View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
City of Belmont
Attachments
Ordinary Council Meeting
Held24 November 2009
A1
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING Attachments 24 November 2009
Ordinary Council 24/11/09
Item 12.2 refers
Attachment 1
Grandstand Road Realignment -Road Closure & Dedication
A2
A3
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING Attachments 24 November 2009
Ordinary Council 24/11/09
Item 12.4 refers
Attachment 2
Lot 200 (325) Fulham Street, Cloverdale
DA30 – Preliminary & Final Built Strata Approval
A4
A5
A6
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING Attachments 24 November 2009
Ordinary Council 24/11/09
Item 12.4 refers
Attachment 3
Lot 200 (325) Fulham Street, Cloverdale
DA30 – Preliminary & Final Built Strata Approval
A7
DA30 – PRELIMINARY & FINAL BUILT STRATA APPROVAL
POWER / DUTY ASSIGNED TO: Local Government
POWER TO DELEGATE: Planning & Development Act 2005:- s16(3)(e) Delegation by Commission
DELEGATION TO: Director Community & Statutory Services Manager Planning Services Manager Building Services
Senior Planning Officer
POWER / DUTY DELEGATED: Planning and Development Act 2005 S16(3)(e) Delegation by Commission
Strata Titles Act 1985:- s25 Certificate of Commission; and s27 Review of Commission decision
FUNCTION: Determine applications for preliminary built strata approval, and final built strata approval & endorse the applicable Form 26 after the conditions preliminary strata plan approval have been fulfilled, as delegated by the Western Australian Planning Commission.
CONDITIONS: Must act in accordance with the City’s “Standard Conditions Relating to Delegations”.
This delegation must not be exercised by the delegated officer for applications that:
� Propose the creation of a vacant lot; � Propose vacant air stratas in multi-tiered strata
scheme developments; and � Where, in the opinion of the WAPC as notified to
the relevant local government in writing, or in the opinion of the relevant local government as notified to the WAPC in writing, relate to a type of development.
RECORD KEEPING: Delegation proforma register to DW11/005.
Ensure that evidentiary documents are retained in the City’s record keeping systems that meet the requirements of LocalGovernment (Administration) Regulations 1996 Reg.19 - Records to be kept by Delegates.
REFERENCES: Decision Making Plan – Decision Level 4
POWER TO SUBDELEGATE: Nil.
A8
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING Attachments 24 November 2009
Ordinary Council 24/11/09
Item 12.5 refers
Attachment 4
Development Area 7 Land Ownership Plan
A9
A10
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING Attachments 24 November 2009
Ordinary Council 24/11/09
Item 12.5 refers
Attachment 5
Development Area 7 Opportunities & Constraints Plan
A11
A12
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING Attachments 24 November 2009
Ordinary Council 24/11/09
Item 12.5 refers
Attachment 6
Development Area 7 Proposed Structure Plan
Option 1
A13
A14
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING Attachments 24 November 2009
Ordinary Council 24/11/09
Item 12.5 refers
Attachment 7
Development Area 7 Proposed Structure Plan
Option 2
A15
A16
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING Attachments 24 November 2009
Ordinary Council 24/11/09
Item 12.6 refers
Attachment 8
Development Area 8Land Ownership Plan
A17
A18
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING Attachments 24 November 2009
Ordinary Council 24/11/09
Item 12.6 refers
Attachment 9
Opportunities & Constraints Plan
A19
A20
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING Attachments 24 November 2009
Ordinary Council 24/11/09
Item 12.6 refers
Attachment 10
Development Area 8 Proposed Structure Plan
Option 1
A21
A22
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING Attachments 24 November 2009
Ordinary Council 24/11/09
Item 12.6 refers
Attachment 11
Development Area 8 Proposed Structure Plan
Option 2
A23
A24
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING Attachments 24 November 2009
Ordinary Council 24/11/09
Item 12.7 refers
Attachment 12
Lot3 (116) Kooyong Road, Rivervale
Site Plan, Floor Plan & Elevation
A25
A26
A27
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING Attachments 24 November 2009
Ordinary Council 24/11/09
Item 12.8 refers
Attachment 13
The SpringsStructure Plan
A28
A29
A30
A31
A32
A33
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING Attachments 24 November 2009
Ordinary Council 24/11/09
Item 12.8 refers
Attachment 14
The SpringsTable of Revision
A34
A35
A36
A37
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING Attachments 24 November 2009
Ordinary Council 24/11/09
Item 12.8 refers
Attachment 15
The SpringsStructure Plan Document
A38
A39
Tayl
or B
urre
ll B
arne
tt To
wn
Plan
ning
& D
esig
n
TheSprings
Structure
Plan
October2009
Preparedfor
LandCorp
A40
DOCUMENTHISTORYANDSTATUS
JobNo.
04/101
Author
KarenWright
Revision
Date
Prepared
Reviewedby
Approvedby
Date
Approved
Rev0
16.02.06
BenDeMarchi/LexBarnett
LexBarnett
16.02.06
Rev1
02.03.06
LexBarnett
LexBarnett
03.03.06
Rev2
07.04.06
LexBarnett
LexBarnett
07.04.06
Rev3
20.04.06
LexBarnett
LexBarnett
20.04.06
Rev4
08.01.07
KarenWright
LexBarnett
12.01.07
Rev5
03.08.07
CityofBelm
ont
CityofBelm
ont
28.08.07
Rev6
06.10.07
KarenWright
LexBarnett
25.10.07
Rev7
18.12.07
KarenWright
KarenWright
18.12.07
Rev8
07.10.09
KarenWright
PreparedBy:
TaylorBurrellBarnettTownPlanningandDesign
187RobertsRoad
SUBIACO
WA
6008
Phone:93822911
Fax:
93824586
admin@tbbplanning.com.au
Inassociationwith:
Cossill&Webley
Hassell
Estill&Associates
NSProjects
PlanE
RileyConsulting
ColliersInternational
SinclairKnightMerz
A41
PARTONE
STATUTORYPLANNING
A42
TABLEOFCONTENTS–PARTONE
1STATUTORYPLA
NNING
1
1.1
Structure
PlanArea
1
2STRUCTUREPLA
NCONTENT
1
3INTERPRETATION
1
4OPERATIONDATE
1
5RELA
TIONSHIP
WITHTHESCHEME
1
6STRUCTUREPLA
N1
6.1
PrecinctDevelopmentRequirements
1
6.2
SpecialProvisions
3
6.2.1
Development
6
6.2.2
RetailFloorspace
6
6.2.3
DetailedAreaPlans
6
6.2.4
DesignGuidelines
6
6.2.5
transportplanning
7
6.2.6
LandscapingofPOSandStreets
7
6.2.7
DeveloperContributions
7
A43
TheSpringsStructure
Plan
04/101
1|Page
1STATUTORYPLANNIN
G
1.1
STRUCTUREPLAN
AREA
TheStructure
Planshallapplyto
thelandcontainedwithin
theinneredgeofthered
lineonPlans13form
ingTheSpringsStructure
Plan.
TheStructure
Planareacomprisesapproximately13.6709ha.
2STRUCTUREPLAN
CONTENT
ThisStructure
Plancomprises:
Statutory
PlanningSection(PartOne)
Explanatory
Report(PartTwo)
3IN
TERPRETATIO
N
Thewordsandexpressionsusedin
this
Structure
Planshallhavetherespective
meaningsgivento
them
intheCityofBelm
ontLocalPlanningSchemeNo.14.
4OPERATIO
NDATE
ThisStructure
Planshallcomeinto
effect
whenitisadoptedbytheCouncilpursuant
tosubClause
10.18.10.1
oftheSchemeandendorsedbytheWestern
Australian
PlanningCommission(W
APC)pursuantto
subClause
10.18.11.2oftheScheme.
5RELATIO
NSHIP
WITHTHESCHEME
Intheeventofthere
beinganyinconsistenciesorconflicts
betw
eentheprovisions,
standards
or
requirements
of
the
Scheme
and
the
provisions,
standards
or
requirementsoftheStructure
Plan,thentheprovisions,standardsorrequirementsof
theSchemeshallprevail.
6STRUCTUREPLAN
TheStructure
Plancomprisestheplansoutlinedbelow.
Plan1–PrecinctPlan
IdentificationofTheSpringsdevelopmentprecincts.
Plan2–LandUse
Outlineslanduse.Alldevelopmentshouldbegenerallyinaccordance
withthe
density
andlanduse
asshownin
Plan2andasdescribedwithin
Table
1and
Section6.0ofPart2ofthisreport.
Plan3–BuildingHeights
Depicts
theintended
buildingheights
within
theStructure
Plan
area.
All
developmentshoulddemonstrate
consistency
withtheBuildingHeightsPlan.
6.1
PRECIN
CTDEVELOPMENTREQUIREMENTS
LandwithintheStructure
Planshallbedevelopedinconform
itywithTable1.A44
2|Page
TABLE
1:PRECINCTDEVELO
PMENTTABLE
Precinct
RCode
Min.Height
Max.Height
Min.sidesetback
Min.frontsetback
Max.frontsetback
Proportionof
max.60m
2
plotratio
floorarea
onebedroom
dwellings
Proportionof
max.90m
2plot
ratiofloorarea
twobedroom
dwellings
1Hawksburn
Road
R60
617m
and4storeys
nil
35m
2GreatEastern
Highway
Mixed
Use
R80
andR100
6m
or2storeys
27m
and6storeys
RCodes/BCA
Podium:Nil
Abovepodium:4m
15%
15%
3HighwayPeninsula
Mixed
Use
R250
30m
Podium:15m
Tower:AsperSched.
9,TPS14
Podium
adjacentto
RoweAve:Nil
10m
allother
boundaries
RoweAvenuePodium:
nil
15%
15%
4RiversdaleRoad
North
R100/160
AsperDetailedAreaPlans
15%
15%
5RiversdaleRoad
South
R60and
R80
EastofHawksburn:
6m
or2storeys
WestofHawksburn:
6m
or2storeys
EastofHawksburn:
17m
/4storeys
WestofHawksburn:
27m
and6storeys
RCodes/BCA
RoweAve:2m
CnrRowe/H
awksburn:
Rowe–nil
Hawksburn
–2
CnrHawksburn/
Riversdale:nil
RoweAve:2m
CnrRowe/
Hawksburn:
Hawksburn
–2m
CnrHawksburn/
Riversdale:3m
6RoweAvenueEast
Residential
R60and
R80
6m
or2storeys
17m
and4storeys
RCodes/BCA
General:3m
Rowe(m
idblock):2m
CnrRoweand
Hawksburn:nilto
Rowe
Ave,2m
toHawksburn
Road
General:5m
Rowe(m
idblock):
4m
CnrRoweand
Hawksburn:4m
to
Hawksburn
Road
7RoweAvenueEast
–MixedUse
R100and
Mixed
Use
R80
6m
or2storeys
17m
and4storeys
RCodes/BCA
Nil
3m
15%
15%
Podium:6m
or2
storeys
Podium:15m
or3
storeys
Podium:nil
Podium:nil
Podium:5m
8RoweAvenue
West–Residential
Towers
R160
Tower15m
and3
storeys
Tower30m
and9
storeys
Tower:25%frontage
width
(50%total)
Tower:5m
Tower:n/a
15%
15%
A45
A46
A47
A48
6|Page
6.2
SPECIALPROVISIO
NS
6.2.1
DEVELOPMENT
Inadditionto
thePrecinctDevelopmentTable,thefollowingprovisionsapply:
i)TheRCode/densitiesare
tobereadasnumericallyproportionalto
dwellings
andnotfloorspace.
ii)
Forthewholestructure
planarea,in
respect
ofsingle
bedroom
dwellingsthat
are
multiple
dwellings,subClause
6.1.3
A3(i)oftheResidentialDesignCodes
(Variation1)isvariedbysubstitutingthewords“theminim
um
site
areamay
bereducedbyupto
onethird”with“theminim
um
site
areaperdwellingmay
bereducedbyupto
onehalf”.Thisdensity
bonusof50%
canbeachievedon
thebasisthattheadditionaldwellingswillbeless
thanorequalto
60m
2.
iii)
Within
each
ofthePrecincts2,3,4,5,7and8,aminim
um
of15%ofthetotal
numberofdwellingsdevelopedshallbeamaximum
of60m
2in
plotratioarea
andafurther15%
ofthetotalnumberofdwellingsshallbeamaximum
of
90m
2in
plotratioarea,thenumberascalculatedbeingroundedupordown
asappropriate.
iv)
Thistableisto
bereadinconjunctionwiththemore
detailedprovisionsofThe
Springs
built
form
guidelines,
regarding
requirements
for
laneway/rear
setbacks,facades,articulation,projections,fenestrationandgeneralbuiltform
character.
6.2.2
RETAIL
FLOORSPACE
Retailfloorspace
within
TheSpringsshallnotexceed400m2andshallbegenerally
distributedin
thelocationsasidentifiedonPlan2LandUse
andin
accordance
with
Part2,Section6.3.4ofthisreport.
6.2.3
DETAILEDAREAPLANS
Detailed
Area
Plans
are
required
tobe
prepared
priorto
subdivision
and/or
development(exceptdemolitionofexistingstructures)
inaccordance
withClause
10.18.16oftheSchemeinthefollowingcircumstances:
1.
Forthose
lots
adjacentto
CracknellPark
andtheRoweAvenueAmphitheatre
toaddress
interface
issues.
TheDetailedAreaPlansare
toaddress:
Minim
um
andmaximum
setbacksfrom
thepublicopenspace;
Requirementforhabitableroomsto
overlookthepublicopenspace;
Visuallyperm
eablefencing;and
Acceptableintrusionsinto
thesetback
area.
2.
Riversdale
RoadNorthprecinct.
TheDetailedAreaPlanmust
address
the
following:
Thewholeprecinct
oriftheCityofBelm
ontandWAPCagree,aportion
oftheprecinct;
Creationandpreservationofsignificantsightlines(orviewcorridors)to
andfrom
theSwanRiver;
Overshadowing;
Controlofbuildingbulkviasetbacks;
Response
totopography;
Articulationofpodium
andtowerelements;
Address
tostreetandpublicrealm
.
Inadditionto
Clause
10.18.16oftheSchemerequiringCityofBelm
ontadoption,a
DetailedAreaPlanwithin
theRiversdale
NorthPrecinct,orportionoftheprecinct
as
agreedto
above,mustbeendorsedbytheWAPC.
6.2.4
DESIG
NGUID
ELIN
ES
TheSpringsDesignGuidelinesshould
bepreparedandadoptedasaLocalPlanning
Policy
pursuantto
Clause
2.3
oftheScheme.TheGuidelinesshould
notberegarded
asprescriptivelyastheStructure
Plan,withtheunderlyingintentbeingasim
portant
asthestatedprovisions.In
caseswhere
itcanbedemonstratedthattheintentofthe
Guidelinescanbemore
effectively
achievedin
adifferentway,thenCouncilshould
havesufficientflexibilityto
considersuch
casesontheirmerit.
Allsubdivisionanddevelopmentshould
begenerallyin
accordance
withtheDesign
GuidelinesPolicy.
A49
TheSpringsStructure
Plan
04/101
7|Page
6.2.5
TRANSPORTPLANNIN
G
ATransport,Access
andParkingreportisto
bepreparedandadoptedbytheCityof
Belm
ontandtheWAPCto
supportTheSpringsStructure
Plan.
Thereport
willbepreparedbasedontheguidingprinciplesmentionedin
Section
6.3.7.1ofPart2ofthisreport.
Theappropriate
provisionoffootpathsandsharedpathsisintegralto
TheSprings
developmentandshallbeprovidedin
accordance
withFigure
21ofPart
2ofthis
report.
6.2.6
LANDSCAPIN
GOFPOSANDSTREETS
Nosubdivisionordevelopmentshalloccurunless
satisfactory
arrangements
have
been
madewith
theCouncilforthelandscapingofadjacentstreets
and,where
appropriate,POS,generallyinaccordance
withPart2,Sections6.3.6.3
6.3.6.7.
6.2.7
DEVELOPERCONTRIBUTIO
NS
Withtheexceptionofdemolition,nodevelopmentorsubdivisionto
create
alotshall
occurin
the
Structure
Plan
Area
untilAmendmentNo.53
isgazetted
oran
arrangementsuitable
totheWAPCandtheCouncilisapprovedthatwould
perm
it
developercontributionstowardssharedcosts.
A50
TheSpringsStructure
Plan
ADOPTIONOFSTRUCTUREPLAN
THESPRINGSSTRUCTUREPLANWASADOPTEDBYRESOLU
TIONOFTHECOUNCILOFTHECITYOFBELM
ONTON
.......................................(DATE)
ANDTHESEALOFTHEMUNICIPALITYWASPURSUANTTOTHECOUNCIL’SRESOLU
TIONHEREUNTOAFFIXEDIN
THEPRESENCEOF:
...................................................................
Mayor,CityofBelm
ont
...................................................................
ChiefExecutiveOfficer,CityofBelm
ont
.......................................(DATE)
ANDBYRESOLU
TIONOFTHEWestern
AustralianPlanningCommissionON
.......................................(DATE)
SignedforandonbehalfoftheWestern
AustralianPlanningCommission
...................................................................
AnofficeroftheCommissiondulyauthorisedbytheCommissionpursuantto
S.16ofPlanning&DevelopmentAct2005forthatpurpose,
inthepresence
of:
...................................................................Witness
.......................................Date
A51
TheSpringsStructure
Plan
PARTTWO
EXPLANATORYREPORT
A52
TheSpringsStructure
Plan
TABLEOFCONTENTS–PARTTWO
1INTRODUCTION
11
1.1
Location
11
1.2
StudyTeam
11
1.3
ProjectBackground
13
1.3.1
SiteHistory
13
1.3.2
CityofBelm
ontTownPlanningSchemeNo.13
13
1.4
PublicConsultation
15
1.4.1
LandownerWorkshops
15
1.4.2
PublicMeeting/W
orkshop
16
1.4.3
ConsultationwiththeCityofBelm
ont
16
1.4.4
CommunityIssues
16
2PLA
NNINGCONTEXT
17
2.1
Statutory
PlanningContext
17
2.1.1
form
erMetropolitanRegionScheme
17
2.1.2
CityofBelm
ontTownPlanningSchemeNo.14
18
2.2
StrategicPlanningContext
18
2.2.1
State
GovernmentLevel
18
2.2.2
LocalGovernmentLevel
21
2.3
CurrentProvisionofPublicOpenSpace
21
2.3.1
History
ofOpenSpace
ProvisionwithinThe
SpringsandTheCityofBelm
ont
21
3SITEANALYSIS
24
3.1
PhysicalDescription
24
3.2
ExistingTenure
24
3.3
ContextAnalysis
24
3.4
OpportunitiesandConstraints
24
3.4.1
Opportunities
24
3.4.2
Constraints
28
4EXISTINGSERVICEINFRASTRUCTURE
29
4.1
Roads
29
4.2
DrainageandStorm
waterManagement
29
4.3
WaterandSewerServices
29
4.4
PowerSupply
29
4.5
Telecommunications
29
4.6
MovementNetw
ork
29
4.6.1
ExistingRoadsandTrafficVolume
29
4.6.2
PedestrianandDualUse
Paths
31
4.6.3
PublicTransport
31
4.6.4
CarParking
31
5EXISTINGENVIRONMENT
32
5.1
Topography
32
5.2
ExistingVegetation
32
5.2.1
TheSpringsStructure
PlanArea
32
5.2.2
SwanRiverForeshore
Reserve
32
5.3
HeritageandCulture
34
5.3.1
Hawksburn
RoadFlameTrees
36
5.3.2
AboriginalHeritage
36
6STRUCTUREPLA
N37
6.1
Structure
PlanForm
at
37
6.2
DesignPhilosophy
37
6.2.1
DevelopmentObjectives
37
6.2.2
SustainabilityObjectives
41
6.3
DevelopmentProposal
41
6.3.1
DesignPrinciples
41
6.3.2
VisualIm
pact
42
6.3.3
HousingChoiceandLotYield
44
6.3.4
Retail/Commercial/MixedUse
Development
44
6.3.5
MovementNetw
ork
44
6.3.6
ProvisionofPublicOpenSpace
45
6.3.7
Transport,TrafficSafety
andManagement
54
6.3.8
ProposedInfrastructure
Servicing
55
A53
6.4
DesignGuidelines/DetailedAreaPlans
58
6.4.1
Hawksburn
Road
59
6.4.2
RoweAvenue
59
6.4.3
RoweAvenue–WestResidentialTowers
60
6.4.4
RoweAvenue–EastResidential
60
6.4.5
RoweAvenue–EASTMixedUse
60
6.4.6
GreatEastern
Highway
61
6.4.7
RiversdaleRoad–South
61
6.4.8
RiversdaleRoad–North
62
6.4.9
HighwayPeninsula
62
6.5
PrecinctDevelopmentRequirements
62
6.6
Relationshipto
LiveableNeighbourhoodsCommunity
DesignCodes
65
7IM
PLEMENTATION
66
7.1
Structure
PlanAdoption
66
7.2
Infrastructure
CostSharingProvisions
66
7.2.2
Services
67
7.2.3
Landscaping
67
7.2.4
AssociatedSchemeCosts
68
7.3
DesignGuidelines
68
7.4
DetailedAreaPlans
68
7.5
Subdivision
69
7.6
RoadClosure
69
7.7
CracknellPark
PublicOpenSpace
69
8CONCLU
SION
70
FIGURES
Figure
1:
LocationPlan
Figure
2:
PreviousSpringsPrecinctDevelopmentPlan
Figure
3:
CurrentMetropolitanRegionScheme
Figure
4:
ProposedMetropolitanRegionScheme
Figure
5:
CurrentTownPlanningSchemeZoning
Figure
6:
ExistingandForm
erPark
Areas
Figure
7:
ExistingLandUse
Figure
8:
ContextAnalysisandWalkableCatchments
Figure
9:
OpportunitiesandConstraints
Figure
10:
ExistingServices
Figure
11:
ExistingVegetation
Figure
12:
HeritageSites
Figure
13:
Masterplan
Figure
14A:
Structure
Plan
LandUses
Figure
14B:
Structure
Plan
BuildingHeights
Figure
15:
Structure
PlanSubPrecincts
Figure
16:
ProposedAreasofPublicOpenSpace
Figure
17:
ProposedHawksburn
RoadVillageSpi ne
Figure
18:
ProposedRoweAvenueAmphitheatre
Figure
19:
ProposedRoweAvenueAmphitheatreCross
Section
Figure
20A:
LandscapeConceptPlan
Figure
20B:
LandscapeConceptPlan–VegetationPlan
Figure
21:
ProposedFootpath
Plan
Figure
22:
PrecinctLocations
Figure
23:
Hawksburn
RoadReserve–VillageSpine
Figure
24:
ProposedRoweAvenueStreetscape
Figure
25:
WestResidentialTowers:NewRoadReserve
Figure
26:
ProposedHawksburn
RoadStreetscape
Figure
27:
RiversideRoadReserveandHawksburn
Intersection
APPENDICES
APPENDIXA
ArboriculturalReport
A54
TheSpringsStructure
Plan
04/101
11|Page
1IN
TRODUCTIO
N
In1993,theCityofBelm
ontcommencedinvestigationspertainingto
theproposed
redevelopmentofthedilapidatedinnerurbanareacolloquiallyknownasTheSprings.
The
City
commenced
preparation
ofTown
Planning
Scheme
No.13,a
Guided
DevelopmentScheme,to
facilitate
theredevelopment.However,alack
oflandowner
supportfortheschemeresultedin
thethenMinisterforPlanning,onadvice
from
the
Western
AustralianPlanningCommission(W
APC),rejectingtheschemein
November
2003.
The
Minister
subsequently
instructed
the
then
Department
for
Planning
and
Infrastructure
(DPI)to
reviewtheplanningofTheSpringsandprepare
anewscheme
tobedulypresentedback
totheMinister.TheDPI,in
turn,commissionedLandCorp
toassumetheroleofproject
managerforTheSpringsredevelopmentscheme,witha
strictemphasisonensuringthatacoordinatedapproach
betakentowardsthemaster
planningofthearea,withclose
consultationwiththeDPI,CityofBelm
ont(theCity)
andthesite’slandowners.
Since
then,theproject
hasbeenthesubj ect
ofsubstantialnegotiation,consultation,
research
and
design,in
an
endeavour
todeliver
aMaster
Plan
vision
and
implementationframework
thatoptimisestheuniqueandvariedattributesofthesite
anditslocation,meets
withtheapprovalofthemajority
ofthelandowners,and
satisfiesthestatutory
andpolicy
expectationsoftheCityandtheDPI.
Thisprocess
hasculm
inatedin
thepreparationofafinalMasterPlanandStructure
Planwhichare
presentedin
this
report.TheMasterPlanis
intendedto
visually
conveythedevelopmentvisionforTheSprings,to
helpprovidethecommunitywitha
clearunderstanding
ofthe
underlying
intentofthe
form
alStructure
Plan.The
Structure
Plan
willultim
ately
provide
the
regulatory
guidingframework
forthe
redevelopmentofTheSpringsinto
avibrantmedium
tohighdensity
residential
mixeduse
development.
Thereportrepresentsthework
ofvariousconsultantsonall
aspects
of
the
proposal,
the
outcomes
from
the
landowner
workshops
and
consultationwiththeCity,theDPI,andthebroadercommunity.
The
Structure
Plan
has
been
prepared
inaccordance
with
the
Liveable
Neighbourh
oodsCommunityDesignCode,andotherrelevantState
andLocalplanning
policies.
1.1
LOCATIO
N
The
Springscomprisesapproximately
13.6haofland,in
fragmented
ownership,
boundedbyGraham
Farm
erFreeway,GreatEastern
Highway,BrightonRoadandthe
SwanRiverforeshore,asshowninFigure
1.
Thesite
isstrategicallylocatedapproximately4km
eastofthePerthCBDand700750
metresnortheast
oftheBurswoodTrain
Station.Itisalsoapproximately700metres
from
theBurswoodResortandCasino.
Themain
roadaccess
into
theprecinct
isvia
thesignalcontrolledintersectionat
GreatEastern
Highway
and
Brighton
Road,with
secondary
access
available
by
RiversdaleRoadviaabridgeovertheGraham
Farm
erFreeway.
The
precinct
enjoysdirect
interface
with
the
Swan
Riverforeshore,and
direct
frontageonto
GreatEastern
Highway,albeitwithlimitedvehicle
access.Whilst
the
site
directlyabutstheGraham
Farm
erFreeway,there
isasignificantleveldifferential
overmuch
ofthisfrontagelimitinganyvisualrelationship.
1.2
STUDYTEAM
Inorderto
achievethemostsuccessfuloutcomesfortheproject,amultidisciplinary
consultantteam
wascompiled,comprising:
LandCorp
PrincipalDevelopers/ProjectDirector
NSProjects
ProjectManagers
TaylorBurrellBarnett
TownPlanningandUrbanDesign
Hassell
Architecture/U
rbanDesign
PlanE
LandscapeArchitects
Cossill&Webley
CivilEngineers
Estill&Associates
CommunityConsultation
RileyConsulting
TrafficEngineers
ColliersInternational
Valuations
SinclairKnightMerz
TrafficEngineers
A55
A56
TheSpringsStructure
Plan
04/101
13|Page
1.3
PROJECTBACKGROUND
1.3.1
SITEHISTORY
Thelandis
zoned‘SpecialDevelopmentPrecinct’undertheCityofBelm
ontTown
PlanningSchemeNo.14(TPS14).
Priorto
theland’scurrentzoning,anumberofzoningsandreservationshaveexisted
within
theprecinct.In
particular,underCouncil’spreviousTownPlanningSchemeNo
11,themainzoningsincludedResidentialR80BandBusiness
Enterprise
Zone.
Anamendmentto
theMetropolitanRegionSchemewasundertakenin
theearly
1990’sto
allowfortherelocationoftheoriginalBurswoodBridgereservationfurther
easttowardstheBunbury
RailBridge.ThiseffectivelyremovedthedivisiveControlled
Access
Highwayreservation,whichwaspositionedcentrallythroughthesubject
site.
TheControlledAccess
Highwayreservationwassubsequentlyrelocatednorthwest
of
OrrongRoad,andnowform
stheGraham
Farm
erFreeway.
Asaresultoftheshiftin
theControlledAccess
Highwayreservation,TheSprings
urbanprecinct
remainedintact.Theareawasheavilyblighted,andtherefore
offered
significantredevelopmentopportunities.
Topromote
anintegratedapproach
tothearea’s
redevelopmentCouncilinitiated
SchemeAmendmentNo.78to
itsthenTownPlanningSchemeNo.11in
March1995.
Theamendmentsoughtto
delete
allexistingzoningsandreservationswithin
the
precinct
(apartfrom
threelargestrata
unitcomplexes)andprescribeablanketzoning
entitled‘SpecialDevelopmentPrecinct’.
AmendmentNo.78wasgazettedon4April1996.
The‘SpecialDevelopmentPrecinct’zoningstillremainsunderthecurrentTown
PlanningSchemeNo.14.Furtheramendments
havebeenundertakenbytheCityto
introduce
DevelopmentAreasandStructure
Planprovisions,andthese
are
discussed
inmore
detailinSection2.1.2ofthereport.
1.3.2
CITYOFBELMONTTOWN
PLANNIN
GSCHEMENO.13
In1993theCityofBelm
ontadvisedtheWAPCthataGuidedDevelopmentScheme
wasproposedoverthesubject
site
toassistin
theredevelopmentoftheareain
the
mostorderlyplanningmanner.
Toassistin
thecompositionanddevelopmenttheScheme,theCityengagedthe
servicesofaprivate
SchemeManager.
TheCityinstructedthemanagerthattheredevelopmentschemecould
onlyproceed
ifasuitable
participatory
arrangementcould
bereachedwithalllandowners
within
theprecinct.
Theparticipatory
arrangementwasrequireddueto
thesignificant
subdivisionandschemeheadworkscostsinvolvedinthedevelopmentoftheland.
In1996,theCityofBelm
ontprogressedwith
thepreparationofTown
Planning
SchemeNo.13,asaGuidedDevelopmentScheme.
TheSchemewaspreparedandinitiatedbytheCityasameansoffacilitatingthe
orderly
and
proper
planning
ofthe
precinct
and
addressing
issues
regarding
headworksandsubdivisionalcostsassociatedwiththesitesredevelopment.
Theaim
oftheScheme,whichwasexpressedin
theSpringsPrecinct
Development
Plan(Figure
2)wasto
create
anUrbanVillage,accommodatingupwardsof850
people,consistingofamix
ofhighquality
residential(R40R100),office,resort
and
associated
land
uses.
This
developmentwasproposed
tobe
complemented
by
parkland,new
roads,
serviceinfrastructure
andotherfacilities.
Theplanis
further
discussedinSection1.3.2.1.
Thepremiseofthedevelopmentplanwasto
allow
foramix
ofuses,
highquality
development,landuse
compatibility,viable
development,andachievementofthe
highestreturn.
In2001theCityforw
ardedSchemeNo.13to
theCommissionforfinalapproval.
However,
there
wassignificantlandowneropposition,and
opposition
from
Main
RoadsWA,to
theproposedscheme.Thisoppositionrelatedto
matters
includingthe
following:
The
requirementfora
Planning
Scheme,in
particularone
thatrequired
paymentofcontributionsbylandowners;
A57
A58
TheSpringsStructure
Plan
04/101
15|Page
Thelack
ofcertainty
orguaranteeforparticipatinglandowners
inrelationto
thecostof,andreturn
from,development;and
Thattheproposeddevelopmentplandid
notidentify
the‘optimum’landuse
andanydeficienciesthatmightoccurasaresultoftheSchemeprocess.
Asaresultofthese
uncertaintiesandconcernsregardingtheproposedScheme,a
numberoflandowners
indicatedthattheywould
notmaketheirlandavailable
for
developmentasstipulatedundertheScheme.
InOctober2003TheCommissionconsideredfinalapprovalofTownPlanningScheme
13andrecommendedthattheMinisternotapprovetheScheme,dueto
thelack
of
supportindicatedfrom
landowners
andtheunlikelihoodoftheSchemebeingableto
beim
plemented.
1.3.2.1
THESPRINGSPRECINCTDEVELOPMENTPLAN
TheSpringsPrecinct
DevelopmentPlan,shownin
Figure
2waspreparedto
beused,
inconjunctionwiththeproposedTownPlanningSchemeNo.13,intheassessmentof
developmentproposalswithintheprecinct.
ProposedTownPlanningSchemeNo.13statedthat“theproposalsfortheScheme
Area
are
that
itbe
redeveloped
inaccordance
with
‘The
Springs
Precinct
DevelopmentPlan’.
Theplanproposedamix
oflanduses,whilst
incorporatingasmanyoftheexisting
featuresandinfrastructure
aspossible.
Theplanwasneverim
plementedgiventhatthemain
vehicle
foritsim
plementation,
TownPlanningSchemeNo.13,wasneverpromulgated.
1.4
PUBLIC
CONSULTATIO
N
FollowingtherejectionofTownPlanningSchemeNo.13in2003,itisunderstoodthat
thesubsequentdirectionoftheMinisterto
prepare
anew
proposalemphasisedthe
importance
of
attaining
stronger
community/stakeholder
support
through
an
effectiveconsultationprocess,andtheestablishmentofaworkinggroupinvolving
theCityandtheDPI.
Consequently,thestrategyforproducinganew
development
scheme
forThe
Springswasstructured
around
aprocess
involving
substantial
consultationbytheproponentwithauthoritiesandtheprecinct’sprivate
landowners,
andcontinuousengagementbetw
eenLandCorp,theCityandtheDPIthroughthe
workinggroup.
ConsultationforTheSpringsRivervale
recommencedin
October2004,andhasbeen
managed
intw
ostages.
InStageOneoftheconsultation
aworkinggroup
was
established,comprisingDPI,LandCorp,CityofBelm
ontandprivate
landowners,to
coordinate
thepreparationofaconceptplanandim
plementationstrategyforthe
redevelopment.
StageTwo
oftheconsultation
involved
thedevelopmentofthe
form
alStructure
Planthatwould
beusedto
facilitate
developmentanddeterm
ine
landownercontributions.
Theconsultationhasallowedtheproponentto
receiveandconsiderawidevariety
of
viewpoints
inthedesignprocess.
LandCorp
hasworkedcollaboratively
withthe
stakeholders
inanendeavourto
resolveallissuesrelatingto
thefinaldesignofthe
planandthecostsharingarrangement.
1.4.1
LANDOWNERWORKSHOPS
Theproponentissuedaninvitationto
theprivate
landowners
oftheprecinct,aswell
asrepresentativesfrom
theCityandtheDPI,to
beinvolvedin
theplanningand
designprocess
fortheredevelopmentthroughaseriesoflandownerworkshops.
The
workshopstructure
wassuch
thattheworkshopswere
designedto,firstly,inform
the
participants
ofthe
nature
ofthe
project,the
governmentagreements
etc.and
secondly,to
gain
somebroadindicationofcommunityexpectations,
concernsand
desiresinterm
softhedevelopmentvision.
Severalindividualmeetingshavebeenheld
withlandowners
todiscuss
theirspecific
issuesandcircumstances.
Afurtherlandownerbriefingwasundertakenonthe13thFebruary
2006.Thepurpose
ofthis
meetingis
tointroduce
thelandowners
totheStructure
Planandto
seek
feedback
on
the
proposal,
priorto
embarking
on
the
next
stage
ofdefining
developmentcosts.
Duringthecourseoftheworkshops,
arangeofalternativedevelopmentconcepts
were
form
ulatedasaresultofthevariousoutcomesreflectingboth
thediversityof
communityviewsandtheparametersoftheprojectteam’svisionandobjectives.A59
16|Page
The
significance
ofthe
community
workshop
exercise
wasthatit
enabled
the
proponent,
the
project
team
and
Councilrepresentativesto
gain
afirsthand
appreciationoftheconcernsandexpectationsofthecommunityin
relationto
The
Springsredevelopment.
1.4.2
PUBLIC
MEETIN
G/WORKSHOP
Oneinform
alpublicmeeting/w
orkshopwasheld
withthewidercommunityto
seek
feedback
onthedraftStructure
PlanforTheSprings.
Thepresentationofthedraft
Structure
Planwasfollowedbyaworkshopwhereby
each
tablewasableto
reviewtheplanindetailandprovidefeedback
toamemberof
theprojectteam.
1.4.3
CONSULTATIO
NWITHTHECITYOFBELMONT
TheCityofBelm
ontwasidentifiedasakeystakeholderin
theplanningprocess
and
wasregularlyconsultedthroughoutthecourseoftheplanning.Representativesof
both
theCityandthethenDPImetin
Project
SteeringCommitteemeetingsand
participatedinsomeoftheprojectteam
meetings.
TheCityofBelm
ontwasrepresentedontheBelm
ontSpringsProject
Team
bythe
ManagerPlanningandtheDirectorCommunityandStatutory
Services.
TheProject
Team
met
throughout
the
consultation
period
toco
ordinate
and
plan
the
consultationprocess.TheCity’srepresentativesprovidedconsiderable
inputinto
the
consultative
process
and
statutory
planning
processesand
provided
progressive
updatesto
theelectedmembers.
1.4.4
COMMUNITYISSUES
Whilst
theplanwasdesignedwithin
thenorm
allyrequiredtechnicalparameters
concerningroaddesign,servicing,urbandesignprinciples,etc,severalmatters
were
raised
by
the
landowners
inthe
Precinct
during
the
consultation
process.In
particular,theongoingkeyconcernswere:
PLANNINGISSUES
PublicOpen
Space
(including
Clinic
Park);
whetherornotanyadditional
contributionshouldberequired.
Acceptableheightanddensity
throughoutthearea.
Trafficmanagement.
IMPLEMENTATIO
NISSUES
Neglect
ofthearea;theCityshould
payforupgradeworksthatshould
already
havebeenundertakenthroughnorm
almaintenance.
Strata
block
involvementandequity;theextentto
whichownersinstrata
units
willbenefitfrom
thescheme,whichpropertiesshould
contribute
andhow
much.
Costapportionmentandhighheadworkscosts.
Previouspowerup
grade;landowners
havealreadypaid
forunderground
powerupgrade,whyshouldtheynowbepayingextra.
Itwasagreedbytheproject
team
thatafinaldesignreviewwasrequiredto
respond
tothe
planning
concerns,
and
thata
finalreview
ofthe
contribution
scheme
principlesshould
beundertakento
address
theim
plementationissues.
Thedesign
reviewconsideredarangeofalternativedesignoptionswhichwere
discussedbythe
projectteam,withtheinvolvementoftechnicalofficersfrom
theCityandtheDPI.
Thereviewultim
atelyledto
creationofthecurrentStructure
Plan.
Thereviewofim
plementationissueswasstillin
progress
atthetimeofpreparingthis
report.
A60
TheSpringsStructure
Plan
04/101
17|Page
2PLANNIN
GCONTEXT
2.1
STATUTORYPLANNIN
GCONTEXT
2.1.1
FORMERMETROPOLITAN
REGIO
NSCHEME
UndertheMetropolitanRegionSchemethesite
iszoned‘Urban’.
Thesubject
site
abuts
a‘ParksandRecreation’reserve,whichextendsalongthe
northern
boundary
ofthesite,anda‘Primary
RegionalRoads’
reserveforGreat
Eastern
HighwayandGraham
Farm
erFreewayalongthesouth
eastern
andsouth
western
edgesoftheredevelopmentarea.
AtthetimeofpreparingtheStructure
Plan,portionoftheStructure
Planextended
into
thePrimary
RegionalRoadreservation,asillustratedbelowinFigure
3.
Figure
3:Form
erMetropolitanRegionScheme
2.1.1.1
METROPOLITANREGIO
NSCHEME
DuringtheprocessingoftheStructure
Plan,Main
Roads(W
A)soughtareductionin
thewidth
ofthe‘Primary
RegionalRoads’
reservation
(portion
ofGreatEastern
Highway)asspecifiedundertheMRS.MRWAInternalinvestigationsfoundthatthe
reservationwasexcessiveforthefuture
trafficrequirementsforthearea.
TheexistingMRSzoningisillustratedwithinFigure
4below.
Figure
4:MetropolitanRegionScheme
A61
18|Page
2.1.2
CITYOFBELMONTTOWN
PLANNIN
GSCHEMENO.14
The
subject
land
iscurrentlyzoned
‘SpecialDevelopmentPrecinct’,
pursuantto
Clause
10.8oftheCityofBelm
ontTPS14(referFigure
5).
Figure
5:CurrentTownPlanningSchemeZoning
Clause
10.2.4
ofthe
Scheme
states
thatThe
Springs
isone
offourSpecial
DevelopmentPrecincts,withtheotherthreebeingAscotWaters,NulsenHaven,and
BelgraviaParklands.
Underthecurrentzoning,alldevelopment,includingsingle
housesrequirePlanning
Approvalofthe
Council.
The
provisionsofthe
ResidentialDevelopmentCodes
relatingto
frontandrearsetbacks,carparkingandopenspace
within
thiszonemay
bevariedatthediscretionoftheCouncilprovidedaLocalPlanningPolicy
isadopted
pursuantto
Clause
2.3oftheScheme.
DuringtheprocessingoftheStructure
Plan,theCityhasintroducedDevelopment
Areas.
TheSpringshasnow
alsobeenincludedwithin
Schedule
14–Development
AreasDA11,whichrequiresanApprovedStructure
Planto
guidesubdivisionand
development.
2.2
STRATEGIC
PLANNIN
GCONTEXT
2.2.1
STATEGOVERNMENTLEVEL
2.2.1.1
LIVEABLENEIGHBOURHOODS
LiveableNeighbourhoodssetsoutpoliciesandpracticesthatencourageasustainable
urbanstructure
ofwalkable
neighbourhoodsclusteringto
supporttowncentreswith
compactness
ofform
,compatibilityofmixeduses,reducedcardependence
andease
ofaccess
toemployment,retailandcommunityfacilities.
Theprincipleaim
sofLiveableNeighbourhoodsare
listedasfollows:
Tofosterasense
ofcommunityandstronglocalidentity
inneighbourhoods
andtowns;
Toprovideaccess
generallybywayofaninterconnectednetw
ork
ofstreets;
Toensure
anactivestreetlanduse
interface;
Tofacilitate
new
developmentthatsupportsefficiency
ofpublictransport
systemsandsafe
directaccess
tothesystem
forresidents;
Tofacilitate
mixeduse
developmentwhichisrobustandcanchangeovertime;
Toprovideavariety
oflotsizesandhousingtypes;
Protectionofenvironmentalareasandtheinclusionofsignificantculturaland
physicalfeaturesinto
designs;
To
provide
acomprehensive
open
space
and
urban
watermanagement
netw
ork;and
Tofacilitate
costeffectiveandresourceefficientdevelopment.
Thevitalingredientsofneighbourhooddesignrelevantto
TheSpringsincludes:
A62
TheSpringsStructure
Plan
04/101
19|Page
Compactness
somost
people
canwalkto
localcentresandpublictransportin
fiveminutes;
Build
streets
where
people
are
encouraged
towalk,cycle
ortake
public
transportratherthandrive;
Connect
thestreets
inasimple
pattern
sopeople
canchoose
differentroutes
andmakeshorttripsto
localfacilities;
Locate
windowsandverandasoverlookingstreetsto
detercrim
e;
Provideopportunitiesforlocalemploymentin
shopsandbusinessesclose
to
people'shomes;
Offerawidechoiceofhousingandlotsizesanduse
aflexible
layoutso
the
areacanbechangedto
meetfuture
needs;
Respondto
physicalcharacteristicsofthesite
toreinforcelocalcharacterand
protectnaturalfeatures;
Provideneighbourhoodparksofdifferentsizesandtypesforavariety
ofuses
andwithinafiveminute
walkformostpeople;and
Streetsare
laid
outonamodifiedgridorconnectednetw
ork,so
thatthere
are
alternate
routesto
every
destination.
This
perm
itsmost
streets
tobeof
humanscale,withslowertrafficin
aperm
eable
andlegible
netw
ork.Streets
becomeequitableforboth
vehicleandpedestrians.
Liveable
Neighbourhoodsrequiresdetailedcontext
andsite
analysisandcompliance
withCoderequirementsto
enableproposalsto
beconsideredundertheCode.
2.2.1.2
DCPOLICY1.6
PLANNINGTOSUPPORTTRANSIT
USEAND
TRANSIT
ORIENTEDDEVELOPMENT(2005)
Thispolicy
seeksto
maximisethebenefits
tothecommunityofaneffectiveandwell
usedpublictransitsystem
bypromotingplanninganddevelopmentoutcomesthat
willsupport
and
sustain
publictransport
use,and
which
willachieve
the
more
effectiveintegrationoflanduse
andpublictransportinfrastructure.
Amendments
tothe
policy
were
adopted
bythe
WAPC
in2005
toreflect
the
Government’svisionforasustainablefuture
asoutlinedinNetw
ork
CityandtheState
SustainabilityStrategy.
Within
existingdevelopedareas,
there
are
clearopportunitiesto
intensify
existing
activitiesandto
promote
new
usesthatwillmakebetteruse
oftransitfacilitiesand
services.
There
are
obviousbenefits
ofa
planning
policy
thatencouragesthe
integrationoflanduse
andtransitfacilities.
Highresidentialdensitiesandmixeduse
developmentin
thewalkable
catchments
oftransitfacilitieshavethepotentialto
reduce
cardependence;to
increase
accessibilityforthose
withoutaccess
toprivate
cars;to
reduce
congestionontheroadnetw
ork
andthedemandfornewroadspace;
toreduce
fuelconsumptionandair
pollutionandto
providequality,diverseand
affordableform
sofhousinganddevelopment.
These
benefitscombineto
produce
an
attractive
and
viable
alternative
tocarbased
suburban
and
urban
fringe
development.
The
policy
isan
integralpart
ofa
range
ofpoliciesdirected
towardsgreater
sustainability,in
accordance
with
the
State
PlanningStrategyand
Statementof
PlanningPolicy
3UrbanGrowth
andSettlements(SPP3).
Thepolicy
containsthefollowingmainpolicy
measuresrelevantto
thesubjectland:
TRANSIT
SUPPORTIVEDEVELOPMENTPATTERNS
Urbanstructure
isthefoundationofatransitsupportiveenvironment.
Effective
transitisfosteredbyamore
compact
urbanform
,mixeduses,higherdevelopment
densitiesandactivitylevels,andespeciallybyspatialpatternsofdevelopmentthat
makeiteasierto
planandefficientlyoperate
transitservices,andforusers
toaccess
those
servicesonce
theyare
inplace.
Streetpattern
tobe
designed
toenhance
walkability
and
tofacilitate
pedestrianaccess
totransitfacilities;
Streetpatternsshouldfacilitate
directpedestrianconnections;
Adiversityoflotsizesin
subdivisionswithin
transitprecincts,togetherwitha
robust
streetlayout,
isencouraged
as
itprovides
greaterflexibility
of
developmentoptions,
andenhance
therobustness
oftheurbanstructure,
makingiteasierfortheprecinct
toevolveovertimethoughaprogressive
intensification
ofactivitiesand
changesto
usesthatwillmore
effectively
supporttransituses;and
A63
20|Page
Agridbasedstreetpattern
issupportedbecause
itdispersesgeneraltraffic
more
effectivelyto
limitcongestionthatcanim
pedebusservicesandprovides
perm
eability.
LANDUSETOSUPPORTTRANSIT
Theleveloftransitpatronageisclosely
linkedto
thequality
andfrequency
ofthe
serviceprovidedand,in
turn,theserviceable
tobeprovidedis
afunctionofthe
density
andmixoflandusesthatgenerate
potentialtransitusers.Anappropriate
mix
andbalance
oflandusescanbeamajorcontributorto
theuse
andeffectiveness
of
transitfacilities.
Within
transitorientedprecincts,theemphasisshould
beonuses
whichare
likelyto
promote
transituse
andwhichwillbenefitbybeingaccessible
to,
andby,transitfacilities.Keylanduse
elementsinclude:
Residentialdevelopmentshould
beencouragedclose
totransitfacilitiesto
assistin
creatingasense
ofplace
thatmakesatransitorientateddevelopment
(TOD)precinctmore
thanjustaplace
where
transitisavailable;
Higherdensity
residentialdevelopment,placesgreaternumbers
ofresidents
close
totransitservices,whichcorrelatesto
anincrease
intransitpatronage;
Densitiesshould
beincreasedthroughasubdivisionpattern
whichallowsfor
theprogressiveintensificationofactivities;
Otherusesthatare
likely
tobesignificantgenerators
oftransittripsshould
alsobelocatedclose
totransitfacilitieswheneverpossible.
Relevantuses
includeofficesand
otherhigherdensity
employmentgeneratingactivities,
intensiveleisure
facilitiesandretailing.Sim
ilarconsiderationsapply
toaged
persons,
schools
andtertiary
educationuses,
hospitals,communityfacilities
andsocialservices;
Locatingeducationalbuildingswithin
TODprecinctsisappropriate
where
they
includemore
intensiveelements
oftheinstitutionsuch
asteachingfacilities
andindoorrecreationfacilities,
howevermore
landextensive/low
intensity
elements
ofschoolsandothersimilarpublicuses,i.e.playingfield
should
not
bedominantelementswithinthewalkablecatchmentoftransitfacilities;and
Desirable
tolocate
majorcivic
buildingsin
TOD
precincts,
where
theycan
activelycontribute
totheamenityoftheareaandactassignificantgenerators
oftransituse.
THEPUBLIC
DOMAIN
INTODPRECINCTS
Alm
ost
alltransitusers
are
pedestriansforatleast
partoftheirjourney,evenifitis
only
forashort
walk.Theamenity,quality
andsafety
ofthepublicdomain
within
transit
oriented
precincts
are
therefore
importantfactors
inestablishing
and
maintaininganenvironmentthatwillencouragepeople
toaccess
transitfacilitieson
foot,aswellaspromotingwalkinggenerallywithinthese
neighbourhoods.
TRANSIT
SUPPORTIVEDESIGN
Akeypolicy
requirementistheim
portance
ofanappropriate
framingurbanstructure
intransitorientedprecincts.
Landuse
thatpromotesinterest,interactionandactivity
should
beusedto
anim
ate
frontagesalongtheprincipalpedestrianroutesleadingto
andfrom
thetransitfacility.
INTEGRATINGTRANSIT
INFRASTRUCTURE
Thedesignandoperationoftransitinfrastructure
should
assistin
integratingtransit
facilitieswiththeirsurroundings.
2.2.1.3
WAPCDC2.3
PUBLIC
OPENSPACEIN
RESIDENTIALAREAS
(1998)
WAPCPolicy
DC2.3,‘PublicOpenSpace
inResidentialAreas’,statesthat10%
ofthe
gross
subdivisibleareaofasubdivisionshallbegivenupfreeofcostbythesubdivider
forpublicopenspace,whichis
consistentwithSection20A
oftheform
erTown
PlanningandDevelopmentAct
1928.DC2.3
hasbeenthebasisofopenspace
policy
inthe
State
formany
years
and
emanatesfrom
the
recommendationsofthe
MetropolitanRegionScheme.
Thepolicy
outlinesthattheWAPC“is
aware
ofthecontinuingdebate
aboutthe
validityofcertain
aspectsofthispolicy
inthelightofsuch
matters
asrestraints
on
localgovernmentexpenditure
(withconsequentlimitingeffectsuponitsabilityto
developandmaintain
openspace),
theneedto
ensure
adequate
openspace
in
existingurbanareasandthebalance
betw
eenpassiveandactiverecreationalareas.
Thispolicy
issubjectto
acomprehensivereview.”
Thepolicy’smainobjectivesare:
Ensure
adequate
andwelllocatedareasofpublicopenspace
thatwillenhance
theamenityofthearea;
A64
TheSpringsStructure
Plan
04/101
21|Page
Facilitate
theprovisionofcommunityfacilitiesin
conjunctionwithlandceded
forpublicopenspace;and
Protect
and
conservewetlands,
watercoursesand
foreshoresadjacentto
residentialdevelopment.
ThisPolicy
hassince
beensupersededbyLiveableNeighbourhoods,theobjectivesare
howeverconsistentwithLiveableNeighbourhoods.
2.2.2
LOCALGOVERNMENTLEVEL
2.2.2.1
CITYOFBELMONTLOCALPLANNINGPOLICYNO.9–BUILDING
HEIGHTANDBULKALONGGREATEASTERNHIGHWAY
Pursuantto
Clause
2.5
ofTPS14,theCityofBelm
ontLocalPlanningPolicy
No.9was
adoptedto
“controlth
eheightandbulk
ofbuildingsonland
abuttingGreatEastern
Highwaywithin
theCityofBelm
ont”.AlllandabuttingGreatEastern
Highwaywithin
theCityofBelm
ontissubjectto
thispolicy,includingTheSprings.
Thepolicy’sprincipalobjectiveisto
“ensure
thattheamenityofexistingandfuture
developmentalongthehighwayisnotcompromisedbytheapprovalofdevelopment
thatisinappropriate
inrespectofitsheightandbulk”.
2.2.2.2
CITYOFBELMONTLOCALPLANNINGPOLICYNO.17–PUBLIC
OPENSPACEPOLICY
TheCityofBelm
ontLocalPlanningPolicy
No.17outlinestherequirements
forthe
provisionofpublicopenspace
inresidentialareas.
Thepolicy
waspreparedasameansofcoordinatingtheprovisionofpublicopen
space
within
theCityto
reduce
thenumberofunusable
areasofopenspace
being
createdasaresultofsm
alllotsubdivisions.
Thepolicy
allowsCouncilto
choose
themost
suitable
option
inrelation
tothe
provision
ofpublicopen
space
arisingfrom
subdivisions,
which
mayincludethe
request
forphysicalopenspace,acash
contributionin
lieuofland,oracombination
ofacash
contributionandlandinaratioto
bedeterm
inedbytheCouncil.
2.3
CURRENTPROVISIO
NOFPUBLIC
OPEN
SPACE
2.3.1
HISTORYOFOPEN
SPACEPROVISIO
NWITHIN
THESPRIN
GS
ANDTHECITYOFBELMONT
Twoareasofpublicopenspace
were
createdsubsequentto
theoriginalsubdivision
ofthearea,priorto
1956.These
were:
1.
CracknellPark,acquiredbythethenBelm
ontPark
RoadsBoard
in1927;and
2.
ClinicPark,acquiredbytheRoadsBoard
betw
een1933and1945.
Noforeshore
reserveexistedalongthenorthern
boundary
ofthesite
untillandwas
compulsorilyacquiredbytheWAPCbetw
een1982and2001undertheMetropolitan
RegionSchemeAct.
Thelandthatwascompulsorily
acquiredisnow
reservedas‘ParksandRecreation’
undertheMetropolitanRegionScheme.
Anadditionalareaofforeshore
reserve,thathasnotbeenacquiredbytheWAPC,is
thenorthern
(foreshore)sectionofCracknellPark.Thislandstillremainsprimarilyas
freehold
landin
theCity’sownership;howeveritsitswithin
theParksandRecreation
Reservethatdenotestheforeshore
reserveforthepurpose
oftheMRS.This
is
furtherexplainedinSection2.3.2.
Figure
6showsthelocationoftheareasdescribedabove.
Thehistory
andcurrentstatusofthetw
oareasofPOSandexistingforeshore
reserve
are
describedbelow.
A65
22|Page
Figure
6:ExistingandForm
erPark
Areas
2.3.1.1
CRACKNELLPARK
Althoughnotshownaspart
ofthe‘SpecialDevelopmentPrecinct’CracknellPark
is
encompassedbytheredevelopmentareaand,forthepurpose
ofthereport,willbe
includedwithintheredevelopmentarea.
CracknellPark
comprisesLots27,28andCrownReserve45534RiversdaleRoad,with
atotalarea(excludingtheforeshore
reserve)of0.6259ha.
CracknellPark
abuts
theforeshore
reserveandislocatedalongRiversdale
Road.The
Park
wasacquiredbytheCityandcreatedsubsequentto
theoriginalsubdivisionof
thearea.
Portion
ofthe
lots
thatform
Cracknell
Park
are
situated
within
the
foreshore
recreationareaasdefinedbytheMRSParksandRecreationReserve.Theportionof
these
lotswithintheforeshore
reservecomprises0.2765ha.
CracknellPark
iscurrentlyreserved‘ParksandRecreation’undertheCityofBelm
ont
TownPlanningSchemeNo.14,is
allocatedaspublicparklandandis
proposedto
remainasthisuse
inthefuture.
Thepark
enjoysdirect
access
totheSwanRiverandassociatedRiverForeshore
reserveandiswellconnectedto
theprecinct.
CracknellPark
wasoriginallypurchasedbythethenBelm
ontPark
RoadsBoard
on10
June1927from
the‘Belm
ontYoungMen’sClub’forthepurpose
ofapublicpark.
Thelandwaspurchasedaspart
ofacontract
withtheClub,statingthatshould
the
‘Belm
ontYoungMen’sClub’sellthelandto
the‘Belm
ontPark
RoadBoard’,thatall
debtsowedbytheClubmustberelinquished.
Currently,CracknellPark
iswellusedforpassiverecreationalusesbyresidentsofthe
precinct,aswellasworkerswhose
businessesare
locatedwithin,orinclose
proximity
of,theprecinct(referto
Photos1,2and3).
Photo
1Photo
2
Photo
3
A66
TheSpringsStructure
Plan
04/101
23|Page
2.3.1.2
CLINIC
PARK
Lots
100,101,102,103GtEastern
Highwayare
locatedwithin
TheSpringsprecinct.
Theycomprise
atotalareaof0.4013haandwere,in
thepast,collectivelyreferredto
asClinic
Park
(presumably
referring
tothe
infanthealth
clinic
thatpreviously
operatedontheland).
Lot100waspurchasedbytheCityofBelm
onton14March1933andLots101,102,&
103were
resumedcompulsorily
bytheCityon27June1945,forthepurpose
of
creatingapublicpark,underthePublicWorksAct.
Thelandwaszoned‘HighwayDevelopment’undertheCity’searlierTownPlanning
Scheme,TPSNo.6.However,thelandwaseffectivelybeingusedforthepurpose
ofa
publicpark
and,asaconsequence,wasrezonedin
1988to
‘ParksandRecreation’
undertheCity’sTownPlanningSchemeNo.11.
Thelandwassubsequentlyrezonedto
‘SpecialDevelopmentPrecinct’aspart
of
AmendmentNo.78
on
13
March
1995.This
zone
embodied
theentire
Springs
precinct.
TheCityhasresolvedto
dispose
ofthelandastheclinicnolongeroperatesandthe
landis
notwelllocatedforrecreationaluse.Therecentrezoningofthelandnow
offers
theopportunityto
consideralternativedevelopmentpossibilitiesconsistent
withtheoverallprecinctdevelopmentobjectives.
2.3.1.3
FORESHORERESERVE
Aportion
ofallprivately
owned
lots
frontingthe
Swan
Riverwascompulsorily
acquiredbytheWAPCforthepurpose
ofcreatingaforeshore
reserve.Thislandis
nowreserved‘ParksandRecreation’undertheMetropolitanRegionScheme.
Thereserveiscurrentlyin
agenerallygoodconditionandcontainsadualuse
path
andrecentlyplantedvegetation(referto
Photos4,5,6and7).A
more
detailed
descriptionofthevegetationcharacteristicsoftheforeshore
reserveisprovidedin
Section5.2.2.
Photo
4Photo
5
Photo
6Photo
7
Thesectionofforeshore
reservedirectlyabuttingCracknellPark
isasm
allergrassed
areathatcontainsseveraltablesandchairssuitable
forpassiverecreationaluse.
(Referto
Photos8and9). Photo
8Photo
9
A67
24|Page
3SITEANALYSIS
3.1
PHYSICALDESCRIPTIO
N
The
subject
site
gentlyrisesfrom
GreatEastern
Highwayto
an
east
west
ridge
runningcentrallythroughthesite;theland
thengentlyfallsnorthward
towards
Riversdale
Road,and,northofRiversdale
Road,slopessteeplytowardstheriver.Site
levelsare
describedmore
specificallyinSection5.1.
Those
lotslocatednorthofRiversdaleRoadenjoyextensiveriverviews.
Severalview
corridorsalsoexistwithinthesite
createdbythecurrentroadlayout.
Thesite
hascontainedavariety
oflandusessince
itsoriginalsubdivision,withthe
predominantlanduse
beinglow
density
single
residential.Variousotherlanduses
stilloperate
within
the
precinct
and
include
aplace
ofworship
and
various
commerciallanduses,whichpredominantlyfrontGreatEastern
Highway.
Much
oftheareaisnow
severelydegradedwithasignificantportionoftheprecinct
comprisingvacantland.Themajority
ofdilapidatedhousingwasdemolishedin2005.
Aplanoutliningtheexistinglanduseslocatedonsite
isincludedatFigure
7.
3.2
EXISTIN
GTENURE
Thesite
currentlycomprises93separate
allotm
ents.LandCorp
currentlyownsover
67%
oftheland.Atthetimeofwritingthisreport,there
are
22lots
remainingin
private
ownership.
3.3
CONTEXTANALYSIS
TheSpringsPrecinct
ispositionedasaprime‘Gateway’developmentsite
tothePerth
CBD,andto
theCityofBelm
ont,locatedattheaxisoftw
omajorarterialtransport
routes;theGraham
Farm
erFreeway&GreatEastern
Highway.
The
site
islocated
approximately
700750
metreswalk
from
the
Burswood
rail
station,andprovidesgoodconnectivityforpedestrians,cyclists
andvehiclesto
the
Station,via
an
existing
bridge
betw
een
The
Springsand
the
neighbouring
light
industrialareato
thewestofGraham
Farm
erFreeway.
Anexistingpedestrianunderpass
islocatedatthesouthern
cornerofthesite
which
allows
pedestrians/cyclists
direct
access
toexisting
retail
facilities
and
other
operationalcommerciallanduseslocatedalongGreatEastern
Highway.
TheBurswoodredevelopmentareaislocatedapproximately350metreswest
ofthe
subjectsite
andtheCasino/H
otelislocatedapproximately700metresaway.
PerthCityis
approximately
5km
west
ofthesubject
site,via
theGraham
Farm
er
Freeway.
ThecontextanalysisisdepictedinFigure
8.
3.4
OPPORTUNITIESANDCONSTRAIN
TS
Thesiteskeyopportunitiesandconstraintsare
depictedonFigure
9.
3.4.1
OPPORTUNITIES
Variousopportunitieswere
identifiedand,where
possible,integratedinto
thedesign
oftheStructure
Plan.Someoftheidentifiedopportunitiesare
beyondthescopeof
this
Structure
Planto
fulfil;however,
theyshould
berecordedaspossible
future
initiativesforGovernmentconsideration.Theidentifiedopportunitiesinclude:
Good
connectivity
betw
een
the
subject
site
toadjoining
residential
developmentsandarterialroads.
Potentialforafuture
busroute
throughtheproposeddevelopmentalong
RiversdaleRoad.
Direct
access
totheSwanRiverandassociatedforeshore
reserveviaCracknell
Park
andBrightonRoad.
Anexistingpedestrianconnection(sharedpath)islocatedthroughforeshore
reservenorthofsubjectsite.
A68
A69
A70
A71
28|Page
Apedestrian
link(underpass)currentlyexiststo
existingresidentialareas,
commercialusesandashoppingcentrelocatedsouth
eastofsubjectsite.
Thesite
isrelativelyflat,withasteepembankmentdownto
river,whichoffers
significantriverviewsfrom
landclose
totheRiver.
Elevateddevelopment
wouldalsobenefitfrom
these
opportunities.
Thesite
onthecornerofGreatEastern
HighwayandGraham
Farm
erFreeway
hasthepotentialto
benefitfrom
theviewsto
theskylineofPerthCity,Swan
RiverandtheDarlingScarp.Thesite
alsoenjoysgoodcommercialexposure
dueto
itscornerlocationonGtEastern
HighwayandGraham
Farm
erFreeway.
Existingservicesandinfrastructure,includingroads,
are
alreadylocatedon
site,reducingconstructioncostsofthenewdevelopment.
3.4.2
CONSTRAIN
TS
Variousconstraintsalsoinfluencedtheplanningofthesite.Constraintsaffectingthe
landinclude:
Thelimitedvehicularaccess
from
GreatEastern
Highwayto
lots
frontingthe
road.
Limitedaccess
tothecorner‘landmark’site
locatedonGreatEastern
Highway
andGraham
Farm
erFreeway.
Althoughservicesandinfrastructure
are
alreadylocatedonsite,theyare
not
sufficientfortheproposeddensity
ofthedevelopment.
The
existence
of
significant
Moreton
Bay
Fig
Tree
centrally
within
a
developablelot.
Heritagelistedtreesandresidences.
Thefragmentedlandownershipofthesite.
A72
TheSpringsStructure
Plan
04/101
29|Page
4EXISTIN
GSERVICEIN
FRASTRUCTURE
4.1
ROADS
Primary
access
tothesite
isprovidedvia
asignalisedintersectionlocatedatGreat
Eastern
HighwayandBrightonRoadandvia
theRiversdale
Roadbridgewhichlinks
thesite
withtheadjoiningBurswoodLightIndustrialArea.
Ageotechnicalinvestigationoftheroadpavements
hasindicatedthatthesubgrade
oftheroadis
sound,howeverthewearingcoursewillrequirerehabilitationand
replacement.
4.2
DRAIN
AGEANDSTORMWATERMANAGEMENT
Theprecinct
fallspredominantlywithin
twodrainagecatchments.These
catchments
includeRiversdale
Road,whichdischargesto
theSwanRivervia
a225mm
diameter
outfallpipelocatedwithin
CracknellPark,andtheRoweAvenueinfiltrationbasin,
whichservesthemajority
oftheremainderofthesite.
Apreliminary
review
ofthese
catchments
indicatesthatthe
existing
225mm
diameterpipeis
adequate
fora1in
5yearstorm
event.
However,waterquality
controlmaypotentiallybecomeanissue,asatpresentthere
isnopollutioncontrol
infrastructure
installedwithintheprecinct.
Generally,thedrainagepipework
within
theroadreservesislimitedandwould
not
meetCouncil’scurrentminim
um
requirements.Atpresent,alllots
are
requiredto
retainstorm
wateronsite
4.3
WATERANDSEWERSERVICES
Figure
10detailsthesize
andlocationoftheexistingwaterandsewerserviceswithin
TheSpringsPrecinct.
Alllots
within
theprecinct
are
currentlyservicedbywater.Themajority
ofthelots
are
servicedbysewer,withtheexceptionoflotslocatedalongtheeastern
portionof
RiversdaleRoad.
4.4
POWERSUPPLY
TheSpringsPrecinct
iscurrentlyservicedbyundergroundpowerandWestern
Power
streetlighting.
ExistingWestern
PowersubstationsincludeRiversdale
Road,BrightonRoad,Rowe
AvenueandHawksburn
RoadwithassociatedHighVoltage(HV)andLowVoltage(LV)
undergroundcablesdistributedthroughoutthearea.Whilst
theexistingsystem
has
thecapacity
tomeetthedemandsoftheexistinglanduses,itwillnotbesufficient
whenredevelopmentofthelandoccurs.
4.5
TELECOMMUNICATIO
NS
Telecommunicationcables,currentlyownedbyTelstra,are
locatedinallexistingroad
reserves.
4.6
MOVEMENTNETWORK
4.6.1
EXISTIN
GROADSANDTRAFFIC
VOLUME
GREATEASTERNHIGHWAY
TheGreatEastern
Highwayisaprimary
distributorroadandmajorserviceroadfor
thePerthMetropolitanRegion.Itfronts
thesouth
eastern
boundary
ofthesubject
land
and
comprisesthree
laneseastbound
and
four/five
laneswestbound,and
providesaccess
onto
theGraham
Farm
erFreeway.
Atthetimeofpreparingthereport,currenttraffic
vol umesindicate
atw
oway
movementofabout52,000vehiclesperdayadjacentto
thestudyarea.
BRIGHTONROAD
BrightonRoadisalocalaccess
streetmarkingtheeastern
boundary
ofthesite.It
comprisesastandard
7.2
metrewidecarriagewaywithwideningattheGreatEastern
Highwaytraffic
signals
toprovide
two
approach
lanes.
Currenttraffic
volumes
indicate
atw
owaymovementofabout3,000vehiclesperday.
A73
RIV
ERSD
ALE
MA
LVER
N
ROWE
AVENUE
RO
AD
HAWKSBURN
ROAD
RO
AD
GRAHAM
FARMER
FREEWAY
GREAT
EASTERN
HIGHW
AY
STRU
CTU
RE P
LAN
ARE
A
EXIS
TIN
G S
EWER
ALI
GN
MEN
T
EXIS
TIN
G W
ATER
ALI
GN
MEN
T
LEG
END
TH
E S
PR
ING
S R
ED
EV
EL
OP
ME
NT
AR
EA
, R
IVE
RV
AL
E
EX
IST
ING
SE
RV
ICE
SN
187
Robe
rts
Road
Sub
iaco
Wes
tern
Aus
tral
ia 6
008
Tele
phon
e: (0
8) 9
382
2911
Facs
imile
: (08
) 938
2 45
86ad
min
@tb
bpla
nnin
g.co
m.a
u
Tow
n Pl
anni
ng a
nd D
esig
n
TAY
LOR
BU
RR
ELL
BA
RN
ETT
jan
uar
y 20
07 |
04/1
01
20m
60m
0m20
40
FIG
UR
E
10
A74
Recommended