London Street proposal puts 1.3-metre roof-terrace setback under scrutiny City of Vincent briefing notes record a recommendation to approve six grouped dwellings at 43 and 45 London Street, Mount Hawthorn. Administration corrected the recorded setback departure from 0.2 metres to 1.7 metres. Council: City of Vincent Meeting: 10 Nov 2026 6:00 PM Recorded status: proposed BRIEF City of Vincent briefing notes record a recommendation to approve six grouped dwellings at 43 and 45 London Street, Mount Hawthorn. Administration clarified that the proposed roof-terrace setback is 1.3 metres against a 3-metre deemed-to-comply standard, correcting the recorded departure to 1.7 metres. A written submission raised concerns about height, setbacks and amenity. The notes do not record a final vote or determination. KEY FACTS - The briefing considered a recommendation to approve six grouped dwellings at 43 and 45 London Street, Mount Hawthorn. - The proposed roof terrace has a 1.3-metre setback against a 3-metre deemed-to-comply standard, a 1.7-metre departure. - Administration said neighbouring dwellings are separated from the development by about 20 metres and that existing outbuildings and vegetation were considered in assessing amenity impacts. - The recommendation includes proposed privacy, landscaping, construction, parking, waste and stormwater conditions. - The briefing notes contain no recorded vote or final Council determination for this item. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD - The document is titled Council Briefing Notes, and the London Street text is labelled as a recommendation to Council. The supplied record does not state that the notes are confirmed or draft. - The supplied briefing notes do not record a resolution or vote for Item 5.3. The approval wording and conditions belong to the recommendation, not an adopted determination. - The setback departure recalculates to 1.7 metres: 3 metres minus 1.3 metres. Administration corrected the recorded departure, not the proposed setback. QUESTIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP REPORTING - Was the Item 5.3 recommendation later adopted, amended or rejected by Council? - If a later determination was made, what setback and building height were approved? - Has a construction commencement date been set for the London Street site? SOURCE PASSAGES The recommendation is for Council to approve six grouped dwellings at 43 and 45 London Street, Mount Hawthorn, subject to conditions. "Summary of Submissions - Applicant's Response 8. Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response 9. Determination Advice Notes RECOMMENDATION: That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for Six Grouped Dwellings at Nos. 43 & 45 (Lots: 291 & 292 D/P: 2334) London Street, Mount Hawthorn in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 9: 1." (Item 5.3 recommendation) Cr Wallace queried the discrepancy between the 0.2-metre departure described in Attachment 8 and the setback shown in the report table. "COUNCIL BRIEFING NOTES 10 NOVEMBER 2026 Page 12 CR WALLACE: In Attachment 8, Administration has described a 0.2 metre departure but the report table shows a higher setback. Which departure is correct?" (Item 5.3 discussion, Cr Wallace's setback question) Administration confirmed that the proposed roof-terrace setback is 1.3 metres against a 3-metre deemed-to-comply setback, making the departure 1.7 metres rather than the 0.2 metres previously indicated in Attachment 8, and said the attachment had been updated. "MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN: Administration confirms that the proposed second floor (roof terrace) setback is 1.3 metres as detailed in the report, the deemed-to-comply setback is 3 metres, meaning the proposed setback departure is 1.7 metres instead of 0.2 metres as indicated in Attachment 8, this has been updated in Attachment 8." (Item 5.3 discussion, Administration's setback correction) Administration said it considered active habitable spaces, existing outbuildings, dense vegetation and the approximately 20-metre separation between adjoining dwellings and the building interface of the proposed development. "MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN: The applicable design principles requires consideration of potential impacts the proposed building heights and setbacks might have on neighbouring properties. In particular, consideration is given to active habitable spaces which includes balconies, courtyards, patios, verandahs, and other forms of private open space. The design principle seeks to maintain a high level of amenity to the most sensitive areas of neighbouring properties. In this case, the neighbouring properties have existing outbuildings between the common boundary and the dwellings, are obscured by existing dense vegetation and the dwellings being setback approximately 20 metres from the building interface of the proposed development." (Item 5.3 discussion, neighbouring amenity) A written submission opposed the proposal and raised concerns about building height, setbacks, visual privacy and cumulative neighbourhood impacts. "3.2 Bruce Webber of Mt Hawthorn – Item 5.3 Administration response is below in italics. Dear Governance, Councillors, Please take this as my statement against the above agenda item as I am unable to attend the briefing meeting this evening in person. I oppose the above proposed development and submitted feedback on the initial plans as part of earlier consultation. I am concerned by what comes across as complete disregard for the regulations and feedback opposing the development in the feedback period. As listed in the executive summary, this development is non-compliant across a whole host of issues, including building height, site cover, street setbacks, garage setback and width, lot boundary setbacks, boundary walls, visual privacy, access, driveways and landscaping. These are not small, minor departures by any means, and they act cumulatively to increase their impact on the neighbourhood. Some of these non- compliance issues are significant - the buildings have a whole extra storey (and massive height non- compliance - 11.85m instead of 8m), have significantly reduced lot boundary setbacks, and significantly reduced site cover." (Public statement, item 3.2) Administration said the assessment did not rely on adjoining properties to mitigate impacts and that the design principles required consideration of the actual relationship between the development and adjoining areas most sensitive to amenity impacts. "Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Best regards, Bruce COUNCIL BRIEFING NOTES 10 NOVEMBER 2026 Page 6 Administration Response to questions within statement: The assessment does not rely on the adjoining properties to mitigate impacts from the development. Rather, the design principles require consideration of the actual relationship between the proposed development and the areas of the adjoining properties most sensitive to amenity impacts. In this case, Administration has considered the location of the adjoining dwellings and their active habitable spaces, including the approximately 10.6–10.8 metre separation between the shared boundary and those spaces, as well as the existing outbuildings and vegetation." (Administration response to the written statement) The listed visual-privacy condition would require specified building elements to be implemented before occupation or use and maintained thereafter. "3. Visual Privacy Building elements required to meet the Deemed-to-Comply standards of Clause 3.10 of the R Codes Volume 1 Part C and shown on the approved plans are to be implemented prior to the occupation or use of the development, and maintained thereafter, to the satisfaction of the City;" (Item 5.3 recommended condition 3) The listed construction-management condition would require a construction management plan to be submitted to and approved by the City before works commenced, then implemented throughout construction. "5.2 Prior to the commencement of works, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the City. Once approved, the Plan shall be implemented in full and complied with at all times for the duration of construction of the development, to the satisfaction of the City." (Item 5.3 recommended condition 5.2) SOURCES https://vincent.infocouncil.biz/RedirectToDoc.aspx?URL=Open/2026/11/COM_20261110_MIN_10826.PDF https://minutesradar.com/news/vincent-infocouncil-council-briefing-10-nov-2026-6-00-pm-10-nov-2026-6-00-pm-minutes-london-street-proposal-puts-1-3-metre-roof-terrace-set-78c409ad25/ Prepared from public council minutes using automated drafting and checks. No meeting attendance or interviews are implied. Check the original record and seek comment before republishing claims or analysis. Illustrations are generic, not depictions of actual projects.