agenda master psc 3 21 august 2013 - city of fremantle

MINUTES

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 1

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 1

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 1

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 2

LATE ITEMS NOTED 2

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 2

TABLED DOCUMENTS 3

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 3

PSC1308-114 SOLOMON STEEET NO 95 (LOT 1) FREMANTLE - THREE STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA289/13) 3

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 7

PSC1308-115 ZETA CRESCENT NO 25 (LOT 1), O'CONNOR - MODIFICATION TO PREVIOUSLY GRANTED PLANNING CONDITION FOR A USE NOT LISTED (DOG DAY CARE) - (AA DA0270/13) 7

PSC1308-116 ASHBURTON TERRACE NO. 8B (LOT 89), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0200/13) 15

PSC1308-117 HINES ROAD NO. 44 (LOT 2) HILTON - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE - HOUSE (AD DA0197/13) 22

PSC1308-118 HOPE STREET NO 11A (LOT 902) WHITE GUM VALLEY - SINGLE STOREY (WITH LOFT) SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0272/13) 29

PSC1308-119 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) - 21 AUGUST 2013 35

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 36

PSC1308-121 DEVELOPMENT AREA 12 - FORMER KIM BEAZLEY SCHOOL SITE LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAN - ADVERTISING OF STRUCTURE PLAN 36

PSC1308-120 PRINCIPLES OF A POLICY/SCHEME AMENDMENT DEALING WITH LICENSED PREMISES 41

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 53

CLOSURE OF MEETING 53

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Planning Services Committee 21 August 2013

Page 1

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Planning Services Committee held in the Council Chambers, Fremantle City Council

on 21 August 2013 at 6.00 pm. DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 6.01 pm. 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." IN ATTENDANCE Cr Robert Fittock Deputy Presiding Member / North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward (entered at 6.09pm) Cr Andrew Sullivan Presiding Member / South Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward Cr Bill Massie Hilton Ward Cr Josh Wilson Beaconsfield Ward Mr Philip St John Director Planning and Development Services Ms Natalie Martin Goode Manager Statutory Planning Mr Paul Garbett Manager Planning Projects and Policy Mrs Michelle Gibson Minute Secretary There were approximately 7 members of the public and 0 member/s of the press in attendance. APOLOGIES Brad Pettitt Mayor LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE Nil


Page 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Nil DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1308-114: Michael Willicombe The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1308-115: Lisa Horn Annette Milne DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS Nil LATE ITEMS NOTED Nil CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 7 August 2013 as listed in the Council Agenda dated 28 August 2013 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 3

TABLED DOCUMENTS Nil DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register PSC1308-114 SOLOMON STEEET NO 95 (LOT 1) FREMANTLE - THREE STOREY

GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA289/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 August 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee (PSC) Previous Item Number/s: PSC 0610-197 (15 November 2006) PSC 0701-38 (24 January 2007) PSC 0811-310 (19 November 2009) PSC1308-110 (7 August 2013) Attachment 1: 7 August 20103 PSC report that includes development

plans and site photos Date Received: 21 June 2013 Owner Name: Casey Gilbert Submitted by: Michael Willicombe Scheme: Residential (R30) Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 7 August 2013 PSC considered the application for a three storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 95 Solomon Street, Fremantle and resolved to defer the matter in order for privacy conditions to be revised and for the applicant to obtain a letter of no objection from the adjoining western landowner. Planning staff and the applicant have agreed on the wording of the privacy condition and the applicant has agreed to provide a letter of no objection from the western landowner. At the time of finalising this report the letter of no objection from the western landowner had not been received. The applicant however has advised that he is likely to obtain this letter prior to the PSC meeting and therefore the letter will be circulated under separate cover. On this basis the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

See attachment 1 for relevant background. DETAIL

The application proposes a three (3) storey Grouped Dwelling with the following features:

• Double garage: and Lower Ground Floor

• Store/studio.

• Eastern and Western facing verandahs; Upper Ground Floor

• 2x bedrooms; • Bathroom; • Family room; and • Study.

• Eastern and western facing balconies; First Floor

• Living area; • Kitchen; • Bedroom; and • Bathroom.

Refer to attachment 1 for development plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

See attachment 1.


Page 5

CONSULTATION

See attachment 1. PLANNING COMMENT

The proposal incorporates the following discretions Element Required Provided Discretion Primary Street Setback

10m 7.8m 1.2m

Boundary Setbacks South

2.8m 1m 1.8m

Building Height

Wall height – 6m Roof pitch – 9m

6.5 -8m 10-11.5m

0.5 -2m 1-2.5m

Visual Privacy

North • Verandahs (Upper

ground floor and first floor) – 7m

• Kitchen (First floor) –

6m

• Setback 4.5m, no

screening provided

• Setback 1.2m, no screening provided, below 1.6m sill height

2.5 m 4.8m

South Verandahs (Upper ground floor and first floor) – 7m

Setback 5m, no screening provided

2 m

West Verandahs (Upper ground floor and first floor) – 7m

Setback 2.6m, no screening provided

4.4 m

The majority of these variations were supported at officer level with the exception of the privacy variations (refer to attachment 1 for further detail). As PSC supported the privacy discretions except for the rear south facing balconies which are shown as being screened on the plans, the recommendation has been adjusted accordingly in consultation with the applicant.


Page 6

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Three Storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 95 (Lot 1) Solomon Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 21 June 2013. 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 2 verandahs on the western side of the dwelling shall have fixed vertical screening on their southern sides, as marked on the approved plans with openings not wider than 5cm and with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above the floor level in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.2 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 7

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 Cr R Pemberton arrived at 6.09 pm prior to consideration of the following item. PSC1308-115 ZETA CRESCENT NO 25 (LOT 1), O'CONNOR - MODIFICATION TO

PREVIOUSLY GRANTED PLANNING CONDITION FOR A USE NOT LISTED (DOG DAY CARE) - (AA DA0270/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 17 July 2013 Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Development Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development Plans Date Received: 11 June 2013 Owner Name: JC Midolo Submitted by: Wagz Daycare Scheme: Industry Heritage Listing: Not Listed Existing Landuse: Use Not Listed (Dog Day Care) Use Class: Use Not Listed (Dog Day Care) Use Permissibility: N/A


Page 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 27 June 2011 the City granted planning approval for a ‘Partial Change of Use to a Use Not Listed (Dog Day Care)’ for the subject land. The approval included a condition limiting the number of animals kept on-site to a maximum of 20. The application seeks fresh planning approval for this limit to be increased to 30 animals. As the land use already exists at the land, this application is not considered a variation to this planning approval, but rather an application for a fresh, additional approval. Therefore, any decision made by the City in respect to this application does not impact on the ability to continue operating the existing ‘Dog Day Care’. The City has previously received noise complaints for surrounding landowners regarding the operation of the subject site. As a result, noise measurements were taken and form part of the consideration of the proposal. The noise measurements indicate that the current operations either exceed or are near to the stated limits and it is therefore likely that an increase in capacity will result in future non-compliance. The application is therefore recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned Industry under the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’) and is located within the O’Connor Local Planning Area. The subject site contains two (2) industrial strata units of which one is currently occupied by a Dog Day Care; being the subject of this application. The subject site is located on the southern side of Zeta Crescent and has a site area of approximately 1,034m2. The subject site is within the portion of Zeta Crescent bound by Hines Road to the east, Carrington Street to the west and Clarke Street to the south. On 21 December 2011, the City granted planning approval for a ‘Partial Change of Use to Use Not Listed (Dog Day Care)’ (DA0299/11). This approval related to the subject site and included the following condition;

‘2. No more than 20 animals are to be kept on site at any one time, unless the further approval of Council is granted.’

On 1 November 2012, the City received a complaint relating to noise emanating from the subject site. After further investigation by City officers, correspondence was sent to the operators of the subject site advising of the noise issue and reminding the operators of the need to comply with the stated maximum noise levels under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations. On 2 April 2013, the City granted a ‘Licence to Keep an Approved Kennel Establishment’ for the operations known as ‘Wagz Daycare’. This license included a limitation on trading hours, being 7am-6pm Monday to Friday and a maximum limitation of 20 dogs; consistent with planning approval DA0299/11.


Page 9

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for the same dog day care land use previously granted by the City but also seeks a fresh approval that includes the use of the premises by up to 30 animals. No other built-form changes or modification are proposed. In a letter received by the City on 12 August 2013, the Applicant notes the following changes that have recently been made to the operations of the subject site;

• Employment of a casual employee with dog handling training to help at closing time increasing the ratio of people to dogs;

• Installation of a silent, vibrating doorbell; • Requirement for certain customers to provide barking collars for their animals

while present at the subject site; • Installation of an ultra sonic sound device which emits a high frequency sound and

high pressure air spray to discourage barking; • Commencement of training and correction to encourage quiet interaction between

the dogs; • Purchase of citronella collars for the dogs to wear (after gaining permission from

owners); • Consultation undertaken with Dr Garth Jennins and Steve Austin, two of the most

respected and experienced animal behaviourists in Australia; and, • When applicable, turned away certain animals where no positive response to the

above changes occurs. Consideration of these additional measures made by the Applicant is made further in this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within LPS4 and Council Local Planning Policies. The proposal includes the following discretionary decisions;

• Objectives of the Industrial Zone;

Further discussion of the discretionary decisions is contained in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Environmental Health The application was referred to the City’s Environmental Health department on the basis of previous complaints received relating to the use of the subject land. The City’s Environmental Health staff undertook three site inspections in which noise output levels were measured. The noise measurements were taken at the following times;


Page 10

• (1) 3:54pm, 8 April 2013 – 12:33pm 9 April 2013 (duration 2 hours and 38 minutes);

• (2)1:22pm - 4:41pm on 12 June 2013 (3 hours and 19 minutes); and, • (3) 2:20pm – 4:14pm on 8 July 2013 (1 hour 54 minutes).

The measured noise output levels were as follows; L10 L1 Lmax Permitted level dBa 65 80 90 Measurement 1 (adjusted) level.

74.3 (+9.3) 81.4 (+1.4) 90.9 (+0.9)

Measurement 2 (adjusted) level

76.2 (+11.2) 89.7 (+9.7) 93.8 (+3.8)

Measurement 3 (adjusted) level

63.5 (-1.5) 68.6 (-11.4) 79 (-11)

The comments received from the Environmental Health department are summarised as follows;

• All noise reading were taken at the rear adjoining building at No. 5 Hines Road, O’Connor;

• A roller door at the premises was open during the first two noise readings but closed during the third reading;

• Discussions with the Applicant indicated that a number of changes to the management of animals kept on-site were made between the second and third readings; and,

• The closing of the roller door appears to reduce the noise output below the stated level. However, the door is not going to be permanently closed so the measurements may not be representative of future level and do not represent a worst case scenario.

It is understood that the operational changes specified by the Applicant (as listed in the ‘Details’ section of this report) were made between the second and third measurements. In addition to the above, the following comments were made;

‘Though Wags have made changes and appear to be making an effort to control the impact that their business has on some neighbours I am not confident that noise associated with the business would comply with the noise regulations at all times. I would recommend that Wags engage a qualified acoustic consultant to make recommendations to control the reverberation and impulsive nature of the noise and implement the recommendations to ensure that the business minimises the impact on neighbours.’

Further consideration of these comments is made in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.


Page 11

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 10 July 2013, the City had received 7 submissions, including 4 objections. The following issues were raised:

Noise: The noise coming from the premises is varied but can be unbearable and negatively impacts on the operation of surrounding business. There is no attenuation inside the structure to reduce the impact on noise. The current noise seems to exceed the stated levels and it is unlikely that any expansion will be any better. Land Use: The land use is not suited to an industrial area and should be located away from sensitive businesses. The noise levels impact on the ability for some businesses to operate, particularly when communicating with customers. Scale: Concern is raised, given that the premises were not designed and built for this type of use, as to whether the expanded operations will impact on the health, parking and odour output from the premises.

PLANNING COMMENT

Objectives of the Industrial Zone

Required Provided Discretion Sought Meets the objectives of the

Industrial Zone & other considerations of LPS4

Increase in the number of animals kept at the existing

premises

See comments

Clause 10.2 of LPS4 sets out the matters to be considered by the Council when determining planning applications. The relevant provisions are stated below;

‘The Council in considering an application for planning approval shall have due regard and may attach conditions relating to these, but not limited to, such of the following matters as are in the opinion of the Council relevant to the use or development subject of the application –

(a) the aims, zoning, objectives and provisions of this scheme and any other relevant planning Scheme(s) operating within the Scheme area, including the Metropolitan Region Scheme, (b) the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any relevant proposed new local planning Scheme or amendment, or region Scheme or amendment, which has been granted consent for public submissions to be sought; (o) the preservation of the amenity of the locality; (p) the intensity and nature of the proposed use, including its environmental impact by way of emissions, illumination and hours of operation;


Page 12

(zh) the comments or submissions received from any authority consulted under clause 10.1.1; (zj) any other planning considerations.’

As outlined earlier in this report, the current operations of the subject site have exceeded the stated noise requirements on two of the three occasions measured. Compliance with the stated levels was achieved during the third reading though it was noted that the rear roller door at the premises was closed. It appears that the current operations can only comply with the noise regulations when the existing rear roller door remains closed. In periods when the door is open, the operations are almost certainly going to exceed to maximum noise levels. Even with the door closed, the noise output of the site remains relatively close to the maximum permitted levels and as per the advice of the City’s Environmental Health department, it is within reason that an increase in capacity will result in non-compliance with the noise regulations even with the roller door in question being closed. Having regard to the above, the discretionary decision is not supported for the following reasons;

• It is highly likely that the expanded operations of the land will exceed the relevant noise limits. This situation is considered to be inconsistent with clause 10.2(p) of LPS4; and,

• On the basis of submissions received, there is considered to be a considerable impact on the enjoyment and operation of surrounding sites (though, this varies from site to site), thereby being inconsistent with clause 10.2(o) of LPS4.

The operational changes made by the Applicant (as described in the ‘Details’ section of this report) appear to have reduced the noise output of the current operations. However on the basis of the advice received from the City’s Environmental Health department, it is likely that, notwithstanding the changes, an expanded operation would from time to time exceed the stated levels. It is considered that while the operational changes assist in bringing the current operations into compliance, they rely heavily on the expertise of management and particular animals; the changes, while supported, do not represent long term solutions to noise abatement. Having regard to the above, the application is recommended for refusal. Given the degree of existing non-compliance with the noise regulations, approval on a temporary basis is not recommended.


Page 13

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Modification to Previously Granted Planning Condition for a Use Not Listed (Dog Day Care) at No. 25 (Lot 1) Zeta Crescent, O’Connor, as detailed on plans dated 11 June 2013, for the following reason: 1. The proposal is inappropriate having regard to the purposes for which the land is

zoned and Clause 10.2 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme 4 in so far as;

i. The greater number of animals kept on the premises is likely to lead to non-compliance with the Environmental (Noise) Protection Regulations thereby impacting on the amenity of surrounding properties pursuant to clause 10.2 (o) and (p) of LPS4.

LOST: 0/6 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 14

Cr R Fittock MOVED the following alternative recommendation: COMMITTEE DECISION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Modification to Previously Granted Planning Condition for a Use Not Listed (Dog Day Care) at No. 25 (Lot 1) Zeta Crescent, O’Connor, as detailed on plans dated 11 June 2013, subject to the following conditions;

1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with development plans and attached information dated 11 June 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. No more than 30 animals are to be kept on site at any one time.

3. The rubbish bins are to be stored internally and collected every day before the end of business, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to commencement of this approval, the applicant shall submit to the City of Fremantle for approval details of noise attenuation measures, including a qualified Noise Consultants report confirming compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and carry out to practical completion any internal and external design measures proposed to address sound attenuation, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

CARRIED 6/0 For Against Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 15

PSC1308-116 ASHBURTON TERRACE NO. 8B (LOT 89), FREMANTLE - TWO

STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0200/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 August 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC0802 (PSC meeting of 6 February 2008) Attachments: Development Plans (as amended) Photos from site inspection (12 August 2013) Date Received: 2 May 2013

7 August 2013 (amended plans) Owner Name: Graeme Michael Rattigan Submitted by: Oswald Homes Pty Ltd t/a Residential Attitudes Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: Not individually listed Existing Landuse: Lot currently vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a two storey Single House at No. 8B (Lot 89) Ashburton Terrace, Fremantle. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies, with exception of the following: • Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy The applicant is pursuing discretionary decisions in relation to ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) pertaining to the following: • Lot boundary setback; • Boundary Walls • Building height; • Garage width; • Site works; and • Visual privacy. The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant design principles of the R-Codes and accordingly, the application is recommended for approval on balance, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the City’s LPS4 with a split density coding of R30 and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area 4 (LPA 4) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Ashburton Terrace to the west, Wray Avenue to the south and Solomon Street to the east. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List; nor is it located within a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 378m2 and is located on the eastern side of Ashburton Terrace. In terms of topography, the site slopes by approximately 2.90 metres from its rear down to its frontage with Ashburton Terrace. The site is currently vacant.


Page 17

A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and/or to this application: • On 8 October 2007, the WAPC granted conditional approval for the three (3) lot green

title (freehold) subdivision of No’s. 8 & 10 (Lots 35 & 36) Ashburton Terrace, Fremantle (refer DA135364; WAPC135364);

• At its meeting of 6 February 2008, the PSC resolved to grant conditional Planning Approval for the demolition of two Single Houses and construction of three (3) two storey Grouped Dwellings with undercroft garage at No’s. 8 & 10 (Lots 35 & 36) Ashburton Terrace, Fremantle (refer DA558/07); and

• On 18 November 2008, the WAPC endorsed the three (3) lot green title (freehold) subdivision of No’s. 8 & 10 (Lots 35 & 36) Ashburton Terrace, Fremantle (refer DA135364; WAPC135364).

DETAIL

On 2 May 2013, the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a two storey Single House at No. 8B (Lot 89) Ashburton Terrace, Fremantle. On 7 August 2013 the City received amended plans. A copy of the development plans (as amended) is contained as Attachment 1 of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and the City’s LPP1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals, as the applicant is proposing a number of discretionary decisions from the ‘Deemed to Comply’ standards of the R-Codes. At the conclusion of the advertising period, the City did not receive any submissions pertaining to the proposal. It is noted that as part of the initial submission of the application, the applicant provided written evidence of no objection from two adjoining property owners. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Discretions to the prescribed standards sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.

PLANNING COMMENT

R-Codes

Required Lot boundary setback

Proposed Discretion Southern boundary (kitchen, balcony) 2.80m 1.24m 1.56m Northern boundary (free-form living, balcony) 3.10m 1.50m 1.60m


Page 18

The southern boundary setback discretionary decision is supported for the following reasons: • It is not considered to present any significant impacts by way of excessive building

bulk upon the southern adjoining property as its relative mass is broken up by large opening for the balcony as well as an obscured window to the kitchen and alternating render finishes;

• It is considered that it will provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on site and to the southern adjoining property;

• As will be detailed later in this report, in terms of visual privacy, the southern adjoining property is currently vacant and as such the balcony will not overlook any major openings to habitable rooms and/or outdoor living areas as no dwelling presently exists.

The northern boundary setback discretionary decision is supported for the following reasons: • It is not considered to present any significant impacts by way of excessive building

bulk upon the northern adjoining property as its relative mass is broken up by a large opening for the balcony and alternating render finishes;

• It is considered that it will provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on site and to the northern adjoining property;

• As will be detailed later in this report, in terms of visual privacy, the balcony will not overlook any major openings to habitable rooms and/or outdoor living areas of the northern adjoining property.

Required Boundary Walls

Proposed Discretion Southern boundary (entry) – 1.00m 0.00m (nil) 1.00m Southern boundary (bed 2, laundry) – 1.00m 0.00m (nil) 1.00m These discretionary decisions are supported for the following reasons: • It is considered that it makes effective use of the available space on site given the

relatively small size of the site (378m2); • In relation to additional criteria of Council’s LPP2.4, the walls are not considered to

significantly add to any sense of confinement in terms of accumulative building bulk upon the southern adjoining property;

• Overall the proposed southern boundary walls are not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the southern adjoining property, in terms of restricted solar access (as a direct cause), building bulk or loss of visual amenity;

• Written evidence of no objection was received by the owners of the adjoining southern property pertaining to the proposed southern boundary walls;

• Therefore this proposed variation is supported as it is considered to address the relevant ‘design principles’ of Design Element 5.1.3 of the R-Codes and the additional criteria stipulated in Council’s LPP2.4 policy.


Page 19

Building height

Permitted Proposed Discretion Top of external wall (concealed roof) 7.00 m

Between 7.01 m and 7.50 m (northern elevation for approximately 6.55 m in length)

0.01 m to 0.50 m (northern elevation for approximately 6.55 m in length)

This discretion is supported for the following reasons: • The proposal complies with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes

pertaining to overshadowing. It is noted that the southern adjoining property is currently vacant.

• Due to the significant changes in the topography of the subject site, it is considered that the dwelling in its entirety responds appropriately to ‘staggering’ its two storey elements in a manner that seeks to minimise its impact on adjoining properties and as it is viewed from the street.

• It is not considered that the proposal will detrimentally impact the amenity of adjoining properties by way of access to views of significance as the extent of the discretion is limited to 6.55 metres of the northern boundary (18.58% of total length of lot boundary).

• Further, the owners of the northern adjoining property, whom are directly affected by this discretionary decision, provided no objection to the proposal.

Garage width

Permitted Proposed Discretion Garage door and supporting structures not to occupy more than 50% of the lot frontage (i.e. no more than 5.37 m)

7.60 m (70.76%)

2.23 m (20.26%)

This discretion is supported for the following reasons: • It is not considered that the width of the garage door and its supporting structures

significantly compromises the visual connectivity between the dwelling and the streetscape;

• The garage door itself is only 5.10 metres wide, whilst its supporting structures account for the remaining 2.60 metres of its combined width. In this regard, the garage door itself is not considered to significantly impact the streetscape;

• Further, due to the siting and design of the proposed garage, being that it is sunken below the natural ground level of the footpath, its visual dominance and impact of the is ameliorated;

• It is noted that if the balcony extended a further 1.20m over the ground floor entrance, the garage door would be permitted to occupy 60% of the lot frontage.

Site works

Permitted Proposed Discretion 0.5m up to 1.15 m(northern boundary – stairs and

courtyard/landing) Up to 0.65 m

This discretion is supported for the following reasons: • As detailed in the ‘background’ section of this report, the subject site has a

significantly sloping topography, with the site marginally lower on its northern side


Page 20

than it is on its southern side. The proposal includes a significant amount of excavation on the southern elevation, which is offset by the proposed level of fill on the northern boundary. In this regard, it is considered that the level of cut and fill appropriately responds to the natural features of the site and that the proposal is consistent with minimal excavation and fill required given the site features.

• It is considered that as a combination of cut and fill was necessary in this instance, that the proposed finished levels generally respect the natural ground level at the lot boundary of the site, specifically the northern boundary as viewed from the street.

• Further, no objection was received by the owners of the adjoining northern property which is directly affected by this discretionary decision.

Visual privacy

Required Proposed Discretion 4.50m setback for first floor ‘master suite’ (western elevation) to southern adjoining property

2.70m (within 45 degree cone of vision, and behind primary street setback area)

1.80m

This discretion is supported for the following reasons: • The southern adjoining property affected by this discretionary decision is currently

vacant so it cannot be determined as to whether the overlooking discretion will directly impact any future dwellings’ outdoor living area and/or major openings to habitable rooms;

• Further, no objection was received by the owners of the adjoining southern property which is directly affected by this discretionary decision;

• Notwithstanding, if Council was of the opinion to bring this discretionary decision into compliance with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards, it would be recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring compliance with ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes.

Council’s Local Planning Policies Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy LPP2.9 requires a 7.0m front setback for the upper floor not including balconies. Balconies are not included in this measurement as they as usually light weight structures that do not present as the solid building face as viewed from the street. In this instance the proposed front balcony includes some more solid enclosed elements as viewed from the street. This balcony design is the most recent of several amended plans as a result of planning staff concerns about the solid appearance of the balcony. It is considered on balance that this balcony design is of a sufficient light weight appearance to not be included in the front setback measurement.


Page 21

CONCLUSION

The proposed two storey Single House at No. 8B (Lot 89) Ashburton Terrace, Fremantle has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes and the proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘Design Principles’ of the R-Codes pertaining to lot boundary setback; boundary walls; building height; garage width; site works; and visual privacy. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to be supportable on balance under the provisions of Council’s LPP2.9. On balance, the application is recommended for approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 8B (Lot 89) Ashburton Terrace, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 7 August 2013. 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 walls located on the southern boundary shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site.

CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 22

PSC1308-117 HINES ROAD NO. 44 (LOT 2) HILTON - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE -

HOUSE (AD DA0197/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 August 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Development plans (as amended) Site photo (neighbouring property) Date Received: 1 May 2013; 29 July 2013 (amended plans) Owner Name: Marc McGowan & Erin Riley Submitted by: BGC Residential Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential R20/R25 Heritage Listing: Not listed; Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 23

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed discretionary decisions regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a single storey Single House at No. 44 (Lot 2) Hines Road, Hilton. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Council’s Local Planning Policies with exception of the following: • Front setback • Roof pitch • Number of roof elements facing the street • Grey water system; and • 4.0m northern setback The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant discretionary criteria and accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the City’s LPS4 with a split density coding of R20/R25 and is located within the Hilton Local Planning Area 7 (LPA 7) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Harwood Street to the north, Hines Road to the west, Joslin Street to the south and Thornett Street to the east. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List; however it is located within the Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 356m2 and is located on the eastern side of Hines Road. The topography on site is relatively flat and the land is currently vacant. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and/or to this application: • On 31 December 2008, the WAPC granted conditional approval for a two (2) lot

survey strata subdivision of No. 1 (Lot 1137) Harwood Street, Hilton (refer DA651/08, WAPC2042-08).

DETAIL

On 1 May 2013, the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a single storey Single House at No. 44 (Lot 2) Hines Road, Hilton. On 29 July 2013 the City received amended plans. A copy of the development plans (as amended) is contained as Attachment 1 of this report.


Page 24

CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and the City’s LPP1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals, as the applicant is proposing a number of discretionary decisions from the ‘Deemed to Comply’ standards of the R-Codes. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 27 May 2013, the City did not receive any submissions pertaining to the proposal. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Variations to the prescribed standards sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.

PLANNING COMMENT

Council’s Local Planning Policies Local Planning Policy 3.7 – Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct Heritage Area Local Planning Policy

Required Proposed Discretion Minimum primary street setback of 7.00 metres

3.294 - 5.70 metres

1.30 - 3.706 metres

Assessment is required against the following discretionary criteria:

“Council may, at its discretion, allow a lesser setback of the building from the primary street where it is satisfied that the development meets one of the following criteria: a) Where the proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of

buildings within the prevailing streetscape; or b) Where due to the nature of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the

topography of the land, the proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element into an established streetscape vista; or

c) Where 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 provisions of LPP2.10 Landscaping of Development and Existing Vegetation on Development Sites).”

This discretionary decision is supported for the following reasons: • There is only one other house in the ‘prevailing streetscape’ being No. 46 (Lot 2)

Hines Road, Hilton which is setback approximately 3.00 metres from the street. In this regard, this discretionary decision should be supported as the proposed setback is greater than that within the prevailing streetscape, therefore satisfying (a) above.

• Further, the northern adjoining property, being No. 1 (Lot 1) Harwood Street, Hilton, whilst not forming part of the ‘prevailing streetscape’ in the context of this application, has a setback of approximately 3.70 metres to its secondary street (being Hines Road). In this regard, this is considered to be generally consistent with the setback proposed by this application.


Page 25

Required Proposed Discretion Minimum external wall height shall be 3.2 metres for elevations of the development fronting the primary and/or secondary streets

3.10 - 3.50 metres

0 - 0.10 metres


“Council may, at its discretion, allow a lesser external wall height where it is satisfied that the proposed external wall height is consistent with the external wall height of development within the prevailing streetscape and the development meets one of the following criteria: a) The development incorporates design elements that give the development a

greater, more traditional presence to the street such as gable ends greater than the minimum external wall height or a steeper roof pitch (within the maximum roof pitch requirement of 35 degrees); or

b) The natural ground level of the site is higher than the street so the development maintains a greater, more traditional presence to the street.”

This discretionary decision is supported for the following reasons: • As discussed earlier in this report, there is only one other dwelling contained within

the ‘prevailing streetscape’, being No. 46 (Lot 2) Hines Road, Hilton, of which is a two storey Single House. In this regard, whilst the proposed single storey Single House is not considered to be consistent with that of a two storey Single House, it is not considered that the ‘trigger’ of this discretionary criteria should be observed in this instance;

• The proposal does include a gable end greater than the minimum external wall height and therefore is considered to give the development a more traditional presence to the street; and

• The majority of the walls facing the street comply with minimum wall height requirement of LPP 3.7.

Required Proposed Discretion Roofs shall be hipped or gabled with a minimum roof pitch of 27.5 degrees and a maximum roof pitch of 35 degrees

25 degrees

2.5 degrees


“Council may, at its discretion, vary the roof form and eaves requirements of clauses 4.1.1 – 4.1.3 where it is satisfied that the development is consistent with the roof forms and eaves of dwellings within the prevailing streetscape.”

This discretionary decision is not supported for the following reasons: • As discussed earlier in this report, there is only one other dwelling contained within

the ‘prevailing streetscape’, being No. 46 (Lot 2) Hines Road, Hilton, of which is a two storey Single House with a minimum roof pitch of 27 degrees. In this regard, it is considered that whilst the proposed roof pitch is lower than the other example within the prevailing streetscape, there is no valid planning reason not to provide the minimum 27.5 degree roof pitch required by LPP3.7;

• Significant design changes are not required for the roof pitch to be increased to be 27.5 degrees; and


Page 26

• Accordingly, it is recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring the roof pitch to be a minimum of 27.5 degrees.

Required Proposed Discretion Roofs shall be simple in form incorporating no more than 2 roof elements facing the primary and/or secondary street

5 roof elements facing primary street

3 roof elements


“Council may, at its discretion, vary the roof form and eaves requirements of clauses 4.1.1 – 4.1.3 where it is satisfied that the development is consistent with the roof forms and eaves of dwellings within the prevailing streetscape.”

This discretionary decision is supported for the following reason: • The only other dwelling contained within the ‘prevailing streetscape’, being No. 46

(Lot 2) Hines Road, Hilton, of which is a two storey Single House has up to 7 roof elements facing the street. In this regard, the proposal for 5 roof elements facing the primary street is less than what exists in the prevailing streetscape and therefore should be supported.

Local Planning Policy 2.2 – Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule

Required Proposed Discretion The external side wall of the home should have a setback of a minimum 4 metres form the northern boundary.

Not proposed

Refer comments below

An approved grey-water reuse system that collects grey water from the laundry and bathroom and re-directs it for garden irrigation/ground water recharge is to be installed and maintained thereafter.

Not proposed

Refer comments below

These discretionary decisions are supported for the following reason: • In lieu of the two requirements of LPP2.2 above, the applicant proposes to install a

3.0 kilowatt (kW) Photovoltaic (PV) solar panel system. It is considered that this is an acceptable alternative to satisfy both of these discretionary decisions and as such an appropriate condition of approval is recommended.

CONCLUSION

The proposed single storey Single House at No. 44 (Lot 2) Hines Road, Hilton has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes. The discretionary decisions sought in relation to Council’s LPP3.7 and LPP2.2 has been assessed against the relevant criteria of those policies and is considered to be supportable. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.


Page 27

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the single storey Single House at No. 44 (Lot 2) Hines Road, Hilton, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 29 July 2013. 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, a 3.0 kilowatt (kW) photovoltaic (PV) solar panel and inverter system shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation, all east and west windows are to be tinted or shaded and maintained thereafter, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to occupation, insulation (minimum R4 roof insulation and minimum R2.5

wall insulation) shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation, a gas boosted solar hot water system shall be installed and

maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation, ventilators in the roof void (above the insulation layer)

shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Ventilators shall be capable of being closed during winter conditions.

7. Prior to occupation, water-efficient fixtures, including 3A-5A rated taps, toilets

and showerheads shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. Prior to occupation, the colour scheme of the dwelling shall consist of no black

or dark grey coloured roofs or dark coloured eastern and western external walls and maintained thereafter, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. Prior to occupation, a rainwater tank that holds a total water capacity of 3,000 litres shall be installed and plumbed to the toilets or washing machine and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 28

10. Prior to occupation, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the approved landscaping plan and Plant Schedule dated 29 July 2013 and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

11. Prior to occupation, the dwelling shall have a minimum roof pitch of 27.5 degrees in accordance with clause 4.1.1 of Council’s Local Planning Policy 3.7 – “Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct” Heritage Area Local Planning Policy and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

13. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 14. The new/ modified vehicle crossover shall be separated from any verge

infrastructure by: (a) a minimum of 2.0 metres in the case of verge trees (b) a minimum of 1.2 metres (in the case of bus shelters, traffic management

devices, parking embayment’s or street furniture), and (c) a minimum of 1.0 metre in the case of power poles, road name and

directional signs.

CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 29

PSC1308-118 HOPE STREET NO 11A (LOT 902) WHITE GUM VALLEY - SINGLE

STOREY (WITH LOFT) SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0272/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 August 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Development Plans

Site Photographs Date Received: 11 June 2013 Owner Name: Cameron John and Terri Aird Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 30

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for a single storey (with loft) single house at No. 11a Hope Street, White Gum Valley. The application seeks variation to the requirements of Local Planning Policies, the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS 4). The discretionary decisions sought pertain to the primary street setback, boundary wall outdoor living area and visual privacy The application has been assessed against the discretionary criteria of relevant statutory planning instruments and is considered to comply with these requirements. As such, the application is recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ and is allocated a density coding of R25 under the City’s LPS 4. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List or the Municipal Heritage Inventory, nor is it located within a Heritage Area. It is located within the White Gum Valley Local Planning Area. The subject site has an area of 365m2 and is located on the southern side of Hope Street, between Wood Street and Amherst Street, White Gum Valley. A two storey single house was approved for the subject site under delegation on 15 June 2011, with a variation application approved 20 July 2011 (refer to DA0169/11 and VA0029/11). The subject site is currently vacant, with no work commenced on the proposed house. DETAIL

Plans for the two storey single house were received by the City on 11 June 2013. Amended plans were submitted to remove the overshadowing discretion sought on 25 July 2013 in response to a neighbour submission. The application proposes a single storey (with loft) single house with the following features: Ground floor

• Double garage; • Alfresco area; • Dining and kitchen; • Lounge; • Laundry and store; and • Bedroom 3 and Ensuite.

Loft

• Master suite, Ensuite and WIR; • Bedroom 2; • Activity room; and • Unmarked space for future habitable rooms.

Refer to attachment 1 for development plans.


Page 31

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS 4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. The proposed development includes the following discretions to deemed-to-comply provisions:

• Primary street setback; • Boundary wall; • Outdoor living area; and • Visual privacy

These are discussed further in the Planning Comment section below. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4, as the application was not compliant with Deemed-To-Comply provisions of the R-Codes and Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 17 July 2013, the City had received two (2) submissions, with one noting non-objection. The following issues were raised in the objection to the development:

• Objection to overshadowing – will block out direct solar access to indoor and

outdoor habitable areas;

• Overshadowing will restrict effectiveness of passive solar designed home and

reduce thermal passive performance.

In response to the objection, the applicant has submitted revised plans which comply with the overshadowing deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes.

PLANNING COMMENT

Primary Street Setback Required Provided Discretion

7m (External wall height less than 4m)

4.77m – 7.05m 2.23m -0m

12m (External wall height greater than 4m)

4.77m – 7.05m 7.23m-4.95m

The proposed house generally presents as a single storey single house, with dormer windows and a gable end from Hope Street. However, due to the external walls exceeding 4m (4.5m), a number of habitable and non-habitable rooms within the loft and the presence of a gable end, the loft could be interpreted to be a second storey. Additionally, the roof pitch on the Hope Street elevation measures 8.5m which has an appearance similar to the bulk of a two storey rather than single storey dwelling. As such, planning justification has been provided to support variations to a 7m (external wall


Page 32

height less than 4m) and 12m (external wall height greater than 4m) primary street setback in accordance with LPP 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy. It is not considered that there are dwellings within the streetscape (i.e. 3 properties either side), that are of similar bulk and scale to the proposed development, so the setback requirement cannot be varied in accordance with Clause 1.2i of LPP 2.9 which requires that the proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of buildings of comparable height within the prevailing streetscape; Site photographs of the existing single storey dwellings within the existing streetscape are included as attachment 2. However, in accordance with Clause 1.2ii of LPP 2.9: 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. The existing dwellings within the streetscape are all setback approximately 4m-5m, and therefore as the house is proposed to be setback 4.7-7.05m, the majority of the proposed dwelling will be setback behind the prevailing primary street setback. The existing road verge is approximately 12m wide and is considered to reduce the impacts any proposed variation to the policy may present. The area of greatest variation to the primary street setback is to the garage which is proposed to be setback 4.7m. This 8.1m wide portion of the building presents a gable end to the street and includes major openings. This will not cause the dwelling to protrude in front of existing setbacks within the streetscape. The 11.5m wide remainder of the house will be setback 7.05m. Due to the narrow depth of the lot measuring 16.7m, imposing a 12m primary street setback is not considered to allow an appropriate area for the development of the lot. The proposed development additionally meets height requirements and therefore, in accordance with LPP 2.9 the discretion is supported on balance. Boundary Wall - East

Permitted Provided Discretion Where the wall abuts an existing or

simultaneously constructed boundary wall 5.6m long, 2.3 – 2.5m high

garage wall - east see

comments The proposed boundary wall does not abut an existing boundary wall, however is considered to meet the discretionary criteria of Local Planning Policy 2.4 as follows:

• Does not restrict access to daylight or ventilation for major openings or outdoor living areas as the existing house at No. 11b is setback 6m;

• As the proposed boundary wall is only 2.3-2.5m in height and 5.6m in length it is not considered to impact greatly on the neighbouring property by way of building bulk;

• Will not restrict access to views of significance for No. 11b Hope Street.


Page 33

Outdoor Living Area

Required Provided Discretion Minimum 30m2 15.75m2 14.25m2

Behind street setback area

Within primary street setback Does not comply

Minimum dimension of 4m

3.5m x 4.5m 0.5m

The proposed discretion sought for the outdoor living area is considered to meet the design principles of the R Codes for the following reasons:

• The proposed outdoor living area is capable of use in conjunction with a habitable room and additional open space is included around the dedicated “alfresco area”;

• The proposed outdoor living area is covered, however is open on all sides, allowing access to winter sun and ventilation;

• The proposed outdoor living area makes best use of the northern aspect of the site; and

• Due to the narrow depth of the lot, front setback requirements of LPP 2.9, and the front of the dwelling facing north, the most logical location for the outdoor living area is within the primary street setback.

Visual Privacy

Required Provided Discretion 4.5m (south facing bedroom

openings) 1.5m 3m (overlooking open

outdoor living area) The above discretions are not supported for the following reasons: While no objection has been received by the adjoining landowner, it is considered a condition is appropriate in this case. As the outdoor and indoor living spaces have all been placed on the northern side of the property, it is recommended a visual privacy condition be included to ensure the privacy of this properties living space.


Page 34

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Single Storey (with Loft) Single House at No. 11a (Lot 902) Hope Street, White Gum Valley subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 25 July 2013. 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 new vehicle driveways are required to be separated a minimum of 2.0

metres from verge trees. 3. Prior to occupation, the bedroom and loft space windows on the southern

elevation shall be fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor level in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern boundary shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. CARRIED:6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 35

PSC1308-119 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED

AUTHORITY (3.61.21) - 21 AUGUST 2013 Acting under authority delegated by the Council the Manager Statutory Planning determined, in some cases subject to conditions, each of the applications listed in the Attachments and relating to the places and proposal listed. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the information is noted. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 36

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) PSC1308-121 DEVELOPMENT AREA 12 - FORMER KIM BEAZLEY SCHOOL SITE

LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAN - ADVERTISING OF STRUCTURE PLAN DataWorks Reference: 115/106 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 August 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects and Policy Actioning Officer: Strategic Planner Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1. White Gum Valley (former Kim Beazley School Site)

Local Structure Plan 2. Local Structure Plan Report – Part One


Page 37

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks Council’s authority to advertise for public comment a new structure plan for Lot 2089 Stevens Street and the adjoining drainage sump at Lot 2085 Hope Street, White Gum Valley (former Kim Beazley School site), which has been developed by the Landcorp project team with planning consultant Urbis P/L, on behalf of the State. Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) includes provisions requiring a structure plan submitted to the City to be advertised by means of notices in a local newspaper and on site, and by written notification to owners and occupiers of land likely to be affected by the plan, and relevant public authorities. Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals also specifies procedures to be followed by the City in consulting upon a structure plan. Council is not being requested to form a view on the planning merits of the structure plan at this stage, but merely to authorise advertising in accordance with the requirements of LPS4 and policy LPP 1.3. BACKGROUND

The White Gum Valley Local Structure Plan (LSP) applies to the former Kim Beazley School Site at Lot 2089 Stevens Street and the adjoining drainage reserve at Lot 2065 Hope Street, White Gum Valley. The site is approximately 2.29ha in area, located approximately 2.5 kilometres east of Fremantle, and positioned between the Royal Fremantle Golf Course/Booyeembara Park and existing low density residential development. It is predominately vacant of all structures with the exception of the community purpose buildings of Sullivan Hall and the former Fremantle Pigeon Racing Club Hall, located at western edge of the site. The site is owned by the State, with Lot 2089 Stevens Street being a Reserve vested with the Department of Education and Lot 2065 Hope Street a drainage area which is a Reserve managed by the City of Fremantle. The site is zoned Development Zone (Development Area 12) under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4). The Local Structure Plan (please see Attachments 1 and 2) has been prepared to guide and facilitate the subdivision and development of the former Kim Beazley School site in accordance with the requirements of the zoning, clause 6.2 – Development Areas and Schedule 11 of the Scheme and the WAPC’s Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines. History of the site The Kim Beazley School closed in December 2008. Prior to the closure of the school, the Department of Education conducted a series of community workshops and focus group meetings to develop a plan for the site. Various specialist reports were prepared on aspects of the site as part of this process including a tree survey, options for the drainage sump, structural condition of Sullivan Hall and the former Fremantle Pigeon Racing Club Hall and a heritage assessment of the school. All were made available during the public comment process. A structure plan and concept subdivision plan was prepared but not formally submitted to the City of Fremantle. Since 2008 Landcorp has undertaken further studies on the site including a preliminary site and context analysis undertaken in 2008 which identified the unique qualities of the


Page 38

location and the opportunity for an innovative approach to urban and built form. Landcorp’s project team has also undertaken further due diligence including environmental preliminary and detailed site Investigations, a hazardous material survey and remediation action plan were also prepared to guide the demolition and remediation. Post remediation a validation report was prepared which confirms that the site tested free of contaminants. Community consultation Throughout the preparation of the LSP a series of community consultation processes were undertaken by the Landcorp project team to explore the community development aspirations and vision for the site. The consultation process utilised a number of approaches to ensure a wide variety of community members were informed of the project. To assist in providing a clear strategic direction for the future development of the site a series of community workshops were conducted at the end of 2011, including a series of briefing sessions and ‘hands-on’ group workshops. The workshops reconfirmed the outcomes of previous community engagement held in 2003. However, there was a feeling within both the community and Landcorp that the previous plan had lost its relevance and was not considered to reinforce the “essence” or contribute to the unique character of White Gum Valley. The outcomes of the 2011 workshops were endorsed in the project vision and objectives and have ultimately informed the planning and urban design principles outlined in the final LSP. Both the original and alternative concept plans were presented to the White Gum Valley precinct group in May 2013. During this meeting, the original concept plan was endorsed by the community as the preferred option. This concept plan forms the basis of the proposed LSP. DETAIL

Of the total land area of 2.29ha, the Structure Plan proposes 1.66ha as Residential zone, and 0.25ha as public open space, with the existing drainage reserve to remain in situ. Should the Structure Plan be approved, a subsequent subdivision is proposed to create 28 lots, with over 70 dwellings housing an approximate population of 192 residents. The LSP report states the overarching vision for the Structure Plan area is to: ‘create a high quality infill development that is highly site responsive and is built upon the context of the surrounding locality, seeking to leverage upon the site’s strong attributes to enable the development to benefit the future community on the site as well as the existing community that surrounds it’. The vision for the redevelopment of the site has been developed by the project team after extensive site investigations, team workshops and community/stakeholder consultation. This vision is underpinned by a set of objectives for the site as follows:

• To create a unique and eclectic development that responds to the context and the climate

• To provide a benchmark for innovative and sustainable infill development • To introduce a range of alternative housing typologies to the market • To provide high quality urban and built form solutions • To demonstrate affordable living options


Page 39

• To demonstrate an integrated approach to sustainability including • Environmental Leadership • Community Wellbeing • Economic Health • Design Excellence

Please see the Structure Plan report at Attachment 2 for the full detail of the proposed Structure Plan. Part one and two of the Structure Plan report, and the accompanying appendices, will be available on the City’s website and at the Customer Service counter for viewing during the advertising period. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The site is zoned Development Zone (Development Area 12) under LPS4. Clause 6.2.4 and Schedule 11 of the Scheme requires a structure plan to come into effect prior to subdivision or development of land within a Development Area. Clause 6.2.8 of the Scheme requires that within 60 days of submission of a structure plan the City is required to arrange for the advertising of the plan by means of a notice in a local newspaper, site notices, written notification to owners and occupiers of land likely to be affected by the plan, and notification to relevant public authorities. A period of not less than 21 days shall be allowed for submissions. The City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals also specifies procedures to be followed by the City in consulting upon a structure plan. Under the policy the specified period allowed for submissions is 42 days, and in addition to the methods of notification specified in LPS4 the policy requires notification to Precinct groups and a community information session to be held during the advertising period. CONSULTATION

The required consultation arrangements are described under ‘Statutory and Policy Assessment’ above.

PLANNING COMMENT

Officers consider the proposed White Gum Valley (former Kim Beazley school site) Local Structure Plan and accompanying report to satisfy the requirements the Scheme and the WAPC’s ‘Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines’ for preparation of a Structure Plan, and as such, recommend Council authorise the advertising of the Structure Plan in accordance with the provisions of clause 6.2.8 of the Scheme and Local Planning Policy 1.3. Advertising of the Structure Plan does not commit the Council to a particular position at this stage with regard to the planning merits of the plan. The plan will be reported back to Council after the end of the advertising period for full consideration in the light of the submissions received and after assessment of all other material planning considerations including relevant State and City of Fremantle planning policies.


Page 40

COMMITTEE AND OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the structure plan titled ‘White Gum Valley (former Kim Beazley school site) Local Structure Plan’ as developed by Landcorp and prepared and submitted by Urbis P/L on 30 July 2013, be advertised in accordance with the requirements of clause 6.2.8 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the requirements of Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 41

PSC1308-120 PRINCIPLES OF A POLICY/SCHEME AMENDMENT DEALING WITH

LICENSED PREMISES DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 August 2013 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Manager Health, Building and Compliance Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil. Attachments: Licensed premises maps References

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Despite the important social and economic role of alcohol in society, the harms associated with excessive alcohol consumption are of increasing concern to the City and the community alike1. In response to these concerns, there is a need to review the City’s existing alcohol policies and to define a stance in relation to the future development of licensed premises within the City. Although liquor license applications are ultimately determined by the Director of Liquor Licensing in accordance with the Liquor Control Act 1988, The City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 enables the City to consider the potential for alcohol related harm when determining land use proposals and to regulate land use in the interests of the well being of the community. The purpose of this report is to enable the Planning Services Committee to consider the principles behind a proposed local planning policy relating to licensed premises. The suggested principles are as follows:

• A general presumption in favour of development of small bars; • The City providing assistance to small bar applicants in the preparation of a

public interest assessment report (PIAR) as part of their liquor license application;

• A general presumption against large or high risk licensed premises in the City centre trading past 1am and a general presumption against licensed premises outside of the City centre trading past 12am;

• A general presumption against large liquor stores; • A general presumption against liquor stores near schools and in areas

already considered to be adequately serviced by existing liquor stores; • The public interest assessment report forming a consideration of the City in

the assessment of licensed premises proposals.


Page 42

BACKGROUND Liquor Licensing The Liquor Control Act 1988 (‘the Act’) provides the legislative framework for determining the appropriateness of licensing a particular premise to sell liquor. The licensing process is involved and typically requires the licensing authority having to make a decision based on the balance of probabilities; that is, to weigh the negative and positive aspects of an application with reference to the objectives of the Act. The primary objectives of the Act are to minimise the harm or ill-health due to the use of liquor (primary object b) and provide for the development of the liquor, tourism and other hospitality industries in the State (primary object c). Historically, local government’s role in relation to the liquor licensing process has been largely limited to indicating to the licensing authority whether or not a premises complies with local government planning and health requirements. However, there are provisions in the Act for a local government to intervene to the grant of a license, that is, to object to a license on grounds relating to amenity and harm. These intervention abilities also extend to the Commissioner of Police and the Executive Director Public Health and are often used to stipulate conditions that should be imposed on a license in the interests of harm minimisation. Whilst the ability to intervene in respect to a license application is a useful tool for local government, a review of licensing decisions shows that it is seldom utilised. This is most likely due to industry uncertainty regarding the intervention process, a general unfamiliarity with the legislation and lack of organisational direction regarding alcohol management. The role of planning in relation to licensed premises In a 2012 survey of local government planners commissioned by the Drug and Alcohol Office, the overwhelming barriers to playing a greater role in the management of alcohol related harm were identified to include the difficulty in proving a link between planning decisions and potential for alcohol related harm in a State Administrative Tribunal (“SAT”) situation. As such over 70% agreed that if local planning scheme provisions and policy were not in place, there is a high likelihood of failure if appealed to the SAT 2. It is therefore no surprise that there are multiple instances of planners recommending approval for controversial liquor outlets despite pronounced community opposition, existence of alcohol related issues within a locality and a general awareness of the links between alcohol availability and harm. In a recent case, the City of Cockburn granted planning approval to a Dan Murphy’s liquor store on the premise that a refusal on the basis of amenity concerns would be met with considerable scrutiny by SAT. Soon after however the City lodged an expertly prepared and costly objection to the grant of the liquor license with the Director Liquor Licensing citing a raft of local area alcohol related harm statistics. This approach in securing a desirable outcome was identified as not only contrary to the integrated nature of the organisation but also unnecessary given the scope and intent of the City’s scheme.


Page 43

Despite the fact that the Liquor license was ultimately refused, the City of Cockburn subsequently re-examined their scheme and recognised the scope of the scheme to incorporate the potential for alcohol related harm as a relevant future planning consideration on the basis of the following aims of the scheme:

• ensure that development and the use of land within the district complies with accepted standards and practices for public amenity and convenience’

• ...so that the quality of life enjoyed by its inhabitants is not jeopardised by poor planning, unacceptable development and incompatible use of land.’

Amenity The concept of amenity is integral to orderly and proper planning however in planning terms; amenity seems to refer predominantly to visual amenity and the absence of nuisance: e.g., noise, odour, disquiet or disturbance. On broader terms however, amenity is far more encompassing and can be described as all factors which combine to form the character of an area3. The oxford dictionary defines amenity simply as ‘the pleasantness of a place’. In 2009 the City of Melville recommended approval of an 1843 m2 Dan Murphy’s liquor store on the basis of the development complying with technical planning requirements however the Council refused the proposal on the basis of ‘amenity’ considerations. Council remarked in relation to the planning officer’s report:- “The report fails to include any discussion about the change of use relating to contemporary harm minimisation policies adopted by federal, state and alcohol proprietors. There are a number of mechanisms for reducing harm: opening hours, outlet density, point of sale assessment of drunkenness, tax and excise etc. Effect on amenity is thus not explored other than in terms of light, noise, traffic, visual appeal, whereas there is a strong positive correlation between the incidence of harm (assaults, traffic accidents etc.) and access to alcohol. The Council believe that amenity would include harm (emphasis added) and incidence of these types of police issues. Liquor stores are one of the most likely points of sale to result in harm. Thus it seems odd that the community cannot have their concerns regarding harm explored in the report. From the consultation around 90% of the submissions noted this as their major concern, equivalent to traffic”. 5

When the concept of amenity is explored in this light, it could be argued that that development serving to increase the availability and affordability of a commodity consistently linked to significant levels of crime, violence and chronic disease can be regarded as a risk to the amenity of the community. (Note: the application for a liquor license made by Woolworths in respect to this development was refused by the Liquor Commission.6 ) The City of Fremantle and LPS4 On review of the aims of the City’s scheme, it becomes apparent that the intent of the scheme is broadly geared toward the enhancement of community life. The following seven aims either specifically refer to or allude to the “human element” of the City:


Page 44

• Accommodate a diverse mix of people, cultures and lifestyles; • Ensure development promotes a sense of community and encourages participation in

community life; • Promote a safe and healthy environment; • Ensure all development complements and contributes to the community’s desired

identity and character for Fremantle; • Ensure urban form and development contribute to sustainability (environmental, social

cultural and economic) • Facilitate and encourage effective public involvement in planning issues of

significance to the character, amenity and environmental attributes of the City • Promote the compatible use of land surrounding essential infrastructure.

Further evidence of the “human” focus of the scheme is displayed in 10.2 where Council is required to have due regard to a number of factors when assessing proposals including - • the requirements of orderly and proper planning, • the compatibility of a use or development within its setting and • social issues that have an effect on the amenity of the locality, • the preservation of the amenity of the locality • the potential loss of any community service or benefit resulting from the planning

approval.

Despite the provision for alcohol related harm to feature as a valid assessment component of proposed liquor store development, two planning assessments for ‘big box’ liquor stores in the City of Fremantle contained little evidence of the consideration of harm as a potential land use issue. In one report, the proposed liquor store was described as: “simple retail use on a large scale in a similar manner to a supermarket”; and, “essentially that of a large supermarket that sells liquor instead of food”. 7 So what are the priority areas going forward for Fremantle? Children and young people There is particular concern among the Australian community about drinking patterns among young people and the resulting harms. Australian young people are drinking at earlier ages, with many drinking to get drunk8. The Commonwealth of Australia Report in 2009 (Australian Guidelines to reduce health risks from drinking alcohol) states that the rates of drinking at harmful levels by 12-17-year-olds have doubled in the past two decades9. Studies show in relation to young people:

- On average, around five young Australians aged 15 to 24 years die every week due to alcohol-attributable injury or disease, and a further 200 are hospitalised10

- Drinking status at 16 years is a predictor of negative alcohol outcomes as a young adult12;


Page 45

- Teens who were drinking by 14 years were more likely to experience alcohol dependence than their peers who did not drink until they were over 21 years old 13,14;

- Australian longitudinal studies have demonstrated that regular drinking in adolescence is an important risk factor for the development of abusive, dependent15 and risky14patterns of alcohol use in young adulthood

- Eighty percent of the alcohol consumed by young people aged 14-24 years is consumed at levels that put them or others at immediate risk, for example, from falls, assault injuries, road crashes and burns15.

- Between 2007 and 2011, 2,484 WA 12 to 17 year olds were admitted to hospital for alcohol-related reasons, representing 6,485 bed days. For the same period there were 25 alcohol related deaths7.

- In 2010, 426 WA drivers aged 17-25 who crashed had a BAC of or greater than 0.05; this is almost as many as the number (467) of drivers aged over 25 years17.

There is also sufficient evidence to suggest that young people do not have to be consuming alcohol to be harmfully affected by it. For example Alcohol use during pregnancy is a leading cause of preventable birth defects18; and young people are more likely to report being verbally abused, physically abused or put in fear by someone under the influence of alcohol than any other age group19. Harmful alcohol use among young people is strongly attributed to: the ‘normalisation’ or ‘cultural ease’ surrounding alcohol; the economic availability of alcohol and the promotion and marketing of alcohol products aimed at young people20. Small bars The small bar liquor license category was introduced by the state government in May 2007 under the Liquor Control Act 1988 to add diversity to the drinking, social and hospitality scene in WA and to allow for the creation of venues that offer an alternative to traditional ‘beer barn’ establishments. Small bars are limited to 120 patrons or less, are not permitted to sell packaged liquor and are generally conditioned to incorporate food and seating. The City currently has seven small bars which comprise approximately 13% (7 out of 54) of ‘on premises’ consumption venues (i.e. hotels, taverns and restaurants serving liquor without the need for a meal) open to the general public (i.e. excluding clubs):

• Whisper Wine Bar – 1/15 Essex St, Fremantle • Mrs Brown’s Bar – 241 Queen Victoria St, North Fremantle • Maya Indian Restaurant – 75-77 Market St, Fremantle • Who’s your Mumma? – 7A/142 South Tce, Fremantle • Guildhall – 222 Queen Victoria St, North Fremantle • Corner Room – 211 South Tce, South Fremantle • Epicure on High (conditional) – 59 High St, Fremantle

In a recent approval of a small bar application for Fremantle’s west end, the Director of Liquor Licensing made the following comments: “The Commissioner of Police contends that the existing licensed premises in Fremantle already cater for the demand for licensed premises. I do not consider this statement to be correct in relation to the West End precinct of Fremantle. I accept the applicant’s submission that the West End has lost licensed premises and is in need of revitalising”.21


Page 46

Although, there is still little research into the significance of small bars in relation to alcohol related harm, it is commonly cited that small bars offer a number of benefits to the community including: -

• Promotes sensible use and enjoyment of alcohol; e.g. in addition to food, seated drinking etc, price prohibitive binge drinking – competition with beer barns and other high risk venues;

• Cater to the requirements of a specific demographic or population base currently un-catered or under-catered for in a particular locality;

• Fulfils unmet need for small or unique venues; • Supports the arts – i.e. provides for local music performance e.g. local musicians,

niche genres such as jazz, blues or acoustic music etc; • Show cases local manufacturers/producers – e.g. boutique beers, local wines,

cheeses etc; • Increases the vibrancy of areas; • Activation of small disused spaces e.g. laneways; • Activation of the street front and improved passive surveillance and lighting of the

street; improved safety perceptions among persons out at night; • Aids in the implementation of local and state government structure plans,

redevelopment strategies, revitalisation of urban areas etc; • Increases diversity in the population frequenting entertainment districts which

improves standards of behaviour; • Provide employment opportunities for local people; • Boosts the tourism sector; • Establishes or reinforces desirable cultural characteristics of an area – e.g. the arts

scene, heritage areas etc

The City considers small bar development in both the Fremantle CBD and outside of the CBD as an opportunity to boost Fremantle’s somewhat stagnant night time economy and in doing so make Fremantle an attractive alternative to populations currently more inclined to visit other small bar districts such as Northbridge, Perth CBD, Leederville and Mt Lawley. Packaged liquor Packaged liquor accounts for a large proportion of alcohol consumed in Australia. It has been estimated that liquor stores make up less than 20% of all licensed outlets but are responsible for over 45% of all alcohol sold in WA 22,23,24 (in 2000/2001). Over the past decade there has been a growing focus on large-scale warehouse-style discount ‘liquor barns’ or ‘big box’ liquor stores that have the capacity to sell many times more alcohol at lower prices than traditional liquor stores. Monitoring of liquor licence applications has identified moves by Woolworths Limited (Dan Murphy’s) and Wesfarmers Limited (First Choice Liquor), to substantially increase their presence in WA26.


Page 47

It is commonly argued that big box liquor stores increase not only physical access of a population to alcohol but also the general affordability of alcohol which is linked to increased consumption. This argument was supported by a recent study commissioned by the Drug and Alcohol Office which showed that proximity to a ‘big box’ liquor store was likely to stimulate an increase in the quantity and frequency of alcohol purchases particularly amongst people aged 18-29 years27. The relationship between alcohol availability and harm is complex and is dependent on a number of local variables; however research has demonstrated a link between increases in packaged liquor availability and increased levels of harm within the community. A number of Australian studies found that:

• The number of liquor stores in a neighbourhood was associated with total consumption but more strongly associated with harmful consumption28;

• Hospitalisation due to mental illness (anxiety stress depression) was 56% more likely among those with a liquor store in the neighbourhood 28;

• The more alcohol sold per packaged outlet the greater the risk of reported assault within the surrounding community23;

• Packaged outlet density was positively associated with rates of assault, domestic violence, chronic disease and very heavy episodic drinking; In contrast, the density of pubs and nightclubs was only linked with assault rates29;

• Having eight or more stores within in a one‐kilometre road network distance more than doubled the odds of consuming alcohol at levels associated with short‐term harm at least weekly30.

• Price discrepancies between packaged outlets and on premises outlets are a significant factor in ‘preloading’ (consumption prior to going out) behaviours which are linked to increased rates of assault23; and

• An estimated 40% of packaged liquor purchases are unplanned.31

Currently the City has 19 packaged liquor outlets including one conditionally approved Dan Murphy’s store in South Fremantle. This represents on average approximately one outlet per 1550 persons. There are an additional five liquor stores located within two kilometres of the boundaries of the City of Fremantle in Melville, Cockburn, East Fremantle and Mosman Park including two liquor stores exceeding 700m2 in size (First Choice Bicton and Down under Cellars Hamilton Hill). Large licensed premises and night clubs Intoxication or drunkenness is generally regarded as the prerequisite or precursor of alcohol related harm32. Intoxication results in impairment of an individual’s judgement and abilities and may contribute to disorderly, aggressive or inappropriate behaviours. These behaviours, more often than not, have negative impacts on the locality and the individual themself. In comparison to small bars, restaurants and other lower risk premises, licensed venues operating under a hotel or night club license often feature a number of characteristics that influence consumption behaviours among patrons and make them a higher risk to the amenity of an area including:


Page 48

• Higher ratio of standing room to seated space or no seating; • Either limited food availability or no food; • Extended trading hours; night clubs open until 5am • Higher patron capacity; • Provision for packaged liquor sales; • On premises alcohol promotion; • Business model is geared toward alcohol consumption; • Music performance/concerts; • Inactive street frontages (e.g. Metropolis Fremantle and the Newport Hotel)

With regard to trading hours alone, the balance of evidence suggests that under most circumstances, increased trading into the early hours of the morning will result in increased alcohol use and related harms such as violence. In March 2008, for example a 37% reduction in violence was recorded in the Newcastle CBD after the NSW government restricted pub closing times from 5am to 3:30am33. This correlates with a Perth study which found that extending opening hours by one hour increased violence at venues by 70% because of rising alcohol use 34, 35. Other studies have shown that licensed premises which have few chairs, shelves or other furniture for the use of patrons may foster more excessive drinking and encourage more extreme behaviours36 and that patrons of nightclubs, hotels and taverns are more likely to be involved in incidents of alcohol-related harm than patrons of clubs (i.e. sporting and recreational clubs) and restaurants patrons.37 Competition for public transport and taxi resources among patrons looking to leave the CBD after venues have closed continues to be an issue for Fremantle and other night time entertainment districts. This problem is likely to be compounded by additional large licensed premises in the CBD trading until the early hours of the morning. It has been noted by Hadfield (2011) that poor availability of late night transport may increase the potential for violence in nightlife areas due to frustration among and convergence of patrons in taxi ranks, bus stops etc and can influence people to use unsafe methods of transport to get home. In what aspects of development can planning have a say? In addition to the amenity considerations that should feature as part of the planning assessment process, outlet density; location of licensed premises; and application and advertising procedures are commonly used planning mechanisms by Local Governments in the delivery of effective alcohol management policy. Outlet density In its refusal of a proposed 1362m2 Dan Murphy’s store in March 2011, the City of Casey (VIC) remarked: ‘Large ‘big box’ liquor outlets in areas already highly proliferated with packed liquor no longer support the community’s health and wellbeing, nor do they enhance community life or amenity’. 38


Page 49

Liquor outlet density restrictions have been implemented in various night entertainment districts internationally to manage the impacts of multiple venues operating simultaneously and in close proximity32. Whilst there is little evidence of specific density restrictions being applied (for example a cap on numbers), there is an increasing trend toward general density provisions being incorporated into planning policy. The following are excerpts from local government planning policies regarding outlet density:- City of Bayside (VIC) - “Locations at risk of harms associated with cumulative impact have been identified as 8 or more liquor outlets within a 1km network distance...care should be exercised in approving packaged liquor sales outlets, especially in Brighton or in other parts of Bayside where there are already multiple packaged liquor outlets” 39

City of Cockburn - “In many suburbs within the City the number of liquor licensed premises especially bottle shops is considered to be adequate and additional packaged liquor outlets are generally not supported unless it can be proven that the area is not adequately serviced with bottle shops”. 40

City of Subiaco - “There is an existing concentration of licensed premises in the Town Centre zone. Any growth and intensification of licensed premises in the Town Centre, specifically applications for Night Clubs, Clubs, Hotels and Taverns, Small Bars or Extended Trading Permits for Restaurant Premises within 100 metres of the Rokeby Road/Hay Street and Rokeby Road/Roberts Road intersections will not be supported”. 41 Whilst the City does not advocate for a ‘cap’ or limit on licensed premises in particular areas, the City considers that density could form a consideration of Council in the determination of licensed premises proposals, particularly where there are concerns regarding alcohol related harm or amenity issues within a specific locality. Licensed premises near schools “A major issue then is the potential for alcohol-related harm above that normally tolerated by society in the acceptance of alcohol based products as general consumer products” – Director of Liquor Licensing (2011)7

It is commonly held that alcohol related harm among young people is a product of the normalisation or cultural ease surrounding alcohol in Australian society20. In fact, the Commonwealth Drug Strategy 2010 – 2015 identifies the nation’s prevailing attitude toward alcohol as a significant contributor to risky drinking behaviours and associated harms amongst young people. Various studies show that exposure of young people to the use and promotion of alcohol influences young people attitudes to alcohol and causes them to start drinking earlier and drink more once they do 20, 42. For example the chances of a teenager getting drunk repeatedly is twice as great if they have seen their parents under the influence, even if only a few times43.


Page 50

The Alcohol Advertising Review Board; an initiative of the Cancer Council WA and McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol on Youth, specifies in its code that alcohol advertisements ‘should not be placed in places where young people are exposed or are likely to be exposed or advertised in connection with content that appeals to young people’. The code also specifies that alcohol advertising should not occur within 500m of a school44. The City holds concerns over the exposure of young people to the drinking activities of others and the promotion of alcohol products. As such the City considers that licensed premises should not be located near schools. Application procedures Section 9.2 of the City’s Scheme lists what information is required to accompany a planning application, including the following:

• ..any specialist studies that the Council may require the applicant to undertake in support of the application; and

• Any other plan or information that the Council may require to enable the application to be determined.

A number of Local Governments currently request a copy of the applicants liquor license application public interest assessment report (‘PIAR’) as part of the development application. The PIAR is a report required to be prepared by the applicant under section 38 of the Act to assist the Director of Liquor Licensing in determining whether or not the grant of a liquor license would satisfy the objectives of the Act. The PIAR is required to address among other things, the likely impacts of the license on at risk groups within an area, the merits of the application and how the license will meet the needs of consumers and the proposed measures that will be employed to minimise alcohol related harm. It is common practice for the Executive Director Public Health and the Commissioner of Police to scrutinise the content of an applicant’s PIAR in making a decision whether or not to object to the grant of a license. For example, the EDPH may challenge an applicant’s assertion that the license would not cause harm or ill health; the Police may question any underrepresented crime statistics that the applicant may have provided etc. The City of Fremantle considers that the ability to scrutinise an applicant’s PIAR as part of a planning assessment would enable the City and Council to properly evaluate the likely impacts (both positive and negative) of the operation of an outlet on the local community as well as the applicant’s harm minimisation strategies. If an applicant were successful in an appeal against a Council refusal (i.e. in SAT), the content of the PIAR would also be useful should the City decide to object to the grant of a liquor license.


Page 51

Advertising of liquor outlet proposals One of the aims of the City’s scheme is to, ‘ensure all development complements and contributes to the community’s desired identity and character for Fremantle’. In most cases, licensed premises require planning approval and are assessed in accordance with the Scheme. To determine the extent to which development complies with the scheme, a degree of consultation with the local community is required. As there is evidence of concern among the community regarding alcohol related harm, it stands to reason that residents within the area should be consulted in accordance with the local planning policy 1.3. The Cities of Cockburn and Gosnells currently notify all landowners within a 200 metre radius of proposed licensed premises and provide an extended submission period. CONCLUSION Having considered the contemporary discussions going on around alcohol related harm by policy makers, health professionals and the community in general, the City considers that the following principles should guide the development of planning policy and future review of the City’s scheme pertaining to licensed premises:

• Alcohol related harm is a prominent issue in the community; • Increased physical and economic availability of alcohol is consistently linked to

increased incidence of alcohol related harm; • The ‘drinking culture’ prevalent amongst young people is a major concern; • The small bar license category complements the desired character for Fremantle

and may help to promote a more sensible approach to alcohol than traditional establishments;

• Large drinking establishments operating until the early hours of the morning impact on amenity to a greater degree than small bars and restaurants;

• Competition for already scarce late night transport resources in the Fremantle CBD is an issue of concern;

• LPS4 provides for the consideration of alcohol related harm as a valid planning consideration.


Page 52

OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1. That Council endorses the following general principles in respect to licensed

premises:

• A general presumption in favour of development of small bars; • The City providing assistance to small bar applicants in the preparation of a

public interest assessment report (PIAR) as part of their liquor license application;

• A general presumption against large or high risk licensed premises in the City centre trading past 1am and a general presumption against licensed premises outside of the City centre trading past 12am;

• A general presumption against large liquor stores; • A general presumption against liquor stores near schools and in areas

adequately serviced by existing liquor stores; • The public interest assessment report forming a consideration of the City in

the assessment of licensed premises proposals; and

Officers prepare a further report to Council on the implementation of agreed principles, examining the existing statutory and policy regime and making recommendations on changes based on the above. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

The Committee had a general discussion about further broad principles relating to the development of Licensed Premises. The Director Planning and Development advised that officers will further develop the recommended principles based on the Committee discussion and present this as a revised recommendation to the Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 28 August.


Page 53

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS Nil. CLOSURE OF MEETING THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 7.13 PM.


Page 54

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


Page 55


of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or 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 56


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 57

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.


Page 58


Page 59

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Planning Services Committee 21 August 2013

Page 2

agenda master psc 3 21 august 2013 - city of fremantle

Documents