All recent comments on applications from City of Cockburn, WA

We use CRU every morning on our way to work to get our 2 coffees. If there are no places to stop and run in for our quick pick up, we will just keep driving. If the carparks aren’t available for a week that would be $50-60 we won’t spend at CRU. Times that amount by the many business people we see running in and out of CRU each workday like we do to grab their coffee. Steve and Melissa Parry.

I do not agree with blocking the bays, we each use it every morning for coffee and breakfast on the way to work they will lose my customer
I'm sure I'm not the only on.
Use the internal car park area its much bigger they could block bays off in there as appropriate

These spaces are there for use of business owners clients and are short term parking spots, they should definitely be booked by anyone for a long term, they are too important to loose.

Definitely No. This will come at great cost to small business who pay a lot of rent. Move after hours or use the Regis under ground parking.

As much as I emphasise with moving of furniture and perhaps at scale I would think the impact on small business' in the area would be significant over a week. I know even I drive past if no easy park due to busy schedule and limited time to walk too/from. Surely there is an alternative solution

why not move the furniture after hours so as to limit the removal of the bays for after hours only? also, a week seems excessive.

I do not agree with this. There is such limited parking already for these poor businesses located here. Having them taken away for a whole week while its school holidays aswell is not ideal. Theres massive empty blocks of land behind regis why cant this used instead of blocking off parking for a week

Due to length of time required, best to minimise impact on neighbouring businesses who rely on bays for their trade. Allocating bays to those on western end of Pantheon would help reduce impact.

Hi,

These car bays are in-front of my Tenancy (CRU Health + Juice Bar) and are vital for my trading/traffic flow.

Blocking all of these bays for a week will have a significant, detrimental impact on my small business.

Alternatively, there is a designated service lift and loading bay in the underground car park that Regis can utilise to remove the furniture.

I understand the building envelope extension is to cover two sheds to the rear north west of the dwelling. I am happy for the envelope to be extended to cover these only but ask that the envelope extend no further to preclude further development to the rear, noting there are significant impervious asphalt driveways beyond the building envelope, noting this is resource land.

Good morning. Previous work on 10 Waverley (shed demolition) left my tenant's washing and property covered with dust. This was an asbestos shed and as far as we could see, very few precautions were taken. Neighbours were not informed.
I believe the owner works for a demo company and is doing the work himself.
Could all work in future be within guidelines and as a courtesy, notify the neighbours? We are at [address redacted - admin] and directly impacted by the works.

As a neighbour of this property, I would like to see the development plan for the site.

Have a concern around noise, safety (intoxication) and hours of operation, should the liquor license change from restaurant license to a small bar license. The focus is completely different.

Does the proposal include information on safety, noise, smell and impact on traffic? If not, will the city consider this?

How safe is this for close by residents ??
What garrantee do we have??
Will this affect any possible future subdivisions???
Again what garrantee that it won't affect possible future subdivision and house / land values for close by residents

Please explain.This house is on block of land that has been subdivided already. This a residential area. This is the first notice of this plan l have seen. I have already had trouble from neighbours and workmen parking on my verge which has made exiting from my home difficult. I would be interested to know why there has been no consultantion with neighbouring houses.

When was this land ever a piggery?

I have lived nearby for near 20 years and it has never been a piggery.

Explanatory guide to R Codes for R20 to R60
The development potential for lots within the Housing Opportunity Areas (HOAs) are reliant on their
allocated Residential Design Code (R Code) density, and the physical size of each lot (land area).
Each HOA plan shows the R Code density and applicable location.
Lots could be development in a number of different ways, but the two most common are grouped
dwellings (e.g. units or townhouses) and multiple dwellings (e.g. apartments). There are some
different standards that apply to grouped dwellings and multiple dwellings which means the way
development potential is determined is also different.
Grouped Dwellings
For Grouped Dwelling development (e.g. units or townhouses), the following tables help outline the
potential quantity of dwellings that could be achieved on lots within the various HOAs based on their
allocated R Code densities as set out in the R Codes of Western Australia1 for the development of
residential land coded between R20 and R60. For example, if a property is coded R30 and is 683sqm
in size, then two dwellings could potentially* be constructed on that property.
An R Code of R20 means that an average of 450sqm is required per dwelling:
Lot is in the range: 450-899sqm 900-1,349sqm 1,350-1,799sqm 1,800-2,249sqm 2,250sqm and over
Potential dwellings* 1 2 3 4 5 or more
An R Code of R25 means than an average of 350sqm is required per dwelling:
Lot is in the range: 350-699sqm 700-1,049sqm 1,050-1,399sqm 1,400-1,749sqm 1,750sqm and over
Potential dwellings* 1 2 3 4 5 or more
An R Code of R30 means than an average of 300sqm is required per dwelling:
Lot is in the range: 300-599sqm 600-899sqm 900-1,199sqm 1,200-1,499sqm 1,500sqm and over
Potential dwellings* 1 2 3 4 5 or more
An R Code of R40 means than an average of 220sqm is required per dwelling:
Lot is in the range: 220-439sqm 440-659sqm 660-879sqm 880-1,099sqm 1,100sqm and over
Potential dwellings* 1 2 3 4 5 or more
An R Code of R60 means than an average of 150 sqm is required per dwelling:
Lot is in the range: 150-299sqm 300-499sqm 450-599sqm 600-749sqm 750sqm and over
Potential dwellings* 1 2 3 4 5 or more
* The development potential of individual properties is also influenced by factors such as whether an
existing house is retained or not, whether the proposed development is for a “battle-axe” subdivision,
a strata development or multiple dwellings.
Multiple Dwellings
For Multiple Dwelling development (e.g. apartments) on lots with an R Code between R40 and R60,
the above land area requirements do not apply. The potential number of dwellings achievable for this
form of development is determined by a wide range of factors and these make it hard to estimate the
number of dwellings that could be developed on each site.
Such factors include building height maximums, building setbacks, preferred size of the dwellings,
overshadowing considerations, amount of private open space, car parking requirements, lot frontage
width and land topography, some of which are also subject to discretion in their assessment.
1 State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes, Department of Planning/Western Australian Planning Commission,
March 2018.

Properties in this area have not previously been allowed to be used for group dwellings and multiple accomodation supports, Is this now allowed?
Has there been a change to the zoning? and or land uses.
This property has been used for some time without council or government approval for this use. It has been reported to the council and they have turned a blind eye.
Why is the council now approving this?
There has been no consultation with neighbours on the proposed use of these dwellings.
Multiple police visits have been taking place to the property.
Should the residents be concerned or notified of the uses?
Will the buildings be following current environmental requirements including sewage and potable water requirements for new dwellings. NOTE: They existing dwellings i believe is not the house on the property but the recently unapproved mining style dongers which have been placed on site without approval.
Please clarify above concerns and notify neighbours and close property owners of the uses approved for the recent changes o the property.
Concerned neighbour.

A cafe and a gym in this location would be fantastic! There is sadly little on the lower end of Aubin Grove.

I am concerned about the use of this land, 6 additional buildings to what is already existing structures. There is already 4 dwellings on the property.
The property is too close to schools, too far from public transport to allow the use of this land for the future intended purpose. The neighbours and community should be advised on what the intent f use for the properties is for.

We are an adjacent property owner and have some major concerns in respect of this application. The main concerns being privacy, adversely affecting amenity and character, and noise as described below.

There are no other two storey buildings amongst the surrounding properties. Building a two storey property here would adversely impact the amenity and character of all existing surrounding properties, and ours in particular, and generally inappropriate for the local cluster of housing.

It will potentially block light into our living room which has a window immediately next to the fence with this property and would be overshadowed by such a tall building. We rely on what sunshine we can get during the day to keep that room light and user friendly. A two storey property would also be a major concern in respect of privacy with our living space becoming far less livable because of the possibility of overlooking neighbours being able to see inside.

Our daughter’s bedroom window will also be visible from any two storey property which is a significant concern for us in terms of privacy. It would be very inappropriate if people could possibly see insider her room.

The existing fence between our properties is of a low standard, and offers little privacy to the potential of a two storey building next to it, but this was less of a concern previously given the distance between the houses currently constructed. A two storey building which will be much closer would be much more noisy and the fence offers limited noise protection in its current state.

Additionally our back garden living space will also become less private. The poor and low fencing combined with a close proximity two storey building will adversely impact on our garden and mean any time spent by us in the garden will be potentially exposed to people looking into our garden from their upstairs. Furthermore, the double storey building may detrimentally affect our existing plants and flowers as overshadowing from this new property means less sunlight reaching them.

Another concern would be noise coming from the second storey of the property. With no other two storey buildings in close proximity, any noise would carry across the neighbourhood with relative ease. Again adversely impacting the neighbourhood, but our residence particularly.

Overall this application has caused significant privacy and amenity concerns for us and we therefore request it be reconsidered as a single storey development only.

This is an above ground concrete swimming pool. Please can you correct.

We have made this property as appealing and tidy to all passes by and a credit to the Cockburn area ,also to stop The stealing of our fishing equipment we have sought to enclose the addition to our shed to keep all the equipment safe from would be thieves
Carlo Dipane

The house should be demolished due to the hoarding, all the cars, boat and caravan outside the front yard makes the place looks like a drug house plus it devalued the other properties on the same street as well as the suburbs
I was going to a home open a few house down so I decided to check out the rest of the street to see what kind of peoples live in the street so besides 18 Adela place the rest of the neighbourhood looks pretty good but I personally decided not to move in the rent property due to the fact the 18 Adela place looks like a drug house there were others there for the home open that said the same thing plus we later found out that the owner is a convicted doggie Breeder whom have harm a lot of animals and got away with the 5 years jail term was enough to put most of us off
So please demolish the house and clean up the suburb and shame on all the councillor for not doing their job earlier