Deputation against Brechin Apartments

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I am here today to speak up for the residents of Brechin Court and all those concerned about the poor outcomes of the HOA policy within our community.

Above all, I am here because this bulky sixteen-unit apartment does not belong in this tiny

cul-de-sac. I don’t care how close to the station it is! And that it is even be considered, I personally believe, is a failure of the current planning system.

Had State Planning made City of Joondalup properly adhere to the State Planning Policy documents, specifically SPP4.2 and DCP1.6, in my opinion, we would not even be here today. The developer would not be proposing a 16 unit, multiple dwelling, in a tiny cul-de-sac in an area of very poor amenity. In truth, the City of Joondalup should not have been allowed to recode this area to R60, without also putting in place all the necessary planning framework required to ensure that the area will remain liveable.

As the recent Consultant’s Report into HOAs points out, the area is a ‘non-activity centre’ and so is unsuitable for the infill imposed. It fails to deliver on any of the principles of Transit Oriented Development and without that framework, developments such as this will only degrade the area.

Furthermore, the only set of stairs in this 3 storey building is set some distance from units 4, 6, 11 and 14 so the building does not comply with the National Construction Code – Building Code of Australia.

Yet with both of these highly pertinent concerns – the City’s weak infill strategy and the building’s egress issues - the planning system once again lets us down, because technically neither can be the basis of your refusal today.

So instead, I will turn to some of the many other reasons this development should be refused in its current form. Having read the officer’s recommendations, I concur with all of the concerns raised, from the issues with plot ratio and building depth; to the inadequate tree canopy; to the depressingly small amount of green landscaping; to the inadequate universal design features and the shortfall in visitor parking: particularly in a cul-de-sac with few options for on-street parking. And I fully agree that with 16 units, this site is clearly overdeveloped and not at all in keeping with the area’s character which has already seen considerable development.

Rather than repeat the officer’s findings, I will note that there are other items that do not appear to meet the requirements of the new apartment codes SPP7.3 Vol. 2, that I believe will impact upon the liveability of the units.

Specifically:

Circulation and common spaces

A4.5.5 expects that major openings to living rooms do not open directly onto circulation or common spaces and are designed to ensure visual privacy and manage noise intrusion. Yet many of the apartment do exactly that, with the worst examples being the front doors of Units 6 and 9 and those of Units 13 and 16 that are directly facing each other.

For Managing the Impact of Noise, unit 1, 7 and 14 have the unfortunate situation of having their living area directly adjoining the noisy lift shaft and stairwell. As figure 4.7a shows, the building layout should protect living areas and bedrooms from impacts of noise by avoiding adjacency between living spaces and the noisy circulation core, yet this buffer zone has not been provided.

And while Storage Table 4.6 requires a storage area of 5sqm for 3-bedroom units the drawings show just 4sqm stores. Why create these rules if they are optional?

And so I ask you to please add these items to the already long list of issues that the City of Joondalup’s report has already highlighted. Consider how inappropriate this development is for the site and for the sake of the cul-de-sac's current and future residents, please refuse this application.

JDAP OUTCOME: REFUSED 5-0. Thanks to the City's Officers for recommending refusal for this. Full officer's report here.