agenda - city of fremantle pc agenda.pdfcity of fremantle notice of a planning committee meeting...

AGENDA

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 3 August 2016, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING Elected Members A Planning Committee meeting of the City of Fremantle will be held on Wednesday, 3

August 2016 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street, Fremantle

(access via stairs, next to the playground in Kings Square) commencing at 6.00 pm.

Paul Trotman DIRECTOR STRATEGIC PLANNING & PROJECTS 27 August 2016

PLANNING COMMITTEE

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 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS LATE ITEMS NOTED CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Planning Committee dated 6 July 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PC1608-1 DEFERRED ITEM - HICKORY STREET, NO. 4 (LOT 26), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0329/15) 1

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 10

PC1608-2 MCCABE STREET, NO 11 (LOT 306), NORTH FREMANTLE - SEVEN STOREY MULTIPLE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT (51 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) AND TWO STOREY HEALTH STUDIO (GYMNASIUM) ( BP DAP002/16) 10

PC1608-3 LONGFORD ROAD, NO. 19 (LOT 48), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (SP DA0254/16) 25

PC1608-4 ONSLOW STREET, NO. 5 (LOT 1119), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (BP DA0287/16) 36

PC1608-5 HENDERSON STREET, NO 7-41 (LOTS 2073, 2074 & 2075), FREMANTLE - ALTERATIONS, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPING WORKS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLINGS (PW0001/16); & THREE (3) X BUILT STRATA SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS - (WAPC464-16; WAPC465-16; & WAPC467-16) 45

PC1608-6 DOURO ROAD, NO. 19 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO CONSULTING ROOMS (CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC) - (BP DA0256/16) 69

PC1608-7 ETHELWYN STREET, NO.16B (LOT 80), HILTON - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0157/16) 75

PC1608-8 LESLIE ROAD, NO. 5 (LOT 3), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH ROOF DECK AND PATIO - (NB DA0171/16) 82

PC1608-9 FREEMAN LOOP, NO 11 (LOT 102), FREMANTLE - SIX STOREY (AND BASEMENT) HOTEL - (NB DAPV003/16) 92

PC1608-10 STOCK ROAD, NO 324 (LOT 33 & 35), O'CONNOR - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING MOTOR VEHICLE SALES BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR (4) SHOWROOMS WITH SIGNAGE AND CHANGE OF USE TO 'SHOWROOM' 106

PC1608-11 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 116

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 117

PC1608-12 HERITAGE LIST AND MUNICIPAL HERITAGE INVENTORY REVIEW FOR NORTH FREMANTLE 2016 117

PC1608-13 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 71 - CHANGES TO TREE PROTECTION PROVISIONS - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 128

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 140

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PC1608-1 DEFERRED ITEM - HICKORY STREET, NO. 4 (LOT 26), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0329/15) 3

PC1608-2 MCCABE STREET, NO 11 (LOT 306), NORTH FREMANTLE - SEVEN STOREY MULTIPLE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT (51 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) AND TWO STOREY HEALTH STUDIO (GYMNASIUM) ( BP DAP002/16) 37

PC1608-3 LONGFORD ROAD, NO. 19 (LOT 48), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (SP DA0254/16) 87

PC1608-4 ONSLOW STREET, NO. 5 (LOT 1119), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (BP DA0287/16) 100

PC1608-5 HENDERSON STREET, NO 7-41 (LOTS 2073, 2074 & 2075), FREMANTLE - ALTERATIONS, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPING WORKS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLINGS (PW0001/16); & THREE (3) X BUILT STRATA SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS - (WAPC464-16; WAPC465-16; & WAPC467-16) 108

PC1608-6 DOURO ROAD, NO. 19 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO CONSULTING ROOMS (CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC) - (BP DA0256/16) 198

PC1608-7 ETHELWYN STREET, NO.16B (LOT 80), HILTON - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0157/16) 209

PC1608-8 LESLIE ROAD, NO. 5 (LOT 3), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH ROOF DECK AND PATIO - (NB DA0171/16) 219

PC1608-9 FREEMAN LOOP, NO 11 (LOT 102), FREMANTLE - SIX STOREY (AND BASEMENT) HOTEL - (NB DAPV003/16) 229

PC1608-10 STOCK ROAD, NO 324 (LOT 33 & 35), O'CONNOR - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING MOTOR VEHICLE SALES BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR (4) SHOWROOMS WITH SIGNAGE AND CHANGE OF USE TO 'SHOWROOM' 334

PC1608-11 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 356

PC1608-12 HERITAGE LIST AND MUNICIPAL HERITAGE INVENTORY REVIEW FOR NORTH FREMANTLE 2016 360

Agenda - Planning Committee 3 August 2016

Page 1

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register

PC1608-1 DEFERRED ITEM - HICKORY STREET, NO. 4 (LOT 26), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0329/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 August 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1509-7 (2 September 2015)

PSC1512-3 (2 December 2015) Attachment 1: Development Plans (as amended – 13 June 2016) Attachment 2: Heritage Assessment Attachment 3: Planning Committee report for PSC1512-3 (2 December

2015) Attachment 4: Planning Committee report for PSC1509-7 (2 September

2015) Attachment 5: Site Photos Date Received: 15 July 2015

28 October 2015(amended plans) 13 June 2016 (amended plans)

Owner Name: R & S Backhouse Submitted by: Mikasa Designs Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for the partial demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two storey alterations and additions to existing Single House. The application was previously presented to the Planning Committee (PC) on 2 December 2015, where the PC resolved to:

“defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that increase the upper floor front setback and decrease overshadowing.”

On 13 June 2016, the applicant submitted amended development plans which incorporated the following changes based on PC’s reasons for deferral:

Element Previously considered plans

Amended plans Change

Upper floor setback

5.2m - 5.8m 7.017m - 7.637m +1.817m - 1.837m

Overshadowing 29.4% (134m2) (23.19%) 105.56m2 (8.44m2

The proposal now complies with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes relating to overshadowing, largely owing to substantial redesign of the upper level which has seen an increase to the setback from the southern boundary from 1.984m up to 3.701m.


Page 3

Whilst it is noted that the applicant has made an effort to address the concerns raised by PC at its meeting of 2 December 2015, the proposal is still not considered to satisfy the discretionary criteria of LPP2.9 in terms of upper floor setback. This element of the proposal is now however, considered to be supportable, on-balance. BACKGROUND

Further background relating to the subject site and proposed development is contained in the ‘Background’ section of Attachment 3 and Attachment 4. The application has been previously considered by PC on two occasions, being 2 September 2015 and then 2 December 2015. When the application was presented to the PC on 2 September 2015, the PC resolved to:

“defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow the applicant to submit amended plans to increase the upper floor front setback and decrease overshadowing.”

Subsequent to the above resolution, the applicant submitted amended plans on 28 October 2015, with the changes outlined as follow:

Element Original plans Amended plans Change

Upper floor setback

4.2m - 4.9m 5.2m - 5.8m + 0.9m to 1.0m

Overshadowing 34% (155m2) 29.4% (134m2) -21m2

The above changes were presented to PC at its meeting of 2 December 2015, whereby the PC resolved to;

“defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that increase the upper floor front setback and decrease overshadowing.”

On 13 June 2016 the applicant submitted amended plans seeking to address that resolution (see Attachment 1).


Page 4

DETAIL

Discussion of the proposed development is made in the ‘Details’ section of Attachment 2. The amended plans, submitted by the applicant on 13 June 2016, incorporated the following changes based on PC’s reasons for deferral:



Upper floor setback

5.2m - 5.8m 7.017m - 7.637m +1.817m - 1.837m

Overshadowing 29.4% (134m2) (23.19%) 105.56m2 28.44m2

The proposal now complies with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes relating to overshadowing, largely owing to substantial redesign of the upper level which has seen an increase to the setback from the southern boundary from 1.984m up to 3.701m. Amended development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Please refer to the previous PC report from the meeting held 2 December 2015 (PSC1512-3) and 2 September 2015 (PSC1509-7) for further detail, which is contained as ‘Attachment 3’ and ‘Attachment 4’ respectively, of this report. Policy discretions and assessment against the R Codes design principles sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community

The City previously advertised the proposal to adjoining landowners and received objections. A full summary of the previous advertising outcome is included in the ‘Consultation’ section of Attachment 3 and Attachment 4. The previously received submissions are still considered valid despite the amendments to the proposal. It is noted that some of the issues previously raised in the submissions and detailed in earlier officer reports may have since been addressed by the amended plans. Discretionary decisions will be discussed in this report. The amended plans dated 13 June 2016 were not required to be readvertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. The City has informally offered the adjoining southern neighbour, whom previously had concerns with the proposal, an opportunity to view the amended plans and provide comment between 4-11 July 2016. It is clear that the changes made by the applicant have appeased many of the concerns previously held by the adjoining property, with the neighbour advising that they are “really happy with the proposed changes”, going on to say that they no longer have any objections with the proposal.


Page 5

Heritage department (internal) The proposed partial demolition has been reviewed by the City’s heritage department whom have provided advice, summarised as follows:

“Assessment

House, 4 Hickory Street South Fremantle does has limited historic value as a Post World War ll residence dating from the 1950s that forms part of the ongoing development of Fremantle. Aesthetically, the house is a moderate example which has been largely modified. Therefore the house can be determined to be of limited heritage significance and also does not form part of the characteristics of the streetscape. The existing residence is considered to be below threshold to warrant inclusion on the City’s Heritage List. Recommendations

House, 4 Hickory Street South Fremantle is of limited heritage significance can be demolished on heritage grounds.”

A copy of the heritage comments are contained as Attachment 2. PLANNING COMMENT

Partial demolition

Under the provisions of Clause 5.15.1 of LPS4, Council will only grant Planning Approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

“(a) Has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and (b) Does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality in which it is located.”

The Heritage Assessment prepared for this development application, in relation to the portion of the dwelling proposed to be partially demolished concluded:

“House, 4 Hickory Street South Fremantle is of limited heritage significance can be demolished on heritage grounds.”

In this regard, the proposed partial demolition of the existing building should be supported as the Heritage Assessment findings satisfy Clause 5.8.1 (a) and (b). Street setback



Upper floor setback

5.2m - 5.8m 7.017m - 7.637m +1.817m - 1.837m

For background, the table below outlines the changes between the originally submitted development plans dated 15 July 2015; to the amended plans dated 28 October 2015; through to the latest iteration dated 13 June 2016.


Page 6

Element Original Plans dated 15 July

2015

Amended Plans dated 28 October

2015

Amended plans dated 13 June

2016

Overall Change

Upper floor setback

4.2m – 4.9m 5.2m - 5.8m 7.017m - 7.637m +2.817m – 2.737m

Whilst the proposal does still not strictly comply with the 10m requirement, the table above demonstrates that the applicant has clearly made a concerted effort to amend the proposal to increase the upper floor setback from the street. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal still fails to meet the prescribed 10m setback requirement for the upper floor as specified by clause 1.1 of LPP2.9. As such, the proposal is required to be assessed against clause 1.2 of LPP2.9, which specifies the following discretionary 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; or

(iv) Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or,

(v) Where the proposed development is on a lot directly adjoining a corner lot, Council will consider a reduced setback that considers the setback of the corner lot in addition to buildings in the prevailing streetscape.’

As detailed in earlier reports, buildings contained within the ‘prevailing streetscape’ (No. 2, 6, 8 & 10) are all single storey dwellings with limited wall heights; or in the case of 10 Hickory Street, have an upper floor setback beyond the prescribed criteria (ie setback beyond 10m). A building that is not strictly contained within the prevailing streetscape (as defined by LPP2.9) is the two storey dwelling which is nearing completion on the corner of Hickory Street and Douro Road, being No. 5 Douro Road. This dwelling has an upper


Page 7

floor setback of just 2.145m to Hickory Street and is only separated from the subject site by one property. It is considered that this characteristic of the streetscape in a broader context warrants consideration in how the discretionary criteria of clause 1.2 should be both applied and considered. The very fact that there is a two storey dwelling, with a setback of just 2.145m from Hickory Street located approximately 25m north of the subject site should not be expressly ignored nor disregarded. It is considered therefore that the latest changes to increase the setback up to 7.017m - 7.637m from Hickory Street, coupled with consideration of the setback to Hickory Street of No. 5 Douro Road, that there is merit to consider supporting the proposal. This support however, is on-balance given that it is not considered to strictly comply with the discretionary criteria of clause 1.2. Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall), building height & visual privacy

These matters are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of Attachment 3 and Attachment 4. The amended plans do not affect the comments previously made by officers regarding these elements. It is also noted that these elements are not raised in the reason for deferral by the PSC at its previous meeting. No further discussion is provided as a result. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25:

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle.

Protect current tree canopy cover in Fremantle.

Provide for and seek to increase the number and diversity of residential dwellings in the City of Fremantle.

Green Plan 2020:

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land: The site has approximately three (3) trees on-site, measuring approximately 3 metres in height located in the front setback area of the site. The plans indicate that all trees are likely to be retained. Notwithstanding, it is noted that planning approval is generally not required for the removal of trees on private land.

Alternative Recommendation

Should Council not be willing to support the proposal in its current form, the following alternative recommendation is provided:

“That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two storey alterations and additions to existing Single House at No. 4 (Lot 26)


Page 8

Hickory Street, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 13 June 2016, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the area under clause 10.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

2. The upper floor setback of the proposal is inconsistent with the pattern of

development within the prevailing streetscape and represents a projecting element into the streetscape pattern. The proposal is therefore inconsistent with clause 1.2 (i) and (ii) of Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential streetscapes.

3. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the design principles of Design

Element 5.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes pertaining to street setback.” OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two storey alterations and additions to existing Single House at No. 4 (Lot 26) Hickory Street, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 13 June 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern and eastern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;

coloured sand render;

face brick;

painted surface; or,

other approved finish and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to use of the development approved as part of DA0329/15, on plans dated 13 June 2016, the north and east elevations of the roof deck and all other screening depicted on the plans hereby approved shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either;

i. fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor

level, or ii. fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with

a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or

iii. a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal floor level, or

iv. an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 9

The required screening shall be provided and maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.


Page 10

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register

PC1608-2 MCCABE STREET, NO 11 (LOT 306), NORTH FREMANTLE - SEVEN STOREY MULTIPLE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT (51 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) AND TWO STOREY HEALTH STUDIO (GYMNASIUM) ( BP DAP002/16)

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 12)

Application Details: Seven Storey Multiple Dwelling Development (51 Multiple Dwellings) and two storey health studio (gymnasium)

Property Location: No. 11 (Lot 306) McCabe Street, North Fremantle

DAP Name: Metro South-West JDAP

Applicant: TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage

Owner: Taskers Living Pty Ltd

LG Reference: DAP002/16

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

Department of Planning File No: DAP/16/1053

Report Date: 3 August 2016

Application Receipt Date: 18 May 2016

Application Process Days: 90 days

Attachment(s): 1: Development Plans dated 18 May 2016 2. Schedule of submissions 3. Site visit photos

Recommendation: That the Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel resolves to: Refuse DAP Application reference DP/16/1053 and accompanying plans dated 18 May 2016, SK1.01, SK2.01-11, SK3.01-04, in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the following reasons: 1. The discretionary additional height sought is inconsistent with the City of

Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle – Height of New Buildings clause 4.1.5 for area D2 that requires “distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design”.


Page 11

2. The development is inconsistent with clauses 67 (g) and (m) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, in that the building height proposed is not in accordance with an applicable Local Planning Policy for the site.

Background:

Property Address: No. 11 (Lot 806) McCabe Street, North Fremantle

Zoning MRS: Urban

LPS: Development Area

Use Class: N/A

Strategy Policy: Local Planning Area 3 – North Fremantle

Development Scheme: City of Fremantle – Local Planning Scheme No. 4 – McCabe Street Structure Plan

Lot Size: Lot 806: 3062m²

Existing Land Use: N/A - Vacant

Value of Development: $30,000,000

The subject site consists of one lot; Lot 806 McCabe Street, North Fremantle (‘the site’). The subject site currently contains residential sales offices, relocatable buildings and associated landscaping. The subject site is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’) and exists in the portion of McCabe Street bound by Stirling Highway to the west, and Edwards Parade, Mosman Park, to the east. The subject site is also subject to the following classifications;

Zoned ‘Development Area (DA18)’ pursuant to LPS4 and subject to the McCabe Street Structure Plan;

Contained within the North Fremantle Heritage Area but is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List. The subject site also falls within the ‘Rocky Bay’ Aboriginal Heritage Area; and,

The subject site is noted as being adjacent to high voltage transmission lines located on McCabe Street.

A summary of the relevant planning history relating to the site is as follows;

On 3 March 2009, the SAT set aside a decision made by the City on 25 June 2008 to refuse the Structure Plan for the subject site and approved the Structure Plan. The Structure Plan outlines a maximum wall height of 47.50m AHD and a maximum ridge height of 52.00m AHD. The Structure Plan contemplates a ridged roof design, as opposed to a flat or skillion style roof with higher wall or gable ends;

On 9 June 2010, the City granted planning approval for ‘Residential Grouped and Multiple Dwelling Development’ (DA0087/10). This application consisted of the construction of ninety-five (95) multiple dwellings across four buildings and eight (8) grouped dwellings in an additional building at the land. A further variation to this approval increasing the number of multiple dwellings from 95


Page 12

to 96 and making minor modifications to common areas and on-site parking was approved by the City on 13 April 2011 (VA0009/11). Condition 14 of the original approval (DA0087/10) required that the land be amalgamated into one lot;

On 9 June 2012, planning approval DA0087/10 and VA0009/11, being the original and subsequently modified approval for the redevelopment of the land expired;

On 25 October 2012, the City approved an application for ‘Six Storey (Two Basement), 51 Apartment Multiple Dwelling Development’ at the subject site (DA0417/12). This proposal broadly reflected that approved as part of DA0087/10 and VA0009/11;

At its meeting of 15 May 2013, the City granted planning approval for modifications to DA0417/12 that included modifications to the external height of the proposal (DA0176/13); and,

The application forms part of the staged development of the subject site. The first stage of the proposal, being the 6 storey multiple dwelling development was approved through DA0417/12 (and subsequently DA0176/13). Two further applications DA0448/13 (8 Grouped Dwellings) and DA0449/13 (21 multiple dwellings), represent the second and third stages of the proposal. The most recent previous application, being DAPV50003/14 (26 multiple dwellings) represented the fourth stage of the development. This current application (DAP002/16) represents the fifth and final stage, as shown on the development plans in the south-east corner of the subject site.

Details: outline of development application The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Health Studio (Gymnasium) and Seven Storey (51 Unit) Multiple Dwelling Development (see Attachment 1 – Development Plans dated 18 May 2016) at the site including;

A seven (7) storey multiple dwelling building containing 49 multiple dwellings and an additional basement level containing vehicle parking;

A two storey health studio and 2 multiple dwellings;

Associated landscaping and a swimming pool.

Legislation & policy: The application has been assessed against the following legislative documents:

City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) – application for development on the site is to be determined in accordance with provisions of Part 9 of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (they replace Part 10 of Scheme).

Legislation The following provisions of LPS4 (or Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (P&D Regs 2015)) are considered relevant in the assessment of the planning application;


Page 13

Clause 27 (P&D Regs 2015) – Effect of structure plan;

Clause 9.4 – Advertising of Applications;

Clause 2.3 – Relationship of Local Planning Policies to Scheme;

Clause 67 (P&D Regs) – Matters to be considered by local government; and

Clause 11.8 – Design Advisory Committee. State Government Policies There are no State Government policies relevant to the assessment of the application. Structure Plan The applicable Structure Plan for the site is the 9-15 McCabe Street Structure Plan. In accordance with clause 28 (2) of the P&D Regs 2015, this Structure Plan is considered to be approved by the Commission:

For the purposes of subclause (1), a structure plan that was approved before the day referred to in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 regulation 2(b) (commencement day) is to be taken to have been approved on commencement day.

Local Policies The proposed development is subject to the following Local Planning Policies, adopted under LPS4;

Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area – Height of New Buildings; and,

Local Planning Policy 2.13 – Sustainable Building Design Requirements.

Local Planning Policy 1.9 - Design Advisory Committee and Principles of Design.

Consultation: Public Consultation The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. In accordance with Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposal, the application was advertised as a ‘Significant Application’ and due to discretions being sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 6 July 2016, the City had received 24 submissions including 20 objections. The issues raised are summarised as follows;

Vehicle traffic; Concern is raised in regards to the vehicle traffic the proposal will generate once the site is fully developed, and the degree of traffic congestion at present along the surrounding road network.

Parking; there is insufficient visitor parking located on site to service not only visitors to the apartments, but additionally tradesmen and those servicing units.


Page 14

Design; the design proposed is not considered to be of ‘design excellence’ and as such the additional height proposed cannot be supported.

Building height; the height proposed is excessive, especially considering the height of the building that has been approved at 9 McCabe Street. The proposal would be out of scale with the surrounding area.

Vehicle access; the access point proposed to be used for the site is particularly dangerous and such development of this scale will exacerbate these concerns even further. The blind corner is a significant hazard to those using the site for ingress and egress and this development could potentially lead to further traffic delays and accidents.

Overshadowing; the proposed development would have an unreasonable impact on the degree of sunlight afforded to adjacent properties, especially morning sunlight and the impact this development would have on the current building at 9 McCabe Street to the west of the subject site.

Views; the proposal would impinge and obscure river views from a number of apartments currently situated at 9 McCabe Street.

Refer to Attachment 2 for a schedule of submissions. Infrastructure and Project Delivery (internal referral) The application was referred internally to the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery department for comment. The following comments were provided by the City’s Parks and Gardens department:

Please supply verge landscaping plan and detail including planting plan and set out.

It has been confirmed with the City’s Infrastructure team that they have no comments to make regarding the proposal. Design Advisory Committee (DAC) (Internal referral) The proposal, at a pre-lodgement stage, was presented to the City’s Design Advisory Committee at its meeting of 11 April 2016. The following recommendations were made; “CABE DESIGN PRINCIPLES CHARACTER

There has been no attempt to demonstrate how the project fits into the broader context.

The Committee requested contextual information about adjoining buildings together with site sections to understand the relationship between the proposed development and other approved buildings on site. Site sections should include one across McCabe Street to indicate the relationship of the proposed building to those across the road.

CONTINUITY AND ENCLOSURE, EASE OF MOVEMENT, LEGIBILITY, ADAPTABILITY, DIVERSITY


Page 15

The above issues did not arise during the presentation. QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM

The blank stone wall facing the street does not facilitate a high quality public realm interface.

OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY

Bathroom doors that open onto living areas need further consideration. APPROPRIATENESS OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES

When considered in isolation, the proposed use of materials appears appropriate however it is not understood how these materials relate to those of approved buildings on site.

GENERAL COMMENTS It is understood that the McCabe Street height policy allows a development with a maximum height of 25 metres subject to the following: “(a) 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. (b) The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4; and (c) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle.” While the committee was not in a position to make an assessment of the project against criteria a) and c), in relation to criteria b) that requires distinctive architecture befitting its location, exceptional design and meeting the highest possible standard of good design, there was not enough information provided to make this assessment. While it is acknowledged that additional information in the form of coloured elevations and 3D perspectives were provided at the meeting and went some way towards demonstrating a high quality design approach, there was not sufficient contextual information to make a determination. On this basis it is recommended that further information be provided to the Committee no later than 1 week before the next appropriate DAC meeting. It is noted however that the internalised bedrooms are not supported in the strongest terms and they are not considered to contribute to nor be “exceptional design”. It is also understood from a statutory planning perspective that the proposed development is 27m at its highest point which exceeds the 25m discretion allowed for in the height policy.


Page 16

DESIGN ASSESSMENT WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS

Apart from the internalised bedrooms, in general, the apartment planning is supported, particularly the dual aspect apartments.

When considered in isolation, the exterior design was judged to be of a good standard.

HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED

See comments above. RECOMMENDATION The several internalised bedrooms are not supported and cannot be considered ‘exceptional design’. Whether the development is distinctive architecture or meets at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4 is unclear until further contextual information is provided.” The application was subsequently presented at a second DAC meeting on 18 July 2016, after the applicant provided further detail regarding the contextual detail of the application as part of the formal submission. The following comments were raised from the DAC at this meeting: “It is acknowledged that photos have been provided to provide a contextual explanation of the external architectural design as requested by the Committee. It was not clear to the panel however, how the context had informed the external architectural design response, beyond matching the colours and materials used in an earlier stage of the development. In relation to the McCabe St frontage, concerns were raised regarding the lack of articulation and variation in the facade design. Overall the proposal is not considered to be “exceptional” as required by the planning policy. The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the Committee how the architecture of the proposal achieves a distinctive and high quality outcome. Factors such as unimpeded occupant access to views and expensive building materials do not constitute exceptional design. The most significant concern that the Committee holds is the high number of internalised bedrooms. The Committee has consistently raised this as a concern and the applicant has made no attempt to resolve this issue. To gain the additional height sought the planning policy states that: “The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4.” The Committee reiterates its previous comments that the numerous internalised bedrooms are not supported and they are not considered to contribute to nor to constitute “exceptional design”. Occupant amenity in habitable spaces (with direct access to daylight, fresh air, outlook) is considered fundamental to achieving good design quality in residential development.


Page 17

As discussed, there are many alternative design approaches that could be contemplated to resolve this planning issue such as multiple circulation cores or shallower apartment layouts. The Committee’s role is to offer advice on design quality not what is acceptable to the market. Given the longevity of apartment buildings, the DAC must take the long view regarding achieving an appropriate standard of accommodation, that will house a multitude of occupants over its life. Changing demographics and future housing pressure will mean that your McCabe St apartments will likely be occupied by families at some point, with children then occupying these internal bedrooms. If investors purchase these apartments and then rent them, these internal bedrooms may well be permanently occupied, sooner. Both state and national moves to prohibit internalised bedrooms are currently underway and it would be remiss for the Committee to ignore the important lessons learnt in other jurisdictions, and the growing local concern around such arrangements. Internalised bedrooms are proscribed (prohibited) in other states and will be soon in WA.” Given that the applicant has not changed the layout of the internalised bedrooms, the recommendation from the DAC has remained consistent with the previous comment provided at the 11 April 2016 meeting in that the application cannot be considered to constitute ‘exceptional design’ as required by Local Planning Policy 3.11 for the additional discretionary height sought. This recommendation and its application to the planning assessment are discussed in further detail below. Planning assessment: The subject land is zoned ‘Development Area’ and is not given a density coding. As a result, the assessment of the proposed development is largely provided for in the Structure Plan. Clause 27 (1) of P&D Regs 2015 requires that;

1) A decision-maker for an application for development approval or subdivision approval in an area that is covered by a structure plan that has been approved by the Commission is to have due regard to, but is not bound by, the structure plan when deciding the application.

Consideration of the development is therefore made against the Structure Plan, however it is noted that the decision maker is only required to have due regard to the provisions and content of the document. Building location & form The design context for the proposed development has been broadly set by decisions at earlier stages of the planning process, notably the approval of a structure plan for the site by the State Administrative Tribunal in March 2009. The structure plan included details of the location and orientation of new buildings within the site and their overall massing including maximum heights. Subsequent development applications have proposed building forms in general conformity with the content of the approved structure plan as is required under clause 6.2.3.2 of LPS4, which has subsequently been superseded by clause 27 (1) of the P&D Regs 2015. These previous applications were not considered


Page 18

by the DAC as the committee was only established after the original planning approvals were granted. Building Height The application proposes a maximum building height of 24.75m as measured from 31 AHD (the approved natural ground level in the structure plan). In assessing the proposed building height, due regard is given to the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle – Height of new buildings. The following is an excerpt from LPP 3.11, with specific reference to the subject site: In the part designated zone D2 on the policy map fronting McCabe Street at 9 McCabe Street, North Fremantle, a development with a maximum height of 25 metres may be approved by Council, at its discretion, subject to the proposed development demonstrating that it complies with all of the following criteria:

a) 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.

b) The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4; and

c) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle.

In considering the above criteria, the applicant has provided evidence of equivalent rating to the five star Green Star rating. This documentation is deemed to be satisfactory in achieving compliance with point a) of the above clause. Notwithstanding this, a condition of approval is included in the alternative recommendation for approval so as to ensure that the applicant implements this rating at an appropriate standard. In relation to b), the proposed building is not considered to be of distinctive architecture and exceptional design, due to the comments provided by the City’s DAC. Specifically, the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated how the façade design is distinctive architecture and the layout of the 19 internalised bedrooms are not considered to be of exceptional design and therefore the application, in the view of the DAC, is not deemed to meet the principles of good design having due regard to clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4. With respect to c), Local Planning Policy 3.11 was drafted based on the McCabe Street Height Study dated May 2008. In simple terms provided that the envelope of the building seeking the additional discretionary height is located within the purple hatched area for D2 (see yellow circle bellow for clarity), then the proposal does not encroach upon the view corridors outlined in the May 2008 study. The proposed building subject to this planning application is located wholly within the relevant area of the policy and therefore satisfied criteria c).


Page 19

The adopted Structure Plan for DA18 provides a maximum external wall height for development within the footprint of ‘Apartment 2’ at 47.5m AHD and maximum roof height at 52m AHD. At the same time, in the location that the development is proposed (zone D2), LPP3.11 permits a maximum building height of 17m from natural ground level, with permissibility to increase the height to 25m subject to meeting criteria as discussed previously. The table below outlines the permitted (as per the adopted Structure Plan), currently proposed AHD levels of the external wall height and maximum roof ridge height. Height Requirements for ‘Apartment 2’ as demarcated on 9-15 McCabe Street Structure Plan

Element Structure Plan Requirement

Current Proposal Variation to Structure Plan

Maximum Wall 47.50m AHD 51.10m AHD 3.60m AHD

Maximum Roof 52.00m AHD 55.75m AHD 3.75m AHD

Discretionary decisions relating to the variation to height for DA 18 have previously been supported in the past by City officers. However, these decisions have been made without the amended version of the City’s LPP 3.11, which includes more specific provisions relating to the prerequisites in attaining a greater building height. Furthermore, the level of discretion being proposed against the structure plan in this instance is deemed to be considerable, given that the variation would effectively support an additional storey from what is outlined in the structure plan. In this regard, the variation is, arguably, not generally consistent with the content of the structure plan. Having regard to LPP 3.11 and clause 67 (g) of the P&D Regs 2015, it is considered that the building height in this instance cannot be supported, given the comments provided by the City’s DAC. As the design is not deemed to meet part b) in reference to zone D2 of clause 4.1.5 of LPP 3.11, a recommendation to award the additional discretionary


Page 20

building height of 25m, cannot be provided as the proposal is required to fulfil all of the criteria outlined in the policy. On this basis, the application is recommend for refusal as per clause 67 (g) of the P&D Regs 2015, which is as follows:

In considering an application for development approval the local government is to have due regard to the following matters to the extent that, in the opinion of the local government, those matters are relevant to the development the subject of the application —

(g) any local planning policy for the Scheme area; It is recognised that a previous SAT s.31 reconsideration for No.84-104/9 McCabe Street, North Fremantle resulted in the deletion of a condition in the approval for DP/31/00843 (5 storey apartment building) which, by removing the condition, permitted internalised bedrooms for the development. Since that time Local Planning Policy 3.11 has been adopted by Council which requires distinctive architecture and exceptional design. For the reasons detailed above the proposed development does not demonstrate either distinctive architecture or exceptional design. Plot Ratio Area The plot ratio area proposed for this application is 2.4 (7440.56m²/3062m²) and, while the outlined plot ratio area for the Structure Plan is 1:1.5, the plot ratio area in this application is considered to be supportable for the following reasons:

The development of the building is at a bulk and scale which is comparable to what is provided for in the local planning framework. Having regard to the structure plan that encompasses the site, it is considered that the proposed plot ratio area of the development would be generally consistent with the overall built form that is outlined for this component of the structure plan.

It is noted that the plot ratio area approved in the previous Taskers developments has ranged from less than 1:1.5 to approximately 1:1.8. Lot Boundary Setbacks In assessing the proposed lot boundary setbacks, the building envelope proposed is required to be generally consistent with the content of the structure plan relating to ‘Apartment 2’. The layout of the proposed seven storey apartment building is generally consistent with the building envelope of the ‘Apartment 2’ building in the Structure Plan, apart from the setbacks provided to balconies on the eastern elevation. The structure plan displays a setback of approximately 3 metres from the eastern elevation of the ‘Apartment 2’ building to the adjoining lot boundary at 15 McCabe Street. The Structure Plan outlines that the desired density of the subject site ought to be equivalent to R80; despite the fact that no density coding is directly applicable under the scheme maps of LPS4. On the basis of the R80 coding, it is noted that under the R-Codes, the deemed-to-comply lot boundary setback is 4 metres as per Table 5. The lot boundary setback proposed between 2.0m (open balcony) and 3.5m (solid wall) are not considered to be a significant departure from the both the Structure Plan and the R-Codes, and the impacts of building bulk and overshadowing are deemed to be negligible.


Page 21

Given that the adjoining eastern site at 15 McCabe Street currently does not have a Structure Plan that encompasses this particular site, it is considered that the development potential of this property is uncertain. Further, the potential for a future structure plan for this site to allow for, or entertain, boundary walls on the western elevation should also be considered. To this end, a condition is provided in the alternative recommendation so as to ensure that a notification on the certificate(s) of title is included, informing future residents on the eastern elevation that their balconies may be partially enclosed by potential development occurring on the eastern adjoining property (15 McCabe Street). Vehicle Parking

Required Provided

Residential 69.5 101 (31.5 surplus)

Visitors 12.75 3 (9.75 deficit)

TOTAL 82 (82.25) 104 (21.76 bay surplus)

The vehicle parking provision is compliant in respect to the designated allocation provided for the residential apartments (multiple dwellings); however the visitor bays are seeking discretion of 10 vehicle bays. The vehicle bay described as No. “Visitors 4’ is not included in the vehicle parking calculation as this bay does not provide a manoeuvring space in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.1. The vehicle parking discretion is considered to be supportable for the following reasons:

There is on-street parking available along McCabe Street further to the north-east, with 24 bays on-street bays provided at this particular location (approx. 100m walking distance). This is considered to account for some of the shortfall represented in the visitor parking calculation.

There is already visitor parking (16 vehicle bays in the central visitors car park) that has been approved through previous multiple dwelling developments and has been assessed as communal visitor parking to the McCabe Street Structure Plan area. In this regard, it is considered that visitors could utilise these bays on a reciprocal basis.

While the site is situated at a greater distance than 250m from a high frequency bus route, there is access to bus routes along Stirling Highway to the west, which is approximately 266m from the subject site.

The parking requirement for the Health Studio land use has not been assessed as this particular use is considered to be subservient to the predominant residential (multiple dwelling) use of the development. That is, it is considered unlikely that people using the gym will come from outside the Taskers development. Bicycle Parking

Required Provided

22 8 (14 deficit)

The bicycle parking requirement is 22, whereas only 8 have been proposed. This discretion is considered to be supportable, given there is visitor bicycle parking provided at other multiple dwellings developments approved in the structure plan area.


Page 22

Site Works The application proposes a maximum of 3.6m (from 31 AHD to 27.4AHD) of excavation for a minor portion at the rear of the site. This level of site works is considered to be supportable for the following reasons:

The development is considered to respond to the natural features of the site, as the finished floor level of the ground floor is taken at approximately the natural ground level (NGL) that that was approved at the structure plan stage (31 AHD). In this regard, the development only requires a relatively minor proportion of excavation, predominantly at the rear of the site to make the development more level.

The finished levels respect the natural ground level at the boundary of the site and the adjoining properties. Further, given that the bulk of the development is situated at the front of the subject site, the site works are not considered to impact on the appearance of the natural ground level as viewed from the street.

Visual Privacy On the basis of the R80 code, the proposal is considered to meet all of the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes in the following ways;

All major openings and raised outdoor living areas to boundaries of adjoining residential properties (including the internal separation between the proposed development and other residential developments on the subject site) meet the cone-of-vision setback requirement of the R-Codes; or

The elevations where a lesser setback is sought address non-residential premises at No. 15 McCabe Street and in those instances, the visual privacy provisions do not apply.

Sustainable Building Design The proposed development is required to achieve a rating of not less than 4 Star Green Star (or equivalent) using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia rating tool pursuant to Local Planning Policy 2.13 – Sustainable Building Design (‘LPP2.13’). In addition to this requirement, it is noted that LPP 3.11 requires a 5 star Green Star rating, which is considered to effectively address the requirements of LPP 2.13. Given this, a condition of approval is provided in the alternative recommendation requiring that the applicant implements the equivalent rating under the alternative tool so as to address both of the aforementioned policy requirements. Vehicle traffic No comments were provided by the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery department in relation to the traffic impacts of the proposal. It is noted that a previous report submitted by Shawmac Pty Ltd accompanied the Structure Plan and has been referred to in the assessment of vehicle traffic emanating from proposed developments within the McCabe Street Structure Plan area. This particular document is considered to be of relevance to the proposal, as the document considers development of a comparable form to what is proposed in this application. The recommendation from the report is that under this scenario (comparable bulk and scale), the level of service (LOS) to the McCabe Street/Stirling Highway intersection would remain at C, which was considered to


Page 23

be acceptable. Furthermore, a more recent traffic study undertaken by Cardno Pty Ltd outlined that an alteration to McCabe Place, which proposes the extension of this particular road, would improve the traffic congestion on McCabe Street. Conclusion: The application seeks planning approval for the development of a seven storey multiple dwelling development (51 multiple dwellings) and health studio building at the subject site. The proposal is summarised as follows;

The subject site is zoned ‘Development Area (DA18) pursuant to LPS4 and is subject to the adopted Structure Plan;

In accordance with clause 6.2.3.2 of LPS4, the proposal is required to be generally in accordance with the Structure Plan;

The proposal is generally consistent with the Structure Plan in terms of building position, scale, density, and vehicle traffic;

However, the proposal is not considered to meet the applicable provisions relating to building height contained within the Structure Plan and LPP 3.11.

The proposal was presented to the DAC pre and post planning application (April 2016 and July 2016), with the DAC noting that the proposal could not be considered to be ‘distinctive architecture or design excellence’ due to the applicant failing to demonstrate how the architecture of the proposal achieves a distinctive and high quality outcome and the 19 internalised bedrooms proposed. To this end, the application is not considered to meet the relevant provisions of the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.11 and, as such, is recommended for refusal in accordance with clause 67 (g) of the P&D Regs 2015. In the event that JDAP are supportive of the proposal, an alternative recommendation for conditional approval is provided below: Alternative Recommendation: Approve DAP Application reference DP/16/1053 and accompanying plans dated 18 May 2016, SK1.01, SK2.01-11, SK3.01-04, in accordance with Clause 10.2 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans,

dated 18 May 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Notwithstanding condition 1 above, the vehicle parking bay described as ‘Visitors 4’ on the approved plans is hereby deleted and does not form part of this approval.

3. The design and construction of the development is to meet the 5 star green star

standard as per the discretionary criteria of Local Planning Policy 3.11 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of Building Compliance for the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle;


Page 24

i. a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 5 Stars, or

ii. a copy of agreed equivalent documentation certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 5 Stars.

4. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site, to the

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 5. Prior to occupation, all air-conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any

other plant and equipment to the roof of the building shall be located or screened so as not to be highly visible from beyond the boundaries of the development site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. All landscaped areas are to be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the

development on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle

7. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP002/16 on plans

dated 18 May 2016, the car parking and loading area(s), and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance with Clause 5.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. All car parking, and vehicle access and circulation areas shall be maintained and

available for car parking/loading, and vehicle access and circulation on an ongoing basis to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. Prior to the submission of a Building Permit application, the owner is to submit

further details on the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to the satisfaction of and approval by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

10. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP002/16 on plans

dated 18 May 2016, a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land of the potentiality of the enclosure of the balconies located along the eastern boundary by future development on the adjacent site. The notification is to be prepared by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties prior to occupation.

Advisory Notes (i) It is recommended that the applicant provides a verge landscaping plan outlining

the planting plan and set out, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 25

PC1608-3 LONGFORD ROAD, NO. 19 (LOT 48), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (SP DA0254/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 August 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1: Third Set of Amended Plans

Attachment 2: Site Photos Attachment 3: Department of Environment Regulations Referral Comments

Date Received: 26 July 2016 (amended plans) Owner Name: Stephen Hayes & Oonagh Buchanan Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential Zone (R35) Heritage Listing: Adopted (Historic/Archaeological Site) Existing Landuse: Vacant Lot Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 26

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for the development of a two storey Single House on a vacant lot at No. 19 Longford Road, Beaconsfield (the site). The application is referred to the Planning Committee due to a submissions being received raising concerns to the proposal and discretions sought that cannot be resolved through the imposition of relevant planning conditions. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the City’s Local Planning Policies (Council policies) and seeks Design Principle and discretionary decisions in relation to the following:

Overshadowing Percentage,

Garage Door Width,

Lot Boundary Setback (North – upper floor)

Boundary Walls (South and North – ground floor)

Open Space

Roof form and pitch The application is recommend for on balance refusal. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R35. The subject site is on the City’s Heritage List as a Historic and Archaeological site, but not located within a designated Heritage Area under LPS4. The subject site is currently vacant, consists of 302m2 and has a west/ east orientation. DETAIL

On 26 July 2016, the City received amended plans for an application for the development of a two storey Single House at No. 19 (Lot 48) Longford Road, Beaconsfield. The site is part of the ‘Moltini-Salentina Ridge Sub Area’ in Beaconsfield. The original application was received on 25 May 2016 however the original plans have been amended three times since lodgement to address City concerns for discretions relating to overshadowing impacts. On 26 July 2016, the applicant lodged amended plans to help reduce the impacts of overshadowing on the southern adjoining property. The key amendments to the original design include:

- Reducing the overshadowing percentage to the southern lot from 60% to 52.4% (75.5m2 to 52.55m2 shadow area above Deemed to Comply requirement),

- Increasing the upper floor Sitting Room & Balcony southern lot boundary setback from 1.5m to 3.5m now complying with the R-Code setback requirements. The rear upper floor element of the proposed dwelling is broken


Page 27

into smaller portions of wall and stepped inwards towards the centre of the lot compared to the original design, demonstrating a willingness to enhance solar access to the rear of the southern lot and evident outdoor living areas.

- Increasing the southern boundary setback of the upper floor central located

Theatre room wall from 1.5m to 2.29m. (Originally seeking 0.8m discretion to complying with the Deemed to Comply requirement).

- Obscure glazing all upper floor (north and south) elevation openings in the passage way, Theatre room, Sitting Room, as well as screening to 1600mm above ffl on the rear Balcony, to satisfy the Deemed to Comply requirement for visual privacy of the R-Codes,

- reduced the rear setback for the proposal from 4.4m to 3.9m, which still complies with the R-Code setback requirements,

- Deleting the upper floor void and replacing majority of this space with an open

balcony. As a result of this, the upper floor showcasing a fully roofed length is now altered. (Roof length originally 24m, which now is 19.55m.

- Open space for the development site has been reduced from 176.25m2 to

174.84m2, Design principle assessment required (9.96m2 above Deemed to Comply to 8.75m2 above Deemed to Comply.

See Attachment 1 for amended plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the deemed-to-comply or policy provisions and need to be assessed under the Design Principles: • Overshadowing • Garage Width • Lot Boundary Setback • Open Space • Roof pitch • Boundary Walls The above matters are discussed in detail in the ‘Planning Comment’ section below. CONSULTATION

Community


Page 28

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with the City’s LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals policy as several Design Principle and discretionary assessments were sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 16 June 2016, the City had received 4 submissions, which raise the following relevant planning concerns (summarised):

The building bulk of the proposed building is significant in relation to the existing dwellings on the street, due to the reduced open space percentage from a non-compliant floor area.

The level of overshadowing is over the deemed-to-comply criteria, but also impacts sensitive spaces of the southern dwelling, such as major openings with habitable rooms and outdoor living areas at the rear.

Visual privacy of the northern and southern lot is compromised by the proposal of aggregated major openings on the second level of the dwelling. The three openings proposed for the theatre room on the southern elevation overlook sensitive major openings to habitable rooms of the southern dwelling (master bedroom). The same has been said for the northern elevation openings on the second floor to the sitting room, impacting the visual privacy of the northern dwelling.

The garage door exceeds the deemed-to-comply requirement for width, presenting a potential dominancy of the dwelling from street view.

Other matters:

Concerns about potential noise at night when people enter/leave the dwelling due to the entry door abutting the southern boundary, parallel to the window of the master bedroom for No. 21 Longford Road.

Potential loss of value for properties nearby. The above matters are not relevant planning considerations and are therefore not addressed further in the report. External Referral Comments The application was referred to the Department of Environment Regulations (DER) as part of the process for assessment as the property is registered on the Contaminated Sites register as ‘remediated for restricted use’. As a result, the DER referral was returned with a number of conditions to be included, should the application be approved. See ‘Attachment 3’ for Attached Comments.


Page 29

PLANNING COMMENT

Residential Design Codes Assessment: Solar Access for Adjoining Sites

Address Deemed to Comply

Overshadowing Provided

Design Principle Assessment

No. 13 Longford Rd

35% 36.5% 4.8m2

No. 15 Longford Rd

35% 33.7% Complies

No. 17 Longford Rd

35% 49.3% 45.76m2

No. 19 Longford Rd

35% 52.4% 52.55m2

No. 21 Longford Rd

35% 41% 19.2m2

No. 23 Longford Rd

35% 35% Complies

Due to the allotment’s east-west orientation and its narrow width, approved developments (single and two storey) within the Longford Road locality has often exceeded the deemed-to-comply requirement for solar access to adjoining sites for the applicable R35 coding of the land. Whilst the percentages are exceeding the deemed-to-comply figure (as outlined above in the table), the design principle assessment for overshadowing is to demonstrate how the development protects the solar access for neighbouring properties, specifically taking into account existing outdoor living areas and north facing major openings of these respective properties. A large portion of the upper floor for the proposed development is located towards the rear of the lot (i.e. only 3.4m from the rear boundary), overshadowing three existing ground floor major openings and a portion of the key outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property. It’s also important to note that the southern adjoining property is currently under construction onsite today. The ground floor windows to the master bedroom and kitchen of the southern adjoining site (No. 21 Longford Rd) are considered to be significantly impacted by shadow. The amended design whilst improving the ability for morning solar access to the southern adjoining site, the proposal will still directly overshadows a large portion the existing rear outdoor living area of the southern adjoining site. It is acknowledged that the calculated overshadowing from the most recent set of amended plans has been reduced from 60% to 52.4% (overall reduction of 22.95m2 shadow area).


Page 30

It is acknowledged that the increased setbacks, articulation and staggering of the upper floor southern elevation will help in reducing the overall level of overshadowing of the southern site, the amended level of shadow is still considered to be excessive and would result in a detrimental impact to the southern sites only key rear outdoor living area. Accordingly, the amended proposal is not considered to adequately address the Design principle criteria of the R-Codes for solar access for adjoining sites and therefore the application is not supported. Garage Width

Deemed-to-Comply Width Width Proposed Design Principle Assessment

6.06m 7.08m 1.02m

The design principles assessment of the clause requires a need to maintain visual connectivity between the dwelling and the streetscape, whilst not contributing to a sense of garage doors dominating the streetscape. The proposal design is considered to on balance demonstrate the design principles and can be supported for the following reasons:

The balcony extends the whole width of the garage door, is facing the street and is an extension from a habitable room; therefore the street is considered to be highly visible from a habitable room.

The majority of approved dwellings in the street are of two storey design; therefore the garages are less dominant, when considered in proportion to a 2 storey frontage heights.

Boundary Walls and Lot Boundary Setbacks

Wall Height + Length

Deemed to Comply

Provided Design Principle Assessment

1. Southern Entry Wall (Ground Floor)

3m + 8.7m 1m 0m 1m

2. Northern Bathroom Wall (Ground Floor)

3m + 4m 1m 0m 1m

3. Northern Wall (Upper Floor)

6.5m + 24.5m

2.7m condition) 1.52m 1.18m

Items 1 and 2 of the table above are considered to address the Design Principles and can be supported or the following reasons:

The design offsets the boundary setback space to the rear, effectively delivering a larger outdoor living area,


Page 31

The design only proposes small proportions of the dwelling on the boundary which would be considered a reasonably minor level of building bulk, whilst proposing a shadow that would be similarly cast from a ground floor wall considered complaint in setbacks, solar access

The boundary walls on the northern boundary and southern boundary (4m & 8.77m respectively) are understood to pose no significant aspects to amenity of adjoining properties, as the walls are not impeding views of significance,

The southern boundary wall is the ground floor only. Solar access to the master bedroom of the southern dwelling would be shadowed by the second floor regardless and would not see a reduction in projected shadow casting, should the ground floor boundary walls comply with setback requirements.

The boundary walls are considered common within the prevailing streetscape. Item 3 is considered to address the Design Principles for the following reasons:

The design is considered to reduce the impact of building bulk by tapering the distance between the dwelling and the southern/northern boundaries with a greater setback for the second floor as opposed to the ground floor.

The lot boundary setbacks are only a minor departure from the deemed-to-comply figures.

The open space for the site is offset to the rear, therefore understood to be maximising solar access and ventilation for open space on the subject site.

The balcony at the rear maximises northern solar access.

Overlooking and visual privacy will be addressed with a screening condition to be placed for the Balcony at 1600mm above finished floor level, as proposed.

Open Space

Deemed-to-Comply (Open Space)

Open Space Provided Discretion

144m2 127.1m2 16.9m2

The proposal is considered to address the design principles of the R Codes and can therefore be supported for the following reasons:

The development follows a similar development patterns to existing and approved dwellings within the streetscape of Longford Road,

The dwelling design is considered to propose a high accessibility to natural sunlight through a the provision of a deep balcony, as well as open space to the rear,

The development provides a functional space at the rear to be used adequately for outdoor recreation,

The building bulk would not be considered any more substantial than what the approved and existing dwellings the prevailing streetscape display,

The open space is considered a minor departure from the deemed-to-comply figure and would not be considered to be uncommon with approved development within Longford Rd.


Page 32

Roof Pitch Design Guidelines for the sub area include the requirement for all roofing to display a roof pitch between 22 – 45 degrees, with exceptions for verandahs and canopies, irrespective of the type of roofing material proposed to be used. The current design demonstrates a concealed flat roof, therefore is not adhering to the requirements of the Policy. The policy has no discretionary criteria to vary this requirement. Whilst not having criteria to vary the requirement, the prevailing streetscape currently has dwellings approved with skillion roofs and roofs outside of 22 - 45 degrees, including No. 15 Longford Rd & No. 21 Longford Rd. On that basis the proposed roof pitch is not likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area and can therefore be supported. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25:



Green Plan 2020:

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land: no trees current exist on site and none are proposed to be planted however the design include a green wall trellis over the front portion of the building on the ground and upper floors.

Alternative Recommendation: Should Council be willing to support the proposal, the following recommendation would be applicable: That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Single House at No. 19 (Lot 48) Longford Road, Beaconsfield, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 26 July 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or otherwise

approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.


Page 33

3. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the southern elevation of the balcony shall demonstrate a solar penetrable translucent glass balustrade at a height of 1.65m or more above finished floor level, replacing the solid masonry wall to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to practical completion of the development herby approved, the boundary

walls located on the northern and southern boundary shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;


other approved finish

and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, a vehicle crossover shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Due to the presence of asbestos in soils underlying the capping layer at the site,

prior to the commencement of works, a site-specific health and safety plan must be developed to address the risks to the health of any workers undertaking intrusive works below 1.25m in depth, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle on advice from the Department of Environment Regulation.

7. No less than 14 days prior to the commencement of construction, plans detailing

the proposed construction and layout of the gas mitigation systems, in accordance with the requirements of ‘Environmental Site Management Plan for Proposed Dwellings at Lot 9002 Longford Road, Beaconsfield WA, Version 12 (MDW, 25 May 2016)’, must be approved by an appropriately qualified and experienced civil or structural engineer, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle on advice from the Department of Environment Regulation.

8. Construction of subsurface voids, including but not limited to the installation of

soakwells, is restricted to a maximum depth of 1 metre below the surface. No less than 14 days prior to commencement of construction, plumbing plan detailing any proposed excavations must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle on advice from the Department of Environment Regulation.

9. Buildings constructed on the site are required to comply with engineering

specifications applicable to Characteristic Situation 3 (CS3) as outlined in the documents “Assessing the risk posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings (C665) (CIRIA, 2007)” and “Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gasses for new buildings (BS8485, July 2015)”, in order to manage and mitigate potentials risks associated with landfill gases. Examples of acceptable gas mitigation systems are provided in the document ‘Environmental Site Management Plan for Proposed Dwellings at Lot


Page 34

9002 Longford Road, Beaconsfield WA, Version 12 (MDW, 25 May 2016)’. Other gas mitigation designs may be adopted, provided they are demonstrated to be compliant with the requirements of the above guideline documents and endorsed as such by an accredited contaminated site auditor.

10. Prior to slab construction, engineered gas mitigation systems must be inspected,

tested and certified by an appropriately qualified and experienced civil or structural engineer and confirmed to comply with the relevant engineering specifications. Appropriate certification reports, prepared by an engineer must be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive officer – City of Fremantle, on advice from the Department of Environment Regulation, no more than 14 days after the date on which the inspection and testing was undertaken.

11. The sealed sub-slab gas membrane must be installed and tested by a suitably

qualified and experienced specialist contractor to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle on advice from the Department of Environment Regulation.

Advice Note(s):

i) With regards to clarity on planning conditions No.6 - 11 the applicant is advised to liaise with the Department of Environment Regulation (DER) for DER matter MD07618. DER contact details area follows: Department of Environmental Regulation Phone 1300 762 982 Email – www.der.wa.gov.au

i) Due to the nature and extent of groundwater contamination identified to date, the

abstraction of groundwater for any purpose other than analytical testing or remediation is not permitted.

ii) The site is to be managed in accordance with ‘Environment Site Management

Plan for Proposed Dwellings at Lot 9002 Longford Road, Beaconsfield WA, Version 12 (MDW, 25 May 2016)’ and any subsequent amendments to that plan. The Environmental Site Management Plan can be obtained from the City of Fremantle, or from the department of Environment Regulation.

iii) To ensure adequate passive venting of potential ground gasses, DER

recommends that landscaping features comprised of paving, garden or lawn areas are preferable to concrete or bitumen hardstand.

http://www.der.wa.gov.au/


Page 35

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Single House at No. 19 (Lot 48) Longford Road, Beaconsfield, due to the following reason:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes in respect to overshadowing as the development has an adverse impact on the adjoining southern property’s major openings and outdoor living area.


Page 36

PC1608-4 ONSLOW STREET, NO. 5 (LOT 1119), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (BP DA0287/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 August 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1: Development Plans

Attachment 2: Site Visit Photos Date Received: 13 June 2016 Owner Name: A. Stewart & M. Ryan Submitted by: Ventura Homes Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential R25/R30 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single storey Single House Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 37

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to a submission that is unable to be addressed through the imposition of relevant planning conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbour. The applicant seeks discretionary assessments against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and relevant Local Planning Policies (LPPs). These discretionary and Design Principle assessments include the following:

Garage width; Overshadowing; Primary street setback (ground and upper floors); Boundary wall (south).

Some of the above discretionary assessments are on balance not considered to be supportable (in particular the southern boundary wall and associated overshadowing). Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND The subject site is located south of Marmion Street, east of Montreal Street, north of Forrest Street and west of Onslow Street. The site has a land area of approximately 736m² and currently is a vacant site. The site is zoned Residential under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R25/R30. The subject site is not adopted under the City’s Heritage List and is not located within a heritage area. A search of the property file revealed no relevant planning history for the site. DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Single House and includes the following: Three bedrooms; Two bathrooms; Kitchen, dining and living rooms; Laundry; Sitting room; Alfresco; and Garage.

Refer to Attachment 1 for the development plans.


Page 38

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes relevant local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the relevant ‘deemed to comply’ requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. The following elements seek design principle assessments:

Garage width; Overshadowing.

Some of the City’s policies replace or augment the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. In this application Council has the ability, through its policy provisions, to apply discretion in the following areas when determining the application:

Primary street setback (ground and upper floors); Boundary wall (south).

The above matters will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the report below. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Council’s LPP1.3 – Public notification of planning proposals as design principle assessments and policy discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 1 July 2016, the City had received 2 submissions, with both objecting to the proposal. The following planning issues were raised during the notification period (summarised):

The proposal would impact on access to sunlight in our outdoor living area, which would have a detrimental to our amenity;

The proposed window shown at the stairway has the potential to look directly into our backyard and would therefore have an adverse impact on maintaining privacy;

The southern boundary wall would be overbearing and reduce the extent of sunlight to our verandah and outdoor living area;

The grouped dwelling would be an inappropriate addition to the local streetscape. The above concerns are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.


Page 39

PLANNING COMMENT

Residential Design Codes Garage Width

Element Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

Garage width 5.5m in width (50%) 5.8m (52%) 0.3m

The proposed garage width is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: It is considered that visual connectivity between the dwelling and the streetscape

would be maintained, given that the upper floor of the proposed grouped dwelling that is location over the garage below would reduce the perception of the garage dominating the street;

The 30cm difference to the deemed-to-comply is considered minor and, in this regard, the change is considered to be minimal to the extent that it would not be significantly noticeable as viewed from the street.

Overshadowing

Element Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

Overshadowing (measured proportionately based on the lengths of southern adjoining boundaries)

84 Forrest Street: 42m² (12%)


84 Forrest Street: 44.5m² (12.5%)


2.5m²

The overshadowing proposed is not considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: The overshadowing would impact on the outdoor living areas for both southern

adjoining properties. It is noted that the spaces that would be affected by the overshadowing are the only viable outdoor living areas for both southern adjoining properties.

86 Forrest Street to the south has north facing major openings to habitable rooms which would be impacted by the proposed overshadowing.

Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Primary Street Setback

Element Required Provided Discretion

Ground floor 5m 4.5m 0.5m

Upper floor 7m 5.4m 1.6m

Clause 1.2 of LPP 2.9 entertains variations to the prescribed primary street setback, subject to meeting one of the criteria outlined in the clause. This clause is as follows:


Page 40

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); or

iv. Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or v. Where the proposed development is on a lot directly adjoining a corner lot,

Council will consider a reduced setback that considers the setback of the corner lot in addition to buildings in the prevailing streetscape.

The primary street setbacks to the ground floor and upper floors are considered to, on balance, meet clause 1.2 (ii) of LPP 2.9 for the following reasons: The proposed setbacks are not considered to result in a projecting element due to the

topography of the site, which is a downward slope from east to west of approx. 1.0m (see picture below). In this regard, it is considered that the dominance of the building on the streetscape would be ameliorated by the gradient of the property.

There are only two other properties located within the prevailing streetscape to the

north. In this regard, reduced primary street setbacks of 0.5m and 1.6m are not considered to be of detriment to the amenity of the surrounding area, given the lack of dwellings to form an ‘established’ streetscape.


Page 41

The upper floor setback of 5.4m only occupies 55% of the main front line of the upper floor, whereas the remainder of the upper floor is setback at 6.4m. In this regard, the impact of the reduced upper floor primary street setback is considered to be lessened, given the separation between the lounge room and bedroom 3 (refer to below).

It is also noted that a portion of the northern adjoining property at 5 Onslow Street is

setback at a similar distance to the primary street (approximately 5.2m). Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development Boundary Walls

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Discretion

South 1.5m 0m 1.5m

The proposed boundary walls are not considered to be supportable under LPP 2.4 for the following reasons: It is considered that the length and height of the southern boundary wall, being 5.8m

and 2.8m respectively, would restrict direct sun to the outdoor living areas of adjoining properties, particularly 86 Forrest Street directly to the south.

Given that the southern boundary wall would occupy approximately 38% (5.8m/15.2m) of the length of the northern boundary for 86 Forrest Street, it is considered that the southern adjoining property would be adversely impacted by way of building bulk.


Page 42

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25:

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle;


Green Plan 2020: It is noted that two trees on site are proposed to be removed to allow for the construction of the grouped dwelling. It is also recognised that planning approval is generally not required for the removal of trees on private property. CONCLUSION The application is recommended for refusal given the boundary wall discretion is not considered to meet the applicable design principles. Notwithstanding, Planning Committee (PC) may be of the view that the impact of these discretions is negligible and that the application could be supported. In the instance that PC views the proposal favourably, an alternative recommendation for approval is provided below. It is noted that a condition of approval to reduce the width of the garage, or to reconfigure the front half of the grouped dwelling to increase the setback to the southern boundary, could result in the house being impractically narrow to the effect that the garage may not comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 (vehicle manoeuvring) if it is reduced in width by greater than 0.4m. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No.5 (Lot 1119) Onslow Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 13 June 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. All stormwater discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. The new vehicle crossover shall be separated a minimum of one (1) metre from

the power pole situated in the road reserve, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0287/16, on

plans dated 13 June 2016, a vehicle crossover shall be constructed in either


Page 43

paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern boundary shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;




Advisory Notes (i) The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered,

contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

(ii) The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on the

plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;

submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration, or

submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the infrastructure.

This request will be considered independently of any Planning Approval granted, and this Planning Approval should not be taken as approval for removal or modification of any infrastructure within the road reserve.

(iii) In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the relevant City of

Fremantle department or relevant service authority prior to the commencement of this development, this planning approval will be incapable of implementation.

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No.5 (Lot 1119) Onslow Street, Fremantle, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would be detrimental to the amenity of the area under clauses 67 (g), (m) and (y) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 by reason of the adverse building bulk impact and loss of sunlight to the outdoor living area at the southern adjoining property.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes in respect to overshadowing.


Page 44

3. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development.


Page 45

PC1608-5 HENDERSON STREET, NO 7-41 (LOTS 2073, 2074 & 2075), FREMANTLE - ALTERATIONS, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPING WORKS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLINGS (PW0001/16); & THREE (3) X BUILT STRATA SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS - (WAPC464-16; WAPC465-16; & WAPC467-16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 August 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: SGS1506-6 Strategic and General Services Committee

(17 June 2015) SGS1506-6 Ordinary Council Meeting (24 June 2015)

Attachment 1: Development Plans (inc applicants Heritage Impact Statement)

Attachment 2: City’s Heritage Assessment Attachment 3: Subdivision Application WAPC464-16 Attachment 4: Subdivision Application WAPC465-16 Attachment 5: Subdivision Application WAPC467-16 Date Received: 4 May 2016 Owner Name: Heritage Council of Western Australia Submitted by: Heritage works – State Heritage Office Scheme: City Centre (R-AC3, as per R-Codes, R80) Heritage Listing: Yes, MHI management category level 1A;

WECA Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 46

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for alterations, conservation and landscaping works at No’s 7-41 (Lots 2073, 2074 & 2075) Henderson Street, Fremantle (PW0001/16) and for three (3) built strata subdivision applications (WAPC464-16, WAPC465-16, WAPC467-16). Due to the nature of the proposal, and the delegated authority afforded to the City for public works, both the development application and the three built strata applications are to be determined by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). The City therefore, acts only in the capacity of a referral body to provide a recommendation and comments to the WAPC for their consideration of the respective proposals. The application is not seeking any discretionary assessment against Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), however it is not considered to be consistent with the objectives of the City Centre zone as set out in clause 4.2.1(b)(iii) in that it will likely impact the conservation of heritage places, Council’s Local Planning Policies (LPP), or the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). Notwithstanding this, both the application for planning approval, and the three built strata subdivision applications are considered to present significant detrimental heritage outcomes; or are otherwise likely to lead to a situation where it will result in such a position, and as such cannot be supported. The built strata applications are also inconsistent with June 2015 Council resolution. Both the application for planning approval and the three built strata subdivision applications are recommended to be referred to the WAPC with recommendations for refusal. BACKGROUND

The sites are zoned ‘City Centre’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and are located within the City Centre Local Planning Area 1 (LPA 1) – sub area 1.3.1 as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The sites are located in the street block bounded by Henderson Street to the west, Parry Street to the east, Holdsworth Street to the north and South Terrace to the south. The sites are individually listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Management Category Level 1A; and it is also located within WECA Heritage Area, Convict Establishment Heritage Area, Henderson St Law & Order Precinct Heritage Area, which are prescribed heritage areas under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject sites when combined account for approximately 3,544m2 (Lot 2073 – 808m2; Lot 2074 – 1,320m2; Lot 2075 – 1,416m2), have a predominantly north-south orientation and are improved by fifteen (15) two storey Grouped Dwellings. In terms of its topography, the subject site is relatively flat. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and/or to this application.


Page 47

The Warders’ Cottages (fmr) (‘Warders’ cottages’ or ‘the cottages’) consist of three limestone convict built terrace buildings. They were established in the early 1850s as residential terraces to accommodate the warders of Fremantle Prison. The Warders’ cottages are the first row of houses built by the Colonial Government in the State and define the western boundary of the Convict Establishment precinct, which includes the world heritage listed Fremantle Prison, the Barracks for the Royal Sappers and Miners (now part of the Fremantle Police Station), the Fairbairn Street ramp and the Comptroller Generals Residence (now part of Fremantle Hospital). The cottages are also the first limestone terraces built in the State and rare examples of simple Victorian Georgian convict built terraced accommodation, possibly only comparable to buildings on Norfolk Island. The three terraces comprise of:

First Terrace 19-29 Henderson Street (1851), currently has three cottages

Second Terrace 33-41 Henderson Street (c1853), currently has six cottages

Third Terrace 7-17 Henderson Street (1858), currently has six cottages Following the closure of the prison in 1991 the Warders’ Cottages were transferred to Homeswest (now Department of Housing) who leased the cottages for inner city public housing. The properties were vacated in 2011 and have since stood vacant. In December 2011 Council considered the strata titling of the cottages. In its resolution Council supported strata titles for the cottages on the condition that the Department of Housing (DoH) upgraded the buildings and undertook conservation works, including urgent works required as per the Warders’ cottages conservation plan (Kelsall Binet Architects July 2011). In 2013 DoH offered the cottages to the City of Fremantle for a fifty-year peppercorn lease in return for the City taking financial responsibility for their conservation, refurbishment and ongoing maintenance and upkeep. Council considered this in a report on the matter on 26 June 2013 and resolved to accept the offer in principle subject to the state government covering all or part of the costs to complete stage 1 conservation works and the preparation of a business plan for the regeneration of the cottages. The business plan was to include identification of future uses for the place and any required adaptions that:

are consistent with the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990;

generate sufficient income to repay the initial loan and fund future ongoing costs; and

can be accommodated in the buildings and meet the requirements of the Building Act 2011 and BCA.

On 29 January 2014 Council considered a further report on the matter following preliminary financial modelling of the expenditure and income associated with the City assuming control and responsibility for the cottages on a 50 year leasehold basis along the lines of the proposal considered by Council in June 2013. Council resolved to request the State Government to consider a revision of DoH’s original offer from a 50 year peppercorn lease to transferring the Warders’ Cottages’ freehold title to the City and/or making a substantial contribution to the initial conservation costs required to retain the heritage significance of the place. This resolution was influenced by the City’s preliminary financial modelling which indicated that an approach as outlined in the June 2013 resolution above would not be financially viable for buildings which would not ultimately be a City asset (i.e. the City would only have a leasehold interest in the property).


Page 48

The title to the properties was subsequently transferred to the State Heritage Office (SHO) on the 25 March 2015. The State Heritage Office is currently using a $2million revolving heritage fund to carry out conservation works to the buildings. The City’s understanding of the revolving fund is that the money taken from the fund for works to the warders’ cottages needs to be replenished within two years of the works. At the present time the City understands that the SHO is likely to sell individually strata titled cottages (one in each of the three blocks in the first instance) to generate income in order to replenish the revolving fund. At its meeting of 17 June 2015, Council’s Strategic and General Services Committee (SGS) considered its position in relation to the existing and future land tenure of the Warders Cottages and the likely impact this will have on the ongoing preservation and management of the buildings themselves (Refer to item SGS1506-6), where it was resolved as follows:

“Part 1 - That Council: Rescind its previous resolution PSC1112-221 dated 21 December 2011 advising that it would be prepared to issue a strata building approval certificate, subject to certain works and other actions being undertaken prior to the issue of strata titles and sale of the Warders’ cottages, as shown in Attachment 3 of the Strategic and General Services Committee agenda 17 June 2015. Part 2 - That Council:

1. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to write to the State Heritage Office advising that the City of Fremantle’s position in respect of future ownership and use of the Warders’ cottages is as follows, and that the Council remains committed to working collaboratively with the State Heritage Office to try to achieve an effective outcome for the long term conservation and reuse of the cottage consistent with the City’s position:

The Council is not supportive of a strata title subdivision of the Warders’ cottages, and instead the Council strongly supports the three blocks of cottages each remaining in a single ownership as this is considered most likely to ensure a consistent approach to property management and ongoing conservation of the integrity and other heritage values of the cottages.

In respect of the cottages in Block W1, due to the proximity of the cottages and their rear gardens to Fremantle Markets future use should be for purposes compatible with market activities; these include (but are not necessarily limited to) use as short stay accommodation intended primarily for occupation by tourist visitors and/or uses at ground level, possibly utilising the rear gardens area, that could interact with the street and/or laneway access to the markets. The Council is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W1 as dwellings intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area.

In respect of the cottages in Block W2, future use should be considered as part of an integrated approach to adaptive re-use of the former Police Station/old courthouse complex and the W2 cottages as a whole; this could potentially allow for a diverse range of uses compatible with the cultural heritage significance of both places, recognising the impacts of previous modifications to the original heritage fabric of both building groups. The Council would be most supportive of uses which help activate the eastern section of Henderson Street; however an element of residential


Page 49

use of some form (short and/or long term occupancy) may be supported if it forms part of a broader mix of compatible uses which reactivate the cottages and Police Station complex as a whole.

In respect of the cottages in Block W3, due to the proximity of the cottages to Fremantle Markets and other hospitality and entertainment land uses in Henderson St Mall and South Terrace Block W3 is exposed to high levels of noise and activity; therefore future use should be for purposes compatible with these predominant existing uses. Short stay tourist-orientated accommodation and/or non-residential uses (at least at ground level) that could interact with the street and complement the established character of the area would be preferable so long as any physical alterations needed to make such uses viable can be undertaken without unacceptable impact on the heritage values of the existing building fabric. The Council is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W3 as dwellings intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be extremely difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area.

At its meeting of 24 June 2015, Council’s Ordinary Council Meeting (OCM) considered its position in relation to the existing and future land tenure of the Warders Cottages and the likely impact this will have on the ongoing preservation and management of the buildings themselves (Refer to item SGS1506-6), where it was resolved as follows:

“That Council: Rescind its previous resolution PSC1112-221 dated 21 December 2011 advising that it would be prepared to issue a strata building approval certificate, subject to certain works and other actions being undertaken prior to issue of strata titles and sale of the Warders’ cottages, as shown in Attachment 3 of the Strategic and General Services Committee agenda 17 June 2015. That Council: 1. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to write to the State Heritage Office

advising that the City of Fremantle’s position in respect of future ownership and use of the Warders’ cottages is as follows, and that the Council remains committed to working collaboratively with the State Heritage Office to try to achieve an effective outcome for the long term conservation and reuse of the cottage consistent with the City’s position:

The Council is not supportive of a strata title subdivision of the Warders’ cottages, and instead the Council strongly supports the three blocks of cottages each remaining in a single ownership as this is considered most likely to ensure a consistent approach to property management and ongoing conservation of the integrity and other heritage values of the cottages.

In respect of the cottages in Block W1, due to the proximity of the cottages and their rear gardens to Fremantle Markets future use should be for purposes compatible with market activities; these include (but are not necessarily limited to) use as short stay accommodation intended primarily for occupation by tourist visitors and/or uses at ground level, possibly utilising the rear gardens area, that could interact with the street and/or laneway access to the markets. The Council is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W1 as dwellings intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area.


Page 50

In respect of the cottages in Block W2, future use should be considered as part of an integrated approach to adaptive re-use of the former Police Station/old courthouse complex and the W2 cottages as a whole; this could potentially allow for a diverse range of uses compatible with the cultural heritage significance of both places, recognising the impacts of previous modifications to the original heritage fabric of both building groups. The Council would be most supportive of uses which help activate the eastern section of Henderson Street; however an element of residential use of some form (short and/or long term occupancy) may be supported if it forms part of a broader mix of compatible uses which reactivate the cottages and Police Station complex as a whole.

In respect of the cottages in Block W3, due to the proximity of the cottages to Fremantle Markets and other hospitality and entertainment land uses in Henderson St Mall and South Terrace Block W3 is exposed to high levels of noise and activity; therefore future use should be for purposes compatible with these predominant existing uses. Short stay tourist-orientated accommodation and/or non-residential uses (at least at ground level) that could interact with the street and complement the established character of the area would be preferable so long as any physical alterations needed to make such uses viable can be undertaken without unacceptable impact on the heritage values of the existing building fabric. The Council is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W3 as dwellings intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be extremely difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area.”

On 10 December 2015, the City referred an application for restoration works to the existing buildings (Warders Cottages) at No’s 7-17, 19-29 and 31-41 (Lots 2075, 2074 and 2073) Henderson Street, Fremantle to the WAPC with a recommendation for conditional approval (PW0007/15);

On 14 January 2016, the WAPC granted conditional planning approval for restoration works to existing buildings (Warders Cottages) at No’s 7-17, 19-29 and 31-41 (Lots 2075, 2074 and 2073) Henderson Street (PW0007/15).

On 16 December 2015, the City referred an application for a six (6) lot survey strata subdivision of No. 7-17 (Lot 2075) Henderson Street, Fremantle to the WAPC with a recommendation for refusal (WAPC1274-15).

On 29 January 2016, the WAPC granted conditional subdivisional approval for the six (6) lot survey strata subdivision of No. 7-17 (Lot 2075) Henderson Street, Fremantle (WAPC1274-15).

On 16 December 2015, the City referred an application for a six (6) lot survey strata subdivision of No. 19-29 (Lot 2074) Henderson Street, Fremantle to the WAPC with a recommendation for refusal (WAPC1275-15).

On 29 January 2016, the WAPC granted conditional subdivisional approval for the six (6) lot survey strata subdivision of No. 719-29 (Lot 2074) Henderson Street, Fremantle (WAPC1275-15).

On 16 December 2015, the City referred an application for a three (3) lot survey strata subdivision of No. 31-41 (Lot 2073) Henderson Street, Fremantle to the WAPC with a recommendation for refusal (WAPC1277-15).


Page 51

On 29 January 2016, the WAPC granted conditional subdivisional approval for the three (3) lot survey strata subdivision of No. 31-41(Lot 2073) Henderson Street, Fremantle (WAPC1277-15).

In the City of Fremantle 2016/17 budget that was adopted at the Special Council Meeting on 30 June 2016, $800,000 was included for the purchase of a Warder Cottage (project code 10774) and $20,000 was included to undertake a land swap with the State Government for the rear yards of Warders Cottage W1 (project code 10774).

DETAIL

This item covers two parts:

Part A – Development Application (PW0001/16)

Part B – Three (3) x Built Strata Subdivision Applications (WAPC464-16, WAPC465-16, WAPC467-16)

Part A – Development Application (PW0001/16)

Broadly speaking the proposal comprises of the following works, as outlined by the applicant, the State Heritage Office (SHO) in their covering letter:

“The proposed scope of work has been developed to assist the Heritage Council in conserving significant elements of the place through:

Maintenance and conservation of the significant elements of the place;

Removal of items of little significance, intrusive fabric or contaminated fabric; and,

Providing a contemporary standard of living with new driveway and parking amenities, as well as cabinetry, fixtures and fittings to Unit 17.

This work is being undertaken to successfully dispose of the property in a staged Expression of Interest campaign, to take place in the last quarter of 2016.”

The scope of the works is further outlined in the City’s Heritage Assessment which is contained as Attachment 2, and states:

“In summary the works include but are not limited to the following; Warders’ Cottages 1

Upper floor - Bathroom to be located in a zone of exceptional significance.

Warders’ Cottages 2

Ground floor - Conversion of the kitchen to a laundry, a zone of exceptional

significance and the dining room into a kitchen, a zone of considerable

significance.

Upper floor is for adaption of bedroom 4 to a bathroom, a zone of

considerable significance.

Warders’ Cottages 3

Ground floor - Renovated kitchen, a zone of exceptional significance.


Page 52

Upper floor - Bedroom 2 to be converted into a bathroom, a zone of

exceptional significance”

A copy of the Development Application for PW001/16, including the applicant’s heritage impact statement is contained as Attachment 1. It is important to note that the land use is not something that is being considered as part of this application. The existing land use of the Warders Cottages as ‘Grouped Dwellings’ remains. The proposal is to bring the cottages up to a more modern standard in terms of fitout, whilst the built strata applications will allow the cottages to be sold separately. Clause 8.2(n) of LPS4 allows a single house, multiple dwelling, or in this case a grouped dwelling to be used for the purposes of a ‘short stay dwelling’ without further planning approval from the City. Part B – Three (3) x Built Strata Subdivision Applications (WAPC464-16, WAPC465-16, WAPC467-16)

Part B of this item covers three (3) x built strata subdivision applications. It is noted that the Department of Planning date stamped receipt of all three applications on 10 May 2016, however they inadvertently did not refer any of them to the City for its consideration until 12 July 2016. Notwithstanding the above, the three built strata applications are set out below:

A three (3) lot built strata subdivision of No’s. 31-41 (Lot 2073) Henderson Street, Fremantle (WAPC464/16);

A six (6) lot built strata subdivision of No’s. 19-29 (Lot 2074) Henderson Street, Fremantle (WAPC465/16); and

A six (6) lot built strata subdivision of No’s. 7-17 (Lot 2075) Henderson Street, Fremantle (WAPC467/16).

The SHO, in their covering letter to the WAPC in relation to the above built strata subdivision applications states:

“As discussed, please proceed to seek approval on behalf of the landowner for a Built-strata subdivision of the Fremantle Warders Cottages at 7-41 Henderson Street, Fremantle.

The Heritage Council received conditional approval from the WA Planning Commission in January 2016 for the survey-strata subdivision of the Fremantle Warders Cottages. Approval reference numbers are 1274-15, 1275-15 and 1277-15.

There are 15 Cottages in the complex, and they site in three strata plans because the Cottages comprise three terrace blocks separated by roadways.

It has become apparent in 2016 that achieving coordinated repair-and-maintenance of the Cottages, once survey-strata lots are sold to multiple private owners, will be more difficult than expected. We always intended that the Strata Companies should be responsible for external building maintenance, but Survey-Strata does not lend itself well to that arrangement because the building fabric does not form part of the common property.

Accordingly, our solicitor and the State Solicitor’s Office have recommended that we seek Built Strata approval.


Page 53

As you’re aware, we approached the Department of Planning in late February 2016 to ascertain whether the WA Planning Commission would consider determining an application in this case…”

Copies of the subdivision plans are contained as Attachments 3 to 5 inclusive. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance the relevant provisions contained within LPS4 and Council Local Planning Policies. The proposed development is not seeking any discretionary assessment. Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) Objectives of the zone Clause 4.2.1(b) sets out the objectives of the City Zone:

“Development within the city centre zone shall— (i) provide for a full range of shopping, office, administrative, social, recreation,

entertainment and community services, consistent with the region-serving role of the centre and including residential uses, and

(ii) comply with the objectives of local planning area 1 of schedule 12, (iii) conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by

development.” Whilst the proposal may be considered to be consistent with (i) and (ii) above, the City has a number of concerns on heritage grounds as will be discussed throughout this report. In this regard, the proposal is not considered to be consistent with (iii) and are not supported. Planning Bulletin Western Australian Planning Commission’s Planning Bulletin 110/2013 – Guidance on processing certain classes of Built Strata Title applications and WAPC delegation to local government (PB110/2013) Typically, the WAPC’s PB110/2013 and associated delegated authority permits the majority of built strata subdivision applications to be determined by the local government. Notwithstanding this, there are certain circumstances where the local government relinquishes its delegated authority powers back to the WAPC, with such circumstances set out below (bold for emphasis):

“In May 2009, the WAPC resolved to delegate its power to issue a certificate of approval under s25 of the Strata Titles Act to local government, except for built strata applications that:

propose the creation of a vacant lot(s);

propose vacant air stratas in multi-tiered strata scheme developments;

where, in the opinion of the WAPC as notified to the relevant local government in writing, or in the opinion of the relevant local government as notified to the WAPC in writing, relates to: (a) a type of development; and/or


Page 54

(b) is within an area which is of state or regional significance, or in respect of which the WAPC has determined is otherwise in the public interest.

Applications that meet the above criteria are not delegated to local government to determine and require WAPC determination.”

The City understands that the WAPC have taken the position that the three built strata applications must be “within an area which is of state or regional significance, or in respect of which the WAPC has determined is otherwise in the public interest.” This is consistent with the reasons outlined by the SHO in their covering letter that accompanied all three built strata applications. The City would ordinarily determine such built strata applications; however the WAPC’s position means that this power has been relinquished back to the WAPC. In this regard, the City is providing comments and a recommendation only to the WAPC in respect to the proposed built strata applications also being considered as part of this item. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Directorate

The previous subdivision application for WAPC1275-15 (Central Terraces) was referred to the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery directorate as it was necessary for a new crossover to be installed onto William Street which had implications for existing City infrastructure. The following comments were received at that time and are considered relevant for the purpose of considering the current proposal:

“The proposed location of the crossover for the Warders Cottages can be supported provided there is no Heritage implication i.e. the wall, etc. Only left turn coming out from crossover. Crossover application required to be submitted for a formal support. The bike lane be painted green at the crossover and move the bike lane sign towards Henderson St. All associated costs for the relocation of the affected street sign, [Western Power] WP streetlight and the green paint will be at the proponents cost.”

This would be recommended as a condition of without prejudice approval that the above requirements be applied where applicable. Heritage

The City’s heritage department has reviewed the works proposed as part of the development application and has outlined numerous concerns with the proposal, particularly in relation to the impact of proposed works on previously identified ‘zones of significance’. The following recommendation is provided, however there is also a significant level of discussion relating to the heritage issues provided in the complete heritage comments:


Page 55

“Levels of Significance The [Conservation Management Plan] CMP also identifies Warders’ Cottages (fmr) as being of exceptional significance (ref the addendum to this assessment). It also recognizes that the place comprises zones, sections and elements that are of varying degrees of significance. The level of significance of a place is proportionate to the weight given to its heritage values. Relative degrees of cultural significance may lead to different conservation actions. Managing change Keeping a significant place in use is likely to require continual adaptation and change. Change must be managed in accordance with Articles 3 and 15 of the Burra Charter:

Article 3. Cautious approach 3.1 Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible. 3.2 Changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture.

Article 15. Change 15.1 Change may be necessary to retain cultural significance, but is undesirable where it reduces cultural significance. The amount of change to a place and its use should be guided by the cultural significance of the place and its appropriate interpretation. When change is being considered, including for a temporary use, a range of options should be explored to seek the option which minimises any reduction to its cultural significance. 15.2 Changes which reduce cultural significance should be reversible, and be reversed when circumstances permit. Reversible changes should be considered temporary. Non-reversible change should only be used as a last resort and should not prevent future conservation action.

Policies 7, 8 and 13 of the CMP are of particular relevance when deciding on the appropriateness of proposed change:

Policy 7 Future works to the place should aim to retain the original concept of the

place. The cultural significance of the Warders’ Cottages (fmr) is largely embodied in the original concept of the place, its fabric, setting and its relationship with other places in the Convict Establishment. Importantly the high degree of integrity and intactness of the buildings contribute greatly to an understanding of the cultural significance of the place. It therefore follows that retaining the integrity and intactness of the original concept to a high degree is an integral part of conserving the cultural significance of the Warders’ Cottages (fmr).

Policy 8 Future works or changes to the place should aim to conserve the original fabric of the place and the additions from the early phases of construction.

If change is needed it must be directed towards the concept of retaining what

future generations will value and not towards short-term gains. This is of

particular relevance to places with high levels of authenticity and rarity value


Page 56

such as the Warders’ Cottages (fmr) because by this definition these

characteristics are irreplaceable

Policy 13 The more significant a place, piece of fabric, space, relationship or

vista, the more care should be taken in any change which might affect it

so that this change will not reduce, and could enhance, its significance.

Decisions about change Conservation is an integral part of good management of places of cultural significance. Wherever possible the Warders’ Cottages should be used and managed in ways that will ensure that their significance can be appreciated by generation to come. Decisions about change to the Warders’ Cottages must be based on an understanding of their cultural significance. It requires a cautious balanced approach to changing: do as much as necessary to care for the place and to make it useable, but otherwise change it as little as possible so that its cultural significance is retained. Where conflict cannot be avoided, making a balanced decision includes considering the cultural significance of the place and the impact that the proposed change will have on that significance. The weight given to the heritage values is a determining consideration and should be proportionate to the significance of the place, zone or elements. The greater the level of significance of a place, a zone or elements, the greater the weight that should be attached to retaining their heritage values when determining the ‘right balance’.

This guidance is particularly pertinent when considering the zones of exceptional and considerable significance in the Warders’ Cottages. The cottages are simple vernacular, functional buildings and their heritage values are expressed not only in the visually obvious external features such as their facades, and in internal elements such as the staircases, but also in the completeness and simplicity of the internal spaces and the decorative finishes applied to the original fabric in these zones. These are primary reasons for their high levels of significance, and at the same time they are qualities that are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of incompatible change. It therefore follows that taking great care to retain the high levels of integrity and intactness of these zones is an integral part of conserving the cultural significance of the Warders’ Cottages (fmr). For this reason decisions about the appropriateness of proposed changes need to take full account of the impact or consequence of any proposed changes within in these zones. This understanding should go beyond implications that are immediately apparent. These questions are particularly relevant for the zones of exceptional and considerable significance in the Warders’ Cottages where the physical intervention required to accommodate the proposed change of use to kitchens, bathrooms, toilets and laundries and the methods by which it would be achieved would be extensive and intrusive. Furthermore, these changes would create other on-going issues stemming from the moisture they produce and the need for limestone walls to breath. All the proposed changes will cause a significant loss of simplicity and intactness.


Page 57

Although it is accepted that the Warders’ Cottages will need to change, it is also recognised that the heritage values of the zones of exceptional and considerable significance in the Warders’ Cottage are particularly vulnerable to change, including the cumulative effects of many small changes. Furthermore, these zones represent a finite resource which once lost cannot be regained. This fact heightens the concern that the interventions may not deliver the predicted outcomes that justified the loss of heritage values in the first place. Ideally the optimum use for zones of exceptional and considerable significance is a use that will retain the simplicity of the space by doing virtually nothing. Bedrooms, dining and sitting rooms would fulfill these criteria. It is considered that it is possible to achieve the ‘right balance’ provided the design process is guided by reasonable flexibility and a willingness to avoid standard design solutions in favour of an approach that avoids or minimises harm to the heritage values of the Warders Cottages (fmr). The CMP notes that the established method of accommodating change at the Warders Cottages (fmr) in the past had involved constructing new rooms, either as additions or as free standing structures in the yard, rather than modification of the existing fabric. It also states that accommodating change in this way had prevented loss of character thus retaining the high integrity of the original fabric, and that this had greatly benefitted the building in the past and should be the preferred option in the future when questions arise of how to accommodate change while minimizing the reduction of cultural significance. It is considered that the existing zones of some, little or no significance offer, to varying degrees, the opportunity for the implementation of this preferred option. Recommendation

It is recommended that the current proposal not be supported on heritage grounds.

It is recommended that the proposed changes to the Warders’ Cottage be re-planned as necessary to ensure that the new uses are accommodated in ways that avoid or minimise the impact on the heritage values of the zones of exceptional and considerable significance.”

A copy of the Heritage Comments is contained as Attachment 2. It is noted that demolition of a number of rear structures have previously been approved by the WAPC in them making their determination in relation to the approval of subdivisions for WAPC1274-15, WAPC1275-15 and WAPC1277-15. The City was previously not supportive of this element of the proposal, despite the WAPC’s position and ultimately resolution to support those demolition works. The demolition proposed as part of the current built strata subdivisions (and the DA) therefore, which include the demolition of the rear outbuildings, are still not considered to be consistent with clause 5.15.1 of LPS4 Under the provisions of Clause 5.15.1 of LPS4, Council will only grant Planning Approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

“(a) Has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and (b) Does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage

significance and character of the locality in which it is located.”


Page 58

The Heritage comments prepared for the previous survey strata subdivision applications already approved by the WAPC concluded that:

“The outbuildings of some significance.” In this regard, the proposed demolition of the existing outbuildings as proposed should not be supported as it does not satisfy clause 5.15.1(a) of LPS4. PLANNING COMMENT

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 The proposal has been considered against the provisions of the clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 which relates to ‘deemed provisions for local planning schemes’. The proposal is not considered to be consistent with clauses 67 (b), (c), (k) and/or (w) which state:

“In considering an application for development approval the local government is to have due regard to the following matters to the extent that, in the opinion of the local government, those matters are relevant to the development the subject of the application — (b) the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any proposed

local planning scheme or amendment to this Scheme that has been advertised under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving;

(c) any approved State planning policy; (k) the built heritage conservation of any place that is of cultural significance; (w) the history of the site where the development is to be located;”

For those reasons the proposal should not be supported. State Planning Policies

State Planning Policy 3.5 – Historic Heritage Conservation (SPP3.5) The proposal is not considered to be consistent with the WAPC’s SPP3.5, specifically clauses 6.5 and 6.6 respectively, which state:

“6.5 Relevant considerations for development assessment The Model Scheme Text provisions require local governments in considering applications for planning approval to have regard, amongst other things, to—

The conservation and protection of any place or area that has been registered in the register of heritage places under the Heritage Act or is the subject of a conservation order under the Act, or which is included in the heritage list under clause 7.1 of the scheme, or which is designated as a heritage area under clause 7.2 of the scheme.


Page 59

Whether the proposed development will adversely affect the significance of any heritage place or area, including any adverse effect resulting from the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed development.

In addition to these broad considerations, local governments should also have regard to the following specific matters. Alterations, extensions, change of use or demolition affecting a heritage place (including a place within a heritage area)

The level of heritage significance of the place, based on a relevant heritage assessment. Measures proposed to conserve the heritage significance of the place and its setting.

The structural condition of the place, and whether the place is reasonably capable of conservation.

Whether the place is capable of adaptation to a new use which will enable its retention and conservation.

Development within a heritage area

Whether the proposed development responds sympathetically to the heritage values of the area as a whole and that part of the heritage area in the vicinity of the proposed development.

Whether the siting, scale, style and form, materials and finishes of the proposed development responds sympathetically to the heritage values of the area.

The local planning policy for the heritage area including any places designated of heritage significance and the objectives and guidelines for conservation and enhancement of the heritage area.

6.6 Development control principles The following development control principles should be applied in considering planning applications in relation to a place entered in a heritage list, a place or area entered in the state register, or a heritage area designated pursuant to a local planning scheme. The weight given to heritage as a consideration will vary, depending on the degree of significance of a place or area, and relevant economic, social or environmental factors that may apply. Alterations, extensions or change of use affecting a heritage place

Development should conserve and protect the cultural significance of a heritage place based on respect for the existing building or structure, and should involve the least possible change to the significant fabric.

Alterations and additions to a heritage place should not detract from its significance and should be compatible with the siting, scale, architectural style and form, materials and external finishes of the place. Compatibility requires additions or alterations to sit well with the original fabric rather than simply copying or mimicking it.


Page 60

In some cases, the conservation and protection of a heritage place may require a change of use to ensure a reasonable beneficial use or return. Sympathetic adaptation and change of use should be supported in such cases.

Development should be in accordance with any local planning policies relating to heritage.

Demolition of a heritage place (including a place within a heritage area)

Demolition of a State heritage place is rarely appropriate and should require the strongest justification. Demolition of a local heritage place should be avoided wherever possible, although there will be circumstances where demolition is justified. The onus rests with the applicant to provide a clear justification for it.

Demolition approval should not be expected simply because redevelopment is a more attractive economic proposition, or because a building has been neglected. Consideration of a demolition proposal should be based upon the significance of the building or place; the feasibility of restoring or adapting it, or incorporating it into new development; the extent to which the community would benefit from the proposed redevelopment; and any local planning policies relating to the demolition of heritage places.

Development within a heritage area

Development within a heritage area should respect and complement the heritage significance of the area as identified in the local planning policy. A respectful design approach gives special consideration to the siting, scale, architectural style and form, materials and finishes of the proposed development in relation to its neighbours, without copying historic detailing or decoration.

Alterations and additions to existing buildings should be designed and sited in a manner that respects and complements the heritage significance of the area.

A general presumption should apply in favour of retaining buildings that make a positive contribution to the significance of the area.

Approval for demolition, if granted, may be accompanied by a requirement for an acceptable redevelopment proposal to avoid gap sites. If redevelopment is likely to be delayed, consideration should be given to the interim use of the land including a requirement for sympathetic treatment such as facade retention, landscaping or boundary treatment.

Any new buildings erected in heritage areas should be designed and sited in a way that respects and complements the heritage significance of the area. New construction that is imaginative, well designed and harmonious should not be discouraged.”

Based on the City’s Heritage Comments as discussed earlier in this report, and contained as Attachment 2 of this report, the proposal is not considered to be consistent with the WAPC’s SPP3.5, specifically clauses 6.5 and 6.6 respectively, and as such should not be supported.


Page 61



Increase the number of people working in Fremantle.

Protect current tree canopy cover in Fremantle.


Increase the number of additional dwellings provided in the city centre. The proposal is inconsistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Green Plan 2020:

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land. The proposal includes the removal of a number of trees, which is required to either accommodate vehicle access arrangements or to facilitate the proposed modifications to the buildings. The removal of the trees (denoted on the plans as dashed lines) is comprised approximately of the following:

o Warders Cottages 1: 6 trees;

o Warders Cottages 2: 4 trees;

o Warders Cottages 3: 1 tree.


PART A – DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (PW0001/16) That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for REFUSAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Alterations, conservation and landscaping works to existing Grouped Dwellings at No’s 7-41 (Lots 2073, 2074 & 2075) Henderson Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 4 May 2016, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inappropriate having regard to the purposes for which the land

is zoned and Clause 4.2.1(b) of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

2. The proposed demolition is inconsistent with Clause 5.15 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as the structures are considered to have some local significance.

3. The proposed works are not acceptable because they are not shown as being in accordance with good conservation practice as the extent and nature of the physical work proposed to accommodate kitchens, bathrooms, toilets and laundries would be excessively intrusive and cause irreversible damage and change to parts the place which are of considerable or exceptional heritage significance contrary to the Burra Charter.


Page 62

4. The proposed works are not acceptable because they will exceed what is needed to retain as much as possible of the original building fabric. It is recommended that the extent of the work be re-considered and that it be based on a careful analysis of the high level of integrity and intactness of the zones.

5. The proposal is inconsistent with clause 67 (b), (c), (k) and (w) of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as:

a) The works that would create on-going issues stemming from the moisture they produce and the need for limestone walls to breath is not consistent with orderly and proper planning;

b) The works do not comply with State Planning Policy 3.5 – Historic Heritage Conservation specifically clause 6.5 – Relevant considerations for development assessments and clause 6.6 – Development control principles;

c) For the reasons detailed in the City’s heritage assessment, the works will adversely affect the built heritage conservation of the place and the history of the site.

6. The proposed works that facilitate the change of use of the buildings to residential is inconsistent with Council’s resolution of 24 June 2015 that states:

“In respect of the cottages in Block W1, due to the proximity of the cottages and their rear gardens to Fremantle Markets future use should be for purposes compatible with market activities; these include (but are not necessarily limited to) use as short stay accommodation intended primarily for occupation by tourist visitors and/or uses at ground level, possibly utilising the rear gardens area, that could interact with the street and/or laneway access to the markets. The Council is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W1 as dwellings intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area.” and

In respect of the cottages in Block W3, due to the proximity of the cottages to Fremantle Markets and other hospitality and entertainment land uses in Henderson St Mall and South Terrace Block W3 is exposed to high levels of noise and activity; therefore future use should be for purposes compatible with these predominant existing uses. Short stay tourist-orientated accommodation and/or non-residential uses (at least at ground level) that could interact with the street and complement the established character of the area would be preferable so long as any physical alterations needed to make such uses viable can be undertaken without unacceptable impact on the heritage values of the existing building fabric. The Council is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W3 as dwellings intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be extremely difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area.”


Page 63

Advice Notes: i. It is considered that it is possible to achieve the ‘right balance’ provided the

design process is guided by reasonable flexibility and a willingness to avoid standard design solutions in favour of an approach that avoids or minimises harm to the heritage values of the Warders Cottages (fmr). The CMP notes that the established method of accommodating change at the Warders Cottages (fmr) in the past had involved constructing new rooms, either as additions or as free standing structures in the yard, rather than modification of the existing fabric. It also states that accommodating change in this way had prevented loss of character thus retaining the high integrity of the original fabric, and that this had greatly benefitted the building in the past and should be the preferred option in the future when questions arise of how to accommodate change while minimizing the reduction of cultural significance. It is considered that the existing zones of some, little or no significance offer, to varying degrees, the opportunity for the implementation of this preferred option.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In the event that the WAPC was of the mind to support the proposal, the following conditions are recommended by the City of Fremantle, without prejudice: 1. The approval related only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 4 May 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years of the date of this decision letter.


3. The works hereby approved are to be undertaken in a manner that will retain as much as possible of the building. Additionally the work should not cause irreparable damage or contribute to the loss or deterioration of the building’s original or significant fabric. Conservation works required to rectify the non-compliance with this requirement will be undertaken at the applicant’s expense and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Before the issue of a Building Permit the Owner/Applicant is to submit detailed drawings of the proposed work to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. The internal fit-out works hereby approved are to be undertaken in a manner that does not irreparably damage any original or significant fabric of the building. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage is to be rectified to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Suitable arrangements being made with the local government for the provision of vehicular crossover(s) to service the lot(s) shown on the approved plan of development approval.


Page 64

7. Arrangements being made to the satisfaction of the WAPC and to the specification of Western Power for the removal, relocation and/or replacement of electricity supply infrastructure, including plant and/or equipment located on or near the lots shown on the approved plan of development.

Advice Notes: i. Good conservation practice is based on following a cautious approach of

‘changing as much as necessary but as little as possible’. Accordingly the aim is to cause a minimal loss of fabric from heritage buildings as opposed to making them appear to be new by returning them to a perfect state. For this reason, where repair is needed, it should be limited to the section that is badly deteriorated or missing. This requires a careful process of skilful repair, based on the use of traditional techniques and materials matching those used originally, rather than the complete removal of elements because they are partly damaged.

ii. An underlying principle in the care and conservation of 19th and early 20th century buildings is that of allowing the fabric of these buildings to perform as originally intended through the use of traditional techniques and materials. Traditional mortars and renders were almost invariably lime-based and the decorative finishes were of lime wash. These materials are permeable and they assist the evaporation of moisture from the walls. Evaporation is beneficial because it helps to diminish the build-up of damp in walls, which in turn helps to prevent the severe problems that can result if excessive damp is allowed to penetrate to the inner face of the wall. Preference for traditional techniques and materials is not therefore based purely on aesthetics and a desire for authentic reconstruction; it is also because it can be demonstrated that conservation works undertaken in this manner will not irreparably damage the original fabric of the building, always provided that the materials and techniques are correct and that the buildings are maintained regularly.

iii. In relation to condition 7, the WAPC and the applicant is advised that this may involve the relocation of the City’s street and directional signage which will be affected by any future crossover as indicated on the subdivision plan. The City will also likely require that the bike lane immediately in front of the crossover is to be painted green, for the extent of the crossover width to the satisfaction of the City. These works are to be done at the expense of the applicant and to the satisfaction of the City.

iv. In relation to condition 7, the WAPC and the applicant is advised that the City’s

Infrastructure and Project Delivery team will not support vehicles exiting the development site and turning right (ie east) given its proximity to an intersection (roundabout) and its associated road infrastructure. Left only exits from the development site will be supported.

v. In relation to condition 8, the WAPC is advised that this has been

recommended as there is an underground street light pole which will have to be relocated as in order to provide vehicle access to the development site as indicated on the subdivision plan. It is understood that this will likely be considered as part of Western Power’s referral comments to the WAPC.


Page 65

vi. The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered,

contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

PART B – BUILT STRATA SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS (WAPC464-16, WAPC465-16, WAPC467-16) WAPC464-16 That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for REFUSAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the proposed three (3) lot built strata subdivision of No’s. 31-41 (Lot 2073) Henderson Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 10 May 2016 (Department of Planning Date), for the following reasons: 1. The Council is not supportive of a strata title subdivision of the Warders’

cottages, and instead the Council strongly supports the three blocks of cottages each remaining in a single ownership as this is considered most likely to ensure a consistent approach to property management and ongoing conservation of the integrity and other heritage values of the cottages.


Advice Note: (i) In relation to reason 1, refer to agenda item no. SGS1506-6 from the City of

Fremantle’s Ordinary Council Meeting (OCM) of 24 June 2015 for a detailed background and explanation of Council’s position and its ultimate resolution in relation to this matter (highlighted in grey). The meeting minutes can be downloaded via the following link:

http://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/20150624%20-%20OCM%20-%20Minutes.pdf

WITHOUT PREJUDICE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In the event that the WAPC was of the mind to support the proposal, the following conditions are recommended by the City of Fremantle, without prejudice: 1. The subdivision being in accordance with the approved plan dated 10 May 2016

(Department of Planning date), including any amendments placed thereon by Council, other than any modifications that may be required by the conditions that follow.

2. Suitable arrangements being made with the local government for the provision

of vehicular crossover(s) to service the lot(s) shown on the approved plan of subdivision.




Page 66

Advice Notes: i. Pursuant to Section 157 of the Planning & Development Act, the demolition of

all structures as detailed on the subdivision plan for demolition on site do not require further planning approval of the City. Please be advised that a demolition permit may still be required from the City’s Building department.

WAPC465-16 That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for REFUSAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the proposed six (6) lot built strata subdivision of No’s. 19-29 (Lot 2074) Henderson Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 10 May 2016 (Department of Planning Date), for the following reasons: 1. The Council is not supportive of a strata title subdivision of the Warders’



Advice Note: (ii) In relation to reason 1, refer to agenda item no. SGS1506-6 from the City of










Page 67

3. Arrangements being made to the satisfaction of the WAPC and to the specification of Western Power for the removal, relocation and/or replacement of electricity supply infrastructure, including plant and/or equipment located on or near the lots shown on the approved plan of subdivision.



ii. In relation to condition 2, the WAPC and the applicant is advised that this may

involve the relocation of the City’s street and directional signage which will be affected by any future crossover as indicated on the subdivision plan. The City will also likely require that the bike lane immediately in front of the crossover is to be painted green, for the extent of the crossover width to the satisfaction of the City. These works are to be done at the expense of the applicant and to the satisfaction of the City.

iii. In relation to condition 2, the WAPC and the applicant is advised that the City’s

Infrastructure and Project Delivery team will not support vehicles exiting the development site and turning right (ie east) given its proximity to an intersection (roundabout) and its associated road infrastructure. Left only exits from the development site will be supported.

iv. In relation to condition 3, the WAPC is advised that this has been recommended as there is an underground street light pole which will have to be relocated as in order to provide vehicle access to the development site as indicated on the subdivision plan. It is understood that this will likely be considered as part of Western Power’s referral comments to the WAPC.

WAPC467-16 That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for REFUSAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the proposed six (6) lot built strata subdivision of No’s. 7-17 (Lot 2075) Henderson Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 10 May 2016 (Department of Planning Date), for the following reasons: 2. The Council is not supportive of a strata title subdivision of the Warders’




Page 68

Advice Note: (i) In relation to reason 1, refer to agenda item no. SGS1506-6 from the City of












Page 69

PC1608-6 DOURO ROAD, NO. 19 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO CONSULTING ROOMS (CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC) - (BP DA0256/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 August 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1504-82 (28 May 2016 Ordinary Council Meeting) Attachments: Attachment 1: Development Plans

Attachment 2: Environmental Health Officer Comments Attachment 3: Site Visit Photos

Date Received: 27 May 2016 Owner Name: Stadium Drive Pty Ltd Submitted by: Motus Architecture Scheme: Neighbourhood Centre Zone R25 (R60 bonus applicable) Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Mixed use (multiple dwellings/office/shop/lunch bar/) Use Class: Consulting rooms Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 70

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a partial change of use from Office to Consulting Rooms (chiropractic clinic). The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to a submission that is unable to be addressed through the imposition of relevant planning conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbour. The applicant seeks discretionary assessments against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) that include the following:

Vehicle Parking Discretionary land use

The above discretionary assessment is considered to be supportable, subject to conditions. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND The subject site is located at the corner of Douro Road and Hulbert Street. The site has a land area of approximately 1363m² and currently contains a mixed use development under construction. The site is zoned Neighbourhood Centre under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R25 (R60 density bonus applicable). The subject site is not adopted under the City’s Heritage List, although it is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. A search of the property file revealed the following relevant planning history for the site:

On 3 May 2005, the City granted approval for the demolition of the existing (vacant) building at the subject site (DA161/05).

On 25 September 2008, the City received an application for re-approval of the abovementioned demolition and redevelopment of the subject site as a mixed use development. At its meeting of 18 March 2009, the City refused the application (DA0504/08).

The decision of the PSC was reviewed by the State Administrative Tribunal and (upon reconsideration of the application) at its meeting of 18 August 2010, the PSC granted planning approval for ‘Proposed Demolition of Existing Building and Construction of a Mixed Use Development (Offices, Multiple and Grouped Dwellings)’ (DA0504/08).

At its PSC meeting of 7 December 2013, the City granted planning approval to ‘Proposed two storey development of three commercial units, five multiple dwellings and three grouped dwellings’ at the subject site (DA0416/11). This revised proposal included minor modifications to that approved as part of DA0504/08. The approval to commence development for this determination was issued on 19 December 2011.

On 3 December 2013, the City received an application for a mixed use development encompassing 20 multiple dwellings, shop, office and a lunch bar (DA0587/13).

On 28 May 2014, the application (DA0587/13) was presented at an Ordinary Council meeting, where planning approval was granted, with conditions relating to the design and car parking, amongst others.


Page 71

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a partial change of use of a ground floor tenancy from Office to Consulting Rooms (chiropractic clinic) and involves the following: The maximum number of staff working at any given time will be two chiropractors; The hours of operation is proposed to be from 8am-12pm and 2pm-6pm Monday to

Friday and Saturday morning from 8-11am. The applicants anticipate they will operate approximately 6-8 shifts each week;

It is anticipated the chiropractors will see 1 person every 15-45 mins, and therefore it is envisaged that there will be no more than two to three clients seeking parking while both practitioners are working;

The applicant asserts that clients would park along the public car bays provided along Chester Street to the north.

Refer to Attachment 1 for the development plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and relevant local planning policies. The proposal seeks the following discretion from the provisions of LPS4;

Vehicle parking;

Discretionary land use. The above matter will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the report below. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Council’s LPP1.3 – Public notification of planning proposals as scheme discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 24 June 2016, the City had received 1 submission. A summary of the following planning issues were raised:

The bays along Chester Street are generally occupied by park users on weekdays and weekends;

Clients would not walk to the site, despite the applicant purporting that clients will live nearby;

Compliance will be an issue with applicants continually proposing a change of use to the mixed use development;

The City should designate on street car parking as resident only parking, due to the difficulties in residents finding vacant on street bays on a consistent basis.

The above concerns are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. It is also noted that during the neighbour notification period for the previous mixed use development (DA0587/13) a total of 57 submissions were received.


Page 72

Environmental Health (internal) The application was referred to the City’s internal environmental health department for comment on the suitability of the proposed partial change of use. Comments were received on 3 June 2016, with no concern being raised in relation to the partial change of use from an environmental health perspective. Refer to Attachment 2 for a full copy of the referral. PLANNING COMMENT

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) The definition of Consulting Rooms in LPS4 is as follows:

means premises used by no more than 2 health consultants for the investigation or treatment of human injuries or ailments and for general outpatient care.

The proposed application meets this above definition, based on the information provided in the application. A consulting room land use is a ‘D’ (discretionary) land use which means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion in assessing the proposal against relevant scheme provisions. The scheme objectives of the Neighbourhood Centre zone, as per clause 4.2.1 of LPS4, are as follows: Development within the neighbourhood centre zone shall:

i) provide for the daily and convenience retailing, shops, café, office, administration and residential uses (at upper levels or where proposed as part of a mixed use development) which serve the local community and are located within and compatible with residential areas,

ii) ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality, and

iii) conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development.

The consulting room land use is considered to be supportable against clause 4.2.1 of LPS4 for the following reasons:

The anticipated number of clientele to the site is limited by the small floor area proposed (being two consulting rooms and a waiting room);

There is considered to be sufficient off street parking available (when required for clientele), as well as access to public transport, in close proximity to the subject site, It is considered that the consulting room land use would be able to service the local community;

The change of use is not considered to be significantly detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners, given that the overall built form impacts have previously been assessed, and parking shortfalls for land uses as part of the mixed use development have also been supported in the past;


Page 73

The low intensity and nature of the land use is considered to be compatible with the character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, this particular land use is considered to be of a comparable nature to the office land use, with the office land use previously being approved as part of the mixed use development in DA0587/13.

Vehicle Parking


Vehicle Parking Bays 10 4 6

The discretion to vehicle parking is considered to be supportable under clause 5.7.3.1 of LPS4 for the following reasons:

A CAT bus service runs along Marine Terrace and South Terrace further to the west at a frequency of 15 minutes from 7am – 6pm. There are also bus services running along Douro Road and Hampton Road, albeit on a more infrequent basis.

There is considered to be sufficient on street parking available within a short walking distance from the site, particularly along Chester Street to the north.

In relation to the discretion being sought, the previous assessment of DA0587/13 for the mixed use development waived 2 vehicle bays being sought for the office land uses. In this regard, the discretion to car parking, when considering the previous parking assessment, is considered to be four vehicle bays rather than six.


Increase the number of people working in Fremantle Green Plan 2020

No trees are to be removed from the site as a result of the proposed change of use application.

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial change of use from Office to Consulting Rooms at No. 19 (Lot 1) Douro Road, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the

approved plans, dated 8 March 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. The number of chiropractors to be operating from the hereby approved consulting room land use is to be limited to a maximum of two consultants at any given time.


Page 74

3. The hours of operation of the hereby approved consulting room land use is to be as follows:

Monday to Friday: 8:00am-12:00pm & 2:00pm-6:00pm; and

Saturday: 8:00am-11:00am. Advisory Notes (i) In relation to condition 2 above, the applicant is advised that if the number

of consultants is to be in excess of two, then planning approval would be required for a change of use to Medical Centre.


Page 75

PC1608-7 ETHELWYN STREET, NO.16B (LOT 80), HILTON - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0157/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 August 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1: Revised Development Plans

Attachment 2: Site Visit Photos Date Received: Amended plans received on 23 June 2016 Owner Name: C. Weekes & S. Godber Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Vacant site Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 76

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a single storey Single House. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to a submission that is unable to be addressed through the imposition of relevant planning conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbour. . The applicant seeks design principle and discretionary assessments against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and relevant Local Planning Policies (LPPs). These discretionary and Design Principle assessments include the following:

Lot boundary setback (south); Primary street setback; Boundary walls (north and south).

The proposal is on balance, considered to be supportable. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND The subject site is located south of Clarke Street, east of Noel Street, north of Marimont Street and west of Ethelwyn Street. The site has a land area of approximately 443m² and currently is a vacant site. The site is zoned Residential under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R30. The subject site is not adopted under the City’s Heritage List and is not located within a heritage area. A search of the property file revealed the following relevant planning history for the site:

On 19 August 2015, the City granted planning approval for the demolition of the existing single storey Single House (ref. DA0345/15).

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a single storey Single House and includes the following: Three bedrooms; Two bathrooms; Kitchen, dining and family rooms; Laundry; Activity room; Alfresco; Garage; and Pool.

On 23 June 2016, the City received revised plans with the following change made:


Page 77

The primary street setback to the garage was increased from 4.1m to 6m. Refer to Attachment 1 for the revised development plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes relevant local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the relevant ‘deemed to comply’ requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. The following criteria seek discretion from the R-Codes:

Lot boundary setback (south). Some of the City’s policies replace or augment the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. In this application Council has the ability, through its policy provisions, to apply discretion in the following areas when determining the application:

Primary street setback; Boundary walls (north and south).

The above matters will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the report below. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Council’s LPP1.3 – Public notification of planning proposals as design principle assessments and policy discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 27 April 2016, the City had received 1 submission. The following planning issues were raised during the notification period (summarised):

The proposal would result in a reduction in the amount of northern light emitted into my home via my only north-facing window, especially in winter;

The proposed location of the garage does not positively contribute to the prevailing development context and streetscape.

The above concerns are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. Amended plans were sent to the objecting neighbour on 5 July 2015, with no comment provided in relation to the revised proposal. On this basis, the same concerns from the submitter are still considered to remain relevant.


Page 78

PLANNING COMMENT

Residential Design Codes Lot boundary setback

Element Required Provided Design Principle Assessment

South 1.5m 1 – 1.5m Up to 0.5m

The southern lot boundary setback is considered to be supportable against the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: The setback proposed, in conjunction with the single storey building height that

incorporates a very low pitched roof (4 degrees), is not considered to have a significant building bulk impact on the adjoining property;

There is considered to be sufficient sunlight (permitted overshadowing – 155m² or35%; proposed - 124m² or28%) and ventilation to the building and open spaces (permitted open space - 198.96m² or 45%; proposed – 211.84m² or48%) on the site, as well as to adjoining properties;

The setback is considered to reduce the extent of overlooking and resultant impact on visual privacy.

Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Primary Street Setback


Ground floor 7m 6m 1m

Clause 1.2 of LPP 2.9 entertains variations to the prescribed primary street setback, subject to meeting one of the criterions outlined. This clause is as follows: 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); or

iv. Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or v. Where the proposed development is on a lot directly adjoining a corner lot,

Council will consider a reduced setback that considers the setback of the corner lot in addition to buildings in the prevailing streetscape.


Page 79

The primary street setback to the ground floor is considered to meet clause 1.2 (i) of LPP 2.9 for the following reasons: The dwelling directly the south, being 18 Ethelwyn Street, has an approximate

primary street setback of 6.2m. Further, the dwelling located at 12 Ethelwyn Street has a primary street setback approved at 4.5m from the garage to the street. On this basis, the proposed primary street setback of 6m for 16B Ethelwyn is considered to be supportable, having regard to the existing primary street setbacks within the prevailing streetscape.

Further to the above, the property directly to the north, being 16A Ethelwyn Street, is currently vacant. Given the definition of prevailing streetscape, the property to the south is considered to have greater weight in the context of this definition, as the site directly to the north is currently undeveloped. In this regard, the proposed primary street setback is considered to be consistent with buildings of similar heights in the prevailing streetscape.

Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development Boundary Walls

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Discretion

North (garage) 1.5m 0m

1.5m

South (master bed and ensuite) 1.5m 1.5m

The proposed boundary walls are considered to be supportable under LPP 2.4 for the following reasons: Northern Boundary Wall The height of the northern boundary wall is between 3.0m and3.4m, is not considered

to result in a significant adverse building bulk impact on the affected vacant property. The length of this northern boundary wall (7.1m) is not deemed to contribute to a sense of confinement. Further, the topography of the northern adjoining site is positioned slightly higher than the subject site at 16B Ethelywn Street by approx. 0.5m. In this regard, the impact of building bulk is considered to be lessened.

Due to the orientation of the site, the affected property to the north would not be overshadowed as per the measurement provided in the Residential Design Codes.

It is considered that there would be sufficient sunlight and ventilation afforded to the northern affected property.

Overall, there is not considered to be a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property.

Southern Boundary Wall The length and height of the southern boundary wall, being 8.6m and between 3.2-

3.7m respectively, are not considered to result in an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property, given that it would occupy approximately 24% (8.6m/36.3m) of the length of the southern boundary.

Due to the position of the north facing window at 18 Ethelwyn Street, this would not be directly impacted by the southern boundary wall, as it is located slightly to the east (refer to image below).


Page 80

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal has been assessed against the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25:

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle. Green Plan 2020

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land: No trees are proposed to be removed as the site is already vacant and no trees are indicated to be planted on the plans.

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the single storey Single House at No.16B (Lot 80) Ethelwyn Street, Hilton, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the

approved plans, dated 23 June 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


Page 81

2. All stormwater discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site, to the

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0167/16,

on plans dated 23 June 2016, a vehicle crossover shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the southern and northern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;




Advisory Notes (i) The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be

uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

(ii) The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on

the plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;

submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration, or

submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the infrastructure.

This request will be considered independently of any Planning Approval granted, and this Planning Approval should not be taken as approval for removal or modification of any infrastructure within the road reserve.

(iii) In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the relevant City

of Fremantle department or relevant service authority prior to the commencement of this development, this planning approval will be incapable of implementation.


Page 82

PC1608-8 LESLIE ROAD, NO. 5 (LOT 3), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH ROOF DECK AND PATIO - (NB DA0171/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 August 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: n/a Attachments: 1: Amended Development Plans

2: Advice from Main Roads 3: Heritage Assessment 4: Justification and drawings from applicant 5: Site Photos

Date Received: 8 April 2016 Owner Name: Cantori Pty Ltd Submitted by: Matthew Crawford Architect Scheme: Mixed Use (R25) Heritage Listing: Level 3 Existing Landuse: Vacant Lot Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 83

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a two storey single house with a third floor roof deck and patio on a vacant lot at No. 5 (Lot 3) Leslie Road, North Fremantle. The application is presented to the Planning Committee (PC) on the basis of objections received during the community consultation period that cannot be resolved through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbours and discretionary assessments against the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The application has been assessed against the R-Codes, local planning policies and LPS4, and is seeking the following Design Principle Assessments-

Lot boundary setback

Building height

Visual privacy The above discretions are considered to meet the applicable design principles and as such, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

No. 5 Leslie Road adjoins the corner lot of Leslie Road and Stirling Highway and is situated across from the Dingo Flour Mill. The site is zoned ‘Mixed Use’ and has a density coding of R25. The lot is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area and the lot itself is listed as heritage level 3 due to the limestone wall located towards the south western portion of the site. A review of the property files reveals the following history for the site:

On 23 March 2010 the City refused planning approval for a two storey commercial office.

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a single house involving the following:-

3 bedroom, 2.5 bathroom single house constructed from shipping containers;

Third storey comprised solely of a rooftop deck and a roofed structure classified as an enclosed patio.

On 16 April 2016 the applicant submitted amended plans involving changes to the AHD of the roof as the original drawings were found to be incorrect. Refer to Attachment 1 for amended development plans.


Page 84

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the deemed-to-comply or policy provisions and need to be assessed under the design principles:

Lot boundary setback

Building height

Visual privacy The above matters are discussed in detail in the Planning Comment section below. CONSULTATION

Heritage The City’s heritage officers have reviewed the site and stated that the heritage listing is a result of the existing limestone wall. The southern portion of the limestone wall is of a recent construction and has no significance. The portion of limestone wall protruding out from the western boundary is of considerable significance and is recommended to be retained. A condition has been added to this effect. Full comments are included as Attachment 3.

Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA)

The application was required to be referred to MRWA as it is near the proposed Stirling Highway realignment. MRWA supports the development subject to a condition requiring noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into the design. However, planning regulation does not provide for consideration of noise and the condition has therefore been added as an advice note. Full comments are included as Attachment 2.

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as a single house is an ‘A’ use in a Mixed Use zone and discretions were sought for lot boundary setbacks, visual privacy and wall height. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 3 May 2016, the City had received three submissions. The following issues were raised:

Loss of privacy to adjoining eastern and south-western lots from the 1st floor terrace, roof terrace and lounge

Excessive building bulk on the site, especially reduced setbacks to 3 sides

Bulk and scale of the eastern boundary wall, especially from the roof terrace privacy screen

External wall height is larger than adjoining buildings but somewhat lessened by the flat roof


Page 85

Construction crew parking on private property

Construction crew parking is not a planning consideration, being a civil and enforcement matter. The other issues are addressed further below. The applicant submitted additional information addressing the issues and including a site plan and boundary wall comparison drawing (Attachment 4). Further, the applicant has agreed to provide screening to the first floor and roof terrace to that makes overlooking to the adjoining south-western lot meet the deemed to comply requirements of the R Codes and a condition has been included in this regard. PLANNING COMMENT

Lot Boundary Setback

Wall Deemed to Comply Setback

Setback Provided Design Principle Assessment

Western boundary (garage/terrace)

1.2m Nil 1.2m

Western boundary (1st floor bed 1)

1.2m Nil 1.2m

Eastern boundary (study/kitchen)

1.2m Nil 1.2m

Eastern boundary (1st floor ensuite)

1.2m Nil 1.2m

Eastern boundary (roof terrace)

1.4m 1m 0.4m

The lot boundary setbacks are considered to satisfy the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:-

The western boundary garage/terrace wall mostly abuts a proposed wall on the adjoining lot that has the same owner and applicant;

The western boundary 1st floor bed has no openings and thus presents no privacy variations;

The eastern boundary study/kitchen wall abuts an existing boundary wall of over half its height (6.1m compared to the existing 3.8m) on the adjoining lot;

Half the length of the 1st floor ensuite abuts a two storey blank parapet wall on the adjoining lot boundary. The remainder of the ensuite wall has no openings and thus poses no privacy variation and, as the outdoor living area of the adjoining lot is primarily the central courtyard, the reduced setback will not impact the main outdoor living area;

The roof terrace is located across from the two storey blank parapet wall on the adjoining eastern lot and only exceeds the parapet length by approximately 0.75m;

For the most part, the proposed setback variations face or adjoin blank walls on the adjoining sites and thus present no excessive bulk or overshadowing;

The privacy screen of the roof terrace that blocks all overlooking as measured by the R Codes, only has a design principle assessment of 0.4m and, compared to the boundary wall, will have little impact on bulk or overshadowing;

Building to the boundary makes more effective use of space for outdoor living areas.


Page 86

A boundary wall comparison is included as Attachment 4. Should council believe the roof terrace privacy screen presents excessive bulk in accordance with neighbour comments, the following alternate condition is provided: The privacy screen on the top floor extending past the roof terrace to be set back at least 1.4 metres from the eastern boundary in accordance with clause 5.1.3 of the Residential Design Codes. Building height

Maximum Wall Height Provided Variation

7.5m 8.7m 1.2m

Clause 5.8.1.1 allows council to vary the height requirements of the scheme as follows:-

Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following—

(a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally,

(b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality,

(c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and

(d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies. The proposed variation is considered supportable for the following reasons:-

Nos. 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 Leslie Road are identical and contain ridge heights of approximately 9.4m with a loft that protrudes from the roof having a ridge height of 8.3m (see Figure 1 and 2 below and the streetscape elevation submitted with the plans). The proposed wall height effectively graduates the scale of the buildings as one approaches Stirling Highway from Leslie Road.

The flat roof of the subject application will result in an overall height less than that of the other houses along Leslie Road.

The variation only occurs on the third floor enclosure (patio) and the upper portion of the privacy screen and will be comparable to the AHD levels of the loft protrusions of the houses on Leslie Road.

The subject site abuts a commercial property to the south and the increased height will have minimal impact on the amenity of the property in terms of building bulk and overshadowing.

The Dingo Flour Mill across the road (Leslie Road) is a large structure and the proposed height provides a graduation in scale towards the commercial buildings to the south of the subject site.

No cultural heritage buildings will be impacted.


Page 87

Figure 1: North elevation of adjoining eastern lot (7 Leslie Road)

Figure 2: West elevation of adjoining eastern lot (7 Leslie Road)

Visual Privacy

Room Deemed to Comply Setback

Setback Provided Design Principle Assessment

1st floor terrace (west)

7.5m 1m 6.5m

1st floor lounge 6m 5.5m 0.5m

1st floor lounge 6m 1m 5m

1st floor Bed 1 4.5m 1.8m 2.7m


Page 88

Overlooking from the first floor terrace may be supported due to the fact that overlooking is oblique and to the front entrance of the apartment located on top of the adjoining commercial building at No. 108 Stirling Highway. Further, the entrance to 108 Stirling is screened with a brush fence for privacy (see photos). Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has further proposed several screening options for the roof terrace and as of the date of this report is discussing options with the adjoining affected owner. A condition requiring screening has been imposed with the intent that the City will be satisfied with whatever agreement is reached between the two property owners. The first floor lounge room meets the relevant design principles and is considered supportable for the following reasons:-

The louvered window is located at the top of the stair landing rather than as part of the lounge room. If the lounge room is considered separate from the landing then the setback is compliant with the R-Codes;

The distance from the window to the active habitable room of the adjoining lot is over 8 metres and the stair landing is unlikely to be used for extended periods of time;

The option being discussed with the neighbour in regards to the 1st floor roof terrace includes a screen on the boundary wall, which will also prevent the majority of overlooking from the stair landing window.

Should council consider the stair landing to have an adverse privacy impact, the following condition is provided as an option:-

Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0171/16, on plans dated 16 April 2016, the window to the 1st floor stair landing attached to the lounge on the west elevation shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor level, or

b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or

c) a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal floor level, or

d) an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


The southern-most window of the lounge completely faces a blank parapet wall on the adjoining lot. The northern-most window partially faces the same parapet wall but includes overlooking to the outdoor living area of the adjoining lot and, therefore, screening is conditioned.


Page 89

The first floor bed 1 meets the relevant design principles and is supported for the following reasons:

Overlooking is to a blank, two storey wall and roof of the commercial building on the adjoining southern lot;

Does not impact outdoor living areas, major openings or active habitable spaces of the adjoining commercial lot.




Green Plan 2020:

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land: no trees currently exist on site (the shrub located in the south western corner as shown in the site photos is not considered to be a tree) and two trees are proposed to be planted.


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey single house with roof deck and patio at No. 5 (Lot 3) Leslie Road, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the

approved plans, dated 16 April 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


3. The limestone wall along the south-western boundary to be retained and repaired in accordance with good conservation practice, using a lime based mortar containing no cement and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to the issue of a building permit, all fencing within the Primary Street setback area shall be visually permeable above 1.2 metres above natural ground level as per Local Planning Policy 2.8: Fences to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 90

5. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0171/16, on plans dated 16 April 2016, the roof terrace located on the west elevation, the northern-most lounge room window on the eastern elevation, and the southern elevation of the first floor terrace shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres

above floor level, or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm

and with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or

c) a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal floor level, or

d) an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


6. The new/ modified vehicle crossover shall be separated from any verge infrastructure by: a minimum of 2.0 metres in the case of verge trees a minimum of 1.2 metres (in the case of bus shelters, traffic

management devices, parking embayment’s or street furniture), and

a minimum of 1.0 metre in the case of power poles, road name and directional signs.

7. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the eastern and

western side boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;

coloured sand render; face brick; painted surface; or, other approved finish


ADVISORY NOTES:

i. It is recommended that the applicant liaise with the eastern and southern adjoining property owner(s) regarding the possible retention, erection or replacement of the dividing fence along the common lot boundary. Please refer to the Dividing Fences Act 1961 for the rights and responsibilities of land owners regarding dividing fences. Information is available at the following website: http://buildingcommission.wa.gov.au/bid/Dividing_Fences.aspx

http://buildingcommission.wa.gov.au/bid/Dividing_Fences.aspx


Page 91

ii. In regards to condition 4 visually permeable is defined by LPP 2.8 Fences Policy as: Means, in reference to a wall, gate, door or fence that the vertical surface has:

Continuous vertical or horizontal gaps of at least 50mm width occupying not less than one half of its face in aggregate of the entire surface or where narrower than 50mm, occupying at least two thirds of the face in aggregate, as viewed directly from the street; or

A surface offering equal or lesser obstruction to view.

iii. The approval of the new vehicle access has been granted based on the

plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;

submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for

consideration, or submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the

infrastructure. This request will be considered independently of any Planning Approval granted, and this Planning Approval should not be taken as approval for removal or modification of any infrastructure within the road reserve.

iv. This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences. Please refer to the City’s Tree Planting and Vehicle Crossings Policies (SG28 and MD0015) for further information.

v. Noise attenuation measures should be incorporated into the design and construction of this residence - in particular the 1st floor.


Page 92

PC1608-9 FREEMAN LOOP, NO 11 (LOT 102), FREMANTLE - SIX STOREY (AND BASEMENT) HOTEL - (NB DAPV003/16)


(Regulation 17)

Property Location: No. 11 (Lot 102) Freeman Loop, North Fremantle

Application Details: Six storey (and basement) Hotel

DAP Name: Metro South West JDAP

Applicant: Hodge Collard Preston Architects Pty Ltd

Owner: Hotel Development Group Pty Ltd

LG Reference: DAPV003/16





Application Receipt Date: 24 June 2016

Application Process Days: 50

Attachment(s): 1: Original DAP Approval Letter and Plans 2: Minutes of 27 May 2015 Council meeting (Original approval) 3: Detailed Description of Amendments 4: Amended Development Plans: DD001 (rev C), DD002 (rev C), DD101 (rev I), DD102 (rev H), DD103 (rev I), DD104 (rev I), DD105 (rev I), DD106 (rev I), DD107 (rev I), DD108 (rev D), DD201 (rev E), DD202 (rev E), DD301 (rev E), DD302 (rev E) 5: Minutes of DAC Meeting 6: Minor Projection Roof Diagram

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the Metro South West JDAP resolves to: 1. Accept that the DAP Application reference DAP/15/00758 as detailed on the

DAP Form 2 dated 23 June 2016 is appropriate for consideration in accordance with regulation 17 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011;

2. Approve the DAP Application reference DAP/15/00758 as detailed on the DAP

Form 2 date 23 June 2016 and accompanying plans DD001 (rev C), DD002 (rev C), DD101 (rev I), DD102 (rev H), DD103 (rev I), DD104 (rev I), DD105 (rev I), DD106 (rev I), DD107 (rev I), DD108 (rev D), DD201 (rev E), DD202 (rev E),


Page 93

DD301 (rev E), DD302 (rev E) in accordance with the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for the proposed minor amendment to the approved six storey (and basement) Hotel at No. 11 (Lot 102) Freeman Loop, North Fremantle [formerly No. 29 (Lot 3) Leighton Beach Blvd, North Fremantle], subject to:

Amended/Replaced Conditions 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 23 June 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must be substantially commenced within four years from the date of this decision. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the 4 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

9. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit the applicant shall submit final detailed

drawings: a. Relating to external colour, texture and material arrangement for final

façade to the following information to the satisfaction of City of Fremantle: and

b. Relating to the screening material and method so that all air-conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any other plant and equipment to the roof of the building is adequately screened so as not to be highly visible from beyond the boundaries of the development site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

16. Prior to occupation, the bike lockers and bike racks indicated on the plans to

be provided in accordance with the Class 1 and Class 3 requirements, respectively, as outlined in section 5.7.1(d) of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

19. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant is to redesign the minor

projections on the roof (indoor and outdoor plant rooms, lift overruns) to be no more than 10% of the total roof space to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

ADVICE NOTES

i. All other conditions and requirements detailed on the previous approval dated 8 June 2015 shall remain unless altered by this approval.

Alternate Recommendation: As discussed in the ‘Roof scape’ section below, Council or JDAP may wish to add the following condition of approval:

Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the food prep area and office within the roof scape to be removed.

Background:


Page 94

Insert Property Address: No. 11 (Lot 102) Freeman Loop, North Fremantle

Insert Zoning MRS: Urban

TPS: Development Zone (Development Plan 17)

Insert Use Class: Hotel

Insert Strategy Policy: DGN14 – Leighton Design Guidelines LPP 2.13 – Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements

Insert Development Scheme: Local Planning Scheme No. 4

Insert Lot Size: 1485 m2

Insert Existing Land Use: Vacant (Approved for ‘Hotel’)

Value of Development: $16.2 million

No. 11 Freeman Loop was formerly part of No. 29 Leighton Beach Blvd prior to subdivision approval on 26 February 2016. The subject site is located on the north eastern corner of the street block bound by Freeman Loop to the north, Curtin Avenue to the east, Walter Place to the south and Leighton Beach Boulevard to the west. The lot is zoned as Development Zone under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is subject to Development Area 5, Development Plan 17. The site is currently vacant. It is not listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI), nor is it on the City’s Heritage List; however it is located in the North Fremantle Heritage Area.

The proposal is for minor amendments to the previously approved DAP application for a six storey (and basement) Hotel. Details: outline of development application The amendments from the previously approved DAP are as follows:-


Page 95

1. Basement

Basement footprint has been increased and reconfigured to accommodate most of the building services in the basement to minimise the plant room footprint on the roof.

Number of car bays increased from 18 to 20 with the introduction of car hoists.

10 bike racks and 10 bike lockers added.

2. Ground Floor

Entrance canopy moved 600mm north and 4 supporting columns added.

Windows and doors reconfigured.

Meeting Room replaced with expanded bar seating and external wall relocated further south.

Internal layout changes.

Pool alfresco roofed and enclosed with bi-fold doors and windows.

3. Roof

Fence plant reoriented, reduced in size and roofed.

Fence plant screen walls increased 780mm higher than original DA to improve acoustic separation.

Cooling towers added.

Toilets relocated.

Office and food prep rooms added.

Parapet wall height increased 400mm above original.

Additional indoor roof plant room added.

Shade sail of roof top function space replaced with solid roof and bi-fold windows/doors.

Solar panels added to roof.

Area of the roof expanded slightly to the southern boundary and to the connection between the two buildings. (1016 m2 of rooftop area compared to 950m2 of rooftop in original approval)

4. External Cladding

Matt black decorative external cladding added to external wall of western rooms.

Full details of amendments are included as Attachment 3. Legislation & policy: Legislation Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4)–

Table 2 – Vehicle Parking requirements;

Clause 5.7.3 – Relaxation of Parking requirements;

Clause 5.8.1 – Variation to height requirements


Page 96

Clause 5.8.2 – Discretionary clause to vary other requirements;

Claus 5.8.3 – Consideration of adjoining owners

Clause 5.8.4 – Additional criteria that must be taken into consideration by Council in excising its powers under clause 5.8.1.1;

Clause 11.8 – Design Advisory Committee;

Schedule 11 – Development Areas

Schedule 14 – Development plan 17 (DP3B). Local Policies

Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals

Local Planning Policy 1.9 – Design Advisory Committee & Principles of Design

Local Planning Policy 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements; and

DGN14 – Leighton Design Guidelines. State Government Policies Nil Consultation: Public Consultation The amended proposal was not required to be advertised in accordance with LPP 1.3 as there was no significant exercise of discretion beyond that already considered in the original application. Consultation with other Agencies or Consultants City of Fremantle Design Advisory Committee The following condition was included on the previous DAP approval as a result of the DAC recommendation:-

9. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit the following information to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle: (i) Final architectural detail relating to colour, texture and material arrangement for final facade finishes.

Amended plans were presented to the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) on 13 June 2016 and included a colour change to the external materials (see below).


Page 97

Above: Proposed cladding. Below: Approved cladding

The DAC are generally supportive of the amended proposal but have recommended further design changes including reviewing the rooftop screening as it appears too busy, and changing the colours and materials on the ground floor and pedestrian levels to limestone in order to add warmth and contribute positively to the character of other built form in the immediate area. The DAC further recommends the following condition, which replaces condition 9 on the original approval:

Prior to the issue of a Building Permit the applicant shall submit final detailed drawings:


Page 98

a) Relating to external colour, texture and material arrangement for final façade to the following information to the satisfaction of City of Fremantle: and

b) Relating to the screening material and method so that all air-conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any other plant and equipment to the roof of the building is adequately screened so as not to be highly visible from beyond the boundaries of the development site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Full minutes of the 13 June 2016 meeting are included as Attachment 5. Other Agency Consultation The amended application was not referred to other external agencies as it proposes no significant new changes from the original approved application that would impact referral responses. Advice and conditions consistent with external agency recommendations are still relevant and included as conditions of amended approval. Planning assessment: Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Vehicle Parking

Calculation Required (Approved)

Provided (Approved)

Required (Amended)

Provided (Amended)

Discretion (Amended)

1:2.5m2 of public bar area

74

18 car bays

66

20 car bays (basement)

171

(181 previous

discretion)

1:5m2 of lounge/garden

area

25 25

1: 1 bedroom 100 100

1:service/storage area (delivery

bay)

1 1 1 1 Loading Dock

(basement)

Complies

The amended proposal replaces the meeting room with an extended bar area but reconfigures the floor layout. This has the effect of reducing the total bar area and thus marginally reducing the required parking bays. The addition of two extra parking bays further reduces the discretion from the original application. The amended proposal is therefore supported for conditional approval.


Page 99

Bicycle Racks

Required Required (Approved)

Provided (Approved)

Required (Amended)

Provided (Amended)

Discretion

Class 1:1 per 25m2 bar floor area and 1 per 100m2 lounge and beer garden

9 Nil (9 conditioned)

8 10 Nil

Class 3: 1 per 25m2 bar floor area and 1 per 100 m2 lounge and beer garden

9 Nil (9 conditioned)

8 10 Nil

The previous approval included a condition requiring the installation of 9 Class 1 and 9 Class 3 bike racks as none were provided. The amended plans provide bike racks in excess of that required both in terms of the previous approval and in the floor area calculation. The justification for the parking reduction was included with the original assessment (Attachment 1). The City is supportive of alternate modes of transport and supplying more than the required amount of bike facilities is encouraged. It is assumed the bike racks are consistent with LPS4 but further details are needed. To that end, condition 16 on the previous approval requiring nine Class 1 and 3 bike racks each should be modified to read:

Prior to occupation, the bike lockers and bike racks indicated on the plans to be provided in accordance with the Class 1 and Class 3 requirements, respectively, as outlined in section 5.7.1(d) of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

The application is therefore recommended for conditional approval. Schedule 14 –DP17 – Leighton North Fremantle The subject site is located within the Development Zone, which under LPS4 includes the following objectives:

“The purpose of the Development Zone is to provide for future residential, industrial, commercial or other uses in accordance with a comprehensive structure plan or detailed area plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme.”

The site is subject to the requirements of the Leighton Marshalling Yards Planning Guidelines Development Area Structure Plan (DP17), in Schedule 14 of LPS4. The current proposal is consistent with the assessment of the previous proposal except for the following variations (previously approved measurements provided for comparison):


Page 100

Building height

Maximum Permitted

Provided Discretion

APPROVED

5 storeys 6 storeys 1 storey (roof top function space with fabric canopy)

26.5AHD 25.7 AHD (Roof top) Complies

26.9 AHD (Planter box around roof function space)

0.4m

27.2 AHD (Top of plant fencing)

0.7m

28.3 AHD (stairs roof)

1.8m

29.7AHD (top of lift overrun) 3.2m

AMENDED

5 storeys 6 storeys 1 storey (roof top function space with solid roof)

26.5 AHD 25.65, 25.81 AHD (Roof top) Complies

26.2 AHD (Planter box around roof function space)

Complies

27.98 AHD (top of plant fencing) 1.48m

28.41 AHD (top of new roof top function columns)

1.91m

28.71 AHD (stairs roof) 2.21m

29.3 AHD (top of new kitchen exhaust) 2.81m

29.65 AHD (top of new cooling towers) 3.15m

29.7 AHD (top of lift overrun) 3.2m

Building Height for this site is prescribed in Schedule 14 of LPS4. The sixth storey, which exceeds the permitted building height, adds the following to the approved plans:

a solid roof and columns to the function space (previous approval had a shade cloth roof);

cooling towers;

food prep area with exhaust flues;

office; and

a higher fence around the outdoor plant room.


Page 101

Clause 5.8.1.3 of LPS4 allows an increase in building height for minor projections subject to the following:

a) The minor projection being no more than 4 metres above the highest part of

the main building structure; and b) The cumulative area of the minor projection being no more than 10 per cent of

the total roof area of the building. For the purpose of this clause, ‘minor’ projection will be interpreted as including plant and equipment such as air conditioning units, lift overrun rooms, flagpoles, aerials and decorative architectural features, but not rooms or other facilities intended for regular human use such as roof top deck or swimming pools

For purposes of this clause, only the indoor and outdoor plant rooms and the lift overruns can be considered minor projections. Further, the clause includes the “total roof area of the building” and thus includes the roof of the ground floor area on the west of the site (library, prep area, etc.) Therefore, the minor projections occupy a combined total of 10.1 per cent of the total roof area of the building (Attachment 6) but still do not meet the 10 per cent requirement of Clause 5.8.1.3. As there is no discretion to vary this requirement, a condition is to be placed on the approval requiring compliance. The previous approval had a condition requiring the fenced plant area to be no more than 10% of the total roof space. The amended plans modify the roof to include an indoor plant room as well as an outdoor plant room and the lift overruns. The condition of approval is therefore modified to reflect this amended layout as follows:

Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant is to redesign the minor projections on the roof (indoor and outdoor plant rooms, lift overruns) to be no more than 10% of the total roof space to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

For the remainder of the roof area (ie: function space, lift lobby, etc.), clause 5.8.2 does allow variations to requirements of the Scheme subject to the following criteria:

a) The variation will not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or with the locality generally;

b) Conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining; and c) Any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.

The proposed development is considered to meet the requirements of 5.8.2 in regards to building height for the following reasons:

The increased building height includes a function space, toilet facilities, lifts, stairs and plant equipment, food prep area and office, which in all occupies approximately 30.4% of the 4th floor rooftop, or 309m2 of a rooftop area of 1016m2. This is compared to the original approval, which occupied 29.3% or 278.6m2 of a total 4th floor rooftop area of 950m2 (see pictures below). The highest portions are setback a minimum of 6m from the side boundaries.

The location of the function space acts as a form of screening for the plant equipment, minimising any view from the street and upper floor apartments on the northern side of Freeman Loop.


Page 102

The tallest structures on the roof are located towards the centre of the site, making them difficult to view from the street.

There are no buildings of cultural heritage value on site or adjoining that will be impacted by the increased building height.

The maximum height of the amended plans is identical to that of the approved plans.

DP17 notes that while rooftops should not be habitable, it is encouraged that they be used as rooftop terraces.

Enclosing the roof top function space with solid glass walls and a solid ceiling will enable increased use of the facility year round.

The increased height does not cause a detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and does not decrease visual permeability (see ‘Visual permeability’ below).

The effect of temporary roofing such as umbrellas and shade sails from a building bulk perspective is similar to the flat roof proposed.

Previous approval


Page 103

Current proposal Furthermore, LPS4 requires the following when considering variations to scheme requirements –

5.8.3 In considering an application for planning approval under this clause, where, in the opinion of Council, the variation is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality or adjoin the site that is the subject of consideration for the variation, the Council shall – a) Consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions for

advertising applications under clause 9.4, and b) Have regard to any expressed views prior to making its determination to

grant the variation. Though the amended plans were not advertised, the original application was advertised in accordance with LPP 1.3, with nineteen submissions received. In relation to building height, concerns raised were largely to do with the number of stories rather than AHD height. The most notable aspects of the amendments are the increased plant fence height, the slightly increased function room height and the new cooling towers. These structures are situated towards the centre of the building and will not be visible from the ground. As with the original plans, it is considered that it will be difficult to view the upper floor from lower levels, and the overall development has the appearance of five stories only. A full schedule of submissions is included as part of the original RAR in Attachment 2. Finally, Clause 5.8.4 requires that Council can only exercise use of Clause 5.8.2 where they are satisfied that:


Page 104

a) Approval of the proposed development would be appropriate having regard

to the criteria set out in clause 10.2, and b) The non-compliance will not have an adverse effect upon the occupiers or

users of the development, the inhabitants of the locality or the likely future development of the locality

Buildings adjacent to the subject site have been approved and/or constructed to five stories. Though the footprint of all the structures above the main roof of the building has increased, this increase is largely towards the centre of the site and out of view of the street and lower levels of adjacent buildings. The cooling towers add some additional perceived height, however, they are compact and not greater than the total previously approved height. They are also situated near the middle of the roof and will not be visible from the street. It is not considered that the additional building height of the roof top area will have a significant adverse impact on occupiers of the development or the residents in the locality.

Visual permeability

Visual Permeability in LPS4 for the subject site (area DP 3B, which also includes the majority of No. 29 Leighton Beach Blvd.) requires-

The building envelope of development within DP 3B must achieve 40-50% east-west visual permeability above a three-storey building height. This means that 50-60 percent of the length of DP3B can be developed up to a five storey building height.

Clause 1.3 of DP17 in Schedule 14 states –

Council has the discretion to approve minor variations to the development plan where consistent with the development plan objectives.

The fenced plant area has been reoriented, resulting in a reduction of 5 metres from the original length of the east-west roof structure orientation. However, heights of some structures have been slightly increased with the end result being that the east-west visual permeability of the site remains approximately the same as in the approved plans. The amended plans are therefore recommended for conditional approval. DGN14 – Leighton Development Area Design Guidelines DGN14 provides design guidelines for the site. Discretions not discussed in the scheme requirements above and that vary from the approved plans are outlined below: General design guidelines

Roof scape

The Leighton Design Guidelines state that the roof areas above the permitted number of storeys shall be non-habitable and contained within the building envelope. The proposed


Page 105

amendments add an office and food prep area to the previously approved roof scape. Council and JDAP previously approved a habitable rooftop function area of 58m2 and the proposal increases that habitable area to 112m2. The new habitable rooms are integrated into the roof mounted services and not visible from the ground floor. Should Council or JDAP consider these rooms to not comply with the design guidelines, the following alternate condition is recommended:

Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the food prep area and office within the roof scape to be removed.

The replacement of the shade sail roof with a solid roof is consistent with the policy of encouraging paved outdoor terraces with climate protection elements. The solid roof is likely to encourage more regular activation of the rooftop function space. For further discussion on the roof space and overall building height, see the Building Height section of this report.

Building setbacks East boundary with Curtin Avenue

Required Setback Approved Proposed Discretion

Building - 3m min 3m 1m 2m

Car park - basement - nil permitted 700mm 500mm Complies

The east boundary predominantly retains the approved setbacks. A 6.5 metre length of the former meeting room has been extended out towards the street to be in line with the approved restaurant. The reduced setback is considered to be supportable for the following reasons:

The changes are only to a 6.5m wide portion of the approved wall;

The reduced setback increases the level of activation and surveillance to the railway and Curtin Avenue;

The increase will bring the wall into alignment with the remainder of the restaurant and not result in a projecting element into the Curtin Avenue streetscape;

The wall faces the street and is located some distance from the adjoining multiple dwellings so as to enhance the streetscape without impacting the amenity of adjoining lots.

The basement footprint has been extended to go under the entire site. Nil setbacks to this level are consistent with requirements. Conclusion: The amended application has been assessed against the relevant statutory requirements and is recommended for conditional approval.


Page 106

PC1608-10 STOCK ROAD, NO 324 (LOT 33 & 35), O'CONNOR - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING MOTOR VEHICLE SALES BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR (4) SHOWROOMS WITH SIGNAGE AND CHANGE OF USE TO 'SHOWROOM'


(Regulation 12)

Property Location: No. 324 (Lot 33 & 35) Stock Road, O’Connor

Application Details: Demolition of existing Motor Vehicle Sales building, construction of four (4) showrooms with signage and change of use to ‘Showroom’

DAP Name: Insert DAP name eg. Metro South-West JDAP (Not Metropolitan)

Applicant: PBY Pty Ltd & Alfaro Pty Ltd

Owner: Meyer Shircore & Associates

LG Reference: DAP003/16





Application Receipt Date: 24 May 2016

Application Process Days: 60/90 Days

Attachment(s): 1: Development Plans and Elevations 2: DER Comment 3: Main Roads Advice 4: Applicant’s Justification for Reduced Access Lane Length 5: Site photos

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: A) That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning

Commission with a recommendation for REFUSAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the proposed Demolition of existing Motor Vehicle Sales building, construction of four (4) showrooms with signage and change of use to ‘Showroom’ at No. 324 (Lot 33 & 35) Stock Road, O’Connor, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the Australian Standard for access lanes

and does not provide adequate vehicle access point safety under clause 5.7.6 (i) and (ix) of LPS4, and clause 67(s)(i) of the deemed provisions for local planning schemes.

2. The proposal does not supply adequate access to the site under clause

10.2(x) of LPS4.


Page 107

B) That the Metro South West JDAP resolves to:

Refuse DAP Application reference DAP/16/01049 and accompanying plans 7986 July 2016 Nos. 00 - 08 in accordance with Clause 5.7.6 and 10.2 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the Australian Standard for access lanes

and does not provide adequate vehicle access point safety under clause 5.7.6 (i) and (ix) of LPS4, and clause 67(s)(i) of the deemed provisions for local planning schemes.

2. The proposal does not supply adequate vehicle access to the site and

therefore is considered contrary to the requirements of clause 10.2(x) of LPS4.

Alternate Recommendation: Should Council or JDAP be provided sufficient evidence that the deceleration and turn lane off Stock Road provide adequate braking distance the following alternate recommendation is provided:- A) That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning

Commission with a recommendation for APPROVAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the proposed Demolition of existing Motor Vehicle Sales building, construction of four (4) showrooms with signage and change of use to ‘Showroom’ at No. 324 (Lot 33 & 35) Stock Road, O’Connor, subject to the conditions listed under recommendation (B) below.

B) That the Metro South West JDAP resolves to: Approve DAP Application reference DAP/16/01049 and accompanying plans 7986 July 2016 Nos. 00 - 08 in accordance with Clause 10.2 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, subject to the following conditions: Conditions

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 14 July 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or otherwise

approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

3. Notwithstanding approval of the development as indicated above, the free standing pylon sign facing Stock Road is deleted and does not form part of this application.

4. Notwithstanding approval of the development as indicated above, should the Stock

Road widening proceed, amended plans will be required for the parking and landscaping layout prior to future development.


Page 108

5. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, No. 324 (Lots 33 and 35) Stock Road are to

be legally amalgamated or alternatively the owner may enter into a legal agreement with the City of Fremantle, drafted by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties concerned prior to the commencement of the works. The legal agreement will specify measures to allow the development approval to operate having regard to the subject site consisting of two separate lots, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to the occupation of the development, the redundant crossovers and kerbs

shall be removed and the verge reinstated to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle and at the expense of the applicant.

7. Prior to the occupation of the development, vehicle crossovers and a deceleration

and turn lane on Stock Road shall be constructed at the applicant’s expense and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. The signage herby permitted shall not contain any flashing or moving light or radio;

animation or movement in its design or structure; reflective, retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design structure.

9. The design and construction of the development is to meet the 4 star green star

standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of Building Compliance for the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the city to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle:

a. Submit to the Council a copy of documentation from the Green Building

Council of Australia certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars, or

b. Submit to the Council a copy of agreed equivalent documentation certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars.

Advice Notes

i. This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences. Please refer to the City’s Tree Planting and Vehicle Crossings Policies (SG28 and MD0015) for further information.

ii. Due to the historical use of the site and the former removal of asbestos-containing

materials (ACM), development works may intercept potentially contaminated soils. If potentially contaminated soil (such as odorous or stained soil, or the presence of


Page 109

ACM fragments mixed in soil) is identified during site works, the site should be reported in accordance with section 11 of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003, and development works appropriately managed to ensure that potential risks to human health and the environment are addressed. For further information, please contact Contaminated Sites at the Department of Environment Regulation on 1300 762 982.

iii. Future signage within the areas marked ‘sign’, ‘signage’, ‘logo’ or ‘life poster’ on

the approved plans will not require further planning approval. Any other future signage contrary to the requirements of Schedule 5 or Clause 8.2(d) of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 will require a planning application.

Background:

Insert Property Address: No. 324 (Lot 33, 35) Stock Road, O’Connor

Insert Zoning MRS: Industry

TPS: Commercial

Insert Use Class: Showroom

Insert Strategy Policy: LPP 3.8 – Local Planning Area 8 O’Connor LPP 2.13 – Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements LPP 2.14 – Advertisement Policy

Insert Development Scheme: Nil

Insert Lot Size: 7892 m2

Insert Existing Land Use: Motor Vehicle Sales and Service

Value of Development: $3 million

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Stock Road between Stockdale Road and Peel Road. No. 324 Stock Road currently consists of a parking lot comprising the majority of lot 33 and a building containing a motor vehicle sales office and service centre primarily located on lot 35. The subject sites are surrounded by commercial showrooms and warehouses. Previous development approvals exist relating to the current buildings and use of the site. As the buildings are proposed to be demolished and the use changed, there is no relevant planning history for this site. The property is not heritage listed nor located within a heritage area. The subject site is affected by a MRS road reservation along Stock Road. The site is not listed as contaminated in the DER database but it abuts a possibly contaminated site. Details: outline of development application On 24 May 2016 the City of Fremantle received an application for the demolition of the existing Motor Vehicle Sales building and the addition of four (4) showrooms with associated signage and change of use. The application proposes the following:

Demolition of existing Motor Vehicle Sales and Service building

1 x 1001 m2 Showroom

1 x 750 m2 Showroom


Page 110

1 x 700 m2 Showroom

1 x 600 m2 Showroom

111 car bays

Associated signage on the exterior of the showrooms

Change of use from ‘Motor Vehicle Sales’ to ‘Showroom’ In response to issues cited by the City’s Planning and Infrastructure departments, amended plans were submitted on 14 July 2016 with the following changes:-

5% Landscaping provided.

Landscape Strip is 1.5m wide.

Shade Trees provided to meet Council requirements.

Majority of Landscaping provided between building and road reserve.

The northern most crossover has been deleted and moved further south with deceleration lane included.

Truck paths have been shown to indicate manoeuvring ability to the Service Yard. The site is also affected by a Clause 32 resolution of the MRS due to the future widening of Stock Road and the application must therefore be referred to the WAPC for determination. Legislation & policy: Legislation City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4

Clause 5.7.6 – Design and Layout of Parking Areas

Clause 4.2.1(f) – Commercial zone objectives

Table 2 - Zoning

Table 3 – Vehicle Parking

Clause 5.15 Demolition of Buildings and Structures

Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions Schedule 2 – Deemed provisions for local planning schemes

Clause 67 – Matters to be considered by local government State Government Policies Nil Local Policies

LPP 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals

LPP 1.6 – Heritage Assessment

LPP 2.13 – Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements

LPP 3.8 – Local Planning Area 8 O’Connor

DBH6 – Signs and Hoardings

LPP 2.14 – Advertisement Policy


Page 111

Consultation: Public Consultation In accordance with LPP 1.3, the application is not required to be advertised under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as it requires no significant exercise of discretion. Consultation with other Agencies or Consultants Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) The DER has responded that there are no grounds to suspect that potential contamination identified at the adjoining lot has impacted the subject site. However, aerial imagery suggests that the existing building had an asbestos roof replaced between 1995 and 2004. Due to the scale of those works and the historical use of the site, the DER recommends an advice note be added warning that if contamination is identified during development works the site should be appropriately reported and managed. Full comment is included as Attachment 3. Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) The application was referred to MRWA as the lot abuts a category 3 primary regional road (Stock Road). Main Roads does not support the application as their planning indicates additional land outside the reservation may be required. Full comment is included as Attachment 4. The applicant has submitted a proposal responding to the future road widening as indicated on the current MRS whereas Main Roads states they will need a further, as yet unknown, increase in the road reserve. Based on the current available information of the gazetted future road reserve the City supports development of the site in principal, except for the vehicle access issues of the current proposal (see Infrastructure comments below). As the City disagrees with the MRWA recommendations, all development within the section of land affected by Clause 32 must be referred to the WAPC for determination followed by a determination by the JDAP. The application therefore requires two recommendations: one for the WAPC and one for the JDAP. Internal Referrals Internal Heritage Assessment In accordance with Clause 5.15.1 a) of Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the demolition of a building is only supported when the City is satisfied the building has limited, or no heritage significance. Additionally, Clause 5.15.1 b) allows support of demolition where it does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural significance of the locality. The City’s heritage officers have provided comment saying that the building is of no cultural significance. Demolition is therefore supported. Infrastructure


Page 112

The City’s Infrastructure Projects advises that a deceleration and turn lane of 80-90 metres is required for vehicles exiting Stock Road as per Austroads Standards. The plans submitted show a deceleration and turn lane with a length of approximately 35 metres. This is considered insufficient to provide for vehicle safety for vehicles entering from Stock Road. The turn lane for the subject site is required to be separate from the existing turn lane to the adjoining northern property and would therefore require the entrance to the subject site to be relocated approximately 50 metres to the south from where it is currently proposed. As a result, the whole development would have to be reoriented and redesigned and the issue could not be resolved through applying a condition of approval. The relevant sections of clause 5.7.6 of LPS4 state:-

Council shall have regard to all of the following in the location, design and construction of parking areas and associated access areas—

(i) layout and access lanes consistent with the Australian Standard for parking facilities & off-street car parking,

(ix) the ease and safety with which vehicles gain access to the site and circulate within the parking area.

Further the relevant section of clause 67(s) of the deemed provisions states in part:-

In considering an application for development approval the local government is to have due regard to the following matters to the extent that, in the opinion of the local government, those matters are relevant to the development the subject of the application — (s) the adequacy of — (i) the proposed means of access to and egress from the site

The proposal is considered inconsistent with the Australian Standard for access lanes and does not provide adequate vehicle access safety to the site. The development is therefore recommended for refusal on the basis of the above. The applicant has provided justification for a reduction in the access length under the Austroads Standards stating that there is scope within the standards to reduce the deceleration lane to 35 metres in length on brownfield sites that have relevant site constraints (Attachment 4). The City’s Technical Projects does not accept that the site is constrained in such a manner as to allow for a reduction and plan to liaise with the applicant and provide a written response for council’s consideration. Parks and Landscape The amended plans provided show the development achieving the 5% landscaping requirement both before and after land is resumed for the gazetted road widening. The proposal to spread vegetation throughout the site rather than concentrate it in the area between the building and the road is supported on the grounds that it better promotes cooling.


Page 113

Planning assessment: LPP 1.6: Heritage Assessment The City’s heritage officers have confirmed the existing building is of no cultural significance and have no comments regarding the proposed demolition. The proposed demolition is therefore supported. LPP 2.13 – Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements This application is required to comply with the policy. The policy aims to ensure sustainable building design for new commercial, mixed use and multi-residential developments. The applicant has included in their cover letter an acknowledgement and agreement to adhere to the requirements of Clause 2.1 (a) and (b). A condition in this regard has been included as part of approval. LPP 3.8 – Local Planning Area 8 O’Connor The following tables provide a summary of the key planning requirements relating to LPP 3.8:- Note: Numbers in bold are provisions for plans after road widening occurs as shown on plan 04.

Clause Required Provided Complies?

8.3.3 5% of total area landscaped (394.6 m2) 616m2 (472m2)

Yes

Landscaped dimensions - Min width 1.5m and in areas of not less than 4m2

Complies Yes

1 shade tree for every 50m2 of total landscaped area (8) (9)

28 (19) Yes

1 shade tree in car parking area for every 4 car spaces (28) (23)

28 (19) Yes

Landscaping confined to area between building and road reserve

Mostly No (see below)

8.3.4

Plot Ratio – 0.75 0.386 (0.44) Yes

Site Coverage – 75% 38.6% (44.3%)

Yes

Minimum Setbacks (Front, Rear and Side – Nil) South – Nil East – 3m

Yes

To promote cooling it is considered more beneficial to spread landscaping throughout the site as proposed rather than confine it to the frontage of the building. The proposal complies with the above clauses and is therefore supported.


Page 114

As the site plan indicated on plan 04 is for the future of the site once road widening has occurred, it is considered they are indicative only and new plans will have to be submitted whenever the road is resumed. However, they do indicate that it is possible to achieve the requirements in the future without impacting the proposed buildings on the lot. DBH6 – Signs and Hoardings Wall signage has been proposed on the southern, northern and western elevations. In accordance with Clause 1.5 of the policy, signage is considered to be appropriate as it is intended to identify future occupants of the showrooms. It is not considered to impair the amenity of the locality by way of obtrusiveness, driver distraction, visual clutter or obstruction of existing signage and/or developments. The proposed signage is supported. The applicant has informed the City that the freestanding pylon sign facing Stock Road indicated on the plans will not be included in this current application. A condition removing the sign from the plans has been included as part of approval. LPP 2.14: Advertisement Policy As of the date of this report, LPP 2.14 has been recommended for approval by the Planning Committee but not yet adopted by the full council. When adopted it will replace DBH6. Wall Signs Under the policy, wall signs are deemed acceptable where they (a) do not project above the fascia of the building and do not exceed the frontage of the tenancy; and (b) are restricted to three signs per street frontage per tenancy. Tenancies 2-4 comply with the above. Tenancy 1 contains two signs on the western elevation plus an additional three ‘Life Poster’ signs, which function as additional advertising space. Further, these ‘Life Poster’ signs project above the fascia of the building. Variations may be permitted where (a) the cumulative effect of the signage does not negatively impact on the surrounding locality by way of visual clutter; and (b) the scale and design of the signage is subservient to the building to which it relates, are sized in proportion with parapets, panels, windows and wall areas within close proximity to the proposed sign so as not to dominate the view of the building from the street. The wall signs are considered in keeping with the scale of the development and similar developments in the immediate locality. They are not considered to create excessive clutter and will not dominate the view of the building. The projections of the ‘Life Poster’ signs above the roof of the building are in line with the fascia projections on the north and south elevations and will add visual interest through articulation of the building form.


Page 115

Roof Signs Roof signs are deemed acceptable where:

a) The advertisement does not project more than 1.5m above the height part of the roofline and does not exceed the length of the tenancy; and

b) The advertisement is restricted to one sign per street frontage per tenancy and can be illuminated and/or double sided.

c) The advertisement does not overshadow major openings or outdoor living space of neighbouring residential properties.

All roof signs comply with (b) and (c) above. In regards to (a), the roof signs do not exceed the length of the tenancies, but are located on panels that project five metres above the roof with the top of the signs themselves projecting four metres above the roof. The roof signs are in keeping with the large scale of the development and the immediate locality without creating excessive clutter and are therefore supported. City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4

Clause Required Provided Complies

4.2.1 (f) Commercial zone objectives

Showrooms Complies – See below

Table 2 - Zoning Showroom ‘D’ use within a Commercial Zone Complies

Table 3 – Vehicle Parking

1:50m2 gla, minimum of 4 spaces (63)

111 (91 outside of road reserve)

Complies

1 delivery bay per unit (4)

Roller doors and service yard at rear

Complies

5.15 Heritage support for demolition Complies - See internal referral.

Schedule 1 Showroom definition Meets definition Complies

City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 – 4.2.1 (f) – Commercial zone objectives Showrooms are listed as an appropriate use within a Commercial Zone. It is considered that the redevelopment of the site will not be detrimental to the amenity of surrounding landowners or businesses. No residential areas exist nearby and no places of heritage significance are affected by this application. The proposed use is supported. Conclusion: The proposal does not comply with City of Fremantle’s statutory planning requirements specifically with regards to the Australian Standards for access lanes and vehicle access safety under clause 5.7.6 (i) and (ix) of LPS4, and clause 67(s)(i) of the deemed provisions for local planning schemes. The development is therefore recommended for refusal.


Page 116

PC1608-11 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

Acting under authority delegated by the Council the Manager Development Approvals determined, in some cases subject to conditions, each of the applications listed in the Attachments and relating to the places and proposal listed.


That the information is noted.


Page 117

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

PC1608-12 HERITAGE LIST AND MUNICIPAL HERITAGE INVENTORY REVIEW FOR NORTH FREMANTLE 2016

ECM Reference: 215/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 August 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Heritage Planner Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1007-141 & PSC1410-160 Attachments: Consultants’ Report – Municipal Heritage Inventory

Review North Fremantle 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present to Council for consideration the first stage of the Heritage List (HL) and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) Review for North Fremantle. Council is recommended to approve the draft changes to the HL and MHI identified in the review for the purposes of public consultation. Following the consultation period and assessment of any submissions received a further report will be presented to Council for consideration of any submissions and a decision on final changes to the HL and MHI in respect of places in North Fremantle. In recent years the City has reviewed both the Heritage List and the MHI. This has been a staged review process, based on reviewing the part of the MHI that relates to one particular suburb or area each financial year. The 2015/16 stage of the review process, covering North Fremantle, has been completed by professional heritage consultants commissioned by the City of Fremantle. The review has been carried out in accordance with relevant heritage and planning legislative requirements. The assessment of cultural heritage significance and the subsequent recommendations have been undertaken in accordance with the Criteria for Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas as prepared by the State Heritage Office and the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.6 Procedure for amending the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and Heritage List. It is recommended that Council support the recommendations in the draft heritage review report for North Fremantle which include:

(a) The consolidation of miscellaneous MHI management categories into a newly created management category called ‘Historical Record Only’;

(b) 81 places to be consolidated into the new ‘Historical Record Only’ category on the MHI and removed from the HL;

(c) 4 places to be added to the MHI and HL and 2 places to have amended MHI management categories.


Page 118

BACKGROUND

The Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 obliges local governments to develop and maintain a municipal inventory and, once established, to update it annually and review it every 5 years. The Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the 2015 Planning Regulations) prescribe that a local government must establish and maintain a heritage list to identify places within the scheme area that are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of built heritage conservation. These provisions supersede, but are very similar to, provisions which previously existed as clause 7.1 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) until the Regulations came into operation in October 2015. The City of Fremantle adopted the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) for Fremantle in September 2000 and the Heritage List (HL) was adopted under the provisions of LPS4 in 2007. The current review of the MHI for North Fremantle is part of a comprehensive, staged review of the complete MHI. The review stages are based on specific areas or suburbs. During 2009 these reviews were updated and consolidated to provide a clear and concise list of recommendations for the MHI in accordance with the Heritage Act and the Heritage List under provisions of LPS4 for Council’s consideration. In September 2009 the Council adopted Local Planning Policy 2.6 Procedure for Amending the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and Heritage List which provides the specific procedural and operational guidance for the process. In July 2010 Council received and noted the 2009 MHI review report and endorsed its use as the guiding document for additions and amendments to the MHI and Heritage List. During 2015 to 2016 the heritage review for North Fremantle was undertaken by professional consultants appointed by the City to update the City’s Heritage List and the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) within the publically available ‘inHerit’ online database system administered by the State Heritage Office. The report of the review is provided in attachment 1. The report includes an assessment of each place to be added or retained and their recommended management categories, and places recommended to be deleted from the MHI and/or the Heritage List. The assessment of cultural heritage significance and the subsequent recommendations have been undertaken in accordance with the Criteria for Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas (March 2012) as prepared by the State Heritage Office. This item provides recommendations to assist Council in determining places that are of local cultural heritage significance and seeks to obtain Council support for the process to proceed to the community consultation stage, at which time the documentation will be sent for comment to all the owners and occupiers of places which are recommended to be adopted, removed or amended on the HL and or MHI. The North Fremantle review commenced before a resolution was passed by Council in January 2016 (previous item PC1616) regarding the approach to be adopted in further stages of the MHI and HL review process from 2016/17 onwards. In summary, Council resolved that:


Page 119

The priority order for the next areas to be reviewed should be: 1. Beaconsfield (east of Mather Road) 2. White Gum Valley 3. Suburb of Fremantle (east of Hampton Road and Ord Street)

If sufficient budget is allocated in 2016/17 a combined review of Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley should be undertaken as a single project, followed by a review of Fremantle (eastern areas) in 2017/18.

$40,000 has been allocated in the 2016/17 budget for contract expenditure on consultants for the next stage of the review. Officers are currently preparing a scope of works as the basis for inviting quotations for carrying out this work. Consultants will be invited to provide fee proposals for alternative options within the scope of works to determine whether the available budget would enable a combined review of two or more priority areas to be undertaken, as referred to in Council’s resolution of January 2016. Regardless of the final scope for the next stage of the review in 2016/17, the review process for North Fremantle needs to be concluded. The recommendations in this report, if accepted by Council, will enable the North Fremantle review to progress to completion. COMMENT

Heritage listing information is crucial for the effective understanding and management of cultural heritage of Fremantle and is a recognised as a valuable community resource. The MHI as required under the Heritage Act does not have any statutory implications. It is an ongoing heritage survey of places of cultural heritage significance which continually needs updating and adding to with relevant information. The Heritage List established under the provisions of LPS4 – now replaced by the similar provisions of clause 8 of the Deemed Provisions of the 2015 Planning Regulations – is a statutory list of places which are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of conservation under the provisions of the Regulations and the Scheme. The list comprises only of names and addresses and does not include any other information. More detailed information including the statement of significance is included with the MHI and can be sourced from the online database system InHerit. The basis for inclusion or removal on the MHI or Heritage List shall be assessed cultural heritage significance as defined by the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, the Burra Charter and the Criteria for Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas (March 2012) as prepared by the State Heritage Office. The significance of a place is determined by assessing its historic, aesthetic, scientific, spiritual and social values for present and future generations. The assigned level of significance is in accord with the guidance set out in Criteria for Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas. The management categories and the management category descriptions adopted by Council in 2011 are as follows: Level 1A The City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of exceptional cultural heritage significance in its own right within the context of Fremantle. This place has been entered


Page 120

in the Heritage Council of Western Australia’s Register of Heritage Places. All development applications must be referred to the Heritage Council for approval.

Level 1B The City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of exceptional cultural heritage significance in its own right within the context of Fremantle. It is recommended that this place be considered for entry in the Heritage Council of Western Australia's Register of Heritage Places, as this place is considered by the City of Fremantle to be of exceptional significance to the City and its conservation is required.

Level 2 The City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of considerable cultural heritage significance in its own right within the context of Fremantle.

Level 3 The City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of some cultural heritage significance for its contribution to the heritage of Fremantle in terms of its individual or collective aesthetic, historic, social or scientific significance, and /or its contribution to the streetscape, local area and Fremantle. However, InHerit shows a variety of other management categories including ‘historic/archaeological site’, ‘historic site – recognise’, ‘limestone feature (s)’, or places that have no management category. It is recommended as part of this review and subsequent area reviews to incorporate these places within a new management category called ‘Historic Record only’. These are places which have historic information worthy of recording on the MHI and include places that have been usually been demolished or maybe below the heritage significance threshold to warrant listing as above. Also, they include places considered to be of limited heritage significance, not considered to be of archaeological significance under the provisions of the scheme and are not included on the Heritage List. Recommended change to MHI Management Categories It is recommended that the following management category and associated description should be created: Category - Historical Record Only

The City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of historical interest. The information is retained in the database purely for historical record keeping.

Recommended changes to MHI and Heritage List - places in North Fremantle Council is recommended to approve community consultation regarding changes to the MHI and/or HL in relation to the following places, based on the recently completed consultants’ report on the North Fremantle review: Places to be added to the Heritage List and/or MHI

1. House, 4 John Street – no management level currently shown – add to HL and MHI as a Level 3

2. House, 18 Thompson Road – new place – add to HL and MHI as a Level 3 3. Commercial Building, 69 Thompson Road – related historically to the Burford

Soap Factory – add to HL and MHI as a Level 3


Page 121

4. House, 96 Thompson Road – restoration has improved streetscape – add to HL and MHI as a Level 3

Places on MHI – amendments to management category level

1. House, 56 Harvest Road – Level 2 downgrade to Level 3 2. House, 88 Thompson Road – Level 3 upgrade to Level 2 3. Foreshore Reserve, Johannah Street – Level 3 4. Limestone Feature (s), 25 Herbert Street – Level 3 5. Limestone Feature (s), 108 Stirling Highway – Level 3

There are 81 places identified in the report (listed below) which are recommended to be retained on the MHI only, due to historical information worthy of recording. These are sites where former buildings or features have been demolished, or the place is considered to be below threshold for inclusion on the Heritage List under the provisions of the Planning Regulations; Places to be amended on MHI to new management category ‘Historic Record Only’ and removed from Heritage List where applicable

1. House, 8 Ainslie Road - below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL 2. House (demolished), 26 Ainslie Road - below threshold of significance for

inclusion on HL 3. House (demolished), 28 Ainslie Road - demolished – remove from HL 4. House (demolished), 30 Ainslie Road - demolished – remove from HL 5. House (demolished), 16 Alfred Road - demolished – remove from HL 6. House (demolished), 28 Alfred Road - demolished – remove from HL 7. House (demolished), 2 Coventry Road - demolished – remove from HL 8. Site of State Shipbuilding Yards, bounded by Harvest Road, Corkhill Street and

Direction Way – amalgamation of sites; demolished – currently on MHI only 9. House (demolished), 7 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 10. House (demolished), 9 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 11. Limestone Feature (s), 53 Harvest Road (not extant) - demolished – remove from

HL 12. House (demolished), 60 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 13. Canteen (demolished), 74 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 14. Marking Out Building (demolished), 74 Harvest Road - demolished – remove

from HL 15. Limestone Feature (s), 21 Herbert Street - demolished – remove from HL 16. Limestone Feature (s), 23 Herbert Street - demolished – remove from HL 17. House, 26 Herbert Street – below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL 18. House, 4 Hevron Street - demolished – remove from HL 19. House, 8 Hevron Street - demolished – remove from HL 20. House, 6 Higham Road - demolished – currently on MHI only 21. House, 8 Higham Road - demolished – currently on MHI only 22. House (demolished) 10 Higham Road - demolished – remove from HL 23. Limestone Feature (s), 15 Jewell Parade - demolished – remove from HL 24. House (Demolished), 3 Jewell Parade – demolished – remove from HL 25. House (Demolished), 7 Jewell Parade – demolished – remove from HL 26. House (Demolished), 11 Jewell Parade – demolished – remove from HL 27. House, 23 Jewell Parade – below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL


Page 122

28. Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 25 Johannah Street - demolished – remove from HL

29. House (demolished), 6 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 30. House (demolished), 10 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 31. Duplex (demolished), 14 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 32. House (demolished), 15 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 33. Duplex (demolished), 16 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 34. Duplex (demolished), 18 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 35. Duplex (demolished), 20 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 36. House (demolished), 26 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 37. House & Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 42 John Street - demolished –

remove from HL 38. House (relocated), 1 McCabe Place – double entry with 3 Stirling Hwy - remove

from HL 39. Commercial Building, 10 Pamment Street – below threshold of significance for

inclusion on HL – remove from HL 40. House (demolished), 5 Pamment Street – demolished - currently on MHI only 41. House (demolished), 7 Pamment Street – demolished – remove from HL 42. House (demolished), 2 Passmore Avenue – demolished - currently on MHI only 43. Terrace (demolished), 8 Passmore Avenue – demolished – remove from HL 44. House (demolished), 10 Passmore Avenue – demolished - currently on MHI only 45. House, 15a Pearse Street – below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL 46. House (demolished), 40 Pearse Street – demolished – currently on MHI only 47. House, 6 Phyllis Street – demolished – remove from HL 48. House (demolished), 2 Phyllis Street – demolished – remove from HL 49. House (demolished), 4 Phyllis Street – demolished – remove from HL 50. House (demolished) 210 Queen Victoria Street - demolished – currently on MHI

only 51. Church Hall (demolished), 227 Queen Victoria Street – demolished – remove

from HL 52. Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 239 Queen Victoria Street - demolished –

remove from HL 53. Gilbert Fraser’s House (demolished), 4 Rule Street – demolished – remove from

HL 54. House (demolished) 14 Rule Street – demolished – remove from HL 55. Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 25 Rule Street - demolished – remove from

HL 56. House, 29 Rule Street – below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL 57. House (demolished) 45 Rule Street – demolished – remove from HL 58. House (demolished) 14 Staples Street – demolished – remove from HL 59. House (demolished) 15 Staples Street – demolished – remove from HL 60. Duplex, 90 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 61. Duplex, 90a Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 62. Limestone Feature (s) (not extant), 65 Stirling Highway - demolished – remove

from HL 63. House (demolished), 102 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 64. House (demolished), 123 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 65. House (demolished), 209 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 66. House (demolished), 9 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 67. Duplex (demolished), 52 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 68. Duplex (demolished), 54 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL


Page 123

69. House (demolished), 60 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 70. House, 64a Thompson Road – below threshold of significance for inclusion on

HL 71. House (demolished), 65 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 72. Limestone Feature(s), 66 Thompson Road, not extant – demolished – remove

from HL 73. Duplex (demolished), 68 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 74. Duplex (demolished), 70 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 75. Limestone Feature(s), 72-76Thompson Road (not extant) – demolished –

remove from HL 76. House (demolished), 91 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 77. House (demolished), 97 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 78. House (demolished), 98 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 79. House (relocated), 102 Thompson Road – double entry with 3 Stirling Highway 80. Limestone Feature(s), Thompson Road, not extant – demolished – remove from

HL 81. Commercial Building, 26 Tydeman Road – below threshold of significance for

inclusion on HL STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The City has a statutory obligation to establish and maintain an MHI and a heritage List under the legislation referred to in the Background section above. The City’s Local Planning Policy 2.6 - Procedure for Amending the Municipal Heritage Inventory and Heritage List sets out the assessment and consultation processes the City uses to determine the inclusion, removal or amendment to details of a place on the MHI and/or Heritage List. CONSULTATION

Local governments are required under the provisions of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 and Clause 8 of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 prior entering a place onto the Heritage List, or modifying an existing entry, to consult with all owner(s) and occupier(s). The Heritage Act also requires that all local governments undertake appropriate community consultation. Upon receiving the relevant information the persons consulted have 21 days to respond. The local government is then to take into consideration the submissions made on the proposal. The consultation phase forms a significant part of the overall review process and is undertaken once Council has considered the initial recommendations arising from the review as outlined above. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The Community Strategic Plan 2015-25 identifies character, culture and heritage as one of the strategic focus areas of the Plan.


Page 124


1. That Council approves the recommendations in the draft heritage review report for North Fremantle (June 2016) to:

Consolidate miscellaneous Municipal Heritage Inventory management categories into a new management category listing to be known as ‘Historical Record Only’. Places in this category are of historical interest only and are not included on the Heritage List and require no statutory provisions on heritage grounds. The Management Category and description should read as follows:

a) Historical Record Only

The City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of historical interest. The information is retained in the database purely for historical record keeping.

2. That Council authorise community consultation on the following proposed

amendments to the Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI):

a) Places to be added: 1. House, 4 John Street – no management level currently shown – add to

Heritage List and MHI as a Level 3; 2. House, 18 Thompson Road – new place – add to Heritage List and MHI

as a Level 3; 3. Commercial Building, 69 Thompson Road – related historically to the

Burford Soap Factory – add to Heritage List and MHI as a Level 3; 4. House, 96 Thompson Road – restoration has improved streetscape –

add to Heritage List and MHI as a Level 3

b) Places on MHI – amendments to management category level: 1. House, 56 Harvest Road – Level 2 downgrade to Level 3 2. House, 88 Thompson Road – Level 3 upgrade to Level 2 3. Foreshore Reserve, Johannah Street – Level 3 4. Limestone Feature (s), 25 Herbert Street – Level 3 5. Limestone Feature (s), 108 Stirling Highway – Level 3

c) Places to be amended on MHI to new management category ‘Historic Record

Only’ and removed from Heritage List where applicable:

1. House, 8 Ainslie Road - below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL

2. House (demolished), 26 Ainslie Road - below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL

3. House (demolished), 28 Ainslie Road - demolished – remove from HL 4. House (demolished), 30 Ainslie Road - demolished – remove from HL 5. House (demolished), 16 Alfred Road - demolished – remove from HL 6. House (demolished), 28 Alfred Road - demolished – remove from HL 7. House (demolished), 2 Coventry Road - demolished – remove from HL


Page 125

8. Site of State Shipbuilding Yards, bounded by Harvest Road, Corkhill Street and Direction Way – amalgamation of sites; demolished – currently on MHI only

9. House (demolished), 7 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 10. House (demolished), 9 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 11. Limestone Feature (s), 53 Harvest Road (not extant) - demolished –

remove from HL 12. House (demolished), 60 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 13. Canteen (demolished), 74 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 14. Marking Out Building (demolished), 74 Harvest Road - demolished –

remove from HL 15. Limestone Feature (s), 21 Herbert Street - demolished – remove from HL 16. Limestone Feature (s), 23 Herbert Street - demolished – remove from HL 17. House, 26 Herbert Street – below threshold of significance for inclusion

on HL 18. House, 4 Hevron Street - demolished – remove from HL 19. House, 8 Hevron Street - demolished – remove from HL 20. House, 6 Higham Road - demolished – currently on MHI only 21. House, 8 Higham Road - demolished – currently on MHI only 22. House (demolished) 10 Higham Road - demolished – remove from HL 23. Limestone Feature (s), 15 Jewell Parade - demolished – remove from HL 24. House (Demolished), 3 Jewell Parade – demolished – remove from HL 25. House (Demolished), 7 Jewell Parade – demolished – remove from HL 26. House (Demolished), 11 Jewell Parade – demolished – remove from HL 27. House, 23 Jewell Parade – below threshold of significance for inclusion

on HL 28. Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 25 Johannah Street - demolished –

remove from HL 29. House (demolished), 6 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 30. House (demolished), 10 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 31. Duplex (demolished), 14 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 32. House (demolished), 15 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 33. Duplex (demolished), 16 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 34. Duplex (demolished), 18 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 35. Duplex (demolished), 20 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 36. House (demolished), 26 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 37. House & Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 42 John Street -

demolished – remove from HL 38. House (relocated), 1 McCabe Place – double entry with 3 Stirling Hwy -

remove from HL 39. Commercial Building, 10 Pamment Street – below threshold of

significance for inclusion on HL – remove from HL 40. House (demolished), 5 Pamment Street – demolished - currently on MHI

only 41. House (demolished), 7 Pamment Street – demolished – remove from HL 42. House (demolished), 2 Passmore Avenue – demolished - currently on

MHI only 43. Terrace (demolished), 8 Passmore Avenue – demolished – remove from

HL 44. House (demolished), 10 Passmore Avenue – demolished - currently on

MHI only


Page 126

45. House, 15a Pearse Street – below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL

46. House (demolished), 40 Pearse Street – demolished – currently on MHI only

47. House, 6 Phyllis Street – demolished – remove from HL 48. House (demolished), 2 Phyllis Street – demolished – remove from HL 49. House (demolished), 4 Phyllis Street – demolished – remove from HL 50. House (demolished) 210 Queen Victoria Street - demolished – currently

on MHI only 51. Church Hall (demolished), 227 Queen Victoria Street – demolished –

remove from HL 52. Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 239 Queen Victoria Street -

demolished – remove from HL 53. Gilbert Fraser’s House (demolished), 4 Rule Street – demolished –

remove from HL 54. House (demolished) 14 Rule Street – demolished – remove from HL 55. Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 25 Rule Street - demolished –

remove from HL 56. House, 29 Rule Street – below threshold of significance for inclusion on

HL 57. House (demolished) 45 Rule Street – demolished – remove from HL 58. House (demolished) 14 Staples Street – demolished – remove from HL 59. House (demolished) 15 Staples Street – demolished – remove from HL 60. Duplex, 90 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 61. Duplex, 90a Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 62. Limestone Feature (s) (not extant), 65 Stirling Highway - demolished –

remove from HL 63. House (demolished), 102 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from

HL 64. House (demolished), 123 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from

HL 65. House (demolished), 209 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from

HL 66. House (demolished), 9 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 67. Duplex (demolished), 52 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from

HL 68. Duplex (demolished), 54 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from

HL 69. House (demolished), 60 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from

HL 70. House, 64a Thompson Road – below threshold of significance for

inclusion on HL 71. House (demolished), 65 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from

HL 72. Limestone Feature(s), 66 Thompson Road, not extant – demolished –

remove from HL 73. Duplex (demolished), 68 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from

HL 74. Duplex (demolished), 70 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from

HL


Page 127

75. Limestone Feature(s), 72-76Thompson Road (not extant) – demolished – remove from HL

76. House (demolished), 91 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL



79. House (relocated), 102 Thompson Road – double entry with 3 Stirling Highway

80. Limestone Feature(s), Thompson Road, not extant – demolished – remove from HL

81. Commercial Building, 26 Tydeman Road – below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL

3. That following the completion of community consultation as referred to in 2)

above, a further report on submissions received and final recommendations on amendments to the Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory be presented to the next appropriate meeting of the Planning Committee.


Page 128

PC1608-13 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 71 - CHANGES TO TREE PROTECTION PROVISIONS - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING

ECM Reference: 078/003 and 218/079 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 August 2016 Previous Item: PSC1206-83, PSC1306-82, PSC1406-107, C1512-4 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present to Council an alternative approach to the use of a significant tree register to secure the retention of trees on private property. The proposed approach would remove the current provision under the Local Planning Scheme which exempts a person from requiring planning approval to remove a tree, unless that tree is on a register of significant trees. The Council’s strategy for ‘greening’ Fremantle (currently titled Green Plan 2020) adopted in 2015 includes implementation actions to address preservation and management of trees on private property, given their contribution to the City’s overall urban forest. An urban forest enhances a city’s flora and fauna biodiversity and its overall environmental, social and economic sustainability. Instead of addressing this action through development of a significant tree register, which would be resource intensive to establish and administer and would only protect selected trees, officers recommend adopting an approach similar to the one used by some Eastern States local governments, notably the City of Sydney. This approach uses the local planning scheme (or equivalent) to specify that the removal of any tree requires prior planning approval, unless certain criteria are met (such as the tree being smaller than a specified size, or being in a dangerous condition). A planning policy is then used to guide the assessment of applications to remove trees in cases where approval is required. If Council supports the alternative tree protection approach officers recommend the formal initiation of a standard amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to delete permitted development provisions for tree removal and reference to the significant tree register. While the Scheme amendment is in progress officers will draft an associated local planning policy to identify circumstances in which trees may be removed without approval, and to guide assessment of applications in cases where approval is required. Key principles to guide the drafting of this policy are suggested in this report for Council’s consideration.


Page 129

BACKGROUND The City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4 or Scheme) currently permits the removal of trees without the need to obtain planning approval from the City unless the tree is identified on a significant tree register (currently clause 8.2 (l)): Removal of trees or vegetation areas except where trees and vegetation areas are identified in the register of significant trees or vegetation areas.

The Scheme also states that the Council may establish and maintain a register of significant trees and vegetation. The purpose of such a register is to enable the City to protect trees and vegetation on private land deemed to be ‘significant’ from removal or development that may impact on the tree’s health or lifespan.

[Currently] 7.6 Conservation of Significant Trees or Vegetation Areas 7.6.1 The Council may establish and maintain a register of significant trees to identify

those trees or vegetation areas within the Scheme area considered worthy of conservation under the provisions of the Scheme, together with a description of each tree or vegetation area and the reasons for its entry.

7.6.2 In considering a proposal to include a place on the register of significant trees, the

Council shall—

(a) notify in writing the owner and occupier of the place where the tree is located and provide them with a copy of the description referred to in clause 7.6.1 and the reasons for the proposed entry,

(b) invite submissions on the proposal from the owner and occupier of the place within 21 days of the date specified in the notice,

(c) carry out such other consultations as it thinks fit, and

(d) consider any submissions made and resolve to enter the place on the register of significant trees with or without modification or reject the proposal after consideration of the submissions.

The City currently has a scheme amendment (No. 67) awaiting final approval from the Minister for Planning. This amendment is to bring LPS4 into conformity with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) by deleting scheme provisions which are inconsistent with the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations, and moving other provisions of LPS4 which are supplemental to the Deemed Provisions into a new schedule titled ‘Schedule A - Supplemental Provisions to the Deemed Provisions’. The scheme clauses quoted above are amongst those that will be moved into the new ‘Schedule A’ under Amendment No. 67. Final approval of this amendment by the Minister is expected to occur by the end of September 2016.

In June 2012 Council resolved to call for community nominations of trees for possible inclusion on a significant tree register. In consideration of the six nominations received, Council resolved in June 2013 (item PSC1306-82) to:

1. Note the nominations but take no further action with regards to their inclusion on the register, on the grounds that none of the nominated trees were considered to be of sufficient significance to merit listing.


Page 130

2. To adopt the trees already included in Heritage List under clause 7.1 of Local

Planning Scheme No. 4 onto a Register of Significant Tree and Vegetation Areas.

3. That further research be undertaken into the ability of Council to encourage the conservation of and or regulation of removal of significant trees and this be presented back to Council.

In December 2015 Council adopted a new strategy for ‘greening’ Fremantle (currently titled Green Plan 2020), based on work carried out by the Green Plan Working Group in 2014-15 which included research into regulatory and voluntary approaches to tree preservation as referred to in item (3) of Council’s June 2013 resolution. The adopted Green Plan includes implementation actions relating to the retention and management of trees on private property. STATUTORY AND POLICY REQUIREMENTS In October 2015 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) came into effect. The Regulations specify the process for making amendments to local planning schemes, including a requirement to classify an amendment as basic, standard or complex. The Deemed Provisions section of the Regulations sets out provisions which are automatically read as part of every local planning scheme. Clause 60 of the Deemed Provisions states: A person must not commence or carry out any works on, or use, land in the Scheme area unless –

(a) the person has obtained the development approval of the local government under Part 8; or

(b) the development is of a type referred to in clause 61.

Clause 61(1) (i) of the Deemed Provisions enables a local government to specify in a local planning policy types of works that may be carried out without requiring development approval. ‘Works’ is defined in the Deemed Provisions as meaning –

(a) any demolition, erection, construction, alteration of or addition to any building or structure on the land; and

(b) the carrying out on the land of any excavation or other works; and (c) in the case of a place to which a Conservation Order made under the Heritage of

Western Australia Act 1990 section 59 applies, any act or thing that - (i) is likely to damage the character of that place or the external

appearance of any building; or (ii) would constitute an irreversible alteration to the fabric of any

building. Officers consider the interpretation of ‘other works’ on land as referred to in part (b) of the above definition include the felling of a tree.


Page 131

PLANNING COMMENT

Trees located on private land contribute to a city’s overall ‘urban forest’ and canopy cover. A thriving urban forest can improve the health and wellbeing of a city’s residents through cleaner air, filtered stormwater, lower urban heat island temperatures and space for relaxation and contact with nature. Trees and vegetation also increase the flora and fauna biodiversity of an area and soften and beautify private areas and streets. Overall, a city’s urban forest plays a vital role in the area’s environmental, social and economic sustainability. In general trees are removed from private property when they have come to the end of their lifespan, for safety or property maintenance reasons, or to make room for new development. In suburban areas of the City of Fremantle, for example Hilton, this is mostly seen where a lot is subdivided into two and the former backyard trees are removed to make way for a new dwelling on the lot. The removal of mature trees and other vegetation from private property, particularly the clearance of newly subdivided lots, often generates local community concern and requests for local government action to prevent or limit vegetation loss. At the same time it needs to be recognised that individual property owners have expectations that they should be able to manage their garden and/or develop their property without excessive restrictions. Developing a planning regime which strikes a proportionate balance between these two interests is a significant challenge for planning authorities. To date, the City’s approach (in common with most other Western Australian local governments) has been to provide a general exemption under the local planning scheme from a requirement to obtain planning approval to remove trees or vegetation, unless a tree is included on a significant tree register established under the scheme (see Background section above). Since Council’s resolution of June 2013 regarding significant trees, further work carried out by officers and the Green Plan Working Group has highlighted two shortcomings with a regulatory approach that relies on use of a significant tree register:

The limited scope of planning control provided – by definition, only trees identified as ‘significant’ and included on the register are protected against removal without specific development approval.

The resource implications of administering a significant tree register could be substantial, and possibly disproportionate to the number of trees it provides protection for. Significant officer time could be taken up in assessing proposals to include a tree on the register, carrying out consultation on such proposals (which is a requirement under current clause 7.6.2 of LPS4), and assessing the aboricultural value of a tree as part of the process of determining whether it merits inclusion on the register. The third issue could involve requiring specialist consultant advice with associated costs to the City.

Accordingly officers have considered other regulatory approaches which do not rely on use of a significant tree register. It is recommended that an approach based on one used by local governments in the eastern states and overseas would be more effective and should be adopted in Fremantle. This approach uses the equivalent statutory instrument to the local planning scheme under the WA planning system to specify that the removal of any tree requires prior planning approval, unless certain criteria are met (such as the


Page 132

tree being smaller than a specified size, or being in a dangerous condition). For example in the City of Sydney approval is required to cut down or prune any tree unless:

The tree is less than 5m high, or has a canopy spread of less than 5m or a trunk diameter less than 300mm;

The tree is in a dangerous state and is a risk to human life or property;

The tree is of a prescribed species that is invasive or noxious.

The tree’s removal forms part of an overall development proposal which has been approved.

Within Western Australia, the City of Mandurah’s current local planning scheme includes clauses that apply this form of control, with some variations. Officers consider this approach offers the following benefits:

It provides protection through the planning system to a substantially larger number of trees without the need for a ‘listing’ process for each individual tree;

It would be less cumbersome and resource intensive to administer than a significant tree register, as it follows the development control and approval process already used for other types of development and works under the Scheme (although the assessment of applications for approval to remove trees would of course create some additional workload);

It offers a form of control that is probably more easily understood by the community, and may be perceived as more equitable than the significant tree register approach under which an individual property owner may feel they are being ‘singled out’ through the registration of trees on their property.

It should be recognised however that this approach may be perceived by property owners as an additional level of bureaucratic control over their rights to manage and change their property. Tree protection rules have been controversial in other localities and there is a risk of a significant level of opposition to the proposed introduction of this form of control. If Council supports the recommended approach it will important to clearly explain the reasons for the changes to the current planning controls over trees, and the implications of their introduction, as part of a clear media and community engagement process on the proposed changes. Officers recommend that this approach should be implemented through two related actions as follows:

1. Initiation of an amendment to LPS4 to delete current references to permitted development entitlements for tree removal and the significant tree register provisions; and

2. Preparation and adoption of a Local Planning Policy to specify circumstances in which development approval will not be required to remove a tree, and to provide guidance on the assessment of applications for approval to remove a tree in cases where approval is required.

These actions are described in more detail below.


Page 133

Proposed Scheme amendment No. 71

The permitted development provisions in the City’s Scheme currently allow for all trees to be removed without development approval, except where a tree is on the significant tree register. The recommended scheme amendment would have two elements:

1. Delete the permitted development provisions of the Scheme (currently clause 8.2 (l) which provide an exemption from requiring approval to remove trees or vegetation, unless a tree is included on a significant tree register.

2. Delete the significant tree register provisions of the Scheme (currently part 7.6).

The recommended alternative tree protection approach makes the purpose of a significant tree register redundant.

Local Planning Policy

To overcome the need for development approval to be obtained for the removal of trees and/or other vegetation in all circumstances as a consequence of the proposed scheme amendment, it is recommended that a new set of exemptions from development approval should be introduced based on criteria which are already in use and have a level of community acceptance in other jurisdictions. The City of Sydney’s framework is considered to be best practice for tree protection and officers suggest that exemption provisions for Fremantle should be based on similar criteria, tailored to the local context. Since the introduction of the Deemed Provisions under the 2015 Planning Regulations it is possible to specify types of works that may be carried out without development approval in a local planning policy, rather than within the local planning scheme (see Statutory and Policy requirements above). This offers benefits in terms of a quicker, simpler process for preparation, consultation and adoption of the policy, particularly because it only requires approval by the Council rather than by the WA Planning Commission and Minister for Planning as in the case of scheme amendments. For the same reasons it is also easier and quicker to make amendments to a local planning policy after its initial adoption if experience of operating the policy suggests that changes are required. Officers have not fully considered the content of the policy at this stage, but have formed a preliminary view on the scope of matters the policy should address, and general principles the policy should be based upon. As stated above, these have been informed by the City of Sydney’s policy framework. Subject to Council’s general support for the policy outline recommended below, officers can continue to draft the policy for further consideration by Council during the time the City is waiting to receive clearance to advertise the scheme amendment following assessment by the Environmental Protection Authority (typically this takes approximately two months). Ideally the scheme amendment and draft local planning policy could then be concurrently advertised for public comment. At this stage officers suggest the policy should contain the following main elements: Part 1. Exemption from requiring planning approval Part one would provide the criteria or circumstances under which it would not be necessary for a person to obtain development approval in order to remove a tree (which could potentially also apply to the carrying out of certain other works to a tree such as


Page 134

lopping, pruning). As in the case of other types of development permitted without planning approval, the onus would be on the property owner to ensure the requirements to enable the works to take place without development approval are met. However City staff could provide guidance on request. Based on the criteria used in other jurisdictions, officers suggest that tree works would not require approval if any one of the following criteria is met. These criteria are intended to be easily understood to assist property owners in self-assessing whether or not development approval will be required for particular works.

1. Height and girth requirement

Approval is not required if a tree: (a) has a height of less than 5m; or (b) has a canopy spread of less than 5m; or (c) has a trunk circumference of less than 950mm, measured at ground level.

Note: The City of Sydney controls specify a trunk diameter of 300mm – a circumference of 950mm is equivalent to this diameter. Officers consider it is probably easier for a property owner to measure the circumference than the diameter of a tree trunk.

2. Tree is dead or imminently dangerous

The City of Sydney’s planning documents apply the following definition of ‘imminently dangerous’: Imminently dangerous includes but is not restricted to obvious instability of the root system, evidence of soil heave or cracking, loss of structural roots, root decay, storm damage and structural defects that are imminently hazardous, such as splitting branches.

A matter for further consideration is whether or not a property owner removing a tree on this basis should be required to record (e.g. photograph) and if necessary provide evidence to the local government of the tree’s condition immediately prior to felling, to assist in avoiding potential compliance issues. The City of Sydney’s provisions on this issue include the following requirements: To satisfy Council that the tree is dead, dying or a risk to human life or property, the applicant is to: (a) record the tree’s condition; identify the risk a tree may pose; and provide a statement that verifies that the works undertaken will be or were the minimum necessary to manage the risk; and (b) provide a report to the City from a qualified arborist (Minimum AQF Level 3 Arboriculture) prior to works taking place, or immediately following the works.

3. Trees of a species considered to be a nuisance or noxious

In other jurisdictions approval is not required to remove a tree of a species that is considered invasive or noxious, and likely to threaten native flora and fauna. A list of relevant species is typically included in the relevant planning document. Officers recommend that the draft local planning policy should include a similar list based on local


Page 135

WA environmental considerations. If Council supports this in principle, guidance will be sought from the City’s Parks and Landscapes team in drafting the list of relevant species.

4. Removal of tree(s) as part of other development works which have already been granted development approval.

In circumstances where removal of a tree is explicitly part of other development works (i.e. is shown on the submitted application plans) and approval has been granted for the development as a whole it would be unnecessary to submit a separate application for approval to remove the tree prior to commencing the development.

5. Works to trees other than felling – e.g. lopping, topping, pruning.

In addition to complete removal of a tree, works to trees such as lopping or pruning would also be exempt from requiring development approval if the tree meets one of the above criteria. However further consideration could be given to the exemption of some other works – for example minor thinning of the canopy of large trees, or selective removal of branches to maintain safe clearances from overhead power lines, footpaths or roads. The City of Sydney’s controls include such provisions and it is recommended that these should be examined in more detail in consultation with the City’s Parks and Landscape team and used as the basis for exemption provisions in the completed draft policy. Part 2. Planning approval required – assessment of applications The second main issue the policy should address is the approach to dealing with proposed works to trees which are not exempt from requiring approval under part 1, and therefore need to be the subject of an application for development approval to be determined by the City. To provide as much certainty as possible to applicants, and to minimise the time and resource requirements for both applicants and the City in dealing with applications, it is recommended that track-based approach should be adopted. This would be based on the concept of dividing applications into different categories with different assessment approaches – a ‘fast track’ category of applications where the proposed works conform with criteria identified in the policy, and as a result there will be a very strong presumption in favour of approval with minimal assessment; and applications which do not meet the ‘fast track’ criteria which will be the subject of a more detailed merits-based assessment. ‘Fast track’ category applications could be assessed on a similar basis to the Deemed-to-Comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes, with approval virtually guaranteed if one or more pre-defined criteria set out in the policy are met. The following criteria are suggested for this purpose:

1. Although not imminently dangerous, the tree is likely to cause damage to infrastructure, services or buildings, and/or presents a health and safety risk.


Page 136

As the height, canopy and root system of a tree increases it may eventually extend into such close proximity to buildings or services that a significant risk of damage or injury to people is created. Officers notionally propose the following: Tree removal is permissible where the tree roots and/or branches are likely to cause damage or injury to –

water, stormwater, power, gas, telecommunications or sewer lines; or

the structural integrity of a building; or

the safe and efficient operation of an existing public road, private road, right-of-way, or formed accessway, or the integrity of a base course of an existing public road, private road, right-of-way, or formed vehicle accessway; or

the health and safety of a person/s. In these circumstances applications could be required to be supported by professional statements from appropriately qualified people such as arborists or engineers regarding the extent of the damage that is occurring or is likely to occur if the tree is not removed, and why other risk mitigation measures are not applicable. 2. Trees in in poor health

While a tree may not be imminently dangerous it could be in poor health with a low chance of survival. In these instances it would be reasonable to allow tree removal. As in the case of (1) above, approval of an application on these grounds might only be granted where a qualified arborist’s report confirming the condition of the tree has been submitted.

3. Location of tree on a development site would preclude development

There will be instances where the location of a tree would preclude building on a site with development potential. For example, where a tree is centrally located on a lot created by an already approved subdivision and it is not reasonably feasible to design a building around retention of the tree. Other applications requiring merit based assessment - there are likely to be instances where an application is submitted proposing removal of a tree where none of the circumstances above apply, and therefore the application needs to be determined on the individual merits of the case. Obviously all possible circumstances cannot be anticipated, but it would be helpful for the policy to provide some general guidance on the approach to dealing with this category of application. The preliminary view of officers at this stage is that the policy could include a general indication of factors that would be taken into consideration in determining this type of application, such as an assessment of the current health, condition and structure of the tree, its amenity value and cultural significance (if any). It is also suggested that the policy should include guidance regarding replacement planting requirements that in some cases might be a condition of approval of an application to remove a tree.


Page 137

Next Steps Subject to Council’s support for the recommendations in this report, the following action would occur:

1. Formal commencement of the scheme amendment process in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The proposed amendment No. 71 is considered to be a standard amendment under the Regulations for the following reasons:

The amendment does not result in any significant environmental, social, or governance impacts on land in the scheme area; and

The amendment is not a complex or basic amendment.

The standard amendment would require a 42 day public comment period, which could not commence until the City receives confirmation from the Environmental Protection Authority that an environmental assessment of the amendment is not required.

2. Officers would prepare a full draft of the local planning policy for Council’s further

consideration. Officers would aim to present this report in time for community consultation on the draft policy (following Council approval) to occur concurrently with consultation on the scheme amendment.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The recommended scheme amendment and policy is linked to Focus Area 4: Urban Forest in the Green Plan 2020, which seeks to manage and develop the urban forest of the city in an integrated way across the public and private realm of the City. CONCLUSION Officers recommend the initiation of a standard amendment to LPS4 to delete the current permitted development provisions for tree removal and reference to the significant tree register. While the scheme amendment is in progress it is recommended that officers draft an associated local planning policy to allow for some tree removal without development approval, and to provide guidance on the assessment of applications for tree works in circumstances where approval is required, based on the principles outlined in this report. Officers consider this alternative approach to tree protection through the planning framework would offer a more effective means of safeguarding the city’s urban forest canopy whilst also respecting the reasonable expectations of private land owners to carry out works on their property.


1. That Council resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and regulation 35(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, to prepare the following amendment to City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4.


Page 138

In Council’s opinion, the Amendment is a standard amendment for the following reasons:

it is an amendment that does not result in any significant environmental, social, or governance impacts on land in the scheme area; and

it is not a complex or basic amendment.

Delete the following provisions: 8.2 (l) Removal of trees or vegetation areas except where trees and vegetation areas are identified in the register of significant trees or vegetation areas. 7.6 Conservation of Significant Trees or Vegetation Areas 7.6.1 The Council may establish and maintain a register of significant trees

to identify those trees or vegetation areas within the Scheme area considered worthy of conservation under the provisions of the Scheme, together with a description of each tree or vegetation area and the reasons for its entry.

7.6.2 In considering a proposal to include a place on the register of

significant trees, the Council shall—

(a) notify in writing the owner and occupier of the place where the tree is located and provide them with a copy of the description referred to in clause 7.6.1 and the reasons for the proposed entry,

(b) invite submissions on the proposal from the owner and occupier of the place within 21 days of the date specified in the notice,

(c) carry out such other consultations as it thinks fit, and

(d) consider any submissions made and resolve to enter the place on the register of significant trees with or without modification or reject the proposal after consideration of the submissions.

2. As provided for under clause 61(1) (i) of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule

2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Council authorises officers to prepare a draft local planning policy, for further consideration at the next appropriate meeting of the Planning Committee, which specifies circumstances in which development approval would not be required for works to trees in the City of Fremantle and also provides guidance on the assessment and determination of applications for works to trees which do require development approval. The draft policy should be based on the following principles: (a) The circumstances in which development approval will not be required

for felling or other works to trees should include:

i. Trees smaller than a specified height, canopy spread or trunk circumference;

ii. Trees that are dead or imminently dangerous; iii. Trees of a species included on a prescribed list which are

considered to be a nuisance or noxious;


Page 139

iv. Removal of trees as part of other development works which have already been granted development approval;

v. Works other than felling of trees (e.g. pruning, lopping) in specified circumstances.

(b) Guidance on the assessment of applications for development approval

for works to trees should provide for a ‘fast track’ assessment process for applications where the proposed works conform to criteria identified in the policy and as a result there will be a very strong presumption in favour of approval with minimal assessment. Provisional criteria for this purpose should include:

i. Trees which are likely to cause damage to infrastructure,

services or buildings, and/or present a health and safety risk; ii. Trees in poor health; iii. Where the location of a tree would preclude development in

circumstances where there is a reasonable expectation that some development should occur, for example where a tree is centrally located on a lot created by an already approved subdivision and it is not feasible to design a building around retention of the tree.

(c) Applications which cannot be assessed on a ‘fast track’ basis as referred to in (b) above will be assessed on their individual merits, having regard to factors including the current health, condition and structure of the tree, its amenity value and cultural significance (if any).

(d) The policy should include guidance on replacement planting requirements that may be a condition of approval to remove a tree in some cases.


Page 140

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.


Page 141

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

The Council adopted a Community Engagement Policy in December 2010 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1. The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2. The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3. The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4. These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5. The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.

All input is of equal value 6. No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7. Local Government in WA is a representative democracy. Elected Members and the CEO are charged under the Local Government Act with the responsibility to make decisions based on fact and the merits of the issue without fear or favour and are accountable for their actions and decisions under law. Elected Members are accountable to the people via periodic elections. As it is a representative democracy, decisions may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or


Page 142


limitations associated with the issue.

Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8. The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9. The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10. City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11. The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.


Page 143


Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12. As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.

Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13. The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14. In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15. Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16. Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


Page 144

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has

been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government

and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing,

detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

agenda - city of fremantle pc agenda.pdfcity of fremantle notice of a planning committee meeting...

Documents