agenda - city of fremantle - ocm - agenda.pdfagenda - ordinary meeting of council wednesday, 19...

AGENDA

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 19 December 2012, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF AN ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Elected Members An Ordinary Meeting of Council of the City of Fremantle will be held on Wednesday, 19

December 2012 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street, Fremantle

(access via stairs, opposite Myer) commencing at 6.00 pm.

Graeme Mackenzie CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 14 December 2012

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

AGENDA

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE Response to question taken on notice from Brad Pantall regarding item PSC1211-180 (25 Douro Road, South Fremantle). Question: "Since the 2008 application what's the increase in operating hours of the restaurant?" Answer as per correspondence to Brad Pantall dated 4 December 2012: "Please find below a table that summarises the change in operating hours of No. 25 (Lot 95) Douro Road, South Fremantle as requested".

DA# Approval Date Hours of Operation (per

week) Increase

DA2/86 19 March 1986 49 -

DA0197/10 22 September 2010 (PSC

meeting date) 79 +30

DA0143/11 15 June 2011 (PSC meeting date) 83 +4 Total increase in approved operating hours (per week) since 1986

approval +34

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated 28 November 2012 and the Special Meetings of Council dated 5 November 2012 and 12 November 2012 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY MEMBERS TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

COMMITTEE REPORTS 1

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 5 DECEMBER 2012 1

PSC1212-193 STRATEGIC PLANNING PROJECTS - PRIORITIES FOR 2013 1

PSC1212-194 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 57 AND ASSOCIATED DEED OF COVENANT - 19-21 AND 23-25 BURT STREET 6

PSC1212-195 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.9 - RESIDENTIAL STREETSCAPE POLICY - ADOPTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 16

PSC1212-196 HOLLIS PARK, SOUTH FREMANTLE LANDFILL SITE - PROPOSED INCLUSION ON STATE REGISTER OF HERITAGE PLACES 28

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 12 DECEMBER 2012 34

SGS1212-2 CANTONMENT HILL MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 34

SGS1212-3 WEST COAST BLUES AND ROOTS FESTIVAL 38

SGS1212-4 VICTORIA HALL USE 42

SGS1212-5 DRAFT SPORTING CLUB LEASING AND LICENSING POLICY 46

SGS1212-6 NORTH FREMANTLE HALL FEES AND CHARGES 51

SGS1212-7 GOOD TIMES CARNIVAL 57

SGS1212-8 ELECTION OF TWO LIBRARY MEMBERS TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 60

SGS1212-9 SGS INFORMATION REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2012 62

SGS1212-10 NOTICE OF MOTION - CR JOSH WILSON - APPROVAL TO CONDUCT A COMMUNITY POLL ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM 63

SGS1212-11 DECKCHAIR THEATRE INC - SURRENDER OF LEASE, WRITE OFF OF OUTSTANDING ACCOUNTS AND PAYMENT FOR VICTORIA HALL EQUIPMENT 66

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 69

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 69

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 69

C1212-1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - NOVEMBER 2012 69

COUNCIL ITEMS 73

C1212-2 STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT - NOVEMBER 2012.DOCX 73

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 75

C1212-3 SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGIONAL COUNCIL - WITHDRAWAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR A PROJECT PARTICIPANT 75

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION 76

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PSC1212-194 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 57 AND ASSOCIATED DEED OF COVENANT - 19-21 AND 23-25 BURT STREET 3

C1212-1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - NOVEMBER 2012 40

CLOSURE OF MEETING

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council Wednesday, 19 December 2012

Page 1

COMMITTEE REPORTS

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 5 DECEMBER 2012

PSC1212-193 STRATEGIC PLANNING PROJECTS - PRIORITIES FOR 2013

DataWorks Reference: 115/038, 115/077 & 030/017 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 December 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects and Policy Actioning Officer: Manager Planning Projects and Policy Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: C1112-3 Attachments: 1. Draft activity centre structure plan study area and

precincts EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of the prioritisation and process to be adopted in carrying out key strategic planning projects in 2013 which relate to the city centre area to be covered by the Activity Centre Structure Plan. BACKGROUND

In December 2011 the Council adopted a set of priorities for strategic planning projects relating to the city centre to be undertaken in 2012. These were as follows:

4TH 2011 1ST 2012 2ND 2012 3RD 2012 4TH 2012

Amendment 49

Kings Square

Design Policy for Strategic sites and East End

Station and East Victoria Quay Commercial Precinct

Southern Transit Corridor

State Heritage Listing for West End / Policy update

Stan Reilly site principles

Strategic approach to CBD parking

Council owned sites

This provided a useful framework for ensuring that operational decisions regarding resource allocation and work programming through the year were being made in a manner consistent with Council’s expectations in terms of the overall priority and timeframe for key projects. The purpose of this report is to similarly outline proposed priority projects for 2013, with an indication of their scope and the process to be used to ensure appropriate coordination between interrelated or complementary projects.


Page 2

At a high level, the projects identified in this report are already identified through the City’s Strategic Plan and/or Corporate Plan reporting processes for 2012/13. The information presented in this report is intended to supplement, not replace, existing reporting on strategic priorities. This report does not deal with high priority strategic land use planning projects outside of the city centre area, which will continue to be monitored and reported on through the overall Strategic Imperatives and Corporate Plan reporting processes. COMMENT

Review of progress on 2012 priority projects

Most of the priority projects identified last year (see table above) have been completed or are in progress. The timeframes for the Victoria Quay Commercial Precinct and West End State Heritage Listing projects require them to be rolled over for completion in 2013 and accordingly they are included in the 2013 priorities outlined below. The project to identify the broad principles of a strategic approach to CBD parking was not completed as it is now considered that this work should comprise an integral part of the city centre Activity Centres Structure Plan discussed below. However, baseline work to identify current parking supply and demand patterns and to model the likely effects of different future development scenarios upon parking needs, which will inform the work to be done as part of the structure plan, is in progress and on schedule for completion by the end of December 2012.

2013 priority projects

As foreshadowed in the report presented to Council 12 months ago, the primary priority project for 2013 will be preparation of the Activity Centres Structure Plan for the city centre area. Preparation of such a structure plan is an existing Council strategic imperative and also a requirement of the State Government under State Planning Policy 4.2 ‘Activity Centres for Perth and Peel’ because the policy designates Fremantle city centre as a strategic metropolitan centre.

Council considered a report on 27 June 2012 which proposed a preliminary working boundary for use in preparing the structure plan, and also proposed the identification of a series of smaller precincts within the overall structure plan area. The precincts are areas of distinct character where more detailed planning/urban design policies or projects may be undertaken, particularly to implement broader planning objectives identified in the structure plan. The Council resolved to adopt the preliminary structure plan and precinct boundaries as the basis for further work (see Attachment 1 – draft activity centre structure plan precinct boundaries), and also supported a preliminary timeline for preparation of the structure plan. That timeline is reflected in the recommendations of this report.

To ensure that a clear and consistent approach is adopted in undertaking work on the structure plan and on individual precinct-based projects, officers have developed a framework that sets out the scope of different types of project and the relationship between them. It is intended that the priority projects to be carried out in 2013 should fit into this framework, which is outlined below:


Page 3

ACTIVITY CENTRE STRUCTURE PLAN – PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Summary of 2013 priority projects

Working within the above framework, the priority strategic planning projects proposed to be undertaken in the next 12 months are as follows:

Local Planning Scheme – statutory document to control land use & development on all land zoned under Scheme (not land reserved under MRS). Activity Centres Structure Plan – statutory document required by SPP 4.2 for Fremantle strategic metropolitan centre (boundary of centre defined in ACSP itself). Can apply to all land in centre (MRS reserves and zoned land in LPS). Proposed content to include consideration of key issues relevant to whole of centre (activity, urban form, movement, infrastructure) at a relatively high level, plus identification of distinct precincts within the centre with statement of key precinct-specific issues to be addressed in subsidiary precinct plans/policies – see below. Precincts within ACSP area where land is zoned under LPS: Precinct Plan – non statutory but will be approved by Council, intended to complement Precinct level statutory planning controls (Scheme/Local Planning Policy) and to guide project implementation and other activity in public realm. Content informed by key issues relevant to precinct as identified in ‘precinct statement’ section of Structure Plan. Precinct level statutory planning controls – area-specific amendment to LPS and/or local planning policy adopted under cl. 2.4 of LPS. To be used for statutory planning development control purposes. Content informed by key issues relevant to precinct as identified in ‘precinct statement’ section of Structure Plan. Precincts within ACSP area where land is reserved under MRS: Precinct Plan – non statutory, but likely to combine functions of Local Planning Policy and Precinct Plan as identified above. May be prepared by relevant state government agency and/or City, and will have regard to key issues relevant to precinct as identified in ‘precinct statement’ section of Structure Plan. Intended that WAPC and other state government agencies should have regard to content in decision-making on development/land use, infrastructure and public realm enhancement works.

Activity Centre Structure Plan

Precinct statement – land in MRS reserve

Precinct statement – land zoned under LPS

Precinct Plan Precinct Plan Precinct level statutory planning controls


Page 4


The structure plan is intended to provide high level guidance on key planning considerations including urban form, land use, landscaping and open space, key activity nodes, identification of precincts, heritage, transport networks, linkages and connectivity. It is expected to be the highest priority project in the first three quarters of 2013, with the aim of presenting a draft structure plan to Council for approval for public consultation purposes by the end of Quarter 1 and adoption of a final plan by the end of Quarter 3.

Precinct Plan for Precinct 5 (area including Kings Square, Queen Street)

Key issues to be addressed in the precinct plan are anticipated to include the integration of the Kings Square Urban Design Strategy with an examination of the future function and form of Queen Street as key linkage to Station/Victoria Quay precinct, enhancement of Adelaide Street as a key retail street, and opportunities to enhance Paddy Troy Mall. Following the recent approval of Scheme Amendment 49 and related local planning policy for this precinct, preparation of the precinct plan is proposed to be a high priority project in the first 2 quarters of 2013 to complement the recent changes to the statutory planning framework for the area.

Completion of Precinct Plan for Victoria Quay commercial precinct/railway and bus station interchange (Precinct 2) – Fremantle Ports-led project

This project is already under way but is expected to continue during the 1st quarter of 2013. It is being led by Fremantle Ports, but working in collaboration with the other members of the Fremantle Union including the City. The output is expected to be a plan that can guide the assessment of development proposals in the Victoria Quay Commercial Precinct (land reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme) and also address key urban design and connectivity issues relating to the treatment of public spaces in and around the railway and bus stations and their linkages to Victoria Quay and the city centre area on the opposite side of Phillimore Street/Elder Place.

Completion of West End nomination proposal for State Heritage Registration

This work will primarily be undertaken through West End Working Group with support from heritage professionals, with the aim of presenting a recommended nomination to Council for endorsement and referral to the State Heritage Office by the end of the 3rd quarter of 2013.

Precinct Plan for ‘Three Harbours’ Precinct (Precinct 10) - subject to agreement with Department of Transport

Subject to agreement by the Department of Transport to proceed, it is anticipated this project would be a joint planning process with the Department, using the 2008 Council resolution on the previous WAPC draft ‘Three Harbours’ policy as a starting point to address future development and land use opportunities and issues in the Harbours MRS Reserve.


Page 5

Precinct Plan for ‘East End’ Precinct (Precinct 3)

The scope of this project would primarily be to identify further public realm enhancement works to complement the streetscape works recently implemented on Queen Victoria Street.

The anticipated timelines for these projects are as follows:

Quarter 1 2013 Quarter 2 2013 Quarter 3 2013 Quarter 4 2013


Precinct Plan for Precinct 2




West End State Heritage Registration nomination

CONCLUSION

The summary scope and prioritisation of projects recommended in this report is intended to provide a framework to ensure that operational decisions regarding resource allocation and work programming through the year are consistent with Council’s expectations in terms of the overall priority and timeframe for key projects.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan

1. That Council adopts the strategic planning project priorities for the city centre area in 2013 as outlined in this report.

2. That Council adopts the Activity Centre Structure Plan Planning Framework for use in work on strategic planning projects in the city centre area as outlined in this report.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 6

PSC1212-194 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 57 AND ASSOCIATED DEED OF COVENANT - 19-21 AND 23-25 BURT STREET

DataWorks Reference: 218/063 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 December 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects and Policy Actioning Officer: Manager Planning Projects and Policy Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1211-170 (7 November 2012) Attachments: 1. DoH Scheme Amendment

2. Draft Deed of Covenant 3. Previous item PSC1211-170


Page 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council resolves to initiate an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to change the density coding of Residential zoned land at No’s.19-21 (Lot 1873) and 23-25 (Lot 1907) Burt Street, Fremantle, from R60 to R160. The land is owned by the Department of Housing, and the Department has proposed that it should enter into a Deed of Covenant with the City of Fremantle to secure specific outcomes from a redevelopment of the site at the proposed higher density. This report also presents a draft Deed of Covenant for Council’s consideration and approval for advertising and subsequent execution. This matter was the subject of a previous report to Council on 24 October 2012, and subsequently to the Planning Services Committee on 7 November 2012. At the latter meeting the Committee, acting under delegated authority from Council, resolved to support in principle the preparation of an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) to increase the density coding of the site to R160, subject to the City and the Department of Housing concurrently entering into a Deed of Covenant to require certain outcomes to be delivered should redevelopment of the site occur at a density higher than the current R60 density coding under LPS4. These outcomes include:

Guaranteed minimum percentages of total dwelling yield to be affordable and adaptable housing;

Building height and vehicular access controls;

High standard of sustainable building design;

Percent for public art;

High quality landscaping treatment of the site and adjoining land in the public realm;

Commitment to engagement with the City’s Design Advisory Committee and the local community in developing the design of a future redevelopment, prior to lodgement of a development application.

The proposed Scheme amendment and draft Deed of Covenant are considered by officers to satisfy the requirements of Council’s previous resolution and therefore Council is recommended to resolve to initiate Scheme Amendment No. 57 for advertising and approval of the draft Deed for the purpose of advertising concurrent to the amendment. BACKGROUND

In September 2012, the City was requested by the Department of Housing (DoH or the Department), owner of 19-21 (Lot 1873) and 23-25 (Lot 1907) Burt Street, Fremantle, to consider whether, in principle, it would be likely to support an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No.4 to allow an increase in the residential density from R60 to R160, subject to specific development provisions and a Deed of Covenant between the City of Fremantle and the DoH to secure specific outcomes from the redevelopment of the subject sites. On 7 November 2012 the Planning Services Committee, acting under delegated authority from Council, resolved ‘in principle’ support to such an amendment and deed, with the resolution of this meeting as follows (for the full report please refer to Attachment 3):


Page 8

That the Department of Housing be advised that Council would support in principle the following process to facilitate a redevelopment of 19-21 and 23-25 Burt Street, Fremantle at a residential density of up to R160:

1. A Deed of Agreement/Development Deed should be executed between the Department of Housing and the City of Fremantle, to include obligations upon the Department and any successors in title to deliver the following outcomes as part of any new development on the subject land at a residential density higher than R60:

i) Between 10% and 15% of the total dwelling yield shall be public housing; and ii) A further minimum 30% of the total dwelling yield shall be other forms of affordable

housing as defined below: ‘Affordable housing’ refers to dwellings which households on low-to-moderate incomes can afford, while meeting other essential living costs. It includes public housing, not-for-profit housing, other subsidised housing under the National Rental Affordability Scheme together with private rental and home ownership options for those immediately outside the subsidised social housing system.

iii) Primary vehicle access to the development shall be from Vale Street; iv) Building height is to be contained within a maximum Australian Height Datum

height plane as set out in Attachment 2 of this report; v) The development shall be designed and constructed in such a manner so as to

achieve a rating of not less than 5 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia Green Star rating tool, or equivalent;

vi) Pre-consultation with the City of Fremantle’s Design Advisory Committee and a consultation process with the local community are required to be undertaken prior to lodgement of a development application.

vii) A high standard of landscape amenity that includes and is integrated with the surrounding public areas, including a commitment to plan in liaison with the City and the community the landscape and urban design; and to joint fund the implementation of public realm improvements. The public realm improvements are to include but are not limited to: opportunities to retain existing trees and provide significant new planting; retention and/or interpretation of any features of cultural heritage or landscape significance; improved and increased public parking to accommodate visitors to the new development and the existing high demand for parking in the area; and, visual and physical connectivity through the site.

viii)A base target dwelling yield across the site of 180 dwellings, but with an express aim of utilising the opportunity to increase that yield up to the maximum permissible under the density coding of R160 and the plot ratio of 2.0 specified in Table 4 of the Residential Design Codes 2010 (approximately 220 – 250 dwellings), provided that: (a) at least 45% of the first 180 dwellings consists of a mix of public and ‘affordable housing’; and (b) all of the other dwellings in excess of the base target yield provide to the commercial marketplace or as ‘affordable housing’ a diverse range of specialised accommodation types such as housing that is adaptable to accommodate people with disabilities; studio or single bedroom housing; aged or dependent person accommodation; artist studio houses; and/or, housing for students and key workers.


Page 9

ix) The development will incorporate a public art component equal in value to 1% of the estimated total cost of the development, to be provided within the locality or area of the subject site, in accordance with the objectives and requirements of the Western Australian State Government Percent for Art Scheme and in consultation with the City.

x) A minimum 25% of the total dwelling yield shall be designed in a manner that makes it readily adaptable to accommodate people with disabilities.

2. Concurrent with completion of the Deed referred to in (1) above, City officers shall prepare an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to allow an increase in the residential density of 19-21 and 23-25 Burt Street to R160 subject to specific development provisions, to be presented to Council for formal initiation.

3. When the Deed of Agreement/Development Deed document referred to in (1) above has been prepared, it is to be reported back to Council for further consideration prior to being executed.

The Department of Housing and its legal advisors, in consultation with City officers and its legal advisors, have subsequently drafted a Scheme Amendment report (please see Attachment 1) and a draft Deed of Covenant (Attachment 2) based on the requirements set out in the above resolution. The draft Deed is under finalisation and will be circulated under a separate cover with this item. Site Description and Planning History

Aerial: 19 – 21 and 23 - 25 Burt Street, Fremantle (February 2012)


Page 10

No.’s 19-21(Lot 1907) and 23-25 (Lot 1873) Burt Street, Fremantle, are located approximately 1km north east of the Fremantle City centre and is wholly bound by Burt, East, Vale and Skinner Streets, with a combined total land area of 13,742m2. The subject sites are adjoined by John Curtin College of the Arts to the south, the Fremantle Arts Centre to the south-west, the Local Government Authority boundary with the Town of East Fremantle to the east, and medium density residential development to the north and east. The two sites slope significantly from east to west. Recorded planning history over the subject sites shows planning approval was granted in 1972 to the State Housing Commission for seven multiple dwelling buildings, and further approval for a community centre granted in 1976. In 2011, through referral with the City, the Western Australia Planning Commission (WAPC) approved for public works the demolition of six multiple dwelling buildings and community centre, with the sites having subsequently been cleared of these structures. For the full background and planning history of the subject sites, please see the previous Council report of 7 November 2012 at Attachment 3. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The subject lots are located within Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 2 (LPA2) – Fremantle and are currently zoned ‘Residential’ under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a residential density coding of R60. Under LPA2, the height provisions for residential development are as per the requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes). Under the R Codes, for multiple dwellings with a density of R60, a maximum external wall height of 9 metres is allowed, with a maximum roof height of 12 metres (top of pitched roof). Additionally, under the current density of R60, at Table 4 of the R Codes a maximum plot ratio of 0.7 for multiple dwellings is allowed with 45% of the site as open space. The lots are not on the City’s heritage list; however they are located within an area of high heritage significance due to their proximity to the State Registered Fremantle Arts Centre. CONSULTATION Should Council resolve to initiate this amendment to the Scheme, it will be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for assessment, prior to the commencement of advertising. Assuming the EPA does not require an environmental assessment, the amendment will be publicly advertised for not less than 42 days in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005, the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals. Additionally, the draft Deed will be advertised concurrently with the amendment for public comment upon Council’s approval.


Page 11

PLANNING COMMENT

The driver for this Scheme amendment is the Department of Housing’s proposal to redevelop the site through a joint venture project with a private sector developer partner, to deliver a more intensive development of the site that will provide a broader range of social, affordable and open market housing. The capacity for the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to permit a development to occur at a residential density significantly higher than the current R60 density coding is considered by the Department of Housing to be essential to enable the Department to attract a suitable joint venture partner and achieve a financially viable redevelopment. The DoH, as the landowner, has subsequently drafted a Scheme Amendment report. Both the Amendment report and the previous ‘in principle’ Council report of 7 November 2012 (please see Attachment 3) provide detailed planning justification for the proposed re-coding of the subject sites. The detailed wording of the draft Scheme Amendment report is subject to finalisation and will be circulated under a separate cover with this item. The amendment proposes to increase the current residential density code of the Residential zoned subject sites from R60 to R160. It is considered that a density of up to R160 is necessary to enable redevelopment to achieve a yield that would render the project financially viable and enable the achievement of affordable and diverse housing outcomes. As outlined in the Background section of this report, the subject sites are well located for high density residential development and present an opportunity for infill development that would take advantage of the site’s proximity to transport, educational infrastructure, public recreation spaces, high amenity and employment opportunities associated with the city centre. Additionally, the sites location and sloping topography provides the capacity to develop at a higher density and height without excessively compromising neighbouring development or neighbourhood character, and in conjunction with the development requirements as set out in the draft Deed. It is also considered the proposed higher density coding is in line with the objectives of the City’s 2010-2015 Strategic Plan to provide more diverse and affordable housing and innovative and renewed City and suburban areas, and would contribute to housing supply targets as set out in the WAPC’s strategic policy Directions 2031and Beyond. Development Provisions The applicable provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) will apply to new development within the subject sites under the proposed density of R160, excepting maximum building height. The maximum building height of the subject sites will be controlled through the development requirements of the draft Deed. The draft Deed sets out that the subject sites can only be developed above a density of R60 and to a maximum density of R160 (subject to the approval of the amendment) whereby the DoH complies with the development requirements as set out in the Deed. Additionally, the Deed authorises the City to place an absolute caveat on the Certificates of Title of the subject lots, which would be binding on successors in title, and cannot be lifted until such a time the Deed provisions are met. With consideration to this, officers do not consider the development requirements of the Deed, as relating to building height and vehicle access, require duplication within the proposed amendment .


Page 12

Building Height The draft Deed sets out building height in the form of specified horizontal height ‘planes’ expressed as Australian Height Datum (AHD) levels, which represent the maximum height that external walls of any new development must not exceed. It is considered the application of a ‘height plane’ will allow for appropriate flexibility in building design and respond more appropriately to the site’s unusual topography than the maximum building height as prescribed in the R Codes which is generally measured from natural ground level. The subject sites are divided into three zones, A, B and C, with a horizontal height plane nominated for each zone and of which correspond to the general stepping down in topography from east to west. At Attachment 2 the following height planes are proposed for each of the three zones:

Zone A - AHD of 37m;

Zone B - AHD of 40m;

Zone C - AHD of 45m. Under Table 4 of the R Codes, for a residential density of R160, a maximum external wall height (including concealed roof) of 16 metres is allowed. The maximum AHD heights proposed in zones B and C are generally one ‘storey’ less than would be allowed under the maximum building height provisions of the R Codes, with zone A allowing a similar building height as provided under the R Codes. Although no conceptual design work on the built form of future development has yet been undertaken, in zones B and C, the proposed maximum AHD would generally allow for three storey development with scope for a pitched or sloping roof design. In Zone A, 4 to 5 storeys could be facilitated; assuming development occurs from existing ground levels with no major excavation or fill. Overall, the proposed maximum building AHD height planes for the three zones would generally present as a maximum three storey development to street level as viewed from the adjoining existing residential properties in Burt and East Streets, which are elevated above street level (by a significant amount in some cases). For further discussion and detail on building height, please see the previous Council report at Attachment 3. Draft Deed of Covenant In line with Council’s resolution of 7 November 2012, the DoH, in liaison with the City, have prepared a draft Deed of Covenant to be presented to Council in conjunction with the initiation of Amendment No. 57. The terms of the Deed reflect Council’s previous resolution and contain a clause authorising the City to place an absolute caveat on the Certificates of Title of the subject lots, which would ensure the requirements of the Deed would be binding to any subsequent landowners (successors in title). With consideration to this, officers recommend Council approve the content of the draft Deed of Covenant and subsequently advertising of the draft Deed in conjunction with advertising of Amendment No. 57 for public comment. At the close of advertising, should any major modifications to the Deed be made in response to any submissions received during advertising, the modified Deed will be presented back to Council for approval prior to execution. The draft Deed is under finalisation and will be circulated under a separate cover with this item.


Page 13

CONCLUSION

The proposed Scheme amendment and draft Deed of Covenant are considered by officers to satisfy the requirements of Council’s previous resolution. Officers consider the proposed increase in residential density of the subject sites from R60 to R160 to facilitate efficient use of existing urban land and the delivery of additional affordable and diverse housing options within the City in a location proximal to transport, employment, education, essential services and shopping facilities. Furthermore, the Scheme amendment and concurrent draft Deed are considered to meet the objectives of the City’s 2010-2015 Strategic Plan to provide more diverse and affordable housing and innovative and renewed City and suburban areas, and would contribute to housing supply targets as set out in the WAPC’s strategic policy Directions 2031and Beyond. Therefore it is recommended that Council initiate the proposed Scheme amendment to increase the residential density code of Residential zoned land at No’s.19-21 (Lot 1873) and 23-25 (Lot 1907) Burt Street, Fremantle, from R60 to R160, and concurrently, approve the draft Deed of Covenant for public advertising and execution upon final adoption of Amendment No. 57 by Council.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan

1. That Council resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, to amend Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as follows:

(a) Amend the Scheme Map to apply a residential density coding of R160 to

No. 19-21 (Lot 1873) and No. 23-25 (Lot 1907) Burt Street, Fremantle as shown on the map below:


Page 14

2. That the Mayor and Chief Executive officer be authorised to execute the relevant Scheme Amendment documentation.

3. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Department for Environment and Conservation requesting assessment prior to commencing public consultation.

4. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission for information.

5. That the amendment be advertised for a period of not less than 42 days in

the “West Australian” and a local newspaper. 6. That Council resolve to approve the content of the draft Deed of Covenant

at Attachment 2 and that the draft Deed of Covenant be advertised in conjunction with the amendment at part (5) above.

7. That the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute the

Deed of Covenant upon final adoption of Scheme Amendment No. 57 by Council subject to no modifications to the Deed being necessary as a consequence of advertising.

8. That in the event modifications to the Deed are necessary as a consequence of advertising, the modified Deed shall be reported back to Council for further approval prior to being executed.


Page 15

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 16

PSC1212-195 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.9 - RESIDENTIAL STREETSCAPE POLICY - ADOPTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL

DataWorks Reference: 117/039 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 December 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1006-126 - 30 June 2010

PSC1007-131 - 7 July 2010 PSC1209-142 – 26 September 2012

Attachments: 1. Summary of submission 2. Modified policy – Track changes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council final adoption of Local planning Policy – Residential Streetscape Policy. The policy incorporates the relevant provisions of DBH1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines (DBH1) and DC6 Carports/Garages in Front of Dwellings/Buildings (DC6). These two local planning policies, related to residential streetscapes, were adopted under the former Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3). DBH1 was last reviewed in 1997, whilst DC6 has not been reviewed since its adoption in 1988. The draft local planning policy was placed out for public comment for not less than 28 days in accordance with the requirements of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Consultation. One submission was received. This submission has been noted and no modifications to the draft policy are recommended as a result of this submission. However, officers recommend minor adjustments to simplify the policy and to ensure the correct application of the policy’s intent. It is therefore recommended that Council adopt the local planning policy in accordance with clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4, with minor modification and DBH1 and DC6 be rescinded. BACKGROUND

At its Ordinary Meeting of 26 September 2012, Council resolved to adopt draft Local planning Policy – Residential Streetscape Policy for the purpose of advertising. The purpose of the draft policy was to incorporate the relevant provisions of DBH1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines (DBH1) and DC6 Carports/Garages in Front of Dwellings/Buildings (DC6). These two local planning policies, related to residential streetscapes, were adopted under the former Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3). DBH1 was last reviewed in 1997, whilst DC6 has not been reviewed since its adoption in 1988. A review of these two existing local planning policies was considered necessary for the following reasons:


Page 17

1. TPS3 was rescinded with the adoption of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). LPS4 provides a more prescriptive approach to design requirements that differs from the subjective nature of DBH1.

2. The Western Australian Planning Commission introduced the Residential Design Codes in 2002 (amended in 2008 and 2010) providing a set of streetscape design requirements.

3. The existing policies are considered inconsistent with the current approach to policy formulation that aims to provide certain and unambiguous standards, with clear discretionary criteria.

4. Changing community expectations and design trends over the last 15 years. Eleven aspects of development considered to contribute to the characteristics of the streetscape were identified. Of these eleven, six were considered to be adequately covered by other documents used to assess developments (i.e. LPS4 and the R-codes). The proposed draft therefore covered five aspects of development considered to contribute to the characteristics of the streetscape, including primary street setback, the setback of garages and carports from the street, building orientation, building height and additions and extensions to heritage listed properties. CONSULTATION The draft local planning policy was advertised in accordance with clauses 2.4 of LPS4 and Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals. The draft local planning policy was subsequently advertised for comment from 9 October 2012 until 9 November 2012, with advertisements being placed in the Fremantle Gazette for two consecutive weeks. The City’s precinct groups were specifically notified and copies of the policy were made available for viewing at the Service and Information Counter at the Town Hall Centre and on the City’s website. During the consultation period, one submission was received. The submission supports a streetscape policy, “To the extent that the proposed residential streetscape policy will prevent a repetition of the kind of redevelopment witnessed at 88 Marine Terrace.” Please refer to the Schedule of Submissions at Attachment 1 of this report for the full transcript of this submission. It is recommended Council note the submission.

PLANNING COMMENT

The purpose of the proposed new Residential Streetscape policy (Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscape policy) is to establish clear provisions relating to residential development within Fremantle. The policy prescribes simple and clear ‘acceptable development’ criteria that enable a ‘tick and flick’ assessment that will benefit the assessment process for applicants and City officers. Should the development propose variations from the ‘acceptable development’ provisions, discretionary criteria are provided and the development will be required to demonstrate that it meets these before approval can be granted. Officers further reviewed the policy during the advertising period and as a result some minor adjustments are recommended to simplify the policy and to ensure the correct application of the policy’s intent. Each modification has been detailed below and a full


Page 18

copy of the policy with all changes clearly tracked can be found in attachment 2 of this report. The key to the changes is as per the table below:

Text type Meaning of text type

Strikethrough Wording deleted

Underline Proposed new wording

Highlight The wording is retained, however moved to another location in the policy.

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS Statutory background The Statutory Background of the draft policy contains reference to the authority given by the Residential Design Codes (R-codes) to a Local Planning Policy to vary or replace the R-code’s acceptable development criteria. Additional to this, under three clauses of the policy the specific provisions of the R-codes the policy clause replaces or varies is specifically quoted. To simplify the policy and reduce unnecessary wording it is proposed the specific reference under the three clauses be deleted and an extra line be incorporated into the Statutory Background, which includes this deleted information (see the policy with track changes in attachment 2 for more information on this modification). Table 1 Proposed new table 1 Table 1. Prescribed Primary Street Setback (table 1 moved from above clause 1 to under the main heading of clause 1)

Local planning Area Prescribed minimum street

setback for single storey

development with a 4 or less

metre external wall height

Prescribed minimum setback

for two storey or more

development with an external

wall height greater than 4

metres

Fremantle 5m 7m

North Fremantle 5m 7m

South Fremantle 7m 10m

Beaconsfield 7m 12m

White Gum Valley 7m 12m

Samson 7m 9m

O’Connor 8m 12m

Hilton (excludes the Hilton Heritage Area)

7m 9m


Page 19

Height in storeys to metres Officers propose the single storey and two storey height reference in table 1 of the policy be deleted and replaced with a more tangible height measurement in metres. The intent of clause 1 and table 1 is to ensure new development is of a similar height to the existing streetscape and to setback development where it is of greater height to reduce the impact of the new development on the existing streetscape. The proposed modification will therefore achieve this as it will provide a cap on how high the external wall can be within different setback areas of table 1. By comparison, the current ‘storey’ height measurement in table 1 may not achieve the intent in some cases as a storey has no height restriction in metres and the definition is open to interpretation (e.g. a loft space is not a storey). The modified height requirement. Inclusion of Hilton Local Planning Area (excluding Hilton Heritage Area) The “Hilton garden suburb precinct” heritage area local planning policy (LPP3.7) was adopted in 2011. This policy covers an area within the Hilton Local Planning Area considered to be a Heritage Area. However a small part of the Hilton Local Planning Area (the area north of South Street bounded by Carrington Street, Clark Street, Hines Road and South Street) is outside of this heritage area. Accordingly this area has been included into the policy so that the policy applies to all relevant Local Planning Areas within the City of Fremantle. Formatting correction Table 1 – Prescribed Primary Street Setbacks is situated above clause 1 in the advertised policy, however the table only applies to the provisions of clause 1. Accordingly a minor formatting correction is proposed to include the table under the heading of clause 1. Clause 2 - Carports within the front setback Carport Height The current policy limits the height of a carport in the front setback to 2.8 metres in the clause 2 acceptable development provisions. It is proposed this be modified slightly to allow for an overall average height of 2.8 metres to provide for slightly sloping flat roofs. Setback from the boundary Officers propose modifying the last acceptable criteria under clause 2, relating to the setback of the carport to the boundary. The advertised provision cross-references the relevant design element of the R-codes and in almost all circumstances a one metre setback of the carport to the boundary would be required under the R-codes. Accordingly it is proposed this reference to the R-codes be removed and the provision be simplified to read a one metre or greater side boundary setback shall be provided. Modified acceptable development criteria provision:

vii.vi The carport complies with Design Element 6.3.1 – Buildings setback from the boundary, of the Residential Design Codes is setback one metre or greater from any side boundary.


Page 20

Proposed additional discretionary criteria Officers propose an additional discretionary criteria specific to the design of carports in the front setback. Upon working through the draft policy during the advertising period officers realised that the discretionary criteria for carports was only relevant to the siting of the carport in the front setback, not the design. The intent of the policy is to allow for carports in the front setback where they are lightweight and simple in design with visibility from the street to the house. Without discretionary criteria based on these principles carports of such construction would not be able to be approved under the policy, even though this is clearly the intent of the policy. Accordingly, officers propose additional discretionary criteria based on this intent. The current subjective wording of the clause’s acceptable development criteria, which includes for example “lightweight construction” and “visually subservient in form and proportion”, is proposed to make up the new discretionary criteria. This current acceptable development criteria wording will therefore effectively be relocated to the discretionary criteria of the clause. This is considered to have little impact on the acceptable development criteria as those provisions retained will still achieve the intent of the policy without the subjective wording e.g. 150mm poles of timber or steel material will ensure lightweight construction without the need to state this. Proposed new discretionary criteria provision: The carport is lightweight in construction, appears simple in design and is visually subservient to the form and proportion of the dwelling. Additionally, the front setback area is designed in such a way so as to maintain visibility of the dwelling from the street and surveillance from the dwelling to the street. Clause 3 - Building orientation Officers propose including an additional discretionary criteria provision under clause 3 (building orientation) of the policy. Currently the discretionary criteria under this clause includes: prevailing streetscape, traditional angular lot shape, and solar passive design principles (the road and or lot layout and topography criteria is proposed to be deleted as it is not considered relevant to orientation). Officers consider it reasonable to consider an unconventional building orientation where it is required to retain a Heritage Listed building or building within a Heritage Area. Discretionary criteria based on this may be used in instances where subdivision is not possible without the demolition or relocation of a building, and while an off centre orientation is not ideal, the overall outcome is better than demolition, especially where the building is heritage listed. Proposed new discretionary criteria provision: The proposed orientation is required so as to retain a heritage listed building or a building in a heritage area.


Page 21

Clause 4 - Building Height and scale It is proposed the building height and scale clause be modified so that it is applicable to the assessment of height only. The height provisions in clause 4 of the advertised policy are linked to the primary street setback requirements of clause 1. This doubles up on the policy’s setback provisions. Clause 1 contains reference to height in regards to the setback of development, however the primary purpose of the clause is to assess a building’s setback based on the proposed height. Concurrently the purpose of clause 4 is to assess a development’s height, regardless of setback as this is provided for in clause 1. It is therefore considered more appropriate to provide two standalone clauses whereby clause 1 simply provides for the street setback requirement and clause 4 provides for the building height requirements. Proposed amended ‘Acceptable Development’ height provision: 4.1 All properties not subject to specific provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 or

a local area planning policy (in relation to height), shall be subject to the category B building height requirements of Table 3 of the Residential Design Codes, where the development is on or behind the prescribed minimum setback for two storey development as per table 1 of this policy for the applicable Local Planning Area. All other development shall be single storey and subject to the category A building height requirements of Table 3 of the Residential Design Codes.

A note has been included under each clause 1 and 4 to explain that there is no relationship between the two clauses and assessment under each is still required. For example the note proposed for clause 4 (Building height and scale) is as follows: Note: Development additionally needs to meet the requirements of Clause 1 of this

policy which relates to the prescribed street setback based on the development’s external wall height. The requirements of Clause 1 are not related to the requirements of Clause 4.

Discretionary criteria - Road and/or lot layout and topography Officers propose modifying the discretionary criteria wording under Clause 1 (setbacks) and clause 2 (setback of garages and carports) relating to the road and/or lot layout and topography. The modification is shown below and is simply an adjustment of the wording to improve the readability of the criteria. Proposed new discretionary criteria provision: Due to the nature of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land, The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land; Additional to this it is proposed the same discretionary criteria be deleted from clause 3 (orientation) as it is considered not to be relevant to this clause.


Page 22

CONCLUSION

The new streetscape policy Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscape Policy is intended to replace the current local planning policies DBH1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines and DC6 Carports/Garages in Front of Dwellings/Buildings. One submission was received during the advertising period on the policy. This submission has been noted and no modifications to the draft policy are recommended as a result of public comment. However, officers have recommended a number of minor adjustments to simplify the policy and to ensure correct application of the policy’s intent. It is therefore recommended that Council adopt the local planning policy in accordance with clause 2.4 of LPS4, with minor modification. Additional to this it is also recommended that DBH1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines and DC6 Carports/Garages in Front of Dwellings/Buildings be rescinded. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Note the submission received as detailed in the Officer’s report and Attachment 2; 2. Adopt local planning policy Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Local planning Policy –

Residential Streetscape Policy, with minor modification, in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 2.4 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, as shown below:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.9

RESIDENTIAL STREETSCAPE POLICY

ADOPTION DATE: ??/??/20?? AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND Clause 5.2.2 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 states that unless otherwise provided for in the Scheme, the development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the Residential Design Codes (R-codes) is to conform to the provisions of the R-codes. Section 5.3.1 of the Residential Design Codes states that a local government may adopt a Local Planning Policy which varies or replaces specific acceptable development provisions of the Residential Design Codes. A Local Planning Policy may also contain development provisions for any aspect of residential development that is not provided for in the Codes.


Page 23

Those Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes that are varied or replaced by this policy are 6.2.1 A1.1 – A1.2, 6.2.3 A3.1 – A3.5, 6.2.8 A8 and 6.7.1 A1.1 Clause 10.2 of the Scheme empowers the Council to consider a broad range of considerations and impose conditions relating to these in dealing with an application for planning approval. APPLICATION The provisions of this policy apply to all residential development assessed under Part 6 of the Residential Design Codes, except where specific provisions are contained within a Local Area Planning Policy or equivalent. In the event that there is a conflict between this policy, and a provision contained within a Local Area Planning Policy, the most specific policy provision shall prevail. DEFINITIONS Prevailing streetscape means the characteristics (generally limited to the setback

and orientation of buildings including garages and carports from the primary or secondary street, front walls and fencing, building height, building/roof form and proportion) of the 3 properties, where appropriate, adjoining either side of the subject site, fronting the same street and in the same street block.

In the case of a corner lot where the dwelling is orientated to the splay, the characteristics of the adjoining three properties, where appropriate, facing both streets shall be considered.

Greater weight may be given to the characteristics of the two immediately adjoining properties on either side of the subject site fronting the same street(s).

For the purpose of this definition, properties separated by a street shall not be considered ‘adjoining’.

Prescribed street setback means the minimum setback of a building as per table 1 of this

policy (including garages and carports, but excluding a verandah, porch or balcony). The prescribed street setback is based on the development site’s Local Planning Area and proposed development height. The prescribed street setback is measured on a right angle (90 degrees) from the street alignment to the building. There are two prescribed street setbacks for this policy – one for single storey development and the other for two storey development.

POLICY 1. Setback of Buildings including Garages and Carports under the main roof of the

development


Page 24

Table 1. Prescribed Primary Street Setback

Local planning Area Prescribed minimum street

setback for development with a

4 metre or less external wall

height

Prescribed minimum setback

for development with an

external wall height greater

than 4 metres

Fremantle 5m 7m

North Fremantle 5m 7m

South Fremantle 7m 10m

Beaconsfield 7m 12m

White Gum Valley 7m 12m

Samson 7m 9m

O’Connor 8m 12m

Hilton (excludes the Hilton Heritage Area)

7m 9m

1.1 Buildings are to be setback from the primary street in accordance with the

prescribed street setback for the applicable Local Planning Area as prescribed in table 1.

1.2. Variations to the requirements of clause 1.1 above may be considered, at

Council’s discretion subject to the proposed development meeting at least one of the following criteria:

i. The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of

buildings of comparable height within the prevailing streetscape; or ii. The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element

into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land; or

iii. The proposed setback of the building will facilitate the retention of a mature, significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthy of retention (Refer also to LPP2.10 Landscaping of Development and Existing Vegetation on Development Sites).

Note: Development additionally needs to meet the requirements of Clause 4 of this

policy which relate to building height and scale. The requirements of Clause 4 are not related to the requirements of Clause 1.

2. Setback of Garages and Carports not under the main roof of the development 2.1 Garages, carports and outbuildings, except as provided for below, are to be

setback in line with or behind the front wall of the dwelling.


Page 25

2.2 Where the property is not on the Heritage List, carports may be located in front of the dwelling where the development meets all of the following criteria:

i. The carport is open on all sides with no door; and ii. The carport is constructed from timber or steel vertical supports no greater

than 150mm in width in any direction; and iii. The carport does not exceed an average of 2.8 metres in height above

natural ground level; and iv. The carport is located so as to maintain visibility of the dwelling from the street

and surveillance from the dwelling to the street; and v. The maximum width of the carport is to be 6 metres on a property with a

frontage of 12 metres or greater or on a property with a frontage of less than 12 metres, the maximum width of a carport is to be 3 metres; and

vi. The carport is setback one metre or greater from any side boundary. 2.3. Variations to the requirements of clause 2.1 or 2.2 above may be considered, at


i. The proposed building is consistent with the character of buildings in the

prevailing streetscape; or ii. The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element

into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land; or

iii. The proposed setback of the building will facilitate the retention of a mature, significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthy of retention (Refer also to LPP2.10 Landscaping of Development and Existing Vegetation on Development Sites), or

iv. The carport is lightweight in construction, appears simple in design and is visually subservient to the form and proportion of the dwelling. Additionally, the front setback area is designed in such a way so as to maintain visibility of the dwelling from the street and surveillance from the dwelling to the street.

2.4 Additional to clause 2.3 above, where the property is on the Heritage List the

proposed development’s compatibility with and impact on the heritage significance of the property will be considered. Due consideration will be given to the heritage assessment prepared under Local Planning Policy 1.6 Preparing heritage assessments and approval will only be granted where the development is considered compatible with the heritage significance of the property.

3 Building Orientation 3.1 Buildings shall be orientated parallel with the front boundary of the property with

front doors and windows facing and clearly visible from the street. 3.2. Variations to the requirements of clause 3.1 above may be considered, at


i. The building orientation is consistent with the orientation of buildings in the

prevailing streetscape; or


Page 26

ii. The proposed orientation is consistent with the traditional angular orientation of buildings, particularly in the case of corner lots where dwellings are typically set square to the corner splay of the lot, or

iii. The development is specifically designed according to solar passive design principles to achieve a significantly higher level of energy efficiency than would otherwise be achieved by complying with the orientation requirements, and has negligible adverse amenity impacts on adjoining properties, or

iv. The proposed orientation is required so as to retain a heritage listed building or a building in a heritage area.

4 Building Height and Scale 4.1 All properties not subject to specific provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 or

a local area planning policy (in relation to height), shall be subject to the category B building height requirements of Table 3 of the Residential Design Codes.

Note: Development additionally needs to meet the requirements of Clause 1 of this

policy which relates to the prescribed street setback based on the development’s external wall height. The requirements of Clause 1 are not related to the requirements of Clause 4.

4.2 Variations to the requirements of clause 4.1 above may be considered, at Council’s

discretion, subject to the proposed development meeting at least one of the following:

i. The proposed building height is consistent with the predominant building

height of development within the prevailing streetscape; or ii. A portion of the building is over height by virtue of a sloping site and the

development is likely to otherwise comply with the requirements of clause 4.1 above if the site’s natural ground level comprised of less slope; or

iii. The development does not result in any significant adverse impact on adjoining properties in regards to building bulk, boundary setbacks, visual privacy, access to views of significance and overshadowing.

5 Additions and Extensions for heritage listed properties 5.1 Where the property is included on the City’s Heritage List and is not subject to

specific provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 or a local area planning policy:

i. Second storey additions to an existing single storey dwelling are to be setback behind the main roof ridge of the existing dwelling a minimum distance of four (4.0) metres; and

ii. Shall be designed and setback so as to retain the impression of a single storey house when viewed from the street.

5.2 Variations to the requirements of clause 5.1 above may be considered, at

Council’s discretion subject to an assessment of the proposed development’s compatibility with and impact on the heritage significance of the property. Due consideration will be given to the heritage assessment prepared under Local Planning Policy 1.6 Preparing heritage assessments and approval will only be


Page 27

granted where the development is considered compatible with the heritage significance of the property.

3. Revoke DBH1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines and DC6 Carports/Garages

in Front of Dwellings/Buildings, in accordance with Clause 2.5.1(b) of Local Planning Scheme No 4,

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr B Massie That the matter be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee to enable a workshop to held to allow for further consideration of the proposed prescribed front setbacks. CARRIED: 5/2

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie

Cr Josh Wilson Cr Andrew Sullivan

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Committee felt they needed further time to consider the proposed prescribed front setbacks.


Page 28

PSC1212-196 HOLLIS PARK, SOUTH FREMANTLE LANDFILL SITE - PROPOSED INCLUSION ON STATE REGISTER OF HERITAGE PLACES

DataWorks Reference: 114/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 December 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects and Policy Actioning Officer: Coordinator of Heritage Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1 - Correspondence from State Heritage Office EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Fremantle has been notified by the State Heritage Office that it is proposed to include the Hollis Park area of the South Fremantle landfill site on the State Register of Heritage Places as an expansion of the existing registration referred to as the South Beach Horse Exercise Area. The existing registered area is located entirely within the City of Cockburn. The City has been notified as the relevant local government responsible for the Hollis Park area, and as the owner of the subject land. The City has the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed registration, and also to nominate a representative to participate in the meeting of the Heritage Council’s Register Committee when the proposed registration is considered. This report identifies the issues which officers consider are material to determination of the City’s views on the proposed registration. It is recommended that the City does not support the proposed registration on grounds that the Hollis Park area is of local cultural heritage significance but not of sufficient significance in terms of condition or authenticity to warrant State registration. However it is also recommended that further consideration be given to upgrading the current categorisation of the site under the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory as part of the next review of the MHI and the City’s Heritage List under the Local Planning Scheme. BACKGROUND

The area known as Hollis Park comprises the northern part of the former South Fremantle landfill site, and occupies a land area of 9.27ha. The area of the entire landfill site is approximately 19.5ha. The Hollis Park area is made up of a number of separate freehold lots, mostly owned by the City of Fremantle with the remainder being owned by the Commissioner of Main Roads. For further land ownership information see Attachment 1.


Page 29

The whole of the South Fremantle landfill site is registered as a contaminated site under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 with a classification of contaminated – remediation required. In early 2008 the WA Government’s Contaminated Sites Committee determined that the City of Fremantle is responsible for remediation of the site. Due to the particularly complex and wide ranging nature of contamination issues presented by the site the City has had to commission a number of site investigations in recent years and is engaged in ongoing discussions with the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) to determine the most appropriate approach to site management, remediation and potential long term use. The complexity and cost of the activity involved means that this process is likely to take a number of years to complete. As an interim site management measure, in 2010 all the site except for a sealed dual use path running along the northern and eastern edge of the Hollis Park area and a small area directly adjoining the path was fenced off to prevent public access for health and safety reasons. In October this year the City received correspondence from the State Heritage Office (the SHO) concerning an existing entry in the State Register of Heritage Places relating to the South Beach Horse Exercise Area (see Attachment 1). The correspondence advises that the SHO recently received a nomination to expand the area covered by the State Register entry for South Beach Horse Exercise Area to include Hollis Park. The Register Committee of the Heritage Council of WA considered this matter on 28 September 2012 and resolved that Hollis Park should be included in the area covered by the registration. As part of the registration process, the views of the relevant local government and the affected landowner(s) are sought before the Heritage Council’s Register Committee makes a final decision on the matter. The local government is also given an invitation to nominate a representative to attend, and become a voting member of, the Register Committee when the matter is considered. Heritage Background South Beach Horse Exercise Area (also known as O’Connor Beach Horse Exercise Area) was included on the Heritage Council of WA’s Register of Heritage Places in 2007 and was included on the City of Cockburn’s Municipal Inventory in 2004. This entry relates to an area of beach and coastal dunes within the City of Cockburn, immediately south of South Beach. It includes the CY O'Connor statue in the water and CY O'Connor Reserve above the beach. The registration of this area derives largely from the value of its historic and social associations with horse racing and training, including being the site of the first official horse race in Western Australia in 1833 and its use by C.Y.O’ Connor who died in this location in 1902. Hollis Park as identified by the area included in the State Heritage Office’s (the SHO) nominated curtilage is included in the City of Fremantle’s Heritage List and on the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) with a Landscape management category. Hollis Park (also known as the Former Tip and Quarry Site) is noted to be of local social and historic value to the city and has the following statement of significance:


Page 30

Hollis Park, constructed on the site of a former quarry, is evidence of the Council's wish to beautify the City while providing recreational amenities. It has historic significance for its former use running horses and access to South Beach, and for its associations with the marine/boat building industry in the South Fremantle area; it has social value for the local community.

Various other places within Fremantle that are associated with the horse industry and are included on the City’s Heritage List and MHI include: South Beach Foreshore and Wilson Park, Former Atkinson Jockeys Quarters and Stables Brockman Place, Former J. D. Cockrell’s Stables, 39-43 Daly Street, Former Collinson’s Stables (now Patterson’s stables) 77 Daly Street, Bartholomew Daly’s Stables (former) 17 Douro Road, Former Oate’s Stables (demolished) 38 Douro Road, F. Manford’s Stables (demolished) 32 Jenkin Street, Former Beaconsfield Police Station, Qrts, Lockup and Stables 170a Hampton Road. COMMENT

Officers believe the following matters are the key considerations that should be taken into account in determining the City’s views on the proposed registration:

Does the Hollis Park area demonstrate similar cultural heritage values, and a comparable degree of heritage significance to the already registered South Beach Horse Exercise Area?

What implications might registration have for the City’s ability to meet its obligations as a landowner under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003?

How might the heritage values of the site be affected by site management and remediation measures required as a consequence of its contaminated status?

Heritage values and significance of the Hollis Park area

The only specific reference to the Hollis Park area contained in the registration assessment documentation provided by the SHO is the legal description of the lots, and a reference under the ‘Scientific Value’ criteria of significance to the fact that the area was once a rubbish tip site and has the potential, through archaeological investigation, to yield information about the lives of those who worked and lived in the area (See Attachment 1).

Given the lack of any other specific references to Hollis Park, it is understood that the proposed registration is based on an assessment that the area shares the same heritage values and degree of significance as the already-registered area west of the railway reserve.

City officers accept that informal tracks across the Hollis Park area (one of which has in recent years been sealed and remains open to public use as a shared path) are representative of informal routes over a wider area which have been, and to some degree still are, used by horses to gain access to the main horse exercise area on the beach. On this basis it is considered that the area traversed by such informal tracks does have some local degree of cultural heritage significance; however the key issue is whether that degree of significance is sufficiently comparable to the significance of the already-registered area so as to warrant State registration.


Page 31

The more clearly the heritage values justifying the inclusion of places on the State Register of Heritage Places can be explained by linking them to physical elements, including landscaping, the sounder will be the basis for future planning decisions affecting the place, and for the formulation of proposals for the conservation and enhancement of the character of the area. In other words, the more clearly the heritage values can be explained the more likely they are to be protected. The local cultural significance of Hollis Park derives largely from the social and historic value of its associations with the exercise and training of horses. The physical evidence explaining Hollis Park’s connection with South Beach Horse Exercise Area is slight because of the nature and low level of authenticity of its landscape. The few existing links are likely to become more tenuous as and when the required remediation of the site occurs at some future date. The point concerning the modified nature of its landscape is already made in the registration documentation for South Beach Horse Exercise Area:

Like any area mainly consisting of natural features and tracks that come under pressure from use and changing attitudes, South Beach Horse Exercise Area has been the subject of much change.

Officers consider that when assessed against the criteria used by the Heritage Council to determine the degree of significance of a place, Hollis Park has a materially lower level of significance than the existing registered beachfront area south of South Beach. Also, Hollis Park has been identified as being of heritage significance to the Fremantle horse industry and is therefore of heritage value to the local community, whereas, the South Beach Horse Exercise Area is of heritage significance in the context of the state, particularly as the first state horse exercise area and for its associations with C.Y. O’Connor. Consequentially it is difficult to see how the inclusion of Hollis Park would add to the significance of South Beach Horse Exercise Area or the understanding of the historic significance of horse exercise and training in this part of South Fremantle. On this basis the City’s heritage officers consider the proposed inclusion of Hollis Park in the existing registration of the South Beach Horse Exercise Area should not be supported. However, the current management categorisation of ‘Landscape’ applied to the area in the City’s MHI may not necessarily fully reflect the local significance of the place. Therefore officers consider that as part of the next review of the MHI further investigation and consideration should be given to the possible upgrading of the management category.

Implications of State registration for the City’s responsibilities under the Contaminated Sites Act

As stated in the Background section of this report, the City is engaged in a long term, ongoing process in conjunction with the DEC, specialist environmental consultants and an accredited contaminated sites auditor to determine the most appropriate approach to management of the site and, in the longer term, remediation treatment. The City is under a statutory obligation to remediate the site at some point due to its classification under the Contaminated Sites Act.


Page 32

If the site was to be included in the State register, the advice of the Heritage Council would need to be sought prior to undertaking any development works (including earthworks) associated with remediation of the site. Although there is no basis for presuming that the Heritage Council would necessarily object to physical works being undertaken on the site, the requirement under the Heritage of WA Act for the City to refer proposed works to the Heritage Council would at a minimum introduce an additional procedural complication into what is already a complex issue. The worst case outcome could be that the Heritage Council might oppose works being carried out that another State agency (the DEC) responsible for enforcement of the Contaminated Sites Act would be requiring the City to implement to address contamination issues.

Potential impact of contaminated site management/remediation measures upon the heritage values of Hollis Park

Although the City has not yet identified in conjunction with the DEC the detailed scope of the future remediation strategy for the South Fremantle landfill site, it is likely that remediation will involve selective removal of contaminated fill and/or in situ treatment and placement of a capping layer of clean fill material over whole site surface. Ground works of this nature would significantly modify the physical appearance of the site, and most probably obliterate any remaining physical evidence of informal tracks formerly used by horses, except for the previously sealed dual use path linking Cockburn Road to the South Beach area. Such works would significantly detract from the already limited level of heritage significance of the Hollis Park area in terms of condition and authenticity.

Given that extensive physical works to the site to achieve remediation to the satisfaction of the DEC are almost certain to be required at some future date, the benefit of adding this area to the existing registered place is questionable, as the required remediation works would almost certainly reduce the already low level of authenticity of the site to a point where a reassessment of the area’s significance will be needed

CONCLUSION

Whilst the local cultural heritage significance of the Hollis Park area derived from its associations with the local horse racing and training community is already recognised and may warrant an upgraded management categorisation in the City’s MHI, for the reasons outlined in this report the area is not considered to be of sufficient significance in terms of condition or authenticity to warrant inclusion in the existing State registration of the South Beach Horse Exercise Area. Consequently officers recommend that the Heritage Council of WA and State Heritage Office should be informed that the City does not support the proposed registration.


Page 33

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the State Heritage Office be informed that the City of Fremantle does not support the proposed amendment to permanent registration of the South Beach Horse Exercise Area in the State Register of Heritage Places to include the area known as Hollis Park for the following reason:

The local cultural significance of Hollis Park derives largely from the social and historic value of its associations with the exercise and training of horses. However the physical evidence explaining Hollis Park’s connection with South Beach Horse Exercise Area is slight because of the condition and low level of authenticity of its landscape, and therefore the Hollis Park area is considered to lack a sufficient degree of heritage significance to warrant inclusion on the State Register.

1. That Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer (or his delegate) to attend the

meeting of the Heritage Council’s Register Committee to present the views of the City of Fremantle when the proposed registration is considered.

2. That further investigation and consideration be given to the upgrading of the existing Landscape Management Category for Hollis Park on the City of Fremantle Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as part of the next MHI and Heritage List review, to assist with the management of any future plans for the site.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Wilson That the item be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting. CARRIED: 6/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr Robert Fittock

REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To enable Officer's to obtain information on the social heritage values of the place for informal consideration at an elected member's workshop prior to reporting back to Planning Services Committee.


Page 34

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 12 DECEMBER 2012

SGS1212-2 CANTONMENT HILL MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

DataWorks Reference: 039/068 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 December 2012 Previous Item: SGS1207-7 Responsible Officer: Peter Pikor, Director Technical Services Actioning Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Manager City Works Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its meeting in July 2012, Council resolved to receive the master plan for Cantonment Hill as recommended by the Cantonment Hill Working Group. The plan proposes that the site has extensive upgrades and investment to achieve a sustainable place of interest for both visitors and locals. The works that will initially be undertaken are dependent on funding availability for Cantonment Hill. Currently there are cash-in-lieu funds of $130,000 available and $2million allocated in reserve funding for Cantonment Hill. It is proposed that the implementation of the master plan will require a staged approach spanning several years. It is also proposed a Working Group be reinstituted to assist the City facilitate the implementation of the key recommendations.

BACKGROUND

In July 2012 Council received the master plan for Cantonment Hill that includes the Cantonment Hill Reserve, Tuckfield Street open space and Naval Store and Signal station. At their meeting, Council resolved to in part

1. List funds to implement the recommendations of the master plan for Cantonment Hill in the 2012/13 budget,

2. Give further consideration

agenda - city of fremantle - ocm - agenda.pdfagenda - ordinary meeting of council wednesday, 19...

Documents