14-unit development in Heathridge refused

Artist impression of the proposed 14 apartments on Littorina Avenue in Heathridge.
Artist impression of the proposed 14 apartments on Littorina Avenue in Heathridge.

A PROPOSAL for 14 units across 50 and 52 Littorina Avenue, Heathridge, has been refused.

The $2.13 million development had planned to demolish the existing two houses and build eight two-bedroom and six one-bedroom dwellings across the 1496sq m site, with a 30sq m communal open space.

Plans also included 21 on-site parking bays, with 18 allocated to residents and three for visitors, plus five visitor bays in the verge and a single-vehicle access point from Littorina Avenue.

It was advertised for 14 days with letters sent to surrounding landowners and residents and a sign erected on-site.

The City of Joondalup received 28 submissions, of which 27 were objections.

Artist impression of the proposed 14 apartments on Littorina Avenue in Heathridge.

Issues raised included setting an “undesirable precedent for the area”, increased anti-social behaviour and noise, decreased property values, negative impact on the amenity of the surrounding residents, “cheap, boxy apartment design”, insufficient parking and increased traffic.

The proposal was also presented to the City’s Joondalup Design Reference Panel, which raised concerns including wall height, reduced boundary setbacks, the outlook from the alfresco portion of some units, the variety of landscaping and the proposal appearing to be “over-developed”.

A Metro North-West Joint Development Assessment Panel meeting document from June 25 said the applicant had addressed some of the panel’s suggestions, “however a number remain outstanding”.

Artist impression of the proposed 14 apartments on Littorina Avenue in Heathridge.

It said the proposal did not meet the requirements of the City’s planning scheme or the State Government’s R-Codes, particularly in the areas of visitor car parking, building height and boundary setbacks.

“When considered collectively… the extent of the proposed development is considered greater than what the site should accommodate,” it said.

The proposal was unanimously refused.