ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification · DV17.54 - LOT 777 (NO. 263) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY (ii) The proposed development meets the ’deemed to comply requirements’

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification DV17.54 - LOT 777 (NO. 263) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION We act on behalf of Excel Homes as their consultant town planners and refer to the development approval granted by the Town of Cambridge dated 8 March 2017 for the construction of a nine (9) new multiple dwellings on Lot 777 (No.263) Cambridge Street, Wembley (Ref: 0346DA-2016). During the preparation of working drawings in support of building permit application for the proposed development on the abovementioned land, it was identified that the following minor changes to the design layout of the development are proposed: (i) Increase the finished floor level of Units 1 & 2 in order to have due regard for the

existing level of the Water Corporation sewerage line within Hallifax Lane to ensure satisfactory fall; and

(ii) Install a flat (i.e. concealed) roof over the balconies of Units 4, 5, 8 & 9 to improve the amenity of the dwellings for the future occupants.

In light of the above, this application seeks the Town’s approval to amend the approved plans accordingly. It is significant to note that the design layout of the proposed development has not changes and are consistent with the approved plans issued by the Town dated 8 March 2017. In assessing the application we ask that the Town give due consideration to the following matters: Proposed Floor Level Increase 1. As previously mentioned, during the preparation of working drawings in support of

building permit application for the proposed development, it was identified that a minor change to the design layout of the development is required to provide an adequate fall to the existing sewer line within Hallifax Lane (i.e. rear of subject land).

2. It is significant to note that the information provided to the applicant from the Water

Corporation at the development application stage was not accurate regarding the depth of the sewer line. Following a revised survey of the site, the depth of the sewer line has now been accurately provided, resulting in the need to amend the approved design (i.e. levels) for Units 1 & 2. It is significant to note that the Water Corporation has now updated its records using the information provided by the owner of Lot 777.

3. Having due regard for the revised height of the existing sewer line, this application

seeks the Town’s approval to increase the finished floor level of Units 1 & 2 by 343mm (or 4 courses) to satisfy the Water Corporation requirements regarding the necessary fall to the sewer line to the rear of Lot 777. In order to compensate for the increase in levels, the ’parapet wall heights’ have been reduced accordingly.

4. In light of the above points, the following information is provided in support of the

amended plans;

(i) The proposed increase in finished floor level for Units 1 & 2 will not have an adverse impact on the streetscape or the adjoining properties in terms of bulk and scale.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification DV17.54 - LOT 777 (NO. 263) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY

(ii) The proposed development meets the ’deemed to comply requirements’ of

Element 6.4.2 C2.1 (’Solar access for adjoining sites’) of the R-Codes and will not detrimentally impact access to light and ventilation for the existing dwellings on any adjoining properties.

(iii) The wall height of those portion s of the proposed development to be built up to the western side boundary meets the ’deemed to comply requirements’ of Element 6.1.4 C4.3 (Lot boundary setbacks’) of the R-Codes.

(iv) The building height of the proposed development on Lot 777, including the increase in finished floor levels for Units 1 & 2, meet the deemed to comply requirements’ of the Town of Cambridge Local Planning Policy No.33 (’Building Height’).

(v) It is contended that the proposed increase in finished floor levels for the new development to be built up to the western side boundary is consistent in terms of their design, bulk and scale with other similar residential developments approved by the Town in the immediate locality.

(vi) The proposed increase in the current approved finished floor level of Units 1 & 2 on Lot 777 will not have an adverse impact on any major openings to habitable rooms or any outdoor living areas associated with any dwellings on the adjoining properties.

5. Having regard for all of the above it is contended that the proposed increase in finished

floor level for Units 1 & 2 of the new multiple dwelling development on Lot 777 will not have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties or the streetscape, it meets the relevant ’deemed to comply requirements’ of the R-Codes and the Town’s Local Planning Polices and may therefore be approved by the Town.

Proposed Coverage of Balconies 6. It is duly noted that Condition No.3 of the Town’s approval dated 8 March 2017

requires that the balconies for Units 4 & 5 be unroofed.

7. The amended plans prepared in support of this application propose to insert a flat roof behind the approved masonry facade structure to be constructed along the upper perimeter of the balcony for Units 4, 5, 8 & 9. The proposed installation of the concealed roof structure for each balcony is justified for the following reasons:

(i) The roof structure will not be visible from the street given that it will be concealed

behind the masonry facade of the balcony.

(ii) The underside of the roof will be finished in a cedar wood to provide an attractive appearance of the balcony for the benefit of the future occupants of the dwellings.

(iii) The proposed roofing of the balconies for Units 4 & 5 will not have an adverse impact on the local streetscape in terms of bulk and scale.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification DV17.54 - LOT 777 (NO. 263) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY

(iv) The proposed roof structures will assist with providing cover over the outdoor living areas pertaining to each dwelling to provide protection from the elements. As such, the outdoor living areas could be used by the occupants of the dwelling throughout the year.

(v) The proposed roofing of the balconies will provide much needed protection of the sliding door for the living room for each dwelling from rain and the summer sun.

(vi) In regards to Units 8 & 9, the Town’s approval did not specifically require the balconies to be unroofed.

(vii) The R-Codes do not preclude the balconies within the front setback area of development to be roofed.

8. Having regard for all of the above it is contended that the proposed roofing of the

balconies for Units 4, 5, 8 & 9 of the new multiple welling development on Lot 777 will not have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties or the streetscape and may therefore be approved by the Town.

Conclusion In light of the above information and justifications, we respectfully request the Town’s favourable consideration and approval of the amended plans for the construction of nine (9) multiple dwellings on Lot 777 (No. 263) Cambridge Street, Wembley at their earliest possible convenience.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.55 - ATT 1 OF 2 - LOT 334 (NO. 110) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH

APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION

During construction it became apparent that a portion of garage roof slab could be used as roof garden that can be accessed off the upper level ensuite bathroom.

The area will be a totally private space enclosed by a privacy screen. Indeed, the area will be predominantly plans and essentially wont' be a habitable space. There is a sliding door from the ensuite that opens onto this garden so the natural ventilation and appreciation of this garden can occur.

There is absolutely no overlooking from this area. Refer applicant's further justification (URBIS) attached.

NEIGHBOUR COMMENT

Submission One (No. 112 Branksome Gardens)

We object to the creation of a rooftop garden/balcony as the added bulk from the screening would have a significant impact on our amenity. It does not comply with the deemed to comply provision of the R Codes or the design principles as it will increase the building bulk of an already very imposing structure. The building is already 2 storeys high along almost the entire length of our northern boundary. While compliant, this fact must be taken into account when considering whether to allow them to increase the bulk further with a balcony and screening that does not comply with setback provisions.

Adding a screen to the roof top will mean that the only bit of relief we have from the building, where the structure steps in, is in fact taken away.

We also bring attention to a conversation with the architect where we were told the screen would be made of aluminium slats. The plans specify a perforated steel screen which is decorative. Aluminium slats are not. We also have concern that there is no screen shown on the rear elevation and the floor plan simply states a 1.65 metre screen will be provided however it's open to interpretation whether the lines on the plan indicate the screen on 3 sides or a combination of screen and 1 metre high balustrade.

The architect has also verbally committed to increasing the length of obscure glazing behind the playroom to alleviate our privacy concerns and block any views into our backyard from the playroom. However we have not had this commitment in writing.

We believe the only way to ensure privacy is for Council to require the applicant to fir a fixed piece of obscure glazing to the playroom up to 1.65 metre as there is no method of ensuring the louvers are in fact fixed and not operable.

20170502_PA1428_Submission of Support to Amendmed DA.docx

04 May 2017

Town of Cambridge 1 Bold Park Drive Floreat WA 6014

Attention: Jenny Bender (Acting Director Planning Town of Cambridge)

Dear Jenny,

SUPPORTING SUBMISSION FOR AMENDED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 0055DA-2017 - 110 LOT 334) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH.

On behalf of the land owners at 110 (Lot 334) Branksome Gardens, City Beach, Urbis provides this submission in support of the proposed amended planning application 0055DA-2017.

Urbis understands there are several issues that relate to the proposed amended application, however, Urbis will be focussing on two elements only, these being, the ‘roof garden’ and the ‘roof hatch’. This correspondence seeks to demonstrate how these proposed amendments meet the associated ‘Design Principles’ of the R-Codes and relevant Town of Cambridge local planning policies.

ROOF HATCH The development approval (0290DA-2014) for this development includes an approved upper deck (roof terrace) that complies with the maximum wall height limits for a flat roof structure under the Town of Cambridge Local Planning Scheme No. 1 (LPS1) and subsequently Local Planning Policy 3.3 Building Height (LPP3.3). This approved roof deck is accessible via an internal stair case that has been constructed to the approved plans. Upon ordering the designed ‘flush’ hatch system, it was determined that due to the coastal conditions, and more specifically the winds experienced on the Perth coastline, the manufacturers could not warrant nor guarantee the hatch would leak water if rain were to enter at a ‘sideways’ direction.

The builder and architect have established from liaison with multiple other manufacturers that the only way to guarantee waterproofing the home, is to have a more traditional hatch system. The hatch structure proposed has been selected to mitigate its appearance through use of glass and will appear almost invisible from the street and surrounding properties. The area of the hatch has also been minimised to the area required to access the roof only and covers only 3.75 sq. m at full height and 6 sq. m in totality. Some further context that should be considered, is the majority of the dwelling sits well below the 7.5m height allowance. Close to 50% of the dwelling is 6.2m above natural ground level and with the exception of the roof deck surrounding wall, is nearly all under 7m above natural ground level.

DV17.55 - Att 2 of 2 - Lot 334 No 110 Branksome Gardens, City Beach RETROSPECTIVE

20170502_PA1428_Submission of Support to Amendmed DA.docx 2

Building height within the Town of Cambridge is administered by LPP3.3 which is adopted under LPS1. LPP3.3 requires a maximum building height of 7.5 metres within the City Beach Precinct to meet the deem to comply standards. This development proposes 8.6m at the highest point of the roof hatch. However, should the deemed to comply not be met, as per LPP3.3, the design principals of the R-Codes and specifically Cl. 5.1.6 should be met.

Table 1 – Design Assessment – Roof Hatch

Clause Design Principal (DP) Assessment against DP DP Met?

5.1.6 P6 Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape, including road reserves and public open space reserves; and where appropriate maintains:

• adequate access to direct

sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces;

The proposed structure above the maximum 7.5m height has no impact on sunlight to any portion of the proposed development or neighbouring open spaces. As depicted in Attachment 1 the structure has no overshadowing impact on the neighbouring property at all as the shadow cast by the roof hatch projects within the approved wall height of the first floor.

YES

• adequate daylight to major

openings into habitable rooms; and

The proposed structure above the maximum 7.5m height has no impact on daylight to any portion of the proposed developments major openings or any opening for that matter. This is also consistent with the neighbouring properties for the same reason presented above and represented by Attachment 1.

YES

• access to views of

significance. The proposed structure is completely glass with the exception of framing. This creates the appearance of being almost invisible. This also creates the ability for any surrounding properties, to see through the structure to any views that it may suggested it impedes.

YES




It must also be recognised that this home could have been built to meet the deemed to comply standards with a pitched roof height up to 9m in height. This is completely relevant as the roof hatch is in a central position not far from the likely apex of a roof pitch. The loss of views of surrounding properties and overall bulk of the built form would be far more arduous if the development were proposed to have a pitch roof.

View from Branksome Gardens:

The roof deck is not visible from the street level at Branksome Gardens due its 17.2m setback form the front boundary. This perspective, as depicted in Figure 1, demonstrates that the approved front façade appears higher than the roof deck itself. The roof hatch is further setback at 19.8m with the start of the highest point setback at 21.6m.

The lots on the east of Branksome Gardens sit far lower than the lots to on west and therefore there is no impact to view of the ocean for lots. The photo taken from the roof deck to the east (Figure 2) demonstrates that only roof tops can be seen from this area. Therefore, no views of significance are impacted.

View from west toward east:

The only impacted lots to the west of the property is 16 and 18 Challenger Parade. These lots are significantly lower in natural ground level and have frontages and views of significance to the west towards the ocean. Therefore, the view to the east is secondary and can only be achieved via building well above the maximum height limit.




16 Challenger Parade (three storey home built on top of its highest natural ground level) has clearly built well above the 7.5m height limit for a flat roof development.

18 Challenger Parade is an existing two storey home with pitched roof. Figure 3 clearly demonstrates that the already approved development at 110 Branksome Gardens would mitigate views to the east unless a structure well above the maximum height limit were to be approved.

Figure 1 – Roof deck from street level



Figure 2 – Roof deck view to the east

Figure 3 – Roof deck view to the west



ROOF GARDEN The second proposed amendment we are addressing is the proposed roof garden. Throughout the building process, the landowner established an area of flat roof space that was not being utilised off the master bedroom ensuite. The proposed roof garden is seen as an opportunity to promote some green space as an outlook from the ensuite area. This area is proposed to be screened by an articulated 80% solid feature screen to provide privacy for the neighbouring dwelling at 112 Branksome Gardens. This privacy screen which will be lined internally by greenery will screen the approved obscure window further.

The roof garden with the proposed screen complies with the deemed to comply standards of the R-Codes adopted under LPS1. The area of non-compliance that relate to this submission is lot boundary setback to the screen wall. Lot boundary setback in the Town of Cambridge is administered by the Cl. 5.1.3 of the R-Codes and adopted under LPS1. As this roof garden is being determined by the Town of Cambridge as a habitable room with a major opening, the deemed to comply standard of the R-Codes requires a 2m lot boundary setback. The proposed lot boundary setback is 1.6m, however, is determined to be 1.5m when considered in addition to the ground floor wall and therefore, the design principles should be complied with.

Table 2 – Design Assessment – Lot Boundary Setback


5.1.3 P3.1

Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to:

• reduce impacts of

building bulk on adjoining properties;

The existing approved structure displays a compliant 19m long wall with an additional 9.5m of glazing towards the rear of the property. The feature 20% perforated steel screen will provide not only articulation to the side of the property, but will also break up the appearance of monotony and bulkiness of the existing wall. Compound this with the greenery of the roof garden and this will reduce the existing bulk of the wall when viewed by 112 Branksome Gardens.

Figure 4 is a representation of the type of proposed feature screen wall the land owner is looking to install.

Further, the average setback along this entire wall is close to 3m.

YES




• provide adequate direct

sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and adjoining properties; and

The proposed screen wall will not have any impact on the buildings access to sun light and will in fact promote the use of an area that has limited but some access to outdoor sunlight. As depicted in Attachment 1, the cast shadowing is created by the top of the approved first floor wall and not by the screen wall. Therefore, there is no impact on sunlight to the neighbouring property created by the screen wall.

The prevailing breeze in this area is the south westerly and therefore in addition to the structures 20% permeability, the orientation of the terrace ensures no impact on the ventilation of the neighbouring property. Further, the ability for this area to be used as a roof garden, enables the proposed ensuite door to the roof garden to be open and allowing the cross breeze and ventilation into the house; reducing energy costs and improving sustainability.

YES

• minimise the extent ofoverlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.

The proposed amendment improves privacy for both the landowner and the neighbouring property by installing the screen as a fixed 80% solid structure that also doesn’t incorporate the greenery that will be developed internally. This meets the standard definition of screening.

YES



Figure 4 – Example of screen feature wall only

CONCLUSION From the above it is clear that the proposed roof garden and roof hatch amendments meet the Design Principles set out in Cl 5.1.3 and 5.1.6 of the R-Codes adopted under the Town of Cambridge Local Planning Scheme No. 1.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this additional submission of support. We therefore request the Council support the proposed amended roof hatch and roof garden based on meeting the design principles of the R-Codes.

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me at 9346 0500 or [email protected].

Yours sincerely,

Kris Nolan Director

Enc Attachment 1: Overshadowing cast by proposed roof hatch


JOB N

O.

DRA

WN

SCA

LED

ATE

A.04

wrightfeldhusen

SECTIO

NS1313

RD1:50

SECTIO

N JJ

1: 50

SECTIO

N II

1: 50

C1

29.03.16

ISSUED FO

R TEND

ERC

001.05.2015

ISSUED TO

BUILDER

C1

29.03.2016

DV17.55 - Att 2 of 2 - Lot 334 No 110 Branksome Gardens, City Beach - RETRO

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.58 - LOT 809 (NO. 1) TURRIFF ROAD, FLOREAT APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION 1. I understand from your representative over the phone that the HN3 objection was

based on Google aerial photograph that my plot is already overbuilt with little open space and in particular it was assumed that the existing brick and tile shed at the rear was to remain. These are in error in that-

• I believe that the Google photo is not appropriate for use in conjunction with the

R-Code. • The shed will be demolished along with other storage sheds because they would

no longer be required due to that the underside of the elevated dwelling would have a cover area alone that would well be in excess of those structures that are to be demolished.

2. In my endeavour to conform with the current R-Code guidelines on this application and in keeping with my Ongoing Professional Development (OPD)I completed a course on Residential Design Codes of Western Australia conducted by Master Builders Association in association with Bezant Consulting on 2 March 2017. I subsequently learnt that the Code in force has most recently been revised. Accordingly, I have constructed a new design per the guidance and outlined as follows:

• The Open space as shown on the plan is 34% which is well under the 55% that

is permitted under the current R-Code at 3.1 Table 1. • The average rear boundary setback is 1600 and in excess of the 1200 that is

required under R-Code Table 2a. Also, the adjoining neighbour HN25 Pearson PI. has not objected in any event.

• I understand that HN3 Turriff Rd objected to the proposal due to the side setback. But I suggest that this is unfounded because the average is 2450 which exceeds the 1900 under the Code.

• I understand that it is the Town’s requirement that a granny flat dwelling is not to exceed 70M2. According it has been reduced to 57M2 in area although the proposed Transportable installation as a whole will cover 79M2 which has included a store-room/gardener day-room.

I learnt from the course that the Town is entitled to make its own rules but consultations are encouraged. In this regard it may be relevant for me to point out that this is my retirement project for illustrating to members of my family, relatives and friends in Perth, interstate and overseas of my ability in building and landscape designs, I would thus be grateful if you could assist so that my desire could be fulfilled. NEIGHBOUR COMMENT Submission One (No. 3 Turriff Road) We advise that we have no objection to the side set back as illustrated in the plans. We do however, object to the proposed building exceeding the maximum plot ratio of 70 square meters. The owner of 1 Turriff Road is building a large double story building to the front of the property and we note that the planned oversize ancillary dwelling is also elevated. It is our concern as the owners of the neighbouring property that the combined development in terms of scale will have a significant overbearing impact on our property.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.58 - LOT 809 (NO. 1) TURRIFF ROAD, FLOREAT We also draw your attention to the fact that the owner of 1 Turriff Road has, over the past few years built other ancillary buildings used for storage and has also elected to store large items on the roofs of these buildings. These ancillary buildings do not appear to be shown on the plans as viewed. We request that a Town of Cambridge Compliance Officer attend on site to view these ancillary buildings prior to considering this development application.

KUKAME MCKENZIE

Architect

21 SULMAN AVE SALTER POINT WA 6152

0466 395 479

[email protected] www.kukame.com

ABN 19 369 407 841

20 April 2017

Town of Cambridge

1 Bold Park Drive

Floreat WA 6014

Attn: Sam Moss, Planning Officer

Dear Sam,

148 TOWER ST, WEST LEEDERVILLE – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Please find enclosed response to items raised in the following correspondence:

• Letter from Town of Cambridge, “LOT 78 (NO. 148) TOWER STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE – ADDITIONS

AND ALTERATIONS”, received 22/02/2017.

• Letter from Erica Smith, “INVITATION TO COMMENT - LOT 78 (NO. 148) TOWER STREET, WEST

LEEDERVILLE – ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS”, received 15/03/2017.

We trust that the clarifications provided are sufficient to progress the assessment and approval of the

development application. Please do not hesitate to get in touch if anything requires further explanation.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Kukame McKenzie

Architect

Encl.

Written responses to correspondence received

New or Revised Drawings:

SK-A0002(00) Setback Overlay

DA-A1000(01) Site Plan

DA-A1001(01) Floor Plan

DA-A2000(01) Elevations

DV17.59 - Att 1 of 2 - Lot 78 No. 148 Tower Street, West Leederville

Page 1 of 6

KUKAME MCKENZIE

Architect

Responses to letter from Town of Cambridge, “LOT 78 (NO. 148) TOWER STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE – ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS”, received 22/02/2017

Item Council

Comment

Relevant R-Code Design Principles Response

1 Side Setback

(right/east): the

minimum required

setback for the

proposed living

room wall from

the left/eastern

boundary is 1.7

metres, the plans

submitted show a

nil setback.

5.1.3 Lot boundary setback

P3.1 Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to:

• reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties;

• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the

building and open spaces on the site and adjoining

properties; and

• minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of

privacy on adjoining properties.

P3.2 Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the

street boundary) where this:

• makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy

for the occupant/s or outdoor living areas;

• does not compromise the design principle contained in

clause 5.1.3 P3.1;

• does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of

the adjoining property;

• ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable

rooms and outdoor living areas for adjoining properties is

not restricted; and

• positively contributes to the prevailing development

context and streetscape.

5.4.1 Visual privacy

P1.1 Minimal direct overlooking of active habitable

spaces and outdoor living areas of adjacent dwellings

achieved through:

• building layout and location;

• design of major openings;

• landscape screening of outdoor active habitable spaces;

and/or

• location of screening devices.

P1.2 Maximum visual privacy to side and rear boundaries

through measures such as:

We argue that a nil setback on the eastern boundary is consistent with Design Principles 5.1.3, 5.4.1 &

5.4.2:

• The current existing building has a nil setback of 13.5m overall. After demolition of the lean-to,

construction of the courtyard and new extension the building will have a nil setback of 16.0m

overall. This is an overall increase of only 2.5m, which we argue is minor given the context

described further below.

• The proposed 16.0m overall nil setback on the eastern boundary is an appropriate urban

response to the development context and consistent with immediate surrounding properties on

Tower St. Refer supplementary drawing ‘SK-A0002 Setback Overlay’ (attached).

• The incorporation and location of a courtyard on the eastern boundary reduces the impact of

bulk on the adjoining property whilst providing significant amenity and useable open living

space to the dwelling.

• The proposed development positively contributes to the prevailing development context by

retaining and enhancing the existing 1905 Federation Style building. The proposed extension is

modest in scale and seeks to be consistent with the scale and character of existing and historical

development along Tower St. The proposed building height is approximately 680mm less than

the existing Federation Style boundary wall.

• Proposed windows and openings are located perpendicular to the side boundary, mitigating

overlooking possibilities whilst maximising solar and daylight access to the habitable rooms of

the dwelling.

• The design response enhances privacy for both parties by eliminating existing overlooking and

privacy issues related to the existing rear outdoor living area at 146 Tower St. This area currently

has direct views and sightlines that overlook the rear of the property, negatively impacting the

amenity and privacy of the owners. The proposed design response seeks to mitigate this issue

for both parties.


Page 2 of 6

KUKAME MCKENZIE

Architect

• offsetting the location of ground and first floor windows

so that viewing is oblique rather than direct;

• building to the boundary where appropriate;

• setting back the first floor from the side boundary;

• providing higher or opaque and fixed windows; and/or

• screen devices (including landscaping, fencing, obscure

glazing, timber screens, external blinds, window hoods

and shutters).

5.4.2 Solar access for adjoining sites

P2.1 Effective solar access for the proposed development

and protection of the solar access.

P2.2 Development designed to protect solar access for

neighbouring properties taking account the potential to

overshadow existing:

• outdoor living areas;

• north facing major openings to habitable rooms, within

15 degrees of north in each direction; or

• roof mounted solar collectors.

• The proposed courtyard has a 2.2m high privacy screen providing visual privacy between this

outdoor living area and the adjacent property.

• Proposed setback does not restrict or impede solar access for neighbours, refer drawing

‘DA-1100(00) Shadow Analysis Plan’.

• The proposed nil setback to one side of the lot is an effective use of space on a narrow block

(10m).

2 Side Setback

(left/west): the

minimum required

setback for the

proposed kitchen

and dining wall

from the

left/western side

boundary is 1.7

metres, the plans

submitted show a

setback of 1

metre.




We argue that the proposed setback on the western boundary is consistent with Design Principles

5.1.3, 5.4.1 & 5.4.2:

• The existing side access and setbacks for the existing Federation buildings at 148 and 150 Tower

St are between 750-850mm wide, limiting the capacity for access down the side of the building.

The proposed setbacks for new works (1030mm) are consistent with the setback for new works

undertaken at 150 Tower St (1060mm).

• Proposed setback does not restrict or impede solar access for neighbours, refer drawing

‘DA-1100(00) Shadow Analysis Plan’.

• The proposed setback is an effective use of space on a narrow block (10m).

• Proposed windows and openings are located perpendicular to the side boundary, mitigating

overlooking possibilities whilst maximising solar and daylight access to the dwelling.


Page 3 of 6

KUKAME MCKENZIE

Architect

3 Open Space: the

minimum required

area of open

space is 45

percent of the

total lot area, the

plans submitted

show an area of

43.5 percent.

5.1.4 Open space

P4 Development incorporates suitable open space for its

context to:

• reflect the existing and/or desired streetscape

character or as outlined under the local planning

framework;

• provide access to natural sunlight for the dwelling;

• reduce building bulk on the site, consistent with the

expectations of the applicable density code and/or

as outlined in the local planning framework;

• provide an attractive setting for the buildings,

landscape, vegetation and streetscape;

• provide opportunities for residents to use space

external to the dwelling for outdoor pursuits and

access within/around the site; and

• provide space for external fixtures and essential

facilities.

5.3.1 Outdoor living areas

P1.1 Outdoor living areas which provide spaces:

• capable of use in conjunction with a habitable room

of the dwelling;

• open to winter sun and ventilation; and

• optimise use of the northern aspect of the site.

P1.2 Balconies or equivalent outdoor living areas capable

of use in conjunction with a habitable room of each

dwelling, and if possible, open to winter sun.

1. Calculations have been clarified on amended drawing ‘DA-A1000(01) Site Plan’.

2. Note that the courtyard has been included in the open space calculations. We argue that the

courtyard should be counted as open space as it demonstrates compliance with Design

Principles 5.1.4 & 5.3.1:

• Courtyard is a highly accessible and useable outdoor living area located adjacent the

kitchen, dining and living areas and is capable of use in conjunction with these rooms.

• Courtyard has generous dimensions (2.85m x 3.95m, big enough to fit a table for 8 people)

and will provide considerable amenity to the living, kitchen and dining room areas.

• Courtyard provides significant access to natural sunlight for the dwelling, particularly the

adjacent bedroom which currently does not have access to daylight from the north.

• Courtyard provides the opportunity for cross ventilation through the living areas, as well as

providing ventilation to the adjacent bedroom.

• Courtyard reduces building bulk on the site, particularly on the eastern boundary.

• Courtyard provides an attractive buffer space between existing and new dwelling. It

enhances the heritage building character by exposing and restoring the original Federation

building wall to the south.

4 Fencing in Front

Setback Area: the

maximum

permissible height

of a picket fence

(or similar) is 1.2

metres, the plans

submitted show a

height of up to 1.3

metres.

5.2.4 Street walls and fences

P4 Front fences are low or restricted in height to permit

surveillance (as per Clause 5.2.3) and enhance

streetscape (as per clause 5.1.2)

• Drawing amended to address feedback. Refer drawing ‘DA-A2000(01) Elevations’.


Page 4 of 6

KUKAME MCKENZIE

Architect

5 Car Parking: the

minimum of one

car space is

required on site,

the plans

submitted do not

show a car space.

5.3.3 Parking

P3.1 Adequate car parking is to be provided on-site in

accordance with projected need related to:

• the type, number and size of dwellings;

• the availability of on-street and other off-street parking;

and

• the proximity of the proposed development to public

transport and other facilities.

• This is an existing condition and is common to adjacent properties. No secondary street or

right-of-way access to the lot exists.

• Parking permits are currently issued by the Town of Cambridge for on-street parking in

recognition of this existing condition.

• Incorporation of on-site parking would require demolition of the existing 1905 Federation Style

dwelling. This would negatively impact the streetscape and be considered an inappropriate

outcome.

6 Retaining Walls

and Filling of

Land: the

maximum

permissible height

of a retaining wall

and filling of land

on a side

boundary is 500

millimetres, the

plans submitted

show a height of

approximately 640

millimetres on the

western side

boundary.

5.3.7 Site works

P7.1 Development that considers and responds to the

natural features of the site and requires minimal

excavation/fill.

P7.2 Where excavation/fill is necessary, all finished levels

respecting the natural ground level at the lot boundary of

the site and as viewed from the street.

• The design intent is for proposed levels to be less than 500 millimetres above the natural

ground level. Refer drawing ‘DA-A2001[00] Elevation & Section / 01 West Elevation’.


Page 5 of 6

KUKAME MCKENZIE

Architect

Responses to letter from Erica Smith, “INVITATION TO COMMENT - LOT 78 (NO. 148) TOWER STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE – ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS”,

received 15/03/2017.

Item Comments Relevant R-Code Design Principles Response

1 My main objection is the noncompliant nil setback

proposed for the eastern boundary. As per your

letter and the State Planning Policy Residential

Design Codes (R-Codes), the minimum required

setback is 1.7m. I am willing to compromise and

accept a 1.0m setback at this location as per the

minimum in Tables 2a and 2b of the R-Codes

given the small property frontage and similar

concessions that have been granted to myself and

144 Tower Street during recent additions and

alterations. Although there is an existing

boundary wall built circa 1905, I am unwilling to

accept the proposed nil setback over an

additional 8.5m length. This will have significant

impact on my rear open deck with a 3.85m wall

effectively at arm’s length.




Refer response to Council Item 1.

2 In accordance with the Dividing Fences Act 1961

the rear existing dividing fence (not shown) and

the front existing dividing fence (shown as brick

fence) cannot be removed/altered by any one

party as they are considered joint property. The

rear eastern diving fence cannot be removed

without my consent which again reinforces my

objection to the proposed nil setback. I also do

not give consent for the front eastern brick fence

to be demolished. This brick fence separating the

front yards of 146 and 148 Tower Street is

important for privacy and is a structure that both

myself and the Broezes wish to retain.

Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme

Policy 3.1. Streetscape

Fence Replacement in the Street Setback Area

• Where a non-complying over-height or

solid fence is to be wholly or partially

demolished, an identical or similar fence

cannot be erected in its place. The

replacement fence must comply with this

policy.

Fencing in the Primary Street Setback Area (Ref:

R-Codes 5.2.4 - C4 and 6.2.2 - C2)

This section applies to fencing or gates

anywhere in the primary street setback area

including the front and side boundary.

• The proposed front eastern dividing fence replacement is consistent with

Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme Policy 3.1. Streetscape.

• The existing rear eastern dividing fence is not located on the survey

boundary with a negative balance to 148 Tower St.

• The existing rear eastern diving fence is made from asbestos and is

dilapidated and deteriorating. It is proposed to be replaced as part of the

development.

• Proposed rear fence materials clarified, refer drawing

‘DA-A1000(01) Site Plan’.


Page 6 of 6

KUKAME MCKENZIE

Architect

3 A more minor concern is the impact of the

proposed additions to the visual privacy to my

laundry. As shown on the proposed drawings, the

glass windows and door to the courtyard create a

direct line-of-sight into my laundry. This has been

discussed with Grace and Carsten and a minor

modification to increase the boundary fence to

2.2m was acknowledged as an easy solution at

this location to maintain both our privacies.

5.4.1 Visual privacy • We note that the laundry currently has a direct line of sight onto the rear

of 148 Tower St, compromising privacy and amenity for occupants. This

is a considerable existing issue that will be mitigated as an outcome of

the development.

• Drawing amended to increase screen height. Refer drawings

‘DA-A1001(01) Floor Plan’ & ‘DA-A2000(01) Elevations’.

4 I am sure you are also aware of the significant

errors in the Open Space Diagram on the

proposed development plans. In accordance with

the R-Codes, the zoning of 148 Tower Street

requires 45% open space. The diagram provided

reports 49% open space but includes the front

existing veranda, the proposed courtyard and the

roofed section of the proposed rear deck. These

are not open spaces in accordance with the R-

Codes definition having more than two enclosed

sides, 148 Tower Street - Building - Final

Comments covered with an impermeable material.

As such, the proposed development plans

represent only 37% open space. This is also pretty

evident when comparing the building envelope

with the plans at my property and 144 Tower

Street.

5.1.4 Open space

5.3.1 Outdoor living areas

Refer response to Council Item 3.

In addition, we note that the rear deck area is predominantly open on three

sides as shown on drawings ‘DA-A2000(01) Elevations’ & ‘DA-A2001(00)

Elevation & Section’.


Town of Cambridge does not warrant the accuracyinformation in this publication and any person using orrelying upon such information does so on the basis thatthe Town of Cambridge shall bear no responsibility orliability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in this information.

Town of CambridgeProperty Mapping System

Scale: 1:400 Projection: GDA94 / MGA zone 50 Date: 12/04/2017>

8.7m

9.6m

7.9m

11.4m

18.0m 19.0m16.0m

5.7m

9.4m

5.12m

10.925m

NTS / 15-APR-2017 / SK-A0002

TOWER ST EXTENSION148 TOWER ST, WEST LEEDERVILLE WA / CARSTEN & GRACE BROEZE / 0004

SETBACK OVERLAYKUKAMEMCKENZIEArchitect


022001

Scale 1:500SITE PLANOPEN SPACE DIAGRAM02

Scale 1:100SITE PLAN01

NIL SETBACK TO EASTERNBOUNDARY AS PER

EXISTING CONDITION

FALL

FALL

EXISTINGDWELLING

NEWBUILDING

COURTYARD

NEW TREES ANDLANDSCAPING

PV SOLAR PANELSMOUNTED ON ROOF

STORMWATER DIRECTEDTO RAINWATER TANKAND GARDEN AREA

SOFT LANDSCAPINGTO 60% OF STREET

SETBACK AREA

EXISTING ON-STREETCAR PARKING

SITE

BO

UND

ARY

SITE BOUNDARY

TOW

ER S

T

EXISTINGDWELLING

EXISTINGDWELLING

EXISTINGSHED

NEWBULLNOSE

VERANDAH

BUILDINGFOOTPRINT

OPEN SPACE

SITE AREA 294m2

BUILDING FOOTPRINT 159.1m2(INCLUDES FRONT PORCH)

OPEN SPACE(INCLUDES COURTYARD) 134.9m2 OR 45.9%

MINIMUM REQUIRED* 132.3m2 OR 45%*R-CODES PART 5.1.4 TABLE 1

BLDG148.7m2

COURTYARD11.25m2

NEW 2M HIGHTIMBER FENCE TOREPLACE EXISTING

NOTEADDED

AREAS ANDASSUMPTIONSCLARIFIED

PORCH10.4m2

DECK EXTENTSHOWN

KUKAMEMCKENZIEArchitect

Printed on: 20/04/2017 at: 7:20:49 PMFile Name: C:\Users\kmckenzie\Desktop\Tower St\CAD\AutoCAD\sheets\DA-A1000(01) Site Plan.dwg

Page Size: A3

21 SULMAN AVE SALTER POINT WA 61520466 395 479 | [email protected] 19 369 407 841

at

0 10 20 50 MILLIMETRES ON ORIGINAL4030 60 70 80 90 100mm

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

SITE PLAN

20/04/2017 1:100 A3

DA-A1000(01)

TOWER ST EXTENSION148 TOWER ST WEST LEEDERVILLE WA 6007

0004GRACE & CARSTEN BROEZE


022001

EXISTING TO BE RETAINED AS-IS 62.5m2EXISTING TO BE RENOVATED 17.7m2ADDITIONS 68.5m2NEW TOTAL AREA 148.7m2

NEW DECK 30.0m2

BEDROOM /STUDY

EXISTINGBEDROOM

COURTYARD

FFL 32.54

DINING

FFL 32.09

RAINWATERTANK UNDER

TOW

ER S

T

ENSUITE

LIVING

KITCHEN

2.2m HIGH PRIVACYSCREEN TO COURTYARD

BATHROOM

2850COURTYARD

LAUNDRY &STORAGEEXISTING

BEDROOM

FFL 32.54

18575OVERALL

FFL 31.94

3740

COUR

TYAR

D

FFL 31.94

DECK

RL 32.20

EXISTINGPORCH

FFL 32.43

FFL 31.49

NEW FENCETO FRONT

NEW TREESPECIES TBC

4800LIVING

10925EXISTING TO BE RETAINED

1003

1SI

TE

9040

BUIL

DIN

G

9250

BUIL

DIN

G

1019

SETB

ACK

29175

3955DECK

3125EX. SETBACK

7650NEW BUILDING

7500SETBACK

18550

808

821

757

3095EX. SETBACK

1960DECK

7500SETBACK

1061

849

1029

FFL 31.94

10900EXISTING

ROOF OVER

EX. FOOTPATH

EX. GAS

PAVING

Scale 1:100PLAN01

SITE

BO

UND

ARY

SITE BOUNDARY

PRIVACY SCREEN HEIGHTMODIFIED, DECK EXTENTSHOWN


Printed on: 20/04/2017 at: 7:37:49 PMFile Name: C:\Users\kmckenzie\Desktop\Tower St\CAD\AutoCAD\sheets\DA-A1001(01) Floor Plan.dwg

Page Size: A3


at



FLOOR PLAN

20/04/2017 1:100 A3

DA-A1001(01)




Scale 1:100EAST ELEVATION01

31.94FFL

32.54FFL

PAINTED METAL CLADDING& PERGOLA STRUCTURE,COLOUR TBC

EXTERNALDECKING

3850

EXISTING TO BE RETAINED ALTERATIONS & ADDITIONS

4250EXISTIN

G SID

E WALL

2200

EXISTING WINDOWRETAINED AS-IS

LIGHTWEIGHT EQUITONECLADDING (OR SIMILAR),COLOUR TBC

INTERNAL ENVELOPESHOWN DASHED PV SOLAR

PANELS

EXISTING BRICK WALLRETAINED AS-IS

IMPERMEABLESCREENING TO

COURTYARD

6500

6800

5120

1750 4800 250

4800 790910

500mm OFFSET ABOVENATURAL GROUND

LINE SHOWN DASHED

NEW PAINTED FILIGREEMETAL FENCE TO

FRONT COLOUR TBC

3100PERGOLA

3071TOWER ST VERGE

SCREEN HEIGHTMODIFIED

FENCEHEIGHTREVISED

Scale 1:100TOWER STREET - EXISTINGSOUTH ELEVATION02

32.54FFL

1200

NEW PAINTED FILIGREEMETAL FENCE TO FRONTCOLOUR TBC

NEW BULLNOSEVERANDAH TOREPLACE EXISTING

EXISTING FACADERETAINED AS-IS

FENCE HEIGHTREVISED

Scale 1:100NORTH ELEVATION03

31.94FFL

STEEL FRAMED GLAZING

32.54FFL

3850450

7000APPRO

X. EXISTING

650

PAINTED METAL CLADDING& PERGOLA STRUCTURE,COLOUR TBC

PV SOLAR PANELS

EXISTING ROOF

EXTERNAL DECKING


Printed on: 20/04/2017 at: 7:26:19 PMFile Name: C:\Users\kmckenzie\Desktop\Tower St\CAD\AutoCAD\sheets\DA-A2000(01) Elevations.dwg

Page Size: A3


at



ELEVATIONS

20/04/2017 1:100 A3

DA-A2000(01)




ATTACHMENT: Summary of Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment DV17.59 - ATT 2 OF 2 - LOT 78 (NO. 148) TOWER STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE

NEIGHBOUR COMMENT

Please note the full version of this submission is available for the perusal of elected members upon request.

TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS JASON BUCKLEY - CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

CC: KAREN EXLEY-MEAD – EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CEO IAN BIGNELL - MANAGER PLANNING STRATEGIES & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MATTHEW BURNETT - SENIOR PLANNING OFFICER KIMBERLEY MACPHAIL – STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICER

FROM: MARLAINE LAVERY - DIRECTOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

DATE: 3 MAY 2017

SUBJECT: MEETING NOTES FROM TOWN PLANNING SCHEME REVIEW STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING - TUESDAY 2 MAY 2017

Attendees at Meeting Mayor Keri Shannon Cr Pauline O'Connor JP Cr Corinne MacRae Cr Jane Powell Cr Rod Bradley Cr Louis Carr Cr Sonia Grinceri Jason Buckley - Chief Executive Officer Marlaine Lavery - Director Planning & Development Ian Bignell - Manager Planning Strategies and

Economic Development Matthew Burnett - Senior Planning Officer Kimberley Macphail - Strategic Planning Officer

Presenters Prue Griffin (Hocking Heritage Studio) Gemma Smith (Hocking Heritage Studio) Elena Cope (Creating Communities)

Documents

• Previous Meeting Notes (2 November 2016)• Local Government (Heritage Inventory) Fact Sheet• Strategic Project List• DL flyer (circulated at meeting)

Meeting commenced at 5:05pm

ITEM 1 - Previous Meeting Notes (2 November 2017)

No comment

ITEM 2 - Local Government Inventory and Heritage List

Prue Griffin and Gemma Smith of Hocking Heritage Studio provided a presentation on the Local Government Inventory (Municipal Inventory) and Heritage List Review Process covering basic principles, aims of review process and management categories.

MEETING NOTES

DV17.60 - Att 1 of 2 - TPSRSC Meeting Notes

Elena Cope of Creating Communities presented on the proposed community engagement program to input into the list of heritage places on the Inventory which is proposed to commence later this month. The presentation covered aims and objectives, key messages, schedule of key activities and presented community engagement materials (survey, DL flyer and fact sheet).

Comments and questions from elected members:-

• Can places be excluded based on the owner not wanting the place on the Inventory?The consultant advised that this is a decision of Council but in most cases there needs tobe a sufficient reason such as an error in the heritage value assessment of the property.

• What categories of the Inventory are put onto the Heritage List? Are there certain rulesabout this?The consultant advised that this is also a decision of Council but in most cases Category1 and 2 properties are transferred to the Heritage List. The State Heritage Office isaiming for greater consistency across local governments in this regard.

• What offsets for inclusion on Heritage List/ incentives to landowners would apply?This would be outlined in a Council Policy. EM discussed the need to put properties thatare on the State Register onto the Heritage List so that it could provide assistance tothese landowners.

• How is a 'heritage place' defined?The Heritage Act sets out the definition of a Heritage Place. It may be a specific buildingbut could be a collection of buildings, streets, archeological site, trees etc.

Action - Add to FAQs to address above matters and clearly define the difference in what it means for development if on Local Government Inventory versus the Heritage List.

Council Policy There was discussion as to whether a planning policy should be developed for Council to have a position on the above matters prior to community engagement. As per standard practice, Category 1 and 2 places would most likely be included on a future Heritage List. The Town would circulate the State Heritage Office's standard policy which would generally form the framework for decision making. A report will be presented to Council in due course outlining the approach and to cover incentives.

Action - Include a link to the draft State Heritage Office Policy with FAQs and prepare report to Council on approach and heritage incentives (future)

Education is a key part of the process to address concerns about heritage implications in the community. There is a need to convey that heritage listing does not entirely restrict redevelopment or that it will result in dilapidated/structural unsound buildings being required to be retained.

Community engagement materials (FAQs, DL flyer and survey questions)

In accordance with new protocol endorsed by Council at its Meeting 26th April, community engagement materials are to be circulated to Elected Members for approval by absolute majority and two days provided for this to occur.

EM gave advice on the format of DL flyer. The instructions will be given to the consultant and the updated version redistributed to EM for final approval. The FAQs are also to be updated to cover matters as mentioned above.


The survey is also to link to information about the Information Session to ensure respondents are aware of the opportunity to attend the session to assist in providing feedback.

Of note, the community engagement schedule may require amendment should final approval of material be delayed.

Action: Modify DL flyer, FAQs and survey and circulate to Elected Members for approval in accordance with the above.

Prue Griffin and Gemma Smith (Hocking Heritage Consultants) and Elena Cope (Creating Communities) left the meeting.

Cr O'Connor JP left the meeting.

ITEM 3 – Other Business

The Strategic Projects list which outlines current, future and pending projects was presented for discussion and the projects below were pulled out for discussion. Of note, the projects are currently pending or future and Planning Services is not currently resourced to substantially progress these projects at this time.

Floreat District Centre Activity Plan Comment that this plan should be driven by the landowner. The project will be dependent on direction from the Local Planning Strategy.

Ocean Village Centre Plan Pindan have purchased the Ocean Village Shopping Centre and the intent is to work with the Town to undertake planning for the future of this site. Parking in City Beach local centres was identified as a key issue and parking requirements may need to be reviewed if centres have a number of hospitality uses.

Short - stay accommodation Policy The Director Planning and Development commented on the approach taken by City of Subiaco to address AirBnB and similar operations. There is merit in not preparing a policy given the limited effect a planning approval has in these circumstances. A Bed and Breakfast can be applied for (full breakfast not required) and any more than six occupants is a lodging house which is not permitted. The Administration will review various options and report to Council in due course.

Public Art The priority of this dealing with this topic should be increased with an option to take cash where there is a disagreement over the proposal or cash in lieu taken in all cases. The Director Planning and Development also mentioned the benefit of the Town obtaining independent review of the artwork.

A Public Art Strategy is needed to direct how and where this cash contributions are spent. The Committee saw value in progressing a Public Art Strategy.

Waste Policy This Policy is to address waste disposal for multiple dwelling developments. Of note, there are already some provisions in the West Leederville Precinct Policy which could apply to all large developments in all areas. The Town needs a clear policy to defend recommendations to DAP.


Local Planning Strategy The Director Planning and Development provided an update on recent discussions with Taylor Burrell Barnett to discuss the timeframes for this project. There is a need to provide sufficient time to develop the preferred scenario so that it responds to the community engagement and to undertake sufficient analysis of the proposal.

The CEO indicated that various tasks undertaken by Taylor Burrell Barnett such as the extent of the recent community engagement exercise will result in significant variations to the original contract amount agreed by Council.

Meeting closed at 7.00 pm

These notes do not provide a full transcript of the Meeting and provide an overview of discussion and focus on the direction from the TPSRSC to the Administration on Agenda Items in accordance with the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee Terms of Reference


TPS REVIEW STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday 2 May 2017

5.00pm

Committee Room 1

AGENDA

ITEM 1

Previous Meeting Notes (2 November 2016)

ITEM 2

Local Government Inventory and Heritage List Review

Project consultants Hocking Heritage Studio (heritage consultants) and Creating Communities (community engagement consultants) are collaborating to undertake the review of the Local Government (Heritage) Inventory.

Prue Griffin of Hocking Heritage Studio will provide a presentation on the LGI and Heritage List Review Process covering basic principles, aims of review process and management categories.

Andrew Watt of Creating Communities will present on the proposed community engagement program to input into the list of heritage places on the LGI which is to commence later this month.

ITEM 3

Strategic Projects List

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

i. Previous Meeting Notes (2 November 2016)ii. Heritage Inventory - Fact Sheetiii. Strategic Projects List

DV17.60 - Att 2 of 2 - TPSRSC Meeting Agenda

[email protected]

February 8 2017

To the Town of Cambridge

Hello Sue Waite

The Town of Cambridge granted a lease to the Lake Monger Community Garden

Inc. on April 1 2016.

Stage one of the community garden began in September 2016. A 2.2metre high

fence was erected on a site about 250m² in size. There are sixteen raised garden

beds 800mm high. A water pipe was installed from the toilet block south of the site.

The water pipe feeds drip irrigation to the 16 beds.

The raised garden beds have been filled with builder’s sand upto 500mm from the

ground. A plastic sheet has been placed between the ground and the base of the

beds. There will be 300mm of vege mix soil filling the top of the beds. This will be

completed by April 2017. We will then plant vegetables in the beds and consider

planting fruit trees in pots.

Currently there are 10 members. Once the beds have been filled there will

undoubtedly be more interest shown by the community.

We will hold regular member’s meeting to discuss grant applications, community

engagement and planning the garden’s immediate future.

Over the next twelve months our vision is to plant mature native trees on the

northern side in order to create shade, and garden according to permaculture

principles. We will set up compost bays and consider a worm farm.

Depending on grant approvals the following projects will take place in the next twelve

months.

They will include; a pizza oven, frog pond, tool shed, barbeque and patio area

(subject to council approval), worm farms and rain water tank off the toilet block. We

will provide seating for rest and seating to be placed in such a manner as to be

suitable for social events, and expand the compost stations to reduce waste and be

more self-sufficient.

DV17.61 - Progress Letter - Community Garden

mailto:[email protected]

We will further engage with the community when we build the communal beds that

will be full of herbs and fruit trees for the general public to access and consume. We

will provide beds for community partners such as Telethon Speech and Hearing, and

other groups.

Yours sincerely

Behrooz Eslam (convenor)

[email protected]

mb 0408 476 919

Project Start date Finish date Funding requirement

Perimeter fence 2.2m September 22 2016 September 22 2016 Has been paid for

Raised garden beds

16

September 22 2016 September 22 2016 Has been paid for

Plumbing from toilet

block

September 22 2016 September 22 2016 Has been paid for

Retic to beds September 22 2016 September 22 2016 Has been paid for

Fill beds with fill soil December 2016 March 2017 Has been paid for

Fill beds with vege

mix

April 2017 May 2017 Funds are available

Plant native seedlings May 2017 June 2017 Funds are available

Set up composting

bays

June 2017 July 2017 Funds are available

Establish worm farm July 2017 July 2017 Funds are available

Build frog pond August 2017 August 2017 Funds are available

Build pizza oven September 2017 September 2017 Funds are available

Erect tool shed September 2017 September 2017 Funds are available

Erect seating area October 2017 October 2017 Funds are available

Barbeque October 2017 October 2017 Funds are available

Patio November 2017 November 2017 Pending access to

grants

Rainwater tank off

toilet block

December 2017 December 2017 Pending access to

grants

Extend compost bays December 2017 December 2017 Pending access to

grants

Communal beds October 2017 October 2017 Pending access to

grants

Fruit trees in pots September 2017 September 2017 Funds are available

DV17.61 - Progress Letter - Community Garden

mailto:[email protected]

Page 1 of 12 Updated 8 May 2017

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES

2017-2018

DV17.62 - Fees and Charges - 2017-2018


PLANNING SERVICES FEES & CHARGES 2017-2018

GENERAL PLANNING SERVICES (STATUTORY FEES) FEE (excl. GST) GST

TOTAL FEE

SCHEME AMENDMENTS / REZONING APPLICATIONS AN ESTIMATE WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE FORM OF SCHEDULE 3 OF THE REGULATIONS. THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY ANY ADVERTISING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPLICATION. REFER TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2009 (PART 7 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING CHARGES)

REFER TO REGULATIONS

AS APPLICABLE


STRUCTURE PLAN PROPOSALS AN ESTIMATE WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE FORM OF SCHEDULE 4 OF THE REGULATIONS. THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY ANY ADVERTISING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPLICATION. REFER TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2009 (PART 7 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING CHARGES)


AS APPLICABLE


1. SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES

2. (Statutory Fee) (eg. Commercial, Grouped Dwellings)

CHANGE OF USE (APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF USE OR FOR CHANGE OR CONTINUATION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT OCCURRING)

PENALTY IF THE CHANGE OF USE OR THE ALTERATION OR EXTENSION OR CHANGE OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE HAS COMMENCED, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $590 BY WAY OF PENALTY.

$295.00 NIL $295.00

PLUS ANY PENALTY

Home Occupation Applications

PENALTY If the home occupation has commenced, PLUS an additional amount of $444 by way of penalty

$222.00 Nil $222.00

PLUS ANY PENALTY

DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WHERE THE ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS: (A) DEVELOPMENT NOT MORE THAN $50,000 $147.00 NIL $147.00

PLUS ANY PENALTY (b) Development more than $50,000 but not more than

$500,0000.32% OF THE

ESTIMATED COST OF DEVELOPMENT

NIL 0.32% OF THE ESTIMATED COST OF

DEVELOPMENT PLUS ANY PENALTY

(c) Development more than $500,000 but not more than$2.5 million

$1,700 + 0.257% FOR EVERY $1 IN EXCESS

OF $500,000

Nil $1,700 + 0.257% FOR EVERY $1 IN EXCESS

OF $500,000 PLUS ANY PENALTY

(d) Development more than $2.5 million but not more than$5 million


OF $2.5 MILLION


OF $2.5 MILLION PLUS ANY PENALTY

(e) Development more than $5 million but not more than$21.5 million


OF $5 MILLION


OF $5 MILLION PLUS ANY PENALTY

(f) Development more than $21.5 million $34,196 NIL $34,196 PLUS ANY PENALTY

(g) Determining an application to amend or cancel development approval

MAXIMUM FEE $295

NIL MAXIMUM FEE $295

PENALTY If the development has commenced or been carried out, AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT, by way of penalty, that is twice the amount of the maximum fee payable for determination of the application under paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f)



SUBDIVISION CLEARANCES (STATUTORY FEES) FEE (excl. GST) GST

TOTAL FEE

NOT MORE THAN 5 LOTS $73.00 PER LOT NIL $73.00 PER LOT MORE THAN 5 LOTS BUT NOT MORE THAN 195 LOTS $73 PER LOT FOR

THE FIRST 5 LOTS AND THEN $35

PER LOT

NIL $73 PER LOT FOR THE FIRST 5 LOTS

AND THEN $35 PER LOT

MORE THAN 195 LOTS $7393 Nil $7393 ADMINISTRATION FEES - TOWN PLANNING SERVICES REPLY TO A PROPERTY SETTLEMENT ENQUIRY (STATUTORY FEE) WRITTEN PLANNING ADVICE ZONING CERTIFICATE (STATUTORY FEE) OTHER STATUTORY CERTIFICATES (IE SECOND HAND DEALERS, LIQUOR CONTROL ACT SECTION 40 CERTIFICATES AND THE LIKE)

$73.00 $73.00 $73.00

Nil Nil Nil

$73.00 $73.00 $73.00

ADMINISTRATION FEES - SCHEME AMENDMENTS, REZONINGS AND STRUCTURE PLANS DIRECTOR (HOURLY RATE) MANAGER/SENIOR PLANNER (HOURLY RATE) PLANNING OFFICER (HOURLY RATE) OTHER STAFF E.G. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER (HOURLY RATE) ADMINISTRATION OFFICER (HOURLY RATE)

$88.00 $66.00 $36.86 $36.86 $30.20

Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

$88.00 $66.00 $36.86 $36.86 $30.20

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL APPLICATION FEES (collected on behalf of the Department of Planning and remitted within 30 days)

FEE

A DAP APPLICATION WHERE THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS:

(A) NOT LESS THAN $2 MILLION AND LESS THAN $7 MILLION $3503 (B) NOT LESS THAN $7 MILLION AND LESS THAN $10 MILLION $5409 (C) NOT LESS THAN $ 10 MILLION AND LESS THAN $12.5 MILLION $5885 (D) NOT LESS THAN $12.5 MILLION AND LESS THAN $15 MILLION $6053 (E) NOT LESS THAN $15 MILLION AND LESS THAN $17.5 MILLION $6221 (F) NOT LESS THAN $17.5 MILLION AND LESS THAN $20 MILLION $6390 (G) $20 MILLION OR MORE $6557 MINOR AMENDMENT APPLICATION $150



BUILDING SERVICES FEES & CHARGES 2017-2018

BUILDING APPLICATIONS (STATUTORY FEES) FEE

DIVISION 1 - APPLICATIONS FOR BUILDING PERMITS & DEMOLITION PERMITS CERTIFIED APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT (S.16(1) - (A) FOR BUILDING WORK FOR A CLASS 1 OR CLASS 10 BUILDING ORINCIDENTAL STRUCTURE

(B) FOR BUILDING WORK FOR A CLASS 2 TO CLASS 9 BUILDING ORINCIDENTAL STRUCTURE

0.19% of the estimated value of the building work as determined by the relevant permit authority, but not less than $96

0.09% of the estimated value of the building work as determined by the relevant permit authority, but not less than $96

UNCERTIFIED APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT (S.16(1)) 0.32% of the estimated value of the building work as determined by the relevant permit authority, but not less than $96

APPLICATION FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT (S.16(1)) - (A) FOR DEMOLITION WORK IN RESPECT OF A CLASS 1 OR CLASS 10BUILDING OR INCIDENTAL STRUCTURE

(B) FOR DEMOLITION WORK IN RESPECT OF A CLASS 2 TO CLASS 9BUILDING

$96

$96 for each storey of the building APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE TIME DURING WHICH A BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT HAS EFFECT (S.32 (3)(F))

$96

DIVISION 2 - APPLICATION FOR OCCUPANCY PERMITS, BUILDING APPROVAL CERTIFICATES APPLICATION FOR AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR A COMPLETED BUILDING (S.46)

$96

APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR AN INCOMPLETE BUILDING (S.47)

$96

APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL USE OF A BUILDING ON A TEMPORARY BASIS (S.48)

$96

APPLICATION FOR A REPLACEMENT OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR PERMANENT CHANGE OF THE BUILDING'S USE, CLASSIFICATION (S.49)

$96

APPLICATION FOR AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT OR BUILDING APPROVAL CERTIFICATE FOR REGISTRATION OF A STRATA SCHEME, PLAN OF RE-SUBDIVISION (S50(1) AND (2))

$10.60 for each strata unit covered by the application, but not less than $105.80

APPLICATION FOR AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR A BUILDING IN RESPECT OF WHICH UNAUTHORISED WORK HAS BEEN DONE (S.51(2))

0.18% of the estimated value of the unauthorised work as determined by the relevant permit authority, but not less than $96

APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING APPROVAL CERTIFICATE FOR A BUILDING IN RESPECT OF WHICH UNAUTHORISED WORK HAS BEEN DONE (S.51(3))

0.38% of the estimated value of the unauthorised work as determined by the relevant permit authority, but not less than $96

APPLICATION TO REPLACE AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING BUILDING (S.52(1))

$96

APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING APPROVAL CERTIFICATE FOR AN EXISTING BUILDING WHERE UNAUTHORISED WORK HAS NOT BEEN DONE (S.52(2))

$96

APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE DURING WHICH AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT OR BUILDING APPROVAL CERTIFICATE HAS EFFECT (S.65(3)(A))

$96

DIVISION 3 - OTHER APPLICATIONS APPLICATION AS DEFINED IN REGULATION 31 (FOR EACH BUILDING STANDARD IN RESPECT OF WHICH A DECLARATION IS SOUGHT)

$2123

CTF LEVY (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY TRAINING FUND - COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF THE FUND AND REMITTED MONTHLY)

0.2% of the development cost greater than $20,000 including GST

BUILDING SERVICES LEVIES Levy Over $45,000 Levy $45,000 or less

BUILDING PERMIT 0.137% of the value of the work

$61.65



DEMOLITION PERMIT 0.137% of the value of the work

$61.65

OCCUPANCY PERMIT OR BUILDING APPROVAL CERTIFICATE FOR APPROVED BUILDING WORK UNDER SS47, 49, 50 OR 52 OF THE BUILDING ACT

OCCUPANCY PERMIT OR BUILDING APPROVAL CERTIFICATE FOR UNAUTHORISED BUILDING WORK UNDER S51 OF THE BUILDING ACT

$61.65

0.274% of the value of the work

$61.65

$123.30

OCCUPANCY PERMIT UNDER S46 OF THE BUILDING ACT No levy is payable No levy is payable MODIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL USE OF BUILDING ON TEMPORARY BASIS UNDER S48 OF THE BUILDING ACT

No levy is payable No levy is payable

OTHER LICENCES/APPLICATIONS FEE GST TOTAL FEE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVAL OF BATTERY POWERED SMOKE ALARMS (R. 63(3)(B))

$158.67 $17.63 $176.30

PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL INSPECTION FEE (R. 53) $52.22 $4.27 $57.00 PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL INSPECTION "ONE-OFF" FEE FOR SERVICE FOR POOL INVOLVING SITE INSPECTION WITH AN INSPECTION REPORT (OUTSIDE OF THE ROUTINE INSPECTION PROGRAMME).

$52.22 $4.27 $57.00

PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL TOWN COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT (OUTSIDE OF THE ROUTINE INSPECTION PROGRAMME). INSPECTION - WHERE NO INSPECTION IS CARRIED OR REQUIRED.

$22.73 $2.27 $25.00

ADMINISTRATION FEES - BUILDING SERVICES REQUEST FOR BUILDING/POOL INSPECTION (PLUS ANY FEES FOR ARCHIVE SEARCH THAT MAY BE REQUIRED)

$68.18 $6.82 $75.00 COPIES OF PERMITS, BUILDING APPROVAL CERTIFICATES (S129 BUILDING ACT)

$90.00 $9.00 $99.00 COPIES OF BUILDING RECORDS TO AN INTERESTED PERSON (S131 BUILDING ACT)

$90.00 $9.00 $99.00 WRITTEN ADVICE FROM BUILDING SURVEYOR $90.00 per hour -

minimum 1 hour $9.00 $99.00

TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE FEES NOT MANDATED UNDER THE BUILDING REGULATIONS 2012

$90.00 per hour - minimum 1 hour

$9.00 $99.00

LOCAL LAW - GENERAL APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL Application to Change Street Address $50.00 Nil $50.00



HEALTH SERVICES FEES & CHARGES 2017-2018

PERMITS (TRADING IN PUBLIC PLACES LOCAL LAW)

FEE (excl. GST) GST

TOTAL FEE

OUTDOOR EATING AREAS - OUTDOOR EATING FACILITY - NEW APPLICATION $220.00

$225.00 Nil $220.00

$225.00

- Outdoor Eating Facility - New application, plus fee per chair

$50.00 $55.00

Nil $50.00 $55.00

- OUTDOOR EATING FACILITY - RENEWAL FEE $50.00 $55.00

Nil $50.00 $55.00

- OUTDOOR EATING FACILITY - RENEWAL FEE, PLUS FEE PER CHAIR $50.00 $55.00

Nil $50.00 $55.00

- TRANSFER OF OUTDOOR EATING FACILITY ANNUAL LICENCE $75.00 $80.00

Nil $75.00 $80.00

ITINERANT FOOD VENDOR - ITINERANT FOOD VENDOR $300.00 Nil $300

STREET TRADING CHARITY AND NOT-FOR PROFIT EXEMPT - STALL HOLDER/TRADER (INCLUDES TEMPORARY FOOD STALL) - PERWEEK

$75.00 Nil $75.00 - STALL HOLDER/TRADER (INCLUDES TEMPORARY FOOD STALL) - PER 6MONTHS

$225.00 Nil $225.00 - TRADE IN A PUBLIC PLACE (PER METRE OF FOOTPATH/TRADING ACTIVITYZONE UP TO 5 METRES)*

$10.00 Nil $10.00 - PER METRE THEREAFTER $15.00 Nil $15.00

-DISPLAY GOODS IN A PUBLIC PLACE (PER METRE OF FOOTPATH/TRADING ACTIVITY ZONE UP TO 5 METRES)*

$10.00 Nil $10.00 - PER METRE THEREAFTER $15.00 Nil $15.00 - DISPLAY AN ADVERTISING SIGN ON PUBLIC PROPERTY OR A ROADVERGE* -ANNUAL FEE

$25.00 $40.00

Nil $25.00 $40.00

- DISPLAY AN ADVERTISING SIGN ON PUBLIC PROPERTY OR A ROADVERGE* - THREE YEAR FEE

$50.00 $80.00

Nil $50.00 $80.00

STREET ENTERTAINER CHARITY AND NOT-FOR PROFIT EXEMPT- STREET ENTERTAINER- ANNUAL FEE $20.00 Nil $50.00 LOCAL LAW PERMITS ( LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC PROPERTY)

- DEPOSIT OF MATERIALS ON A VERGE- RESIDENTIAL- MONTHLY FEE $5/m2

$5.50/m2 Nil $5/m2

$5.50/m2

- DEPOSIT OF MATERIALS ON A VERGE- COMMERCIAL/NON-RESIDENTIAL- WEEKLY FEE

$5/m2

$5.50/m2 Nil $5/m2

$5.50/m2 - APPLICATION FOR GANTRY- WEEKLY FEE $0.50/m

$0.75/m Nil $0.50/m

$0.75/m

- APPLICATION FOR HOARDING, FENCING OR ENCLOSURE OF ASTREET- WEEKLY FEE

$0.50/m $0.75/m

Nil $0.50/m $0.75/m

- OUTDOOR LIGHTING $27.50 Nil $27.50 - FILMING IN A PUBLIC PLACE - DAILY FEE $40.00 Nil $40.00

HEALTH LOCAL LAW CHARITY AND NOT-FOR PROFIT EXEMPT - REGISTRATION OF A LODGING HOUSE $250.00 Nil $250.00



- Mortuary Licence $125.00 Nil $125.00 - Transfer of Lodging House or Mortuary Licence $75.00 Nil $75.00

OFFENSIVE TRADES (Statutory Fees) - Fish Processing in which whole fish are cleaned and

prepared$285.00 Nil $285.00 *

- Shell fish & crustacean processing establishment $285.00 Nil $285.00 * - Laundries, Drycleaners $140.00 Nil $140.00 * - Other Premises – as per Offensive Trade (Fees) Regulations 1976

SEPTIC TANK & ATU APPLICATION FEES (Statutory Fees) - Application Fee for use of an Apparatus $113.00 Nil $118.00 * - Permit Fee to Use an Apparatus $113.00 Nil $118.00 * - Department of Health Application Fee for use of an

Apparatus- with Local Government Report, or- without Local Government Report.

$35.00 $110.00

Nil Nil

$35.00 * $113.00 *

NOISE REGULATION FEES - NON-COMPLYING EVENT APPLICATION FEE - REG 18 $1,000.00 Nil $1,000.00 - NOISE MONITORING FEE, PER OFFICER PER STANDARD HOUR

(OVERTIME RATES APPLY WHERE APPLICABLE) - REG 18 (8)$68.18 $6.82 per

Std Hour $75.00 per Std

Hour - OUT-OF-HOURS CONSTRUCTION WORK APPLICATION - REG 13-

ASSESSMENT AND APPROVAL$100.00 $110.00

Nil $100.00 $110.00

- OUT-OF-HOURS CONSTRUCTION WORK LATE APPLICATION - REG 13-ASSESSMENT AND APPROVAL- FOR APPLICATIONS RECEIVED LATERTHAN SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE EVENT.

$150.00 $160.00

Nil $150.00 $160.00

ADMINISTRATION FEES - ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES Food Premises CHARITY AND NOT-FOR PROFIT EXEMPT - FOOD PREMISES FIT OUT OR ALTERATIONS - INSPECTION FEE $230.00 Nil $230.00 - FOOD PREMISES SETTLEMENT ENQUIRY - INSPECTION NOT REQUIRED $63.63 $6.37 $70.00 - FOOD PREMISES SETTLEMENT ENQUIRY - INSPECTION REQUIRED $127.27 $12.73 140.00

FOOD ACT CHARITY AND NOT-FOR PROFIT EXEMPT.

- Food Business Notification Fee $50.00 Nil $50.00 - Food Business Registration Fee $140.00 Nil $140.00

Annual Surveillance/Inspection Fees - High risk food business $500 $50 $550 - High risk food business with additional classifications $700 $70 $770 - Medium risk food business $500 $50 $550 - Medium risk food business with additional classifications $600 $60 $660 - Low risk food business $136.36 $13.63 $150 - Very low risk/Charitable or Community Service food

business No fee Nil No fee

- Re-inspection (per hour) $144 $14.00 $158.00 Food businesses operating with a verified food safety program that has been successfully audited by an approved auditor to pay 50% of the relevant annual Food Act surveillance/inspection fee. Food premises fee pro-rata, calculated on a monthly basis or part thereof, where the business does not operate for a full year for any period prior to 30 June each year.



LIQUOR CONTROL ACT -LIQUOR LICENSING ACT SECTION 39 – CERTIFICATE OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENT$250.00 Nil $250.00

-LIQUOR LICENSING ACT SECTION 60 & 61 – EXTENDED TRADING PERMITAPPLICATIONS

$150.00 Nil $150.00 - LIQUOR AND GAMING LICENCE APPLICATION REQUEST FEE (ONE-OFFAND LESS THAN 1 YEAR)

$125.00 Nil $125.00 - LIQUOR AND GAMING LICENCE APPLICATION REQUEST FEE (ON GOINGAND MORE THAN 1 YEAR)

$400.00 Nil $400.00

WATER SAMPLING/SWIMMING POOLS AUDITS - ANNUAL FEE TO SAMPLE/AUDIT LARGE PUBLIC SWIMMING POOL WATER

SAMPLING ( 3 OR MORE POOLS, DEEP, SHALLOW PLUS SPA)$500 Nil $500

- ANNUAL FEE TO SAMPLE/AUDIT MEDIUM PUBLIC SWIMMING POOLWATER SAMPLING ( 2 POOLS, DEEP, SHALLOW PLUS SPA)

$350 Nil $350 - ANNUAL FEE TO SAMPLE/AUDIT SMALL PUBLIC SWIMMING POOL WATER

SAMPLING ( 1 POOL PLUS SPA)$200 Nil $200

- RE-SAMPLE FEE- DUE TO NON- COMPLIANT RESULTS $75.00 Nil $75.00 - COPY OF RESULTS OF NON-COMPLIANT WATER ANALYSIS (PER

SAMPLE)$9.09 $0.91 $10.00

PUBLIC BUILDINGS- CHARITY AND NOT-FOR PROFIT EXEMPT PUBLIC BUILDING-HIGH RISK PREMISES $250.00 Nil $250.00 PUBLIC BUILDING-MEDIUM RISK PREMISES $150.00 Nil $150.00 PUBLIC BUILDING-LOW RISK PREMISES $75.00 Nil $75.00 - APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT/ALTER/EXTEND A PUBLIC BUILDING FEE-UNDER 200 SQUARE METRES

$400.00 Nil $400.00* - APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT/ALTER/EXTEND A PUBLIC BUILDING FEE-OVER 200 SQUARE METRES

$832.00 Nil $832.00*



RANGER SERVICES FEES & CHARGES 2017 - 2018

DOG REGISTRATION (renewed from 1 November) FEE (excl. GST) GST

TOTAL FEE

Sterilised - 1 Year $20.00 Nil $20.00 - 3 Years $42.50 Nil $42.50 - 1 Year (Pensioner) $10.00 Nil $10.00 - 3 Years (Pensioner) $21.25 Nil $21.25 - Lifetime $100.00 Nil $100.00 - Lifetime (Pensioner) $50.00 Nil $50.00

Unsterilised - 1 Year $50.00 Nil $50.00 - 3 Years $120.00 Nil $120.00 - 1 Year (Pensioner) $25.00 Nil $25.00 - 3 Years (Pensioner) $60.00 Nil $60.00 - Lifetime $250.00 Nil $250.00 - Lifetime (Pensioner) $125.00 Nil $125.00

DOG POUND - Daily Maintenance $10.00 $1.00 $11.00 - Seizure and Impounding $85.00 Nil $85.00 - Euthanasia $80.00 $8.00 $88.00 - Release outside normal working hours - additional fee $118.18 $11.82 $130.00

CAT REGISTRATION (renewed from 1 November) - Part year - 31 May to 31 October $20.00 Nil $20.00 - Part year - 31 May to 31 October (Pensioner) $10.00 Nil $10.00 - 1 Year $20.00 Nil $20.00 - 1 Year ( Pensioner) $10.00 Nil $10.00 - 3 Years $42.50 Nil $42.50 - 3 Years (Pensioner) $21.25 Nil $21.25 - Lifetime Registration $100.00 Nil $100.00 - Lifetime Registration ( Pensioner) $50.00 Nil $50.00

CAT IMPOUND & CAT MANAGEMENT FACILITY FEES - Trapping and Seizure (per cat) $45.46 $4.54 $50.00 - Daily Impound & Maintenance (Cat Haven Fee) $25.00 - Euthanasia (Cat Haven Fee) Cat Haven Fee

- Mandatory sterilisation and micro-chipping (followingimpoundment ) Cat Haven Fee

Cat Haven Fee

- Release outside normal working hours - additional fee $118.18 $11.82 $130.00 Annual application for approval or renewal of approval to breed cats

$75.00 Nil $75.00

Cat Sterilisation Subsidy $80.00 $90.00

Nil $80.00 $90.00



ADMINISTRATION FEES - ANIMALS LOCAL LAW - Application for consent to keep more than two dogs $40.00

$50.00 Nil $40.00

$50.00 - Application for consent to keep more than three cats $40.00

$50.00 Nil $40.00

$50.00 - Application for permit to ride/drive/lead large animal in a

thoroughfare, reserve, park or foreshore$30.00 $50.00

Nil $30.00 $50.00

- Annual registration fee to keep miniature horse $100.00 Nil $100.00 - Annual registration fee to keep miniature pig $100.00 Nil $100.00 - Application for consent to keep more than two bee hives

on non-residential land$30.00 $50.00

Nil $30.00 $50.00

- Licence to keep Approved Kennel establishment $100.00 Nil $100.00 - Renewal of Licence to keep Approved Kennel

establishment$100.00 Nil $100.00

- Impounded livestock $100.00 Nil $100.00 - Sustenance and Maintenance of Impounded Livestock

Per Day$22.72 $2.28 $25.00

BUSH FIRES ACT CHARGES - Cost to install fire breaks on private land where owner

fails to comply with a Section 33 Bush Fires Act Noticeactual costs incl actual costs

IMPOUNDING FEES - Abandoned Shopping Trolleys $25.00 Nil $25.00 - Abandoned Shopping Trolley - Daily Storage Fee, Per

Trolley Per Day$10.00 Nil $10.00

- Non compliant Signs on Public Property or a Road Verge $50.00 $60.00

Nil $50.00 $60.00

HELICOPTER LANDING FEE (Ranger attendance) actual costs incl actual costs



PARKING FEES Metered Zones Fees (Ticket Machine Fees) Per hour and in accordance with sign posted restrictions

FEE (excl. GST)

GST FEE

Medical Precinct - McCourt St, Cambridge St (between Tate and GregoryStreets), Station St (north & south), Salvado Rd, Joseph St,Connolly St and Railway Pde (between McCourt St and StLeonards Ave) Cambridge St - (Harborne to Station Streets)

$2.91 $3.09

$0.29 $0.30

$3.20 $3.40

Southport Precinct - Southport St, Oxford Cl, Harrogate St, MacEwan St andRailway Pde (between Southport and Blencowe Streets)Abbotsford St, Holyrood St

- For All day

$2.36 $2.55

$18.18

$0.24 $0.25

$1.82

$2.60 $2.80

$20.00 West Leederville Town Hall Car Park L20 - Per hour

- For All dayValid ACROD parking - free of charge

$2.36 $2.55 $18.18 Free

$0.24 $0.25 $1.82

Nil

$2.60 $2.80

$20.00 Free

Wembley Town Centre - Alexander Street, with the first half hour free and subject todisplay of a valid ticket- first half hour free

$2.36 $2.55

$0.24 $0.25

$2.60 $2.80

Temporary Car Parking - 48 and 56 Cambridge Street - Permit Only

$13.63 $18.18

$1.37 $1.82

$15.00 $20.00

Construction Work Zones Areas where a fee is specified- cost per car bay per day (Monday -Saturday)

Actual fee Actual Fee

Areas where no fee is specified- cost per car bay or each 6 lineal metres per day ( Monday - Saturday)

$9.09 $0.91 $10.00

Sale of ‘Work Zone’ signs $22.72 $2.28 $25.00

ADMINISTRATION FEES - PARKING LOCAL LAW - Commercial Parking Permit- Annual Fee $2,500 $2,500 - Commercial Parking Permit- Business Working Day Fee $10.00 $10.00 - Issue of each replacement Commercial Parking Permit $50.00 $50.00 - Withdrawal of infringements relating to private car parks $22.72

$36.37 $2.27 $3.63

$25.00 $40.00

- Issue of each replacement residential or visitor parkingpermit

$18.18 $22.72

$1.82 $2.28

$20.00 $25.00

- Temporary Parking Permit to builders, tradesmen anddevelopers - per day

$18.18 $22.72

$1.82 $2.28

$20.00 $25.00

- Private Parking Agreements - Application fee $90.90 $9.10 $100.00 - Private Parking Agreements Change of Details fee $27.28 $2.72 $30.00

INFRINGEMENT AGENCY COSTS (Agency fee) - Issue of Final Demand, per infringement (FER) $18.20 Nil $18.20 - Registration of Infringement Notice, per infringement (FER) $58.00 Nil $58.00 - Preparation of an Enforcement Certificate ( FER) $15.50 Nil $15.50 - Vehicle Registration Search (DoT) $3.30 Nil $3.30 - Certified Extract (DoT) $18.80 Nil $18.80 - Manual Search Fee (per vehicle) (DoT) $17.30 Nil $17.30



TOW AWAY OF VEHICLES - All inclusive Fee (includes tow away and 2 days storage) $181.81 $18.19 $200.00 - Daily impound Fee (for additional days) $18.18

$22.72 $1.82 $2.28

$20.00 $25.00

INFORMATION SERVICES FEES & CHARGES 2017 - 2018

ARCHIVE SEARCH - Building Plans or Historical Building Information FEE

(excl. GST) GST TOTAL FEE

- Plans held by City of Perth and Town of Cambridge***** Pensioner Concession

$55.00 $30.00

$5.50 $3.00

$60.50 $33.00

OTHER INFORMATION - TOWN PLANNING SCHEME TEXT $25.00 $2.50 $27.50 - Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual $25.00 $2.50 $27.50

SECURE SUMS (WORKS BONDS)

Remediation Works - New Developments Total value of development Administration fee Secure Sums Up to $20,000 Not required Not required $20,001-$100,000 $110 $700 $100,001-$500,000 $220 $1,500 $500,001-$1,000,000 $220 $2,500 $1,000,001- $5,000,000 $220 $5,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000 $220 $10,000 Greater than $10,000,000 $220 $25,000 Residential or Commercial Demolitions Total value of development Administration fee Secure Sums Up to $20,000 Not required $700 $20,001-$100,000 $110 $1,000 $100,001-$500,000 $220 $1,500 $500,001-$1,000,000 $220 $2,500 $1,000,001- $5,000,000 $220 $5,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000 $220 $10,000 Greater than $10,000,000 $220 $25,000

VERGE STREET TREE PRESERVATION BONDS

All Developments Height of street tree Administration fee Secure Sums

per tree Less than 3 metres in height $25 $1,500 3 to 5 metres in height $25 $2,500 More than 5 metres in height $25 $5,000


Town of Cambridge

Property Address Application Description Signed

DV17.63 - Delegated Decisions and Notifications for CouncilFor the Period Between: 1/04/2017 to 30/04/2017

Carport 04-Apr-2017395 Vincent Street West~WEST LEEDERVILLE WA 6007

Boundary fence, landscaping and swimming pool 04-Apr-201734 Linden Gardens~FLOREAT WA 6014

Two storey dwelling 05-Apr-20173 Hovea Crescent~CITY BEACH WA 6015

Gazebo 05-Apr-201718 Windarra Drive~CITY BEACH WA 6015

Retrospective Application - verandah 05-Apr-201719 Talgarth Way~CITY BEACH WA 6015

Additions to Single Dwelling (Bedroom, Ensuite and Games Room) 05-Apr-2017128 Nanson Street~WEMBLEY WA 6014

Solid brick fence in the front setback 07-Apr-201716 Lowanna Way~CITY BEACH WA 6015

Two Storey Dwelling with Swimming Pool 07-Apr-201761 Lake Monger Drive~WEMBLEY WA 6014

Carport and Landscaping 10-Apr-2017238 Ruislip Street~WEMBLEY WA 6014

Single Storey Dwelling 10-Apr-201776 Newry Street~FLOREAT WA 6014

Additional Bedroom, ensuite, family room and timber patio 11-Apr-201725A Branksome Gardens~CITY BEACH WA 6015

Two storey dwelling 11-Apr-201734 Biara Gardens~MT CLAREMONT WA 6010

New Alfresco, master bedroom, ensuite, toilet and linen cupboard and internal renovations

11-Apr-201742 Herdsman Parade~WEMBLEY WA 6014

New outdoor kitchen, decking, entertaining area, pergola, limestone retaining wall and landscaping

11-Apr-20178 Dunblane Road~FLOREAT WA 6014

Patio 11-Apr-201715 Gali Lane~CITY BEACH WA 6015

Additions and alterations to a single dwelling including an additional storey 12-Apr-20174 Donegal Road~FLOREAT WA 6014

Commercial Signage 12-Apr-2017Floreat Forum~5 Howtree Place~FLOREAT WA 6014

Single Storey Dwelling 13-Apr-201718 Chandler Avenue East~FLOREAT WA 6014

Changes to constructed retaining wall 13-Apr-201711 Rochdale Road~MT CLAREMONT WA 6010

Front boundary and retaining walls 13-Apr-2017130 Harborne Street~WEMBLEY WA 6014

New laundry, toilet and kitchen extension 13-Apr-201749A Reserve Street~WEMBLEY WA 6014

Increase store room size 20-Apr-20174 Barrett Street~WEMBLEY WA 6014

Games room including bathroom 26-Apr-20174 Daglish Street~WEMBLEY WA 6014

Additions and alterations - conversion of existing bedroom to family room and second storey addition

26-Apr-201734 Grantham Street~WEMBLEY WA 6014

Two storey dwelling 27-Apr-201730 Biara Gardens~MT CLAREMONT WA 6010

Shade Sail 28-Apr-2017340 The Boulevard~CITY BEACH WA 6015

Thursday, 11 May, 2017 Page 1 of 1