBER CLAD EXISTING WINDOW EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY 30/04/16ISSUED TO CUENT FOR APPROVAL A LIGHTWEIGHT CONSTRUCTION TO 04/05/16 ISSUED TO CUENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION B FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION. ROOF AT NEW ROOF AT 12' PITCH TO BE 12/09/16 ISSUED TO CUENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION C 12 PITCH. PARAPET WALL HEIGHT REVISED 0 EXISTING ROOF SET FROM EXISTING RIDGE 15/12/16 EX. RIDGE 28.83 12/01/17 RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL D 08/02/17REVISED BALCONY E

EXISTING GUTTER 26.74

NEW ALFRESCO ROOF ON NO NEW WORK TO AS STEEL FRAMED STRUCTURE. EXISTING WESTERN END OF HEIGHT, NOTE: ENTIRETY OF THE EXTERNAL OF RESIDENCE THE HOUSE TO BE REPAINTED RL.24.84 PATO FL.24.52 30c AS OVERALL EXISTING BRICK WALL ON MINEW STEEL FRAMED L(D H BOUNDARY SUN-SHADE STRUCTURE t WALL TO REPLACE EXISTING 7395 NEW WINDOW FROM KITCHEN STEEL AND ALUMINIUM SHADING 3330 NEW DOUBLE DOORS FROM 111 KITCHEN II FL.21.95 Oc NEW ALUMINIUM FRAMED WEST ELEVA ION GLAZING TO EXISTING OPENING FROM LIVING AREA

1EXISTING EXISITNG BRICK CHIMNEY ROOF LINE SHOWN DASHED OBSCURED GLASS TO 'CHARCOAL' STAINED TIMBER CLAD LIGHTWEIGHT ROBE WINDOW. CONSTRUCTION TO FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION

NEW ROOF AT 12' PITCH NEW ROOF AT 12' PITCH. COLORBOND NEW ALFRESCO ROOF ON TO BE SET FROM EXISTING CUSTOM ORB SHEETING TO MATCH STEEL FRAMED STRUCTURE. 'POP' FOLDED METAL SUMP WITH OVER FLOW TO RIDGE. COLORBOND EXISTING. POWDERCOAT FINISH. BOX GUTTER BEYOND. CUSTOM ORB SHEETING TO EXISTING ROOF EX. RIDGE 28.83 MATCH EXISTING. 'OFF-WHITE' PAINTED, SAND FINISHED RENDERED BRICKWORK TO FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION 70c BDY) PAINTED STEEL PERGOLA STRUCTURE 60c (REAR OPEN >— NO NEW WORK TO THIS DASHED LINE INDICATES LINE CO WESTERN END OF EXISTING OF SIGHT TO EXISTING RIDGE. RESIDENCE 0 'FRAMELESS' GLASS La_ BALUSTRADE TO AUS. STD. 4 c AS AND BCA REQ'S RL.24.84 PATIO CD 32c —J FL.24.52 30c T, FL.24.52 30c •cr "KZ re, NEW STEEL FRAMED ED uJ SUN-SHADE STRUCTURE TO a_ EXISTING BRICK SCREEN WALL AT / REPLACE EXISTING STEEL —Thj cc BOUNDARY SHOWN DASHED FOR AND ALUMINIUM SHADING REFERENCE NEW ALUMINIUM FRAMED L.r) GLAZING TO EXISTING kr) FL.21.95 Oc OPENINGS FROM LIVING •u• AND DINING AREAS EXTEND SAND FINISHED RENDER OVER NEW ALUMINIUM EXISTING BAGGED WALL TO SIDE OF —FRAMED WINDOW— (ABOVE 29 COURSES). AND DOOR TO EXISTING OPENING TO BE BRICKED IN AND FINISHED TO 1000 MASTER BEDROOM NEW ALUMINIUM FRAMED GLAZING EXISTING OPENINGS. MATCH SURROUNDING BAGGED AND PAINTED BRICKWORK LINE OF EXISTING BAGGED AND PAINTED TO EXISTING OPENING. BRICKWORK NEW STEEL FRAMED SIGHT SUN-SHADE STRUCTURE TO NEW TIMBER CLADDING TO EXTEND DOWN OVER EXISTING CALCULATION REPLACE EXISTING STEEL AND BRICK WALL NORTH ELEVATION ALUMINIUM SHADING

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS 1:100 @ A3 11 Austin Street, Shenton Park DA.05E FEBRUARY 2017 REVISIONS

DAM DESCRIPTION REV 30/04/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR APPROVAL A 04/05/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION B 12/09/16 ISSUED TO CUENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION C 11/01/17REVISED DRAWING ISSUED TO COUNCIL D 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL D 08/02/17 REVISED BALCONY E

SHADOW LEGEND --\71 SHADOW CAST BY \ I PROPOSED ADJACENT RESIDENCE L\-\-\- .2 BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES ADJACENT AT TIME INDICATED BUILDING BELOW ROOF LINE CARPORT SHOWN DASHED SHADOW CAST BY SITE BOUNDARY EXISTING --L1-21 BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES AT TIME INDICATED

ALFRESCO

GARDEN POOL SUN-SHADE

GARDEN WrAgfilreMill o§e gir40 SITE BOUNDARY Areeteiree-4010 vA / 1j4r J r / EXISTING 1.8m HIGH ./‘ JARRAH BOUNDARY SHADOW PLAN FENCE LINE OF EXISTING SHADOW EXTENDED 12PM JUNE 21 SHADOW LINE OF EXISTING SHADOW 1:200 @ A3

OVERSHADOWING ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES (DXL BOUNDDARY FENCE) 77/-1 SHADOW CAST BY EXISTING BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES 115m2 -71 SHADOW CAST BY PROPOSED BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES 127m2 TOTAL INCREASE OF 10% SHADOW COVERS 19.5% OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS 1 Austin Street, Shenton Park DA.06E N FEBRUARY 2017 REVISIONS DATE DESCRIPTION REV 30/04/16ISSUEDTO CUENT FOR APPROVAL A 04/05/161ISSUEDTO CUENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION B 12/09/16ISSUED TO CUENT FOR COUNCILSUBMISSION C 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL C 0 8/02/17REVSED BALCONY p

VIEW FROM AUSTIN STREET, EXISTING NOT TO SCALE

6 L., ittA R3

VIEW FROM AUSTIN STREET, PROPOSED NOT TO SCALE HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS 11 Austin Street, Shenton Park DA.07D FEBRUARY 2017 REPORT ITEM NO. D3 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 REVISIONS DATE DESCRIPTION REV NEW ROOF TO MATCH PITCH, EXISTING WINDOW EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY 30/04/16ISSUED TO WENT FOR APPROVAL A COLOUR AND PROFILE OF 04/05/18ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR COUNaL SUBMISSION EXISTING ROOF BELOW. 12/09/18ISSUED TO cterr FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION BOUNDARY SETBACK 975 EXISTING ROOF I 5/12/16PARAPET WALL MIGHT REWSED EX. RIDGE 28.83 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL 08/02/109EVISED BALCONY 11/05/17MASTER BEDROOM ADDITION RIDGE 27.80 v.. 16/05/11COPY FOR NEIGHBOUR'S REVIEW 1111111 —GUTIER-28.74— 111111III I v NEW ALFRESCO ROOF ON 1111111II STEEL FRAMED STRUCTURE. NO NEW WORK TO WESTERN END OF ENTIRETY OF THE EXTERNAL OF RESIDENCE NOTE: THE HOUSE TO BE REPAINTED RL24.84 PATIO 110H"" 8 FL24.52 30c !Ii111111111111111111111111111111111111111113iluiSt_ EXISTING BRICK WALL ON NEW STEEL FRAMED g BOUNDARY SUN-SHADE STRUCTURE gyi TO REPLACE NEW WINDOW FROM KITCHEN EXISTING 11111 STEEL AND ALUMINIUM SHADING NEW DOUBLE DOORS FROM 111 KITCHEN FL21.95 Oc AL nr) NEW ALUMINIUM FRAMED WEST ELEVATION GLAZING TO EXISTING OPENING FROM LIVING AREA

EXISTNG BRICK CHIMNEY

NEW ROOF AT 5 PITCH. CCURBCND CUSTOM ORB SHEETING EXISTING ROOF. — — NEW ROOF PITCH, COLOUR AND NEW ALFRESCO ROOF ON TO MATCH EXISTING. PROFILE TO MATCH EXISTING BELOW. STEEL FRAMED STRUCTURE. EXISTING ROOF EX RIDGE 28.83

CHARCOAL' STAINED TIMBER CLAD UGHTWEIGHT CONSTRUCTION TO FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION EXISTING ROOF

THIS DASHED UNE INDICATES UNE NO NEW WORK TO OF SIGHT TO EXISTING RIDGE. 49c. WESTERN END OF 111. --.—RESIDENCE SILL HEIGHT ! ABOVE FIRST FLOOR LEVEL I RL24.84 PATIO FL24.52 30c FL24.52 30c _17 _L 17 NEW STEEL FRAMED -....---SUN-SHADE STRUCTURE TO REPLACE EXISTING STEEL AND ALUMINIUM SHADING NEW ALUMINIUM FRAMED GLAZING TO COSTING OPENINGS FROM LIVING AND DINING ARIAS — EXISTING BRIM SCREEN WALL AT NEW ALUMINIUM BOUNDARY SHOWN DASHED FOR — FRAMED WINDOW AND REFERENCE DOOR TO EXISTING EXISTING OPENING TO BE BRICKED IN AND FINISHED TO OPENINGS BEYOND. MATCH SURROUNDING BAGGED AND PAINTED NEW ALUMINIUM FRAMED GLAZING UNE OF BRICKWORK. NEW BRICKWORK TO MATCH BELOW WHERE TO EXISTING OPENING. SIGHT —NEW BAGGED AND PAINTED WALL EXTENDED TO NEW RIDGE UNE. CALCULATION BRICKWORK TO MATCH EXISTING. NORTH ELEVATION

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS 1:100 @ A3 MAY 2017 DA.05F REVISIONS DATE DESCRIPTION REV 3004/16 ISSUED TO CUENT FOR APPROVAL A 04/05/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION B 12/09/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION C 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL C 08/02/1' RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL C 17/05/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL C

_RIAL.E_RL _BILGE E.L_22.1.9

BRICK & METAL ROOF HOUSE 1E2

71 FFL 22: I ce3w W W LOT 36 CARPORT I, I, 1 _J P2901 FFL 22.02 GUTTER RL 25.05 fficiGRE 254 SERVICE PI €1‘ 42.79 21.87 22.02 Wg.""-4------7---11MBER 21.84 11E TOP OF FENCE 21.4 21.84BRICK SCREEN WALL21.84;7 21. 6 0 47 Po 12 1.84 21.9 STEPS cç POWER RL 22g Lfl 10 II csi DOME 7, 21.94r;: 003A wia • 10%! I C•I ^D\ 4TEPS PAVED AREA I 21.9411111: IX cl/ rVc),S) RL 21.85 0 I-I SEWER PROPERTY Iwix FFL CONNEC110Is0 TIMBER P ARVEL D2 A. 9R Axw I 4)1' BI ic, I L1.1 ,;) RL 18.90 g DECK 0 Jj im PAVED GUTTER RL 25.13 21,.85] POND.., PA 10,1 LOT 41 FFL 21.93 la I P2901 N ()ix TOP OF WALL_ los I Lt) ccv RL 21.941 IC.', GROUND LEM 1w POOL FEE, GARDEN LOT 35 l RL 20.3 :cn 1Lu P2901 POND BRICK & METAL ROOF HOUSE IS AREA 653m2 I E I 21....16 2; .33 FFL 21.95 RIDGE RL 28.88 I 21: 29 21.30 21.34 21.4 21.83 RIDGE RL 28.83 21.14 LIMES NE RET 22.26 WA .rb6 STEP FFL 22. 1 c00 0456 LAWN oo ac I C7.1 PAVED4:1,- 90 CARPORT DRIVEWAnYrks' . TOP OF WALL I GUTTER RL 26.74 c•0' ci STEPS .--Q' + RL 22.8321.32 21.38 \ • 42.79 c7) -1-.89- It TIMBER FENCE N`I' N% TIMBER FENCE 21.23 . 1 21.54 GILTIE,K131__24..6.0 i I MBE.H I• ENCL. Vb _ _5- - GuTTER RL 26.65 ti I---1 _ t 7 1‘ 1 I I w w 1 I I BRICK & METAL ROOFVERANDA I LOT 34 I HOUSE 1 P2901 FFL 22.0 1:200 @A3 1

SITE SURVEY

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS 11 Austin Street, Shenton Park MAY 2017 1 DA.00c REVISIONS DATE DESCRIPTION REV 30/04/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR APPROVAL A 04/05/16ISSUEDTO CLIENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION 8 12/09/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION C 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL C 08/02/REVISEDBALCONY D 13/05/17AMENDED FIRST FLOOR E 42790 BOUNDARY 17/05/17ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION F

NOTE: FLOOR AREA AND OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS

653m2 SITE AREA - 186m2 BUILDING FOOTPRINT - 305m2 TOTAL FLOOR AREA (GROUND AND FIRST FLOORS) - 467m2 OPEN SPACE - (71.5%)

LINE OF FIRST FLOOR ADJACENT RESIDENCE OVER SHOWN DASHED NEW STEEL FRAMED 11 PATIO TO REPLACE ilj ADJACENT AND EXTEND EXISTING L STEEL AND ALUMINIUM CARPORT SUNSHADING L.. 0 = EX. A/C UNIT GARDEN RL 21.34 EXISTING WALLS TO BE RETAINED

TIMBER PAVED ALFRESCO AREA PAVED COURTYARD NEW BRICK WALL TO DECK RL 21.85 1-1- SURROUND RUBBISH BINS RL 21.93 (1.1m) /POND 13 COURSES HIGH BOUNDARY 6020 NEW PERFORATED SCREEN >1-. SWIMMING POOL 1-1- STREET TO FUTURE DETAIL. SETBACK J-7(EXISTING NEW BRICK LETTERBOX 11 GARDEN POND COURSES HIGH (0.9m). 15250 • r' s RL 21.34 EXISTING RESIDENCE FL 21.95 ir) STREET LAWN

:N. CONCRETE CROSSOVER LAWN ci?k , RL 21.36 tRI.;:24.85 T.11)RI.Vg.W.1/4 AUSTIN EX. POOL PUMP EX. A/C UNIT • 4-1, EX. 1.8M HIG U A NEW STEEL FRAMED PROPOSED AREA OF GROUND VERANDAH TO NEW CEMENT I EXISTING BRICK REPLACE EXISTING FLOOR ADDI110N. (9.5m2) RENDERED PIER. ENTRY AND I Ecp STEEL AND ALUMINIUM ROLLER-DOOR OF NEW STEEL MECHANIZED SUNSHADING ADJACENT RESIDENCE STEPS TO BE AMENDED TO SUIT CARPORT TO BE SLIDING GATE WITH NEW LAUNDRY DOOR. DEMOLISHED. ADJACENT PERSONNEL ROOF OVER TO o GATE. 6625 BE REPLACED. ADDRION 15435 dfr 14460 SETBACK FROM BOUNDARY SITE PLAN 42790 BOUNDARY 1:200 @A3

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS 11 Austin Street, Shenton Park MAY 2017 1 DA. 0 1 F REVISIONS II I I I DATE DESCRIPTION REV ADJACENT RESIDENCE 30/04/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR APPROVAL A I I-I I 1285 2520 04/05/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION B 12/00/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION C _J 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL C NEW ALUMINUM FRAMED NEW EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE BRICKED IN 08/02m-REVISEDBALCONY D GLAZING TO EXISTING SERVERY AND EXTERNAL WALL FINISHED MADE NEW STEEL FRAMED 14/05/17FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AMMENDED E OPENINGS. ALUMINIUM WINDOW GOOD TO MATCH SURROUNDS SUNSHADING TO REPLACE 16/05/17 COPY FOR NEIGHBOUR'S REVIEW E COVER PLATES OVER AND EXTEND EXISTING. TO 17/05/171SSUED TO CLIENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION F EXISTING COLUMNS TO FUTURE DETAIL. SITE BOUNDARY MATCH FENESTRATION. 7— —a-- o NEW DOOR AND WINDOWS TO EXISTING OPENINGS.

DASHED UNE ALFRESCO INDICATES EXTENT OF PAVED EX. FL 21.94 FIRST FLOOR OVER.

SWIMMING POOL MEALS —< mbi COURTYARD WATER GARDEN NEW WINDOWS TO FL 21.95 EXISTING OPENINGS. DASHED LINE NEW ALUMINUM FRAMED GLAZING SUDING SLIDING EX. FL 21.93 SLIDING LINE TO EXISTING OPENINGS. OF BALCONY ALUMINIUM COVER PLATES OVER fINDICATESEXTENSION EXISTING COLUMNS TO MATCH. OVER.

UV1NG DINING EXISTING NEW BRICK GUEST BEDROOM TIMBER GATE NEW DOOR AND LETTERBOX AND ADJACENT WINDOWS TO WATER GARDEN II II PERFORATED EXISTING ENSUITE 1.1mHIGH OPENINGS. SCREEN TILE EEN W LL unc)

GARDEN

I II II II II II II II II II J. II II II LAUNDRY STORE I II II II II II II TILE I II II II II II II

FL 21.98 DRIVE CON IN El N

SITE BOUNDARY NEW SINGLE STOREY TIMBER CLAD ENTRY. NEW CEMENT RENDERED PIER NEW STEEL NEW DOUBLE STOREY MASONRY SURROUND TO EXISTING COLUMN. MECHANIZED EXTENSION TO EXISTING STRUCTURE. SLIDING GATE FOR VEHICLE ACCESS 4190 2435 EXISTING CARPORT TO BE REFURBISHED. STEEL STRUCTURE AND ADJACENT TO REMAIN AND NEW ROOF TO BE STEEL PERSONELL 13000 STOREY WALL CONSTRUCTED. GATE 6020 ADJACENT RESIDENCE BOUNDARY SETBACK GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1:100 @ A3

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS /1 11 Austin Street, Shenton Park MAY 2017 DA.02F REVISIONS DATE DESCRIPTION REV If.900 If, If. 7020 7165 30/04/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR APPROVAL A 150 04/05/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION B 12/00/16ISSUED CLIENT 2300 /47 3955 TO FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION C 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL C 08/02/1REVISED BALCONY D If. 1435 1290 ,1,645,1, 1935 1865 If. 11/05/17MASTER BEDROOM ADDITION E NEW ALFRESCO ROOF ON LINE OF ROOF 16/05/17COPY FOR NEIGHBOUR'S REVIEW E STEEL FRAMED STRUCTURE. OVER SHOWN 17/05/17ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION F DASHED NEW HIGH LEVEL WINDOWS SHOWN DASHED. SITE BOUNDARY

I LI • DP

• DASHED LINE INDICATES OUTLINE I%, OF BUILDING BELOW. 1. W.I.R. li La MASTER BEDROOM ,d-L- It7) NEW LIGHTWEIGHT CONSTRUCTION L _ FL 24.52 EXTENSION OVER EXISTING GROUND FLOOR.

NEW STEEL FRAMED SUNSHADING TO REPLACE EXIS11NG STEEL AND ALUMINIUM STRUCTURE,

ENSUITE TILE

WALKWAY EX. FL 24.52

II BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 0111M1

STAIR • 01 OPEN BETWEEN TIMBER EX EX BATTENS DP NEW HIGH LEVEL WINDOWS DP TO BE CUT INTO EXISTING BRICKWORK SHOWN DASHED. SITE BOUNDARY NEW HIGH LEVEL NEW ROOF TO NEW ROOF TO EXISTING STEEL 350 WINDOWS SHOWN ill, 1810 Icr01,610?90,1,610,1, SINGLE STOREY STRUCTURE (NO CHANGE TO EXTENT) DASHED. ENTRY EXTENSION

If.1810 2675 IL 1165 IL 1165

FIRST FLOOR PLAN 5500 EXTENSION

1:100 @ A3 13000 9125 BOUNDARY SETBACK

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS 11 Austin Street, Shenton Park MAY2017 DA.03F REVISIONS

DATE DESCRIPTION REV >- NEW 5 PITCH ROOF SHEETING TO BOUNDARY 30/04/16 ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR APPROVAL A C) MATCH EXISTING CUSTOM ORB PROFILE 04/05/16ISSUED TO CUENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION B AND COLORBOND COLOUR. 12/09/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION C 15/12/16 WALL, GATE AND SCREEN TO FRONT BOUNDARY SHOWN D 'CHARCOAL' STAINED TIMBER CLADDING SITE PARAPET WALL HEIGHT REVISED EX. RIDGE 28.88 •E-T,TO EXTERNAL WALL BEYOND EX. RIDGE 28.79 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL D NEW 5' PITCH ROOF TO EXTENSION. COLORBOND CUSTOM ORB 08/02/1"REVISEDBALCONY E ROOF SHEETING TO MATCH EXISTING. RIDGQ 27.80 11/05/17MASTER BEDROOM ADDITION F EXISTING ROOF TO BE 16/05/17COPY FOR NEIGHBOUR'S REVIEW F EXISTIiIG EXTENDED EAST. CUTER-26.71 • ••,••• . 'CHARCOAL' STAINED TIMBER CLAD LIGHTWEIGHT • • 54p. CONSTRUCTION TO FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION ENTIRETY OF THE EXTERNAL OF AS EXISTING 'OFF-WHITE' PAINTED NOTE: BAGGED FINISHED HEIGHT THE HOUSE TO BE REPAINTED HEIGHT, PAINTED CFC FASCIA TO RETURN TO GROUND LEVEL BRICKWORK TO HEIGHT MATCH EXISTING. :,•••,37c:-•••.:•• AS DP WALL OVERALL FL.24.52 30c '• • HEIGHT, —28c- WALL EXISTING STEEL —= MEDIAN CARPORT STRUCTURE. 5070 7040 WALL NEW ROOF OVER CARPORT. 5380 4870 EXISTING BRICK SCREEN WALL AT FRONT BOUNDARY. FL.21.95 Oc

1.775m HIGH METAL MOTORIZED NEW 0.9m HIGH BRICK 1.775m HIGH METAL GATE AND FENCE PANEL VISUALLY SLIDING GATE. VISUALLY PERMEABL LETTERBOX. PERMEABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE R-CODES AND TO COUNCIL REQUIREMENTS. PANEL SHENTON PARK PRECINCT POLICY. PANEL DETAIL INDICATIVE DETAIL TO FUTURE SELECTION ONLY, DESIGN TO FUTURE SELECTION ADDITION TO EXTEND UNE AND FINISH OF EXISTING EAST ELEVATION (AUSTIN STREET) ROOF (COLORBOND CUSTOM NEW HIGH LEVEL WINDOWS TO DASHED LINE ORB) AND WALL (BAGGED EXISTING ROOF LINE — DASHED LINE INDICATES LINE OF SIGHT TO EXISTING RIDGE BE CUT INTO EXISTING BRICK INDICATES EXTENT AND PAINTED BRICKWORK). —1 WALL OF EXISTING WALL EXISTING WINDOW AND ROOF — NEW ROOF AT 5' PITCH. COLOUR AND RIDGE PROFILE TO MATCH EXISTING ADJACENT. EX. RIDGE 28.83 28.88 RIDGE 28.79 •• •• — 'CHARCOAL' STAINED TIMBER CLADDING TO (EXISTING) EXISTING AERIAL SINGLE STOREY ENTRY EXTENSION LOCATION CD CUTTER- 26.71 55c ,I=11.110/111• BDYI 48c NA FRONT NO NEW WORK TO — WESTERN END OF RESIDENCE AT FL.24.52 30c 32c HEIGHT

25c CALL

• 6680 EX EX. EX. FL.21.95 Oc DP Oc DP COL COL COL

NEW PERFORATED NEW DOOR TO LAUNDRY 'CHARCOAL' STAINED - EXISTING BRICK EXISTING GATE SCREEN TO WALL BAGGED AND BRICK FUTURE DETAIL — TIMBER CLADDING TO \\_LINE SINGLE STOREY ENTRY CEMENT RENDER, SCREEN WALL OF EXISTING STEEL STRUCTURE TO BE RETAINED. NEW ROOF EXTENSION PAINT FINISH. NEW STEEL MECHANIZED SIGHT OVER TO REPLACE EXISTING. NEW 1.1m HIGH BRICK— SLIDING GATE FOR VEHICLE CALCULATION SOUTH ELEVATION SCREEN WALL ACCESS. REFER SITE PLAN.

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDMONS 1:100 @A3 11 Austin Street, Shenton Park MAY 2017 DA.04F REVISIONS DATEDESCRIPTION REV NEW ROOF TO MATCH PITCH, EXISTING WINDOW EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY 30/04/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR APPROVAL A COLOUR AND PROFILE OF 04/05/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSIONB EXISTING ROOF BELOW. 12/09/16 15/12/16 ISSUEDPARAPET TO WALLCLIENT HEIGHT FOR REVISEDCOUNCIL SUBMISSIONC BOUNDARY SETBACK 975 EXISTING ROOF D 4,X. RIDGE 28.83 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL D 08/02/17REVISEDBALCONY E 11/05/17MASTER BEDROOM ADDITION F RIDGE 27.80 16/05/17COPY FOR NEIGHBOUR'S REVIEW F EXIStING 1111111IDP 111111111II I I II CUTTER-26.74 NEW ALFRESCO ROOF ON HEIGHT STEEL FRAMED STRUCTURE. NO NEW WORK TO AS 11 11 1111111 1 11 WESTERN END OF HEIGHT, NOTE: RESIDENCE ENTIRETY OF THE EXTERNAL OF WALL RL.24.84 PATIO b. THE HOUSE TO BE REPAINTED FL.24.52 30c OVERALL MEDIAN EXISTING BRICK WALL ON NEW STEEL FRAMED off BOUNDARY SUN—SHADE STRUCTURE El' 5380 TO REPLACE EXISTING f, 7355 NEW WINDOW FROM KITCHEN STEEL AND ALUMINIUM .7c1 SHADING NEW DOUBLE DOORS FROM N. Oc KITCHEN DP FL.21.95 NEW ALUMINIUM FRAMED WEST ELEVA 10N GLAZING TO EXISIING OPENING FROM LIVING AREA

EXISITNG BRICK CHIMNEY

NEW ROOF AT 5 PITCH. COLORBOND CUSTOM ORB SHEETING EXISTING ROOF. NEW ROOF PITCH, COLOUR AND NEW ALFRESCO ROOF ON TO MATCH EXISTING. PROFILE TO MATCH EXISTING BELOW. STEEL FRAMED STRUCTURE. —EXISTING ROOF EX. RIDGE 28.83 'CHARCOAL' STAINED TIMBER CLAD LIGHTWEIGHT CONSTRUCTION TO FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION EXISTING ROOF • THIS DASHED LINE INDICATES LINE NO NEW WORK TO OF SIGHT TO EXISTING RIDGE. 49 -• • WESTERN END OF RESIDENCE SILL HEIGHT ABOVE FIRST FLOOR LEVEL c.D RL.24.84 PATIO

k. :PT FL.24.52 30c LT.J FL.24.52 30c ...... _ NEW STEEL FRAMED (.9 • F7.7 1-.7.:•77.'11:-.:j g SUN—SHADE STRUCTURE TO = C EN/ c1- REPLACE EXISTING STEEL LO ,:....•••::•n L.:.F..„.: CO ..i. AND ALUMINIUM SHADING r....,....:•1:1 m NEW ALUMINIUM FRAMED •••••:::::••1 ...• Eccks GLAZING TO EXISTING 1...!... FL.21g oc OPENINGS FROM LIVING AND DINING AREAS EXISTING BRICK SCREEN WALL AT NEW ALUMINIUM BOUNDARY SHOWN DASHED FOR — FRAMED WINDOW AND 1000 REFERENCE DOOR TO EXISTING EXISTING OPENING TO BE BRICKED IN AND FINISHED TO OPENINGS BEYOND. MATCH SURROUNDING BAGGED AND PAINTED BRICKWORK. NEW ALUMINIUM FRAMED GLAZING LINE OF NEW BAGGED AND PAINTED NEW BRICKWORK TO MATCH BELOW WHERE WALL EXTENDED TO EXISTING OPENING. SIGHT TO CALCULATION BRICKWORK TO MATCH EXISTING. NEW RIDGE LINE. NORTH ELEVATION

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS 1:100 @A3 11 Austin Street, Shenton Park MAY 2017 DA.05F REVISIONS DATE DESCRIPTION REV 30/04/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR APPROVAL A 04/05/16ISSUEDTO CLOT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION B 12/09/16ISSUED TO CLEW FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION C 11/01/17REVISED DRAWING ISSUED TO COUNCIL D 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL D 08/02/17REVISED BALCONY E 1 16/05/17AMMENDED FIRST FLOOR F

ADJACENT RESIDENCE • ADJACENT CARPORT SITE BOUNDARY

If ROOF ALFRESCO LINE

GARDEN POOL SUN-SHADE EXISTING RESIDENCE SHADOW LEGEND 571 SHADOW CAST BY I PROPOSED BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES GARDEN CARPORT - AT TIME INDICATED

SHADOW CAST BY

SITE BOUNDARY -z-217/1 BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES AVMrtarifilS V/71 AT EXISTINGTIME INDICATED

EXISTING 1.8m HIGH - JARRAH BOUNDARY BUILDING BELOW I FENCE SHOWN DASHED I SHADOW PLAN LINE OF EXISTING EXTENT OF SHADOW CAST BY PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR EXTENS ON. SHADOW 12PM JUNE 21 r 4v/(CONTAINED WITHIN EXTENT OF EXISTING SHADOW CAST BY CARPORT) 1:200 @ A3 LINE OF EXISTING SHADOW

OVERSHADOWING ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES (EXCL BOUNDDARY FENCE) V.Z.ZZI SHADOW CAST BY EXISTING BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES 119m2 71 SHADOW CAST BY PROPOSED BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES 119m2 TOTAL INCREASE OF 0%

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS /\11 11 Austin Street, Shenton Park MAY 2017 DA.06F REVISIONS DATE DESCRIPTION REV 30/04/16ISSUEDTO CLIENT FOR APPROVAL A 04/05/16ISSUEDTO CLIENT FOR COUNCIL SUBMISSION e Ii i 12/09/16ISSUED TO CLIENT FOR COUNCIL SUI3MISSION C 12/01/17RE-ISSUE TO COUNCIL C 08/02/17REVISEDBALCONY D 16/05/17AMMENDED FIRST FLOOR E

"fill 01.111..nill'IM WaglaraligliMiS1111111 ti tiii%%ti. m1 I m1

doz I HIV ;

• VIEW FROM AUSTIN STREET, EXISTING NOT TO SCALE pa

111111111 •.• ) I 11111111111111 11111111111111111111E111 110 tim!!!!!!EIRIP"'

VIEW FROM AUSTIN STREET, PROPOSED NOT TO SCALE

HOPKINSON HARRIS RESIDENCE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS 11 Austin Street, Shenton Park DA.07E MAY 2017 1 REPORT ITEM NO. D4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1

REPORT ITEM NO. D4 ATTACHMENT NO. 2

CITY OF SUBIACO PLANNING POLICY 3.13

DAGLISH FIRST LAND RELEASE HERITAGE AREA

DRAFT DATE: 15 AUGUST 2016 AUTHORITY: TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO.4

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (LOCAL PLANNING SCHEMES) REGULATIONS 2015

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

This Policy is made under clauses 4 and 9 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Schedule 2, Part 3, clause 9 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 requires the local government to adopt a planning policy for each heritage area.

Purpose

(i) To identify key issues specific to the Heritage Area.

(ii) To ensure that new development does not reduce the heritage values and character of the Heritage Area or the contributory value of individual places within the area.

Application of the Policy

The boundary of the Heritage Area is shown in Figure 1. This planning policy applies to all places and buildings located within the Heritage Area.

POLICY

Objectives

i. To conserve existing buildings identified as making a considerable or some contribution to the cultural heritage significance and character of the Heritage Area. ii. To encourage new building developments and alterations and additions to existing buildings, that are in harmony with, and maintain the integrity of, the Heritage Area’s cultural heritage significance, its established character and visual amenity. iii. To conserve the cultural heritage significance of the Heritage Area which is significant for the reasons explained in the statement of significance for the area.

1.0 Statement of Significance

The Daglish First Land Release Heritage Area, is of cultural heritage significance within the City of Subiaco for the following reasons:

• The residential subdivision of the former railway reserve along the north-western side of the railway line provided an important opportunity for the reinvigoration of the district at a time when the older parts of Subiaco were reaching capacity;

• The subdivision pattern, and its current form and urban character, illustrate aspects of the distinctive town planning style known as the Garden Suburb Movement;

• The development of the majority (>80%) of the lots within a relatively short period (1927 to 1939) created a distinctive local character and “sense of place”;

• While none of the houses have been assessed as being individually significant, they are collectively a good representative collection of modest Inter-war suburban houses, set within cohesive streetscapes;

• While the scale, form and massing of these places is generally consistent, the individual house designs and variations in the application of wall materials and finishes, verandah and porch detailing, and gable detailing provide a sense of diversity and interest;

• About one third of the houses within the 1925 Daglish Land Release were constructed under the Workers’ Home Board or War Service Homes schemes. The area therefore helps to illustrate the integration of public and private housing, which was one of the ways in which the Workers’ Home Board achieved its aim of providing housing (and an opportunity for home ownership) for those least able to afford it on their own;

• The houses built within the 1925 Daglish Land Release represent a realization of the aspirations of white collar workers, retail employees, skilled tradesmen to own their own home in an affordable, modern suburb, served by good public transport and established retail and community centre;

• The success of the 1925 Daglish Land Release as a cohesive domestic neighbourhood is illustrated by the relative stability of the population through the mid- twentieth century – with approximately 60% of the families who settled here prior to WWII remaining in their original houses for more than 20 years.

2.0 Key Features/Elements

The Planning Policy is specifically concerned with the component parts of the Daglish First Land Release Heritage Area that directly contribute to the public, streetscape views (including the setting, building envelopes, external fabric and detailing). Key features/elements within the Daglish First Land Release Heritage Area are identified in the Heritage Assessment of the First Land Release in Daglish prepared by Annette Green, Greenward Consulting, August 2016.

3.0 Levels of Contribution

The Heritage Assessment of the First Land Release in Daglish prepared by Annette Green, Greenward Consulting in August 2016 determined the contribution of each dwelling to the overall significance of the Heritage Area (Table 1).

All places that were assessed as making considerable or some contribution are considered to be contributory places for the purposes of this planning policy.

Note: Contributory places are those that make a positive contribution to the cultural heritage significance and heritage character of the Heritage Area. In the context of this policy, the significant fabric of a contributory place means those parts that contribute to the heritage significance and character of the place within its streetscape setting (i.e. as visible from the public realm). In addition to building fabric, this can include landscape elements and fencing. Places that have been assessed as being of considerable contribution have generally retained evidence of their traditional external detailing/character and/or have important historical associations. Places that have been assessed as being of some contribution have undergone more substantial external alterations over time, but their underlying character still remains consistent with the heritage streetscape. Places of some contribution also retain sufficient evidence to provide a basis for future restoration, if and when the opportunity arises. The majority of these places contribute to the Daglish 1925 Land Release Heritage Area because of their age, design characteristics and their moderate to high level of authenticity. Individually, they are not necessarily items of particular heritage significance, but they do possess collective significance within their streetscape context. Loss of, or significant alteration to, the facades of the contributory dwellings would erode the heritage significance and character of the area as a whole.

Many of the houses in the heritage area have been upgraded over recent years with a combination of additions, alterations and conservation works. To date, this has had a relatively minor impact on the aesthetic values of the traditional streetscapes.

Table 1 - Levels of Contribution The Heritage Assessment of the First Land release in Daglish determined the level of contribution of each building to the overall significance of the Heritage Area (Figure 1) Considerable Contribution Some Contribution Little/no Contribution Hickey Avenue Park (Lot 45) 10 Hickey Avenue (Lot 60) 12 Hickey Avenue (Lot 59) 6 Hickey Avenue (Lot 62) 14 Hickey Avenue (Lot 58) 10 Lutey Avenue (Lot 236) 8 Hickey Avenue (Lot 61) 18 Hickey Avenue (Lot 56) 11 Lutey Avenue (Lot 132) 16 Hickey Avenue (Lot 57) 2 Lutey Avenue (Lot 144) 12 Lutey Avenue (Lot 137) 5 Lutey Avenue (Lot 129) 9 Lutey Avenue (Lot 131) 13 Lutey Avenue (Lot 133) 6 Lutey Avenue (Lot 143) 17 Lutey Avenue (Lot 135) 14 Lutey Avenue (Lot 136) 7 Lutey Avenue (Lot 130) 9 McCallum Avenue (Lot 91) 15 Lutey Avenue (Lot 134) 8 Lutey Avenue (Lot 140) 11 McCallum Avenue (Lot 92) 6 McCallum Avenue (Lot 102) 5 McCallum Avenue (Lot 89) 12 McCallum Avenue (Lot 99) 14 McCallum Avenue (Lot 98) 7 McCallum Avenue (Lot 90) 13 McCallum Avenue (Lot 93) 17 McCallum Avenue (Lot 95) 8 McCallum Avenue (Lot 101) 15 McCallum Avenue (Lot 94) 5 Munsie Avenue (Lot 69) 10 McCallum Avenue (Lot 100) 11 Munsie Avenue (Lot 72) 6 Munsie Avenue (Lot 82) 16 McCallum Avenue (Lot 97) 12 Munsie Avenue (Lot 79) 8 Munsie Avenue (Lot 81) 18 McCallum Avenue (Lot 96) 13 Munsie Avenue (Lot 73) 14 Munsie Avenue (Lot 78) 7 Munsie Avenue (Lot 70) 15 Munsie Avenue (Lot 74) 15 Richardson Terrace (Lot 141) 9 Munsie Avenue (Lot 71) 18 Munsie Avenue (Lot 76) 22 Richardson Terrace (Lot 161) 10 Munsie Avenue (Lot 80) 2 Richardson Terrace (Lot 151) 23 Robinson Terrace (Lot 166) 16 Munsie Avenue (Lot 77) 6 Richardson Terrace (Lot 153) 31a Robinson Terrace (Lot 88) 17 Munsie Avenue (Lot 75) 10 Richardson Terrace (Lot 155) 55 Stubbs Terrace (SP 22012) 4 Richardson Terrace (Lot 152) 11 Richardson Terrace (Lot 149) 71 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 128) 8 Richardson Terrace (Lot 154) 13 Richardson Terrace (Lot 142) 77 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 125) 12 Richardson Terrace (Lot 156) 14 Richardson Terrace (Lot 157) 93 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 105) 16 Richardson Terrace (Lot 158) 17 Richardson Terrace (Lot 235) 109 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 87) 18 Richardson Terrace (Lot 159) 20 Richardson Terrace (Lot 162) 139 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 44) 25 Robinson Terrace (Lot 165) 21 Robinson Terrace (Lot 167) 141 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 43) 27 Robinson Terrace (Lot 164) 29 Robinson Terrace (Lot 163) 10 Troy Terrace (Lot 47) 61 Stubbs Terrace(Lots146,147) 31 Robinson Terrace (Lot 162) 18 Troy Terrace (Lot 51) 73 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 127) 53 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 1) 10 Willcock Avenue (Lot 120) 75 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 126) 57 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 148) 16 Willcock Avenue (Lot 117)

79 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 124) 63 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 145) 18 Willcock Avenue (Lot 116) 81 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 123) McCallum Avenue Reserve 19 Willcock Avenue (Lot 115) 87 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 108) 107 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 88) 89 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 107) 113 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 85) 91 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 106) 115 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 84) 111 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 86) 123 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 68) 117 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 83) 125 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 67) 127 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 66) 143 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 42) 129 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 65) 145 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 41) 131 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 64) 147 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 40) 133 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 63) 155 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 36) 149 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 39) 8 Troy Terrace (SP 8641) 151 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 38) 12 Troy Terrace (Lot 48) 153 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 37) 14 Troy Terrace (Lot 49) 157 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 35) 16 Troy Terrace (Lot 50) 20 Troy Terrace (Lot 52) 24 Troy Terrace (Lot 54) 22 Troy Terrace (Lot 53) 26 Troy Terrace (Lot 55) 5 Willcock Avenue (Lot 109) 6 Willcock Avenue (Lot 122) 8 Willcock Avenue (Lot 121) 7 Willcock Avenue (Lot 110) 12 Willcock Avenue (Lot 119) 11 Willcock Avenue (Lot 111) 13 Willcock Avenue (Lot 112) 14 Willcock Avenue (Lot 118) 15 Willcock Avenue (Lot 113) 17 Willcock Avenue (Lot 114)

4.0 Conservation Principles

• Ensure that the key features/elements of the Daglish First Land Release Heritage Area are retained and enhanced. • When undertaking repairs or alterations to a contributory place, change as little of the significant fabric as possible where visible from public streetscape views. Where conservation works are necessary to areas visible from public streetscape views, match the traditional techniques, materials and finishes as far as reasonably practical. • Ensure that conservation and refurbishment of significant fabric retains the character acquired through the natural aging of well-maintained fabric, inclusive of the signs of normal wear and tear. • Ensure that new building fabric is discernible at close inspection, and does not obscure an understanding of the original scale and design of the place.

In general it is recommended that conservation works be undertaken in accordance with The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter 1999). The Burra Charter defines key terms, including maintenance, repair, restoration and reconstruction.

5.0 Key Development Constraints

There are no key development constraints identified in the Policy Area.

In considering applications within the heritage area the Council will have due regard to the following: a. The increased setback at No.127 Stubbs Terrace, Daglish. No. 127 Stubbs Terrace, Daglish maintains a setback of 10 metres, averaging 4 metres more than

neighbouring properties. This increased setback has the potential to constrain opportunities for additions that are not visible from the street. b. The unusual shape of some corner lots within the heritage area may constrain opportunities for additions to the rear of the dwellings.

In these circumstances additions visible from the street, although not preferred, will be considered as long as innovative solutions are investigated to ensure that reasonable development is achieved with the least possible impact on the character and key heritage values of the individual place and the heritage area.

6.0 Development Principles

In accordance with Planning Policy 3.6 Development Guidelines for Residential Conservation Areas with the exception of the following which will be in accordance with Local Planning Policy 4.2 Daglish Precinct Policy: (i) Location of carports and garages.

7.0 Development Applications

Schedule 2, Part 7 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 provides for development applications for works to single houses in a heritage area which may otherwise be exempt from this requirement. As outlined in Planning Policy 1.2 Refunding and waiving planning and building fees it is Council policy to waive fees for development applications which may otherwise be exempt under Schedule 2, Part 7.

The information required by the City of Subiaco to accompany a Development Application is set out in Schedule 2, Part 8 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Property owners intending to make alterations and additions to their properties are urged to consult with the Heritage Officer at the City of Subiaco at the earliest stage of the design process.

Figure 1 – Policy Area

REPORT ITEM NO. D4 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Schedule of submissions – Consultation Phase 2 – Proposed Daglish First Land Release Heritage Area

Submitter Submitter Comments Officer Response 1 Supports the proposal Noted Benefits: Protection of the streetscape and beauty of the area. 2 Supports the proposal Noted Benefits: Protect the status quo. Issues/concerns: Only concern is restriction in developing property. Heritage listing does include further restrictions on development. These are required in order to protect the heritage values. The city has developed a policy to allow minor works that do not impact heritage values as viewed from the street to be exempt from planning approval. 3 Supports the proposal Benefits: Protection of existing streetscape, history and beauty of the first land release area. Noted Protection against substantially different appearance and "feel" of the neighbourhood. Heritage listing protects heritage values and Issues/concerns: ensures new development is sympathetic and No issues - strongly supportive enhances the heritage values of an area. 4 Supports the proposal Benefits: Heritage listing protects heritage values and We can maintain our garden suburb with adequate setbacks leaving room for plants. ensures new development is sympathetic and We can have buildings that are sympathetic to the areas. enhances the heritage values of an area.

The residents can be informed of possible demolition of buildings before they happen." A heritage area listing ensures that development approval is required for demolition. Issues/concerns: I am concerned the listing won't happen. It is hard to fully explain the benefits to Noted residents as it is complicated.

Comments: The sessions for residents were useful for those who were able to attend. Noted I found the presentation useful even though I felt I understood the process prior to the presentation." 5 Supports the proposal Benefits: To maintain the character of the area. Heritage listing protects heritage values and To keep the area a desirable place to live i.e. retain its sense of community, parks and ensures new development is sympathetic and trees. enhances the heritage values of an area. The To encourage residents to maintain the house frontage in good repair. listing ensures the protection of key elements that contribute to the significance of the area.

Issues/concerns: Just concerned that the "opposed" camp has a stronger voice. Many have vested Noted. interests (i.e. are landlords possibly looking to develop) in not heritage listing - and those who rent these properties generally are not interested in the issue. I think the "carport" compromise in the proposed regulations might win over a few more. Noted. It is recommended that draft LPP 3.13 be amended to allow carports in the front setback as Comments: per the Daglish Precinct Policy. Still not convinced there is strong evidence that land/house values will not be Noted. There has been some research undertaken detrimentally affected. into the effect of heritage listing on property values. This information is readily available on the internet. Generally speaking the research concludes heritage controls do not significantly affect property values for residential buildings particularly buildings in heritage precincts 6 Supports the proposal Benefits: They provide a future for this legacy district, which we have inherited. Noted. A heritage area listing ensures that They provide a minimum of planning controls, we currently do not have approval development approval is required for demolition, [requirements] to demolish nor minimum maintenance [requirements] to prevent new development and additions and alterations. dilapidation. Agreed. Allow for development, including second storey and back of block. The heritage guideline allow for additions and the Allow for use of modern design and building materials. evolution of these places from modest houses to It must be done now, or we'll never do it. larger homes. .

Issues/Concerns Concerned that it doesn’t happen or that it is watered down below the minimum Noted. The declaration of a heritage area is a proposed decision of Council.

Comments: I previously supported the proposals, having been to the information sessions, we must Noted do this, and I have more arguments: I do not want carports in Munsie Avenue, but I could live with the Precinct Policy if it Noted. Due to feedback received at the meant that the rest of the Heritage Area guidelines are accepted a compromise. Information sessions and through submissions many residents feel strongly about allowing carports in front setbacks. It is therefore recommended that draft LPP 3.13 be amended to allow carports in the front setback as per the Daglish Precinct Policy.

The proposal is about a legacy we have been lucky enough to receive and that we must The Planning and Development (Local Planning hand on. Maybe "legacy" is better than "heritage"? "I want to live in a legacy locality." Schemes) Regulations only allow the declaration of “heritage areas”. The city is required to use this terminology. 7 Unsure Benefits: Preserve the character and retain Garden Suburb feel. Agreed. Provide a barrier to high density development. Should the state government require an increase Enhance community cohesion and co-operation. in density in this area a heritage listing will ensure To provide for a wide range of age groups (inclusive). the protection of streetscape heritage values.

Issues/ Concerns: Our concern with "Conservation Principles 4.0" is dot point four in that new building This conservation principle states that new fabric is implied to be modernistic. We consider this to be a personal choice and very building fabric must be discernible at close subjective. Modernistic designs viewable from the side when on a corner block should be inspection so as not to obscure an understanding banned as it ruins the streetscape. of the original scale and design of the place. Contemporary additions on corner lots do have the potential to impact on the streetscape as they are highly visible. LPP3.6, considered elsewhere in this agenda, is proposed to be modified to ensure greater consideration is given to the design and location of additions on corner lots to ensure minimal impact on the streetscape.

Further Comments We don't adhere to the present day fad i.e. "Grand Designs" idea of additions so there LPP3.6 is not prescriptive and allows choice – should be a choice for all. either contemporary additions or additions in keeping with the original as long as they are discernible at close inspection.

Carports in the ample setbacks in Daglish should be in character with the house. Carports are additions and in order to not obscure an understanding of the development of the locality it is important that if designed to be in keeping with the original dwelling they are discernible as an addition at close inspection. Our goal is to live in a friendly, inclusive space and not be constrained by rules that Noted inhibit that.

Our home is not a museum but needs to be a pleasant place to live. Noted. The heritage guidelines relate specifically to the streetscape and allow for well-designed additions and alterations to allow houses to meet current living standards. 8 Does not support the proposal Benefits: I don't think there are any potential benefits in the heritage listing. Noted.

Many homes have been renovated or altered with the result that there is no consistency The assessment notes that the majority of places in any street which warrants heritage listing. The streets are the attractive part of the have had alterations and additions however for suburb - a variety of house types and styles can be accommodated while retaining the the most part the changes have not had a verges and trees. detrimental effect on heritage values.

Issues/Concerns: From the consultation meetings there appears to be very little support from owners for The purpose of public consultation is provide the declaring the area heritage. opportunity for residents to express their views.

Heritage listing would place unnecessary restrictions on owners in developing and Heritage listing does impose greater restrictions improving their homes. The wide verges and trees will still be retained with the current on development however the heritage guidelines zoning. relate specifically to the streetscape and allow for well-designed additions and alterations to allow houses to meet current living standards. 9 Supports the proposal Benefits: Keep the area looking the same. Noted

Issues/concerns: None 10 Supports the proposal Benefits To maintain the character of the suburb and encourage a sense of community Noted throughout Daglish. Exclude needless development.

Issues/Concerns Concerned that non-resident owners (landlords) are running their properties down to re- Noted build characterless monstrosities (Bogan McMansions) in the suburb and chanting their mantra "Development and money at all cost." 11 Does not support the proposal Benefits: I don't see any potential benefits, apart from providing Council with the avenues to Noted prevent demolition without approval, however I don't regard this as a major issue anyway.

Issues/concerns I have extremely strong concerns that the development application process for street Heritage area listings do impose greater front "visible" development will be subject to an even more onerous process than is restrictions in order to protect and enhance currently in place. heritage values. The city has developed a policy allowing minor works that do not impact heritage values as viewed from the street to be exempt from planning approval. This has been done in an attempt to make heritage listing less onerous.

Furthermore, I do not support the City's planning development having the "power" to The Burra Charter was developed by experienced refuse development applications that are not compliant with the "Burra Charter" - and highly regarded professionals working in development that contrasts with the existing character of Daglish is highly undesirable. heritage conservation and has been adopted as So, while it is possible for front carports to still be allowed (with policy amendment), I the standard for best practice in the conservation strongly oppose planning being able to dictate the Burra Charter guidelines. I am highly of heritage places in Australia. State heritage confident that the majority of Daglish residents would in fact support front yard organisations and local government authorities additions that respect and "fit in" with the existing dwelling rather than contrasting. have incorporated the principles and logic of The Burra Charter into guidelines and other conservation planning documents. The city’s heritage policies and guidelines have all been developed along the principles of the Burra Charter. The Charter states that new work should not distort or obscure the cultural significance of the place and that it should be identifiable as new. LPP3.6 provides guidance on how this can be achieved - by either new work that is discernible as new at close inspection or new work of a contemporary nature. In both cases the impact of the new work on both the individual place and on the streetscape will be considered. Further Comments The City asked for our feedback on this issue quite a while back now and a petition that Noted was submitted to Council made it overwhelmingly clear that Daglish residents DO NOT support the proposal. 12 Does not support the proposal Benefits: None - residents have maintained the character of the area for many years without the Noted. However it could be precarious to assume Heritage Area policy. that all current and future homeowners respect or will respect the heritage and character of the area especially since the Council has no control over the demolition of dwellings.

Issues/concerns: Proposed Heritage Area policies do not properly consider the needs of modern living and Heritage listing does impose greater restrictions the evolution of the suburb. on development however the heritage guidelines relate specifically to the streetscape and allow for well-designed additions and alterations to allow houses to meet current living standards. Council has not listened to the majority of residents/owners who have provided a clear Noted. message rejecting Heritage Area policies.

Comments: The heritage "statement of significance" has significant flaws making often subjective Not supported. Best practice criteria were used in conclusions that are attempting to link historical fact (applicable across Australia) to the the assessment of the area. supposed heritage of Daglish. Heritage area proposals for Daglish should be withdrawn. Noted. Consultation" was ill-conceived and poorly executed wasting residents/Council funds. 13 Does Not Support the proposal Benefits: None! Noted The implementation of this Heritage Area simply adds an extra later of regulations over Heritage listing does introduce more development the current regulations which are working fine in maintaining the Daglish ambience. The restrictions. It could be precarious to assume that residents and Council, between them, have self-managed the Daglish ambience in the all current and future homeowners respect or will past and will continue to do so in the future. respect the heritage and character of the area especially since the Council has no control over the demolition of dwellings. Concerns/Issues There is no evidence that the majority of property owners or residents want this heritage The purpose of public consultation is provide the imposition. opportunity for residents to express their views.

None of the houses themselves have heritage validity. Not supported. The significance of the original dwellings relates to their value as a collection of heritage places and not as individual places.

The proposal is being foisted upon owners on the basis of opinion and/or unsupported Not supported. Best practice criteria were used in data. the assessment of the area.

The heritage release will negatively affect property values. There has been some research undertaken into the effect of heritage listing on property values. This information is readily available on the internet. Generally speaking the research concludes heritage controls do not significantly affect property values for residential buildings particularly buildings in heritage precincts

The Council administration has admitted that a heritage imposition would not guarantee Agreed. However should the state government prevention of the State Government rezoning for high-rise buildings near Daglish Station require an increase in density a heritage area Precinct. listing will provide for protection of the streetscape. Comments The imposition will create a class of disadvantaged elderly owners who will find it Noted. Maintaining a heritage listed property can impossible to meet stricter policy standards of maintenance and improvement of their be more expensive. The Council has homes for financial reasons. acknowledged this and provides financial assistance through its grants programme.

Home owners bought their properties on the presumption that they were free to Noted. Heritage listing does introduce more maintain and improve their properties according to their taste (within Council development restrictions. guidelines). To invoke further constraints is a nonsense, it seems the Council is trying to press excessive controls on residents, who have proven for decades they do not wish to change the Daglish ambience. The cost of administering this policy will increase Council’s financial commitment to the public, unnecessarily. 14 Does not support the proposal Benefits: Noted No benefits at all.

Issues/Concerns There has been some research undertaken into Will affect property values. the effect of heritage listing on property values. This information is readily available on the internet. Generally speaking the research concludes heritage controls do not significantly affect property values for residential buildings particularly buildings in heritage precincts.

Comments: Only two houses have been demolished in twenty years. This shows that Daglish It is important to consider that the planning residents are desirous of preserving the character and don’t need extra controls. framework has changed and Council no longer has control over demolition. Should densities increase the area will face considerable development pressure that will see the erosion of heritage values and the character of the area over time. 15 Does not support the proposal

Benefits: Noted None.

Issues/Concerns Put too many new restrictions on home owners wishing to improve their properties. Noted. Heritage listing does introduce more development restrictions. These relate specifically to the streetscape. The city has developed a policy to allow minor works that do not impact heritage values as viewed from the street to be exempt Comments: from planning approval.

The Council cannot guarantee heritage listing Daglish precinct will be able to stop the Agreed. However should the state government State Government from imposing higher density. require an increase in density a heritage area listing will provide for protection of the streetscape.

The assessment of the houses shows that none are individually significant and therefore Not supported. The significance of the original should not come under the heritage constraints e.g. Burra Charter. dwellings relates to their value as a collection of heritage places and not as individual places.

The policies 3.13, 3.14 and 3.6 are too restrictive. The heritage policies relate specifically to the A more flexible policy would enable more owners to improve their properties and streetscape and allow for well-designed additions therefore ensure the area’s stability, regardless of density. and alterations to allow houses to meet current living standards.

We as a community have been successful in self-management and have protected the It could be precarious to assume that all current character if the area thus far and we see no risk of that changing. and future homeowners respect or will respect the heritage and character of the area especially since the Council has no control over the demolition of dwellings. The majority of owners/residents are opposed to heritage as per petition already lodged. After all we are a democratic society, please listen to the majority – our views need to be Noted respected. 16 Does not support the proposal Benefits: Thank you for the recent and final evening meeting on the proposed Daglish heritage Noted area. I am grateful that the meeting was held after work hours so that I was finally able to attend and learn more regarding the topic.

Concerns/Issues In addition to my initial statement submitted online I am still however opposed to the Daglish first land release heritage area as: When I purchased my property I had the view in future to have the freedom to renovate, Noted. Heritage Listing places greater restrictions extend, build another storey or the option of demolition and re-build to maximise the on development especially demolition. The space I need for my young and growing family. Without this freedom of choice places heritage policies do allow for well-designed huge implications on our plans for the future. additions and alterations to allow houses to meet current living standards.

I understand that certain areas and actual homes for example the beautiful historical The area has been professionally assessed and pieces of architecture in Subiaco need to be protected via heritage listing and for their identified as having heritage value. The contributory value to a heritage area, however I do not feel our Californian bungalow significance of the original dwellings relates to style home is of anywhere near that calibre. their value as a collection of heritage places and not as individual places.

I feel that I have good taste and common sense and would not purposely make any Noted. The precinct policy already requires that changes to my property that would be distasteful. Most likely I would like to maintain the second storey additions are placed behind the existing property and improve and expand, however if I am imposed with restrictions ridgeline. that the second level not be visible from the street view this would have to set the second storey farther back on our property where I feel the house is already set back thus reducing our capacity to expand.

The prior modifications completed by the previous owner are also of poor quality and A heritage area listing generally protects design and it may be that making the most of our valuable land would involve complete contributory buildings from demolition however knock over and fresh start. While others may dislike this, again, I cannot see why our each application is assessed by Council on its Californian bungalow would be of “high contribution” to the heritage of the area. merits.

We live in a diverse suburb and diversity gives the suburb and our city character. I have Noted an appreciation for both old and new architecture and feel there is a place for introducing modernism into the mix of new and old in the area. We should be free to express our views for aesthetics, functionality and sound architectural design in our homes. If done well, new builds will in the future too become an important part of our history. If the Daglish first land release heritage area goes through I will now be forbidden to demolish my home, which takes that freedom for a new build completely away.

Supportive of increase in density due to increasing population growth it has become Noted. increasingly difficult to meet the housing demands.

Lastly, I would like to stress the importance of this decision that Subiaco council makes Noted on my family. I’d like to respectively put the question back onto you, if you were a resident in the first Daglish land release area, would you like these restrictions placed on the future of your home and land?

I have been advised that once council has made a decision, it is final even if the majority Council does make the decision on declaring a of residents in the Daglish area that this affects are opposed to the proposal of a heritage heritage area and there is no avenue to appeal area. I feel this is unfair, particularly seeing as you have made the effort to ask us for our the decision. However should a development feedback on the matter. Had I known the plan for proposed Daglish heritage areas was to application be refused by Council then there is an come, I would definitely not have purchased my property. avenue of appeal through the State Administrative Tribunal.

I was advised by Sofia and Kathy to email Sofia to ask for inclusion of leniency in the Policy 3.13 has been modified to note the proposed guidelines/changes in the areas of the set back of my property (which I feel is increased setback of the property as a more than some other properties), to permission for and positioning of a front double development constraint. A modification is also car port, second storey set back and sight lines, and options for demolition if the recommended to allow carports in front setbacks. proposed Daglish heritage areas passes. I would obviously prefer for the proposal not to A heritage area listing does not stop a planning pass, however, in the event that it does, I would please ask for consideration of the application for demolition being submitted abovementioned concerns and leniency in the proposed guidelines. however it does clearly flag that heritage is a consideration when assessing the application. Demolition of contributory buildings will generally not be supported however this does not stop an application been lodged and considered by Council.. Comments: We are residents that have lived in Daglish since the 1980’s and that take pride in the Noted. presentation and future of our properties, this is what is important in contributing to the ambiance of the Daglish area that we live in. Whether it be reviving and improving the old or inventing the new, or maybe a mixture of both, we do not feel the proposed Daglish first land release heritage area is necessary and it would place undue stress and pressure with its many strict restrictions for the future of our properties and land that we’ve worked so hard to acquire.

The above comments and concerns also apply another property categorised of “some Noted contribution” opposing the proposed Daglish first land release heritage area. This is to save repetition of the same concerns within our family. We very much doubt this property would have been placed of any contribution if it had been assessed prior to the vast improvements made to the property since the previous owner. This house was purchased as an un-inhabitable

The improvements to this home that you see today have been a short-term plan to make A heritage area listing does not stop a planning the extremely small 1.5-bedroom property inhabitable and functional. However, the application for demolition being submitted long-term plan was always to demolish the property and re-build. We would also ask that however it does clearly flag that heritage is a Subiaco council allow leniency, for if the proposal passes, this home of “some consideration when assessing the application. contribution” would also not be able to be demolished. Demolition of contributory buildings will generally not be supported.

This home is also set back further on the property and we ask the same consideration be An assessment of the setback for this property given as outlined above because we feel both our properties would be impacted has been undertaken and it is not considered differently to others that are not set back as far. If the proposal does pass, we would greater than the setback of the majority of have wished that we had demolished the property when it was unsafe to live in, which surrounding properties. now it would not be categorised as that due to the improvements made since the original structure.

17 Does not support the proposal Benefits: Thank you for running the recent information session however even following the Noted information my position is still that the proposed changes will impact negatively on our interests and our options for our property.

We have paid a significant price for this property so that it may be a suitable family home Noted. Heritage Listing places greater restrictions for our growing young family: close to parks, schools and universities for our children on development especially demolition. The eventually, and the current small, dated and poorly laid out home is not going to be heritage policies do allow for well-designed adequate for us in the future. additions and alterations to allow houses to meet current living standards.

Issues/Concerns In the council’s own words “Many of the houses in the heritage area have been upgraded Agreed. over recent years with a combination of additions, alterations and conservation works. To date, this has had a relatively minor impact on the aesthetic values of the traditional streetscapes. I have particular issues with the following areas: Limitations on additions, including second storey additions with regards to visibility from The purpose of two storey additions being located the street – this is overly restrictive. behind the ridgeline is to enable the design and scale of the original building to be readily understood. Additions may be visible from the street as long as they are not prominent in streetscape views.

6.4 a) Buildings that present as two storeys from the street frontage will not be The significance of the area s also in relation to permitted”. Why can’t a two storey home that keeps with the design aesthetic of the the pattern of development – one of the key surrounding homes or is inoffensive be permitted, there are already numerous two elements being single storey houses. New two storey homes in the Daglish area including second storey additions that are blatantly storey buildings are allowed as long as they visible from the street. The location and amenities of this area are too valuable to be present as single storey to the streetscape. This is underutilized by the families of today, it is not 1930 anymore. also a requirement of the precinct policy.

The examples shown of modern additions to old homes in the Subiaco area at the Greater consideration needs to be given to session are interesting, but these corner lots exhibited are misleading as these designs additions on corner lots due to their potential and aesthetics are clearly not permitted normally due to street visibility guidelines. impact on the streetscape. However the policy allows for both additions in keeping with the original (discernible at close inspection) and contemporary additions.

Carports should be permitted in the front of homes. A double carport at the front and A modification is proposed to Policy 3.13 to allow side of the block that is sensitive to the features and architecture of the house and not carports in front setbacks in accordance with the domineering should definitely be permitted. I bring to your attention again the hastily Daglish Precinct Policy. constructed and compromised carports added in Wilcock Street recently due to design limitations. I feel our home at Daglish is setback more than the adjacent homes and others on the Policy 3.13 has been modified to note the street. It was mentioned that in Subiaco special mention for leniency in planning increased setback of the property as a approval etc. was added to their heritage policy to account for this fact for a home development constraint. owner there. The definition of ‘sight-lines’ for additions when viewed from the front needs to more The line of sight is clearly defined in section 4.3 f) clearly defined perhaps as follows: a straight sight line drawn from eye height, at 1.6m of reviewed draft Planning Policy 3.6. above the footpath, at the mid-point of the block, in front of the site.

18 Does not support the proposal Issues/Concerns: We remain opposed to the heritage listing proposals for the Daglish area. Our concern Noted. There has been some research undertaken centres around negative impact on property values, and disincentive for people to into the effect of heritage listing on property purchase listed property. values. This information is readily available on the internet. Generally speaking the research concludes heritage controls do not significantly affect property values for residential buildings particularly buildings in heritage precincts.

We also don't like the additional planning permission requirements that involve cost and Heritage listing does add a further layer of delays when dealing with the council. restrictions. In an attempt to make heritage listing less onerous the city has developed a policy to allow minor works that do not impact heritage values as viewed from the street (including single storey rear additions)to be exempt from planning approval.

We have particular concern regarding any restriction to front car ports. There is a lot of A modification is proposed to Policy 3.13 to allow land there that the council would be locking up for the benefit of the view afforded the carports in front setbacks in accordance with the traffic passing or commuters parking for the train. Daglish Precinct Policy. 19 Does not support the proposal Benefits: None! Noted I do not see any potential benefits only disadvantages.

Issues/Concerns: Heritage listing, whether it is Municipal Inventory, a particular property listing or Noted. Heritage Listing does place further streetscape listing, is an impact on property owners as it causes uncertainty and places restrictions. There has been some research restrictions which in all probability will devalue the property. There is definite evidence undertaken into the effect of heritage listing on from a recent property sale in Subiaco that this is the case. property values. This information is readily available on the internet. Generally speaking the research concludes heritage controls do not significantly affect property values for residential buildings particularly buildings in heritage precincts.

Further evidence, in this regard, should be obtained from ethical and experiences Real Noted. Estate Agents who have dealt with buyers and sellers of property in this area for over the last 20/30 years.

Comments: Noted. Further to my previous comments, Council officers and Councillors should refer to an article re: heritage listing, in Post newspaper dated 22/04/2017 on page 19. The process of proposed heritage streetscape Policy 3.6 in Daglish, has been lengthy, very expensive and not transparent. The original submissions outcome was a definite NO. This should be the case. The consultation process was basically a re-hash of the original information provided, was poorly attended by ratepayers but overly attended by Council staff and a “facilitator” at great expense to ratepayers. Councillors are elected to represent their ratepayers and, in doing so, should vote against the proposal in line with the majority NO vote. 20 Does not support the proposal Comments: Having read and considered the current proposal to register Daglish as a heritage area, I Noted would like to confirm that I do not support this initiative in its current form. In order for this type of significant decision to be adopted by Council I would recommend that it receives a passing vote of at least 50% of all residents entitled to vote. 21 Does not support the proposal Benefits Noted There are no benefits

Issues/ Concerns Noted. There has been some research undertaken We feel the heritage classification will de-value our property and will limit potential into the effect of heritage listing on property buyers. values. This information is readily available on the internet. Generally speaking the research concludes heritage controls do not significantly affect property values for residential buildings particularly buildings in heritage precincts.

The policy does not permit new or extensions on existing buildings to mimic heritage The policy allows for additions similar to the design. original (as long as they are discernible as new work at close inspection) or contemporary additions. Imitation should be avoided as it distorts an understanding of the original scale and design of a place.

Extension and new buildings cannot be seen as two or three storeys from the front The purpose of two storey additions being located streetscape. behind the ridgeline is to enable the design and scale of the original building to be readily understood. Additions may be visible from the street as long as they are not prominent in streetscape views.

The policy promotes building in the backyard which causes a loss of private urban tree The policy requires that the original dwelling canopy. remain the dominant feature. The precinct policy currently in place also requires additions behind the ridgeline and this is Council policy across the majority of its original residential precincts.

The policy encourages “tissue box” development because it follows the Burra Charter – Not agreed. The Burra Charter was developed by and it’s just plan ugly! experienced and highly regarded professionals working in heritage conservation and has been adopted as the standard for best practice in the conservation of heritage places in Australia. The city’s heritage policies and guidelines have all been developed along the principles of the Burra Charter. The Charter states that new work should not distort or obscure the cultural significance of the place and that it should be identifiable as new. LPP3.6 provides guidance on how this can be achieved - by either new work that is discernible as new at close inspection or new work of a contemporary nature. In both cases the impact of the new work on both the individual place and on the streetscape will be considered. 22 Supports the proposal Benefits: Noted Maintain a small period of WA's history

Issues/concerns The city’s technical services directorate is Not being able to park on front verge. The verge policy and heritage policy are not responsible for the city’s verges. sympathetic. Verge policy would have me put a carport in my front yard rather than seal a place for my car on the verge. A modification is proposed to Policy 3.13 to allow Safety. Having to park at the back is risky at night. carports in front setbacks in accordance with the Insufficient policing of clutter including parked cars, bins, barbeques etc. in laneways Daglish Precinct Policy. makes access at rear difficult.

Comments: Maintaining a heritage place can be more If I want to fix my roof (sagging) I won't be wanting heritage to up the cost. expensive and Council has acknowledged this by providing heritage grants to assist with costs.

REPORT ITEM NO. D5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1

REPORT ITEM NO. D5 ATTACHMENT NO. 2

CITY OF SUBIACO PLANNING POLICY 3.14

DAGLISH WORKERS’ HOMES BOARD HERITAGE AREA

DRAFT DATE: 15 AUGUST 2016 AUTHORITY: TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO.4

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (LOCAL PLANNING SCHEMES) REGULATIONS 2015

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

Purpose

(i) To identify key issues specific to the Heritage Area.

(ii) To ensure that new development does not reduce the heritage values and character of the Heritage Area or the contributory value of individual places within the area.

Application of the Policy

The boundary of the Heritage Area is shown in Figure 1. This planning policy applies to all places and buildings located within the Heritage Area.

POLICY

Objectives

1.0 Statement of Significance

The Daglish Workers’ Home Board Heritage Area is of cultural heritage significance within the City of Subiaco for the following reasons:

• The early stages of the subdivision and development of Daglish (including the original 1925 land release and the subsequent mid 1930s extension to the north-east), and

the current form and character of this area, illustrate aspects of the distinctive town planning style known as the Garden Suburb Movement; • All of the houses were constructed in the period 1935 to 1938 and were all built under the Workers’ Homes Board Scheme. While none of these houses have been assessed as being individually significant, they are collectively a good representative collection of modest mid 1930s suburban houses, set along two cohesive streetscapes; • The area helps to illustrate the major role taken by the Workers’ Homes Board in providing good quality, cost effective housing for those least able to afford it on their own. While this area represents only a small fraction of the houses built by the Workers’ Homes Board in the period 1912-1938 (which totalled more than 4,500 houses), the suburb of Daglish provided a clearly recognisable and reported focus for their work during the mid-1930s; • The area helps to illustrate the application of the Workers’ Home Board leasehold system (as distinct from its alternative freehold system); • The houses within this area help to illustrate the ‘modern’ approach adopted by the architects in the Workers’ Homes Board drafting office for residential design during the 1930s. This created distinctive streetscapes when compared to the more conventional development within much of the adjacent 1925 Daglish subdivision and displays characteristics that can be clearly recognised as a forerunner to the more austere styles that became popular for suburban housing in the late 1940s and 1950s. • The 1935 north-eastern extension of Daglish has a distinctive “sense of place” arising from the design palette developed and used by the Workers’ Homes Board for its houses in the 1930s; • The success of the c1935 Workers’ Homes Board Subdivision along Robinson and Stubbs terraces, Daglish, in providing a cohesive domestic neighbourhood which could successfully progress from the basis of leasehold to private ownership is illustrated by the relative stability of the population through the mid-twentieth century.

2.0 Key Features/Elements

The Planning Policy is specifically concerned with the component parts of the Daglish Workers’ Homes Board Heritage Area that directly contribute to the public, streetscape views (including the setting, building envelopes, external fabric and detailing). Key features/elements within the Daglish Workers’ Homes Board Heritage Area are identified in the Heritage Assessment of the c1935 Workers’ Home Board Subdivision along Robinson Terrace & Stubbs Terrace Daglish, prepared by Annette Green, Greenward Consulting, August 2016.

3.0 Levels of Contribution

The Heritage Assessment of the c1935 Workers’ Homes Board Subdivision along Robinson Terrace & Stubbs Terrace in Daglish prepared by Annette Green, Greenward Consulting in August 2016 determined the contribution of each dwelling to the overall significance of the Heritage Area (Figure 1).

All places that were assessed as making considerable or some contribution are considered to be contributory places for the purposes of this planning policy.

Note: Contributory places are those that make a positive contribution to the cultural heritage significance and heritage character of the Heritage Area.

In the context of this policy, the significant fabric of a contributory place means those parts that contribute to the heritage significance and character of the place within its streetscape setting (i.e. as visible from the public realm). In addition to building fabric, this can include landscape elements and fencing. Places that have been assessed as being of considerable contribution have generally retained evidence of their traditional external detailing/character and/or have important historical associations. Places that have been assessed as being of some contribution have undergone more substantial external alterations over time, but their underlying character still remains consistent with the heritage streetscape. Places of some contribution also retain sufficient evidence to provide a basis for future restoration, if and when the opportunity arises. The majority of these places contribute to the c1935 Daglish Workers’ Homes Board Heritage Area because of their age, design characteristics and their moderate to high level of authenticity. Individually, they are not necessarily items of particular heritage significance, but they do possess collective significance within their streetscape context. Loss of, or significant alteration to, the facades of the contributory dwellings would erode the heritage significance and character of the area as a whole.

Many of the houses in the Heritage Area have been upgraded over recent years with a combination of additions, alterations and conservation works. To date, this has had a relatively minor impact on the aesthetic values of the traditional streetscapes.

Levels of Contribution The Heritage Assessment of the Daglish Workers’ Homes Board Subdivision along Robinson Terrace & Stubbs Terrace determined the level of contribution of each building to the overall significance of the Heritage Area (Figure 1) Considerable Contribution Some Contribution Little/No Contribution 1 Robinson Terrace (Lot 218) 5 Robinson Terrace (Lot 216) 2 Olga Place (SP 4787) 3 Robinson Terrace (Lot 217) 7 Robinson Terrace (Lot 215) 4 Olga Place (SP 47761) 9 Robinson Terrace (Lot 214) 11 Robinson Terrace (Lot 213) 29 Stubbs Terrace (SP 4787) 15 Robinson Terrace (Lot 211) 13 Robinson Terrace (Lot 212) 17 Robinson Terrace (Lot210) 5 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 221) 19 Robinson Terrace (SP47761) 9 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 223) 1 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 219) 11 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 224) 3 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 220) 13 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 225) 7 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 222) 15 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 226) 17 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 227) 19 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 228) 23 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 230) 21 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 229) 25 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 231) 27 Stubbs Terrace (Lot 232)

4.0 Conservation Principles

 Ensure that the key features/elements of the Daglish Workers’ Homes Board Heritage Area are retained and enhanced.  When undertaking repairs or alterations to a contributory place, change as little as the significant fabric as possible where visible from public streetscape views. Where conservation works are necessary to areas visible from public streetscape views, match the traditional techniques, materials and finishes as far as reasonably practical.  Ensure that conservation and refurbishment of significant fabric retains the character acquired through the natural aging of well-maintained fabric, inclusive of the signs of normal wear and tear.  Ensure that new building fabric is discernible at close inspection, and does not obscure an understanding of the original scale and design of the place.

5.0 Key Development Constraints

In considering applications within the heritage area the Council will have due regard to the unusual shape of some corner lots within the heritage area which may constrain opportunities for additions to the rear of the dwellings. In such cases additions visible from the street, although not preferred, will be considered as long as innovative solutions are investigated to ensure that reasonable development is achieved with the least possible impact on the character and key heritage values of the individual place and the heritage area.

In terms of heritage outcomes, the following key constraint may result in conflict between conservation and development:

 The lack of rear lane access for off street parking and where side additions have been undertaken this has, in some cases, constrained opportunities for car-parking to be set back from the main façade of the original house.

Under-cover off street parking located in the front set back area has the potential to significantly alter the character of the heritage area by impacting on the prominence of the dwelling and general streetscape views. If approval is granted for a structure forward of the primary building, this should be a carport rather than a garage, and extreme care must be taken to ensure that the design of the structure is sympathetic to the dwelling and is not visually dominant.

Where council is satisfied that car parking cannot physically be provided off a rear or side right-of-way and the required amount of on-site parking cannot be provided without adversely impacting on the heritage values of the conservation area, Council may approve a variation to the city’s standard on-site parking requirements in order to achieve a positive heritage outcome that is consistent with Planning Policy 3.6 Development Guidelines for Residential Conservation Areas.

Development constraints such as the above, will not, however, be accepted as justification for variation of the heritage guidelines if such a variation is to the detriment of the heritage significance or traditional streetscape character of the Heritage Area.

6.0 Development Principles

In accordance with Planning Policy 3.6 Development Guidelines for Residential Conservation Areas with the exception of the following: (i) Location of carports and garages.

7.0 Development Applications

development applications which may otherwise be exempt under Schedule 2, Part 7.

The information required by the City of Subiaco to accompany a Development Application is set out in Schedule 2, Part 8 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Property owners intending to make alterations and additions to their properties are urged to consult with the Heritage Officer at the City of Subiaco at the earliest stage of the design process.

Figure 1 – Policy Area

REPORT ITEM NO. D6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CITY OF SUBIACO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.6 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL HERITAGE AREAS

REVIEW DATE: APRIL 2017 ADOPTION DATE: (26 November 2013) AUTHORITY: TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (LOCAL PLANNING SCHEMES) REGULATIONS 2015

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

Clause 12 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, permits Council to vary any site or development requirement within Town Planning Scheme No. 4 to enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area. This includes State Planning Policy 3.1 ‘Residential Design Codes’ and other requirements that are written into the Scheme.

The requirements within this policy augment those of State Planning Policy 3.1 ‘Residential Design Codes’ in order to ensure consistency between State and Local Planning Policy approaches in conserving the character and amenity of the Policy Area.

Should there be any inconsistencies between the provisions of this policy and: (i) The Residential Design Codes, the provisions of this policy prevail; (ii) Other general Council policies, the provisions of this policy prevail; (iii) The relevant precinct policy, the provisions of this policy prevail; and (iv) The relevant heritage area policy specific to that area, then the provisions of the relevant heritage area policy prevail,

PURPOSE

(i) To ensure that the preparation and assessment of applications for planning approval for the development of properties within Heritage Areas achieve the objectives of this Policy in an accountable, comparable and consistent manner; (ii) To provide guidance to landowners and the City of Subiaco in preparing and assessing applications for planning approval in Heritage Areas.; (iii) To ensure that the heritage places that contribute to the domestic scale and architectural character of heritage areas are retained and that, where adaptations or extensions are necessary to ensure their ongoing sustainability, development is innovative and contemporary and does not reduce the heritage value of the places or their contribution to the heritage significance and traditional streetscape character of the Heritage Area; and (iv) To provide development requirements for residential development within heritage areas.

OBJECTIVES

(i) To conserve existing buildings identified as making a considerable or some contribution to the heritage significance and traditional streetscape character of a designated Heritage Area; (ii) To encourage innovative and contemporary new building developments, and alterations and additions to existing buildings, that are in harmony with, and maintain the integrity of, the Heritage Area’s cultural heritage significance, its established character and visual amenity; and (iii) To conserve the cultural heritage significance of Heritage Areas.

DEFINITIONS

The following terms are defined for the purpose of this policy:

Contributory Building are those places within a Heritage Area that are identified as making ‘considerable’ or ‘some’ contribution to the heritage values of the area.

For further information, refer to the respective Heritage Area Policy and Planning Policy 3.5 ‘Assessment of Cultural Heritage Significance’.

Nearby Contributory include any contributory places on the five lots on Places either side of the proposed development, on both sides of the street that the subject building is oriented towards. More significance will be given to development in the immediate locality (that is closer to the proposed development).

Public Streetscape In the context of this policy streetscape means the total visual impression gained from any one location within a street including the natural and man-made elements. It is made up of the appearance of, and the relationships between, the buildings (in terms of design, scale, materials, colours, finishes), signs, street furniture, roads, footpaths, verges and landscaping.

Significant Fabric In this context significant fabric means those parts of a contributory place (including building fabric, landscape elements and fencing) that contribute to the heritage significance and heritage character of the place within its streetscape setting (i.e. as visible from the public realm).

Works not Requiring Development Approval

Normal maintenance and internal alterations can be undertaken without development approval, provided the works do not adversely affect the significant fabric of the place.

As an example, works that would have an adverse impact on a principal façade include painting or rendering previously unpainted face brickwork; replacing deteriorated timber window frames with new steel framed windows; or installing pvc downpipes.

For further information regarding works that do not require development approval, refer to Local Planning Policy 1.8 ‘Development Approval Exemptions’.

Assistance

Owners of places located within a Heritage Area can obtain complimentary professional architectural and conservation advice through the City of Subiaco's Heritage Advisory Service. This will help ensure that specific proposals meet all the relevant heritage conservation requirements of this policy.

Council is able to vary any site or development requirement within Town Planning Scheme No. 4 (including the Residential Design Codes) to enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.

The fee required for the submission of a development application for works that would normally be exempt from the need for approval may be waived at the discretion of the Local Government in accordance with Local Planning Policy 1.2 ‘Refunding and Waiving Planning Fees’.

Development Application Requirements

The information required by the City of Subiaco to accompany a Development Application is set out in Schedule 2, Part 8, Clause 63 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Property owners intending to make alterations and additions to their properties are urged to consult with the Heritage Officer at the City of Subiaco at the earliest stage of the design process.

If any individual place is also included on the City of Subiaco’s Heritage List adopted under the Scheme, and/or on the State Heritage Register, other specific requirements may apply (please check with the Heritage Officer at the City of Subiaco for details).

POLICY

1. Development Guidelines

The following guidelines: a) Relate specifically to the parts of each place that directly contribute to the public streetscape; b) Are primarily concerned with the conservation of the significant fabric and its setting; and c) Need to be considered on a case-by-case basis in order to develop innovative solutions that achieve a reasonable degree of development, while still protecting key heritage features and elements as part of a wider community benefit (including, perhaps most importantly, other local residents who have invested in the Heritage Area at least in part because of its heritage character). In accordance Clause 12 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, this may include the use of discretion by the Council to apply variations to standards for the purpose of achieving development without adversely impacting on heritage values.

Other development constraints, such as small lot size or limited opportunities for under-cover off-street parking, will not be accepted as a justification for variation of these guidelines, if such variation is to the detriment of the heritage significance or traditional streetscape character of the Heritage Area.

2. Development Pattern (Lot Subdivision or Amalgamation)

The significance of the Heritage Area, and of the individual contributory places, relies in part on the original setting and context of each building, inclusive of the pattern of development along the street. Further subdivision or amalgamation will not generally be supported by the Council unless it is satisfied that: a) The proposal will not adversely impact on the significant fabric or setting of any contributory place. b) The proposal will not adversely impact on the heritage significance of the Heritage Area or the heritage character of the streetscape. c) The proposal will reflect the traditional patterns and proportions of the existing lots in the Heritage Area. d) Any proposed demolition of existing building(s) is consistent with the guidelines for demolition in this Planning Policy. e) Any lot that is created is capable of being developed in a manner that is compatible with the key features/elements of the precinct (inclusive of scale and setbacks), as identified in the Policy for the specific Heritage Area. f) Any proposed development on the subdivided/amalgamated site is consistent with the guidelines for new development in this Planning Policy.

3. Demolition

In considering an application for demolition the Council shall have regard to the following: a) Applications for demolition of a building, or any part of a building that is visible from the street, will be required to demonstrate that the building fabric to be demolished does not contribute to the heritage significance or traditional streetscape character of the Heritage Area. b) Demolition of non-contributory buildings is permissible, however the Council may defer consideration of the application for demolition of any building that addresses the main street frontage(s) until there is a planning approval granted for a new building that complies with this Planning Policy. c) If it is considered that it is not reasonable to retain the building or that it is unsafe for occupation, the Council may consider demolition approval of a contributory building on the grounds of structural inadequacy, as demonstrated by structural condition assessment (prepared by a qualified structural engineer). d) If there is evidence that structural inadequacy is a result of a long-term lack of maintenance (otherwise known as demolition by neglect), reconstruction to a known earlier state may be required.

An archival record, prepared in accordance with Council’s Guidelines for Preparing Archival Records, will be required as a condition of planning approval when approval has been given for the complete or partial demolition, of a contributory building. Council’s Guidelines for Preparing Archival Records can be obtained on the city’s website or provided on request.

It is strongly recommended that where demolition of all or part of a building is contemplated, the applicant liaise with the city in the first instance to discuss the heritage implications.

4. Contributory Buildings – Alterations and Additions

4.1 Alterations to Contributory Buildings

Alterations should not remove, change or obscure original materials or detailing (except as part of required conservation works). This includes, but is not limited to, works impacting on roof form, materials and details; wall finishes and details; verandahs and verandah details; windows and window openings; and doors and door openings.

Alterations should not introduce new ‘heritage’ detailing that is inconsistent with the style of the building and/or the physical or documentary evidence, as this distorts an understanding of the original character and design of the place.

With the above in mind, in considering an application for alterations to contributory buildings, the Council shall have due regard to the following: a) Where it can be demonstrated that original fabric has been previously removed or unsympathetically altered, restoration/reconstruction of the street front facades to their original form and detailing is strongly encouraged, where practical. This should be based on evidence such as remaining traces of earlier fabric and old photographs, or by direct comparison with the original fabric remaining to other places of the same age, style, scale and level of detail. b) If the significant fabric has deteriorated to the point where it requires replacement, the use of ‘like for like’ materials and detailing is strongly encouraged. However, the introduction of alternative materials and techniques that have a similar appearance to the original may also be acceptable, provided the new fabric will not adversely impact on the streetscape character of the place.

4.2 Additions – General Design Issues

4.3 Additions – Location and Scale

In considering the location and scale of additions to contributory buildings, the following criteria must be adhered to:

4.3.1 Front Setback a) No additions are permitted within the front setback of the existing building, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the new structure will not: - Dominate the contributory building; - Obscure streetscape views of the building (or an adjacent contributory building); - Obscure views or access to the main entrance to the building; - Adversely impact on the heritage character of the Heritage Area.

4.3.2 Additions to the Side a) Additions to the side of the house should be set back not less than 1.2m from any existing front wall of the building

In considering a reduced setback, justification is required to demonstrate that the new structure will not: - Obscure an understanding of the scale/design/setting of the original building; - Adversely impact on streetscape views of the building (or an adjacent contributory building); b) Single storey, rear additions are preferred.

4.3.3 Upper Floor Additions a) Loft additions may be constructed where there is sufficient space within the existing roof, or where the alterations to the roofline will be largely concealed from view of the street. b) Second storey additions over the main roof line of the original building (excluding rear wings or skillion additions), or to the side of the main part of the house, will not be supported. c) Second storey additions should be set back behind the main ridgeline so as not to be visible from the street in front of the subject sight. To determine whether an addition will be visible from the street, a straight sight line can be drawn from eye height (taken at 1.6 metres) above the footpath in front of the site, to the rooftop beyond. Refer to figure 2.

Figure 1: General location for additions and alterations to the original external fabric (indicative sketch only, not to scale)

Figure 2: Showing the use of sight lines to determine the visibility of an addition from the street.

5. Non-Contributory Buildings – Alterations and Additions

Alterations and additions to non-contributory buildings present an opportunity for innovative new works, which harmonise with and are sympathetic to the contributory buildings within the Heritage Area, without falsely mimicking heritage detailing.

5.1 General a) Where the place was constructed in the period during which the majority of contributory buildings were erected, but has been extensively altered over time, alterations to the existing fabric may aim to return the place towards a known earlier state. As far as possible, this should be based on evidence such as remaining traces of earlier fabric, old photographs, or comparison with other places of the same age, style and level of detail. Such works should comply with the guidelines for alterations and additions to contributory buildings (Clauses 4.1 and 4.2). b) Alternatively, new works may aim to modernise the place in a sympathetic manner by applying the guidelines for new building development.

5.2 Off Street Parking for Existing Buildings

Specific requirements for the setback and design of carports and garages, and vehicle access within the Heritage Area include:

5.2.1 Garages and Carports a) Garages accessed from the street are to be set a minimum of 1.2m behind the original front wall of the building. Where the main façade steps back from the street, the 1.2m is to be measured from the front wall closest to the new garage. b) Carports are not generally permitted forward of the main facade (as per the guidelines for additions and new buildings). c) Any new garages or carports visible from the street frontage(s) of existing buildings shall be designed as secondary elements that do not obscure views of the building or negatively impact on streetscape views.

5.2.2 Hardstand and Driveways a) When considering vehicle access from the primary or secondary street, there is to be a maximum of one, single width crossover per lot. b) A single-width hardstand for car parking may be permitted forward of the primary building line, if this provides the only opportunity to meet off-street parking requirements and/or supports an overall heritage outcome for the place. c) Any new driveways and hardstands off the street shall be designed to minimise the visual and physical impact on the setting of the contributory buildings and the streetscape.

Where the Council is satisfied that car parking cannot physically be provided off a rear or side right-of-way, and the required amount of on-site parking cannot be provided without adversely impacting on the heritage values of the Heritage Area, the Council may approve a variation to Design Element 5.3.3 of the Residential Design Codes (on- site parking requirements) in order to achieve a positive heritage outcome that is consistent with this Planning Policy.

6.0 New Building Development

The construction of a new building will only be considered where the guidelines for development pattern and demolition have been met contained within Clause 2 above.

Where appropriate opportunities exist for the development of a new building, innovative solutions are encouraged, subject to the following broad guidelines.

6.1 General Design Issues a) Any new buildings must respect and harmonise with nearby contributory places, without falsely mimicking heritage detailing. b) Contemporary designs should respond to, and interpret, the articulation and detail of nearby contributory buildings in a modern, innovative and sympathetic way, without mimicking these buildings. This requires careful attention to design aspects such as roof pitch and form, eaves overhang, street front plan form, location of main entries, front verandahs, window and door proportions and configuration, materials and colours. c) ‘Faux’ or ‘mock’ heritage designs and applied ‘heritage’ detailing detract from an understanding and appreciation of the original buildings and will not be supported. d) In the event that demolition of a contributory building is supported under clause 3 (or the place is destroyed by fire or another unanticipated event), reconstruction of the facade and roof to a known earlier state (as visible from the street) may be required if the place is a key element of the streetscape and/or part of a larger complex, such as a duplex.

6.2 Orientation and Development Pattern a) The orientation of new buildings must match the traditional orientation of contributory buildings along the street. b) Development on corner blocks is to respect the traditional pattern of development and streetscape character of both frontages.

6.3 Setbacks and Orientation a) New buildings shall be constructed with setbacks from the front boundaries similar to the typical setbacks of nearby contributory places. b) A new building should not be built forward of an adjacent contributory place.

When considering the front setback of a new building forward of an adjacent contributory building, the city will require justification to demonstrate that this will not adversely impact on the heritage or streetscape values of the Heritage Area and/or its component parts. c) For the extent that side boundaries are clearly visible from the street, they should be similar to the typical setbacks for nearby contributory buildings on blocks of a similar size.

Figure 3: Setbacks for New Buildings (indicative sketch only, not to scale)

6.4 Scale and Form a) Buildings that present as two storeys to the street frontage will not be permitted. b) In considering the scale and form of new buildings, the city will consider the new building as viewed from the street frontage(s). New buildings should be of similar form, bulk, scale, proportions, height and level of articulation as the contributory buildings in the Heritage Area.

In particular, the manner in which articulation is used, and the height, size and shape of the roof, are key elements that can help a contemporary building blend into a heritage streetscape. c) New buildings can have a two storey section at the rear, provided the two storey section is set back from the main ridgeline so as not to be visible from the street in front of the subject site. To determine whether an addition will be visible from the street, a straight sight line can be drawn from eye height (taken at 1.6 metres) above the footpath in front of the site, to the rooftop beyond. Refer to figure 2.

Figure 4: Example of a broad design envelope for a new building. Two storey wings can be included at the rear, provided these are not visible from the street in front of the house.

6.5 Off Street Parking

Where practical, access for garages and carports must be from the rear or side lanes.

Where this cannot be reasonably achieved, garages or carports should be set back from the main frontage of the building by at least 1.2m and comprise no more than 33% of the frontage.

7.0 Front Boundary Fences

The treatment of the front boundary and of the return boundaries (back to the front walls of the building) has a major impact on the streetscape character of a Heritage Area.

7.1 Front Fence Height a) High masonry walls, high solid infill panels and horizontal boarding will not be supported. b) Fence panels shall not exceed 1.2m above footpath level, with up to 1.5m permitted for the capping of slender posts. The main panels of masonry walls should be limited to around 600mm above footpath level. c) Visual permeability requirements where driveways are adjacent to front fences shall be in accordance with the Residential Design Codes.

7.2 Front Fence Design and Materials a) Front fencing is required where this has been a traditional development characteristic of the streetscape. b) All new fences shall be designed to complement the style of the existing building and the traditional streetscape character. c) New fences should be designed to retain clear public views to the front of each house and open streetscape views. d) Fences in traditional styles (appropriate to the age, style and scale of the building) are preferred for contributory buildings. e) Large masonry posts will only be acceptable where used for traditional fence styles to the street frontage of a large villa on a wide block.

8.0 Incidental Development

Specific requirements for incidental development include: a) Any new rainwater tanks, solar systems, climate control systems or other modern services are to be installed in locations that are not intrusive in public views to the place. b) Service meters and other related infrastructure must be placed in a location that is not readily visible from the street.

For further information regarding works that do not require development approval, refer to Planning Policy 1.8 ‘Development Approval Exemptions’.

9.0 Public Realm

The public realm (comprising the roadways, lanes, footpaths, verges, gutters, street trees, street lighting etc) makes an important contribution to the cultural heritage values of the Heritage Area. Maintaining these areas in a good condition, conserving any identified heritage elements and ensuring that all new works are compatible with the heritage values of the Heritage Area, are important conservation measures. All private proposals for changes to the verge area must be submitted to the city for approval. REPORT ITEM NO. D6 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF SUBIACO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.6 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL HERITAGE AREAS

REVIEW DATE: APRIL 2017 ADOPTION DATE: (26 November 2013) AUTHORITY: TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (LOCAL PLANNING SCHEMES) REGULATIONS 2015

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

This policy is prepared under clause 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Plannning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and applies to the properties within the City of Subiaco’s residential Heritage Areas. These properties are also subject to development requirements contained within Town Planning Scheme No. 4, State Planning Policy 3.1 and Local Planning Policies.

The provisions of the relevant precinct policy still apply to development within a heritage area, however Should should there be any inconsistencies between the provisions of this policy and: (i) The Residential Design Codes, the provisions of this policy prevail; (ii) Other general Council policies, the provisions of this policy prevail; (iii) The relevant precinct policy, the provisions of this policy prevail; and (iv) The relevant heritage area policy specific to that area, then the provisions of the relevant heritage area policy prevail,

PURPOSE

OBJECTIVES

DEFINITIONS

The following terms are defined for the purpose of this policy:

Contributory Building are those places within a Heritage Area that are identified as making ‘considerable’ or ‘some’ contribution to the heritage values of the area.

For further information, refer to the respective Heritage Area Policy and Planning Policy 3.5 ‘Assessment of Cultural Heritage Significance’.

Works not Requiring Development Approval

Development approval is not required for: • Normal maintenance and internal alterations can be undertaken without development approval, provided the works do not adversely affect the significant fabric of the place. • Repair works where original fabric is being replaced ‘like for like’ or, in cases where the material being replaced is not readily available, the use of an equivalent building material that has a similar appearance to the original.

For further information regarding all works that do not require development approval, refer to Local Planning Policy 1.8 ‘Development Approval Exemptions’.

Assistance

Council is able to vary any site or development requirement within Town Planning Scheme No. 4 (including the Residential Design Codes) to enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.

Development Application Requirements

Property owners intending to make alterations and additions to their properties are urged to consult with the Heritage Officer at the City of Subiaco at the earliest stage of the design process.

POLICY

1. Development Guidelines

2. Development Pattern (Lot Subdivision or Amalgamation)

3. Demolition

It is strongly recommended that where demolition of all or part of a building is contemplated, the applicant liaise with the city in the first instance to discuss the heritage implications.

4. Contributory Buildings – Alterations and Additions

4.1 Alterations to Contributory Buildings

4.2 Additions – General Design Issues

When proposing additions to contributory buildings, particular consideration must be given to the original: - Plan form; - Height of the wall plate; - Proportions of door and window openings; - Roof form and pitch; - Width and style of eaves overhangs; - Balance of walls to openings; and - Balance of different materials and colours. - Presentation to the Primary Street and where applicable, the Secondary Street a) Additions should be carefully designed to: - Respect the scale, massing and proportions of the existing building and its key design elements; - Involve the least possible alteration to the significant fabric, and not remove or obscure significant elements/details; - Enable the design and scale of the original building to be readily understood; - Ensure the original part of the building remains the prominent element in streetscape views. b) In terms of the detailing, materials and finishes, additions to the rear of contributory buildings that are not visible from a secondary street frontage may be in the same general style as the existing building or designed in an openly contemporary, but still sympathetic, manner. b)c) Additions fronting secondary streets can have a considerable visual impact upon a heritage area. In such cases the preferred approach is for additions to be designed in the same general style as the existing building. This can be achieved by responding to the architectural characteristics of the original building, particularly the roof form and materials used.

4.3 Additions – Location and Scale

In considering the location and scale of additions to contributory buildings, the following criteria must be adhered to:

4.3.2 Additions to the Side a) Additions to the side of the house should be set back not less than 1.2m from any existing front wall of the building

4.3.3 Secondary Street Additions Additions fronting secondary streets can have a considerable impact upon the associated streetscape for that heritage area. To reduce the impact of these additions, the following criteria must be adhered to: a) Single storey additions located in view of a secondary street frontage must be set back a minimum of 1.5m from the secondary street; b) Second storey additions must be setback a minimum of 1.0 metres from the wall of the ground floor façade that faces the secondary street.

4.3.3 4 Upper Floor Additions a) Loft additions may be constructed where there is sufficient space within the existing roof, or where the alterations to the roofline will be largely concealed from view of the street. b) Second storey additions over the main roof line of the original building (excluding rear wings or skillion additions), or to the side of the main part of the house, will not be supported. c) Second storey additions should be set back behind the main ridgeline so as not to be visible from the street in front of the subject site. To determine whether an addition will be visible from the street, a straight sight line can be drawn from eye height (taken at 1.6 metres) above the footpath in front of the site, to the rooftop beyond. Refer to figure 2.

Figure 1: General location for additions and alterations to the original external fabric (indicative sketch only, not to scale)

Figure 2: Showing the use of sight lines to determine the visibility of an addition from the street.

Note: In some instances, a second storey addition may not be completely concealed behind the main ridgeline and portions of roof and/or wall may be visible from obscure angles from the street.

5. Non-Contributory Buildings – Alterations and Additions

5.2 Corner Lots a) Single storey additions located in view of a secondary street frontage must be set back a minimum of 1.5m from the secondary street; b) Second storey additions must be setback a minimum of 1.0 metres from the wall of the ground floor façade that faces the secondary street; c) Additions that are visible from the secondary street can have considerable visual impact upon a heritage area therefore additions should be designed to respect and harmonise with nearby contributory buildings. This can be achieved by responding to the architectural characteristics of nearby contributory buildings, particularly the roof form and materials used.

5.25.3 Off Street Parking for Existing Buildings

Specific requirements for the setback and design of carports and garages, and vehicle access within the Heritage Area include:

6.0 New Building Development

The construction of a new building will only be considered where the guidelines for development pattern and demolition have been met contained within Clause 2 above.

Where appropriate opportunities exist for the development of a new building, innovative solutions are encouraged, subject to the following broad guidelines.

When considering the front setback of a new building forward of an adjacent contributory building, the city will require justification to demonstrate that this will not adversely impact on the heritage or streetscape values of the Heritage Area and/or its component parts. c) Where applicable, the ground floor of new buildings shall be constructed with a minimum setback of 1.5 metres from the secondary street. c)d) For the extent that side boundaries are clearly visible from the street, they should be similar to the typical setbacks for nearby contributory buildings on blocks of a similar size.

Figure 3: Setbacks for New Buildings (indicative sketch only, not to scale)

6.4 Scale and Form a) Buildings that present as two storeys to the primary street frontage and where applicable, the secondary street frontage will not be permitted. b) In considering the scale and form of new buildings, the city will consider the new building as viewed from the street frontage(s). New buildings should be of similar form, bulk, scale, proportions, height and level of articulation as the contributory buildings in the Heritage Area.

In particular, the manner in which articulation is used, and the height, size and shape of the roof, are key elements that can help a contemporary building blend into a heritage streetscape. c) Where applicable, the upper floor of a new building should be setback a minimum of 1.0 metre from the wall of the ground floor façade that faces the secondary street; c)d) New buildings can have a two storey section at the rear, provided the two storey section is set back from the main ridgeline so as not to be visible from the street in front of the subject site. To determine whether an addition will be visible from the street, a straight sight line can be drawn from eye height (taken at 1.6 metres) above the footpath in front of the site, to the rooftop beyond. Refer to figure 2.

Figure 4: Example of a broad design envelope for a new building. Two storey wings can be included at the rear, provided these are not visible from the street in front of the house.

6.5 Off Street Parking

Where practical, access for garages and carports must be from the rear or side lanes.

Where this cannot be reasonably achieved, garages or carports should be set back from the main frontage of the building by at least 1.2m and comprise no more than 33% of the frontage.

7.0 Front Boundary Fences

The treatment of the front boundary and of the return boundaries (back to the front walls of the building) has a major impact on the streetscape character of a Heritage Area.

8.0 Incidental Development

For further information regarding works that do not require development approval, refer to Planning Policy 1.8 ‘Development Approval Exemptions’.

9.0 Public Realm

Maintaining these areas in a good condition, conserving any identified heritage elements and ensuring that all new works are compatible with the heritage values of the Heritage Area, are important conservation measures. All private proposals for changes to the verge area must be submitted to the city for approval. REPORT ITEM NO. D6 ATTACHMENT NO. 3

Submission Submitter Suburb Comment Officer Response # 1 Emma Daglish The questions should start with what is the vision for Daglish then drill down into the detail of which policy The content of this submission does not provide any feedback on Draft Local Yuen instrument should be used and ONLY THEN the details of what should be in the policy. I need to be taken Planning Policy 3.6 ‘Development Guidelines for Heritage Areas’. Instead, it on that journey before I can make meaningful comment on the detail. focuses on a preferred journey for consideration of Heritage values.

This is what I think needs to be done in the following order: 1. develop a vision for Daglish in a participatory community forum possibly "conversations with the city" style or possibly a more structured process with a multi criteria analysis. It will enable the community to work out which of the value(s) they want and how to make tradeoffs. Some values may include: a) protection of significant heritage sites b) protection of the "quaint feel" and streetscape c) protection of economic sustainability (rates/ operating costs) for the council d) protection of economic value for landholders through development of land e) supporting infill development across Perth that includes development near train lines f) protection of the environment through maintenance of trees/ habitat in Daglish g) protection of the enviornment across perth by preventing urban sprawl g) etc etc

2. decide on the appropriate policy tool. If the driving goal IS heritage ie 'a' then maybe this policy is good. But if it is more the streetscape 'b' then it is a blunt tool that results in negative unintended consequences. If it is 'b' then there needs to be work on defining this from the community perspective. For example what does the community think of mimicking heritage styles after the advantages and disadvantages have been presented to them? or what do they think of contemporary extensions on the rear of houses in highly visible side streets? what do car ports add to or subtract from the streetscape? then there needs to be photos so that these decisions can be made in a grounded not theoretical way

3. THEN delve the council goes into the appropriate policy to see how to achieve the goals and send out for public comment. I support maintaining the heritage feel of the community but find it very hard to understand what are the actual implications and unintended consequences of this policy are. I attended the information sessions, try to keep informed of community issues, and work in policy and planning and I personally still don't understand it. How does everyone else have a chance of understanding the bigger issue in the broader context?

4. In conclusion, Engage us early at the right stage using the right process design and you will be surprised how the community can move away from NIMBYism and support collective goals of the council and community. 2 Trevor Daglish Making amendments to this policy appears as if the policy is already in place and that we accept heritage The content of this submission does not provide any feedback on Draft Local Gibson listing in this area. As none of the houses are considered heritage by the Council's own assessment, I Planning Policy 3.6 ‘Development Guidelines for Heritage Areas’. therefore recommend that the Council abandon this proposal. 3 Rosemarie Daglish I wish to express my strong opposition to Planning Policy 3.6 and the amended policy. The key areas of di Vries concern to me are: 1) The purpose of the consultation is to receive feedback on the revised 1. that Planning Policy 3.6 is nothing more than a subtle way to try and get homeowners to support the planning policy. original Planning Policy 3.6; and 2) This comment does not provide any specific feedback on the revised 2. none of the amendments make this policy workable for me. planning policy. 3. Council continues to ‘force” heritage on the community who have overwhelmingly rejected this.. The 3) Refer to point (2) above. amendments do not fix the issue of dealing with the heritage listing of the streetscape which has 4) LPP3.6 includes provisions that are not dissimilar with the precinct policy. already been rejected by the residents of Daglish. In any case, LPP3.6 provides guidance and Council is not bound by any decisions The remainder of this submission does not provide any 4. The idea of conserving the area is rather more to the point and the wording of the amendment feedback on Draft Local Planning Policy 3.6 ‘Development Guidelines for should reflect this. Heritage listing the streetscape is unnecessary and too controlling and is Heritage Areas’. completely unnecessary in my view. Once the area has heritage control over it, homeowners will be 5) To ensure the retention of the heritage values, of both the original dwellings forced to conform to Local Planning Policy 3.6 and this will greatly limit and restrict what and the area as a whole, additions need to be positioned and sized in a homeowners can do to their properties. This is bad for people who bought their properties never manner that ensures that the prominence of the original building is expecting or anticipating this and WILL MAKE THEM UNHAPPY! retained.

5. Again, the amendments are not interested to address the original and in my view false claim that this This is best achieved by single storey additions located to the rear of the is an area worthy of heritage listing. Clause 6.4 controls how home owners can extend and build up, original building however the policy clearly allows for two storey additions and creates a potential situation where homeowners will be forced to extend further back into their as long as they are positioned in a manner that does not impact on the gardens creating the very problem of “higher density” the policy claims to be preventing. Loss of original dwelling as viewed from the street and the surrounding streetscape. backyards is a serious concern to families.

6. Clause 6.1 also has wording to stop “falsely mimicking heritage detailing”. This may also be an Further, the precinct policy’s all include development standards for the unnecessary criticism of people’s efforts to ensure that the kind of renovations that they make are setback of upper floor additions, these include requirements for upper floor aesthetically pleasing in the way the homeowners deems fit within the current guidelines which additions to either be contained wholly within the roof space or within the seems adequate. line of sight. This aspect of the policy is consistent with the existing local planning policy framework. 7. Again, overwhelmingly reject the idea of using this amendment to try to force heritage listing the streetscape to justify having control over the homeowners of Daglish, as nothing more than a failure In addition to draft LPP3.6, design element 5.1.4 (open space) of the to address our real concerns. Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) addresses the requirements for open space on a development.

6) Heritage best practice does not encourage faux heritage buildings as they are inappropriate and confuse an understanding of the traditional development of an area. New work should be distinguishable as new but must harmonise with nearby heritage buildings.

7) Refer to point (2) above. 4 Anthony Daglish I am strongly opposed to the changes as in my view they will be too restrictive on future development. The The proposed changes to LPP3.6, as advertised and outlined in item D4, were Byrne character of the area is important and should be protected. This however can be achieved without the need proposed for the purposes of assisting with interpretation and do not change to change anything but simply by using the planning and development guidelines currently available to the the intent of policy and the development provisions within it. council and its officers 5 Ramesh Daglish First and foremost, my property or residence is not opted by myself as a owner for being listed as of The content of this submission does not provide any feedback on Draft Local Bajaj Heritage significance , but there is a move by City of Subiaco that Daglish Station Precinct be declared as Planning Policy 3.6 ‘Development Guidelines for Heritage Areas’. Heritage Area and the properties assessed to be of Heritage significance be listed, such that the amended policy in this subject matter is to be considered for future developments and conservation.

The question, I will raise here is why the City of Subiaco is continuing their move to tick the boxes, such that the provisions for the compliant process are fully met for City to declare the station precinct area as heritage area, which includes the policy in question as well. Why should I be engaged to comment in development policies that would apply for Heritage listed properties, when at this present time majority of residents, including myself are a voice against heritage listing of the station precinct?

Any attempt by City of Subiaco to seek public comment on draft revision of Local Planning Policy 3.6 'Design Guidelines for Residential Conservation Areas' is seen to be in violation, since one may argue why is it that the proposal for declaring of Daglish Station Precinct is deemed as Heritage Area compliant under the Planning and Development Act 2005. I object to the Daglish Station Precinct to be declared as Heritage Area and that any engagement or, commenting on amended Policy 3.6 is not valid in my position as a resident in Daglish. Further that any declaration of Daglish Station Precinct as Heritage Area is simply an act to deceive or defeat the Metropolitan Region or the State Planning Scheme and simply put a violation of Planning and Development Act 2005. Finally, what if that Daglish Station Precinct not be declared as Heritage Area, which policy would then be exercised for on-going development and conservation? 6 Michael Daglish The proposed 3.6 policy amendments are inappropriate for the future evolution and sensible social This policy applies to heritage areas adopted by Council. These areas are Grant considered by Council to require special planning controls to conserve and development of a suburb where homes are not of any heritage value. enhance their cultural heritage significance and character.

Line of sight and setback limitations on additions are not well suited for modern living and the preservation To ensure the retention of the heritage values, of both the original dwellings of rear gardens. Various proposed limitations on the fronts of house will create stagnant and impractical and the area as a whole, additions need to be positioned and sized in a home frontages with limited variation and limit social interaction of homeowners. The proposal of this policy manner that ensures that the prominence of the original building is retained. pushes "heritage" values and restrictions onto homes that may in fact have no heritage standing. More This is best achieved by single storey additions located to the rear of the innovative and less restrictive policy should be available to residents on issues such as upper level original building however the policy clearly allows for two storey additions as additions, general design rules and carports in front. This policy is inappropriate for an area like Daglish that long as they are positioned in a manner that does not impact on the original has maintained and developed its character through owners efforts without further excessive and dwelling as viewed from the street and the surrounding streetscape. Further, impractical policy. the precinct policies all include development standards for the setback of upper floor additions, these include requirements for upper floor additions to either be contained wholly within the roof space or within the line of sight. This aspect of the policy is consistent with the existing local planning policy framework.

In addition to draft LPP3.6, design element 5.1.4 (open space) of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) addresses the requirements for open space on a development.

Where provisions in LPP3.6 are not considered appropriate for a certain heritage area these can be varied in the specific planning policy for that heritage area. 7 Shelley Daglish Leave Daglish alone I am an owner and I do not rent my property from Subiaco council. I don't want The content of this submission does not provide any feedback on Draft Local Dodds restrictions Planning Policy 3.6 ‘Development Guidelines for Heritage Areas’

8 Julie Subiaco 1. The policy does not permit new or extensions on existing buildings to mimic heritage design. 1. Refer to response (2) below; Matheson 2. Extensions and new buildings cannot be seen as two or three storeys from the front streetscape 2. To ensure the retention of the heritage values, of both the original dwellings 3. The policy promotes building in the back yard which causes a loss of private urban tree canopy and the area as a whole, additions need to be positioned and sized in a 4. The policy encourages “tissue box” development because it slavishly follows the Burra Charter manner that ensures that the prominence of the original building is 5. This policy does not protect the heritage of the 1930s Garden Suburb Movement because it promotes retained, involves the least possible alteration of the original building fabric, building in the back yard to stop the appearance of two storeys. and does not remove or obscure significant elements of the place.

Here are some specific points on the wording of the policy: This is best achieved by single storey additions located to the rear of the original building however the policy also clearly allows for two storey 1. Retain the words “conservation area” in the policy. The word “heritage” is problematic and does not additions as long as they are positioned in a manner that does not impact encourage the community to heritage list their streets or buildings with the Council. on the original dwelling as viewed from the street and the surrounding 2. Extract from Burra Charter 1999 Practice Note, Nov 2013 does not allow property owners to imitate the streetscape. architecture of their dwellings, ie my verandah extension at 139 Coghlan Road Subiaco would not be permitted because it imitates the original front verandah! 3. Refer to response (5) below. 3. Once an area has a conservation policy over it, Local Planning Policy 3.6 applies and places many 4. Refer to response (4) below. restrictions on dwellings in heritage areas. 5. The garden suburb movement does not form part of the consultation for this 4. Point (ii) in the Objectives encourages “tissue box development” when faux/imitative heritage works policy. This matter was the subject of the draft policy advertised in better in conservation areas. We end up with tissue boxes on the back of old homes! September 2016 and again between April and May 2017. This is the 5. Clause 4.3 additions promotes single rear extensions instead of second storey additions which results in subject of two separate items on the June 2017 agenda (refer it items D4 a loss of private urban tree canopy in the back yard. b. Subiaco has smaller lots compared to Mount and D5). Lawley. Second storeys contained within the existing footprint of the dwelling should be encouraged as long as it matches the existing design and character. To ensure the retention of the heritage values, of both the original dwellings 6. Clause 4.3 also promotes upper floor additions that will be largely concealed from the view of the street. and the area as a whole, additions need to be positioned and sized in a This clause encourages more development in the back yard. What’s wrong with a second storey if it manner that ensures that the prominence of the original building is matches the original home like this one? (photo not able to be uploaded) retained, involves the least possible alteration of the original building fabric, 7. The policy has wording to stop “falsely mimicking heritage detailing”. There is nothing wrong with and does not remove or obscure significant elements of the place. This is heritage detailing. Faux heritage should be encouraged. It looks better than the contemporary best achieved by single storey additions located to the rear of the original development approved under delegated authority on Hamersley Road. building 8. Clause 6.1 General design again has wording about falsely mimicking heritage detailing. Faux/mock/mimic heritage should be encouraged if this policy is about streetscape NOT preserving buildings to a museum (BURRA CHARTER) standard. Specific responses: 9. Clause 6.4 Scale and form puts onerous conditions preventing two storey street frontages. Single storey development in the back yard encourages loss of private urban tree canopy. 6. The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations have replaced the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 4 (TPS4) and “Conservation Areas” are now called “Heritage Areas”. The wording of terminology in the reviewed policy is consistent with the regulations. Should the terminology be adopted as proposed, it will have the same effect as not adopting the policy as the heritage provisions won’t be called up. 7. Heritage best practice does not encourage faux heritage buildings as they are inappropriate and confuse an understanding of the traditional development of an area. Nor does it encourage additions that mimic the original. New work should be distinguishable as new but must harmonise with nearby heritage buildings. The policy allows for new work to be in keeping with the original (as long as it can be distinguished as new work at close inspection) or clearly contemporary but sympathetic to the original. 8. The provisions of the relevant precinct policy still apply to development within a heritage area, however should there be any inconsistencies between the provisions of this policy and: a. The Residential Design Codes, the provisions of this policy prevail; b. Other general Council policies, the provisions of this policy prevail; c. The relevant precinct policy, the provisions of this policy prevail; and d. The relevant heritage area policy specific to that area, then the provisions of the relevant heritage area policy prevail, The extra restrictions only relate to those parts of a place which are visible from the public realm and are required to retain and enhance heritage values. 9. The policy was originally developed in consultation with residents in Heritage Areas (Kershaw Street, James Chesters Subdivision Heritage Area and the residents of Rawson Street) who felt strongly about allowing contemporary and innovative new building development in heritage areas as long as they are in harmony with, and maintain the integrity of the heritage area. The policy follows best practice principles and encourages contemporary designs that respond to and interpret the scale, articulation and detail of nearby contributory buildings in a modern and sympathetic way, without mimicking these buildings. Modern heritage designs often include pastiche design elements from different eras, rely on a few basic design elements for their credentials, such as bull nosed verandahs and finials, and/or fail to successfully interpret scale, massing and detailing. Even when done well, a replica of a heritage style is generally inappropriate as it confuses an understanding of the traditional development of the area. 10. To ensure the retention of the heritage values, of both the original dwellings and the area as a whole, additions need to be positioned and sized in a manner that ensures that the prominence of the original building is retained, involves the least possible alteration of the original building fabric, and does not remove or obscure significant elements of the place. This is best achieved by single storey additions located to the rear of the original building. It is however recognised that the modest size of some allotments and relatively small backyards can constrain opportunities for single storey additions and the policy clearly allows for two storey additions as long as they are positioned in a manner that does not impact on the original dwelling as viewed from the street and the surrounding streetscape. 11. The policy does not prohibit second storey additions that match the original design of place however it does encourage a distinction between the old and the new, which can either be subtle or more contemporary. It is however extremely important that all additions are located in a manner so as not to impact on the dwelling as viewed from the street and the streetscape. Allowing second storey additions to be visually prominent if they match the original design of the place would obscure all understanding of the original design and scale of the place therefore negatively impacting on the heritage values of both the place and the area. 12. Refer to point (2) above. 13. 6.1 considers the scale and form of new buildings in heritage areas and ensures that the scale and form is consistent with the surrounding contributory buildings. In the case where the surrounding streetscape is single storey it requires that the new build appear single storey to the streetscape. This is not considered onerous and is consistent across the city’s precinct policies as well. 14. Most of the city’s heritage areas are single storey and allowing two storey development to the streetscape will impact negatively on the heritage values and character of the area. This is consistent across the city’s precinct policies as well. 9 Susannah Daglish The key areas of concern to me are: Elvey 1. Retain the words “conservation area” in the policy. The word “heritage” is problematic and does not 1. The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations encourage the community to heritage list their streets or buildings with the Council. 2015 (the regulations) have updated the terminology used, and 2. Extract from Burra Charter 1999 Practice Note, Nov 2013 does not allow property owners to imitate “Conservation Areas” are now called “Heritage Areas”. The wording of the architecture of their dwellings terminology in the reviewed policy is consistent with the regulations. Should 3. Once an area has a heritage area policy over it, Local Planning Policy 3.6 applies and it has some the terminology be adopted as proposed, it will have the same effect as not nasty treatments for dwellings in heritage areas. adopting the policy as the heritage provisions won’t be called up. 4. Point (ii) in the Objectives encourages “tissue box development” when faux/imitative heritage works 2. Heritage best practice does not encourage faux heritage buildings as they better in conservation areas. are inappropriate and confuse an understanding of the traditional 5. Clause 4.3 additions promotes single rear extensions instead of second storey additions which development of an area. New work should be distinguishable as new but results in a loss of private urban tree canopy in the back yard. must harmonise with nearby heritage buildings. 6. Clause 4.3 also promotes upper floor additions that will be largely concealed from the view of the 3. It is unclear what ‘nasty’ treatments refers to. street. This statement encourages more development in the back yard 4. Refer to the response to submission 8(4) 7. The policy also has wording to stop “falsely mimicking heritage detailing”. There is nothing wrong 5. Refer to the response to submission 8 (5) with heritage detailing. Faux heritage should be encouraged 6. Refer to the response to submission 8 (6) 8. Clause 6.1 General design again has wording about falsely mimicking heritage detailing. Faux and 7. Refer to the response to submission 8 (7) mock heritage should be encouraged like this new development. 8. Refer to the response to submission 8 (8) 9. Clause 6.4 Scale and form puts onerous conditions preventing two storey street frontages. Single 9. Refer to the response to submission 8 (9) storey development in the back yard encourages loss of private urban tree canopy.

10 Toby Subiaco 1. There has been no change to clause 3(a) and based on the way the City of Subiaco has defined 1. The ‘traditional streetscape character’ is significant to Subiaco’s James Heritage areas it continues to be a prohibition of demolition for all homes other than those which heritage. Should an application be received for demolition in a heritage have been explicitly identified by council as having ‘no significance’. The ‘traditional streetscape area, it is assessed on its merits and consideration is given to the character’ of the area has been defined by Council based on observable physical characteristics of impact of the demolition on the streetscape. the homes within it. Even though it is possible to show that heritage is unaffected by demolition, it 2. LPP3.6 does not provide any restrictions on hard-stand parking. The will never be possible to demonstrate that traditional streetscape character is unaffected unless the provisions cited relate specifically to the provision of hard-stand parking house is not original. Traditional streetscape character is something that most streets in Western within the property boundary. Australia have in some form and it is usually unrelated to heritage. Only legitimate heritage significance can be grounds to deny demolition. 2. The 5.2 (e) hard-stand restrictions are ridiculous. In an area characterised by both limited street parking and limited off-street parking verge hardstands are the single most effective way to maintain the condition of verges with and without them. It doesn’t change whether people park on the verge or not. It just allows people to have a defined place for vehicles so that the rest of the verge can be maintained in good order. Refuse them or take them away and people who want (or need) to park on their verge will continue to do so, the owner just won’t bother to maintain it.

11 Brian Subiaco 1) Is this proposed amendment just a policy statement or is it for adoption on the City of Subiaco TPS. If it 1) This policy is being prepared and adopted in accordance with clause 4 of Prentice is just a policy statement it could have an adverse effect on decision making in Heritage issues. Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. 2) The Register of Heritage places and streets that recognises and protects Subiaco’s significant social 2) This comment does not provide any specific feedback on the revised history and architectural character has been a hard fought success. Any amendments that weaken the planning policy. implementation and strength of the existing process should be regarded with caution. Anything that can 3) The proposed amendments are intended to provide clarification to the strengthen and ensure that sites worthy of inclusion are recognised and protected for the future should policy and assist with them being user-friendly. be considered. 4) The city’s intent is to ensure heritage listings are less onerous on property owners whilst still maintaining the integrity of heritage streetscapes. 3) If the purpose of the first point as stated on the Draft is to “strengthen Heritage through complying with 5) The city is assessing heritage areas based upon the best practice.. legislative changes” then it is desirable.

4) If it means that it is easier to get around the requirements that restrict certain development in Residential Heritage areas it should be refused. Maintenance of the integrity of Heritage streetscapes is essential. Any additions or alterations to dwellings should not impact in any way on this.

5) Subiaco should look to sound, effective Heritage legislation using whatever legislative framework best serves the interest of protecting the Heritage buildings and streets in this city: one that best protects our unique history and Heritage from threats and the challenges that come from self serving short-term interests seeking to over-ride what is in the long term best interests of this special city 12 Richard & Subiaco We maintain our strenuous objection to this policy in the current form or any amended form. Stephanie 1. The Strategic Community Plan (SPC) includes two provisions within Focus Barsden 1. Subiaco has no mandate for it. Area Four: The Built Environment. Particularly, 4.1.1 Identify and Protect We find no evidence that a majority of the property owners whose properties will be affected by it, want it or significant heritage buildings.4.1.2 Ensure new developments consider and even understand what it will come to mean to them. respect the built heritage and character of the streetscapes. The process of “consultation & engagement” was done piecemeal and at such a high level that no informed view could be formed of what it might mean before it was too late to stop it. This policy was developed in 2013 to provide guidance to property owners There was no referendum or vote to determine the attitude of those affected. The same sort of proposal on appropriate development in heritage areas and to city officers when had been put twice before and was twice rejected. assessing development applications in heritage areas. The policy applies to There are no objective published results of any of the “consultation and engagement” touted by Subiaco. all of the residential heritage areas declared by Council. Policies are The policy appears to be the product of small but vocal special interest groups and the administration of the required to be reviewed every few years. City of Subiaco itself. 2. The city is not bound by the provisions of a policy; it serves as guidance in the decision making. In addition, the proposed policy is consistent with the 2. Command and control policy. provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) The Heritage policy is controlling and oppressive by its nature and in its operation. This model of social Regulations 2015 and the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990. It policy is long discredited and should not commend itself to Subiaco. Big brother does not know best. should also be noted that this is part of the state wide policy framework. 3. Part of this response is covered by (1) above. Notwithstanding, the 3. The end of diversity. adoption of any heritage area is subject to public consultation. A heritage At the heart of this policy is the view that “built heritage” or “streetscape” of the Federation or Californian area is assessed on its merits and will only be considered if it meets the bungalow styles should be preserved by compulsion of law. Subiaco knows best? Well it didn’t claim to threshold of significance. This will also be the subject of consultation. It is know best until 2013/14. In the period from first settlement till “Mausoleum Day”, when Heritage was therefore, an exaggeration to suggest that the entire municipality will be a imposed, owners went about building, improving, altering, adding to, rebuilding and redeveloping in heritage area. LPP 3.6 seeks to conserve and enhance the heritage values whatever style suited them best. The result is an eclectic “mishmash” that actually is Subiaco’s built of contributory buildings while still allowing contemporary and innovative Heritage. development that is sympathetic and does not detract from the heritage The enlightened self-interest of the owner who risks his/her capital, skill and energy is always the best judge values of an area. (subject only to relevant laws to protect your neighbours buildings structure, air and light). Any attempt to 4. This is acknowledged, however this is supplemented by Draft Local preserve an area as a “Museum Precinct”, is pointless and doomed. It can only cause unnecessary anxiety Planning Policy 1.8 ‘Development Approval Exemptions’, which provides a and cost. clear list of what kind of repairs require development approval. This can Subiaco is losing its diversity in buildings and amenities. This policy will kill it “stone dead” in every Museum also be assisted by the city’s heritage incentives, grants and advisory Precinct. Museum Precincts are now spreading like a plague across the municipality. How soon will they services. cover the whole municipality? When can we expect there to be a “Calsil white Brick and flat Trimdeck roof The anecdotal evidence is specific to Peppermint Grove and is not precinct”, or a “Spanish arch and chocolate brown brick precinct” or a “McMansion precinct”. Aren’t these representative of all suburbs. Recent examples of property sales within the all exemplars of Subiaco’s built heritage and streetscape? Don’t they need the same preservation and city do not reflect the views expressed in the article referred to. control? Of course not. What’s so special about Federation and Californian bungalow? Nothing, in our 5. Maintaining a heritage home can be costly and to assist with this, Council view. has a range of incentives, including grants, to assist property owners. One man’s castle is another man’s eyesore. So be it. Schedule 2, Part 4, clause 13 of the Planning and Development (Local The City’s imposed Federation and Californian bungalow “streetscape” will be a drab micro managed Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, outline the situations where a uniformity, a picture perfect jigsaw puzzle scene where the occupants are effectively tenants of Subiaco. heritage place has not been properly maintained and the appropriate response to remove the potential for demolition by neglect. 4. Compulsory taking without compensation – loss of value. 6. Refer to point (3) above. The policy governs repair, alteration, improvements and redevelopment of the Museum Precinct, will inevitably devalue properties as Subiaco removes owners’ rights and reserves them to itself as it intends to do. No compensation is offered for this compulsory taking. There is already anecdotal evidence for loss of value in Heritage listed homes in Peppermint Grove, see the Post newspaper of 22 April 2017. You can expect more of this. 5. Prisoners in their own homes The policy will create a disadvantaged class of older and or less well-off owners who will find difficult or impossible to meet the policy standards for repair, maintenance and improvement of older homes and won’t be readily able to re develop to downsize to stay in the locality. Their “nest egg” will be devalued and less saleable as a result of the application of the policy. The builders of Federation and Californian bungalow homes did not think they were building for eternity. They built cheap, utilitarian homes that they would expect to survive for a while and then be replaced. Many of those houses are now at the end of their economic life. Their builders would be aghast at this policy. 100 year old houses are seldom a suitable basis for redevelopment and forcing their retention or partial retention as part of a redevelopment leads to absurd results. A brand new energy efficient building grafted onto one that is ready to fall down, makes no sense at all. 6. Who benefits? The clear beneficiaries are - • a vocal minority of pro heritage activists; • Subiaco, which gets a backdoor into planning and development control; • The heritage industry; and • the City of Subiaco administration (which grows to fill the gap its own policy has created) No one else benefits. All pre-existing homeowners bought on the clear understanding that they were very largely free to repair, maintain and redevelop their properties according to their own taste, style and design. They are all worse off. To suggest these persons should now be protected against the exercise of their own judgment because “they” now want a uniform Federation/Bungalow streetscape, is nonsense. This is not protection, it is control and oppressive control at that.

Conclusion. It’s not too late to reverse this policy. It is not a good idea whose time has come, it’s a bad idea. At the very least all affected homeowners should be offered the chance to opt out. A C19 moral philosopher, Mr. John Stuart Mill from his work; “On Liberty” says -

“…the object … is to assert one simple principle as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual by means of compulsion and control, whether by means of physical force, in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion. …the sole end for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self- protection…and to prevent harm to others. His own good…is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or to forebear because it would be better for him…because it will make him happier, because in the opinion of others it would be wise or even right.” We respectfully adopt and endorse this statement. Let’s end this nightmare now. 13 Jackie Subiaco 1) Large blocks and restraining contemporary additions on corner lots and large lots 1) This concern is acknowledged. In response, it is proposed to include Greenshiel secondary street setback requirements for ground floor and second storey ds I am concerned that there is nothing in the policy that addresses large corner or front facing blocks in developments and the requirement for greater attention to be given to the Heritage Areas. I believe there needs to be a specific clauses regarding side extension on large front design and materials used to ensure that the new work is sympathetic and facing blocks and also rear/side extensions on corner blocks in heritage areas. Such extensions become does not detract from the streetscape very visible and can affect the Heritage street it is located in, or abuts. It should also be noted that if a development is proposed on a corner lot, it My preference is that these extensions blends with rest of the original house (like the new extension at will be assessed against Town Planning Scheme No. 4, the Residential 65 Hamersely Rd , cnr Kershaw). This is not a large square box extension but one that does not offend Design Codes, the relevant precinct policy (including the additional matters the rest of the heritage area. for consideration) and LPP3.6

There is a large rear/side extension on the corner of Hamersley and Kings Rd and although the house is 2) Each application will be assessed on its merits. Adjustments to LPP3.6 not in a heritage area, I would like to think that if it was, it would have some specific guidelines around it have been proposed to ensure that it is a user-friendly policy. so that it complimented the heritage street and did not overpower and overlook its neighbours. 3) All development applications are assessed on a case by case basis. There are many streets like King, Redfern and the majority in Shenton Park where if they were to ever extend to the side with a square box contemporary extension facing the street, that would destroy and 4) Heritage best practice does not encourage faux heritage buildings as they alter heritage streetscape immensely. We need to have incentives or policy to encourage blended are inappropriate and confuse an understanding of the traditional extensions. development of an area. New work should be distinguishable as new at close inspection but must harmonise with nearby heritage buildings. If a Perhaps this wording could be included in our updated Policy property is heritage listed or identified within a heritage area, the Planning “ Additions and New Buildings Through appropriate siting and massing be located in a manner which and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the does not detract from or dominate significant fabric of the heritage place. This should be achieved regulations), require a demolition application to be submitted. utilising a combination of setbacks, heights and physical separation as appropriate. 5) The provisions for new houses are contained within Clause 6.1 of LPP3.6, I also found this policy wording on the City of Fremantle Website which addresses general design issues requiring new buildings to respect and harmonise with nearby heritage places. Contemporary designs are RESIDENTIAL STREETSCAPE POLICY required to respond to, and interpret, the articulation and detail of the APPLICATION nearby heritage buildings. “The provisions of this policy apply to all residential development assessed under Part 5 of the 6) This comment does not provide any specific feedback on the revised Residential Design Codes, except where specific provisions are contained within a Local Area Planning planning policy. Policy or equivalent. In the event that there is a conflict between this policy, and a provision 7) This terminology is consistent with that used by the Regulations. The contained within a Local Area Planning Policy, the most specific policy provision shall prevail. ‘heritage places’ are contributory buildings within the heritage area. DEFINITIONS Prevailing streetscape means the characteristics (generally limited to the setback and 8) Chimneys are addressed by the need to conserve ‘significant fabric’. orientation of buildings including garages and carports from the primary or secondary street, front walls 9) While Clause 3(b) states that demolition may be permissible, it does not and fencing, building height, building/roof form and proportion) of the 3 properties, where appropriate, remove the requirement for a demolition application to be submitted. The adjoining either side of the subject site, fronting the same street and in the same street block. In the siting aspects identified are addressed by clause 6.1 of LPP3.6. case of a corner lot where the dwelling is orientated to the splay, the characteristics of the adjoining 10) If a boundary wall does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply requirements three properties, where appropriate, facing both streets shall be considered. Greater weight may be identified within design element 5.1.3 (Lot Boundary Setbacks) of the given to the characteristics of the two immediately adjoining properties on either side of the subject site Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), then a development application is fronting the same street(s).” required. However, should the proposal satisfy this clause, a building permit is required. With respect to the finish of the wall, if an application is required 2) How to word the new updated policy to ensure we reflect good design? and the proposal is capable of approval, a condition of approval is generally If 123 Heytesbury, 15 Harvey Road, 19 Redfern Street (corner block), 103 Coghlan Road, 89 Hensman imposed that requires the wall to be finished to the same standard on both Road, 153 Hensman Road and 24 Gloster Street are considered good design/extensions, how can sides. we change or tighten the policy to ensure that this is achieved (is it through incentives) or better wording in the Heritage policy?

3) Alterations, extensions etc, should be considered on a case by case basis [ not all properties have the same characteristics ] but with the proviso that they address the features of the existing property and surrounds and ensure the finished product has a compact “original Building” appearance. 4) There needs to be a degree of flexibility which allows some replica works on period homes particularly if there is a serious threat of demolition looming. I would want to save the house in that instance. 5) New houses in Heritage areas should be required to address the features that have been identified in the study area and encouraged to construct a home that blends in with the existing streetscape. Council incentives could well be offered to ensure that the city gets a building that satisfies our desires. 6) Council to provide incentives that will encourage home owners to do the right thing.

7) Under heading "Purpose " [iii] there is early reference to "heritage places" an all embracing term which perhaps needs some clarification. One assumes it sweeps up streetscape.

8) 4.2 Additions: mention is made of roof form and pitch but no mention of chimneys which are a feature often overlooked. 9) Provisions that should be included regarding Non-Contributory Places: “(a) Demolition Normally permit the demolition of ‘non-contributory’ places. However, the demolition or removal of ‘non-contributory’ places will not generally be approved until a replacement building or development is approved. An application for a new building or works should accompany a demolition application. (b) Replacement Buildings, Development, Alterations and Additions Encourage high quality sympathetic design. Be sympathetic with heritage fabric of the place, rather than any ‘non- contributory’ elements of the place. Require proposals to conform with the following guidelines: Siting ▪ New buildings and additions/alterations to non-contributory places should be oriented in a similar manner to the siting of adjacent ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places and to the heritage precinct as a whole. Façade height and setbacks ▪ The position of a new building and its façade height or an addition/alteration to the façade of a non- contributory place should not dominate adjoining ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places. The façade should neither exceed in height, nor be positioned forward of, the adjoining heritage place(s). ▪ The height of the façade should not be significantly lower than prevailing heights of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places in the precinct, especially where the precinct has a consistent façade height. ▪ The façade should not be substantially set back behind prevailing façade setbacks of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places in the heritage precinct, especially where the heritage precinct has a consistent front setback. ▪ The proposals should have side setbacks that reflect those of adjacent places, particularly those of adjacent ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places. Building height and form ▪ The height and form of a new building or an addition/alteration to a non-contributory place should respect the height and form of adjacent and surrounding ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places, as these places are viewed from the street. ▪ If located in a heritage precinct or part of a heritage precinct that has a consistent building height and form the completed height of the new building or addition/alteration to a non contributory place should be no higher than the roof ridgeline of the adjacent buildings when viewed from the street, but may include a higher, unobtrusive component to the rear. ▪ If located in a heritage precinct or part of a heritage precinct with a diverse building height and form, and adjacent to a ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage place, the new building or addition/alteration to a non-contributory place should be of a height and form that respects both the adjacent ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places and the prevailing height and form of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ places in the precinct, but may include a higher, unobtrusive component to the rear ▪ If located in a heritage precinct or part of a heritage precinct with a diverse building height and form, but not adjacent to a ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage place, the new building or addition/alteration to a non-contributory place

BOROONDARA PLANNING SCHEME LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.03 PAGE 7 OF 11 should be of a height and form that respects the prevailing height and form of ‘significant’ and ‘contributory’ heritage places in the precinct. Roof form ▪ The roof form and the window and door proportions of new buildings and additions/alterations to non-contributory places should be similar too or sit well with the prevailing forms in the heritage precinct. Materials, surface finishes and details ▪ New buildings and additions/alterations to non-contributory places should display the following design characteristics: Wall elevations are to be articulated in a manner that is complementary to the heritage precinct through their massing and form and the use of materials and finishes. Materials, textures and finishes are to complement materials evident in the heritage precinct. 10) I believe that walls/fences should not be allowed to be built without a development approval and neighbours should be notified. I have noticed over the past few years, that many new parapet walls, fences and brick sides to garages or carports to neighbouring houses are not been ‘finished’ to a quality standard. See photos attached. I believe the affected neighbour should not have to pay for a good quality finish. It should be part of the development and building approval and also in the Policy. I would like ensure that the TPS and relevant Policies reflect the wording that makes sure that any visible new walls or adjoining walls are finished to a quality standard and that a neighbours should expect this as a ‘right’ and not have to fight for or even make comment on. It should be mandatory as outlined in TPS and Policy. 14 Jeremy Shenton I recognise the intent of 3.6 however my view is that it is oriented in one direction only. The view of all the Nyman Park policies is the type of standpoint a Heritage Architect would take, and not the position of a resident. Many of the points of the LPP3.6 express specifics that are excessive to residents in it’s attempt to maintain heritage features of an area.

Specifics:

1. In the area of “Purpose”, gentle terms such as accountable, comparable and consistent are used. 1. The city is not bound by the provisions of a policy; it serves as guidance in However, in the body of the document the specifics are contrary to this statement, not really applying the decision making. The role of policy is for guidance. guidelines but rather stringent policy. 2. Refer to response (1) above. 2. In “Definitions, Public Streetscape”, the wording relates to the total visual impression. Again, the body of 3. These works do not require development approval in any case. These the document adds many specifics implying that the total visual impression requires 100% adherence, requirements are in accordance with the Planning and Development Act not the level of adherence the average resident would require to see an area as heritage. This is an 2005 and supplemented by Local Planning Policy 1.8. heritage architect’s view, not the view of a resident of a potential heritage area. 3. In “Works not requiring development approval, paragraph 2”. There is no consideration given to the cost or ongoing maintenance requirements of complying with this Assistance. Thank you for the offer but, this is just to make sure we comply with Council requirements. Council creates the rules and then offers to assist the ratepayer, with ratepayer funds, to stick to the rules. Thanks a lot. Not cynical. Factual. •

Policy 1.b). Again a lovely general term of intent before adding a lot of specifics.

4. Policy 1. Last paragraph. Why wouldn’t council add some leniency for lot size or limited opportunities for 4. The city is not bound by the provisions of a policy; it serves as guidance in under-cover off-street parking. It is the owners property, not the councils and there should be room for a the decision making. sensible, collaborative negotiation. 5. This Comment does not provide any specific feedback on the revised 5. The Council is creating the rules, applying them, often to existing owners who bought the property planning policy. However homeowners are encouraged to comment on without these rules and then saying, we won’t negotiate. Equitable or fair???? proposed planning policies in accordance with LPP 1.4. 6. 4.1 paragraph 2. There is again a bias based on Council’s view through the eyes of a heritage architect, 6. Refer to response (1) above. not the general resident. A purists view, not a practical view. • 7. The current requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 4 include single 7. 4.2 and 4.3. To comply with all components of this part of the document is problematic. It requires storey building heights as of right (3.6m wall and 6.5m overall height). Rear preferential single story (no mention of rear setbacks or destruction of existing flora or the gradients of a setbacks are prescribed by the Residential Design Codes. Wall height is property – all property are assumed flat??) no visible two story development, but maintain wall plate measured from Natural Ground Letter. heights, roof form and pitch, no adverse impact on the character of the Heritage Area etc. 8. Heritage best practice does not encourage faux heritage buildings as they 8. If the main contributory features are clearly visible, even in the presence of a second floor addition, the are inappropriate and confuse an understanding of the traditional basic requirements of public streetscape have been achieved. This is what a resident sees. It may be at development of an area. New work should be distinguishable as new at variance from a heritage architects view but falsely mimicking heritage detail. Every heritage architect or close inspection but must harmonise with nearby heritage buildings. Councillor representative eventually rolls out the Burra Charter line. Again, this is the purist’s LPP3.6 provides guidance for meeting achieving this. perspective, not the view of the average resident. Almost every alteration in the area I live has 9. Requirements for carports are contained within the Residential Design attempted to, at least in part, complement the key character features of the property. This, from a Codes, LPP3.6 and the relevant precinct policy. A carport that satisfies the residents perspective, is to give a sense of heritage and character. A heritage architect would describe requirements of the LPP 1.8 and the previously mentioned provisions, will this as “falsely mimicking heritage detailing”. Let’s be practical. • not require a development application. 10. Should a contributory building be destroyed, it may be required to rebuilt, this is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Further, refer to response (1) above. 9. 5.1. Off street parking. There are a range of impracticalities in the requirements here. Again, a heritage 11. Setbacks are important for retaining heritage values as they are identified architect would see things differently but the reality is, in the 21st century, we like to park off road if we as key elements of a streetscape. In addition, the Street setback area and can, undercover if we can and adjacent to our house with protected access. In 1933 when our how it is developed and managed allows for comfortable communication subdivision was initiated, I suggest there would have been less than 50% of the properties with a car, and interaction between residents, neighbours and passers-by or callers yet alone two or more. Times have changed. It is possible to put a perfectly visually acceptable carport, who may not be known to the occupants. This creates the opportunity for partially in front of the property line, that does not alter the overall streetscape or character of the area. causal and safe interaction to enhance a sense of community and safety. The blocks in our area have large frontages and to limit crossovers to single width is unnecessary. An open setback area provides for mutual surveillance between the street and building, enhancing security for the building (and its occupants) and for people passing by. In addition, the street setback should also provide, depending on the location, essential services, adequate clearances from, 10. 6.1 General design issues. Again the Burra Charter. This is, yet again, the view of a heritage architect or and access to, essential services for reasons of safety and utility.t a purist. Practicality says let’s be sensible. The document contradicts itself in 6.1 d). If a destroyed 12. This point is better suited to the specific area policy for the West Subiaco property requires reconstruction of the facade.....surely this is creating a faux or mock end product. • Workers Homes board Area. 13. Front fences are addressed in Clause 7 of LPP3.6. If privacy and security are key issues, they should be raised for the specific heritage area policy.

14. Clause 8 of LPP3.6 indicates that solar panels should be installed in locations that are not intrusive to the public. As mentioned earlier, the city is 11. 6.3 Setbacks. Why should a new build have to line up with the largest adjacent setback and not the not bound by the provisions of a policy; it serves as guidance in the smallest. It would in no way influence the streetscape or character or heritage of the area. decision making.

12. 6.4 Scale and form. There is no regard to sloping blocks. With a block with a front to rear rise of over two metres, as I have, it is nearly impossible to comply with the stipulated requirements of scale and form without staying single story and utilising all of the existing garden. Why can’t a house have a two level extension visible from the street. It is about scale and form. An architect should be able to do an addition that is commensurate with the scale and form of the area and not adversely influence the streetscape.

Figure 4. Two storey wings. Again, these are generally only visible from directly in front of the property. How does this adversely affect the streetscape? These areas are heavily treed with limited lateral view of properties.

13. Front boundary fences. Broadly, I am against obstructive front fences. However, council should give privacy and security consideration to this issue. •

14. Incidental development. The inability to put, for example, solar panels on the roof where it may be regarded as intrusive is a view I might expect from an antiquarian. Most of us don’t want these items visible from the street but it is often un-concealable. Is council going to object to a solar panel visible from the street. Whoops. Better check that this isn’t at cross purposes with the sustainability department!

Summary.

The 3.6 intent is probably honourable. However it has been developed by purists, not practical people who like to live, essentially unencumbered by excess policy, in the City of Subiaco.

REPORT ITEM NO. D7 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CITY OF SUBIACO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY NO. 1.8

DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL EXEMPTIONS

ADOPTION DATE: (to be inserted) REVIEW DATE: AUTHORITY: Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 Town Planning Scheme No. 4 (TPS4)

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

Clause 61(i) of Schedule 2, Part 2, Division 2 ‘Deemed Provisions’ of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations) allows the local government to nominate works that do not require development approval in a local planning policy.

This policy is made pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Division 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 relating to local planning policies.

PURPOSE

This policy lists development that is exempt from the requirement for development approval. These exemptions are in addition to the development exempt from development approval under clause 61 of the Deemed Provisions.

This policy does not exempt any development on any land that is either:

(a) Entered in the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990; or (b) The subject of an order under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 Part 6; or (c) The subject of a heritage agreement entered into under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 section 29.

DEFINITIONS

The following terms are used in this policy and are defined as such.

External fixtures: these are utilities, equipment, plant or other structures which are necessary for a dwelling to achieve efficient, comfortable and environmentally sustainable operating outcomes and may include: solar collectors (and supporting frames), clothes drying structures, air conditioning units, communications and power and water infrastructure, or other fixtures as necessary for the residential use of the buildings on site.

Fence: means a vertical structure which may be attached to a building but is not necessary for the structural integrity of the building, for the purpose of forming a barrier or delineating an area of land and does not support any form of roof and does not include screening material or a retaining wall.

Heritage Area: An area designated as a heritage area under clause 9 of the ‘Deemed Provisions’.

Heritage List: The heritage list established under clause 8 of the ‘Deemed Provisions’.

Minor structures: means free standing structures not attached to a building including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, letter boxes, clothes lines, seating, children’s play equipment, basketball and netball hoops, barbeques and free standing satellite dishes.

Maintenance and means minor works that are undertaken to fix, or prevent, a repair building, structure or place from deteriorating or falling into a state of disrepair. The works are to be undertaken to the same details, materials and specifications of the building, structure or place prior to the deterioration or disrepair occurring. These works include: - Painting of existing painted surfaces - Rendering of existing rendered surfaces - Re-roofing with like for like materials and where there is no change to the roof form and pitch - Replacement of cladding materials with like for like

Outbuilding has the same meaning as given to it by the R-Codes and shall also include garden sheds, tree and cubby houses and domestic animal enclosures.

R-Codes: means the Residential Design Codes, State Planning Policy 3.1.

Retaining wall: means a wall erected for the purpose of supporting land at a higher level than the land immediately adjacent to it.

Screening (a) a visually permeable structure including lattice, trellis, or material: metal framing which may or may not be used to train vegetation; (b) an opaque and translucent material such as shade cloth, or clear or coloured plastic.

Shade structure: means unenclosed permeable roofed surfaces designed primarily for the purpose of providing shade associated with residential development including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, gazebos, sails, umbrellas, vergolas and pergolas.

POLICY

The following table lists development that is exempt from the requirement for development approval. The table needs to be read in conjunction with clause 61 of the Deemed Provisions.

 indicates that the development is exempt from the requirement for development approval.  indicates that development approval is required.

Applies to: All land, excluding land Description of development exempt from the requirement for within a Land within a Land on the development approval Heritage Area Heritage Area Heritage List or on the Heritage List 1 Any development, excluding signs/advertisements, which is temporary and in existence for less than 14 days or such longer time as the    Council agrees. 2 Construction of a retaining wall less than 500 millimetres in height.    3 Works urgently necessary for public safety, safety or security of plant or equipment, maintenance of essential services, or protection of the    environment. 4 Minor structures where: (i) Within the primary street setback area below 2m in height,    excluding clothes lines; or (ii) Below 3m in other cases. 5 Screening material where attached to an existing authorised fence and projecting no more than 500mm above the top of the fence at any point    and is not situated within a primary or secondary street area. Applies to: All land, excluding land Description of development exempt from the requirement for within a Land within a Land on the development approval Heritage Area Heritage Area Heritage List or on the Heritage List 6 Single storey (ground level) additions and all alterations to a Single House or Grouped Dwelling where the works are compliant with the   applicable deemed to comply provisions of the R-Codes, including any provisions that are replaced by a local planning policy. 7 Single storey (ground level) additions and all alterations to a Single House or Grouped Dwelling where the works are:  (i) Located within the rear setback area (excluding secondary street setback areas); or   (ii) Located where not visible from the street; and (iii) Compliant with the applicable deemed to comply provisions of the R-Codes, including any provisions that are replaced by a local planning policy. 8 Internal works that do not materially affect the external appearance of    the building that is visible from the street. 9 The carrying out of the following works that affect only the interior of a building: (i) Kitchen, bathroom or laundry fit out with no structural alterations; or (ii) Painting / wall papering / plastering of internal walls; or    (iii) Construction of new internal non-masonry, non-load bearing walls; or (iv) New floor covering placed over but not replacing exising floor surface materials; or (v) Electrical and plumbing works. Applies to: All land, excluding land Description of development exempt from the requirement for within a Land within a Land on the development approval Heritage Area Heritage Area Heritage List or on the Heritage List 10 The maintenance and repair of any building or structure.    11 Changing any roof materials on parts of any building or structure where   compliant with the provisions of an applicable local planning policy. 12 Changing roofing materials on parts of any building or structure that is  not visible from the street and compliant with the provisions of an   applicable local planning policy. 13 Replacing or altering external cladding materials on parts of any   building or structure.  14 Replacing or altering external cladding materials on parts of any   building or structure that is not visible from the street. 15 Modifying major or minor openings to all dwellings where the   modification meets the deemed to comply provisions of the R-Codes. 16 Modifying major or minor openings where:  (i) The modification meets the deemed to comply provisions of the   R-Codes; and (ii) The major or minor openings are not visible from the street. 17 External fixtures where complaint with: (i) The provisions of an applicable local planning policy; or    (ii) The deemed to comply provisions of the R-Codes where there is no applicable no local planning policy. Applies to: All land, excluding land Description of development exempt from the requirement for within a Land within a Land on the development approval Heritage Area Heritage Area Heritage List or on the Heritage List 18 Water tanks where: (i) Installed in locations that are not intrusive in public views to the place; and (ii) Are no higher than the eaves height where fixed to the building; or    (iii) Are no greater than 2.4m in height if more than 1m from any boundary; or (iv) Are no greater than 1.8m in height if less than 1m from any boundary. 19 Outdoor hard surfaces where the finished level of the surface is not   more than 500mm above natural ground level. 20 Outdoor hard surfaces where:  (i) The finished level of the surface is not more than 500mm above   natural ground level; and (ii) Located within a side or rear setback area. 21 Shade structures where: (i) Located in a side or rear setback area;    (ii) Are 0.5m or greater from any boundary; (iii) Are no greater than 3.0m in height. 22 Front or secondary street fencing where compliant with: (i) The provisions of an applicable local planning policy; or    (ii) The deemed to comply provisions of the R-Codes where there is no applicable no local planning policy. Applies to: All land, excluding land Description of development exempt from the requirement for within a Land within a Land on the development approval Heritage Area Heritage Area Heritage List or on the Heritage List 23 Site works (filling or excavation) where complaint with: (i) The provisions of an applicable local planning policy; or    (ii) The deemed to comply provisions of the R-Codes where there is no applicable local planning policy. 24 Construction of an Outbuilding where compliant with the deemed to    comply provisions of the R-Codes. 25 Construction of a swimming pool or outdoor spa where: (i) Located within the rear setback area (excluding secondary street setback area); and    (ii) Located 1 metre or more from any boundary; and (iii) No greater than 3 metres in height (including associated fencing) and 25 square metres in area. 26 Demolition of the following structures: (i) Outbuildings not of masonry construction with a floor area of less than 25 square metres; (ii) Minor structures; (iii) Patios;    (iv) Shade structures; (v) Carports; (vi) External fixtures; (vii) Private swimming pools and outdoor spas; (viii) Water tanks; 27 Any minor works as determined by the City of Subiaco in writing. As determined As determined As determined

REPORT ITEM NO. D7 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Local Planning Policy 1.8 – Development Approval Exemptions

Schedule of Submissions

No. Date Name Suburb Comment/Issue Raised City's Response Received 1. 15/05/2017 Landowner Subiaco Note that the submission was made in relation to 2 n/a local planning policies being advertised by the city: - LPP1.8 Development Approval Exemptions; and - LPP3.6 Development Guidelines for Residential Heritage Areas. Only the matters raised in relation to LPP1.8 are addressed in this schedule.

Submitter questions whether illegal development Clause 23 of TPS5 details certain development may have occurred without the policy being in that is exempt from the need for development place. Submitter cites the ‘removal’ of the clause 23 approval. This clause still technically exists in exemptions in Town Planning Scheme No. 4. TPS5, however when the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 took effect in October 2015, this clause was effectively replaced by clause 61 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations. Clause 61 lists development that is exempt from the need for approval, and this list is very similar to the development listed under clause 23 of TPS5. The city is confident that the change in the planning framework has not resulted in any significant levels of unauthorised development.

Submitter states that until heritage areas are The development exemptions listed under recognised under clause 59 of TPS4, planning clause 61 will not change until Council exemptions that were taken away with the heritage designates a heritage area under clause 9 of declaration should continue. Schedule 2 of the Regulations (equivalent ‘replacement’ clause for clause 59 of TPS4).

Submitters states dissatisfaction with using a local Clause 61(1)(j) of Schedule 2 of the Regulations planning policy to exempt development from the provides the statutory authority for a local need for approval and would rather an amendment planning policy to list development that is to the scheme be undertaken. If the exemptions exempt from the need for approval. were removed from a policy, submitter contends that the provision of Part 11 of the Planning and Part 11 of the Planning and Development Act Development Act 2005 wouldn’t be triggered, 2005 deals with compensation and acquisition. thereby undermining the rights of the owner of the The avenue for landowners to claim freehold. compensation where their land is ‘injuriously affected’ by the making or amending of a local planning scheme is limited and would not be apply if a scheme was amended to require approval for the minor development proposed in the draft local planning policy. Land is injuriously affected only if the scheme: - Reserves the land for a public purpose; - Prohibits development on that land for no purpose other than a public purpose; or - Prohibits the continuation of a use that is made ‘non-conforming’ by the scheme, or any buildings associated with that use.

Exempting development of the type proposed LPP1.8 through a local planning policy does not have any bearing on a landowners right for compensation should changes be made in the future. 2. 19/05/2017 Landowner Daglish Submitter refers to the proposed Daglish Heritage Heritage areas and heritage listing properties Areas and questions why residents are asked to already exist within the city of Subiaco. Whilst comment on draft policies, including draft LPP1.8, LPP1.8 was prepared and advertised in when a number of people are against the proposed conjunction with the proposed heritage areas in heritage area nomination. Daglish, LPP1.8 is considered a necessary planning policy in its own right, regardless of the outcome of the proposed Daglish heritage areas.

Submitter considers that an attempt to seek public As mentioned above, whilst LPP1.8 is relevant to common on LPP1.8 that distinguishes between the proposed Daglish heritage areas, the policy Heritage Areas and Heritage Listing is seen to be a is a standalone proposal that will apply violation. throughout the city, including for non-heritage Submitter restates their objection to the Daglish and heritage properties, and within heritage Station Precinct being declare as a Heritage Area. areas. The preparation and advertising of LPP1.8 is not a violation of any planning policy or legislation.

REPORT ITEM NO. D8 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CITY OF SUBIACO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY NO. 1.7

AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION TO THE TERM OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL

ADOPTION DATE: (to be inserted) REVIEW DATE: AUTHORITY: Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 Town Planning Scheme No. 4 (TPS4)

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

Clause 77 of Schedule 2, Part 2, Division 2 ‘Deemed Provisions’ of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations) allows the local government to amend an existing development approval or to extend the period within which the approved development is to commence.

Clause 77(2) requires an application for an amendment, or extension to the term of a development approval to be made in accordance with the requirements in Part 8 and dealt with under Part 9 as it were an application for development approval.

This policy is made pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Division 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 relating to local planning policies.

PURPOSE

This policy provides matters to be considered by a decision maker in determining applications made under clause 77 of the Deemed Provisions for an amendment to, or the extension of a development approval.

POLICY

1. Amendment of a Development Approval

1.1 In determining whether to approve an amendment to a development approval, consideration will be given to whether the nature and extent of the proposed amendment is such that the use or development the subject of the development approval:

(a) Remains, in substance, the same; or (b) Is changed to such an extent that a new and different use or development is proposed.

1.2 Notwithstanding clause 1.1, an amendment to a development approval will be considered against the relevant requirements of Parts 8 and 9 of the Deemed Provisions, as required by clause 77(2) of the Deemed Provisions.

1.3 If the nature and extent of the proposed amendment is such that there is a new and different use or development to that which was the subject of the original development approval, the amendment to the development approval may be refused to be accepted, or may be refused.

1.4 If an application to amend a development approval is refused, nothing in this Policy shall preclude the applicant from making, a new application for development approval for the use or development the subject of the amendment application.

2. Extension to the Term of Development Approval

2.1 In considering an application to extend the term of a development approval, the decision maker will have regard to the following factors:

(a) Whether or not the planning framework has changed substantially since the development approval to which the extension application relates was granted; and (b) Whether in granting the planning approval, a discretion was exercised in relation to the Scheme or policy requirements; and (c) Whether the approved development would likely receive approval today; and (d) Whether the applicant has actively and relatively conscientiously pursued implementation of the approval development; and (e) Whether a material change has occurred to either the site to which the development approval relates or the surrounding locality since the development approval was granted.

2.2 Notwithstanding clause 2.1, an application to extend the term of a development approval will be considered against the relevant requirements of Parts 8 and 9 of the Deemed Provisions, as required by clause 77(2) of the Deemed Provisions.

2.3 Where an application to extend the term of a development approval is approved, a period of up to a further two years will be granted, unless otherwise determined by the decision maker.

3. Fees

An application fee will be charged for an application to amend and/or extend the term of a development approval. This fee will be in accordance with the City of Subiaco Schedule of Fees and Charges.

In the event that an application is made to extend the term of approval, and it is considered that the proposal has changed to the extent that it cannot be considered as a fresh application, should the applicant decide to withdraw the application to extend the term of approval and resubmit a new application, the extension of time fee shall be refunded and the applicant only required to pay the fee for the new application.

REPORT ITEM NO. D9 ATTACHMENT NO. 1

REPORT ITEM NO. D9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2

REPORT ITEM NO. D9 ATTACHMENT NO. 3

REPORT ITEM NO. D10 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Heritage Assessment of House, 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park

Name House Location 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park Photograph Greenward Consulting, 3 March 2017

Construction c.1914 Architectural This house includes some restrained Date Style elements of the Federation Queen Anne style Historical In 1911, a major initiative of the Western Australian Labor Party, led by John Scadden, Notes was the Workers’ Home Act, which was developed as a means of providing more affordable housing in both the metropolitan and regional areas. Under this Act, “workers” included any employed person who earned under £300 per year. Applicants had the choice of two options: “Leasehold” (Part III of the Act) which involved the Board constructing homes on Crown Land and selling each property at a reduced price under a perpetual lease; or “Freehold” (part IV of the Act) which provided a loan of up to £550 for landowners wishing to build a house on their own block, with a moderate repayment schedule. The first meeting of the Workers’ Homes Board was held in March 1912 and the first metropolitan subdivision to be advertised under Part III of The Workers' Homes Act was located at East Fremantle (fronting Forrest, Holland and High Streets). This land release was advertised in February 1913 and the first leasehold house was completed in June of that year. The next two metropolitan land releases were advertised in May 1913, in Victoria Park (fronting Leake, Kate and Lake View Streets) and West Subiaco (bounded by Nicholson, Herbert, Waylen and Railway Roads). WORKERS' HOMES. LAND OPEN FOR SELECTION IN WEST SUBIACO. It is hereby notified for general information that Subiaco Lots 295 and 500 to 529 inclusive, enclosed within Nicholson, Waylen and Railway Roads, and Herbert-street, will be OPEN FOR SELECTION on and after the 19th MAY 1913, under Part III of The Workers' Homes Act, 1911. Plans showing the Lots referred to are on view at the Council Chambers, Subiaco, Trades Hall, Perth, and The Workers' Homes Board Office, Perth. For further information apply to The Workers' Homes Board Office, Government Buildings, St. George's-terrace, Perth.

Prepared by Greenward Consulting for the City of Subiaco, March 2017 Page 1

Heritage Assessment of House, 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park

During the first 14 months that the Board was involved in the construction of leasehold homes, 88 were built in the metropolitan area, including 30 in Subiaco. In accordance with the practice of the Board at that time, these houses would have been built to a number of standard designs prepared by the Government Architect, but with considerable latitude for variations to suit the purchasers (subject to price constraints). In March 1914 it was reported that 24 workers' homes were being erected in the West Subiaco subdivision (on blocks fronting Waylen and Rankin Roads), and that six of these had been completed. By 1915, when Rankin Road was first identified in the Western Australian Post Office Directories, 16 houses had been occupied in that street, which represented its full development between Herbert Road and Gray Street. The first occupants of 9 Rankin Road (Lot 518) were Frederick May (railway employee) and his wife, Agnes. Online records indicate that Frederick William May had married Agnes Jane Harris in Perth in 1903, and that they had at least 2 children: Irene and William. This family lived in Brown Hill in c.1903-1911, where Frederick had worked as a miner. After living in West Leederville for a couple of years, Frederick successfully applied for the leasehold for the newly built Workers’ Homes Board house at 9 Rankin Road. Sadly, Frederick was one of 12 people in Perth to die of pneumonic influenza on 12 August 1919 (with 54 new cases reported on the same day). This was part of the toll of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic (otherwise known as the Spanish flu), which killed around 600 people in WA, around 12,000 people in Australia and millions world-wide. Following Frederick’s death, Agnes remained at 9 Rankin Road until around the time of her marriage to Aylmer Colles in 1921, after which she moved to Mt Barker. The house was then occupied by Mary Jane Meyer, a widow, who had also experienced tragedy during the late 1910s. Of her five sons, all of whom served in the armed forces during WWI, three (Les, Edward and Gus) died in France. Entries in the Electoral Rolls show that Mary shared the house at 9 Rankin Road with her youngest daughter, Elizabeth (born c.1888), and at various times with her youngest surviving son, Frank (born c.1894) and his wife, Ida. Following Mary’s death in 1945, Frank and Elizabeth continued to live here until around the times of their deaths in 1965 and 1967 respectively. Ida died in 1971 but it has not been confirmed if she remained at 9 Rankin Road for the last few years of her life. The earliest clear aerial photograph of the place dates from 1965. This shows the main roofline to the same design as at present. What appears to have been a detached rear garage was located to the SW of the house By 1972, 9 Rankin Road had been occupied by David and Jennifer Browne-Cooper. Aerial photographs indicate that rear additions had been undertaken by 1974 and a carport was added on the eastern side of the house during the same decade. In c.2000, the block was subdivided and a new house was constructed on the rear lot (with vehicular access from the rear lane and a narrow pedestrian access way along the eastern boundary from Rankin Road). Physical The house at 9 Rankin Road displays some restrained characteristics of the Federation Description Queen Anne Style (of a style and standard that is consistent with the aim of providing (based on an good quality, cost effective housing under the Workers’ Homes Act, 1911). Key external external details include: streetscape Roof form and materials inspection)  Gable-hipped roof with an east-west ridgeline flanked by louvered gablets. Modern corrugated profile roof sheeting.  Exposed rafters to the eaves.  Two tall, face-brick chimneys designed to serve fireplaces on the outer walls of both of the front rooms. These are of a restrained design with plain rendered caps.

Prepared by Greenward Consulting for the City of Subiaco, March 2017 Page 2

Heritage Assessment of House, 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park

 Raked verandah roof, which continues in a broken-back alignment from the main roof. This has a hipped return at the western end. Wall materials and finishes  Face-brick walls with two rendered string courses  Low limestone block foundations. Form and detailing of main façade(s)  Largely symmetrical design to the front facade, with the front door opening onto a central entrance hall, which is flanked by two front rooms. Complete symmetry was avoided by what appears to have originally been a return verandah, which extended part way along the western side of the house to abut a gabled side wing.  Verandah extending across the full width of the main facade. Square timber verandah posts, each scribed with two sets of simple paired recesses (set at approximately the same height as the rendered string course to the main façade). Plain rectangular timber valance, which curves down at the posts to form simple carved brackets. Timber floor.  Central entrance with fanlight over (no sidelights). The high-waisted door is of a traditional early inter-war style, with two moulded panels to the lower portion and 6 small rectangular panes of glass to the upper portion. External alterations and additions  Later brick infill to what appears to have been a return verandah along the western side of the house. The detailing of this infill has been designed to match that of the original part of the house. The single full height sash window to the main façade matches those to the original front rooms and was possibly reused from a former wall opening onto the side verandah.  Rear additions dating from the early-mid 1970s. General condition Based on a streetscape inspection the building appears to be in fair to good condition. Streetscape setting  Main façade set back approx. 4.5m from the front boundary.  Metal spear-topped fence, backed by lawn.  Brick-paved driveway along the eastern boundary leading to a simple raked carport, which is set back from the main façade.  Mature trees along the western side of the house.  Rankin Road, between Gray Street and Rankin Road was fully developed with 16 houses by the Workers’ Homes Board in c.1914. Many of these houses have undergone alterations (such as rendering of the façade or major additions) that have altered the appearance and character of these places, although the original designs can generally be understood. Integrity High: The place continues to be occupied as a private residence. Authenticity Moderate to High: Close inspection has confirmed that what appears to have originally been a return verandah along the western side of the house has been filled in as an extension to the house (with detailing matching the original).

Prepared by Greenward Consulting for the City of Subiaco, March 2017 Page 3

Heritage Assessment of House, 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park

Otherwise the form and detailing of the main facade appears to have retained a high level of authenticity and/or restored in a compatible style. With reference to the c.1914 Workers’ Homes Board houses along Rankin Road, only #s 9 and 16 were identified as retaining a high level of authenticity in the Preliminary Survey of the City of Subiaco Station Precinct (2016). Rarity/ 9 Rankin Road is a good representative example of the type of houses built during the Represent- first year in which the Workers’ Homes Board constructed “Leasehold” houses under ativeness Part III of the Workers Homes Act, 1911. Statement of 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park, is of cultural heritage significance: Significance  As a good representative example of the type of property built during the first year in which the Workers’ Homes Board constructed “Leasehold” houses under Part III of the Workers Homes Act, 1911. Level of Some Significance (within the context of the City of Subiaco). Significance Main Sources  A Thematic History of Government Housing in Western Australia, pp 40- 47 (prepared by Clare Menck for the Department of Housing, November 2014)  Various contemporary newspaper articles and advertisements referring to the Workers Homes Board activities in “West Subiaco” (trove.nla.gov.au), including:  The West Australian 16 February 1913 p 2  The West Australian 4 May 1913 p 2  The West Australian 17 May 1913 p 5  The West Australian 13 March 1914 p 5  Preliminary Survey of the City of Subiaco Station Precincts, February 2016, pp183-187 (prepared by Greenward Consulting for the City of Subiaco  Western Australian Post Office Directories, 1900 to 1949 (www.slwa.wa.gov.au)  Western Australian Electoral rolls (ancestry.com.au)  Various contemporary newspaper articles and advertisements referring to 9 Rankin Road and/or the May, Meyer and Colles families (trove.nla.gov.au), including:  Daily News 15 August 1919 p 4  Online Australian birth, death and marriage records (ancestry.com.au)  Online family trees (ancestry.com.au)  Spanish Flu – Western Australia (http://www.wanowandthen.com/spanish-flu.html)  Historical aerial photographs at Landgate (https://www.landgate.wa.gov.au/bmvf/app/mapviewer/) For more detailed information and references see Attachment B: Historical Chronology

Prepared by Greenward Consulting for the City of Subiaco, March 2017 Page 4

House, 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park: Supplementary Information Attachment A – Photographic Record (Annette Green, Greenward Consulting, 3 March 2014)

Front verandah, viewed from the entrance to the driveway

Front door

Full-height sash window opening onto the front verandah

Prepared by Greenward Consulting for the City of Subiaco, March 2017 Page 5

House, 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park: Supplementary Information Attachment A – Photographic Record (Annette Green, Greenward Consulting, 3 March 2014)

North-eastern corner of the house

North-western corner of the house

Extent of later addition on the western side of the house (probably originally a return verandah)

Prepared by Greenward Consulting for the City of Subiaco, March 2017 Page 6

House, 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park: Supplementary Information Attachment A – Photographic Record (Annette Green, Greenward Consulting, 3 March 2014)

Detail of roofline to the western façade.

Prepared by Greenward Consulting for the City of Subiaco, March 2017 Page 7

Heritage Assessment of House, 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park: Supplementary Information Attachment B – Historical Chronology

Attachment B: Historical Chronology for 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park

The following summary is based on information from:  Historical Certificates of Title (CoT), as provided by the City of Subiaco;  The Western Australian Post Office Directories (WA PO Directories), State Library of Western Australia (http://www.slwa.wa.gov.au/find/wa_resources/post_office_directories);  Western Australian Electoral Records (selected years available online at ancestry.com.au);  Contemporary newspaper references to the site, house, owners and occupiers, National Library of Australia (http://trove.nla.gov.au );  Other references as cited.

Date 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park Reference

1883-1912 On 13 March 1883, the Western Australian government announced it  City of Subiaco would survey a section of the Perth Commonage into suburban lots Thematic History and and that these would then be made available for private sale. The Framework (prepared subject site subsequently formed part of Perth Suburban Lot 295. by Kristy Bizzaca for Unlike much of the surrounding land, PSL 295, 296 and 297 remained the City of Subiaco, un-subdivided until c.1913. February 2014)  Perth 18-52. Suburb of Subiaco. Plan of Subiaco showing all subdivisions & DP Nos. series235_ cons3868_item354, State Records Office of Western Australia

1913-1914 The block bounded by Nicholson, Herbert, Waylen and Railway Roads  City of Subiaco (originally laid out as PSL 295, 296 and 297) was acquired by the Thematic History and Workers’ Homes Board in c.1913 as part of early development under Framework (prepared the Workers’ Home Act 1911: by Kristy Bizzaca for That [Subiaco] was a place where workers with low incomes could the City of Subiaco, provide homes for themselves and their families at reasonable February 2014) prices was reinforced in the 1910s. The Worker’s Home Act was  Preliminary Survey of proclaimed on 9 January 1912 with this undertaking in mind and the City of Subiaco land was obtained in various metropolitan areas, including Station Precincts, Subiaco, for this purpose. At a ceremony on 29 August 1912 February 2016, p 183 Premier J. Scaddan laid the first brick for a house in Subiaco to be (prepared by built under the auspices of the Act. Soon after, the Hensman Road Greenward property was joined by a number of residences constructed in the Consulting for the block bounded by Nicholson, Herbert and Waylen Roads in City of Subiaco) Shenton Park, which led the way for the growth of this part of the  The West Australian municipality. 17 May 1913 p 5 The later was advertised as follows in May 1913:  The West Australian WORKERS' HOMES. LAND OPEN FOR SELECTION IN WEST 13 March 1914 p 5 SUBIACO.  WA PO Directories It is hereby notified for general information that Subiaco Lots 295 and 500 to 529 inclusive, enclosed within Nicholson, Waylen and Railway Roads, and Herbert-street, will be OPEN FOR SELECTION on and after the 19th MAY 1913, under Part III of The Workers' Homes Act, 1911. Plans showing the Lots referred to are on view at the Council Chambers, Subiaco, Trades Hall, Perth, and the

Prepared by Greenward Consulting for the City of Subiaco, March 2017 Page 8

Heritage Assessment of House, 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park: Supplementary Information Attachment B – Historical Chronology

Workers' Homes Board Office, Perth. For further information apply to The Workers' Homes Board Office, Government Buildings, St. George's-terrace, Perth. In March 1914 it was reported that 24 workers' homes were being erected in Waylen and Rankin Roads, West Subiaco, and that six of these had been completed. By 1915, when Rankin Road was first identified in the Western Australian Post Office Directories, 16 houses had been occupied in that street, which represented its full development between Herbert Road and Gray Street.

c.1915- The first occupant identified in the PO Directories for 9 Rankin Road  The Evening Star 24 1921 was Frederick W May. In the Electoral Roll of that year the occupants March 1903 p 3 of the house were more specifically identified as Frederick William  Western Mail 21 May (railway employee) and Agnes Jane May (home duties). August 1919 p 27 Newspaper notices, online marriage records and entries in the  WA PO Directories Electoral Rolls and PO Directories, indicate that Frederick William May married Agnes Jane Harris in Perth in 1903 and that they lived in  WA Electoral Rolls Brown Hill in c.1903-1911 (where Frederick was a miner).  Various newspaper In c.1912-1913, Frederick and Edith were living in West Leederville, notices relating to the after which they moved to the new Workers’ Homes Board Meyer and Colles subdivision in West Subiaco. families Frederick William May, husband of Agnes, and father of Irene Thelma  Online Australian (“Renie”)(born c.1908) and William James (“Willie”)(c.1910), died of marriage records pneumonic influenza at the Perth Public Hospital on 12 August 1919. (ancestry.com.au) Note: In 1918-1919 the influenza pandemic (otherwise known as the  Spanish Flu – Western Spanish flu) killed around 600 people in WA, around 12,000 people in Australia Australia and millions of people world-wide. On 12 August 1918 it (http://www.wanowa was reported that the notifications made were amongst the worst for ndthen.com/spanish- Perth since the outbreak was announced, with 42 fresh cases reported flu.html) in the metropolitan area and 8 deaths announced up until 2.30pm  Daily News 12 August that day (including that of F May of Rankin Road). Later in the week it 1919 p 6 was reported that there had been a total of 12 deaths and 54 fresh cases of pneumonic influenza reported in the Perth metropolitan area on Tuesday 12 August. Agnes was still living at 9 Rankin Road in 1921, but online records indicate that she remarried to Aylmer Arthur Colles in that year. She had moved away from West Subiaco by 1922 and was living in Mt Barker in 1925.

c.1922- In the PO Directory of 1922 the primary occupant of 9 Rankin Road  WA Electoral Rolls mid-late was identified as Mrs Mary J Meyer, a widow who had previously lived  WA PO Directories 1960s in Townshend Road, Subiaco.  Family trees Online birth records and family trees suggest that Mary Jane (ancestry.com.au) Rounsevell (c.1851-1945) married August Carl Gotthilf Meyer (c.1852- 1899) in South Australia in 1874 and that this couple had at least 8  Various newspaper children: Francis August Walter (“Walter”)(c.1878-1958); Elfriede notices relating to the Elizabeth (c.1880-1880); Gunhilda Ethel (“Hilda”)(c.1882-1902); Albert deaths of Mary Jane Leslie (“Les”)(c.1884-1918); Florence Edna (c.1886-1938); Elizabeth Meyer and of three of (c.1888-1967); Edward Martin (c.1891-1916); Frank Rounsevell her sons (who died on (c.1894-1965); and August Carl (“Gus”)(c.1896-1918). active service during WWI) Mary Meyer’s five sons all served in the armed forces during WWI. Three (Les, Edward and Gus) died in France.  Historical aerial photographs at Entries in the Electoral Rolls show that Mary shared the house at 9 Landgate Rankin Road with her youngest daughter, Elizabeth, and at various (https://www.landgat times with her son Frank and daughter-in-law, Ida.

Prepared by Greenward Consulting for the City of Subiaco, March 2017 Page 9

Heritage Assessment of House, 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park: Supplementary Information Attachment B – Historical Chronology

1925: Mary Jane Meyer (widow); Elizabeth Meyer (spinster) and e.wa.gov.au) Frank Rounsevell Meyer (carter). Online family trees suggest that Frank Rounsevell Meyer (c.1894-1965) married Ida Kathleen May Cunningham (c.1898- 1971) in Subiaco in c.1925. This couple were living at 9 Rankin Road in 1928, but had moved to Kalgoorlie by 1931, where they remained until c.1943. 1936: Mary Jane Meyer (widow) and Elizabeth Meyer (spinster) 1943: Mary Jane Meyer (widow); Elizabeth Meyer (spinster); Frank Rounsevell Meyer (munitions) and Ida Kathleen May Meyer (home duties). 1963: Elizabeth Meyer (spinster); Frank Rounsevell Meyer (watchman) and Ida Kathleen May Meyer (home duties) The earliest clear aerial photograph of the place dates from 1965. This shows the main roofline to the same design as at present. What appears to have been a detached rear garage was located to the SW of the house.

c.1972 By 1972, 9 Rankin Road had been occupied by David and Jennifer  WA Electoral Rolls Browne-Cooper.  Certificate of Title Aerial photographs indicate that rear additions had been undertaken Volume 1146 Folio by 1974 and a carport was added on the eastern side of the house 422 during the same decade.  Historical aerial photographs at Landgate (https://www.landgat e.wa.gov.au)

2000 Aerial photographs indicate that the block was subdivided and a new  Historical aerial house constructed on the rear lot during 2000 (with access from the photographs at rear lane). Landgate (https://www.landgat e.wa.gov.au)

2002 In 2002 the block was described as Lot 518, DP 230145.  Certificate of Title Volume 1146 Folio 422

Prepared by Greenward Consulting for the City of Subiaco, March 2017 Page 10

Heritage Assessment of House, 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park: Supplementary Information Attachment C – Comparative Information

The following is an extract from the Preliminary Heritage Survey of the Subiaco Station Precincts (prepared by Annette Green, Greenward Consulting, for the City of Subiaco, February 2016 (part pp 183-187). It considers the section of Rankin Road that was developed by the Workers Homes Board with 16 houses in c.1914.

Street # Comment/Notes Preliminary Assessment Photograph RANKIN ROAD, SHENTON PARK Summary of findings and recommendations arising from the Preliminary Heritage Assessment  While some good examples of WWI era houses remain along Rankin Road, the overall character is mixed. Based on the streetscape assessment and limited research undertaken for this preliminary heritage survey, no potential heritage groups or streetscapes have been identified.  If requested by the owner(s), consideration may be given to undertaking individual heritage assessments of other places that have been assessed as being of Some Heritage Value (high authenticity). Rankin Road: south side Herbert Road intersects 1 Little/No Heritage Value (post WWII development)

3 Little/No Heritage Value (post WWII development)

5 Alterations to the finishes of the Some Heritage Value main facade have diminished the (moderate authenticity) authenticity of this place.

7A Little/No Heritage Value (no direct impact on the streetscape) 7 Alterations to the finishes and Some Heritage Value detailing of the main facade (low to moderate (including infill of part of the front authenticity) verandah and its extension as a carport along the eastern side) have altered the form and style of this place and diminished its authenticity. 9A Little/No Heritage Value (no direct impact on the streetscape)

Prepared by Greenward Consulting for the City of Subiaco, March 2017 Page 11

Heritage Assessment of House, 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park: Supplementary Information Attachment C – Comparative Information

Street # Comment/Notes Preliminary Assessment Photograph 9 Some Heritage Value (high authenticity)

11 A preliminary review of historical Little/No Heritage Value aerial photographs suggests that (major alterations to the addition of a western extension original style, scale and a new front verandah have and/or detailing) significantly altered the style of this house. Alterations to the finishes of the main facade have also diminished its authenticity. 13 Alterations to the finishes of the Some Heritage Value main facade have diminished the (moderate authenticity) authenticity of this place.

15 Alterations to the finishes of the Some Heritage Value main facade have diminished the (moderate authenticity) authenticity of this place.

Gray Street intersects Rankin Road: north side Herbert Road intersects 2 Alterations to the finishes of the Some Heritage Value main facade have diminished the (moderate authenticity) authenticity of this place. **This place includes a high front fence, which adversely impacts on the traditional streetscape setting and obscures views to the house from the street. 4 Little/No Heritage Value (post WWII development)

Prepared by Greenward Consulting for the City of Subiaco, March 2017 Page 12

Heritage Assessment of House, 9 Rankin Road, Shenton Park: Supplementary Information Attachment C – Comparative Information

Street # Comment/Notes Preliminary Assessment Photograph 6 and 6A Little/No Heritage Value (post WWII development)

8 Alterations to the finishes of the Some Heritage Value main facade have diminished the (moderate authenticity) authenticity of this place.

10 Streetscape inspection and a Little/No Heritage Value preliminary review of historical (major alterations to aerial photographs indicate that original style, scale verandah and carport additions and/or detailing) have significantly altered the style of this house. Alterations to the finishes of the main facade have also diminished its authenticity. 12 A preliminary review of historical Little/No Heritage Value aerial photographs indicates that (major alterations to the addition of a large western original style, scale extension to the main façade, with and/or detailing) a new return verandah, have significantly altered the style of this house. 14 The detailing and finishes of this Some Heritage Value house have been modified over (low to moderate time, inclusive of the replacement authenticity) of the corner porch with a return verandah.

16 Some Heritage Value (high authenticity)

Gray Street intersects

Prepared by Greenward Consulting for the City of Subiaco, March 2017 Page 13

REPORT ITEM NO. D10 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF BIACO

Submission Form

I acknowledge that my place has been identified as being a place of 'some significance' in the Preliminary Heritage Survey of the City of Subiaco Station Precincts.

I acknowledge that Council has resolved to consider including my property on the City of S lac° Local Government Inventory as a place of 'some significance' (level 3

I acknowledge that the Local Government Inventory is an information only resource and inclusion has no implications for the development of a place over and above the requirements that are already in place as part of the city's Town Planning Scheme.

I acknowledge that places of 'some significance' (level 3) are only considered for inclusion on the Town Planning Scheme Heritage List at the request of the property owner. Note - the Heritage List affords a place legal protection and at this level of heritage listing Council is able to refuse development on heritage grounds.

I would also like Council to consider including my place on the Town Planning Scheme Heritage List (the Heritage List affords a place legal protection and at this level of heritage listing Council is able to refuse development on heritage grounds). Yes No Jo Comments: ()6t)(71 y 04 /fr wail( At)j, 60/K

7//• ti/

11(4!\)1Li Subject property Name covq N Signature amyl tAitAk la-Ln

Printed on Australian made 100 per cent recycled paper. REPORT ITEM NO. D13 ATTACHMENT NO. 1

Third Party Appeal Rights in Planning Discussion Paper

Contents

1.0 In Brief ...... 3 2.0 Background ...... 3 2.1 Background to WALGA Policy Position ...... 3 2.2 Changes to the Planning Framework ...... 4 3.0 Current Third Party Appeal Rights in Australia...... 5 3.1 Development Assessment Forum (DAF) ...... 5 3.2 Third Party Appeal Rights by State and Territory ...... 6 3.3 Western Australia State Government Position ...... 7 3.4 Judicial Review ...... 8 4.0 Arguments For and Against Third Party Appeal Rights ...... 8 4.1 Arguments Against Third Party Appeals ...... 8 4.2 Arguments For Third Party Appeals ...... 10 4.3 Competing Viewpoints ...... 10 5.0 Issues to Consider ...... 11 5.1 Criteria for Third Party Appeal Rights in other States ...... 11 5.2 Implications for Local Government ...... 12 6.0 Conclusion – What is right for Western Australia? ...... 12 6.1 Feedback Sought ...... 12 7.0 References ...... 14

www.walga.asn.au 2

1.0 In Brief At its December 2016 meeting, State Council requested a review of the WALGA Policy position in relation to Third Party Appeal Rights for planning decisions. The decision making environment has changed since the WALGA made its policy position in 2008, and therefore a review of the current position is warranted.

This paper provides background on the development of WALGA’s current policy position and a review of the arguments both for and against third party appeals. A literature review was carried out to establish the basis of each argument.

2.0 Background

2.1 Background to WALGA Policy Position Unlike most of the other jurisdictions in Australia, Western Australia is unique in that no Third Party Appeal Rights exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005, although in the past some Local Government planning schemes allowed them. The last Local Government to allow Third Party Appeals was the City of Albany, however with the introduction of the City’s new local planning scheme in 2014, which removed Third Party Appeal Rights, there is no longer any Third Party Appeal Rights for planning in Western Australia.

The introduction of Third Party Appeal Rights has been considered by member Councils on several occasions over the last few decades. For instance, Third Party Appeal Rights were considered in 2001 during debate on the new planning appeal system and again the following year during the State Government’s consolidation and development of the new Planning and Development Legislation.

In 2007, a Private Member’s Bill was proposed by Dr Janet Woollard, MLA Member for Alfred Cove, which was modeled on Victoria’s Planning and Development Act 1987. The justification for the introduction of the Bill was primarily based on Western Australia being the only state without third party appeals and failed to acknowledge that significant differences exist between the Victorian and Western Australian planning system.

At the February 2008 meeting of State Council, WALGA formed a Policy position against the introduction of Third Party Appeal Rights. The report noted that the main arguments against the proposal were:

1. The current strategic and statutory planning processes, and consideration of applications by Councils, already takes into account the views of affected parties and the community generally; 2. Third party appeals could be lodged because of vexatious or commercial interests, not because of genuine planning matters; 3. Such appeals would cause significant delays and additional costs for development, as even lodgment of an appeal would put a development on hold;

www.walga.asn.au 3

4. Additional planning appeals would place a further burden on already stretched Local Government resources. Local Governments would incur additional costs for new administrative steps in processing development applications, preparing for and responding to appeals lodged with the State Administrative Appeals Tribunal (SAT) and legal representation. This is particularly the case since the establishment of the State Administrative Tribunal which has seem planning appeals become more legalistic, costly and resource intensive for Local Governments. Additionally, the existing State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) system was considered efficient at reconsidering the merits of planning applications and there are currently four ways in which a third party may participate in a planning matter being considered by SAT. These are:

 Being called as a witness by the respondent;  Making a submission under section 242 of the Planning and Development Act 2005;  Intervening under section 37(3) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, whereby the third party acquires rights and responsibilities as a party a party under the act; and  Possible participation in mediation. (SAT)

Subsequently, State Council resolved in February 2008 (326.1/2008), the following position:

That: 1. the member for Alfred Cove, Dr Janet Woollard MLA and the Minister for Planning and Development, Hon Alannah MacTiernan be advised of the inaccuracies and duplications contained in the proposed Planning and Development Amendment (Third Party Appeals) Bill 2007; and 2. as there is no justification for the proposed legislation and there are significant negative implications for Local Government, industry and the community, Local Government continues to be opposed to the introduction of third party appeal rights in Western Australia. While the above arguments for WALGA’s position remain, the decision making environment in WA has changed since the formation of the position in 2008 with changes to legislation arising from the State’s planning reform ‘Planning Makes it Happen: Phases 1 and 2’, and the introduction of Development Assessment Panels (DAPs).

2.2 Changes to the Planning Framework Historically Local Government in Western Australia has been the main authority tasked with decision-making for development applications, under delegation arrangements from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).

www.walga.asn.au 4

Since 2009 a number of changes have been implemented to the planning framework, directly impacting on the decision-making powers of Local Government, including:

 The establishment of the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority (MRA);  Changes to Structure Planning processes;  Changes to section 76 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to give the Minister for Planning the power to order a Local Government to prepare or adopt an amendment to a local planning scheme;  The introduction of Improvement Schemes and Plans; and  The introduction Development Assessment Panels (DAPs).  The introduction of ‘Deemed Provisions’ for local planning schemes in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

Given the substantial changes that have occurred within the decision-making environment in Western Australia, and the recent community concerns over the creation of the DAP system to determine development applications in place of Local Governments, it is appropriate to initiate a discussion on the possible role of Third Party Appeal Rights in the Western Australian planning system.

3.0 Current Third Party Appeal Rights in Australia Third party appeal rights vary by state, with no common ‘best practice’. Nationally, the Development Assessment Forum (DAF) a federal government advisory body, provides a Leading Practice Model, which sets out ‘tracks’ for different development assessment processes.

3.1 Development Assessment Forum (DAF) The Development Assessment Forum (DAF) was formed in 1998 to bring key stakeholders together to reach agreement on ways to streamline the processes used for development approval while preserving high quality decision making. The DAF published its Leading Practice Model for Development Assessment in March 2005, which aims to provide a blueprint for jurisdictions to create a simpler, more effective approach to development assessment. The practice model achieves this by defining ten leading practices that a development assessment system should exhibit, and applying the ten leading practices to six development assessment pathways or tracks.

With regards to Third Party Appeal Rights, DAF’s Leading Practice Model states that “opportunities for third-party appeals should not be provided where applications are wholly assessed against objective rules and tests”, and that “opportunities for third-party appeals may be provided in limited other cases”. In this way, the DAF model hopes to avoid unnecessary review where objective criteria has already been established by a consultative process. Elements of DAF’s Leading Practice Model for Development Assessment are used in some jurisdictions.

www.walga.asn.au 5

3.2 Third Party Appeal Rights by State and Territory State/Territory Scope of Third Party Appeal Rights Number & effects of Third Party Appeal Rights (cost, timeframes, etc.)

New South Appeal rights limited to uses such as major Third parties have 28 days to lodge an Wales developments where the development is high impact appeal. Court cases can last several days, and possibly of state significancei. A third party or weeks for complex cases. objector can bring a merit based appeal in the Land and Environmental Court against a decision to grant development consent only if the development is designated development (development listed as such in the EP & A Regulation).

South Australia Appeal rights limited to ‘Category 3’ii developments. The number of all appeals lodge with the A third party who makes a written representation on ERD Court trends between 191-200 a proposed Category 3 development has a right to appeals per year, with 78% of appeals appeal against that decision or any conditions lodged withdrawn or resolved without going attached to it. A person who disagrees with a to a full hearing. (LGA SA 2014). decision of a relevant authority, but is a third party who has not taken the opportunity to lodge a written representation during the public comment period is not entitled to appeal.

Queensland DAF based - Appeal rights limited to ‘impact No information available. assessable’iii developments. The person making the third party appeal must have lodged a ‘properly made submission’ with the local council within the public notification period for the development application.

Tasmania Broad appeal rights, but third parties can only object For the 2013-2014 year 117 appeals in total to a planning application if it is a ‘discretionary’ were lodged under the Land Use Planning application, which must be advertised. To appeal the and Approvals Act (RMPAT 2014) third party must have lodged a representation (objection) to an application within the 14-day Cost to lodge an appeal with the Resource advertising period, and may lodge an appeal with the Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal tribunal within 14-days of receiving notice of the is $350, but if appeal proceeds to full council decision. hearing, cost for lawyers and expert witnesses may be incurred (RMPAT).

RMPAT has 90 days to complete an appeal (RMPAT 2014).

Northern Appeal rights limited to developments in residential No information available Territory zones, unless the land is adjacent to or opposite a residential zone, in limited circumstances. Third party appeal rights apply only to those persons who made submissions on a Development Application.

Australian DAF based - Appeal rights limited to available for Third party appellants must lodge appeals iv Capital those merit or impact track development no later than four weeks after the decision applications that went through the major notification was made. Territory process, unless exempt by regulation.

www.walga.asn.au 6

For the 2015-2016 year 22 applications were received in total for administrative review under Planning and Development. The cost to apply for review is $325 and cases are subject to 120 day limit (ACAT 2016)

Victoria Broad appeal rights. Provision of third party appeal For the 2014/2015 year 4% (2,292) of rights cover most developments in Victoria. To development applications had a review appeal the third party must have lodged an objection lodged with VCAT. to an application within the advertising period. Anyone who may be affected can make an objection, Hurley et al (2013) found appeals from third objectors do not have to show they will be personally parties accounted for 19% of VCAT cases. affected and may object on broad public interest issues. If, for good reason, a person was unable to An objector who lodged an objection in lodge an objection, may be able to apply for a review writing must make an application for review of the decision if VCATv gives permission. (appeal) within 21 days of decision to grant a permit.

i – Examples include chemical factories, large-scale breweries, resource projects such as coal mines and quarries, and turf farms. ii - In Category 3 development applications, notice must be given to adjacent owners and occupiers as well as those considered by the relevant authority to be significantly affected by the proposed development. Also, the general public must be notified by publication of a notice in a local or state-wide newspaper. iii – Act or local planning instruments will dictate the category of a development. iv – Assessment tracks which are to be followed for the assessment of different kinds of development proposals include; ‘merit track’ for development proposals that can be assessed using rules and criteria in the code that applies to the proposals, and ‘impact track’ for development proposals that can be assessed using rules and criteria in the code that to the proposals, relevant environmental impact statements and the statement of strategic directions. v- Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal

3.3 Western Australia State Government Position In its 2015 report on the review of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011, the Western Australia Legislative Council noted that the State’s position on Third Party Appeal Rights was set out on 3 June 2009, by the then Minister for Child Protection, representing the Minister for Planning, who advised the Legislative Council of the Government’s position on third party appeals:

The Government does not currently have any plans to introduce third party appeal rights in Western Australia.

The Government does not believe that the introduction of third party appeal rights in Western Australia is consistent with current attempts to simplify and streamline the planning approvals process. The Planning and Development Act 2005 requires public consultation in relation to the planning framework established in local and regional areas, with public consultation mandated for local and region planning scheme amendments, as well as State Planning Policies, local planning policies and structure plans. As such, the Government believes that the current planning process provides sufficient opportunity for the local community to have a say in what happens in their neighbourhoods. (p.31)

The report states that this remains the Government’s policy.

www.walga.asn.au 7

3.4 Judicial Review The ability for third parties to appeal the process behind an administrative planning decision via judicial review is open in each jurisdiction in Australia, even where merit based Third Party Appeal Rights are present. Judicial reviews are heard by a Judge in a Court of Law, and are a review of the legality of the decisions under challenge, not a review of the merits of a development. This process has a much narrower focus than a planning review, in that the question that the Court is concerned with is about the process and manner in which the decision was made, as opposed to was the decision the correct or best outcome.

To date, the recourse for an affected party in Western Australia has been to pursue the matter through the Supreme Court as a matter of Judicial Review. Over the past two years, there appears to have been an increase in the number of individuals and Councils applying for Judicial Review, most notably Nairn v Metro-Central JDAP where the approval of a mixed use tower was disallowed. The continual perusal of such Judicial Reviews may not be in the long term best interest of communities, as they are prohibitively expensive and is focused on the decision making process, rather than the outcome.

4.0 Arguments For and Against Third Party Appeal Rights A literature review was conducted to establish the most common arguments both for and against third party appeals as well as examine the issues and benefits that may arise from their use. Victoria has the broadest third party appeal rights, and therefore much of the current literature examining third party appeals is focused on that state’s experience.

4.1 Arguments Against Third Party Appeals Legitimate interest and third party appeals – Many authors note that the traditional view of appeal rights holds that the only parties with a direct interest in a development application are the applicant and the responsible authority; meaning property owners are the only ones who should have the right to appeal over their land and that they should be able to use their property with minimal external interference. Therefore, Third Party Appeal Rights, if not clearly defined, may allow individuals to take part in planning decisions in which they have no direct interest. This can lead to opposition on non planning grounds, rather than because of an issue with the merit or substance of the proposal (Ellis2006) (Willey 2006) (Hurley et al 2011).

Loss of representation – This arguments states that the appeals process shifts decision making for development applications away from Local Government and therefore away from the locally elected representation. This shift may reduce accountability and transparency in the planning decisions process for the local community. A large amount of decision making power has been removed from Local Government with the introduction of DAPs. It is argued that Third Party Appeal Rights further weaken the representative nature of Local Government decision making (Ellis 2006) (Willey 2006) (Hurley et al 2011).

www.walga.asn.au 8

Current planning processes provide opportunities to participate – A strong argument against Third Party Appeal Rights is that proactive public engagement, participation and collaboration in policy formation and strategic planning is preferable as these processes focus on higher order engagement which leads to better policy and greater certainty in the process and outcome. Third party appeals tend to encourage adversarial rather than collaborative debate on planning issues. The effect of Third Party Appeal Rights may be to promote short-term decision making and could create planning outcomes that are not in the longer term interest of the community (Ellis 2006) (Willey 2006) (Hurley et al 2011 )(Cook et al 2012) (Hurley et al 2013).

Not representative of the broader community- The idea of equity of access to planning decisions is often cited in the literature as a justification for third party appeal rights, however some research reviewed found that the majority of people lodging third party appeals come from a well-organised, well-connected and well-resourced segment of the community, which raises the question of how representative these objections are of the wider community’s views (Ellis 2006) (Willey 2006) (Cook et al 2012) (Hurley et al 2013). For example, in their review of Third Party Appeals against multi-unit developments in Victoria, Hurley et al (2013) found that the number of objections against applications increase in more socio- economically advantaged areas, which indicates that developments in these areas are facing more organised community resistance, either by greater propensity for individuals to object, or by effective resident mobilisation (Hurley et al (2013) p.4).

Impact on the decision making process – Researchers argue that the introduction of Third Party Appeal Rights will lead to increased cost and delays, and the possibility of appeals being lodged because of vexatious or commercial interests, not because of genuine planning matters. As a result, the planning approval processes will experience delays which will create inefficiency, uncertainty, increased costs, and could ultimately act as a brake on investment and economic growth (Ellis2006) (Willey 2006) (Hurley et al 2011).

Failure to determine/Deemed Refusal – While researching multi-unit development in Victoria, Cook et al (2012) found that as the volume of objections to a development application increases, so too does the likelihood of appeal to VCAT. Additionally, failure to determine (where council fails to render a decision within the prescribed timeframes, equivalent to deemed refusal in Western Australia) cases are strongly related to high objection numbers. Therefore, applications which receive the highest number of objections are also the applications which are most likely to be appealed, and are also most likely to be the applications which Council fails to determine. While failures to determine may be instances where the local authority is unable to process applications due to resource constraints, the results and anecdotal evidence suggest that often these cases involve the authority declining to make a decision where there is significant resident opposition (Cook et al (2012) p.39). Turning planning into a ‘numbers game’ – Some researchers noted the existence of third party appeals may lead members of the community to believe that the number of objections in and of itself is a way of engaging in the planning process and prevent developments they do not support (Planning Institute of Australia (NSW Division) 2012) (Hurley et al 2013). However, in order to be considered by the responsible authority, an objection needs to be about a valid planning concern. As a result the community’s expectations about how it can influence the planning system may not be met.

www.walga.asn.au 9

4.2 Arguments For Third Party Appeals Legitimate interest – A strong argument is made that neighbouring landowners, occupiers and members of the community often have a very legitimate interest in whether development occurs and the form of that development, as any new development has impacts on existing neighbourhood character, amenity, infrastructure and property values. Equity in the development process is also important, if an applicant has rights of appeal, the argument is that a third party should also have right of appeal to maintain equity. Without Third Party Appeal Rights the wider community is removed as a stakeholder (Ellis 2006) (Willey 2006) (Trenorden 2009). Improved participation and decision making – It is often noted that planning is a communicative process which needs to embrace the public in meaningful ways. Third party appeals would have the potential to increase avenues for public engagement with planning, and may deliver better planning decisions as an empowered public, with increased opportunities for participation, can result in improved planning outcomes. Therefore, Third Party Appeal Rights affords the combination of a broader base of input, increased debate and the ability for ‘local knowledge’ to inform planning approvals which can lead to improved outcomes (Morris 2005) (Ellis 2006) (Willey 2006). As an example, Willey (2006) notes that it is comparatively rare in Victoria for an objector to completely succeed in overturning a decision, but often their involvement is considered to lead to a better planning decision.

Improved consultation – Third party appeal rights may encourage developers to deal with the local community in a more engaging manner and places pressure to concede or improve design elements where appropriate and reasonable to do so (Willey 2006).

Improved transparency – Applicant appeals are a means by which decision-making can be checked and provide property owners a recourse to an independent review body as a safeguard against inconsistent decisions. An argument for Third Party Appeal Rights is that they provide the same opportunity for third parties to scrutinise and challenge decision- making, thus keeping decision-makers accountable. Additionally, Third Party Appeal Rights are purported to discourage corrupt behaviour between developers and local government (Morris 2005) (Willey 2006) (Trenorden 2009).

4.3 Competing Viewpoints There are strong arguments both for and against third party appeals. The research notes that which side of the argument one lands on often has a great deal to do with the planning culture in which they are operating (Willey 2006) (Trenorden 2009). In Victoria, where third party appeals have become an embedded practice, most stakeholders are supportive of the practice, even while acknowledging negative aspects may be associated with them. In contrast in places such as Western Australia where third party appeal rights are not a part of the planning culture, views tend to focus predominately on the negative aspects of Third Party Appeal Rights. For example, a concern often expressed is that allowing third party appeals would lead to a ‘flood’ of appeals, however evidence from Victoria shows that Third Party Appeals account for only 19% of VCAT cases (Hurley et al 2013). So while allowing Third Party Appeals would lead to an increase in appeals, the effect may be overemphasized.

www.walga.asn.au 10

In a 2009 paper, Judge Christine Trenorden, Senior Judge of the Environment, Resources & Development Court in South Australia, argued that the issue of whether Third Party Appeal Rights are necessary may be resolved by the answers to the following questions:

1. Does the community have confidence that the policy document for a particular area sufficiently describes the desired future character, and contains a comprehensive set of objectives and principles for development in the area, relevant to the local context including the environment?

2. Does the community have confidence in the decision-makers to make a decision in the best interests of the community now and in the future?

3. Is there a transparency about the decision-making?

4. Is there a guarantee that the decision-makers will assess the development in the context of the desired future character, objectives and principles of development for the area (assuming the adequacy of these policy statements)? (Trenorden, 2009 p. 13)

The questions put forward by Judge Trenorden speak not to the capability of the decision maker to determine an application, but the “community’s confidence” in their ability. These are not necessarily the same thing. When the decision-maker is appointed by an external body, the community’s confidence in them to make a decision in the best interests of the community now and in the future is diminished. Any lack of transparency around the decision-making process further erodes confidence.

5.0 Issues to Consider

5.1 Criteria for Third Party Appeal Rights in other States After considering the arguments for and against Third Party Appeal Rights, as well as Judge Trenorden’s questions on determining the necessity of such rights, there may be further debate on what limitations, if any, should be placed on Third Party Appeal Rights were they to be introduced. For instance, it may be that Third Party Appeals be limited to only certain types of applications involving the use of discretionary powers, or instances where the decision-maker has advertised the development. If this were to be the case, then Third Party Appeal Rights would apply to determinations made by both Local Government and DAPs.

Based on the summary of Third Party Appeals processes that exist in other jurisdictions, the primary criteria for allowing Third Party Appeal Rights include:

 Excluding vexatious or commercial interests appeals, and any appeals made on none-genuine planning matters,  Excluding appeals by those parties who did not previously make a submission.  Excluding appeals where an application meets ‘deem-to-comply’ requirements, and no discretion has been excised.  Excluding appeals for some cases of minor development.  Having a short window in which to appeal (example 14 days).

www.walga.asn.au 11

5.2 Implications for Local Government Whilst the introduction of third party appeal rights would give the community the ability to appeal decisions made by DAPs, it would also result in the majority of appeals being lodged against decisions made by Local Government. Staff would be impacted as officers would require additional time to prepare for and attend third party appeals, which would likely have an effect on the ability of Local Government officers to complete development application assessment within the required statutory timeframes.

Additional resources would likely be required to administer, resource and potentially engage legal counsel to defend these decisions and this would most likely create an additional financial burden for Local Government. Without proper resources, such a situation could lead to delays in making planning decisions, which in turn, would create inefficiency, uncertainty, increased costs, and could ultimately act as a brake on investment and economic growth.

While limitations could be placed on the type and scope of Third Party Appeal Rights, it is likely that any system which allows Third Party Appeals would result in increased workload and cost for Local Government.

6.0 Conclusion – What is right for Western Australia? Since WALGA formulated its policy position on Third Party Appeal Rights in 2008, there have been significant changes to the planning system, including the introduction of DAPs as the decision-making body for a range of development applications. By removing the decision-making abilities of democratically elected Local Government representatives and placing it in the hands of appointed panel members, the general public’s confidence that planning decisions are being made that are in the best interests of the community has been substantially reduced. This loss of confidence coincides with increased anxiety amongst the community over the changing amenity of suburbs due to increasing density and population pressures.

Third Party Appeal Rights are a complex issue, with strong arguments both for and against their implementation. Property rights must be balanced against the community’s rights of participation, and the desire for transparency and accountability in government and decision- making bodies. Local Government must also consider the likely impacts in terms of cost, resourcing and the timely delivery of services.

6.1 Feedback Sought In order to help WALGA review its position, feedback from the Local Government planning community and Elected members is sought. In light of the information presented, and considering the possible implications for Local Government if some form of Third Party Appeal Rights were to be adopted, WALGA welcomes any feedback or comments on the topic including:

 Would you be in favour of the introduction of some form of Third Party Appeal Rights in Western Australia? Why or Why not?  Do you feel your Council is likely to support some form of Third Party Appeal Rights?  Any other comments relating to Third Party Appeal Rights.

www.walga.asn.au 12

Feedback can be sent to [email protected] or on 9213 2000 to discuss with one of the Planning and Development Team.

www.walga.asn.au 13

7.0 References Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT), (2016), 2015-2016 Annual Review, Canberra, Australia, http://www.acat.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1018092/ACAT-2015-16-Annual- Review.pdf

Cook, N. Taylor, E. Hurley, J. and Colic-Peisker, V. (2012b), 'Resident third party objections and appeals against planning applications: implications for higher density and social housing - AHURI Final Report No. 197', in AHURI Final Report Series, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia, vol. 197, pp. 1-98, ISSN: 1834-7223.

Ellis, Geraint (2006). ‘Third party appeals: Pragmatism and principle.’ Planning Theory and Practice 7.3: pp. 330-339.

Hurley, J. Taylor, E. Cook, N. and Colic-Peisker, V. (2011), ‘In the fast lane: Bypassing third party objections and appeals in third party planning process’, in State of Australian Cities National Conference 2011, Australian Sustainable Cities and Regions Network (ASCRN), Melbourne, Australia, pp. 1-10.

Hurley, J, Cook, N and Taylor, E (2013), 'Examining three planning pathways in the mediation of resident opposition to compact city', in Nicole Gurran and Bill Randolph (ed.) Proceedings of the State of Australian Cities National Conference 2013, Sydney, Australia, 26 - 29 November 2013, pp. 1-12.

Local Government Association of South Australia, (2014), ‘Planning and Appeals Review – Planning Reform Issues Paper’,

Morris, S. (2005), ‘Third Party Participation in the Planning Permit Process, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’, Melbourne, Australia http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/VicJSchol/2005/5.pdf.

Parliament of Western Australia, (2015), ‘Uniform Legislation and Statues Review Committee – Public Hearings on Submissions, Question on D MCLeod Submission’, Perth, Australia, pp. 1-11

Planning Institute of Australia (NSW Division), (2012),’A New Planning Act for New South Wales – Submission’, North Sydney, Australia

Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal of Queensland, (2014), Annual Report 2013-2014, Brisbane, Australia, http://www.rmpat.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/298640/Annual_Report_for_2014_. pdf

State Administrative Tribunal, ‘Info Sheet 6 – Third party participation in planning matters’, Perth, Australia http://www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au/_files/Info%20Sheet%206%20- %20Third%20party%20participation%20in%20planning%20matters.pdf

www.walga.asn.au 14

Trenorden, C. (2009), ‘Third-Party Appeal Rights: Past and Future’, Town Planning Law Conference 2009, Perth, Australia http://www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au/_files/10_Hon_Judge_Christine_Trenorden_Presentation.p df

Victoria State Government, Planning Permit Activity Annual Report: 2014-15, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Melbourne, viewed 30 March 2017, https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/publications/planning-permit-activity-in-victoria/planning- permit-activity-annual-report-2014-15

Western Australia Local Government Association (WALGA), (2016), ‘Development Assessment Panels – 2011-2016 Review’, West Leederville, Australia, http://api.ning.com/files/RBh5pTSdbmvNZvRPEdzQPcKFeEqAMAPBF0tfEEYoPiDy8IHu5F RuuTsz1*46DwUfWSC-m6uCViT4NuqVgkE6dfxZNVMNS1LW/DAPs201116Review.pdf

Western Australia Legislative Council, (2015), ‘Report 93 – Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statues Review, Review of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011, Perth, Australia

Willey, S. (2006), ‘Planning Appeals: Are Third Party Rights Legitimate? The Case Study of Victoria, Australia’, Urban Policy and Research, 24(3), pp. 369–389.

www.walga.asn.au 15

REPORT ITEM NO. D13 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 TOWN PLANNING LAW – PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE Conference to mark 80 years of town planning law in Western Australia 18 November 2009

------Third-Party Appeal Rights: Past and Future

Judge Christine Trenorden, Senior Judge, Environment, Resources & Development Court, South Australia

Introduction

The first comprehensive town planning legislation in Australia was enacted by the Western Australian Parliament1 in 1929. This followed a number of events in Australia to showcase the benefits of town planning, from 1914, onwards. They included an Australasian town planning tour by Charles Reade on behalf of the Garden Cities and Town Planning Association of Great Britain, in 1914 -1915, after which Reade became town planning advisor to the South Australian government and in 1916 introduced the Town Planning and Housing Bill into the South Australian Parliament (where it was defeated by a property- franchise based Legislative Council). In 1917 the first Australian Town Planning and Housing Exhibition and Conference was held in Adelaide, attracting some 250 persons. A second conference was held in Brisbane in 1918. In 1920 the Town Planning and Development Act 1920 (SA) became law, and provided for a Department of Town Planning, with a government town planner, a central advisory board of town planning and town planning committees at local council level.

This early legislation did not provide for third-party appeal rights, nor even applicant appeal rights. In the years since 1961, the parliaments in each of the states have provided for third- party appeal rights, except in Western Australia. As you will be aware, third-party appeal rights have not been available in Western Australia, except to a very limited extent, under one or two local planning schemes.

I would argue that, just as town planning legislation in Australia was inevitable following the developments in Europe and United States of America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the consequent groundswell of opinion in this country as to the benefits of town planning, so the adoption of third-party appeal rights in Western Australia is inevitable.

There are compelling reasons for providing appeal rights to third parties in relation to a decision on an application to undertake development, notwithstanding the fears of those who oppose their provision. There are also compelling reasons as to why any appeal rights should be limited, and consequent appeals conscientiously managed.

In this paper I will look back to the history of third party appeals in Australia, particularly but not exclusively, in South Australia. There may be some lessons to be learned from the history. I will outline the position today in South Australia. Concern is often expressed about floodgates being opened if third party appeals are permitted, so I will address the numbers of such appeals in two States. I propose to articulate reasons for and against third party appeal rights, and looking to the future, how appeals might best be managed to minimise the consequences most feared by those who oppose granting a right of appeal to third parties.

1 Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA) 2 Third Party Rights of Appeal in Other Jurisdictions Before 1982

My research so far indicates that appeal rights against a decision to grant a planning consent, permit or authorisation for third parties have been available in other states of Australia, as indicated below:

o Victoria: since 1961 - Town and Country Planning Act 1961 o New South Wales: since 1970 - s 342ZA Local Government Act 1919 o Queensland: since 1964 (Brisbane) - s 22(8) City of Brisbane Town Planning Act 1964; since 1966 (rest of Qld) - s 33(18) Local Government Act 1936-1970 o South Australia: since 1972 - Planning and Development Act o Tasmania: since at least 1974 - s 734 Local Government Act 1962

However, the appeal rights were limited, subsequently expanded and then have been diluted in many cases. I recall that when I examined the relevant legislation in preparation for the report Combined Jurisdiction for Development Appeals in the States and Territories (1990)2, it appeared that in Victoria a right resided in third parties to appeal at each step of the processes associated with the consideration and determination of an application for a planning permit.

In Victoria under the Town and Country Planning Act, third parties who either had been objectors to an application or had objected in writing to the determination of the responsible authority, had a right of appeal against the authority’s determination3.

In New South Wales s 342ZA of the Local Government Act was enacted in 1970 to allow limited third-party rights4. Owners of land adjoining a proposed residential flat development and those whose enjoyment of their property would be detrimentally affected by such a development could object to the development and subsequently applied for and be granted leave to appear in any appeal by the applicant against the council's refusal to grant consent, or the conditions imposed on the consent5.

Third-party appeals were further considered in 1975 in Proposals for a New Environmental Planning System for New South Wales. This report expressed doubts about the practicality of these appeals fearing that they were likely to increase the number of appeals and thus slow development, but on balance concluded that allowing third-party appeals would preclude the controversy and subsequent litigation that at the time surrounded many development proposals following their approval6.

In a subsequent report by the New South Wales Planning and Environment Commission the conclusion was that "the likely benefits flowing from a third-party appeals system were marginal and were outweighed by the disadvantages of slowing down and adding costs to the whole development control process"7.

In Queensland, Fogg reported the “somewhat unusual right” whereby multiple dwellings of more than 2 storeys in certain zones in the Brisbane area could be the subject of objection and subsequent appeal by a third party8. Also in Brisbane, objectors could join certain

2 Hayes, BRH and Trenorden CL Combined Jurisdiction for Development Appeals in the States and Territories (1990, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce) 3 AS Fogg, Australian Town Planning Law, 1974: University of Queensland Press, p 320 4 see generally the comments of Else-Mitchell J. in Peter Rommel and Associates Pty Ltd and Others V North Sydney Municipal Council (1971) 23 LGRA 99 at 107 5 Local Government Act 1919-1973 section 342ZA 6 Hort, LD & Mobbs, M, Outline of New South Wales Environmental and Planning Law (Butterworths, 1979); p9 7 Hort & Mobbs; op. cit.,p12 8 Fogg, op. cit., p 304. 3 applicant appeals as respondents, supporting the Council decision9. Across the state of Queensland, objectors could appeal against the decision to grant consent to development that fell within the discretionary column on the table of zones in a planning scheme10. Thus Queenslanders enjoyed reasonably broad rights of appeal. Third-party rights of appeal, at least by 1987, were against the proposal by the local authority to grant development consent, notice of the proposal being statutorily required to be given to each objector 11.

In South Australia, third-party appeal rights appeared for the first time in a 1972 amendment to the legislation. However development within the area of the Council of the City of Adelaide was subject to separate legislation, namely the City of Adelaide Development Control Act 1976, that at no time provided third party appeal rights.

The Tasmanian legislation provided the right to appeal for third parties who were "injuriously affected” by decisions of councils with respect to development12.

It is clear that there existed a strong culture of third party appeal rights in Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia by the 1980s. To some extent, the impetus for Parliaments to establish third party appeal rights, at least in South Australia and New South Wales, may have originated from comments made by the relevant appeal bodies13. In New South Wales, Hardie J in KR Wilson Pty Ltd v Kogarah Municipal Council14 said in relation to large three storey residential flat buildings in the context of the particular locality:

The time is now opportune to place on record that there is a real danger that this type of multi-unit residential development is likely to proceed apace in other suburban areas unless and until an amendment to the relevant legislation is made to enable aggrieved owners of properties in the localities, subject to appropriate safeguards and to the establishment of an important question of planning principle, to challenge by appeal decisions of local councils granting consents, just as aggrieved owners can by appeal challenge decisions refusing such consents.

Failure to provide some adequate machinery to reverse erroneous decisions of councils granting planning consent will put it beyond the power of the community to call a halt to still more and more development of a type which must ultimately destroy the amenity of many residential areas.

His Honour reiterated his view three years later in Heszberger v Marrickville Municipal Council15.

Current Limitations on Third-Party Appeal Rights

In Victoria now there are limits concerning appeals from the final decision of the planning authority as to the granting of a permit. Some of these are set out below:

• a commercial competitor cannot object and so has no right to a review or an appeal. • a person who has lodged an objection (an objector) may not appeal if the proposed development falls within a class exempted from review by a planning scheme16.

While a person who has not lodged an objection may also seek to have the responsible authority's decision reviewed by the appeal body (the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal), there is no automatic right to do so. First, the decision has to be one which has not been exempted from review. Secondly the person seeking to have the

9 Fogg, op cit, p 305 10 Fogg, op. cit., p 304 11 see Local Government Act, s 33(18) and City of Brisbane Town Planning Act, s 22 (9), cited in Fogg, Alan, Land Development Law in Queensland (The Law Book Company Ltd, 1987),p 440 12 Fogg, op. cit., p 317 13 For South Australia, see:Residential Development v Director of Planning (1970) SAPR 42 14 (1966) 12 LGRA 259 at 264 15 (1969) 18 LGRA 122 at 124 16 see sections 57, 82 Planning and Environment Act (Vic) 1987 4 decision reviewed has to be a person who is affected; thirdly there has to have been a written objection made to the responsible authority against the grant of a permit and fourthly, the Tribunal has to grant leave for the affected person to apply for review of the decision to grant a permit17.

In Tasmania, a person who made a representation (a representor) in respect of a development application may appeal to the Resources Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal within 14 days after the notice of the grant permit was served on the representor18. Any appeal must be determined within 90 days or, where all parties have agreed to an extension and is granted by the relevant minister, that period19.

Since the advent of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), there is a very limited right appeal for third parties in New South Wales, although John Mant has said that the original draft of the Act promised wide-ranging third-party appeals. According to John Mant20, the Act was changed at the last minute to provide for third-party appeals only for designated developments. He is quoted as having said:

Under pressure from the development industry only a limited range of large-impact developments were designated - mines, polluting industries but not houses, flats or retail buildings.21

Hort & Mobbs throw doubt on the Mant comment. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Bill 1979 was introduced in April of that year. The Hort & Mobbs book, published in May 1979 states that the Bill provides that objectors may appeal against the grant of consent to designated development, and does not describe any other right for objectors or third parties to appeal22. It would appear that more fulsome provisions for third- party rights of appeal, if contained in the draft versions of the Bill, were not included in the Bill as introduced into Parliament in 1979.

A person in New South Wales who has lodged an objection against the grant of consent to a development application for designated development may appeal against the decision to the Land and Environment Court23, except in those cases where the proposal has been declared to be of state or regional planning significance; a “major development” or a “critical infrastructure project "24. A “major project” includes a railway corridor costing more than $30million, marinas and performing arts facilities costing more than $30m. “Critical infrastructure” includes a major gas pipeline, major highway upgrades and the Kurnell desalination plant. "Designated developments" are generally those larger projects such as aquaculture, coal mines, chemical storage facilities, waste management facilities, mineral processing facilities, ports and railways, which are likely to have a significant risk of environmental impact25, and in respect of which an environmental impact statement is required. However, if only part of the development is a "designated development", then subject to Part 3A the whole of the development will assume that character and thus any decision may be open to appeal by a third party who lodged an objection, whether or not the designated development component is ancillary to the dominant or primary purpose of the application26.

17 Section 82B Planning and Environment Act 18 Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas) section 61 19 Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, section 16(1)(f) 20 Included in his extensive experience in advising government since 1971, John Mant ‘spearheaded the integration of development control systems in Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and the ACT’, and was acting Town Planning Commissioner in WA, 1985. 21 The right to appeal is that there, says planning manager (Harvey Grennan, September 29, 2009) at http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/the-right-to-appeal-is-there-says-planning-manager-20090928- g99n.html accessed 29/09/2009 22 Hort & Mobbs; op. cit., p17 23 see section 98 Environment Planning and Assessment Act 24 see Part 3A Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 25 see section 77A Environment Planning and Assessment Act and Part 1 of Schedule 3 to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 26 Residents Against Improper Development Inc V Chase Property Investments Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 323 5

Thus third-party appeal rights in New South Wales are very limited.

In Queensland, the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 recently came into operation, replacing the Integrated Development Assessment Act 1997. There was little or no change to third party appeal rights. A person who has lodged a valid written submission (submitters) within the requisite time frame may appeal against the decision of the authority, but only against that part of the approval relating to the assessment manager’s decision (read “planning authority’s decision”) on any part of the application requiring impact assessment. Third-party appeal rights do not attach to exempt, self assessable or code assessable applications, because these do not require public notification27.

The History of Third Party Appeal Rights in South Australia

Rights were granted to third parties to appeal against a decision to grant planning consent in 1972, following a public outcry over the approval of residential subdivisions in the Adelaide Hills (“Hills Face Zone”). The Town and Country Planning Association unsuccessfully attempted to appeal to the Planning Appeal Board against the decisions. The outcome grabbed media attention in November 1970, and the Association’s position was supported by editorials in The Sunday Mail and The Advertiser, including statements such as the following:

The Authority does not do enough to ensure that the ordinary man has any say in the planning of the future of South Australia…….28

The Director of Planning was sent to New Zealand and Victoria to study third party appeal systems with a view to their introduction in South Australia. In 1972 a Bill was introduced into Parliament to amend the Planning and Development Act to provide for third party appeals. The Government had concluded:

…that it is fair and just to give a right of appeal to persons who claim their interests are affected adversely by permission being granted for any development to proceed. As the problems associated with urban development are becoming more complex, much ill-feeling will be overcome by giving both applicants and objectors the right of appeal to the Planning Appeal Board.29

The move had the benefit of bi-partisan support. There was palpable concern over the lack of appeal rights for persons directly affected by proposed development and also in situations where the authorities were not prepared to prevent perceived destruction of an area of conservation value and scenic amenity.

The appeal rights in the new section 36a were extensive, giving a right to any interested person in respect of all applications for development that were publicly notified, that is, that were neither permitted nor prohibited according to the table in the relevant zoning regulations, but not in respect of land division proposals.

In the first full year of operation of the new provision, the third party appeals lodged with the Planning Appeal Board numbered 44, that is, 10.4% of the total lodgements. Over the period of 10 years between the introduction of section 36a and the repeal of the Planning and Development Act, the number of third party appeals lodged as a percentage of total appeals lodged averaged 9.2%.

In the course of the 8 years during which extensive records were kept by the Planning Appeal Board of third party appeals actually heard and determined (54% of appeals lodged),

27 Sustainable Planning Act 2009, section 462 28 The Sunday Mail, 22 November 1970, quoted in Hodgson, John “Third Party Appeals in South Australia 1972-1993”, a research paper submitted for the degree of Master of Environmental Law (1995) 29 Hansard, House of Assembly, 31 October 1972, p 2556, quoted in Hodgson, op cit. 6 approximately 40% resulted in reversal of the decision of the planning authority; in about 19% of matters the decision was varied, and the appeal was dismissed in approximately 41% of matters.

In addition, it is noteworthy that 43% third party appeals were withdrawn before hearing, a factor attributed by the Board itself to the opportunity provided by an appeal, for the parties to meet, often for the first time, and understand both the proposal and the objections to it and talk through a consensus position.

From 1975, the Board had the authority by an amendment to the Planning and Development Act, to join as a party to an appeal by an applicant, a person who had objected to the application.

As I have noted, in 1976, the Parliament enacted separate legislation for planning within the area of the City of Adelaide, which contained no third party appeal rights. The then Minister responsible justified this with the usual arguments, namely that the City had well-qualified staff to advise it, it invited public comment on proposals in any event, and that appeal rights would result in increased costs and delays which would be untenable for development within the City.

Following an extensive report, published in 1978, entitled Objector Appeals in South Australia, and a change of government, in the early 1980s a Bill for a new Planning Act was introduced into Parliament. After extensive consultation and redrafting the Bill became the Planning Act 1982, which repealed the Planning and Development Act.

Concerning third party appeals, the Planning Act provided:

1. a right of appeal for persons who had made representations following public notification of a planning application. However, not every application required notification; the Regulations made under the Act exempted specified forms of development, except where they were prohibited. These included the following:

• the most usual forms of residential accommodation but not residential flat buildings • land division to create 5 allotments or less • development that in the opinion of the Council was of a minor nature and unlikely to have significance beyond the boundaries of the subject land • the division of land where the subsequent use proposed would be permitted absolutely or conditionally under the relevant principles of development control contained in the planning policy document, the development plan;

2. that every appeal proceed first to a conference of the parties convened by the Planning Appeal Tribunal (the continuation of the Planning Appeal Board under a new name) and chaired by a member of the Tribunal; and

3. that an appellant could pursue an appeal to hearing and determination after the conclusion of the conference, only if the Tribunal had heard and determined in the appellant’s favour, an application for leave to continue.

The conference requirement at the time appeared to be very successful, but on reflection, the number of matters that were withdrawn because a settlement had been reached, did not exceed the number of third party appeals withdrawn prior to hearing under the repealed Planning and Development Act, while utilising a significant proportion of commissioners’ time. There was also a requirement for the chairperson of the Tribunal or another judge, to ratify any settlement reached by the parties with a commissioner. The judge could require attendance by the parties, if it was considered that the settlement might not be consistent with the Act, and therefore not appropriate to be ratified.

7 The requirement for leave to continue an appeal created problems. The Act did not set out any criteria upon which the Tribunal could assess an application. An application had to be made within 7 days of the conclusion of the conference of the parties. In the first year, leave was not refused in any application by a third party appellant to continue the appeal. Inevitably, an application was refused and upon appeal to the Supreme Court, Wells J set out some words of guidance for the Tribunal and parties, as follows:

…on application… for leave to continue the appeal, the Tribunal must be persuaded that the grounds upon which the appeals would be argued possess an importance that extends beyond that which would be attributed to them by the legislature and the parties immediately concerned – that they have, in other words, more general and public importance, and, moreover, that there is a case to be made that is reasonably arguable on the merits. It is not enough, with all due respect to the Tribunal, to grant leave to continue because the grounds of appeal reveal that something in them could, if made good, lead to the allowance of the appeal, in whole or in part.30

The effect of this judgment and that in a subsequent Supreme Court appeal31 was that the Tribunal effectively conducted an appeal hearing on the merits upon the application for leave to continue, in the interests of determining whether (1) the grounds of appeal were of public and general importance, and (2) there was a reasonably arguable case on the merits.

The requirement for leave to continue was an abysmal failure, causing increased costs and delays for all parties where a third party appeal was lodged, and enormous difficulty for third parties, because, as the Minister said in introducing a bill for an amendment to the Act: “The (Supreme Court judgment in Rimington) effectively removes third party appeal rights in the majority of cases.”32 The life of the leave requirement was destined to be short. In August 1985 the Act was amended to remove the relevant provisions. They had operated for less than 3 years.

As I have said, the Regulations made under the Planning Act set out those kinds of development that were exempted from notification and therefore could not be the subject of a third party appeal. Over the life of the Planning Act (1982–1993) the list of exempt development was extended. In support of further extension of the list of exempt developments, the then chairman of the South Australian Planning Commission, unconsciously foreshadowed more recent justifications made in Commonwealth and State fora for reducing opportunities for third party appeals; namely that as the general community has an opportunity to comment on future development in an area at the time the land is zoned, further opportunity to comment on development in accordance with the zoning is unnecessary.33 These sentiments have been repeated by organizations whose membership comprises representatives of developers, as well as politicians and their advisors, when it suits.

The Planning Act was replaced in late 1993 by the Development Act 1993, following a 2 year planning review that culminated in a final report: 2020 Vision: A Planning System. In the life of the Planning Act, third party appeals comprised 18.4% of the total number of appeals lodged (compared with 9.2% under the earlier legislation),) and 58% matters proceeded to a hearing (compared with 54%). In 31% appeals, the decision of the planning authority was reversed (compared with 40%), in 43.5% of matters the decision was varied (compared with 19%), and in 23.2% of matters the appeal was dismissed (compared with 41% ).

On the “floodgates” argument, it is interesting to note that under the Planning Act, the total number of third party appeals comprised approximately 18% of all appeals lodged. This is approximately twice the percentage of third party appeals lodged under the Planning and Development Act.

30 Hassen v District Council of Murray Bridge & Onsoy (1984) 35 SASR 448 at 451-2 31 Rimington v City of West Torrens (1985) 39 SASR 481 32 Hansard, House of Asssembly, 8 May 1985, p 4004, quoted in Hodgson, op cit. 33 South Australian Planning Commission, Planning Act 1982; Report on Amendments to the Development Control Regulations, 7 November 1984, p 2 8

The Current Legislation and Practice in South Australia

The Development Act came into operation in late 1993. In general third party appeal rights were left unchanged. A right of appeal exists where a person has lodged an objection (called a representation), in relation to an application for consent to a category 3 development. Under section 38 of the Act, certain categories of development must be publicly notified, but a right of appeal exists only for category 3 developments. The category to which a proposed development is assigned depends on the characterisation of the development (determining the nature of the development) and whether either the Regulations or the relevant development plan (the policy document) have assigned development of that nature to a category other than category 3. Category 3 is the default category.

The nature of the appeal is limited to “what should have been the decision of the relevant authority” 34; in other words, a merits appeal.

Appeal rights for third parties have been increasingly restricted, by the addition of classes of development to categories 1, 2 and 2A, and by the incorporation of the residential code provisions into the Development Regulations in 2007 through extending the class of acts that are not development and varying so as to extend, the developments that are complying, to implement the August 2005 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreement to endorse the adoption by governments of the 2005 Leading Practice Model for Development Assessment, in the economic interest.

Another opportunity for third parties is provided where an applicant has appealed against the decision of an authority to refuse consent. A person who made a representation is given notice of the appeal by the Court and advised that they may apply to be joined as a party to the appeal. This procedure occurs pursuant to the ERDC Rules, and has no legislative basis. It has been the practice of the Court and its predecessors for a very long time.

A third party appellant or a party joined who has a commercial competitive interest, must declare that interest to the Court35, and may be faced with a claim for economic loss suffered by the applicant for consent if upon the determination of the appeal, the development is entitled to proceed in the same or substantially the same form, as that approved in the first instance36.

In search of a right of appeal, representors have argued that the relevant authority assigned the development to the wrong category; that the development was properly a category 3 development, and that therefore, having lodged a representation in compliance with the Regulations, the representor should have a right of appeal. These arguments by third parties, before April 2007 had to be by way of judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court, but can now be made in the Environment, Resources and Development Court, provided the applicant is a person who can demonstrate an interest in the matter by virtue of being an owner or occupier of the development site or adjacent land (defined as abutting land or land that is no more than 60m distant)37.

In 2007 the Development Act was also amended to give the Court criteria by which it could refuse an application to join a person as a party to proceedings (other than a person who was entitled to be given notice of the decision of the authority in an application for a category 3 development). Prior to this, the Court had been guided by the Supreme Court decisions in Pitt v Environment Resources and Development Court (1995) 66 SASR 274 and Onesteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (2005) SASR 67. The criteria are:

34 Development Act 1993, section 38(6) 35 Development Act, section 88B 36 Development Act, section 88C 37 Development Act section 86(1)(f) 9 • that the Court is not satisfied that the applicant for joinder has a special interest in the subject-matter of the application;

• regardless of the interest of the applicant, that the Court is not satisfied that the interests of justice require the applicant be joined; or

• upon any other ground determined by the Court to be appropriate38.

The Supreme Court considered the provision in O’Neill v Kimhi & The City of Charles Sturt [2009] SASC 109. The Honourable Justice Debelle said that the ERD Court was invested with a wide discretion and that the terms of the provision do not create a presumption against joinder of an applicant in relation to a category 1 or 2 matter. The discretion had to “be exercised within the scope and ambit of the Development Act, the Development Regulations and the Development Plan”39. Given the Supreme Court considered the meaning of “special interest” in the context of the planning system in the State, it is worth quoting extensively from the judgment. His Honour said:

A Special Interest 19 There can be no doubt that the O’Neills have a special interest in the subject matter of this appeal and the judge held that they had that special interest. They reside in a dwelling on land that adjoins the proposed development. The proposed development is a Category 2 development that required the Council to give notice to them. They took up the opportunity of being heard by the Council in relation to the proposed development. They lodged a representation opposing the development. They appeared before the Council to voice their opposition. The proposed development is of a height and bulk that will cause overshadowing of their building. The O’Neills hold a development consent for alterations and additions to their dwelling which are designed so as to gain the full benefit of light and warmth on the northern aspect. The O’Neills allege that the building proposed by the Kimhis will overshadow their dwelling throughout the year and deny them the benefit of their proposed alterations and additions. The Kimhis’ proposal also involves excavation of their land and that has a potential to cause subsidence on the O’Neills’ land if adequate precautions are not taken. The Council refused the development application because of overshadowing of the O’Neills’ land. On any view, the O’Neills will be directly affected by the proposed development. They have an immediate and special interest in the subject matter of the appeal. These same considerations also mean that it is in the interests of justice that they be joined. These are sufficient reasons why the O’Neills should have been joined as parties. 20 It might be added that, as a general rule, an adjoining neighbour will always have a sufficient interest in an application to justify joinder. ………………….

22 It is plainly desirable that an applicant for joinder should be able to inform the court in clear terms of the grounds on which he or she seeks to be added as a party and to state how he or she will assist the court in the resolution of the issues. At the same time, the Environment Court must make due allowance for the fact that lay persons frequently appear before it. In this case, the court was told that the O’Neills would be represented. The question of overshadowing was obviously an important issue that directly affected the O’Neills. As the Council’s Development Plan contains provisions intended to prevent overshadowing and to protect access to sunlight in residential zones, the O’Neills seek to argue an issue relevant to the question whether development consent should be granted. On any view, the O’Neills have a real and proper interest in an important and relevant question as to whether development consent should be granted. It was a clear case for ordering joinder. Having recognised as she did that the O’Neills had a significant personal as well as planning interest in the subject matter of the appeal, the judge ought to have joined them as a party. If the judge had a concern as to how they might assist the Environment Court, the judge, knowing that the O’Neills intended to be represented, should have adjourned the application to enable the O’Neills to instruct a legal representative to appear on their behalf and present the case for joinder.

23 The judge’s reasoning in all likelihood stemmed from a justified concern that the appeal would proceed in an orderly manner and with reasonable expedition. However, both those goals can be achieved by giving appropriate directions after the order for joinder. Where required, the directions can deal with such matters as directing the party joined to lodge within a specified time a statement of the issues he seeks to agitate on the appeal and to advise the nature of the evidence to be called. This appeal highlights the fact that, as a general rule, an adjoining owner should be joined. The question of overshadowing was an obvious issue. Appropriate directions could have been given to require the O’Neills within a specified time to give particulars of their case on that issue and the evidence they intended to call. The O’Neills would then have had an opportunity to obtain legal and planning advice and comply with that direction.

38 Development Act section 88(2)(c) 39 O’Neill at [12] 10

No Common Interest 24 It is apparent from the extract quoted above that the judge has also relied on her belief that the case for the O’Neills coincided with the case for the Council and that the Council was willing to call Mr O’Neill to give evidence. The judge erred in relying on that ground. There can be little doubt that to some degree the case for the Council might overlap against the case for the O’Neills. However, the Council and the O’Neills do not have a common interest. While the Council’s role in the appeal was to defend its decision and to seek a development which accords with planning principle, the Council might be willing to agree a modified proposal. The O’Neills’ interest was to modify the proposal in a manner satisfactory to them and, if not modified, to oppose the development. There may well be issues where the interests of the O’Neills will conflict with the interests of the Council or, at least, will diverge from them. The judge ought also to have considered the fact that it is not uncommon on an appeal in the Environment Court for a Council to agree a modified development proposal and that the modified proposal is not always to the satisfaction of an adjoining owner. It cannot be assumed, therefore, that the Council will maintain its opposition to the proposed development and continue to represent the interests of the adjoining owner. It is prudent, therefore, to proceed on the footing that the Council might accede to a modification of the proposal so that the preferred course is to join the adjoining owner as a party to the appeal. The judge therefore erred in relying on the asserted common interest. Further, it was not possible to conclude that the O’Neills would not have led additional evidence to that to be adduced by the Council until the O’Neills had outlined through their legal representative the nature of the case they intended to present. The interests of justice therefore required that the O’Neills be joined.

26 The judge also relied heavily on the decision in Onesteel. That was a decision on its own facts and provides little assistance in the case of an application for joinder by owners of land adjoining the land on which a development is proposed.

27 For these reasons, the judge erred in refusing to join the O’Neills as parties to the appeal. Subject to the question whether it is appropriate to extend the time within which to appeal, the decision should be set aside so that it is necessary for this court to consider afresh the issue in relation to the overshadowing of the O’Neills’ house. The fact that the Council’s Development Plan permits semi-detached dwellings does not have the necessary consequence that this development should be approved. The Development Act recognises adjoining owners have a right to be heard in respect of certain developments. The Council had refused to grant development consent. The issue the O’Neills seek to agitate is relevant and is based on provisions in the Council’s Development Plan. The O’Neills’ interests are not the same as those of the Council. It is manifestly in the interests of justice that the O’Neills should be permitted to present a case in opposition to the proposed development or at least to present some suggestions for modification of it.

It is now clear that the insertion of s88(2)(c) does not necessarily limit applicants for joinder where the development is not category 3 development.

Third Party Appeals: The Numbers

Victoria In Victoria in the year 2007-2008, 2239 planning appeals were instituted, of which 688 (32%) were third party or objector appeals.

The average time taken from lodgement of third party appeal to finalisation, in 2007-2008, was 19 weeks, compared with an average of 26 weeks for appeals against refusals to grant a permit, by applicants. For the period from 2002-2003 to 2007-2008, the median period between lodgement and finalisation for third-party appeals was between 19 and 14 weeks.

Regarding outcomes in third party appeals, the VCAT website reveals that during the period 2001-2002 to 2007-2008: o the appellant was fully successful (which I have taken to mean resulted in overturning the planning authority's decision) in 7 - 12% of matters, o the appellant was partially successful (which I take to mean resulted in a variation of the approval or permit conditions) in 36 - 58% of matters, o the appellant was not successful (which I take to mean resulted in the appeal being dismissed) in 20 - 35% of matters, and o the appeal was withdrawn before hearing in 12 - 19% of matters.

11 South Australia In South Australia the number of third party appeals lodged has been around 50 for the past four financial years, down from around 100 for the early 2000s. In the same period, the total number of appeals lodged has been 419 - 461. The annual numbers of third party appeals have been more consistent than the numbers of applicant appeals, which have been generally increasing over the past 10 years.

The number of third party appeals as a percentage of the total number of merit appeals has varied significantly, ranging from 14% in 2005–2006 to 37% in 1998–1999. For the past seven financial years the figure has been 20 – 14%. In 2008-2009, 16% of appeals lodged were third party appeals. It should be noted that there can be and often is, more than one notice of appeal lodged in relation to a development consent. The numbers of third party appeals reported are raw numbers and so are likely to be in respect of a lesser number of developments. Appeals in relation to the same development proceed to conference, and where necessary, hearing together.

Over the past five years the period between lodgement and final disposal of third party appeals has been on average, between 16 weeks and 23 weeks.

The numbers of third party appeals proceeding to hearing, as a percentage of the total number of merit appeals, has generally mirrored the lodgement figures. For the past seven financial years has been 11 – 22%. The actual number of third party appeals proceeding to hearing has been less than 20 since 2004–2005.

Of the third party appeals that proceed to hearing, the percentage of those matters where the decision has been varied, reversed, or confirmed has fluctuated over the past 15 years. Over the past four financial years however, the decision of the planning authority was varied in 33 – 50% of matters. Generally, this means that the conditions of consent were varied. The consent was reversed in 10 – 27% matters only. The chart below presents a picture of the outcomes of third-party appeals since 1996.

Third Party Appeals that Proceeded to Hearing - Outcome (percentage of total appeals proceeding to hearing)

120%

100%

80% Decision varied 60% Decision reversed Decision confirmed 40%

20%

6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 ------lf a 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 h 9 9 0 0 0 0 t 9 99 99 9 0 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 s 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

However, as the following chart shows, the actual numbers of third party appeals proceeding to hearing and judgment has been very low. Accordingly it may be dangerous to draw any conclusions from the percentages provided above.

Judgment Results

6 Decision Confirmed 4 Decision Reversed

Number Decision Varied 2

0 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 Year

Arguments Against and For Third Party Appeal Rights

The usual arguments against providing third-party appeal rights in planning legislation are well-known. They include that appeals would: 1. add significantly to delays in the planning system 2. add to the cost of development 3. open the floodgates and create a "meddler's charter" 4. be a deterrent to investment in the local economy 5. create an unmanageable administrative burden 6. provide an opportunity for a well-heeled vocal minority, not representative of the local community, to dominate 7. exacerbate issues such as social exclusion and lead to greater social disadvantage 8. reinforce an adversarial approach to development 9. weaken the representative nature of local democracy and decision-making

In addition, it is argued that appeal rights at the time of consideration of development proposals are unnecessary because the community has had an opportunity for input into the determination of appropriate forms of development within the local area at the time of community consultation on the proposed planning policy (town planning scheme or development plan) for the area.

This position assumes that there has been adequate and meaningful consultation of the community, with the community understanding the implications of settling planning policy for the area. I am not convinced that consultation presently is adequate, nor that the community generally understands or is was aware of planning policy. Secondly, the position assumes that the planning policy is able to exhaustively identify all possible uses and indicate whether they are desirable or undesirable in the area, leaving no room for argument as to whether a particular proposed development might be desirable if it can be shown to have no adverse impacts on the environment or the amenity of other occupiers of land.

Of course there are some negative effects of providing for third party appeals. They will add to costs, and delay the commencement of development, where approval for a development is ultimately confirmed. However, the evidence shows that the right to appeal on the part of third parties has not opened the floodgates. The prospect of an appeal will not deter investment in quality projects; namely those that accord with the planning policy for the area and have been designed to have minimal impact on neighbours and the surrounding community.

13 There have been many commentators who are convinced that the benefits outweigh the negative impacts. One of these commentators, Stephen Willey, articulated the case for third- party appeals in his 2006 article40. He has made the following points:

o The traditional argument that planning legislation was not intended to give broad ranging rights to individual members of the public derives from a classical property rights approach. The postmodernist view is that planning is ultimately a communicative process which needs to embrace the public in more meaningful ways. It is now recognized that society is not homogenous but comprised of a range of interests that are fragmented, contradictory and even conflictory. Thus, local government decisions presented as being in "the public interest" make an ambitious claim. Third party appeals facilitate greater public participation and beneficially draw the public into land-use decision-making.

o Third-party appeals allow multiple views to be advanced concerning good planning. They provide a forum where individual rights and concerns, particularly of those who are likely to be affected, can be weighed against collective concerns.

o Third-party appeals may actually improve planning decisions. They recognize the fact that parties other than the planning authority and the developer have an interest in, and can make a contribution towards, a preferred land-use outcome. They recognize that third parties can bring detailed local knowledge, not necessarily held by the planning authority or the developer, to the planning decision.

o The third-party appeals ensure greater transparency of the decision-making process. They dispel fears about collusion between the developer and planning authorities. They are a means of checking that planning authorities do not act capriciously or arbitrarily.

In addition, I would add that the fact that most jurisdictions in Australia have long provided for third-party appeal rights suggest that they are perceived to be of benefit to the community, perhaps for different reasons in different locations. I must acknowledge however, that where there is a strong culture of third-party appeals, as there has been in Victoria for nearly 50 years, it would be difficult to withdraw third-party appeal rights from the community.

Ultimately, our views about third-party appeal rights are generally a product of the culture within which we have worked. Arguments can be made either way. Whether third-party appeal rights are adopted, limited or abandoned may well come down to a decision about the kind of society we want to live in and the clarity of the development plan, planning scheme or other policy document. Assuming that there is a discretion in the decision- makers, the issue of to whether third-party appeal rights are necessary, may be resolved by the answers to the following questions:

• Does the community have confidence that the policy document for a particular area sufficiently describes the desired future character, and contains a comprehensive set of objectives and principles for development in the area, relevant to the local context including the environment? • Does the community have confidence in the decision-makers to make a decision in the best interests of the community now and in the future? • Is there a transparency about the decision-making?

40 Willey, Stephen, "Planning Appeals: Third-Party Rights Legitimate? The Case Study of Victoria, Australia" in (2006) 24 Urban Policy and Research 369 14 • Is there a guarantee that the decision-makers will assess the development in the context of the desired future character, objectives and principles of development for the area (assuming the adequacy of these policy statements)?

The Future

Appeal rights for applicants have traditionally been justified on the basis of property rights. As the Premier of South Australia, in introducing the bill for the Planning and Development Act in 1966, said:

A satisfactory urban environment cannot be achieved without the acceptance by the community of some degree of legal restriction on the use and development of land, but it is essential that in a democratic society every individual who feels aggrieved by any administrative decision should have a right of appeal to an independent appeal body.41

However property rights have to be balanced against citizen rights of participation, and the modern desire on the part of citizens for transparency and accountability in government and decision-making bodies.

Indeed, in 2001, the Independent Commission against Corruption in New South Wales produced a discussion paper entitled Taking the Devil Out Of Development. Following the statement that many complaints received each year about councils approving developments where people who consider that they are affected by the decision so they did not receive notification of proposed development, and considers that the failure is indicative of maladministration or corrupt behaviour, the Commission proffered the following:

It is far better to be open and transparent than limit public awareness through minimalist approaches to notification of applications..., and one could add, through limiting appeals by third parties.

Leslie Stein put it another way, in an article on planning and accountability42, although he was not speaking particularly about third-party appeals:

The Courts and Tribunals have an important filtering function to prevent irrelevant considerations from influencing an application.

Stein concluded, inter alia, with an observation on the benefits of appeals generally being heard by courts or tribunals. Although he may not have intended it, the following statement is a clear argument for third-party appeals rights to a court or tribunal:

After 25 years as an academic, practitioner and judge in this (planning) area, it is my clear belief that the authorities must be kept in line and planning must be viewed as a matrix of interconnected policy, legal, scientific and political filaments which can only be seen when the fullest testing is done on the evidence that is brought forward.

Where there are third-party appeal rights, their scope has been narrowed, particularly in recent years. One of the recent catalysts for the reduction of the extent of third-party appeal rights was the endorsement in 2005 by the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council of the Leading Practice Model for Development Assessment. The Council agreed “the Model was an important reference for individual jurisdictions in advancing reform of development assessment”.43

The Model developed by the Development Assessment Forum, did not seek to eradicate third party appeals. Instead, it recommends limiting third party appeals as follows:44

41 Hansard, House of Assembly, South Australian Parliament, 3 February 1966, page 3789 42 Stein, L, "Planning and Accountability" in (1995) Australian Planner vol 32, no 2, p 71 43 Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council Communique 4 August 2005 44 Development Assessment Forum, Leading Practice Model for Development Assessment 2005, p 33 15

Opportunities for third-party appeals should not be provided where applications are wholly assessed against objective rules and tests. Opportunities for third-party appeals may be provided in limited other cases. Where provided, a review of a decision should only be against the same policies and objective rules and tests as the first assessment.

What this leading practice achieves: Avoids unnecessary review where objective rules and tests have already been established by a consultative process. Where Option B in Leading Practice Eight applies, an opportunity can be provided for a review of a decision by an expert panel that a council considers contrary to policy objectives. What CDC said: “…In a criteria-driven system, where value judgements are not being made in assessing a project, third party appeals are not required: instead, full community engagement should characterise the formulation of the criteria and the approval of the statutory documents. On a case by case basis, if the assessment authority believes that the criteria entail third parties being significantly affected by judgements about quality or impact, rights to third party review can be defined in the statutory document itself” (CDC Vol 145 p15)

As the Chair of the Development Assessment Forum said in the foreword to the document:

The leading practice model is simple and logical. …. By adopting the DAF leading practice model, jurisdictions will be able to ensure appropriate scrutiny of development applications, while delivering faster, cheaper assessments.

While I make no comment on the above extracts from The Leading Practice Model For Development Assessment, it is obvious from a perusal of legislation in various jurisdictions that its recommendations in relation to third-party appeals have been adopted and implemented. However, while I don't have a crystal ball, I think it unlikely that third-party appeal rights will disappear from those jurisdictions that presently enjoy them. Apart from those people who consider that they will be directly affected by proposed development, there are groups concerned, as most of us are, with the consequences of climate change, impacts on biodiversity conservation, water resources, etc, who will seek out opportunities through third party appeals, to be heard in relation to development perceived to have an impact in these areas.

This brings me to how third party appeals are best managed to endeavour to avoid the negative aspects that developers are wont to assume will follow their introduction. The following suggestions assume that the nature and the limits of third party appeals are set out in the relevant legislation.

The experience in the ERD Court has shown that the following actions are necessary: • Applications to join as a party to an appeal must be heard, on notice to the parties, and determined, promptly after lodgment. • The court/tribunal will need to explain to applicants for joinder what is expected of them if they are joined as a party to an appeal. • The court/tribunal will need to have information that is readily accessible in a variety of formats and in plain language, about the conduct of appeals and procedure. • Third party appeals should be listed for hearing without delay, but only after: o There has been a conference of the parties facilitated by a member of court with relevant knowledge and/or experience, in the nature of conciliation or mediation, with a view to resolving the issues between the parties;

45 Centre for Developing Cities 2003a, Leveraging the Long Term: A Model for Leading Practice Development Assessment. Volume 1, University of Canberra, ACT

16 o The appellant has articulated the nature of its case, including the issues and the nature of the evidence it will call in support thereof; o Orders have been made for exchange of experts’ statements and a meeting of the experts; and o Third parties have been reminded that they should familiarise themselves with the relevant rules and practice directions.

Apart from the above, it goes without saying, that the hearing of a third party appeal particularly where the appellant is self-represented, will benefit from firm management by the presiding member, and that criticism based on delay will be unfounded if a decision/judgment in the matter is delivered promptly.

Conclusion

As with town planning legislation in the 1920s, there is an inevitability about the advent of third party appeals in Western Australia. They will result in some projects being delayed and in some cases, cancelled, with the developer returning to the drawing board. There will be costs. However, the result is likely to be beneficial in the long term, leading to consequences such as better planning outcomes, based on a full and proper assessment taking into account local knowledge, and transparency of decision-making with consequent community confidence in the process and resulting in better, higher quality development.

Given the inevitability of (limited) third party appeals – either soon or when there is such controversy over a planned development, as happened in South Australia many years ago, that it is forced upon a reluctant government - I have tried in this paper, through articulating some history of third party appeals, to draw attention to the courses that might best be avoided and generally as to what might be expected, and how they might be managed in everyone’s interests. oOo