home | city of fremantle - minutes · 2019-05-03 · minutes - planning committee 1 may 2019 page 2...

Minutes

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 1 May 2019, 6.00pm

Table of Contents

Contents Page

1. Official opening, welcome and acknowledgement 1

2.1. Attendance 1

2.2. Apologies 1

2.3. Leave of absence 1

3. Disclosures of interests 1

4. Responses to previous questions taken on notice 1

5. Public question time 1

6. Petitions 3

7. Deputations 3

7.1 Special deputations 3

7.2 Presentations 3

8. Confirmation of minutes 3

9. Elected member communication 3

10. Reports and recommendations 4

10.1 Deferred items 4

PC1905 -1 DEFERRED ITEM - CADD STREET, 1 (LOT 37) BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING (JCL DA0365/18) 4

PC1905 -2 DEFERRED ITEM- ALFRED ROAD, NO. 20 (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0586/18) 17

10.2 Committee delegation 30

PC1905 -3 SOUTH TERRACE, NO.137 (LOT 22), SOUTH FREMANTLE - S.31 RECONSIDERATION - TWO STOREY WITH ROOFTOP GROUPED DWELLING AND CONVERSION OF AN ANCILLARY DWELLING TO DETACHED ADDITION (JL DA0560/17) 30

PC1905 -4 AMHERST STREET, NO. 1/51 (LOT 303), WHITE GUM VALLEY - MODIFICATION TO PRIVACY SCREEN TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (TG DA0011/19) 44

PC1905 -5 ZETA CRESCENT, NO. 25 (STRATA LOT 1), O'CONNOR - VARIATION TO PREVIOUS PLANNING APPROVAL DA0270/13 (CHANGE OF USE TO USE NOT LISTED (DOG DAY CARE)) - (TG VA0003/19) 51

PC1905 -7 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET NO. 7/210 (LOT 7) NORTH FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO SHOP (HAIRDRESSER) - (JCL DA0061/19) 57

PC1905 -8 DOUGLAS STREET, NO. 6 (LOT 5), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0539/18) 62

PC1905 -9 RULE STREET, NO. 59 (LOT 126) - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE AND THREE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (TG DA0588/18) 69

PC1905 -6 WATKINS STREET, NO. 107A (LOT 1 SSP 76997), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE AND ANCILLARY DWELLING - (NB DA0587/18) 80

PC1905 -10 SOUTH STREET NO.355 (LOT 1565), HILTON - PUBLIC WORKS - DEMOLITION OF SINGLE HOUSE -(JL PW0009/19) 86

PC1905 -11 UPDATE ON METRO SOUTH-WEST JDAP DETERMINATIONS AND RELEVANT STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW 91

PC1905 -12 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 92

10.3 Council decision 93

11. Motions of which previous notice has been given 93

12. Urgent business 93

13. Late items 93

14. Confidential business 93

15. Closure 93

Minutes Attachments 1

Minutes - Planning Committee 1 May 2019

Page 1

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Planning Committee held in the North Fremantle Community Hall on

on 1 May 2019 at 6.00 pm.

1. OFFICIAL OPENING, WELCOME AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 6.03 pm.

2.1. ATTENDANCE

Cr Jon Strachan Presiding Member / South Ward Cr Bryn Jones North Ward / Deputy Presiding Member Cr Ingrid Waltham Deputy Mayor / East Ward Cr Adin Lang City Ward Cr Jeff McDonald Hilton Ward Cr Dave Hume Beaconsfield Ward Cr Andrew Sullivan Observing Mr Philip St John Chief Executive Officer Mr Paul Garbett Director Strategic Planning and Projects Ms Julia Kingsbury Manager Development Approvals Ms Kayla Beall Meeting Support Officer There were approximately 21 members of the public and 10 Curtin University students in attendance.

2.2. APOLOGIES

Dr Brad Pettitt, Mayor

2.3. LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS

Nil

4. RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The following members of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1905 -1:


Page 2

Emma Herrick Chris Bong The following member of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1905 -2: Mischka Yellin-Menzies The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1905 -3: Ben McCarthy The following members of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1905 -3: Jean Tait Jerry Maher Anne O’Hare The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1905 -4: Brad White The following member of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1905 -4: John Vodanovic The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1905 - 5: Kim Killeen The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1905 -7: Tara Lynn Auld The following member of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1905 -8: Rob Wall The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1905 -9: Shane Braddock


Page 3

6. PETITIONS

Nil

7. DEPUTATIONS

7.1 SPECIAL DEPUTATIONS

Nil

7.2 PRESENTATIONS

Nil

8. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

COMMITTEE DECISION Moved: Cr Jon Strachan Seconded: Cr Dave Hume That the minutes of the Planning Committee dated 3 April 2019 be confirmed as a true and accurate record.

Carried: 6/0 Cr Jon Strachan, Cr Ingrid Waltham,

Cr Bryn Jones, Cr Adin Lang, Cr Jeff McDonald, Cr Dave Hume

9. ELECTED MEMBER COMMUNICATION

Nil


Page 4

10. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 DEFERRED ITEMS

PC1905 -1 DEFERRED ITEM - CADD STREET, 1 (LOT 37) BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING (JCL DA0365/18)

Meeting Date: 1 May 2019 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Final Development Plans

2: Site Photos SUMMARY

Approval is sought for a two storey Grouped dwelling at No. 1 Cadd Street, Beaconsfield. The application has been presented to Planning Committee (PC) and the Ordinary Meeting of Council (OCM) on a number of occasions, most recently on 27 March 2019, when the Council resolved to:

“Refer the application to the Administration with the advice that the Planning Committee is not prepared to grant planning approval to the application for the two storey grouped dwelling at 1 Cadd Street, Beaconsfield, based on the current submitted plans, and invite the applicant, prior to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting, to consider amending the proposal to comply with the deemed to comply requirements relating to building height and storage.”

The applicant has advised the City that no changes are proposed to the plans presented to OCM on 27 March 2019. The officers’ assessment of the plans is detailed in the report below, and is unchanged from the previous officer report to Council on 27 March as the applicant has declined to make further amendments. Whilst the proposal proposes variations to building height, excavation and storage, the impact on neighbouring properties has been reduced and these remaining variations are supported through a Design Principle assessment, or addressed through imposing conditions. As per the Officers’ previous recommendation to PC and OCM the proposal is recommended for conditional approval. Notwithstanding the Officers’ recommendation, noting the PC and Council’s concerns about the building height and storage variations, an alternative recommendation for refusal is contained in the conclusion of this report.


Page 5

PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for a two storey Grouped dwelling at No. 1 (Lot 37) Cadd Street, Beaconsfield. The applicant submitted amended plans in response to PC’s resolution from its meeting held on 6 February including the following changes:

Provision of a 1m setback between garage wall and the western lot boundary;

Removal of retaining to the southern lot boundary;

Lowering of the ground level of the rear outdoor living area, thereby removing the visual privacy variation;

Reducing the height of the alfresco area to below 0.5m above natural ground level, thereby rendering the alfresco as open space;

Minor interior alterations (no variations posed);

Minor alterations to windows (no variations posed);

Minor reduction in the height of the roof pitch. These amended plans are included as attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 15 August 2018 Owner name: Chillair Services Pty Ltd Submitted by: David Marshall Scheme: Residential (R20) Heritage listing: Not Listed Existing land use: Single house Use class: Grouped dwelling Use permissibility: D


Page 6

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required. Community The original application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The advertising period concluded on 17 September 2018, and five submissions were received, all objecting to the proposal. The original concerns raised were as follows:

Objection to the wall built to the western lot boundary.

Objection to the east and western lot boundary setback variations on building bulk, visual privacy, solar access, ventilation, and amenity grounds.

Objection to building height on visual amenity and building bulk grounds, in addition to its being inconsistent with the prevailing development context and blocking views of significance.

Objection to visual privacy variations to north, south, east, and western boundaries.

Objection to open space variation as it may be insufficient to serve needs of the residents of the proposed dwelling, may impact on solar access for proposed dwelling, and is inconsistent with prevailing development context. In addition, the outdoor living area does not optimise the northern aspect of the site.

Objection to the height of the proposed retaining wall and site works due to amenity, solar access, bulk, and visual privacy impacts. The cumulative effect of the retaining and fill, in addition to the building height will result in the development having a significant height difference relative to adjoining properties, impacting on amenity.

Potential fencing on top of the retaining wall is viewed with concern due to potential amenity impacts.

Concern was raised that the outdoor living area is insufficient for the number of residents housed by the dwelling, thereby resulting in amenity impacts due to a concentration of activity in one area.

Concerns regarding the proposal utilising the right-of-way (Milky Way) due to increased traffic, in addition to the legality of the subject site gaining access to Milky Way. Comment was made regarding the impact of traffic on the surrounding properties’ use of Milky Way for visitor parking.

Concern with regard to cumulative impact of overshadowing. In response to above it is noted that:

The development complies with the Deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes in relation to the overshadowing and an outdoor living area.

The rights and responsibilities of land owners regarding dividing fences are governed by the Dividing Fences Act 1961. An appropriate advice note has been included in the officer’s recommendation.

The subject site has access rights for the use of Milky Way in accordance with the Transfer of Land Act 1893.

In addition to the above, the amended plans have removed a number of previously sought variations that were raised as concerns in the submissions received; notably being the west facing boundary wall, retaining as a result of site works and visual privacy.


Page 7

As no new discretions have arisen from the revised plans, in accordance with LPP1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals, re-advertising of the proposal was not required in this instance. Other relevant matters are discussed further in this report. OFFICER COMMENT

The amended proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), and relevant Local Planning Policies. Where a proposal does not meet the Deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant Design Principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the Deemed-to-comply requirements is not a valid reason for refusal. With regard to the subject application, the elements below do not meet the relevant Deemed-to-comply or local planning policy provision, and require assessment under the Design Principles:

Building height;

Site works; and,

Storage The above matters are discussed below. Background The subject site contains a Single house located within the Beaconsfield Local Planning Area (Local Planning Area 5). The proposal includes the retention of the existing dwelling and the construction of a second dwelling on the western portion of the subject site. The new dwelling will gain vehicle access from the adjacent Right of Way known as Milky Way. A subdivision application has been conditionally approved by the WAPC on 3 February 2019. It is noted that the applicant has increased the proposed lot boundary for the new dwelling, however it is noted that the dimensions of the lot are generally the same. The portion of the site where the proposed dwelling is to be constructed has a 2.8m north-south slope falling to the south, and a cross-fall of 0.8m falling from east to west. The highest spot height on the subject site is 8.41. See Figures 1 and 2 for a visual representation of the extent of sloping (noting that the annotations round the measurements up). Milky Way is the private road name of the right of way that is located adjacent to the subject site. In accordance with the Transfer of Land Act 1893 as the plan or diagram for the original subdivision of the area included the subject right of way on the plan, the subject site is considered to have an ‘implied right’ easement enabling access to be obtained directly from the right of way. This easement benefit is appropriately noted on the Certificate of Title for the subject site.


Page 8

Figure 1: Slope from north to south of subject site (measurements round up).

Figure 2: Slope from east to west (measurements round up)

The original application was presented to Planning Committee (PC) due to submissions received that cannot be addressed through a condition of development approval. The original proposal included the following discretional assessments:

Wall built up to lot boundary (west)

Open space

Building height

Site works

Retaining walls (east/south)

Visual privacy (south)

Storage


Page 9

At its meeting held on 6 February 2019, the PC resolved to:

‘Refer the application to the Administration with the advice that the Planning Committee is not prepared to grant planning approval to the application for the two storey grouped dwelling at 1 Cadd Street, Beaconsfield, based on the current submitted plans, and invite the applicant, prior to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting, to consider amending the proposal in order to address concerns relating to overlooking from the open space area and the building bulk impacts on the western and southern neighbours.’

The applicant submitted amended plans in response to the above resolution. which removed the boundary wall, open space, retaining wall and visual privacy variations, however the following discretionary assessments remained:

Building height;

Site works; and,

Storage. This revised application was considered by the PC at the meeting held on 6 March 2019, where the item was referred to the OCM on 27 March 2019 where it was resolved to:

“Refer the application to the Administration with the advice that the Planning Committee is not prepared to grant planning approval to the application for the two storey grouped dwelling at 1 Cadd Street, Beaconsfield, based on the current submitted plans, and invite the applicant, prior to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting, to consider amending the proposal to comply with the deemed to comply requirements relating to building height and storage.”

As discussed, the applicant has not proposed any further amendments to the proposal and has requested that the City determine the application as shown on the plans dated 12 February 2019. The Officer’s assessment of these plans, as per the report to PC and OCM in March, is detailed below. Boundary Wall Previous plans

Element Required Proposed Variation

Boundary wall (West) 1.1m Nil 1.1m

Revised (Current) plans


Boundary wall (West) 1m 1m Nil

The western boundary wall which formed part of the original application has been deleted in the amended proposal, with the garage wall being setback 1m from the western lot boundary in compliance with the setback requirements of Table 2a of the R-Codes.


Page 10

Open space Previous plans


Open space 50% 46.1% 3.9%

Revised (Current) plans


Open space 50% 55% Nil

The amended plans comply with the Deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes applicable to open space. Compliance has resulted from the finished floor level of the alfresco being reduced to below 0.5m above natural ground level (and therefore being able to be considered as open space) and the setback of the garage. Building height

Element Permitted Proposed Variation

Wall height (west and south)

6.5m* Up to 7.1m 0.6m

*It is noted that cl. 4.8.1.2 of LPS4, permits a development to exceed the building height requirement of Schedule 8 where there is a variation in the ground level across the footprint of the development of more than 1m and the height that exceeds the requirement is not located on the higher side of the site. In this instance the permitted wall height can be increased to 6.5m in accordance with this clause.

These variations are considered to satisfy the relevant Design Principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: Western wall

The 5.5m long section of wall impacting the western lot boundary has a maximum height of 7.1m above natural ground level (ngl) (see image highlighted yellow below in Figure 3). The wall height variation impacting the western portion of the site is confined to a 5.5m section of the mid-western portion of the dwelling due to the slope of the site. This section of the wall is setback approximately 11.1m from the southern boundary at its closest point. To the west, the wall is set back a minimum of 2.39m (at the corner of the walk in wardrobe wall), 3.1m for a length of 2.9m, and 4.9m for a length of 2.6m from the western boundary due to the wall staggering away from the lot boundary. This section of wall is illustrated in Figure 3 below.


Page 11

Figure 3: Western section of wall exceeding 6.5m above natural ground level directly below (figures

round up).

Southern wall

As a result of the significant slope (north to south) combined with the east to west cross fall, the two storey southern elevation of the dwelling exceeds the 6.5m allowable height, reaching a maximum height of 7.1m above existing NGL (see image highlighted yellow below Figure 4). This section of wall is set back between 11.2m-16.7m from the southern lot boundary. Moreover, the wall is set back 2.39m from the western lot boundary at its closest point.

Figure 4: Southern section of wall exceeding 6.5m above natural ground level directly below (figures round up).


Page 12

The staggered setback of the over-height walls of the proposed dwelling from the southern and western lot boundaries minimises the impact of building bulk on neighbouring properties. Moreover, it is not considered to significantly impact on the daylight and ventilation access to the adjoining properties due to the development complying with the lot boundary setback and solar access to adjoining sites Design Elements of the R-Codes. Moreover, the removal of the western garage boundary wall further reduces the building bulk impact on the western neighbour and its existing outdoor living area.

The building height variation is not considered to adversely impact any identifiable views of significance captured by adjoining properties.

Site works Previous plans


Fill (south-west) 0.50m 0.71m 0.21m

Revised (current) plans


Excavation 0.50m 0.724m (north east corner of development, closest to Milky Way)

0.224m

The amended plans have removed the previously proposed fill against the rear (southern) boundary of the lot by reducing the level of the proposed alfresco to be lower than that proposed dwelling. The amendments have resulted in an area of excavation located in the north east corner of the portion of the lot where the second dwelling is proposed. This variation is considered to satisfy the Design Principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

Given the irregular topography of the site, the proposed level of excavation is considered to reasonably respond to the significant slope and cross fall of the site, whilst allowing for an appropriate FFL for the construction of the dwelling, in addition to providing a level area of open space, thereby allowing for an appropriate outdoor living area at the southern portion of the site with minimal fill required.

Retaining walls Previous plans


Retaining wall (south) 0.5m 0.982m 0.482m

Retaining wall (east) 0.5m 0.971m 0.471m

Revised (current) plans


Retaining wall (south) 0.5m Nil Nil

Retaining wall (east) 0.5m 0.857m N/A


Page 13

The amended plans have removed all previously sought variations posed by retaining walls, thereby minimising any adverse impacts caused to neighbouring properties. It is noted that sections of proposed retaining with a height above 0.5m are proposed to the eastern portion of the development, however given that these retaining walls are located internal to the parent lot, no variation is posed. Moreover, the small end section of retaining which abuts the southern neighbour is less than 0.5m in height. Visual Privacy Previous plans


Unenclosed outdoor space (south)

7.5m Up to Nil Up to 7.5m

The amended plans remove the visual privacy variation posed by the raised outdoor living area through reducing the retained level height of the outdoor living area to a maximum of 0.453m above natural ground level at its greatest height. Storage

Element Required Provided

Storage area 4m2 Storage Area Nil provided

No enclosed, lockable storage area has been proposed, which is required for a Grouped dwelling. It is noted that a 4m2 colourbond shed has been indicated on the survey plan, however given it is not included on the floor plans or elevations, it will not form part of this determination. It is noted that sufficient space on site is available for the provision of a storage area in the future should one be required by the residents, thereby satisfying the requirements of Local Planning Policy 2.1 - External storage areas for Grouped and Multiple dwellings. CONCLUSION Officers consider that the previously submitted amended plans adequately address the original areas of concern relating to the location of retaining walls and boundary walls and overlooking. Whilst the amended proposal still proposes variations to building height, excavation and storage, the impact on neighbouring properties has been reduced and these remaining variations are supported through a Design Principle assessment, or addressed through imposing conditions. As such, the amended proposal is recommended for conditional approval. Notwithstanding the Officers’ recommendation, noting the PC and Council’s concerns about the building height and storage variations, an alternative recommendation for refusal is suggested below:

REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for a two storey Grouped dwelling, dated 12 February 2019, at No. 1 (Lot 37) Cadd Street, Beaconsfield, for the following reasons:


Page 14

1. The proposal fails to comply with the design principles and deemed to comply standards of the Residential Design Codes in respect to building height and external storage.

2. The proposal does not comply with clause 67 of the Planning and Development

(Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 by reasons of being detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties and the incompatibility of the development with its setting.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

The following recommendation was moved by Cr Jon Strachan, but not put to the vote as there was no seconder for the motion. The Planning Committee acting under delegation 1.2: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, two storey Grouped dwelling at No. 1 (Lot 37) Cadd Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans,

dated 12 February 2019. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. The approved development shall be wholly located within the cadastral boundaries of 1 Cadd Street, Beaconsfield including any footing details of the development.

3. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or otherwise approved by the City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit a Construction Management Plan shall be

submitted to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle addressing the following matters:

Protection of infrastructure and street trees within the road reserve;

Access to site by construction vehicles;

Contact details;


Page 15

Noise - Construction work and deliveries;

Sand drift and dust management;

Waste management;

Traffic management;

Works affecting pedestrian areas; and

Impact on the access to and from the Right of Way.

ADVICE NOTES:

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

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

ii. The colourbond shed indicated on the survey plan does not form part of this

approval and may be subject to a separate application for Planning Approval.

iii. The owner is advised that an obstruction permit may be required from the City for any future obstruction of the Milky Way road reserve. An application for obstruction permit can be found via https://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/treesandverges.

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

v. A building permit is required to be obtained for the proposed building work. The building permit must be issued prior to commencing any works on site.

vi. It is recommended complete removal of the pool:

• If the pool is in excess of 40m2, an Application for a Demolition Permit is required.

• Once the pool is removed/decommissioned, the property owner is to advise the City so that the Officer Authorised by the City can conduct an inspection.

• If the building permit application is uncertified, the plans and engineering documents should be clear that there was an existing pool and the soil has been compacted to the satisfaction of the design engineer, and suitable for the dwelling to be constructed.

vii. Fire separation for the proposed building works must comply with Part 3.7.1 of the

Building Code of Australia. viii. Local Planning Policy 1.10 Construction Sites can be found on the City’s web site

via http://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/development/policies. A copy of the City’s Construction and Demolition Management Plan Proforma which needs to be submitted with building and demolition permits can be accessed via:

https://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/treesandverges

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


Page 16

https://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Construction%20and%20Demolition%20Management%20Plan%20Proforma.pdf The Infrastructure Engineering department can be contacted via [email protected] or 9432 9999.

COMMITTEE DECISION ITEM PC1905-1 (Alternative officer’s recommendation) Moved: Cr Dave Hume Seconded: Cr Jeff McDonald

REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for a two storey Grouped dwelling, dated 12 February 2019, at No. 1 (Lot 37) Cadd Street, Beaconsfield, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal fails to comply with the design principles and deemed to

comply standards of the Residential Design Codes in respect to building height and external storage.

2. The proposal does not comply with clause 67 of the Planning and

Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 by reasons of being detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties and the incompatibility of the development with its setting.

Carried: 5/1

For Cr Ingrid Waltham, Cr Bryn Jones, Cr Adin Lang,

Cr Jeff McDonald, Cr Dave Hume

Against Cr Jon Strachan

Reason for change The proposed development was considered to have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and the setting of the development because of elements of the design which do not comply with the design principles and deemed to comply standards of the R-Codes.

https://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Construction%20and%20Demolition%20Management%20Plan%20Proforma.pdf



Page 17

PC1905 -2 DEFERRED ITEM- ALFRED ROAD, NO. 20 (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0586/18)

Meeting Date: 1 May 2019 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Revised development plans

2: Previous plans 3: Site photos

SUMMARY

Approval is sought for a two storey Single house at No. 20 Alfred Road, North Fremantle. The original proposal was referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to the nature of some discretions being sought and comments received during the notification period that cannot be addressed through conditions of approval. The application seeks discretionary assessment against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Local Planning Policies including the following:

Primary street setback

External wall height

Lot boundary setback (boundary wall)

Lot boundary setback

Visual privacy The original application was presented to the PC at its meeting held on 3 April 2019 with a recommendation for refusal as the proposed primary street setback was not considered to be consistent with the prevailing street setback of Alfred Street and therefore did not comply with Council Policy LPP 2.9. PC resolved to:

Refer the application to the Administration with the advice that the Planning Committee is not prepared to grant planning approval to the application for the two storey Single house at 20 Alfred Road, North Fremantle, based on the current submitted plans, and invite the applicant, prior to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting, to consider amending the proposal in order to address concerns relating to the primary street setback.

In response to the PC resolution, the applicant has submitted amended plans that include a 500mm increase to the ground floor primary street setback. The revised plans submitted include the following discretionary assessments:





Visual privacy


Page 18

The amended plans have been assessed against the relevant requirements and are not considered by officers to sufficiently address concerns in relation to the primary street setback. The application is therefore still recommended for refusal. PROPOSAL

Detail The original application sought approval for a two storey Single house at No. 20 Alfred Road, North Fremantle. The proposed works include:

A double garage setback 1.55m from the Alfred Road street boundary

A balcony on top of the garage

Split level, two storey home with three bedrooms and a study. Following a preliminary assessment of the proposal the applicant was advised of the neighbours’ objections and officers’ concerns in relation to the primary street setback. In response, the applicant submitted a written response to the neighbour concerns and additional justification for the proposed primary street setback in lieu of amending the proposal. A summary of this response is included within the report below.

The original development plans are included as attachment 2. Following the April PC meeting, the applicant submitted amended plans on 9 April 2019 which included the following changes:

A 500mm increase in the street setback of the garage to 2m in total.

Change in the roof form from a pitch roof to skillion roof

A reduction in the overall building footprint including an increase of the rear boundary setback

The removal of the study

Revised development plans are included as attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 21 December 2018 Owner name: Elliane Katherine Robyn Christou and Mischka Alexander

Yellin-Menzies Submitted by: Peter Lea Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage listing: Level 3 and North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing land use: Vacant Use class: Single house Use permissibility: P


Page 19

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required. Community The original application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as the proposal seeks discretion against elements of the R-Codes and local planning policies. The advertising period concluded on 4 February 2019, and three (3) submissions were received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Object to height and location of pergola

Will be a great impact on the street

Reduction in shadow to adjoining patio area

Position of garage and balcony would significantly obstruct outlook from windows

Should be setback between 4 to 6m at least

Overlooking from laundry, bedroom 2 and 3 windows impacting on outdoor areas and into internal spaces

Risk to tree on adjoining site during construction works and should be protected In response to the above, the applicant submitted the following response (summarised):

The pergola design could change. Request that the garage setback be assessed on its merits under LPP 2.9

Adjoining site has a garage setback at 1.5m with upper floors stepping back

Urban design principles mean that a transition is appropriate rather than abruptly commencing a significantly different setback

Garage will not cause a significant obstruction to views


Page 20

Level of the terrace is only 700mm above floor level of adjoining house at No. 22 Alfred Rd meaning views to ocean will not be obstructed

Adjoining houses are likely to be redeveloped in the future and owners may be trying to protect their investment

No objection to screening condition be applied where required however suggests that owners should meet to replace the fence to ensure it is 1.8m in height as this could satisfy privacy concerns

Owners will endeavour to protect any tree roots on their property In response to the applicant’s comments and submitters’ concerns, the following comments were provided by officers in the original report to PC on 3 April:

No revised plans have been received.

The application is assessed on its merits against LPP 2.9 below.

Detailed assessment, including consideration of the adjoining site and its reduced setback, is included below.

The criteria in the policy allow for a transition in setbacks where appropriate. In some instances a compliant setback allows for this transition.

Access to views is not included as part of the discretionary criteria for a street setback.

Financial interests are not a relevant part of a planning assessment and the motives behind a submission are not explicitly stated here.

Use of a boundary fence for screening is generally not recommended as the onus should be purely on the person producing the overlooking. Notwithstanding this, overlooking is discussed in detail below where it is seeking discretion.

The remaining comments are addressed in the officer comment below. Although the amended plans submitted on 9 April introduced an additional building height variation, the original application was advertised for a building height variation as the proposal had not been assessed in accordance with cl. 4.8.1.2 of LPS4. As such, the revised plans were not re-advertised in accordance with LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. The new building height discretion is discussed in the officers’ comments below. OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The original proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant Council local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the Deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant Design principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the Deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. The original and revised proposals do not meet the Deemed-to-comply or policy provisions and need to be assessed under the Design principles for:





Visual privacy


Page 21

The above matters are discussed below. Background The subject site is located on the south eastern side of Alfred Road in North Fremantle. The site has a land area of approximately 427m² and is currently a vacant site. The site is zoned Residential and has a density coding of R25. The site is individually heritage listed and is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area. The site is set on a reasonable slope, and includes an area of hardstand at the front of the site but is otherwise unoccupied by development. A sewer line cuts through the site approximately 8m in from the street boundary. In relation to this sewer line, the applicant has provided the following comments (summarised):

The Water Authority has advised that encasing the easement will be less complex and costly than relocating the sewer.

It is not viable to relocate sewer due to the costs and existing cap rock limestone.

No advice has been received from the Water Authority that requires the sewer to be relocated.

None of the consultants encaged to comment on the proposal have recommended that the sewer be relocated due to costs and unknown obstacles.

The easement is highly unusual and disadvantages the owners.

Relocating the sewer will require the destruction of an existing mature tree. A search of the property file has revealed no relevant planning history for the site. The original application was presented to the PC at its meeting held on 3 April 2019 with a recommendation for refusal as the proposed primary street setback was not considered to be consistent with the prevailing street setback of Alfred Street and therefore did not comply with Council Policy LPP 2.9. PC resolved to:

Refer the application to the Administration with the advice that the Planning Committee is not prepared to grant planning approval to the application for the two storey Single house at 20 Alfred Road, North Fremantle, based on the current submitted plans, and invite the applicant, prior to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting, to consider amending the proposal in order to address concerns relating to the primary street setback.

The applicant has since submitted revised plans that have made minor changes to the development including an increase in the primary street setback of 500mm. These amended plans are the subject of this report. Primary street setback Original plans

Element Requirement Proposed Extent of Variation

Garage/Entry/Store 5m 1.55 - 5.54m Nil - 3.45m

Upper floor 7m 5.5 - 7.1m Nil - 1.5 m


Page 22

Revised plans


Garage/Entry/Store 5m 2m- 5.5m Nil - 3m

Upper floor 7m 5.5 - 7.1m Nil - 1.5 m

As discussed above, amended plans have been submitted that increase the primary street setback from 1.55m to 2m (minimum), with the entry to the dwelling being setback at 5.55m. The increased setback has been assessed against LPP2.9. In order for Council to vary the primary street setback, it must be satisfied that the proposal meets one of the criteria within clause 1.2 of LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape policy. As per the original officer report, the increased setback is not considered to satisfy criteria i, ii, iii, or iv below as Alfred Street is considered to contain dwellings that are consistently setback from the primary street greater than the Policy requirement. The applicant relies on the use of criteria v, which allows the Council to give consideration to an adjoining corner lot, which would typically be setback less than the prescribed distance from the street that the subject dwelling faces. In this instance the increased setback provides a step from the setback of the building on the corner lot to the setback of the remaining dwellings in Alfred Road. However, Officers consider that in order to achieve a satisfactory graduation in setbacks between the corner lot and the remainder of Alfred Road, the setback should be in the order of 3.25m, being the median distance between the setback of the adjoining corner lot and the 5m prescribed distance of the Policy, given the remaining houses are setback further. An assessment of the revised setback against each of the discretionary criteria is provided below. The primary street setback is not considered to meet the discretionary criteria for the following reasons:

i. The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of buildings of comparable height within the prevailing streetscape; or

The prevailing streetscape is defined as being the three properties on either side of the development, fronting the same street and within the same street block. For the purposes of this application, the buildings considered to fall within the prevailing streetscape are as follows, and are all set back from Alfred Road greater than the prescribed setback:

22 Alfred – set back to 7.6m

24 Alfred – set back to 7.8m

26 Alfred – setback to 5.9m (GF), 8.1m (UF), with balconies set further forward. As illustrated in the image below, the prevailing street consists of dwellings that have ground level setbacks of greater than the required 5m setback with only the property located to the south, 18 Rule Street, being located forward of this requirement. The revised 2m (minimum) setback is therefore considered to be inconsistent with the prevailing streetscape. Consideration of the setback of the corner property is discussed further below.


Page 23

Figure 1: Street setbacks

ii. The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element

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

The road layout is not considered to be unusual, nor is the lot layout. The topography of the land is acknowledged to be challenging, however development that is setback from the street boundary to more greatly reflect the primary street setback is not insurmountable. The revised 2m setback is considered to result in a projecting element that is not supported.

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

The applicant has indicated the retention of a tree on their site plan. This tree is located hard against the western lot boundary of the subject site and is not considered to significantly constrain the primary street setback, particularly as dwellings are usually required to have a minimum 1m setback to a lot boundary.

iv. Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or


Page 24

As per the assessment above, there is considered to be a prevailing streetscape.

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

As briefly mentioned above, the site abuts a corner site (No. 18 Rule Street), which has a ground level garage set back 1.5m from Alfred Road (including a minor wall projection set back 500mm). The site also includes a first floor set back at 3.8m and second floor set back to 6.1m. While this property exhibits a ground level setback of less than the prescribed, its secondary street elevation is permitted under the R-Codes to be setback to 1.5m. It is for this reason that clause v above allows a development to be approved having consideration to a corner lot setback in addition to the setback of the dwellings that fall within the prevailing streetscape. In this regard, the proposed setback is considered to only take into account the setback of the corner lot and not the setback of the remaining streetscape which would require a setback of greater than 1.5m and closer to 5m, generally starting at the median of these setbacks, to provide a more effective transition of the existing setbacks to Alfred Road. In addition to the above, the proposed primary street setback is not considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The proposed building is not consistent with the established streetscape, with all of the properties to the east being setback 6m or greater.

The site is zoned R25, and being 425m2 is 125m2 greater than the minimum lot size for the zone. This suggests that the site should be more than capable of accommodating the prescribed front setback, or at least being close to it.

The front setback of the garage results in a structure that dominates this area of the site and restricts the ability for landscaping and open space in this area on site. It is acknowledged that a balcony for the use of the occupants is provided above the garage.

Parking is provided on site and there is considered to be sufficient space for landscaping along lot boundaries further within the site.

A garage structure is not required under the R-Codes, rather hardstand car parking could suffice. The site currently has an area of hardstand car parking and the location of the site within 250m of a high frequency bus route means that only one car bay is required.

The sewer easement is proposed to be built over and lot boundary setbacks are provided should further utilities be needed on site.

A storeroom is not required for a Single house under the deemed to comply criteria of the codes, however there is one located at the rear of the site, in addition to the one on the ground floor.

The bulk of the garage right on the street is not insignificant. The width of the garage and lack of a lot boundary setback to the western side of the lot exacerbates this.

The garage in this location restricts vision down the street when standing at street level.

The double garage door and additional blank wall is much wider than required for two compliant car bays. It is noted that a balcony is provided for some of its width.


Page 25

The proposed primary street setback is not consistent with the local planning framework, namely LPP 2.9.

Lot boundary setback (Boundary wall)


South west (garage) 1m 50mm 950mm

The revised plans submitted have not altered this element which is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The proposed boundary wall does not impact significantly on the amenity of outdoor living areas or major openings.

The wall abuts an existing boundary wall on the adjoining property for much of its length.

Any shadow cast by the boundary wall will affect lot boundary setback area and a portion of the adjoining site that has no openings.

Ventilation to the adjoining site is not significantly impacted. Lot boundary setback Submitted plans


South west (Balcony)

2.3m 1.3m 1m

Revised plans


South west (Balcony)

2.3m 1.6m 700mm

The reduced lot boundary setback is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The proposed boundary wall will not impact significantly on the amenity of outdoor living areas or major openings.

Ventilation to the adjoining site is not significantly impacted. Building height external wall Submitted plans


External wall height 5.5m 6m Nil

Revised plans


External wall height 5.5m 7.1m 1.6m

Previously, the external wall height was considered to meet clause 4.8.1.2 of LPS4 as the over height portion of the dwelling did not exceed the permitted height by greater than 500mm and was situated on the lowest portion of the site.


Page 26

In revising the plans, the applicant has altered the roof form from a traditional pitch roof to a skillion roof. This has resulted in an external wall height variation that is greater than 500mm therefore the building height is not able to be supported under clause 4.8.1.2 of LPS4. In order to vary external wall height, the revised plans must be assessed under the scheme clause 4.8.1.1 of LPS4. It is considered that the proposal meets these requirements as follows: Where sites contain or are adjacent to building that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 8, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to specific criteria. Clause 4.8.1 is trigged by the addition at No. 18 Rule Street which is three storeys in height with a wall height of approximately 8.4m. An assessment against the relevant criteria of cl. 4.8.1 is as follows:

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

The additional building height falls to the centre of the site and results from the proposed skillion roof form. The previous version of the plans had a similar “roof area”, however by having a skillion the wall becomes effectively exposed rather than under a roof.

The building footprint has also been reduced which assists with ensuring that the impact on neighbouring properties is minimal. As the highest portion of wall is to the centre of site, the height does not result in any additional shadow.

Due to the topography of the site, the additional height is for the front portion of the house (the two storey section) only, with the building complying with maximum building height for much of the site.

b) Degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the

scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality, The height of the subject dwelling is less than the existing dwelling at No. 18 Rule Street but greater than the single storey house at No. 22 Alfred Road. Effectively, the proposal graduates the height of the much higher No. 18 and existing single storey buildings further down Alfred Road.

c) Conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and There are no heritage implications on site or adjoining the development.

d) Any other relevant matter outlined in Councils local planning policies. There are no further height matters covered in policies for this area. Having regard for the above, the building height variation is not considered to adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining property or the locality and can be supported. Garage width


Garage width 50% of frontage 52% 2%


Page 27

The revised plans have not altered the width of the garage which is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The topography of the site means that the majority of the dwelling sits almost a storey above the garage, ensuring it is still visible.

The proposed balcony, although it does not extend the full length of the garage, assists in providing passive surveillance over the streetscape.

Visual privacy


Balcony (south-west)

7.5m 2.4m 5.1m

The revised plans have not altered the visual privacy from the balcony which is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The element of discretion relates only to the view back into site (i.e. outside of the street setback area).

The portion of site overlooked has screened terraces and balconies, walls without openings and a narrow lot boundary setback area.

It is not considered that there are any major openings or areas of active open space overlooked by the balcony.

CONCLUSION

Although a number of the proposed variations to the R-Codes can be supported as discussed in the officers comments above, the revised street setback of 2m to the proposed garage is not considered by officers to meet the discretionary criteria of LPP 2.9 or the design principles of the R-Codes as it is not consistent with the prevailing streetscape nor does it provide a suitable transition from the setback of the adjoining corner lot. Although it is acknowledged that existing sewer easements make it difficult to increase the primary street setback, the impact of the proposed setback is considered to be detrimental to the existing streetscape and does not reflect the intended streetscape for North Fremantle. Officers do believe some further modest increase in setback could be achieved notwithstanding the constraint presented by the sewer easement. The application is therefore recommended for refusal. Acknowledging the physical constraints of the site, if the Planning Committee is satisfied that the revised 2m setback to the proposed garage provides a suitable transition from the setback of 18 Rule Street to the remaining properties in Alfred Street, having regard for the setback of these properties, the following alternative recommendation is provided for consideration: APPROVE under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 the two storey Single house at No. 20 (Lot 1) Alfred Road, North Fremantle subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 9 April 2019. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


Page 28


3. Prior to occupation/ use of the development hereby approved, the boundary

wall located on the west shall be of a clean finish in any of the following materials: • coloured sand render, • face brick, • painted surface, and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

4. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for compliance,

if any condition is not met by the time requirement within that condition, then the obligation to comply with the requirements of any such condition (other than the time limitation for compliance specified in that condition), continues whilst the approved development continues.


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

Green Plan 2020 Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land.

1. Some vegetation will need to be removed to enable the development. 2. The removal of vegetation does not require planning approval. 3. Should the development be approved, the applicant would be encouraged to

retain deep planting zones on site. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS



REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, two storey Single house at No. 20 (Lot 1) Alfred Road, North Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 9 April 2019,for the following reasons:

1. The street setback of the ground floor of the dwelling (garage) does not satisfy the variation criteria of Local Planning Policy 2.9 as the setback is inconsistent with the setback of comparable height in the prevailing streetscape and results in a projecting element into the established streetscape.


Page 29

2. The street setback of the ground floor of the dwelling (garage) does not satisfy the design principles of State Planning Policy 3.1 (Residential Design Codes of WA) as the setback is inconsistent with the established streetscape and does not positively contribute to the prevailing or future development context.

COMMITTEE DECISION ITEM PC1905-2 (Alternative officer’s recommendation) Moved: Cr Bryn Jones Seconded: Cr Jeff McDonald Planning committee acting under delegation 1.2: APPROVE under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 the two storey Single house at No. 20 (Lot 1) Alfred Road, North Fremantle subject to the following conditions:


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

otherwise approved by the City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to occupation/ use of the development hereby approved, the

boundary wall located on the west shall be of a clean finish in any of the following materials: • coloured sand render, • face brick, • painted surface, and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

4. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for

compliance, if any condition is not met by the time requirement within that condition, then the obligation to comply with the requirements of any such condition (other than the time limitation for compliance specified in that condition), continues whilst the approved development continues.

Carried: 6/0

Cr Jon Strachan, Cr Ingrid Waltham, Cr Bryn Jones, Cr Adin Lang, Cr Jeff McDonald, Cr Dave Hume

Reason for change The street setback of the proposed development was considered to be acceptable in the context of the established streetscape and unusual site constraints.


Page 30

10.2 COMMITTEE DELEGATION

PC1905 -3 SOUTH TERRACE, NO.137 (LOT 22), SOUTH FREMANTLE - S.31 RECONSIDERATION - TWO STOREY WITH ROOFTOP GROUPED DWELLING AND CONVERSION OF AN ANCILLARY DWELLING TO DETACHED ADDITION (JL DA0560/17)

Meeting Date: 1 May 2019 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Revised Development Plans

2: Refused Development Plans 3: Site Photos

SUMMARY

Approval is sought for a two storey Grouped dwelling with a rooftop terrace and conversion of an existing ancillary dwelling to a detached addition at No. 137 (Lot 22) South Terrace, Fremantle (subject site). The application was originally presented to the 7 November 2018 Planning Committee meeting where committee resolved to:

REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for a two storey with roof top terrace Grouped dwelling and conversion of an Ancillary dwelling to Outbuilding (or detached addition to the existing Single house), dated 18 September 2018, at No. 137 (Lot 22) South Terrace, Fremantle, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is detrimental to the amenity of the area and incompatible with

the objectives of the Residential zone set out in clause 3.2.1(a) of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as per clauses 67(a), (m) and (y) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

2. The lot boundary setback of the northern and western elevations do not satisfy the Design principles of clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes by reasons of the impact of bulk and scale on the amenity of the adjoining northern and western properties.

3. The proposal provides inadequate arrangements for vehicle parking as per

clause 67(s) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

On 4 December 2018, the applicant appealed the decision to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). The parties were invited to participate in SAT mediation, which included the participation of the owners of the immediately adjoining properties at the commencement of the session.


Page 31

Following the mediation the SAT issued a direction notice inviting the City to reconsider an amended proposal. This amended proposal is the subject of the current report. The amended plans bring the development closer into compliance with the Deemed to Comply provisions of the R-Codes, although some aspects of the proposal still require a Design Principles assessment, notably in relation to car parking as there is no off-street parking for the existing dwelling on site. On balance, officers consider the amended proposal adequately addresses the reasons for refusal and the application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for a two storey with rooftop terrace Grouped dwelling and the conversion of an existing Ancillary dwelling to a detached addition at the subject site. The proposed dwelling is to be located at the rear of the existing dwelling on-site on an indicative survey strata lot of 280m2. The conversion of an existing Ancillary dwelling, currently located in the middle western portion of site, to a detached addition for the proposed dwelling is also proposed. Vehicular access to the proposed dwelling will be provided via an existing right of way and access easement over the rear of No. 141 South Terrace. The proposed dwelling includes a two car carport, three bedrooms, two ensuites, study, living room, kitchen, rooftop terrace and pergola. Amended plans were provided on 2 April 2019, which included the following amendments from the original development plans:

Deletion of the western and northern boundary garage walls

Conversion of the previously proposed garage to a carport

Screening devices to a number of windows on the first floor

Increased setbacks to the northern and western ground, first floor and rooftop terrace

Deletion of the rooftop swimming pool. Amended Development plans are included as Attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 14 November 2018 Owner name: David and Anitra Woodcock Submitted by: Private Horizons Planning Solutions Scheme: Residential (R35) Heritage listing: Level 3 and South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing land use: Single house and Ancillary dwelling Use class: Two Grouped dwellings Use permissibility: D


Page 32

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required. Community The original application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The advertising period concluded on 25 April 2018. Seven (7) submissions of objection were received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

The additional dwelling on the site is excessive and considered overdevelopment;

The reduced setbacks result in adverse building bulk and reduce natural light and ventilation to neighbouring lots;

A result of the additional dwelling will be an increase in traffic;

Noise will reduce the amenity of the neighbouring lots, due to an open air roof top deck and entertaining area;

Vehicular access to the rear of the lot is unsafe, with no provisions in place on the plans for a vehicle to exit in a forward gear;

Insufficient greenery and trees proposed on the plans.

As detailed above, the owners of the immediately adjoining properties were invited to attend the commencement of the SAT Mediation session and raise their concerns with other parties and the SAT Member. At the conclusion of the SAT Mediation, the applicant was invited to submit amended plans that addressed the reasons for refusal and the neighbours’ concerns.


Page 33

It is noted that the amended proposal has deleted the proposed swimming pool addition to the roof terrace and the potential for overlooking from the terrace and/or north and west facing openings has been appropriately addressed with highlight windows or screening. The amended proposal was not required to be advertised in accordance with LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals, as there are no additional discretions sought. The proposed amendments and the impact on the neighbouring properties is discussed in the officer comment below. OFFICER COMMENT

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

land use (Grouped dwelling)

on-site car parking

lot boundary setbacks

outdoor living area It is noted that the amended proposal has removed the previously sought boundary wall variation to the north and west. Background The site is located in the street block bound by South Terrace to the east, Grey Street to the north, Price Street to the south and Marine Terrace to the west. The site has a land area of 630m2 and currently consists of a Single house with an Ancillary dwelling. Existing vehicle access to the site is via a Right of Way and an access easement over the adjoining lot at No. 141 South Terrace to the rear of the subject site. The site is zoned Residential with a density of R35. The site is individually listed as a Level 3 on the City’s Heritage Listed and located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. A review of the City’s databases has revealed that retrospective approval for an addition of a rear patio, verandah and Ancillary dwelling to the existing Single house was sought in 2017 (DA0559/17). This particular Ancillary dwelling which was approved as part of DA0559/17 is proposed to be converted into a detached addition for the proposed Grouped dwelling as part of this application.


Page 34

Approval was sought for a two storey Grouped dwelling with a rooftop terrace and conversion of an existing ancillary dwelling to a detached addition for the proposed grouped dwelling onsite. The application was originally presented to the 7 November 2018 Planning Committee meeting where the committee resolved to: REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for a two storey with roof top terrace Grouped dwelling and conversion of an Ancillary dwelling to Outbuilding (or detached addition to the existing Single house), dated 18 September 2018, at No. 137 (Lot 22) South Terrace, Fremantle, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is detrimental to the amenity of the area and incompatible with the objectives of the Residential zone set out in clause 3.2.1(a) of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as per clauses 67(a), (m) and (y) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

2. The lot boundary setback of the northern and western elevations do not satisfy the

Design principles of clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes by reasons of the impact of bulk and scale on the amenity of the adjoining northern and western properties.

3. The proposal provides inadequate arrangements for vehicle parking as per clause

67(s) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

On 4 December 2018, the applicant appealed the decision to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). The parties were invited to participate in SAT mediation, which included the participation of the owners of the immediately adjoining properties at the commencement of the session. Following the mediation the SAT issued a direction notice inviting the City to reconsider an amended proposal. This amended proposal is the subject of the current report. Land Use

Land use LPS4 Zone Permissibility Discretion

Grouped dwelling Residential Zone D Discretion

A Grouped dwelling is a ‘D’ use within the Residential Zone, meaning the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion in accordance with the matters to be considered in Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. In this regard the following matters have been considered:

(a) The aims and provisions of this Scheme and any other local planning scheme operating within the Scheme area

(m) The compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development

(n) The amenity of the locality including the following: (i) Environmental impacts of the development (ii) The character of the locality (iii) Social impacts of the development


Page 35

(y) Any submissions received on the application. With regards to (m) above, the proposal is of a height (i.e. two storey) and use (Grouped dwelling) that is consistent with the built form in the general locality. Although officers consider that the proposed dwelling could be sited differently on site, the development, with the exception of a minor setback variation to the northern boundary, complies with the deemed to comply development requirements of the R-Codes, including minimum site area. These standards establish the minimum requirements for acceptable development that minimises the impact on adjoining neighbours and the streetscape. The City received several submissions raising concerns to the original proposed building height and the reduced northern and western setbacks. It is acknowledged that the amended proposal includes:

reduced lengths and heights of the original northern and western boundary walls,

compliant setbacks for the first and second floor for the western boundary and

increased northern boundary setbacks for the first and second floor,

reduction in building height which is now compliant. See further discussion relating to this matter provided in ‘lot boundary setback’ section below. Heritage and Demolition The site is listed in the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as level 3. It is also located in the South Fremantle Heritage Area. This means that the City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of some cultural heritage significance for its contribution to the streetscape and to the local area. It is noted that the existing Single house dwelling and Ancillary dwelling are to be retained and only works to convert the Ancillary dwelling to a detached addition are proposed as part of this application. As the proposal includes the demolition of an incidental structure at the rear of the site the application has been assessed in accordance with Cl4.14. Demolition shall only be supported if the City is satisfied that the building or structure:

(a) has limited or no cultural heritage significance; and (b) does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage

significance and character of the locality in which it is located. The City has undertaken an assessment of the site’s heritage significance and the demolition of the rear detached carport and rear verandah addition to the Ancillary dwelling are supported under cl.4.14, as the structures are considered to be of limited heritage significance and do not positively contribute to the cultural heritage significance of the immediate or greater locality. The proposed two storey grouped dwelling addition is a freestanding building located behind the heritage listed house. Due to its location, the proposed new building will not have an impact on the existing house’s contribution to the streetscape. As such the proposal is supported in terms of heritage considerations.


Page 36

Lot boundary setbacks (in conjunction with LPP2.4 – Boundary walls) Refused application

Element Deemed to comply Provided Design principle

Western ground floor wall (garage)

1.5m Nil 1.5m

Western upper floor wall

1.2m 1.2m – 1.7m Complies

Western roof terrace wall

1.3m 1.7m Complies

Northern ground floor (garage)

1m Nil 1m

Northern ground floor wall (dwelling)

1.5m 1.05m – 1.85m 450mm

Northern first floor wall (dwelling)

1.9m 1m – 1.55m 350mm - 900mm

Northern roof terrace wall

2.3m 1.55m 750mm

Revised plans


Western ground floor wall (carport)

Nil (Carport Pillar) and 1.2m

Nil (Carport Pillar) and 1.25m

Complies

Western upper floor wall

1.2m 1.25m Complies

Western roof terrace wall

1.3m 2.4m Complies

Northern ground floor (carport)

1.5m 1.9m Complies

Northern ground floor wall (dwelling)

1.2m -1.5m 1.2m - 1.7m Complies

Northern first floor wall (dwelling)

1.2m - 1.9m 1.2m – 1.9m Complies

Northern roof terrace wall

1.9m -2.4m 2.1m 200mm

The original proposal included a number of setback variations to the western and northern boundaries which were considered to adversely impact on the immediately adjoining properties by way of building bulk, access to sun/daylight and ventilation. The setbacks have been revised to comply with deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes, being the acceptable standards for residential development, with the exception of the north facing balustrade/privacy screen of the roof terrace, located east of the stair. This setback and the carport pillar are discussed further below. Western setbacks The revised plans include one pillar for the new carport which will abut the existing boundary wall located within No.24a Price Street, which is of a greater dimension than the pillar. As per the R-Codes this is considered to satisfy the deemed to comply with provisions of DE5.1.3c3.2 (i).


Page 37

Northern setbacks The proposal has been amended to comply with the minimum setback requirements of the R-Codes, except for the rooftop terrace portion of glass balustrade/privacy screen, located to the east of the stair, which is setback 1.9m from the northern boundary in lieu of the compliant 2.1m setback. The proposed setback is considered to maintain adequate access to light and ventilation for the adjoining property. The rooftop terrace balustrade/privacy screen is to be constructed of obscured glass and setback 1.9m from the boundary (700mm from the edge of the first floor blow) which is considered to minimise the perceived additional bulk of the proposed roof terrace when viewed from the site to the north. Although officers consider that the proposed dwelling could be sited to be located further away from the northern and western boundaries, as the amended proposal now complies with all the minimum setback requirements of the R-Codes with the exception of a minor variation to the northern boundary which can be supported in accordance with Design Principles of the R-Codes, the proposal is considered to be sited in a location that reduces the potential impacts on the neighbouring property to an acceptable level. Onsite Car parking Refused and Revised plans (no change)


Existing Dwelling 1 bay Nil 1 Bay

Proposed Dwelling 1 bay 2 bays Nil - complies

As outlined in the original officer report, on site parking should be provided for both the existing and proposed dwelling. Officers considered that this could be achieved by siting the proposed grouped dwelling differently and/or removing the proposed detached addition. It is noted that a number of existing site constraints, including the retention of the existing heritage dwelling at the front of the site which make it difficult for additional parking to be provided. Having regard for the above, the following considerations are considered to support the waiving of the provision of one car parking bay for the retained heritage dwelling:

Seven (7) unrestricted on street car parking bays are located immediately adjoining the site on South Terrace, within a distance of 20 metres. A number of the properties in the immediate locality have on-site parking accessible via rear laneways or right of ways, whist a number of dwellings do not have any on site car parking. It is assumed that the on street car parking bays (along South Terrace, Grey Street and Price Street) currently service a number of residents with additional parking as well as parking for visitors to the area. The potential use of street parking by users of the retained heritage dwelling is not considered to negatively impact on the current demand for these bays. The subject site is located within close walking and cycling distance to the City Centre providing a number of services and amenities that may reduce the need for occupiers of the retained heritage dwelling to require a private vehicle

The subject site abuts a significant public transport route with multiple alternative transport options (Public and Cat bus, taxi transport).


Page 38

Officers do not recommend refusing the application on the basis of a one car bay shortfall, given the site’s location and access to services, amenities, on street and public transport options. In order to inform future owners/occupants of the retained dwelling that no parking is provided nor can there be an expectation that the on-street parking will be exclusively available to owners/occupiers, including any future provision of a residential parking permit, it is recommended that any approval be conditioned to require a notification to be placed on the Certificate of Title for the lot advising future owners/occupier of these requirements. Outdoor Living Area Refused and Revised plans (no change)

Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

Existing Dwelling (to be retained)

2.4m min dimension 30m2 area Unroofed Accessible from living room

Minimum dimension not satisfied – area complies

Proposed Dwelling 5.9m min dimension 54m2 area Unroofed Accessible from dining room

Complies

As outlined in the original officer report, the minimum dimension of the proposed outdoor living area for the retained dwelling is considered to satisfy the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The area of the outdoor living area is 6m2 larger than the deemed-to-comply requirement. Whilst not meeting the minimum 4m dimension, the north eastern courtyard area will allow for a suitable space for gathered seating and entertaining external to the dwelling.

The outdoor area maximises a northern aspect and is easily accessible from one of the main living areas of the existing dwelling.

CONCLUSION

The original proposal was considered to be unacceptable due to the number of setback variations that were considered to adversely impact on the amenity of the immediately adjoining neighbours. Although the proposal still requires a discretionary assessment against the land use, car parking and the minimum dimension of the outdoor living area for the retained dwelling, the amended proposal removes all of the previously sought setback variations with the exception of a minor variation to the north, located furthest from the western boundary of the site. This variation is considered minor and satisfies the design principles of the R-Codes. Although it may be considered that a different design could further reduce the potential impacts on the adjoining neighbours, the proposal in its current form satisfies the deemed to comply criteria of the R-Codes other than in relation to the matters discussed above. It is therefore, on balance, considered to propose an acceptable development which can be recommended for conditional approval.


Page 39


Increase the number of people living in Fremantle Green Plan 2020

The development results in the removal of some vegetation on the lot. It is noted that the removal of vegetation on private land is exempt from the need to obtain planning approval.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS



Moved: Cr Dave Hume Seconded: Cr Jon Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 1.2:

APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, a two storey with roof terrace Grouped dwelling addition and the conversion of the existing Ancillary dwelling to a detached addition at No. 137 (Lot 22) South Terrace, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):


2. The approved development shall be wholly located within the cadastral

boundaries of 137 South Terrace, Fremantle including any footing details of the development.


otherwise approved by the City of Fremantle. 4. Prior to the issue of a building permit, a detailed drawing showing how the

study room southern window, dinning and kitchen room northern windows, and roof top terrace area located on the northern, southern, and western elevations, are to be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

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


Page 40

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

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

Prior to occupation, the approved screening method shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation of the Grouped dwelling addition, a Notification pursuant to

Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land that: a) the existing dwelling facing South Terrace is not provided with any on-site

car parking; b) they, including any current or future occupier, will not be entitled to an on-

street residential parking permit(s); and c) the current street parking arrangement may change as a consequence of

further development by further restricting street parking on the locality.

6. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle addressing the following matters: a) Protection of infrastructure and street trees within the road reserve; b) Access to site by construction vehicles; c) Contact details; d) Noise - Construction work and deliveries; e) Sand drift and dust management; f) Waste management; g) Traffic management; h) Works affecting pedestrian areas; and i) Impact on the access to and from the Right of Way.

Advice Note(s):

i) A building permit is required to be obtained for the proposed building work. The building permit must be issued prior to commencing any works on site.

ii) The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

iii) Local Planning Policy 1.10 Construction Sites can be found on the City’s web site via http://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/development/policies. A copy of the City’s Construction and Demolition Management Plan Proforma which needs to be submitted with building and demolition permits can be accessed via:





Page 41

The Infrastructure Engineering department can be contacted via [email protected] or 9432 9999.

AMENDMENT Moved: Cr Jon Strachan Seconded: Cr Bryn Jones To add the following advice note iv) iv) The applicant is advised that in the event that the approved Grouped Dwelling

is constructed, the existing Ancillary Dwelling is no longer authorised. The Ancillary Dwelling must be converted and used as a detached addition as per the approved plans and Condition 1, prior to occupation of the Grouped Dwelling.

Amendment carried: 6/0

Cr Ingrid Waltham, Cr Bryn Jones, Cr Jon Strachan, Cr Adin Lang, Cr Jeff McDonald, Cr Dave Hume

AMENDED OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION Moved: Cr Dave Hume Seconded: Cr Jon Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 1.2: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, a two storey with roof terrace Grouped dwelling addition and the conversion of the existing Ancillary dwelling to a detached addition at No. 137 (Lot 22) South Terrace, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):



boundaries of 137 South Terrace, Fremantle including any footing details of the development.


otherwise approved by the City of Fremantle. 4. Prior to the issue of a building permit, a detailed drawing showing how the

study room southern window, dinning and kitchen room northern windows, and roof top terrace area located on the northern, southern, and western elevations, are to be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:



Page 42


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


5. Prior to occupation of the Grouped dwelling addition, a Notification pursuant to

Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land that: a) the existing dwelling facing South Terrace is not provided with any on-site

car parking; b) they, including any current or future occupier, will not be entitled to an on-

street residential parking permit(s); and c) the current street parking arrangement may change as a consequence of

further development by further restricting street parking on the locality.

6. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle addressing the following matters: a) Protection of infrastructure and street trees within the road reserve; b) Access to site by construction vehicles; c) Contact details; d) Noise - Construction work and deliveries; e) Sand drift and dust management; f) Waste management; g) Traffic management; h) Works affecting pedestrian areas; and i) Impact on the access to and from the Right of Way.

Advice Note(s):

i) A building permit is required to be obtained for the proposed building work. The building permit must be issued prior to commencing any works on site.

ii) The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

iii) Local Planning Policy 1.10 Construction Sites can be found on the City’s web site via http://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/development/policies. A copy of the City’s Construction and Demolition Management Plan Proforma which needs to be submitted with building and demolition permits can be accessed via:





Page 43

The Infrastructure Engineering department can be contacted via [email protected] or 9432 9999.

iv) The applicant is advised that in the event that the approved Grouped Dwelling is constructed, the existing Ancillary Dwelling is no longer authorised. The Ancillary Dwelling must be converted and used as a detached addition as per the approved plans and Condition 1, prior to occupation of the Grouped Dwelling.

Lost: 2/4 For

Cr Jon Strachan, Cr Dave Hume Against

Cr Ingrid Waltham, Cr Bryn Jones, Cr Adin Lang, Cr Jeff McDonald,

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ITEM PC1905 - 3 (Alternative Recommendation) Moved: Cr Adin Lang Seconded: Cr Jeff McDonald REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for a two storey with roof top terrace Grouped dwelling and conversion of an Ancillary dwelling to detached addition, dated 2 April 2019, at No. 137 (Lot 22) South Terrace, Fremantle, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is detrimental to the amenity of the area and incompatible with the objectives of the Residential zone set out in clause 3.2.1(a) of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as per clauses 67(a), (m) and (y) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

2. The lot boundary setback of the northern elevation does not satisfy the Design principles of clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes by reasons of the impact of bulk and scale on the amenity of the adjoining northern property.

3. The proposal provides inadequate arrangements for vehicle parking as per

clause 67(s) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Carried: 4/2

For Cr Ingrid Waltham,

Cr Bryn Jones, Cr Adin Lang, Cr Jeff McDonald,

Against Cr Jon Strachan, Cr Dave Hume

The above item is referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council for determination in accordance with the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register which requires that at least 5 members of the committee vote in favour of the Committee Recommendation in order to exercise its delegation.


Page 44

PC1905 -4 AMHERST STREET, NO. 1/51 (LOT 303), WHITE GUM VALLEY - MODIFICATION TO PRIVACY SCREEN TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (TG DA0011/19)

Meeting Date: 1 May 2019 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Development Plans


Approval is sought for the modification of screening to an existing bedroom in a single house at No. 1/51 Amherst Street, White Gum Valley. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to the nature of some discretions being sought and comments received during the notification period that cannot be addressed through conditions of approval. The application seeks discretionary assessments against the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) for:

Visual Privacy. The application is recommended for approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for modifications to an existing privacy screen at No. 1/51 Amherst Street. The proposed works include:

The removal of the existing opaque screening to the existing bedroom window,

The unfixing of openable windows to the existing bedroom,

The addition of a solid panel to the top of an existing pergola, extending 900mm from the bedroom wall to block views downwards between the pergola rafters., and

The addition of a 340m high rafter to the end of the existing pergola (furthest away from the bedroom wall) to obscure views into the backyard of the adjoining property. The additional rafter will extend the full length of the pergola structure which extends in front of the Bedroom and Ensuite windows of the existing dwelling.

The applicant has advised that the proposed screening method will allow them to remove the obscure film on the Bedroom window and obtain views of the ocean whilst maintaining their neighbours’ privacy and their own privacy. The applicant submitted amended plans on 26 March 2019 increasing the height of the proposed rafter to 0.34m from 0.3m. Development plans are included as attachment 1.


Page 45

Site/application information Date received: 11 January 2019 Owner name: B and P White Submitted by: Arklen Developments P/L Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage listing: Not Listed Existing land use: Single House Use class: Single House Use permissibility: P

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as the proposal involved the exercise of discretion with regard to visual privacy. The advertising period concluded on 5 February 2019, and one submission was received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

The proposed screening will not provide adequate screening or privacy that meets our expectations.


Page 46

The patio structure was not considered to provide adequate screening as per the City’s assessment of the original application.

We believe that the screening condition of the original application should have also extended to the ensuite. We are required to draw our blinds, which reduces our access to light, to maintain our privacy.

When viewed from the western edge of our property, the pergola rafter would need to be at least 500mm high to achieve the same sightline as the obscure film to the bedroom window.

Screening should be provided which wraps around the side of the existing pergola. In response to the above, the applicant submitted revised plans that increased the height of the proposed rafter to 0.34m. The applicant also erected a string line on site to provide a physical demonstration of the proposed screening. In response to the above, the following comments are provided by officers:

The development currently complies with all its relevant approvals as obscure film has been applied to the Bedroom window and the windows have been fixed as to not be operable.

An applicant/owner is permitted to lodge an application for Development Approval to amend the design of the dwelling and provide an alternative method of privacy screening other than the methods specified in the R-Codes.

The proposed screening is not identical to the screening proposed in the original application which was not supported by Officers.

As per the R-Codes, Bathrooms and Ensuites are not considered to be habitable rooms and are therefore not required to be screened to prevent overlooking. It is noted that these rooms are usually screened by obscure glassing or internal blinds to provide privacy to users of these rooms.

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant Design Principle criteria of the R-Codes. Detail of this assessment is contained in the officer comment below. OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant Council local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the Deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant Design principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the Deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application, on removal of the obscure film to the upper level Bedroom window the development will not meet the Deemed-to-comply criteria to minimise overlooking which requires openings to be setback a minimum distance from the property boundary or be screened with obscure glazing, an external screen/blind or have a raised sill height. An assessment against the Design Principle criteria for Visual privacy is discussed below.


Page 47

Background The subject site is located on the western side of Amherst Street, close to the intersection with Watkins Street. The site has a land area of approximately 285m² and currently contains a two storey single house. The site is zoned Residential and has a density coding of R25. The site is not individually heritage listed, nor is it located within a Heritage Area. The existing two storey dwelling on site includes an upper floor bedroom window set back from the western site boundary by approximately 2 metres. This window is fixed and currently screened by obscure film to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above the finished floor level of the Bedroom. The screening of the Bedroom window was a result of a condition of Planning Approval for a two storey Single house, which was approved on 21 January 2017 (DA0589/16). The screening condition was as follows:

5. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0589/16, on plans dated 8 December 2016, the Master Bedroom window located on the western elevation, shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

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

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

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

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

The required screening shall be provided and maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The screening located above the pergola shown on the plans provided will not be accepted as a satisfactory method of screening by the City.

Visual Privacy


Visual privacy setbacks

4.5m setback 2m setback 2.5m

Screening Method Screening to be 1.6m in height above finished floor level, at least 75% obscure, permanently fixed, made of durable material and restrict view in the direction of overlooking into any adjoining property.

Alternative proposed

Discretionary assessment required.


Page 48

As the proposal does not meet the minimum setback requirement or provide a type of screening device that is specifically defined in the R-Codes an assessment of the proposed screening device is required against the Design principles of the R-Codes which are as follows:

Minimal direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of adjacent dwellings achieved through:

building layout and location;

design of major openings;

landscape screening of outdoor active habitable spaces; and/or

location of screening devices. As noted in the image below ‘cone of vision’ (as defined in the R-Codes) from the existing upper floor bedroom window falls within the boundaries of the adjoining properties at 51/51B Amherst Street and 24 Watkins Street.

Figure 1: Approximate location of the ‘Cone of Vision’ from the upper floor bedroom of

the subject site.


Page 49

The proposed screening is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The cone of vision to the north falls over an adjoining vehicle access leg that is not considered to be a sensitive area. It is also noted that the outdoor living area of the adjoining property is located towards their northern boundary and partially obscured from view by additions and vegetation located on this property.

The amended screening structure is considered to appropriately restrict overlooking towards adjoining major openings and active habitable spaces.

The proposed screening is considered to block any view from the Bedroom window, downwards towards the western adjoining property.

The 340mm rafter will block the view of the western adjoining property’s back yard and swimming pool. Although it is acknowledged that occupiers of the dwelling may have differing eye levels, the location and height of the rafter will raise a person’s sightline above the ground of the adjoining back yard and swimming pool with only the top portion of the dividing fence being possibly visible from view when standing immediately up to the surface of the Bedroom window.

It is considered that the rafter effectively raises the sightline above the adjoining back yard and swimming pool, whilst enabling a outlook towards the ocean.

Given the existing obscured glazing only prevents overlooking from a view of less than 1.6m in height, with the view above 1.6m being completely unobscured, the proposed screening is considered to provide greater privacy than existing.

The screening is to extend for the length of the existing pergola, thereby minimising the oblique southern view from the bedroom window and also screening to the view from the existing unscreened bathroom windows which were not required to be screened in accordance with the R-Codes. This outcome is considered to improve mutual privacy between the subject site and adjoining property beyond the standard deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes.

When viewed from the adjoining properties, especially 24 Watkins Street, the screening provides a line of sight that is approximately equal to the existing height of the obscure film. In this regard the Bedroom and Ensuite window will remain partially out of view from the adjoining properties which helps to eliminate any sense of perceived overlooking and enhance the privacy of occupants of the subject dwelling.

In conclusion, the proposed screening is considered to satisfy the Design principles of the R-Codes to minimise direct overlooking of sensitive areas of adjoining properties. In this regard, the proposed screening is considered to achieve greater privacy for both the occupants of adjoining properties and the subject property than that currently achieved through the use of obscure glazing as per the Deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes. To ensure that privacy is maintained to the adjoining properties whilst the proposed screening is being constructed, it is recommended that a condition of approval be imposed to ensure that the obscure and the fixed Bedroom window is not removed/altered until the screening has been constructed to the satisfaction of the City. In regard to ongoing compliance, the proposed screening must be maintained for the life of the development, unless a Deemed to comply screening device is installed in its place. Site photos which include a string line demonstration of the extent of the proposed screening element are provided as attachment 2.


Page 50

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS


Nil COMMITTEE DECISION ITEM PC1905-4 Moved: Cr Ingrid Waltham Seconded: Cr Dave Hume Planning committee acting under delegation 1.2: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the privacy screen to the existing single house at No. 1/51 (Lot 303) Amherst 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 26 March 2019. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Notwithstanding condition 1, the fixed window of the upper level Bedroom

and the obscure film is not to be altered or removed, until the approved screening addition has been constructed to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle. The installed screening shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the City for the life of the development.

Advice Note(s):

i. The applicant/owner is advised that the approved screening, once installed and if maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle, will remove the need for the applicant/owner to comply with Condition 5 of the Planning Approval for the two storey Single house approved on 21 January 2017 (DA0589/16), unless otherwise removed.

Carried: 6/0



Page 51

PC1905 -5 ZETA CRESCENT, NO. 25 (STRATA LOT 1), O'CONNOR - VARIATION TO PREVIOUS PLANNING APPROVAL DA0270/13 (CHANGE OF USE TO USE NOT LISTED (DOG DAY CARE)) - (TG VA0003/19)


2: Site Photos 3: Addendum to Previous Noise Report

SUMMARY

Approval is sought to modify a condition of an existing approval to increase the permitted maximum number of animals at an approved dog day care from 30 to 40 at 1/25 Zeta Crescent, O’Connor. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to comments received during the notification period that cannot be addressed through conditions of approval. The proposed increase in the number of permitted animals on site has been assessed in the context of the proposal’s compliance with relevant Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) requirements including Land use (use not listed) and on site car parking. The application is recommended for approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought to modify a condition of an existing approval to increase the permitted number of animals at an existing dog day care at 1/25 Zeta Crescent, O’Connor. The application proposes to increase to the approved animal numbers from 30 to 40. In support of their application, the applicant submitted the following additional information on 4 April and 9 April 2019:

An explanation of their intended noise management strategies with regard to training,

A new internal site plan delineating internal separated areas for the dogs to be used for training and rest, and

An addendum to the noise report submitted further to DA0270/13 confirming continued compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

Development plans are included as attachment 1. The addendum to the original noise report is provided as attachment 3.


Page 52

Site/application information Date received: 11 March 2019 Owner name: JC and RE Midolo Submitted by: Wagz Day Care Scheme: Industrial Heritage listing: Not Listed Existing land use: Use not listed (Dog day care) Use class: Use not listed (Dog day care) Use permissibility: N/A

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as the proposal involved an amendment to an existing condition of approval for an unlisted land use and the potential for this amendment to increase the demand for on site car parking. The advertising period concluded on 29 March 2019, and one submission was received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

The proposed increase to animal numbers on site will exacerbate existing issues with regard to noise emanating from the premises.

Concerns that conditions of development approval (DA0270/13 refers) have not been addressed.

In response to the above, the applicant submitted the following response:

The business is intended to be taken over by an experienced dog carer and barking is to be managed through the use of delineated areas for the dogs, to separate resting dogs and for use in agility training.


Page 53

It is noted that the previous consideration of the application included barking management strategies which included spray collars and high pitched noises while the current barking management strategy is based on training the animals.

A noise assessor has confirmed that it is not anticipated that the increase of 10 animals will bring the premises out of compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

In response to the above, the following comments are provided by officers:

The applicant has provided information regarding their management of noise and barking from the animals on site.

It was a previous condition of development approval that the applicant submit for approval the details of noise attenuation measures, including a qualified Noise Consultant’s report confirming compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. This report found that the premises were operating in compliance with these regulations and accordingly no specific attenuation measures were necessary.

The applicant also provided confirmation that the increase of 10 animals is not anticipated to bring the premises out of compliance with industrial noise limitations.

The remaining comments are addressed in the officer comment below. OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposed increase in the number of permitted animals on site has been assessed in the context of the proposal’s compliance with relevant Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) requirements including Land use (use not listed) and on site car parking. The above matters are discussed below. Background The subject site is located on the southern side of Zeta Crescent, O’Connor. The site has a land area of approximately 525m² and is currently operating as a dog day care for 30 dogs. The site is zoned Industrial. The site is not individually heritage listed, nor is it located within a Heritage Area. The site exhibits an existing warehouse/showroom building comprising two tenancies. A search of the property file has revealed the following history for the site: On 23 November 2011, Planning Committee approved the partial change of use to Use Not Listed (Dog Day Care) (DA0299/11) subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with development plans and attached information dated 27 June 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. No more than 20 animals are to be kept on site at any one time, unless the

further approval of Council is granted.


Page 54

3. All animal excrement shall be removed and disposed of daily to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. 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.

5. The banner signage proposed shall be consistent with Schedule 5 – Exempt

Advertisements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 pertaining to the ‘Temporary Sign’ requirements.

On 21 August 2013, Planning Committee approved a request to modify a condition of the original approval to increase the maximum number of dogs from 20 to 30 (DA0270/13). The application was approved 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.

A request to modify Condition 2 above is the subject of this report. Land Use A dog day care is a use which is not listed in the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4, which means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. In considering an unlisted use the Council will have regard to the matters to be considered in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. In this regard the following matters have been considered:


(m) The compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development

(n) The amenity of the locality including the following: (i) Environmental impacts of the development (ii) The character of the locality (iii) Social impacts of the development

(y) Any submissions received on the application.


Page 55

The existing approved land use including the proposed increase of animals to 40 is considered to address the above matters for the following reasons:

The proposed land use remains consistent with the objective of the industrial zone in that the nature of its operation would otherwise result in undue noise impact to residential properties if it were located outside an industrial area.

The applicant has previously demonstrated compliance with the relevant environmental health noise limits relevant to industrial areas and has provided confirmation that it is anticipated that the operation of the business will remain in compliance with the relevant legislation.

On site car parking


Car parking Use of Child Care Rates Current = 6 Proposed = 7

2 on site parking bays

1 additional bay

As no specific car parking requirement for a dog day care use is contained in LPS4, it is considered appropriate to apply the parking standard relevant to child care premises considering the similarities between the nature of these land uses, including morning drop off and afternoon/evening pick up. In applying a similar rate, 7 car parking bays would be required for a premises with 3 staff and 40 animals. Accordingly a potential additional one bay shortfall could be considered to be applicable. The current provision of onsite car parking is considered to meet the objectives of LPS4 in the following ways:

The applicant has advised that it would be intended to have three persons on site at all times to manage the premises. Two parking bays are provided on site for staff parking all day and there is additional parking available on the paved property verge.

Pick up and drop off for the business is considered to be readily accommodated on the paved property verge and driveway and generally would only occur in the morning and evening, with limited disruption anticipated during normal daytime business operation.

In accordance with the above considerations, the provision of parking on site is considered appropriate to support the business. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above assessment, the proposal is considered to appropriately address the relevant statutory planning requirements and is therefore considered worthy of approval, subject to conditions.


Page 56


Increase the number of people working in Fremantle

Increase the number of visitors to Fremantle FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS


Nil COMMITTEE DECISION ITEM PC1905-5 Moved: Cr Jeff McDonald Seconded: Cr Dave Hume Planning committee acting under delegation 1.2: APPROVE under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 the Variation to previous planning approval DA0270/13 (Modification to Previously Granted Planning Condition for a Use Not Listed (Dog Day Care)) at No. 25 (Lot 1) Zeta Crescent, O’Connor, subject to the same terms and conditions as those included within Planning Approval to commence development letter for DA0270/13, dated 27 August 2013, except where modified by the following conditions:

A. Conditions 1 and 2 of the Planning Approval for DA0270/13, dated 27 August 2013, are superseded by the following conditions:

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

approved plans, dated 11 March 2019 and 4 April 2019. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. No more than 40 animals are to be kept on site at any one time.

Advice Note(s):

i. The applicant is advised that the premises must comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. For further information contact Environmental Health Services on 9432 9856 or via [email protected].

Carried: 6/0


mailto:[email protected]


Page 57

PC1905 -7 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET NO. 7/210 (LOT 7) NORTH FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO SHOP (HAIRDRESSER) - (JCL DA0061/19)



Approval is sought for a change of use from Office to Shop (Hairdresser’s) at 7/210 Queen Victoria Street, North Fremantle. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to comments received during the notification period that cannot be addressed through conditions of approval. The application seeks discretionary assessments against the following Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) requirements:

Land use

Car parking The application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for a change of use of the existing Office tenancy to a Shop, for a Hairdresser, at 7/210 Queen Victoria Street, North Fremantle. No external works or signs are proposed other than a window vinyl to be fixed to the inside of the shopfront window. Development plans are included as attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 21 February 2019 Owner name: Peck Chong Yeo Submitted by: Tara Auld Scheme: Local Centre Zone Heritage listing: Not individually listed. North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing land use: Office Use class: Shop Use permissibility: D


Page 58

CONSULTATION

External referrals Department of Planning, Lands, and Heritage (DPLH). The application was referred to DPLH for comment as the site abuts an Other Major Road reservation. DPLH have advised that they have no objection to the proposal. Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) The application was referred to MRWA for comment as the site is affected by a Primary Regional Road as well as an Other Major Road reservation. MRWA have advised that they have no objection to the proposal. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, due to a parking shortfall of one bay. The advertising period concluded on 3 April 2019, and two submissions were received. One submission raised no objection to the proposal, with the other submission raising the following concerns (summarised):

Concerned about another Hairdresser operating from the same complex.

There is already insufficient parking for our clients.

Parking problems already exist in North Fremantle and residents are concerned about commercial customers parking in the residential streets.

These comments are addressed in the officer comment below.


Page 59

OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and relevant Council local planning policies. In this particular application the matters outlined below need to be assessed under the discretionary criteria of LPS4:

Land Use

Car parking The above matter is discussed below. Background The subject site is located on the eastern side of Queen Victoria Street, and to the north of Tydeman Road. The parent lot has a land area of approximately 2,796m² and is currently occupied by various commercial tenancies. The site is zoned Local Centre and has a density coding of R25. The site is not individually heritage listed however it is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area. A search of the property file has revealed the following history for the subject tenancy:

DA288/09 – ‘Construction of Two Storey Commercial Building and Refurbishment of a Heritage Building to Provide 31 Office Tenancies’ - Approved on 22 September 2009.

Land Use A ‘Shop’ is a ‘D’ use in the Local Centre Zone, which means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. In considering a ‘D’ use the Council will have regard to the matters to be considered in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. In this regard the following matters have been considered:


(n) The amenity of the locality including the following:

(i) Environmental impacts of the development (ii) The character of the locality (iii) Social impacts of the development

(y) Any submissions received on the application.

The proposed development is considered to address the above matters for the following reasons:

The proposal is congruent with the objectives of the Local Centre Zone in that it proposes a small-scale shop which can serve the needs of residents in the locality. Furthermore, given the scale of the development, the proposal is not considered to adversely impact the amenity of the general locality.

The proposal is not considered to have any adverse environmental impacts. As mentioned above, given no external construction is to occur, the proposal is not considered to have any impact on the character of the locality. Additionally, given the nature of the proposed business being hairdressing, in addition to the small scale of


Page 60

the operation, it is not considered likely that the use will have any adverse social impacts on local residents and businesses.

As discussed below, in regard to the objection pertaining to car parking, the proposal is considered acceptable as the shortfall is supported on the basis that the business is small in scale and nature and the parking shortfall can be offset by visitor parking on site and public parking in the immediate locality.

Parking


Car parking 1.65 bays (2 bays) 1 bay 1 bay

The parking shortfall is considered to meet the requirements of Clause 4.7.3.1 in the following ways:

Off-site parking is available in the locality including public parking on the opposite side of Queen Victoria Street at the Post Office car park.

The subject site is located within 250m of a high frequency bus route, and within 800m of North Fremantle Train Station. It is therefore considered reasonable that customers of the business may travel to the shop using public transport.

A number of visitor bays are available on site which are located within common property area, and as such are not allocated exclusively to any tenancy. See photo 4 in Attachment 2.

The applicant has advised that, due to the size of the tenancy and the scale of the proposed business, there will generally only be one customer at the tenancy at any one time. As such, the demand for customer parking is considered to be minor.

As the proposed business will only operate between 10am and 4pm, Monday to Friday customer demand for nearby on-street or public car parking is not considered to adversely affect the parking demand for weekend or night activities in the locality.

Only one employee is proposed to operate the business and a parking bay is provided for this employee.


Increase the number of people working in Fremantle

Increase the number of visitors to Fremantle FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS


Nil


Page 61

COMMITTEE DECISION ITEM PC1905-7 Moved: Cr Bryn Jones Seconded: Cr Jon Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 1.2: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, Change of use from Office to Shop (Hairdresser) at No. 7/210 (Lot 7) Queen Victoria Street, North Fremantle subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 21 February 2019. 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 issue of a building permit of the development hereby approved,

the owner is to submit a statement detailing the proposed waste management for approval detailing the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to be implemented and maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

ADVICE NOTE

i. A Building permit is required for the proposed Building Works. A certified BA1 application form must be submitted and a Certificate of Design Compliance (issued by a Registered Building Surveyor Contractor in the private sector) must be submitted with the BA1.

ii. The premises must comply with the Hairdressing Establishment Regulations

1972. For further information contact Environmental Health Services on 9432 9856 or via [email protected].

iii. Any signage may be subject to a separate application for Planning Approval.



mailto:[email protected]


Page 62

PC1905 -8 DOUGLAS STREET, NO. 6 (LOT 5), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0539/18)

Meeting Date: 1 May 2019 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Development plans

2: Site photos 3: Officer Heritage Comment 4: Applicant Heritage Comment

SUMMARY

Approval is sought for a two storey addition to an existing Single house at No. 6 Douglas Street, Fremantle. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to the nature of the upper floor setback and the impact of the proposed setback on the heritage significance of property. The application seeks discretionary assessment against Local Planning Policy 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy. As the proposed setback is considered to have a detrimental impact on the heritage significance of the dwelling, the application is recommended for refusal. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for a two storey addition to the rear of an existing Single house at No. 6 Douglas Street, Fremantle. Officers met on site with the applicant to discuss the proposal and concerns relating to the setback of the upper floor addition. The applicant submitted amended plans on 4 January 2019 to reinstate the chimney which was previously shown to be demolished, however no amendments to the proposed upper floor setback were made. In support of the proposal, including the upper floor setback, the applicant has submitted a copy of Heritage Advice sought from an independent consultant. This advice is discussed further in this report. Development plans are included as attachment 1.


Page 63

Site/application information Date received: 29 November 2018 Owner name: Robert Wall Submitted by: Nigel Denny Architect Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage listing: Individually Listed Category 3 Existing land use: Single house Use class: Single house Use permissibility: P

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The advertising period concluded on 8 February 2019, and no submissions were received. OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant Council local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the Deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant Design principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the Deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the area outlined below does not meet the policy provisions and needs to be assessed under the discretionary criteria for:


Page 64

Roof ridge setback The above matter is discussed below. Background The subject site is located on the northern side of Douglas Street, Fremantle. The site has a land area of approximately 309m² and is currently a Single house. The site is zoned Residential and has a density coding of R30. The site is included on the City of Fremantle Heritage List under LPS4 and is management category 3 on the Municipal Heritage Inventory. This means that the City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of some cultural heritage significance for its contribution to the streetscape and to the local area. Its contribution to the streetscape and urban context should be conserved. House, 6 Douglas Street was built in 1898. It is a single storey, representative example of a very modest, classically influenced worker’s cottage. The walls are timber framed and clad with fibre cement sheeting. The roof is gabled and clad with corrugated iron. The facade has a central front door flanked on either side by double hung sash windows. The verandah has a broken-back corrugated iron roof: it is supported by square timber posts with a simple timber balustrade. The house has been extended a number of times. These alterations include the removal of the original back verandah and its replacement with an addition which, to a degree, replicates the form of the original part of the house. Roof ridge setback (Residential Streetscape Policy)


Roof ridge setback 4m from ridgeline Nil 4m

Council’s Residential Streetscape Policy applies to the subject site, however as the proposal includes alterations to a heritage listed property, part 5 of the policy applies in lieu of the prescribed ground (5m) and upper floor (7m) street setbacks of part 1. Part 5 of the Policy specifies the following: 5.1 Where the property is included on the City’s Heritage List and is not subject to

specific provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 or a local area planning policy: i. Second storey additions to an existing single storey dwelling are to be setback

behind the main roof ridge of the existing dwelling a minimum distance of four (4.0) metres; and

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

The proposed addition is not setback from the original roof ridge of the existing dwelling, being effectively built into the roofline as illustrated in the image below:


Page 65

Figure 1: Proposed addition built into the roof of the existing dwelling

It is noted that the application has been amended to have the setback of the upper floor addition generally in line with the ridge line, rather than the original application which encroached forward of the ridgeline. Variations to the ridgeline setback can be considered in accordance with clause 5.2 of the Policy which states: 5.2 Variations to the requirements of clause 5.1 above may be considered at Council’s

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

In support of the proposed variation to the applicant has submitted the following heritage comments (summarised):

The narrow street width; the low scale of the existing cottage and the already mixed streetscape are all relevant factors to be considered when assessing the impact of the proposed additions on the Douglas street streetscape.

6 Douglas Street has previously been modified with additions to the rear. The lot is 309 square metres in area. The proposal is maintaining an acceptable open space requirement and is utilising the existing structure to provide an additional bedroom and a more liveable home.

The owner of 6 Douglas Street has advised that they will undertake conservation works to the front section of the cottage facing the street. This construction outcome is a positive for the streetscape and for the individual place.

The Douglas Street streetscape has been impacted by new two storey development (No. 10) and structures to the front of places, for example, a large carport to No. 3. Whilst the existing streetscape is not an intact historic streetscape it still exhibits elements (street width, minimum building line setback, plantings, park and variety of building styles) that positively contribute to the character of the street.

The new roof is approximately 250mm above the existing ridge line at 450mm behind the ridge line. The low pitched proposed roof is approximately 500mm above the ridge line at 5900mm behind the ridge line. The height above the ridge line is minimal and considering the narrow width of the street the potential impact is assessed as low.


Page 66

Following a consideration of the cultural heritage significance of the place; an assessment of the quality of the existing streetscape, the relevant considerations of the small lot and the opportunity for conservation works to the significant section of the place it is considered, in my professional opinion, that the impact of the development proposal on 6 Douglas Street and the broader streetscape is considered acceptable.

New works, such as additions or other changes, to management category 3 places should respect the established aesthetic values of the original house in terms of its contribution to the streetscape through consideration of its siting, bulk, form, scale, character, and building materials. The proposed works consist of a two storey addition sited mainly behind the original front part of the house. The exception is where an upper level bedroom extends to almost abut the ridge of the original roof. The siting of this part of the proposed addition will distort the form of the original house and have a negative impact on its roofline when the house is viewed from the street. This impact will diminish the quality of the house’s contribution to the streetscape. To further support this, in accordance with Council Policy DGF8 Douglas Street Local Area, the proposal is not supported for the following reasons:

Clause 2 requires buildings within the street of architectural and historic character to be conserved.

Clause 3 requires new additions or alterations to the existing residences, including second storeys, to be sympathetic to the architectural and historic character of the building and positively contribute to the streetscape.

As discussed above, the proposed setback does not respect the setting of the original dwelling and distorts its original form. As such the proposal is considered to have a detrimental impact on the heritage significance of the dwelling and is not supported. CONCLUSION

The application has been reviewed having regard to relevant planning and heritage requirements. The subject site is considered to be of some cultural heritage significance for its contribution to the streetscape and to the local area. In this regard its contribution to the streetscape and urban context should be conserved. The proposed second storey addition is not considered to respect the setting of the original dwelling and should be setback further from the existing roof ridgeline in order to clearly read the form of the original dwelling. As such, the application in its current form is not supported. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle Green Plan 2020 Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land.

1. No trees are proposed to be removed as part of this proposal.


Page 67




The following recommendation was moved by Cr Adin Lang, but not put to the vote as there was no seconder for the motion. Planning committee acting under delegation 1.2: REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, two storey addition to existing Single house at No. 6 (Lot 5) Douglas Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 4 January 2019, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s planning policies LPP 2.9

Residential Streetscape Policy and DGF8 Douglas Street Local Area.

2. The proposal would be detrimental to the heritage significance of the place in accordance with clause 67(k) of Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations.

COMMITTEE DECISION ITEM PC1905-8 (Alternative officer’s recommendation) Moved: Cr Adin Lang Seconded: Cr Bryn Jones Planning committee acting under delegation 1.2: APPROVE under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 the two storey addition to existing Single house a No. 6 (Lot 5) Douglas Street, Fremantle subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 4 January 2019. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

or otherwise approved by the City of Fremantle. 3. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which

does not irreparably damage any original or significant fabric of the building. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of City of Fremantle.


Page 68




Page 69

PC1905 -9 RULE STREET, NO. 59 (LOT 126) - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE AND THREE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (TG DA0588/18)


2: Site Photos 3: Heritage Assessment

SUMMARY

Approval is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling on site and the construction of a three storey Single house. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) as the proposal involves the demolition of an existing dwelling located within a heritage area. The application seeks discretionary assessments against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Local Planning Policies. These discretionary assessments include the following:

Demolition

Primary Street setback

Building height

Boundary walls

Visual privacy

Site works

Solar access for adjoining sites

Outbuilding size. The application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling on site and the construction of a three storey Single house. The proposed works include:

A three storey Single house

A front fence

Rear garage

A pool located within the front setback area. The applicant submitted amended plans on 15 February 2019 including the following:

Clarification of building height, on site open space, and the shade cast by the development at midwinter, and

Amending the primary street fence to address the requirements for properties in a heritage area per LPP 2.8.


Page 70

Development plans are included as Attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 21 December 2018 Owner name: G L and L M Braddock Submitted by: S Braddock Scheme: Residential R40 Heritage listing: Not individually listed – North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing land use: Single house Use class: Single house Use permissibility: P

CONSULTATION

External referrals Department of Biodiversity, Conservation, and Attractions (DBCA) The application was referred to DBCA for comment as the site abuts the Swan Canning Development Control Area (DCA). DBCA have advised that they have no objection to the proposal subject to the following conditions and advice notes: Condition(s): 1. The proponent shall ensure that appropriate on site measures are implemented to

prevent sediment from entering the stormwater system and river during demolition and construction.

2. No wastewater/backwash from the swimming pool or water feature is to be discharged onto the land, into the river or the local government drainage system.

Advice note(s):

The applicant is advised that in the event the site requires dewatering during construction, the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions Policy


Page 71

50 – Planning for dewatering affecting the Swan Canning Development Control Area, has dewatering effluent discharge standards which are required to be met.

These matters can be dealt with as relevant conditions and advice notes. Fremantle Ports The proposal was not required to be referred to Fremantle Ports for comment as the proposal does not include an additional sensitive land use and there is not a history of complaints relating to the site and the operation of the Fremantle Port. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as the proposal involved the demolition of an existing dwelling located in a heritage area and variations to the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. The advertising period concluded on 8 March 2019, and two submissions were received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Concerns relating to the demolition and construction process including the timeframes and the mitigation strategies for the protection of adjoining properties.

Request that the screen to the southern side of the balcony be changed from glazing to a brick screen.

In response to the above, the following comments are provided by officers:

Construction matters, including the timeframe for construction, potential impact from works upon adjoining properties and dust suppression are not relevant planning considerations and are subject to other legislation.

The applicant has agreed to amend the screening to the southern side of the balcony but has not provided updated plans to this effect. It is considered that amended plans of this nature can be submitted in accordance with the recommended condition of approval relating to the provision of screening.

OFFICER COMMENT

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

Demolition

Primary Street Setback

Building height

Boundary walls

Visual privacy

Site works

Solar access for adjoining sites

Outbuilding size.


Page 72

The above matters are discussed below. Background The subject site is located on the western side of Rule Street, North Fremantle. The site has a land area of approximately 414m² and is currently occupied by a Single house. The site is zoned Residential and has a density coding of R40. The site is not individually heritage listed but is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area. The subject site is located adjacent to the Swan Canning River Development Control Area which includes the Rule Street road area. The site slopes approximately 2 metres from front to back and vehicle access is provided via an access easement over Nos. 53, 55 and57 Rule Street. It is noted that Nos. 61 and 63 Rule Street take access across the subject site. A search of the property file has revealed no relevant planning history for the site. Demolition of Dwelling in a heritage area In approving an application for demolition, Council is to be satisfied of the following in accordance with clause 4.14.1 of LPS4: “Council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

(a) has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and

(b) does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality in which it is located.”

The existing dwelling is considered to make no contribution to the significance of the heritage and therefore does not fulfil the criteria for inclusion in the City’s Heritage List. A copy of the City’s heritage assessment is provided as attachment 3. Primary Street Setback


Primary street setback (upper floor)

7m 6.5m (to store rooms)

0.5m

The proposed street setback is considered to meet the discretionary criteria of LPP 2.9 in the following ways:

The setback is consistent with the setback of the upper floors of the existing buildings in the prevailing streetscape and will not result in a projecting element. The setback is consistent with the two adjoining properties which have similar existing setbacks. The angled front façades of the existing adjoining dwellings are set back approximately 6 metres from the primary street, consistent with the proposed store room setbacks.


Page 73

Building Height


Wall height 5.5 m (max) 9.1m 3.6m

The proposed building height is considered to meet the discretionary criteria of LPS4 in the following ways:

Multiple properties, including those directly adjoining the subject site exceed the relevant height requirements.

The third storey of the dwelling is located centrally to the lot, adjacent to the highest portion of the roofs of adjoining properties, thereby reducing its impact to the amenity of adjoining properties.

The proposal is not considered detrimental to cultural heritage values of the subject site or adjoining properties.

The proposed dwelling height effectively graduates the height of properties located uphill from the subject site, as demonstrated by the provided eastern elevation.

The proposed solar panels and screening to roof plant and equipment are considered to be minor projection elements which do not impose undue building bulk to adjoining properties.

Boundary Walls


Boundary walls (north and south)

2.8m Nil 2.8m

The boundary walls to the northern and southern property boundaries are considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes and Local Planning Policy 2.4 in the following ways:

The boundary walls are generally matched by the existing development on the adjoining sites to the north and south. The unmatched portion will only abut the adjoining roof areas.

The boundary walls permit the effective use of space onsite without unduly affecting adjoining properties.

The boundary walls are not considered to unduly impact sunlight access for major openings onto habitable rooms and primary outdoor living areas for the adjoining site.

Building boundary to boundary is consistent with the existing development context.

Site Works


Excavation (front setback)

Maximum 0.5m (max) within 3 metres of the front boundary.

2.7m 2.2m

The proposed excavation within the front setback area is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The proposed excavation is consistent with the existing pool on site (to be removed) and is consistent with the pools located to adjoining properties.


Page 74

The finished ground levels around the pool on site will respect natural ground levels as viewed from the street as the slope down Rule Street will remain readily visible.

Visual Privacy


Master bedroom (east)

4.5m 1.8m 2.7m

Master bedroom (west)

4.5m 2m 2.5m

Kitchen (west) 6m 3.8m 2.2m

The above visual privacy variations are considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The openings are provided with partial screening which results in overlooking being oblique only.

The adjoining roof also limits overlooking down into adjoining major openings or outdoor living areas.

The dwellings being built up to the mutual boundary results in reduced ability for the upper floor windows to overlook the adjoining property.

Solar Access for Adjoining Sites


Overshadowing 35% 55% 20%

The shade cast by the development is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The shade cast by the development is not considered to adversely affect the adjoining dwelling as the existing boundary wall is of similar height.

The shade cast by the proposed garage and to the rear of the dwelling falls over an existing paved area. Historical aerial imagery indicates that this area is used as on site car parking.

The outdoor living area to the front of the adjoining property retains sunlight access per the submitted shade plan.

Solar access for remaining major openings is already restricted by existing roofs. Outbuildings


Area 41.4m2 (10% site area or 60m2

whichever is the lesser)

60m2 18.6m2

Setback (south and north)

1m Nil 1m

The proposed outbuilding is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The proposed outbuilding is considered to appropriately address the design principles relating to boundary walls per the above assessment.


Page 75

The proposed outbuilding (garage) is consistent with the existing garages for properties which also have access via the rear right of access easement and is therefore not considered to be not be out of character with the existing development context.

The proposed outbuilding will not be readily visible from the primary street. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above considerations, aspects of the proposal which vary the statutory planning requirements are considered to appropriately address the relevant discretionary criteria of LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Policy. The proposed dwelling is considered to be consistent with existing development in the immediate locality. Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS


Nil COMMITTEE DECISION ITEM PC1905-9 Moved: Cr Bryn Jones Seconded: Cr Dave Hume Planning committee acting under delegation 1.2: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the demolition of existing dwelling and three storey single house at No. 59 (Lot 126) Rule Street, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s) :

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 15 February 2019. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Notwithstanding Condition 1, the third floor roof shall not be used as an

outdoor living area. Access to the third floor roof as shown on the approved plans is to be for maintenance purposes only.


otherwise approved by the City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to the issue of a building permit, a detailed drawing showing how the balcony, kitchen, and master bedroom located on the eastern and western


Page 76

elevations, are to be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:



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


5. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the boundary walls located on the northern and southern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in any of the following materials:

coloured sand render,

face brick,

painted surface, and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to the issue of a building permit, all fencing within the Primary Street setback area shall be visually permeable 1 metre above natural ground level as per Local Planning Policy 2.8 and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

7. The pedestrian access gate, as indicated on the approved plans, shall swing

into the subject site only when open or closed and shall not impede the adjoining road reservation.

8. The proponent shall ensure that appropriate on site measures are

implemented to prevent sediment from entering the stormwater system and river during demolition and construction.

9. No wastewater/backwash from the swimming pool or water feature is to be

discharged onto the land, into the river or the local government drainage system.

10. Prior to Occupation, a notification, pursuant to section 70A of the Transfer

of Land Act 1893, shall be placed on the certificate of title for the subject lot. The notification shall be at the owner/applicants’ expense, and lodged with the Registrar of Titles for endorsement on the certificate of title. The notification is to state as follows: ‘This land is within a bushfire prone area as designated by an Order made by the Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner’.

11. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for compliance, if any condition is not met by the time requirement within that condition, then the obligation to comply with the requirements of any such condition


Page 77

(other than the time limitation for compliance specified in that condition), continues whilst the approved development continues.

Advice Notes

i) The applicant is advised that this approved development shall be wholly located within the cadastral boundaries of 59 Rule Street including any footing details of the development.

ii) In regards to condition 6 visually permeable is defined by LPP 2.8 Fences Policy as:

Means, in reference to a wall, gate, door or fence that the vertical surface has:

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

b. A surface offering equal or lesser obstruction to view.

iii) The owner/applicant is advised that the subject site has been identified as being within a bushfire prone area as designated by the Fire and Emergency Services (FES) Commissioner. As a result:

Condition 10 is required in accordance with clause 6.10 of State Planning Policy 3.7 – Planning for Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP3.7); and,

A Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) Assessment and/or additional construction methods may be required as part of the Building Permit.

Further information about the designated bushfire prone areas and SPP3.7 can be found on the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) website: https://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/ and the Department of Planning website: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/

iv) Prior to the issue of a building permit, the development is to comply with the applicable construction requirements as prescribed in Australian Standard 3959 – Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

As the property falls within a designated bush fire prone area, there is also a requirement to provide a Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) assessment by an appropriately accredited professional.

The BAL will determine the severity of a building’s potential exposure to ember attack, radiant heat and direct flame contact, and is also the basis for determining the requirements for construction to improve protection of building elements from attack by bushfire.

https://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/

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


Page 78

The link below is to the WA accredited practitioners (View bpad accredited practitioner register) who will be able to assist with the relevant bush fire prone affected properties. http://www.fpaa.com.au/bpad.aspx

v) The applicant is advised that in the event the site requires dewatering during construction, the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions Policy 50 – Planning for dewatering affecting the Swan Canning Development Control Area, has dewatering effluent discharge standards which are required to be met.

vi) A building permit is required to be obtained for the proposed building

work. The building permit must be issued prior to commencing any works on site.

vii) A demolition permit is required to be obtained for the proposed

demolition work. The demolition permit must be issued prior to the removal of any structures on site.

viii) The swimming pool safety barrier must comply with all provisions of

AS 1926 Parts 1 & 2 – 2012. The boundary fence (part that is being used

as part of the barrier) must be a minimum 1.8m in height to be used as

part of the barrier, in accordance with AS1926.1. A 900mm non-

climbable zone quadrant on the inside only, in accordance with AS

1926.1 must be complied with.

ix) Fire separation for the proposed building works must comply with Part 3.7.1 of the Building Code of Australia.

Carried: 6/0


http://www.fpaa.com.au/bpad.aspx


Page 79

ITEMS APPROVED “EN BLOC” The following items were adopted unopposed and without discussion “En Bloc” as recommended. COMMITTEE DECISION Moved: Cr Jon Strachan Seconded: Cr Adin Lang The following items be adopted en bloc as recommended: PC1905 -6 - Watkins Street, No. 107a (Lot 1 SSP 76997), White Gum Valley - Two

Storey Single House and Ancillary Dwelling - (NB Da0587/18) PC1905 -10 - South Street No.355 (Lot 1565), Hilton – Public Works - Demolition of

Single House – (JL PW0009/19) PC1905 -11 - Update on Metro South-West JDAP Determinations And Relevant

State Administrative Tribunal Applications For Review PC1905 -12 - Schedule of Applications Determined Under Delegated Authority

Carried: 6/0

Cr Ingrid Waltham, Cr Bryn Jones, Cr Adin Lang, Cr Jeff McDonald, Cr Jon Strachan, Cr Dave Hume


Page 80

PC1905 -6 WATKINS STREET, NO. 107A (LOT 1 SSP 76997), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE AND ANCILLARY DWELLING - (NB DA0587/18)



Approval is sought for a two storey Single house and Ancillary dwelling. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to the nature of some discretions being sought and comments received during the notification period that cannot be addressed through conditions of approval. The application seeks discretionary assessments against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Local Planning Policies. These discretionary assessments include the following:

Boundary walls (east and west)

Minimum lot size for an Ancillary dwelling The application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for a two storey Single house and Ancillary dwelling. The Ancillary dwelling is integrated into the Single house building envelope so that the development presents as only a Single house.

Development plans are included as attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 24 December 2018 Owner name: Darren Fletcher Submitted by: Darren Fletcher Scheme: Residential R20/R25 Heritage listing: Not Listed Existing land use: Vacant lot Use class: Single house Use permissibility: P


Page 81

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as discretion was sought against the R-Codes and Council Policy. The advertising period concluded on 20 February 2019, and three submissions were received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Would like to ensure privacy and light to the southern adjoining lot is not compromised

Prefer that windows on the second floor facing west be obscured

Concerned about the impact on sunlight from the proposed garage boundary wall to the bedroom and bathroom windows of the future house to the east

In response to the first two comments above, the following comments are provided by officers:

The development complies with the overshadowing and visual privacy Deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes.

In response to the remaining comment, the applicant submitted the following response:

The future windows in question are approximately 2.3 above NGL, this puts the windows approximately 300mm below the top of the wall on boundary. Shadow cast from this wall will fall well below the sill of the windows concerned as shown on the shadow diagram North Elevation (Attachment 1).


Page 82

Window to the bedroom is located well clear of the boundary wall as shown on the site plan. This window will not be affected by the boundary wall regardless of the sill height of the window.

The final comment is addressed in the officer comment section below. OFFICER COMMENT

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

Boundary walls (east and west)

Minimum lot size for an Ancillary dwelling The above matters are discussed below. Background The subject site is located on the southern side of Watkins Street near the intersection Minilya Avenue. The site has a land area of approximately 300m² and is currently a vacant lot. The site is zoned Residential and has been subdivided at the higher density of the split code of R25, which requires the development to comply with the energy efficiency requirements of LPP 2.2. The site is not individually heritage listed, nor is it located within a Heritage Area. The site is relatively flat and was completely cleared prior to subdivision. Lot boundary setback


Garage (east) 1 m Nil 1 m

WIR, Toilet (west) 1 m Nil 1 m

The boundary walls are considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes and LPP 2.2: Boundary Walls in Residential Development in the following ways:

The WIR and toilet boundary walls on the west are 2.7 m and 1.5 m wide respectively and located against a solid dividing fence and vegetation on the adjoining lot. The walls are located a sufficient distance from the adjoining house so as to have minimal impact on direct sun and building bulk.

The boundary walls present no visual privacy variation and will not be detrimental to the outdoor living area or major openings of the adjoining house.

The garage wall on the eastern boundary is single storey and located against a 1.5m access way and the bathroom of the proposed adjoining house.

The boundary wall is not located against the bedroom window and will have minimal impact on direct sun or ventilation to the window.


Page 83

Ancillary dwelling


Minimum lot size 450 m2 300 m2 150 m2

The Ancillary dwelling is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes which refer to providing for living independently or semi-independently to the residents of the single house, sharing some site facilities, and not compromising the amenity of surrounding properties. The proposal is considered to achieve this in the following ways:

The Ancillary dwelling is integrated into the ground floor of the Single house and the development as a whole presents as a Single house.

The Ancillary dwelling, as part of the proposed whole building form, otherwise complies with all requirements (except lot boundary setback as discussed above) and will not compromise the amenity of surrounding properties.

Driveway Width It is recommended the driveway be required to taper to a maximum of 4.5m in width in accordance with the City’s proposed amendments to LPP 2.9: Residential Streetscape. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle

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



Nil COMMITTEE DECISION ITEM PC1905 -6 Moved: Cr Jon Strachan Seconded: Cr Adin Lang Planning committee acting under delegation 1.2:

APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the two storey Single house and Ancillary dwelling at No. 107A (Lot 1 SSP 76997) Watkins 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 26 March 2019. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


Page 84



boundaries of No. 107A (Lot 1 SSP 76997) Watkins Street including any footing details of the development.

4. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the driveway to be modified to be

no wider than 4.5 m at the primary street boundary to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

5. That the dwelling achieve a NatHERS accredited energy efficiency star

rating of seven stars that is certified by a NatHERS energy assessor to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, a minimum

1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel system shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, a 3000L

rainwater tank plumbed to a toilet and/or laundry, or 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, shall be installed or and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

8. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the boundary

walls located on the east and west boundaries shall be of a clean finish in any of the following materials: • coloured sand render, • face brick, • painted surface, and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

9. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, vehicle crossovers shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

10. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for

compliance, if any condition is not met by the time requirement within that condition, then the obligation to comply with the requirements of any such condition (other than the time limitation for compliance specified in that condition), continues whilst the approved development continues.

ADVICE NOTES:


Page 85

i. The retaining walls shown on the plan are to be no higher than 500mm above natural ground level. Additional height will require a separate planning approval.

ii. New crossover(s) shall comply with the City’s standard for standard

crossovers, which are available on the City of Fremantle’s web site. For the City’s crossover specifications, FAQ’s, permits etc refer to https://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/crossovers.

iii. The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be

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

Carried en bloc: 6/0


https://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/crossovers


Page 86

PC1905 -10 SOUTH STREET NO.355 (LOT 1565), HILTON - PUBLIC WORKS - DEMOLITION OF SINGLE HOUSE -(JL PW0009/19)


2: Site Photos 3: Heritage Assessment

SUMMARY

Approval is sought to demolish an existing Single house at No. 355 South Street, Hilton (subject site). Development approval under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 would normally be required due to the site being located within the Hilton Heritage Area, however in this case as the owner of the site is the Department of Communities and the proposed works are considered to be public works, no approval is required from the City. The City is required to forward the application, with its comment, to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for their determination under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) as officers do not have delegated authority in relation to this type of proposal. The cultural heritage significance of the existing dwelling and associated structures has been assessed, and it is considered to be of limited or no significance, and nor does it make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality. It is recommended that the Planning Committee advise the WAPC that the application is recommended for approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for the demolition of the existing single house, associated outbuildings and the front fence on the subject site. The application does not include any subsequent works or subdivision which would be subject to separate applications for approval from the City and/or the Western Australian Planning Commission. As the owner of the site is the Department of Communities and the proposed works are considered to be public works, no approval is required from the City. The City is required to forward the application, with its comment, to the Western Australian Planning Commission for their determination under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

Development plans are included as Attachment 1.


Page 87

Site/application information Date received: 12 March 2019 Owner name: Housing Authority Submitted by: Department of Communities Scheme: Residential R20/25 Heritage listing: No Individually Listed / Hilton Heritage Area Existing land use: Single house Use class: Single house Use permissibility: P

CONSULTATION

External referrals Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) The application was referred to MRWA for comment as the site is affected by a Primary Regional Road reservation (Category level 1). MRWA have advised that they have no objection to the proposal.


Page 88

Community The application has been advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as the proposal involves the demolition of a dwelling in a heritage area. In accordance with LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals, the application is subject to an extended period of advertising due to the Easter holidays. As such, the advertising period does not conclude until 10 May 2019. It is noted that at the time of writing this report no submissions have been received. The City is required to provide its comments to the WAPC by 3 May 2019. As the City is not the determining authority and given the time constraints associated with public works referrals, any submission received regarding the proposed works will be forwarded separately to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage for their consideration and due regard before determining the application. OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, and relevant Council local planning policies. In this particular application the following area requires a discretionary assessment:

Demolition of dwelling in heritage area The above matter is discussed below. Background The subject site is located on the western corner of South Street and Thornett Street in Hilton. The site has a land area of approximately 731m² and is currently occupied by a Single house and associated outbuildings. The site is zoned Residential and has a split density coding of R20/25. The site is not individually heritage listed however it is located within the Hilton Heritage Area. The site adjoins other residential dwellings to the west, east and south. The northern side of South Street is occupied by commercial development. A search of the property file has revealed no relevant history for the site. Demolition of Dwelling in Heritage Area In approving an application for demolition, Council is to be satisfied of the following in accordance with clause 4.14.1 of LPS4: “Council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

(a) has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and (b) does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage

significance and character of the locality in which it is located.” The house at 355 South Street is of brick and tile construction and it is considered that the place displays, but only to a limited degree, the distinguishing characteristics of the “Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct”.


Page 89

The City’s heritage assessment concludes that the dwelling is of limited or no cultural heritage significance and does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality. It is also noted that the dwelling is not currently individually heritage listed and it was not considered to warrant future listing. Accordingly, the demolition of the dwelling is not considered to be detrimental to the character of the heritage area and is supported. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, the dwelling is not considered to be of individual cultural heritage significance, nor contribute to the heritage significance or character of the locality. Accordingly its demolition is recommended for approval by the WAPC. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS


Nil COMMITTEE DECISION ITEM PC1905 -10 Moved: Cr Jon Strachan Seconded: Cr Adin Lang Planning committee acting under delegation 1.2:

REFER to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for APPROVAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme Proposed demolition of the existing Single house at No.355 (Lot 1565) South Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the

approved plans, dated 12 March 2019. 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.

Advice Notes

i. A demolition permit is required to be obtained for the proposed demolition work. The demolition permit must be issued prior to the removal of any structures on site.

ii. Any removal of asbestos is to comply with the following –


Page 90

Under ten (10) square metres of bonded (non-friable) asbestos can be removed without a license and in accordance with the Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 and the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2001. Over 10 square metres must be removed by a licensed person or business for asbestos removal. All asbestos removal is to be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 and accompanying regulations and the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos 2nd Edition [NOHSC: 2002 (2005)]; Note: Removal of any amount of friable asbestos must be done by a licensed person or business and an application submitted to WorkSafe, Department of Commerce. http://www.docep.wa.gov.au

Carried en bloc: 6/0


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


Page 91

PC1905 -11 UPDATE ON METRO SOUTH-WEST JDAP DETERMINATIONS AND RELEVANT STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW

Applications that have been determined by the Metro South-West JDAP and/or are JDAP/Planning Committee determinations that are subject to an application for review at the State Administrative Tribunal are included in the attachment. COMMITTEE DECISION ITEM PC1905 -11 Moved: Cr Jon Strachan Seconded: Cr Adin Lang That the information is noted.

Carried en bloc : 6/0 Cr Jon Strachan, Cr Ingrid Waltham,



Page 92

PC1905 -12 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

Under delegation, Development Approvals officers determined, in some cases subject to conditions, each of the applications relating to the place and proposals as listed in the attachments. COMMITTEE DECISION ITEM PC1509 -12 Moved: Cr Jon Strachan Seconded: Cr Adin Lang That the information is noted.

Carried en bloc : 6/0 Cr Jon Strachan, Cr Ingrid Waltham,



Page 93

10.3 COUNCIL DECISION

Nil

11. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil

12. URGENT BUSINESS

Nil

13. LATE ITEMS

Nil

14. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

Nil

15. CLOSURE

The Presiding Member declared the meeting closed at 7.30 pm.

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 1 May 2019, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Planning Committee

1 May 2019

Page 2

home | city of fremantle - minutes · 2019-05-03 · minutes - planning committee 1 may 2019 page 2...

Documents