Reponses available from the Cit of Perth Agenda
Question 1: On 27th January 2011, the Design Advisory Committee recommended changes to setbacks of 31 – 35 (Lot 801) Mount Street, West Perth be submitted for approval to the Council, with setbacks of 0 meters, even though the required/permitted setback is 3 meters, for the Side (East) Basement-Ground. This recommendation was approved by the Council on 22nd February 2011. Now that construction has commenced at this location, sight lines have significantly been reduced.
Could the Council indicate if sight lines have been reduced on the principle shared path at this location as a result of not applying the required/permitted setback of 3 meters?
Response The photograph supplied indicates that distant objects may be partially obscured from view at the location, however the predominant visual barrier at the location is temporary during construction, having been erected to protect the public from materials spilling from the construction site and will be required to remain in place until construction of the building’s exterior is completed. Lower bicycle speeds and heightened rider vigilance are required in this location as the path is steep and shared with pedestrians.
Question 2: How will the Council re-implement the sight lines to allow for safe travel again on the principle shared path at this location?
Response The construction fencing will be removed at the completion of the development, increasing sight lines.
Question 3: In February 2013, the principle shared path at this location was partially closed due to the collapse of a large section of the principle shared path, The principle shared path at this location still has several large cracks today:
Would the damage to the principle shared path at this location have occurred if the Council had not approved the reduction in setbacks from a required/permitted setback of 3 meters and approved this to be 0 meters?
Response As the described event is hypothetical, there can be no definitive (or correct) answer to the question.
Question 4: Who is responsible for the permanent fixing of the principle shared path at this location to remove these cracks, and when will this occur?
Response At the Council meeting held on 18 February 2014 the Chief Executive Officer advised that in relation to the cracking and safety issues an inspection would be carried out the next morning following the meeting date.
The PSP is located within the Freeway reserve and falls under the control and responsibility of Main Roads WA. A Works Bond has been paid to the City by the Builder to cover the repair of any damage to roads within the City’s care and control (Mount Street). If there was evidence provided that the cracks in the PSP were the result of the construction activity on the adjoining site then it might be possible to negotiate for the Builder to undertake the repairs or to use the bond money to cover the works. Otherwise it is MRWA’s responsibility to repair the path if required.
Question 5: Advertising material for this development shows a green wall being built alongside the principle shared path, Has the Council approved this green wall?
Response It is noted that the lower car parking levels have been approved with a nil side setback while the upper residential levels are setback 1.5m from the side (cycle path) boundary.
An extensive green landscaping treatment was approved for the eastern and southern boundary walls. The ‘green wall’ has been designed to step down toward the cycleway in narrow terraces and will be wholly contained within the boundaries of the development site. Therefore there will be no need to relocate the cycle path in order to construct the wall or to install and maintain the plants.
Question 6: Given that there is 0 meters setback from the principle shared path which the Council approved on 22nd February 2011 even though the required/permitted setback is 3 meters, and development has now occurred to that 0 meters setback, how will this green wall be built unless the principle shared path is relocated to accommodate the green wall?
Response The entire development will occur within privately owned property (refer to previous response for further information regarding the ‘green wall’ construction).
Question 7: Could the Council confirm exactly where this green wall is being built?
Response (Refer to response for questions 5 and 6 for further information regarding the ‘green wall’ construction).
Question 8: Could the Council indicate if this green wall will also impact on sight lines at this location?
Response (Refer to responses for questions 1 and 6) The owners of the development will be required to maintain the landscaping so that it does not obstruct the PSP.