minutes - city of fremantle · 2018-03-08 · cr bryn jones north ward cr rachel pemberton city...

MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 28 June 2017, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 2

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 4

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 4

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 5

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR 5

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS 5

TABLED DOCUMENTS 5

LATE ITEMS NOTED 5

COMMITTEE REPORTS 5

FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 14 JUNE 2017 6

FPOL1706-9 SUNSET VENUES PTY LTD - REQUEST TO DELAY LEASE COMMENCEMENT DATE 6

FPOL1706-13 7-17 HENDERSON STREET FREMANTLE - RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-PURPOSE PARKING PERMITS 11

PLANNING COMMITTEE 7 JUNE 2017 15

PC1706-1 ADELAIDE STREET, NOS. 18-22 (LOTS 1 AND 2), FREMANTLE - FIVE (5) STOREY TOURIST ACCOMMODATION AND SHOP - (NB DA0117/16) 15

PC1706-2 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 193 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONAL USES OF RESTAURANT AND HEALTH STUDIO TO EXISTING MIXED USE BUILDING - (NB DA0104/17) 33

PC1706-8 PLANNING AND SCHEME COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT - CITY OF FREMANTLE CIVIC BUILDING, KING'S SQUARE 48

PC1706-9 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 63 AND DRAFT PLANNING POLICY FOR SMALL INFILL DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL CONTROL AREA - ADOPT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 52

PC1706-10 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 68 - MIXED USE ZONE ON HAMPTON ROAD AND BROCKMAN PLACE, SOUTH FREMANTLE - FINAL ADOPTION REPORT 88


FPOL1706-12 LEIGHTON BEACH DOG EXERCISE AREA EXTENSION 100


THE FOLLOWING ITEM NUMBER FPOL1706-10 WAS MOVED AND CARRIED EN BLOC. 105

FPOL1706-10 CONTRACTUAL ENGAGEMENT OF KERRY HILL ARCHITECTS FOR THE DETAILED DESIGN PHASE OF THE CIVIC BUILDING 105


FPOL1706-11 PRINCIPLES FOR THE STREET AND RESERVE TREE POLICY 109


FPOL1706-14 DELEGATED AUTHORITY REGISTER REVIEW 114

FPOL1706-15 ELECTORAL ACTIVITIES AND SIGNAGE POLICY 117

FPOL1706-16 ADOPTION OF COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 2017 TO JUNE 2018 124

FPOL1706-17 FORMALISE - LOT 3086 (NO.13) RENNIE CRESCENT LOT 3086 (MOORNI BOORN PARK) - AS A RECREATION RESERVE 129

STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 12 JUNE 2017 133

SPD1706-1 KINGS SQUARE PROJECT - UPDATE REPORT 133

SPD1706-2 DEVELOPMENT OF 2 POINT STREET, FREMANTLE 136

SPD1706-3 INFORMATION REPORT - JUNE 2017 140

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 146

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 146

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 146

COUNCIL ITEMS 146

C1706-1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - MAY 2017 146

C1706-3 REPORT TO COUNCIL - AWARD OF TENDER FCC491.17 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 154

C1706-4 ADOPTION OF BUDGET 2017/2018 168

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 184

SPD1706-4 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT PROPOSED SOLAR FARM AT SOUTH FREMANTLE LANDFILL SITE 184

FPOL1706-19 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT - FREMANTLE MARKETS 187

C1706-2 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR STRATEGIC PLANNING AND PROJECTS 188

CLOSURE OF MEETING 189

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council

28 June 2017

Page 1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council

held in the Council Chambers, Fremantle City Council on 28 June 2017 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Mayor, Dr Brad Pettitt declared the meeting open at 6.04 pm and welcomed members of the public to the meeting.

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT

"We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today."

IN ATTENDANCE

Dr Brad Pettitt Mayor Cr Ingrid Waltham Deputy Mayor/ East Ward Cr Doug Thompson North Ward Cr Bryn Jones North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward (arrived 6.04pm) Cr Simon Naber City Ward Cr Sam Wainwright Hilton Ward Cr Jeff McDonald Hilton Ward Cr Jon Strachan South Ward Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward Cr David Hume Beaconsfield Ward Mr Glen Dougall Acting Chief Executive Officer Mr Tom Griffiths Acting Director City Business Ms Fiona Hodges Director Community Development Mr Paul Trotman Director Strategic Planning and Projects Mr Graham Tattersall Director Infrastructure and Project Delivery Mr Mark Donnelly Manager Field Services Mr Paul Garbett Manager Strategic Planning Ms Julia Kingsbury Manager Development Approvals Ms Narelle French Manager Finance Ms Linda Keys Minute Secretary Mr Lawrence Buchanan Communications Officer (observer)


28 June 2017

Page 2

There were approximately 40 members of the public and 1 member of the press in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Mr Philip St John Chief Executive Officer

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Beaconsfield Ward

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

At 6.05 pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt declared a financial interest in item number FPOL1706-9, FPOL1706-13, and FPOL1706-19 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. At 6.05 pm Cr R Pemberton declared a financial interest in item number FPOL1706-9 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. At 6.05 pm Cr S Wainwright declared a financial interest in item number FPOL1706-9 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item.

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Summary of comment by Mr Bill Green (Member of Fremantle Sailing Club)

1. Gratitude for courtesy and assistance, particularly to Mr David Nicholson. 2. Taxation with representation 3. Building a better community

The following member of the public spoke in relation to item PC1706-2.

John Mocilac Michael Benson The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1706-2: Murray Cusselton Justin Grey Nick Smurthwaite Andrew Wells


28 June 2017

Page 3

The following member of the public spoke in relation to item PC1706-1. Dr Alan Payne The following members of the public spoke in relation to item FPOL1706-12. Les Jeffress Jon Harvey At 7.09 pm Cr S Wainwright, declared a financial interest in item number FPOL1706-9 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. At 7.09 pm Cr R Pemberton, declared a financial interest in item number FPOL1706-9 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. At 7.09 pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt, declared a financial interest in item number FPOL1706-9 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. At 7.09 pm the Deputy Mayor assumed the chair. The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item FPOL1706-9: Cheryl Greaves Suzanne John Mary – Rose Baker Summary of question and comment by Richard Mehan in relation to item FPOL1706-9.

1. Why would Council be not enforcing its rights under the lease provide Sunset with financial relief and ratepayers with financial loss?

2. In a matter regarding commercial lease if this is the way it went, why would Council override the advice of its Officers?

3. This is perplexing for a number of us who have followed this very difficult issue for a number of years is that why a number of Councillors who have supported the Sunset proposal for 3 years are now declaring conflicts of interest for peculiar reasons including a partner’s participation or employment with a former sunset advisor and in another’s case a relative’s ownership of a property in the west end?

4. Why is it that some Councillors regard gifts from Sunset as a conflict whilst others do not?

Summary of response from Glen Dougall, Acting Chief Executive Officer,

In response to the first two questions I will take them as rhetorical. In relation to declaring interest, I do not have the information before me, my presumptions is that Elected Members have always declared an interest where they thought one existed. I presume there has been some consistency through that declaration. There is under the Act if you receive a declared gift, under a certain value, you need to declare an interest, that value is $200.00, it does not cost $200.00 for every time an event is held. I expect


28 June 2017

Page 4

Elected Members accumulate a number of events before they say they are in a position to declare an interest. I think that answers the final question as to why some gifts are declared and some aren’t. The following member of the public spoke in relation to item FPOL1706-9. Greg James

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr J McDonald requested a leave of absence from 1- 10 August 2017 to (inclusive) is approved. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Cr D Hume attended the open ship RV Sonnie event from Germany held on 5 June 2017 at Victoria Quay, Fremantle. Mayor, Brad Pettitt advised the Council that the Eastern Fleet of the Indian Navy visited Fremantle on 13 June 2017 who were kind enough to provide the Council with gifts consisting of ties and handkerchiefs. Cr J Strachan advised the Council he attended along with Cr D Thompson and Cr S Wainwright the WALGA South Metropolitan Zone meeting held on 26 June 2017. Cr J Strachan presented a presentation on Molfetta which he has recently visited.


28 June 2017

Page 5

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated 24 May 2017 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR

Nil

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS

Nil

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Additional Documents - Various Amendments

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Nil

COMMITTEE REPORTS

At 7.09 pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt, declared a financial interest in item number FPOL1706-9, FPOL1706-13, and FPOL1709-19 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. Cr R Pemberton declared a financial interest in item number FPOL1706-9 and was absent during public question time, the discussion and voting of this item.


28 June 2017

Page 6

Cr S Wainwright declared a financial interest in item number FPOL1706-9 and was absent during public question time, the discussion and voting of this item. At 7.09 pm the Deputy Mayor assumed the chair.

FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 14 JUNE 2017

FPOL1706-9 SUNSET VENUES PTY LTD - REQUEST TO DELAY LEASE COMMENCEMENT DATE

Meeting Date: 14 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Comparison Council Resolution to MOU

Legal Advice (Confidential attachment under separate cover)

SUMMARY The City has received a request from Sunset Venues Pty Ltd (Sunset) for an extension of the lease commencement date from 1 July 2017 to 1 July 2018 for Unit 1, J Shed, Fleet Street, Fremantle. Sunset has requested the extension to allow further time to gain development approval, a liquor licence, and to minimise the time they are required to pay rent without the ability to trade effectively. This report recommends that council reject the request from Sunset for an extension of the lease commencement date on the basis that the lease already provides for this scenario. BACKGROUND At the Ordinary Council Meeting dated 26 February 2014 Council resolved to enter into the lease with Sunset Venues Pty Ltd for Unit 1, J Shed, Fleet Street, Fremantle. Details of the full council resolution showing comparison to the lease and Memorandum of Understanding are an attachment to this Item. The lease was finalised and signed by all parties 5 June 2015. Sunset submitted their initial Development Application (DA) on 5 August 2015 which was not supported by council and was rejected by the Western Australian Planning Commission. Notification of the decision was given on 8 September 2016. A revised DA has now been received by the City and is being accessed. The DA seeks approval for a development of less bulk and scale as Sunset Venues’ previous DA. City Officers assess that it is close to the original scope advertised by the City by EOI. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Rent payable under the lease is $83,950 + GST per annum.


28 June 2017

Page 7

This lease includes a staggered rent over the first two years of the lease under Item 14.6 “Rent Reduction”:

o 25% ($20,987.50 + GST) of rent is payable for the first year.

o 50% ($41,975 + GST subject to rent review) is payable for the second

year. Rent reviews, based on Consumer Price Index, apply on the anniversary of the commencement date the first of which will be 1 July 2018. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The lease and MOU were signed and finalised by both City of Fremantle and Sunset on 5 June 2015. The lease is to commence at the approval of all “Conditions” or at the latest 1 July 2017, whichever is earlier. The lease isn’t an enforceable document until the lease commencement date of 1 July 2017. The “Conditions” are the requirement that the lessee gains development approval and a liquor licence (approvals). The development approval is required for the lessee to fit out, which the lease defines as “Lessee Works”. The lease permitted use (tavern, restaurant, micro-brewery, performance venue and artists’ studios) does not become available to the lessee until the “Lessee Works” are completed. There are no deadline dates included in the lease to finalise the approvals or the “Lessee Works”. This means that the MOU obligations are not enforceable until the lessee is able to operate under the permitted use of the lease and that as lease does not include an end date for seeking approvals these could, in theory, be sought the entire lease term if the lessee maintains all other conditions of the lease. The lease provides for activation of the property if the approvals are not granted prior to the lease commencement date with the following clause;

Item 14.2 (d) “If the Commencement Date occurs before the Conditions have been met, the Lessee agrees to continue to keep the Premises activated in a manner consistent with the Lessor’s activations of the Premises prior to the Commencement Date, until such time as the Approvals have been obtained and the Lessee is in a position to commence the Lessee’s Works”

The lease has a condition precedent clause which means that if the two conditions of this clause are not met by the lease commencement date the lease automatically terminates. Both of these conditions have been met;

1. Minister of Lands approval of the lease as required under section 18 of the Land Administration Act 1997 – The Lease has been sealed and signed by the Minister for Lands.

2. The lessor’s compliance with the Local Government Act 1995 relating to section

3.58 whereby details of the agreement is advertised in a State newspaper providing 14 days for community to submit any reasonable objections in writing. This was advertised 3 December 2014.


28 June 2017

Page 8

Complete legal advice has been attached to this Item as a confidential attachment under separate cover.

CONSULTATION

Not applicable

OFFICER COMMENT

Preliminary planning comment Sunset Venues has recently submitted a revised development application (DA) that will be assessed through the normal planning process. The revised DA is expected to address issues of the previous DA. The future proposal is for a tavern and the associated works required to facilitate that use. The patron numbers for the tavern are proposed to be limited to a maximum of 400, which is approximately half the patron numbers previously proposed (850). No ticketed live music events are proposed (previously proposed for up to 1 200 patrons). These two changes are considered to reduce any perceived amenity impacts that may have been associated with the previous DA. As the site is located within land reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) as ‘Parks and Recreation’, any application will be referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for determination. The City will provide a recommendation using Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as a guide to assess potential amenity impacts including (but not limited to) car parking and patron management. External agencies will be consulted for comment within the planning process. It is noted that the City has not undertaken a formal assessment of the proposal, so it is not in a position to pre-judge any assessment, submissions received during advertising and any internal or external comments at this point in time. The time line for development approval is difficult to determine given the Western Australian Planning Authority is the approving authority, however it is estimated this process could take approximately 6 months. Leasing comment Subject to approval of the DA, Sunset has estimated it will take approximately 12 months to gain approval of a restricted tavern liquor licence. Officers consider this to be a reasonable assessment of the time required for this approval. Sunset has advised that it would be difficult in current circumstances for them to pay rent from July 2017 without the approvals they require to trade effectively. Sunset are hopeful that once approvals are gained, it will trigger investment and the ability to cover the rent and finalise the “Lessee Works”.


28 June 2017

Page 9

The lease accommodates the possibility of approvals not being met at the time the lease commences. It includes a clause enforcing the lessee to activate the premises in a manner that is consistent with the City’s activation to date (regardless of whether they have obtained a liquor license). This clause is consistent with maintaining the area at J Shed and Arthur Head as an Arts and Heritage Precinct. As acknowledgement of the lessees works, the lease includes a step-in rent which has been clarified in the Financial Implications of this Item. Rent payable from 1 July 2017 will be $1 748.95 + GST per month. City Officers assess that Sunset Venues have had ample time to gain required approvals and that the lease considers the scenario in which approvals have not been granted by the lease commencement date. Therefore, it is recommended that the request for an extension until 1 July 2018 be rejected. In the event that the approvals are not granted, the lease will continue in a state of ‘frustration’ where no outcome is achieved other than activation in line with Item 14.2(d) of the lease (defined under Legal Implications). Council could consider granting Sunset Venues’ request to extend the lease commencement date to 1 July 2018 as long as an additional condition precedent is included in the lease, terminating the lease if the approvals are not met by a certain deadline. Taking into account the time lines for DA and liquor licence approval a reasonable deadline date would be 31 December 2018. If council is of a mind to support this alternative, the below draft resolution could be considered; Accept the request from Sunset Venues Pty Ltd to delay the lease commencement date from 1 July 2017 to 1 July 2018 for Unit 1, J Shed, Fleet Street, Fremantle subject to a condition precedent be added to the lease that states that:

a) the approval of the development application and liquor licensing must be

gained no later than 1 December 2018. b) if the deadline of 1 December 2018 is not met, the lease is terminated. c) The lessee must prove to the reasonable satisfaction of the Chief

Executive Officer, they have the financial capacity to deliver the “Lessee Works”

Without pre-judging the financial position of Sunset Venue’s, but to support the certainty of an outcome once approvals are granted, a further condition could be considered to ensure the lessee is able to prove they have the financial capacity to deliver the “Lessee’s Works”. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority Required


28 June 2017

Page 10

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council reject the request from Sunset Venues Pty Ltd to delay the lease commencement date from 1 July 2017 to 1 July 2018 for Unit 1, J Shed, Fleet Street, Fremantle. SECONDED: Cr J Strachan CARRIED: 8/0

For Against

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald


28 June 2017

Page 11

At 7.51 pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt declared a impartiality interest in item number FPOL1706-13 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. Cr R Pemberton returned to the meeting at 7.51 pm. Cr S Wainwright returned to the meeting at 7.51 pm.

FPOL1706-13 7-17 HENDERSON STREET FREMANTLE - RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-PURPOSE PARKING PERMITS

Meeting Date: 14 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Field Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1 – Residential and Multi-purpose Parking

Policy Attachment 2 – Letter from State Heritage Office

SUMMARY The City has received a request from the State Heritage Office that residential parking permits be made available to residents of the Warders Cottages located in W3 block at 7-17 Henderson Street Fremantle. The Residential and Multi-Purpose Parking Permits Policy does not permit residential parking permits in this location. The City was previously approached by two of the new owners of cottages in W3 block requesting residential parking permits and these requests were refused. This report recommends that Council in accordance with the City’s Residential and Multi –Purpose Parking Permits Policy, refuse the request for residential parking permits to residents that reside in the Warders Cottages located in W3 block 7-17 Henderson Street Fremantle BACKGROUND The Warders Cottages at 7 to 17 Henderson Street known as W3 block have been redeveloped by the State Heritage Office and have either been sold or are in the process of being sold to new owners. There are six residences located in the block of which four have been sold and two are under offer. The City received requests from two of the new cottage owners for residential parking permits to allow them to park in the central CBD area. These requests were refused as the applicants did not qualify for permits under the Residential and Multi-Purpose Parking Permits Policy (Attachment 1) which was adopted on 14 December 2005 and amended on 27 May 2015. Subsequent to these permit requests being refused, the State Heritage Office has written to the City (Attachment 2) requesting that the CEO review this decision using his discretionary authority. State Heritage Office staff also allege that they had previously discussed this issue over the phone with the City’s parking staff in 2016 and were advised verbally that new residents of Henderson Street would be able to obtain a permit. There is no record of this conversation.


28 June 2017

Page 12

The letter from the State Heritage Office also contends that the information contained on the City’s website under residential and multi-purpose parking permits does not mention the relevant policy. The letter also mentions that some residents in a similar heritage property at 10-20 Marine Terrace, currently have residential parking permits. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The loss of parking income from issuing residential and multi-purpose parking permits to six residences in Henderson Street would be $13,600 for each residence per annum assuming approval for two vehicles at each residence. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil CONSULTATION Nil OFFICER COMMENT The Residential and Multi-Purpose Parking Permit Policy was amended on 27th May 2015 and states: In respect to on-street parking, it is the City’s general philosophy that residents should receive the highest level of priority and consideration, followed by commercial organisations and visitors to Fremantle. However, this is not appropriate within the central CBD area. The policy also requires that residents within the area highlighted pink in attachment A and B that do not possess residential or multi-purpose parking permits at the date of adoption of this policy will not be eligible for new residential or multi-purpose parking permits. As an alternative, paid on-street or off-street parking may be available at the rate determined by the City’s fees and charges schedule. The pink area highlighted in attachment A is bound by Norfolk Street, Parry Street and Quarry Street and as such residences in Henderson Street do not qualify. Officers have refused the application for residential parking permits in accordance with this policy. The letter from the State Heritage Office claims that a staff member of the heritage office had previously discussed this matter with the City’s parking staff in 2016 and was verbally advised the new Henderson Street residents would be able to obtain a permit. No record of this conversation has been found and no officer recollects the conversation referred to. The letter from the State Heritage Office also mentions the City’s website which refers to residential and multi-purpose parking permits, makes no mention of the policy. This was correct at the time, however this has now been rectified. The letter also refers to other residents in Marine Terrace having residential parking permits. The Residential and Multi-Purpose Parking Permits Policy allows this, as it states:


28 June 2017

Page 13

At the date of adoption of this policy, residential or multi-purpose parking permits issued by the City to residents within the area highlighted pink will continue to be valid and may be renewed annually upon application. It is the City’s intention that persons possessing a valid residential or multi-purpose parking permit and residing in the area highlighted pink at the date of adoption of this policy will not be adversely impacted in the future if, upon expiration of their permits, the only reason they become ineligible to receive new residential or multi-purpose parking permits is due to the fact they reside within the area highlighted pink. The above essentially means that residents who were in possession of a permit at the time of adoption of the policy, can continue to hold a residential or multi-purpose parking permit in the area highlighted pink. Should Council resolve to issue the residential parking permits as requested, this may create an undesirable precedent and an expectation that Council will approve permits for other residential applicants in the CBD. Given the number of building projects expected to be underway in the next three years in the City centre, this could cause issues with the management of resident parking in the CBD in the future. The State Heritage Office has been advised that the residents of the Warders Cottages at 7 to 17 Henderson Street will qualify for Free Residential Parking Permits, which will allow them to park on the street for free between 9am to 11am and 3pm to 1am Monday to Friday as long as they abide by the time limit. The permits also allow the resident to park all day for free at Beach Street car park 12b and on the streets after 5pm on weekends. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority Required


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council in accordance with the City’s Residential and Multi –Purpose Parking Permits Policy, refuse the request for residential parking permits to residents that reside in the Warders Cottages located in W3 block 7-17 Henderson Street Fremantle SECONDED: Cr D Hume


28 June 2017

Page 14

CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald


28 June 2017

Page 15

Mayor, Brad Pettitt returned to the meeting at 7.56 pm.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 7 JUNE 2017

PC1706-1 ADELAIDE STREET, NOS. 18-22 (LOTS 1 AND 2), FREMANTLE - FIVE (5) STOREY TOURIST ACCOMMODATION AND SHOP - (NB DA0117/16)

Meeting Date: 7 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Amended Development Plans

2: Previous PC Report (11 January 2017) 3: DAC Minutes 4: Amended Heritage Comments

SUMMARY Approval is sought for five storey additions and alterations and a change of use to Tourist Accommodation and ground floor Shop, to an existing two storey heritage listed building. The proposal was presented to the 11 January 2017 Planning Committee (PC) meeting where it was deferred to allow the applicant to submit amended plans that setback the proposed upper level addition to be more consistent with the predominant height patterns of adjoining developments and not be visible from the street. The proposal was amended in consultation with the Design Advisory Committee. The amended application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL Detail Approval is sought for the following:

Five (5) storey addition predominantly to the rear of the existing heritage building including ground floor car parking.

Change of use to a 40 unit ‘Tourist Accommodation’ and ground floor ‘Shop’.

Façade refurbishments to the heritage buildings.

Internal layout changes and alterations of the existing heritage building. In addition, the amended plans show the following changes from the plans previously submitted to PC:

The setback of the fourth storey has been reduced by 0.25m to 4.25m.

The setback of the fifth storey has been increased by 4.45m to 8.95m.

The rear setback of the fifth storey has been increased by 1.5m to 3.5m.

Proposed construction of balconies to the upper floors consisting of steel columns and perforated metal panels.

Colour and design changes have been proposed to the north-east elevation of the building façade.


28 June 2017

Page 16

A copy of the development plans is included as Attachment 1. This report only addresses variations affected by the amended plans. A copy of the previous PC report from January 2017 (item PC1701-2) is included as Attachment 2. Site/application information Date received: 14 March 2016 Owner name: Romano's Investment Holdings Pty Ltd Submitted by: Ross McDonald Architects Pty Ltd Scheme: City Centre Zone Heritage listing: Level 1B Existing land use: Restaurant and Shop Use class: Tourist Accommodation and Shop Use permissibility: ‘D’ and ‘P’

CONSULTATION

External referrals The amended application was not required to be referred to any external parties as the building itself is not registered but is adjacent to state registered properties. Previous State Heritage Office advice concluded that an analysis of the street views showed the development would have no discernible impact on the setting of the adjacent registered places. The amended proposal responds to the existing streetscape by increasing the street setback of the upper floors, in keeping with previous advice. Community The original application was advertised for comment and these comments are included in the original report in Attachment 2. The amended plans presented no additional variations and reduced the variations present in the original application, therefore, as per LPP 1.3: Public Notification of Planning Proposals, no additional advertising was required.


28 June 2017

Page 17

Design Advisory Committee (DAC) The amended plans were presented to the 10 April 2017 DAC meeting. The amended design was considered to be consistent with the pattern of development in the adjoining streetscape and enhanced the dominance of the main façade of the retained building. The DAC supported the amendments and recommended minor improvements including removing the chamfer from the rear of the building and extending the balcony of the fifth floor above the fourth floor. The suggested improvements were not implemented for the following reasons:

The building is proposed on the boundary of the right-of-way and the chamfer is a result of the shape of the right-of-way. Removing the chamfer, without reducing the size of the balcony, would require building outside the lot boundaries.

An enlarged balcony would increase the visibility of the building above the fourth floor level which was not considered to be consistent with the recommendation of the Planning Committee.

In addition to assessing the overall design, planning committee requested that the DAC consider the amenity of the adjoining property and the presentation of the building to the public realm. The DAC supported the use of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) requirements (further discussed below) to assess the rear setback of the building. The DAC was also satisfied that the amended plans provided a façade in keeping with the streetscape and that adequately addressed the presentation to the public realm. A full copy of the minutes is included as Attachment 3. OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) and relevant Council local planning policies. Planning Committee deferred the original application for amended plans to be submitted to address the proposal’s consistency with the predominant height patterns of adjoining developments with the upper floor not being visible from the street. The above matters are discussed below. Background The original application was presented to the Planning Committee in January 2017 with a recommendation for approval. The committee deferred the application “in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that make the development more consistent with the predominant height patterns of buildings adjoining the development in accordance with Clause 1.1a and 1.2 of Schedule 8 of Local Planning Scheme No.4 and to allow for further review by the Design Advisory Committee, having regard to the amenity of adjoining properties and presentation of the development to the public realm. The applicant is advised that "visible from the street" is interpreted as setting back the upper level from the street so as not to be visible from the street based on the façade height of the existing heritage building.” The amended plans address the issues raised above and are recommended for conditional approval. Each aspect of the deferral is addressed below.


28 June 2017

Page 18

Building height The original application included a fifth storey with a street setback in line with the fourth storey addition and therefore visible from the street above the height of the existing heritage building façade (10m street boundary height). At its meeting Planning Committee advised that the upper floor, being the fifth floor level, should not be visible from the street above the height of the existing façade of this existing heritage building. The proposal has been amended to increase the setback of the fifth floor level from Adelaide Street by approximately 4.45m to 8.95m so that when viewed from the street the upper level is located behind the sightline of the fourth floor level and therefore not visible from the street.

Figure 1: “Visible from the street” setback

The amended plans increase the street setback of the upper floor and bring the building into line with the height patterns of adjoining properties when viewed from the street. An indicative streetscape is provided below.


28 June 2017

Page 19

Figure 2: Indicative streetscape Although the overall height is unchanged, the amendments result in the portion of building with the maximum height being relocated towards the centre of the lot and away from both the public realm and the adjoining rear lot. This reduces the impression of height and bulk and brings the building into line with the adjoining properties. The proposal is consistent with the predominant height patterns and is recommended for conditional approval. Rear setback The rear setback of the building has been increased to 3.5 m for most of the width of the building. The original plans and amendments are shown in the figures below.

Figure 3: Previously proposed rear setback

Figure 4: Amended rear setback


28 June 2017

Page 20

The Woodsons Building to the rear of the subject site has a nil boundary setback that is unusual in that it includes major openings to habitable rooms. The nil boundary setback of the Woodsons Building and the amenity implications were discussed in detail in the previous report (Attachment 2). In summary, the R-Codes do not apply to the proposal as the building is non-residential; however, the codes were used to provide guidance on setbacks. In light of the above, a 3.5 m setback minimises the impact on the amenity of the adjoining lot. The stairs, while having only a 0.75 m setback, predominantly abut a blank wall and part of an opening consisting of a void (on the second floor) and a tiled courtyard (on the first floor). The figure below illustrates the relative position of the major openings.

Figure 5: Rear setback diagram

The proposed setback reduces the effect of building bulk to the rear lot and allows light and ventilation to the major openings on the boundary of the Woodsons Building. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of visitors to Fremantle. Economic Development Strategy 2015-2020

Program Area 1 – Place Management, Activation and Urban Realm

Program Area 4 – Attraction of Business, Industry and Investment FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil


28 June 2017

Page 21

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning Committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the five (5) storey tourist accommodation and shop at Nos. 18-22 (Lots 1 and 2) Adelaide Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans,

dated 1 May 2017. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, a Construction Management Plan shall be

submitted to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle addressing the following matters:

a) Use of City car parking bays for construction related activities b) Protection of infrastructure within the road reserve c) Protection of street trees d) Security fencing around construction sites e) Gantries f) Access to site by construction vehicles g) Contact details h) Site offices i) Noise - Construction Work and Deliveries j) Sand drift and dust management k) Waste management l) Dewatering m) Traffic management n) Works affecting pedestrian areas.

The approved Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction of the new development.

4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, Nos. 18 and 22 (Lots 1 and 2) Adelaide Street, Fremantle, are to be legally amalgamated or alternatively the owner may enter into a legal agreement with the City of Fremantle, drafted by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties concerned prior to the commencement of the works. The legal agreement will specify measures to allow the development approval to operate having regard to the subject site consisting of two separate lots, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the owner is to submit a waste management plan for approval detailing the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


28 June 2017

Page 22

6. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the owner shall contribute a monetary amount

equal in value to one percent of the estimated development cost, as indicated on the Form of Application for Planning Approval, to the City of Fremantle for development of public art works and/or heritage works to enhance the public realm. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $3.25 million the contribution to be made is $32,500.

7. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the design and materials of the development shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy L.P.P2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

a) Glazing to windows and other openings shall be laminated safety glass of minimum thickness of 6mm or “double glazed” utilising laminated or toughened safety glass of a minimum thickness of 3mm.

b) Air conditioners shall provide internal centrally located ‘shut down’ points and associated procedures for emergency use.

c) Roof insulation in accordance with the requirements of the Building Codes of Australia.

8. Prior to occupation, a Transport Management Plan is to be submitted demonstrating

how the development will manage onsite car parking and promote reduced car usage to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. The design and construction of the development is to meet the 4 star green star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Twelve (12) months after practical completion of the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle

a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars

a copy of agreed equivalent documentation certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars.

10. That the conservation works listed on the Heritage Impact Statement prepared by

Palassis Architects and submitted as part of the development application are completed using traditional building materials and techniques to match the original to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

11. 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 the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

ADVICE NOTES:

i. In relation to condition 6 relating to the public art contribution, the applicant is advised

that Council may waive the requirement for the public art/heritage work contribution in accordance with clause 6 of LPP 2.19 where the development incorporates public art


28 June 2017

Page 23

in the development to the same value as that specified in Condition 7 that is located in a position clearly visible to the general public on the site of the development. In determining the appropriateness and artistic merit of the public art, council shall seek relevant professional advice.

COMMITTEE DECISION Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED a motion to defer the application: That the application for the five (5) storey tourist accommodation and shop at Nos. 18-22 (Lots 1 and 2) Adelaide Street, Fremantle be deferred to the June 2017 Ordinary Council meeting to allow for:

1. A better understanding of the front finishes and pergola structures.

2. Further examine opportunities to reduce the impact on the Woodsons building.

CARRIED: 6/0 ADDITIONAL OFFICER’S COMMENT The Planning Committee moved a motion to defer the application to allow the applicant to provide further details regarding the finishes of the Adelaide Street elevation including the pergola structures and to further examine opportunities to reduce the impact on the Woodsons building located to the north west of the subject site. In response, the applicant has submitted the following additional information:

Additional perspective images illustrating the proposed streetscape of the building as viewed from three locations within Kings Square.

A plan indicating the colour palette of the proposed wall render and pergola.

An additional diagram showing the impact of the proposal on the direct sun to the Woodsons building windows during the winter solstice.

This information is included as Attachment 5. Materials and Finishes In addition to the above, the applicant has provided the following details of the materials and finishes of the pergolas, balustrade and Adelaide Street elevation of the additional levels:

The pergola and balustrade frame will be steel with a gloss powder coat paint finish.

The balustrade will have glass infill panels.

The wall finish will be a trowelled on textured paint finish to match the cement render to the heritage building.

Rear Setback The applicant has not proposed any further amendments to the rear boundary setback of the development. They have submitted additional information illustrating that there will be minimal impact on access to direct sunlight to the Woodsons building on 21 June, which is the date used to measure overshadowing within the R-Codes. The attached plan


28 June 2017

Page 24

illustrates that the rear units of the Woodsons building will still receive direct sun during mid-winter. The subject site is located within a city centre environment. The proposed development has been amended through the assessment process to reduce any potential impact on the amenity of the occupants of the adjacent building by increasing the rear setback and adding privacy screening to the rear facing portion of balconies. The proposed 3.5 m rear setback is considered adequate to address sunlight and ventilation concerns while the privacy screening restricts any overlooking to the major opening of the boundary windows of the Woodsons building. The proposal is to provide Tourist accommodation. Had the proposal been for residential development, then in accordance with Cl. 4.2.4 of LPS4 the setback provisions of R-AC3 would apply. As a guide, to determine an appropriate separation distance between the existing Woodsons building and the proposed development, the applicant has used the Deemed-to-comply setback requirements of the R-Codes for R-AC3 being a minimum of 3.5 m. The use of the R-AC3 setback requirements of the R-Codes as a guide was supported by the DAC and is considered to provide an acceptable level of amenity. Having regard for the above, it is not proposed to amend the original Officer’s recommendation for conditional approval.


28 June 2017

Page 25

ATTACHMENT 5: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION


28 June 2017

Page 26


28 June 2017

Page 27


28 June 2017

Page 28


28 June 2017

Page 29


28 June 2017

Page 30


28 June 2017

Page 31

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED a motion to defer the application: That the application for the five (5) storey tourist accommodation and shop at Nos. 18-22 (Lots 1 and 2) Adelaide Street, Fremantle be deferred to the July 2017 Ordinary Council meeting to allow for: SECONDED: Cr D Hume Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED an amendment to Part 1 of the Committee’s Recommendation to include the following wording:

1. That the application for the five (5) storey tourist accommodation and shop at Nos. 18-22 (Lots 1 and 2) Adelaide Street, Fremantle be deferred to the 5 July 2017 Planning Committee meeting to allow the applicant to revise the design as follows:

Remove the pergola structures

Modify the Adelaide Street elevation of the addition to incorporate articulation and depth by recessing the glass line of the façade and expressing the vertical walls and horizontal floors. The vertical expressions should reflect the proportions of the façade of the retained building.

Enhance the vertical expression of the north east elevation.

2. Further examine opportunities to reduce the impact on the Woodsons building.

SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

Cr Jon Strachan


28 June 2017

Page 32

Cr J Strachan MOVED an amendment to include an advice note to the Committee’s Recommendation as shown below: Advice Note: The applicant is advised that this approval is for Tourist Accommodation only, and that a change of use to Multiple Dwelling for some or all of the rooms will require further Development Approval and assessment of car parking and land use. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



28 June 2017

Page 33

Cr J McDonald vacated the chamber at 8.18 pm during the following item and returned at 8.20 pm prior to determination.

PC1706-2 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 193 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONAL USES OF RESTAURANT AND HEALTH STUDIO TO EXISTING MIXED USE BUILDING - (NB DA0104/17)

Meeting Date: 7 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Development Plans

2: Excerpts From Supporting Documentation 3: Table of Neighbour Comments 4: Site Photos

SUMMARY Approval is sought for two storey additions and alterations and the addition of Restaurant and Health studio uses to an existing Mixed use building. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to nature of some discretions being sought and comments raised during the notification period that cannot be addressed through conditions. Noting that cl. 4.9.1 of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) requires any development within a Residential zone to satisfy the Design principles of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) the applicant seeks discretionary assessments against LPS4 and R-Codes for the following:

land use

heritage

built form

car parking. The proposal is recommended for refusal. PROPOSAL Detail Approval is sought for the following:

An additional use of Restaurant with seating for 100 people including outdoor dining.

The intensification of the existing Community purpose use, which the City determines to be a new Health studio land use.

Two storey addition to the south of the existing house including an extension into the ridgeline of the existing house.

Upper floor studios and bathroom additions to serve the Community purpose/Health studio use.

External alterations including a kid’s area/lawn, outdoor seating, paving, fencing and closure of the existing driveway and crossover.


28 June 2017

Page 34

Works within the road reserve including the provision of bike racks, vegetation and car bays.

A copy of the development plans is included as Attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 27 February 2017 Owner name: Mr John Mocilac and Ms Annette Eckert Submitted by: TPG + Place Match Scheme: Residential – R30 Heritage listing: Level 3 Existing land use: Single house, Community purpose, Home business Use class: Single house, Community purpose, Health studio, Home

business, Restaurant Use permissibility: Single house (P), Health studio (X), Home business (A),

Restaurant (A), Community purpose (A)

CONSULTATION External referrals Western Power: Western Power had no objections to the development; however, the applicant would be required to contact Western Power prior to the commencement of works to ensure safety due to the proximity of powerlines.


28 June 2017

Page 35

Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as discretions were sought under LPS4 and the R-Codes. The advertising period concluded on 31 March 2017 with 29 submissions received (inclusive of a petition signed by 14 residents) and eight (8) submissions in support. Of the objections, the following issues were raised:

lack of car parking for the site and in the area

land use will cause noise and impact amenity of nearby houses

new development overpowers the existing heritage house

the proposal is not sympathetic to the area

development presents too much building bulk, particularly to the southern property where it overshadows major openings and solar panels

insufficient bike racks. A table of the summarised comments received and the City’s response to each is included as Attachment 3. The issues raised are addressed below. OFFICER COMMENT Background The subject site is located on the western side of South Terrace between Louisa Street and Rose Street. The site is zoned Residential and has a density coding of R30 and a land area of approximately 799 m2. The site is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area and contains a Single house with a Home business and Community purpose building that is level three heritage listed. The Single house is currently single storey and divided in half internally. The eastern half of the house is a residence and the western half is used for a Community purpose use and a Home business that complements the Community purpose use. Four (4) car bays currently serve the Community purpose use. A search of the property files reveals the following relevant planning history:

On 14 May 1990, the City approved a partial change of use to Community purpose. The conditions of approval included the provision of four marked parking bays for the Community purpose use and a requirement that the internal alterations not “preclude the reconversion of the building back at some future date” (DA74/90).

On 2 August 2004, the City approved a change of use to Child care centre. This approval was not acted upon and has since lapsed (DA239/04).

On 10 October 2016, the City approved a partial change of use to Home business (Health education) and primary street fencing and signage (DA0353/16).

Statutory and policy assessment Cl. 4.9.1 of LPS4 states:

“Non residential development, where permitted in the Residential zone shall comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes or where relevant the development requirements for the Local Planning Area as outlined in Schedule 8 and any variations thereto.”


28 June 2017

Page 36

The proposal has therefore been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and the R-Codes. 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 LPS4 requirements or Deemed-to-comply provisions and need to be assessed under the discretionary criteria and/or Design principles:

land use

heritage

built form

car parking. The above matters are discussed below. Land uses The existing Single house has been approved with a partial change of use for Community purpose and a Home business. These uses are proposed to remain; however, it is proposed to introduce the following additional uses: Health Studio The applicant proposes to use the upper floor studios as a continuation of the existing Community purpose use. However, the studios are referred to as ‘yoga studios’ in documentation accompanying the application (Attachment 2) and are purpose-built to accompany large exercise classes, including provision of a ‘Waiting’ area and two bathroom shower stalls. In regard to determining the land use, LPS4 provides the following definitions:

Community purpose: means the use of premises designed or adapted primarily for the provision of educational, social, or recreational facilities or services by organisations involved in activities for community benefit. Health studio: means land and buildings designed and equipped for physical exercise, recreation and sporting activities including outdoor recreation.

In accordance with the above land use definitions, a yoga studio is considered to be a Health studio, which is an ‘X’ or not permitted use in a Residential zone and therefore cannot be approved. The applicant proposes that the studios will continue the existing Community purpose use that was included for consideration as part of the Home business approval (DA0353/16) and not form a new use. However, in this previous application nutritional health education classes were considered the primary Community purpose use with on-site physical education such as tai chi and yoga being incidental uses limited in size by the small floor area. Information submitted with the previous application showed yoga and tai chi classes would cater for up to 10 people with the education classes catering between 12-20 people. The proposed studios enlarge the exercise area and provide space for 24 – 30 additional instructors/patrons. The proposal also includes a waiting area and shower stalls to facilitate the use of the exercise rooms.


28 June 2017

Page 37

Based on the statement of intent, size, layout, and amenities provided, the proposed additions are considered to be designed and equipped for physical exercise and constitute a new additional use of Health studio. The application is therefore recommended for refusal on the basis that the land use of Health studio is not a permitted use in a Residential zone and it will detrimentally impact the amenity of adjoining residential lots. Restaurant The ground floor Restaurant use is an ‘A’ use in the Residential Zone, which means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval after advertising the application. The proposed ‘A’ use has been assessed against the Matters to be considered by local government in cl. 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Sections of cl. 67 under which the subject proposal is not supported are discussed below:

(a) the aims and provisions of this Scheme

The relevant Residential zone objectives of cl. 3.2.1(a) state that development within the residential zone shall:

ii. safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas and ensure that development, including alterations and additions, are sympathetic with the character of the area,

iv. recognise the importance of traditional streetscape elements to existing and new development,

v. conserve and enhance places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development, and

vi. safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas by ensuring that land use is compatible with the character of the area.

The built form, streetscape and heritage aspects of the proposal are discussed in more detail in the following sections. The proposed land use is considered detrimental to the amenity of the Residential zone for the following reasons:

The Restaurant proposes to seat 100 patrons which is considered to be a significant amount of people for a residential zone. The scale of the development is therefore not considered compatible with the amenity of residential areas.

The proposed Restaurant use will generate a high level of demand and likely cause disturbance during mornings, evenings and weekends. These are times when adjoining residents are most likely to be home and impacted.

The proposal expands commercial uses into a Residential zone and introduces changes that would be detrimental to the residential areas through increased noise, vehicle movements, visitors to the site and corresponding loss of amenity.

The Restaurant provides inadequate on-site car parking (further discussed below).

The western side of South terrace between Russell Street and Rose Street is predominantly zoned Residential, with only a few sporadic Mixed use lots. The Mixed use component of South Terrace between the above streets is mostly confined to the eastern side, creating a clear distinction between the residential uses and the commercial uses (see Figure 1 below). A permanent non-residential


28 June 2017

Page 38

use of the intensity proposed within one of these Residential zones is not compatible with the character of the adjacent residential area.

Figure 1: South Terrace zoning. (Pink is Mixed use, brown is Residential.)

Having regard for the above, the proposed Restaurant use does not meet the objectives of the zone and is recommended for refusal.

(m) the compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development to development on adjoining land

The proposed Restaurant directly adjoins residential properties and the intensity of the use, particularly the size and scale of the proposal, is incompatible with the adjoining Residential uses. A high level of demand for the Restaurant is likely to occur during mornings, evenings and weekends, the same time adjoining residents are most likely to be at home. The bins are proposed to be stored adjacent to the outdoor living area and a major opening of the southern adjoining lot. Given the scale of the restaurant, this is likely to cause odour and noise issues and negatively impact neighbour amenity. The Restaurant will thus have a negative impact on the amenity of the locality and will be incompatible with the Residential zone in which it is located.

(s) the adequacy of- (ii) arrangements for the loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles.

The Restaurant proposes to seat 100 patrons while providing no on-site car parking. The lack of parking is of a scale that is considered to be detrimental to the locality, particularly the Residential zone in which it sits. (see also Car parking below).

(w) the history of the site where the development is to be located One of the conditions included on the original Community purpose use approval (DA74/90) required any alterations made to be reversible and not preclude a return to a strictly residential use. It is evident from this that Council did not intend the lot to function as a permanent Mixed use zone, despite being located across the street from such a


28 June 2017

Page 39

zone. The previous approval should therefore not be taken as an indication that the lot is intended to function similarly to the adjacent Mixed use zone.

(y) any submissions received on the application The City received a number of objections to the land use, built form and car parking aspects of the proposal. A summary of these comments is included as Attachment 3 and addressed throughout this report. Given all of the above, the proposed Restaurant land use is recommended for refusal. Heritage The subject site is included on the City of Fremantle’s Heritage List 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 heritage of Fremantle in terms of its contribution to the streetscape and the local area. The existing building on the subject site is a typical rendered masonry and tile single storey house dating from c1892. The place has aesthetic value for its contribution to the streetscape and the surrounding area. It is representative of the typical workers' houses in the Fremantle area. The place is an example of the Federation Bungalow style of architecture and displays some characteristics of the federation Queen Anne style of architecture. The first floor addition is not considered to be sympathetic to the heritage place as it cuts into the existing roof at the ridgeline. In this regard, the preferred approach is to set new additions approximately four metres back from the ridgeline of existing house. This applies to the ridgeline facing the secondary street as well as the one facing the primary street. The proposed first floor addition above the existing house is recommended for refusal due to the following: Demolition Cutting into the roof line requires the removal of significant and highly visible parts of the roof structure that contribute to the streetscape appearance and built form of the existing house. The proposal is therefore considered to be a partial demolition and does not meet the requirements of cl. 4.14.1 of LPS4, which states that Council will only grant planning approval for demolition where it is satisfied that the building has no cultural heritage significance. As the house is considered to have some cultural heritage significance and the proposed first floor will detrimentally impact this significance, demolition/removal of the ridge line is not supported. Built form The first floor addition above the existing house is not an appropriate addition as it changes the roof form and context of the building. Adding the upper floor directly above the ridgeline as proposed rather than setting it back increases the dominance of the new addition to the streetscape and adversely impacts on the cultural historical significance of the existing building. The new addition will appear to sit on top of the existing heritage building and read as an obvious later addition, thus diminishing the cultural heritage


28 June 2017

Page 40

significance. Conversely, setting the upper floor addition behind both ridgelines would allow the addition to appear integrated with the form of the roof and not detract from the remainder of the building. The upper floor addition proposed above the existing house is not sympathetic to the cultural heritage significance of the building nor is it in keeping with the existing form of the building as viewed from the street. Streetscape impact The upper floor addition above the existing house will detract from the heritage character of the streetscape. The two southern adjoining blocks are both level 3 heritage listed, as are the lots located on the other side of South Terrace. The effect is that the cultural heritage significance of the streetscape has remained relatively intact. Adding the upper floor above the existing house would change the context of the streetscape and result in a jarring contemporary look not in keeping with the area. Further, the lot immediately to the south of the subject site (No. 195 South Terrace) is single storey, while the one at the end of the block (No. 197 South Terrace) is two storey. However, the two storey addition for No. 197 South Terrace is located towards the rear of the block and well behind the front ridgeline of that house so as to present predominantly as a single storey house when viewed from the street. This results in a streetscape appearance along the block of single storey houses. The setback of the proposed upper floor of the subject site, being located on top of the existing ridgeline, is not considered compatible with the heritage significance of the streetscape nor in keeping with the cultural heritage significance of the house. The proposal has a negative impact on the existing house and its contribution to the streetscape and is recommended for refusal in accordance with cl. 67 (k) and (L) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Built form The proposed development is located within a residential lot and, as per cl. 4.9.1 of LPS4 the built form must comply with the requirements of the R-Codes. The development complies with the R-Codes and LPS4 requirements for height (two storey height limit), overshadowing (26% provided, 35% allowed) and visual privacy. The R-Code discretion sought in this instance is for the southern lot boundary setback as shown in the following table:

Element Setback Required Setback Proposed Discretion

Ground Floor (south)

1.5 m 1.2 m 0.3 m

Upper Floor (south) 1.8 m 0.9 m 0.9 m

The variations do not satisfy the Design principles of cl. 5.1.3 of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The building effectively presents a solid wall 13 m long and 6.65 m high to the southern property and results in excessive bulk to that property. The minor (0.3 m) articulation is covered by screening and does little to reduce the appearance of building bulk.


28 June 2017

Page 41

The design of the building will severely reduce direct sun and ventilation to the building on the adjoining southern lot, particularly the major opening to a habitable room and the rooftop solar collectors of the adjoining southern house.

The design makes minimal effort to moderate the visual impact of the building bulk to the southern adjoining property.

Car Parking Under Table 2 of LPS4, a Community purpose use does not require any on-site car parking; however, one of the conditions of approval for the Community purpose use (DA74/90) required that four on-site parking bays be provided for its use. These existing bays are proposed to be removed under the subject application. The Home Business use did not require additional parking bays. Currently, the only parking requirement is under the R-Codes for the Single house to have one car bay. This component of the development complies and no changes are proposed to the residential half of the building. In addition to removing the four bays required as part of DA74/90, the applicant proposes closing the crossover to add a loading bay in the road reserve. All other parking for the site, including the majority of bike parking, is proposed to be located within the road reserve and will therefore become the responsibility of the City to manage and maintain. The Health studio is an ‘X’ use, as discussed above. As the land use is not permitted, the parking requirement is provided for information only. Car Parking

Use Parking Required Parking Provided Shortfall

Single house 1 2 Nil

Home Business Nil Nil Nil

Community purpose 4 (as per DA74/90)

Nil 4

Health studio (1 bay/5 people)

6 Nil 6

Restaurant (1 bay/5 seats)

20 Nil 20

TOTAL 30

Bicycle Racks

Use Racks Required Racks Provided Shortfall

Community purpose Class 3: 2 plus 1:1500m2 gla = 2

2 Nil

Restaurant Class 1/2: 1:100m2 public area = 2

Nil 2

Class 3: 2 5 (for staff only) 5 (for staff only)

TOTAL 2 (Class 1/2) Nil (Class 3)


28 June 2017

Page 42

The parking variation would not be supported for the following reasons:

The proposal eliminates all on-site parking for the existing Community purpose use contrary to the original condition of approval. At the same time, it increases the need for parking.

The proposal will generate traffic in excess of that normally associated with Residential uses without providing adequate means of mitigating traffic impact.

Street parking in the area is in high demand, especially at peak periods. The elimination of existing parking bays and intensification of commercial uses will exacerbate existing parking issues within the locality pushing commercial parking further down adjoining residential streets.

Only one small bike parking zone is proposed for customers with no indication of how many bike spaces are available. The remainder of the bicycle bays are proposed to be placed within the road reserve, therefore becoming the responsibility of the City for future maintenance and repair.

For the reasons stated above, the application is recommended for refusal in accordance with cl. 67 (s)(ii) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Conclusion The applicant was notified of the City’s concerns following an assessment of the proposal. The applicant did not propose any amendments to the design of the proposal. Having regard for the above assessment, the proposal is recommended for refusal for the following reasons:

1) The proposed Health studio use is an ‘X’ use in the Residential zone.

2) The proposal additional Restaurant land use is incompatible with the Residential zone objectives and the Matters to be considered in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

3) The proposal includes partial demolition of a building with some cultural

heritage significance.

4) The proposed upper floor addition will have an adverse impact on the heritage fabric of the existing house and the streetscape.

5) The proposal does not satisfy the Design principles of the R-Codes for lot

boundary setbacks.

6) The proposal does not include an adequate provision of car parking. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal complies with the following strategic plans: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25


28 June 2017

Page 43

Increase the number of people working in Fremantle

Increase the number of visitors to Fremantle FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: 1. REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No.

4, two storey additions and alterations and additional uses of Restaurant and Health Studio to the existing Mixed use building at No. 193 (Lot 1) South Terrace, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 27 February 2017, for the following reasons:

a) The land use of Health Studio is not a permitted use in the Residential zone

under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 in accordance with clauses 67(a) and (b) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

b) 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), (s) and (y) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

c) The partial demolition of the roof of an existing heritage listed house is contrary

to clause 4.14.1 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

d) The proposed upper floor located above the existing house is detrimental to the cultural heritage fabric of the building under clause 67(k) and (L) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

e) The lot boundary setback of the southern 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 southern property.

f) 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.

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED a motion to defer the application:


28 June 2017

Page 44

That the application for two storey additions and alterations and additional uses of Restaurant and Health Studio to the existing mixed use building at No. 193 (Lot 1) South Terrace, South Fremantle, be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting to allow the applicant to discuss the issues raised in the report with the Administration, and address the issues with the submission of amended plans, including: a) the proposed intensification of non-residential land uses on residential zone land b) the heritage impacts resulting from the location and design of the first floor

addition c) the bulk and scale impacts on the amenity of the neighbour located to the south

as a result of the proposed setback of the two storey addition d) the reduction of existing car parking on the subject site and the increase in

demand for parking as a result of the proposed uses. Lost: 3/4 Cr J Strachan used his casting vote AGAINST the motion resulting in it being LOST. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: 1. REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme

No. 4, two storey additions and alterations and additional uses of Restaurant and Health Studio to the existing Mixed use building at No. 193 (Lot 1) South Terrace, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 27 February 2017, for the following reasons:



b) 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), (s) and (y) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

c) The partial demolition of the roof of an existing heritage listed house is

contrary to clause 4.14.1 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4. d) The proposed upper floor located above the existing house is detrimental

to the cultural heritage fabric of the building under clause 67(k) and (L) of


28 June 2017

Page 45

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

e) The lot boundary setback of the southern 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 southern property.



CARRIED: 4/2 The above item is referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council for determination in accordance with 1.1 or 2.1 of 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. Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Ordinary Meeting of Council. SECONDED: Cr D Hume LOST: 3/7

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume

Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald Cr Doug Thompson

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan 1. REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme

No. 4, two storey additions and alterations and additional uses of Restaurant and Health Studio to the existing Mixed use building at No. 193 (Lot 1) South Terrace, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 27 February 2017, for the following reasons:




28 June 2017

Page 46

b) 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), (s) and (y) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

c) The partial demolition of the roof of an existing heritage listed house is

contrary to clause 4.14.1 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

d) The proposed upper floor located above the existing house is detrimental to the cultural heritage fabric of the building under clause 67(k) and (L) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

e) The lot boundary setback of the southern 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 southern property.




28 June 2017

Page 47

SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 10/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

Cr Simon Naber


28 June 2017

Page 48

PC1706-8 PLANNING AND SCHEME COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT - CITY OF FREMANTLE CIVIC BUILDING, KING'S SQUARE

Meeting Date: 7 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Attachment: A – Planning and Compliance Assessment

B - King’s Square Peer Review SUMMARY At its April 2017 meeting council noted that the new civic building is a public work. Given the elapsed time since the architectural completion, council requested that a planning and scheme compliance evaluation of its new civic building at 8 William Street, Fremantle be undertaken. That evaluation has been completed and is presented in this report to council. The examination shows the new civic building is compliant with scheme provisions with only two matters, maximum street setback and weather protection, requiring a discretionary assessment. In assessing that discretion officers are of the view that the proposed new civic building is compliant with Local Planning Scheme 4 and its associated policies. The officer’s planning and scheme assessment has been peer reviewed by an independent third party who find “the officer assessment is thorough”, that “the proposal is compliant with the exercise of discretion”, and that ‘the proposal presents a capable and engaging building meeting the Urban Design principles established in the Kings Square Urban Design Strategy.” PROPOSAL The proposal includes demolition of the existing (1960's) City of Fremantle administration building and construction of a four (4) storey with basement Civic use building at No. 8 (Lots 1, 2, 3, 51, 52 & 1, 23, 4, 5, 6 and 66) William Street, Fremantle. The proposal involves the construction of a civic building of 7 435m2 of nett floor space, breaking down as 5 298 m2 of office floor space, public library at 1 494 m2 and a small amount of incidental uses. The schematic plans can be found at attachment A1. CONSULTATION The schematic drawings were referred to the Fremantle Ports Authority, the State Heritage Office and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. None of these bodies raised an objection to the proposed civic building. The Ports Authority and the State Heritage Office made comments that are relevant to the continued design of the building. These comments are dealt with in the Conclusions below. OFFICER COMMENT

Assessment: This planning and scheme assessment has been carried out against the provisions of Local Planning Scheme 4 (LPS4) of the City of Fremantle. For reasons


28 June 2017

Page 49

of transparency the full assessment is included at Attachment A (normally only matters requiring the exercise of discretion are included in a report). The following table shows the result of the evaluation against relevant scheme and policy provisions: Part A: Local Planning Scheme 4 A. Objectives of the City centre zone Compliant B. Parking Compliant C. Height requirements Compliant D. Demolition of buildings and structures Compliant E. End of trip facilities N/a F. Schedule 8 Compliant

(with two exercises of discretion)

Part B: Local Planning Policies LPP 1.10 Construction Sites See Conclusion below LPP 2.3 Fremantle Port Buffer Area See Conclusion below LPP 2.7 Archaeological investigation See Conclusion below LPP 2.13 Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements Compliant LPP 2.19 Contributions for public art and/or heritage See Conclusion below LPP 3.1.5 Precinct 5 Compliant DGF14 Fremantle West End Conservation Area See LPS4 assessment The two exercises of discretion relate to (a) provision of “continuous weather protection” and (b) “maximum street setbacks”. Both are examined in the Assessment report: the weather protection at Schedule 8, Sub-area 1.3.2 provisions (b)(i) and the setbacks at (h). In both cases officers are of the view that the conditions required to exercise discretion have been met. Peer review: Given that this is a City of Fremantle proposal, officers considered that it would be prudent, for reasons of transparency, to have the assessment report (Attachment A) peer reviewed. This has been done by Urbis (Attachment B) who find “the officer assessment is thorough”, that “the proposal is compliant with the exercise of discretion”, and that ‘the proposal presents a capable and engaging building meeting the Urban Design principles established in the Kings Square Urban Design Strategy.”

CONCLUSION

In advancing design of the building the following matters need to be taken into account:

Fremantle Port related matters (LPP2.3 refers): In preparing detailed designs the following need to be taken into account: 1. Glazing to windows and other openings need to be laminated safety glass of a

minimum thickness of 6mm or doubled glazed utilising laminated or toughened safety glass of a minimum thickness of 3mm.

2. Air conditioners need to provide an internally located ‘shut down’ points and associated procedures for emergency use.

3. Roof insulation needs to be in accordance with the requirements of the Building Codes of Australia.


28 June 2017

Page 50

State Heritage Office matters: 4. The matters below are requested by the State Heritage Office:

The following information being provided to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of the State Heritage Office prior to the application for a building permit: a. Demolition methodology for removal of 1972 Exhibition Hall to existing

north-east wall to Fremantle Town Hall. b. More details of the interface between the new build and the eastern

wall of the Town Hall, and the impact on fabric of considerable significance.

c. Schedule of conservation works to the Fremantle Town Hall detailing proposed investigation, materials and methodology.

d. A dilapidation survey of the Fremantle Town Hall.

The implementation of appropriate methods of monitoring and managing the impact of vibrations during excavation and construction.

A photographic archival record of the Administration and Exhibition building prior to its demolition.

An archaeologist with relevant demonstrated experience is to be consulted on the potential for the proposed works to impact extant archaeological material and an Archaeological Management Plan (AMP) is to be prepared. The AMP should include appropriate procedures for identification, assessment, documentation and management of any archaeological material encountered during ground disturbance.

Other matters:

5. Formation of detailed designs to be in consultation with the Design Advisory Committee.

6. A Construction Management Plan is needed to address the requirements set-out in Local Planning Policy 1.10. The Plan should be to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer and be in place prior to commencement of construction.

7. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site or as otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer of the City.

8. The provisions of Local Planning Policy 2.19 – Contributions for Public Art and / or Heritage Works to be considered through a report to Council.

9. Amalgamation of the various lots the new civic building sits on should be undertaken through an application to the WA Planning Commission.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The financial implications of the matters referred to in the Conclusion above will need to be considered as the detailed designs evolve.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

The proposal is consistent with a number of Outcomes and Objectives in the following Strategic Focus Areas of the Strategic Community Plan 2015-25:

economic development

environmental responsibility

character, culture and heritage

places for people.


28 June 2017

Page 51

In addition the new civic building is recognised as a strategic project. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Council:

1. Receive and note this planning and scheme compliance report on the new City of Fremantle civic building and note that the proposal is compliant with Local Planning Scheme 4.

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



28 June 2017

Page 52

Cr D Thompson vacated the chamber at 8.35 pm and was absent during discussion and voting of this item.

PC1706-9 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 63 AND DRAFT PLANNING POLICY FOR SMALL INFILL DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL CONTROL AREA - ADOPT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

Meeting Date: 7 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

SUMMARY This report proposes a draft scheme amendment (amendment no. 63) and accompanying local planning policy for small infill housing in specific areas of lower density coded residential land. The purpose of the proposal is to increase housing choice for smaller households in Fremantle’s suburban areas. The approach focuses on the scale of housing, rather than the traditional metric of number of dwellings per land area. The proposed amendment and policy follow on from the community engagement undertaken on the Freo alternative – Big thinking about small housing, in late 2016. The purpose of the Freo Alternative was to generate a shared community vision on the future of housing in Fremantle. The major themes that emerged from discussions with the community were: location, housing choice, built form, sustainability, open space, trees and landscaping, community and car movement and parking. Prior to the Freo Alternative engagement council had considered the principles of a scheme amendment for small infill housing on several occasions. These principles and the themes from the Freo Alternative engagement feedback now form the basis of the draft scheme provisions and an accompanying local planning policy. Officers recommend the proposed complex scheme amendment and draft local planning policy be adopted for advertising for public comment.

BACKGROUND

Freo Alternative The purpose of The Freo alternative – Big thinking about small housing, was to generate a shared community vision on the future of housing in Fremantle. Community engagement on the project ran from August to November 2016 and consisted of three main events, several surveys, and stakeholder and industry meetings. The Freo Alternative engaged with the community on the issue of how smaller housing options could be provided in Fremantle’s suburban areas by first establishing what attributes the community values about their suburban areas and the challenges and


28 June 2017

Page 53

benefits of small housing types. Similar questions were asked at all of the engagement events and qualitative data was compiled from the feedback received. The major themes that emerged out of discussions with the community were: community, trees, car parking, walkability/quality transport options, open space, character and design, sustainability and affordability. These themes have been further refined and provided in figure 1 below. These themes form the basis of the project going forward. For further information on the Freo Alternative engagement refer to the Ordinary Meeting of Council minutes 25 January 2017 PC1701-9.

Figure 1. Themes from the Freo Alternative

Diverse housing principles Prior to the Freo Alternative engagement Council had considered the principles for a diverse/modest housing scheme amendment on several occasions. A summary of the key principles from this work are provided in figure 2 below.


28 June 2017

Page 54

Figure 2. Summary of principles established for moderately sized housing planning response

For more information on this work please refer to the following council items: 24 September 2014 –SPC1409-01 23 September 2015 –SPC1509-4 24 February 2016 –SPD1502-2 23 March 2016 –SPD1603-1 25 May 2016 –SPD1605-2 25 January 2017 – PC1701-9

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If approval is granted for the scheme amendment and local planning policy to proceed to public advertising, the cost of community engagement resources and activities will need to be funded from the 2017/18 operating budgets for strategic planning work. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The process for a complex scheme amendment is outlined in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations).

CONSULTATION

Subject to Council resolving to proceed to advertise the proposed scheme amendment and local planning policy, these documents will be advertised concurrently in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations as they apply to complex scheme amendments and local planning policies and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. After resolving to advertise the amendment the City must submit the amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). The WAPC must then advise the City


28 June 2017

Page 55

whether or not it is satisfied the complex amendment is suitable for advertising. Following this a complex amendment has a public comment period of not less than 60 days. Considering the strategic implications and anticipated wide interest in the project officers propose a tailored community engagement approach. Community engagement on the planning provisions will include informative easy-to-read explanations with graphics on what is being proposed and what the City is looking for feedback on. The engagement messages will include:

The purpose of the project is to increase housing choice for smaller households in Fremantle’s suburban areas.

The proposed scheme and policy requirements:

are proposals and can change in light of comments made in submissions

apply only to specific areas, not to all of the City of Fremantle

were influenced by the community engagement feedback on the Freo Alternative

will provide smaller housing for small households.

Property owners do not have to develop in this way. Instead it is another choice to consider when developing property in specific areas.

What the project is [e.g. development on private land] and what the project is not [e.g. does not include work on public land or new parks etc.]

OFFICER COMMENT In accordance with Council’s resolution on the 25 January 2017 (PC1701-9) the themes from the Freo Alternative (refer to figure 1 above) form the basis on which to assess the previously considered principles and draft scheme provisions and an accompanying local planning policy. The scheme amendment and local planning policy text are provided in full in the officer’s recommendation. THEME: LOCATION Promote smaller housing types in areas with access to public transport and local amenities. Walkability and quality active/public transport options to support smaller housing types were qualities participants in the Freo Alternative engagement valued about their neighbourhoods and rated as a priority for the project. While increasing public transport is not within the scope of this project the location of this development type is a consideration and one of the principles previously considered by Council. Suspending the R-code minimum site areas and allowing development over and above the existing density in all areas of the city could have unintended effects and impact on the city’s more sensitive areas, for example in heritage areas and/or some suburban areas with relatively intact patterns of single dwelling development and mature, well vegetated streetscapes. Accordingly officers previously recommended that the amendment provisions should initially apply only to specific areas identified in a special control area map in LPS4, similar to the Port buffer special control area. Factors suggested when considering the allocation of these areas were:


28 June 2017

Page 56

Exclude: Consider: Heritage areas or/and areas with a large number of individually listed heritage places Heritage areas and/or areas with a large number of individually heritage listed properties would be more likely to have streetscapes of significance. Excluding these areas would therefore minimise the risk of this development type adversely affecting areas with significant streetscape character.

Areas close to public transport Areas within a 400m ‘ped shed’ from high frequency bus routes and 800m from train stations Areas with a diverse existing streetscape character Development of the type is considered likely to have less impact in areas where the existing streetscape is already diverse in character. Areas with similar existing development types & patterns In general residents of a suburb have a perception of the adjoining properties & wider neighbourhood’s capacity to develop based on the existing development pattern in the area.

In March 2016, council considered a selection of areas and after several modifications to the recommendation resolved to consider the areas on the map provided in figure 3.

Figure 3. Areas where the Scheme amendment would apply

Additional to property being located in these areas Council resolved that the property and proposed development would also need to meet the following: The property is –

Located within 400m of a bus route or 800m of a train station, unless additional parking and/or alternative modes of transport are provided for; and

Has a minimum lot area of 600 sq m; and The proposed development –

Meets the deemed-to-comply requirements for design element 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback of the Residential Design Codes; and meets the Deep Planting Zone and Open Space requirements of the scheme; or


28 June 2017

Page 57

Involves the retention and adaptation of an existing dwelling with no significant enlargement or other alteration to the existing building footprint and streetscape, and meets the Deep Planting Zone and Open Space requirements of the Scheme.

Does not have a detrimental impact on the cultural significance of a heritage listed place; or

Does not involve the demolition of a building assessed as having some or more cultural significance; or

Does not involve the wholesale demolition of a building that if kept would be capable of retaining a high degree of embedded energy.

On review, officers consider the combined effect of these requirements is overly prescriptive, complex, and may not reflect council’s main intent when modifying the previous officer’s recommendation. The requirements in the above resolution mean for anyone wanting to consider this development type, the location of the site and particulars of the development need to be considered together at the initial stages. Additionally, some of the provisions duplicate other proposed or existing scheme provisions, e.g. the requirement for close proximity to public transport is superfluous when specific areas have been identified in figure 3, and existing scheme heritage requirements which must be met in any event. Officers therefore recommend these provisions are simplified to allow consideration of this development type on properties identified in the areas in figure 3 where the lot size is over 600 sq m. The other provisions relating to retention of an existing building and open space could be reworded and would be better included under other parts of the proposed scheme amendment and/or local planning policy text. Community engagement will focus on the areas identified in the map and residents of these areas. THEME: HOUSING CHOICE Provide diversity of housing size and type in suburban areas to increase housing choice. The underlying foundation of the Freo Alternative was that any outcome would provide for smaller housing sizes not otherwise being provided in new development in suburban areas while maintaining the open character of the lots. Two factors contribute to this: maximum size and number of dwellings on a development site.

Dwelling size Council previously resolved that the project should go forward with a maximum floor area of 120 sq m per new dwelling. This size was based on market research at the time and would provide a generous two bedroom house or modest three bedroom house. The 120 sq m maximum floor area requirement does not mean that every dwelling would have to be this size as no minimum floor area size is proposed. This requirement has been included in the scheme amendment. Officers suggest this requirement is highlighted for discussion in the engagement material on the amendment and policy to seek community feedback on appropriate dwelling size. Maximum number of dwellings A key purpose of the project is to increase the diversity of housing in existing suburbs. The results of previous modelling however show that sites not capable of subdivision


28 June 2017

Page 58

under conventional planning scheme and R-Codes controls could potentially yield up to six small dwellings for a 750 sq m lot (average lot size in R20-R25 areas). While this would meet one main aim of the amendment, the potential for the development of six dwellings on an otherwise non-subdividable single house residential lot could be perceived as a negative outcome by the local community, regardless of design quality. Accordingly in the principles on diverse housing council resolved to include a cap on the number of dwellings per site area – refer to table 2. This requirement has been included in the scheme amendment. Table 2. Proposed Scheme amendment requirement

Lot area No. of Dwellings

<750 sq m 3

>750 sq m 3 + 1 additional for every additional 150 sq m of site area in excess of 750 sq m

THEME: BUILT FORM Ensure good quality design outcomes including design that is responsive to local character and context. The design of a development contributes greatly to the visual interest of the building and the character of a local area. The responses on this topic during the Freo Alternative engagement were diverse and included: identity, tiny housing, innovative and good design. Some responses advocated mandating good architectural design, while other responses wanted “Freo styles” of architecture with limited design controls. When council previously considered this issue the resolution included reference to design advisory committee involvement, a design book and a rear setback requirement. The proposed Scheme amendment includes a clause that ensures the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) would provide comment on this development type. This will ensure the design and assessment of these developments considers the seven principles for design quality in schedule A, clause 78B of the scheme. Council shall have due regard to the design expert advice when making a decision on the development. The draft planning policy includes the following requirements for built form:

visual appearance – Reference to the [proposed] scheme provision for DAC advice

rear setback – 5m with some variation criteria

private outdoor space – 30 sq m with some variation criteria All other planning requirements such as building height, boundary setbacks, visual privacy are as per the Residential Design Codes. The idea of a design book of dwelling designs commissioned by the City of Fremantle which, if used in a planning application for a diverse dwelling development, could streamline approval requirements is not recommended to be progressed at this time. It would be sensible to wait for certainty that the scheme amendment will be approved. At that time further consideration could be given to the scope and budget implications of the City commissioning designs.


28 June 2017

Page 59

An underlying premise of the Freo Alternative is to allow for smaller housing types on existing suburban lots to be developed, subdivided and the land and house owned in separate title. Officers anticipate the resulting development would be small-scale developments in the ‘backyard’, the existing dwelling on site retrofitted into two dwellings or permanent ‘micro village’ development. Tiny house development could be considered as part of these development types where they are built as permanent buildings. In discussions with tiny house advocates and considering the nature of many tiny houses – movable, and often meeting the legal definition of a caravan rather than a building under WA legislation - it appears the priority for this development type is not necessarily land ownership or planning provisions as the Freo Alternative would provide, but more certainty around legally occupying land. The community engagement will ask the community what they feel is important to achieving good quality built form. THEME: SUSTAINABILITY Mandate higher than standard sustainability requirements in building design & construction. In the feedback on the Freo Alternative the theme of sustainability came up in many forms including specific elements in the design of buildings (e.g. solar panels and rainwater tanks) and the broader concept of houses that are more sustainable to occupy and run. Council’s 25 January 2017 resolution required officers to address in the draft development provisions the extent and form of provisions to encourage or mandate higher than ‘business as usual’ sustainability standards in building design and construction. Sustainable building design and accreditation is rapidly evolving, changing and improving. While prescribed provisions would be helpful to some developers it could also prevent alternative or innovative building types. To allow for change over time in sustainable and innovative building design practice the following is proposed in the local planning policy: Deemed-to-comply: A sustainability report is to accompany the development application. The report is to outline the sustainability commitments of the development proposal and demonstrate:

The development achieves a star rating of one star in excess of the current energy efficiency requirement of the National Construction Code. The star rating shall be certified by an accredited energy assessor

The provision of a minimum 1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel system Design Principles In cases where the deemed-to-comply photovoltaic requirements cannot reasonably be met, Council may consider the achievement of an additional half (0.5) star as an alternative means of complying with this policy. Alternative building methods that cannot meet the requirements above will be considered on their own merits and deemed acceptable where they demonstrate higher than standard sustainability outcomes through the submitted sustainability report.


28 June 2017

Page 60

THEME: OPEN SPACE Maintain the traditional open feel of private lots in suburban areas, whilst also allowing for viable development of smaller housing typologies. Overall, the value of open space and connection to nature and green spaces, both on private and public land, was rated highly by the community in the Freo Alternative engagement when thinking about their suburban areas. Limiting the maximum floor area of new dwellings (see above under housing choice) provides a range of smaller house sizes not currently provided by new development in suburban areas. Increasing the open space requirement further ensures development is kept to a limited footprint, thereby reducing building bulk and impact on surrounding neighbours and established suburbs. In general, the open space on a ‘typical’ non-subdividable lot with an original house in older areas of Fremantle can be 70-80% of the lot area. However the minimum open space requirement under the R Codes for new single houses or grouped dwellings in areas with a density code of R35 or lower is 45-50%. Therefore in the principles for diverse housing Council considered a requirement of 70% open space, with the option to consider a reduction to 60% where the existing open aspects, mature vegetation and permeability on a site are retained and/or an existing building is retained. Accordingly the proposed scheme amendment proposes a minimum of 70% open space, as defined by the R-Codes, shall be provided over the entire development site. The draft local planning policy allows for open space to be reduced to 60% where specific requirements are meet. The factors on which to consider the reduction of open space include requirements contained in an earlier council resolution quoted under the ‘location’ theme above. These matters are considered more appropriate as means to consider a reduction in open space rather than as a mandatory locational requirement. The recommended local planning policy open space requirements are: Council may consider a reduction in open space to a minimum of 60% open space where -

an existing dwelling is retained or adapted with no significant enlargement or other alteration to the existing building footprint and streetscape or

a building assessed as having some or more cultural significance is retained or

a building capable of retaining a high degree of embedded energy is kept or

a minimum of 50% of the available open space includes areas that are developed as uncovered outdoor living areas and/or deep planting zones.

Members of the White Gum Valley Precinct group and the innovative housing working group additionally suggested using the verge areas for alternative and or community spaces. Verges in some parts of Fremantle are large spaces. Binding private planning provisions to requirements on public land is outside of the scope of the planning provisions, however, as part of the community engagement the City could additionally gather feedback on what the community want to see on their verges e.g. parking, garden, other spaces etc. The City could use this information for other initiatives.


28 June 2017

Page 61

THEME: TREES AND LANDSCAPING Provide for existing, new trees and garden space on development sites, proportionate to achieving viable development of smaller housing typologies.

One of the underlying values of this project is to allow for additional development without detracting from the rhythm and feel of existing suburbs. Key principles to achieve this are retention of existing trees and a sense of green space. Trees Trees contribute to the local environment, while creating a varied, interesting and attractive landscape that builds on the character of the place. Existing trees on private land represent a significant proportion of tree canopy within our urban areas. Significant loss of urban tree canopy, due to private development, is an increasing focus of community concern. Retaining existing trees or planting new trees is critical for urban ecology and maintaining a liveable environment. It was evident from the Freo Alternative engagement that the community highly value existing trees for their contribution to the amenity, ecological network and environmental qualities of Fremantle’s suburbs in both public and private spaces. Mandating the planting or retaining of trees ensures the loss of vegetation to make way for new development is mitigated. Previously council agreed a minimum one tree, to Council specification, to be retained or planted. This has been included in the proposed scheme amendment and the requirements for that tree are provided in the draft planning policy i.e. healthy specimen, not a weed species, of specified height, girth and canopy. Deep planting zone Deep planting zones are not a current provision in the WA planning system. Mature vegetation and green space contributes to the character and identity of a suburb. The loss of these factors is considered one of the negative impacts of infill development. Deep planting zones support healthy plant and tree growth and green spaces. Mandating a deep planting zone ensures the loss of vegetation to make way for new development is reduced and a sufficient uncovered and unpaved open space area is set aside and protected from further development. Council previously considered a minimum 25% deep panting zone included as part of the open space for the development and 50% of the deep planting zone must be provided on the rear portion of the site. These requirements have been included in the proposed scheme amendment with no variation criteria. Additionally the scheme amendment includes introduction of the following definition: Deep planting zone: means an area of the lot for the exclusive use of supporting plant life. The deep planting zone shall:

Be water permeable, unpaved and uncovered

Be a minimum length and width dimension of 4.0 metres

Not be used for vehicle parking or access

Contain no buildings, pergolas, swimming pools or external fixtures.


28 June 2017

Page 62

A condition of planning approval will be placed on any development approved under these provisions to retain/plant and maintain a tree and retain the deep planting zone. THEME: COMMUNITY Promote private land development outcomes that would help foster social interactions between new smaller dwellings, adjoining development & the street. Bringing a sense of community back into the way housing is provided came through strongly in the engagement on the Freo Alternative. The interaction of a private development internally between residents and externally between the existing neighbourhood and street is important to improve safety and enhances social interactions of residents and the wider community. Council did not previously consider principles under this theme. The following provisions to promote social interactions are proposed in the draft planning policy as a response to the community feedback received during the Freo Alternative. Communal space The policy proposes effective and usable communal space at a minimum dimension of 3m is to be provided where there are three or more dwellings on a site. Council may consider a reduction in the communal space requirement where the development demonstrates good access to quality green open space within five minutes (400m) walking distance. Design guidance on communal space in the policy provides:

Design solutions for communal space may include seating at building entries, near letter boxes and adjacent to streets or shared garden, garden sheds or laundry etc.

Communal space should be consolidated into a well-designed, easily identified and usable area.

Communal space can be external or internal or external space, e.g. communal garden areas co-located with deep soil areas or a communal laundry building.

Communal space in larger developments should consider greater dimensions. Development fronting the street The interface of the development to the public realm contributes to the quality and character of the street and can improve safety and enhance social interaction. The requirements for development to front the street in the policy are:

Direct access from the street to front of at least one dwelling.

Habitable room windows and porches overlooking the street.

Where development adjoins public parks, open space or bushland, the design should positively address this interface.

CAR MOVEMENT AND PARKING Appropriate allocation of land required for car parking & movement for small house development. Car parking was a polarising topic for participants at the Freo Alternative events. There was a split between participants that considered providing car parking on site to be essential for development and those that did not.


28 June 2017

Page 63

A property with an oversupply of onsite car parking can impact on a streetscape by increasing the number of buildings and hard surfaces required on the site to house, manoeuvre and park vehicles. This increases the cost of development and the site’s impermeable surfaces. Additionally traffic is a common community concern associated with the increase in residential density. As household size is on the decline and an outcome of the amendment would be smaller houses, the standard requirement for car bays could generally be less for a small house/household. This coupled with Fremantle being well serviced by public transport and other transport infrastructure and amenities (e.g. bicycle network), and verge areas in the low density suburbs being relatively generous, it is considered there is an opportunity to require less parking for smaller developments.

The amendment proposes the following provisions that are in line with Council’s previously agreed principles:

A maximum of 1 car bay shall be provided for each new dwelling, unless the dwelling is existing then a maximum of two car bays would be allowed.

A maximum of one dwelling in a development, where that dwelling is no larger than one bedroom/studio size (up to 60 sqm), can be car free.

Visitor parking shall not be provided on site for developments of less than 5 dwellings.

The local planning policy proposes the following: Driveways

Water permeable driveways - minimum width of 2.75m maximum width 3m.

Crossovers 3m maximum width and not over 6m aggregate.

Reduced or no turning circle required with clear sight lines – not applicable to primary roads.

Car bays

Max 2 car bays provided to the front of the development

Existing dwelling parking space can be used for rear development(s)

Water permeable surfaces for vehicle parking areas Garages/carports

Double garages not permitted fronting the street (unless existing)

One single width (3m) garage allowed where in line with the dwelling

Double width (6m) carports permitted, including in front of the dwelling where frontage is 12m or greater. Single width (3m) carports required where frontage is 12m or less.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required


MOVED: Cr J Strachan


28 June 2017

Page 64

Council:

1. Pursuant to regulation 35(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, adopt the following amendment to City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4: a. Insert the following in 5.1 Operation of special control areas after 5.1.1 (f) and

amend formatting of list

(g) special control area provisions for small infill development shown in Schedule 12 and notated on the scheme map.

b. Insert the following after 5.6 O’Connor Industrial Interface clause 5.6.5.

5.7 Special control area provisions for small infill development

5.7.1 Notwithstanding the minimum and average site area and plot ratio

requirements of clause 5.1.1, 6.1.1, table 1 and table 4 of the Residential Design Codes, Council may, at its discretion, grant development approval for the development of a Grouped Dwelling(s) and/or Multiple Dwelling(s) on a property with a density coding of R35 or lower in the areas defined on the map in Schedule 12 where the lot is over 600 sqm in size and the development complies with all of the following criteria: a) Any new dwelling shall have a maximum floor area of 120 square

metres.

b) A maximum of three dwellings, Including any existing dwelling(s), on lots 750 sq m or less. On lots over 750 sq m one additional dwelling for every 150 sq m in excess of 750 sq m may be approved.

c) A maximum of one vehicle parking bay shall be provided for each new dwelling and a maximum of two car bays shall be provided for any existing dwelling on the development site.

d) The vehicle parking bay requirement of 5.7.1 b), can be waived for one small dwelling (up to 60 sqm in floor area) in a development.

e) Visitor parking shall not be provided for developments of less than 5 dwellings.

f) A minimum of 70% open space, as defined by the R-Codes, shall be provided over the entire development site unless otherwise provided for in a local planning policy.

g) A minimum 25% of the development site area shall be provided as a deep planting zone. The deep planting zone can be included as part of the open space for the development and 50% of the deep planting zone must be provided on the rear proportion of the site.

h) A minimum of one tree, to Council specification, is required to be retained or planted in the deep planting zone on the site.

5.7.2 The requirements detailed in clause 5.7.1 are not capable of variation

under clause 4.8.2.1.

5.7.3 Clause 5.7.1 only applies to the development of grouped and/or multiple dwellings and does not apply to applications for subdivision.


28 June 2017

Page 65

5.7.4 Notwithstanding the permitted development requirements under

clause 4.3.5 and Schedule A Supplemental provisions to the deemed provisions clause 61 (m) a Small Secondary Dwelling will not be permitted or granted planning approval on the same lot as a development approved under 5.7.1.

5.7.5 Other buildings including outbuildings are only permitted on the

development site where requirements of 5.7.1 are met.

c. Insert into Schedule 1 Dictionary of defined words and expressions – general definitions after Council

Deep planting zone: means an area of the lot for the exclusive use of

supporting plant life. The deep planting zone shall:





d. Insert new Schedule 12 after 6.11 Schedule 11 – Development Contribution

Areas

6.12 Schedule 12 – Special control area provisions for small infill development


28 June 2017

Page 66

e. Insert the following words into 6.12 Schedule A – Supplementary provisions to the deemed provisions clause 78 Advisory Committees (6) b in between ‘zones’ and ‘without’:

“or a development application proposed under clause 5.7 Special control area provisions for small infill development,”

2. In its opinion, the amendment is a complex amendment for the following reason: it

is an amendment relating to development that is of a scale, or will have an impact, that is significant relative to development in the locality.

3. Authorise the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer execute the relevant scheme amendment documentation.

4. Authorise the amendment be submitted to the Environmental Protection Authority

for determination of whether an environmental review is required.

5. Subject to the Environmental Protection Authority determining that an environmental review is not required, pursuant to regulation 37 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 the scheme amendment be referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Commission be informed that the City of Fremantle has resolved to proceed to advertise the amendment without modification.

6. Approve the following draft Local Planning Policy 3.20 – Special control area

provisions for small infill development for the purposes of advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals:

DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.20 – Special control area provisions for infill development PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to complement the planning controls set out in Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) clause 5.7 special control area provisions for infill development [proposed scheme amendment No. 63]. The purpose of these controls is to allow for an alternative development type that provides smaller dwelling options. APPLICATION This policy applies to lots specified in 6.12 Schedule 12 – Special control area provisions for infill development of LPS4 and reproduced in part 1 (Location) of this policy.

The policy is set out in the themes derived from the community engagement on the Freo Alternative (refer to figure 1). The Freo Alternative was a community engagement process that ran in late 2016. The Freo Alternative explored the idea of smaller housing in Fremantle with the community. Each theme derived from the Freo Alternative has an objective which needs to be met. The deemed-to-comply criteria are one way to achieve the objective. The design principles are an alternative way of meeting the theme’s objective. For some themes additional guidance is provided. Note: not all themes have deemed-to-comply, design principles or design guidance.


28 June 2017

Page 67

Policy Key

DEEMED-TO-COMPLY – The requirement to meet the objective DESIGN PRINCIPLES – An alternative way to meet the objective DESIGN GUIDANCE – Guidance on how to meet the deemed-to-comply requirement

STATUTORY BACKGROUND Clause 5.7 special control area provisions for infill development [proposed scheme amendment No. 63], in the City’s LPS4 sets out the requirements for development under this policy.

Where not provided for in this policy all definitions are as per the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 or Residential Design Codes (R-codes).

All other planning documents that apply to the development type should be recognised and understood as part of the application process. Other applicable planning documents will include: — Residential Design Codes with the exception of site area, lot boundary setback (with regard to the rear setback), open space, setback of garages and carports (for specific provisions provided below), outdoor living areas, parking (for specific provisions provided below), Vehicular access (for specific provisions provided below). — Local Planning Scheme No.4 — Other local Planning policies relating to development control or the area.


28 June 2017

Page 68

Eight themes as derived from the community during the engagement on the Freo Alternative. 1. LOCATION Objective: Promote smaller housing types in areas with access to public transport and local amenities.

A key objective of the policy is to provide for a diversity of smaller housing sizes in Fremantle’s suburban areas located near public transport, commercial areas, public parks and amenities.


28 June 2017

Page 69

As per the requirements of the clause 5.7 of LPS4 development of housing under this policy can be considered on properties in areas identified on the map in Schedule 12 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (reproduced above) and where the site is 600 sq m or over.

The development would additionally need to meet all the requirements of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and this local planning policy. 2. HOUSING CHOICE Objective: Provide diversity of housing size and type in suburban areas to increase housing choice.

Household sizes have reduced in the City of Fremantle in recent times, while new housing being built are the largest yet. The purpose of this policy is to give smaller households another housing option in areas losing diversity of housing size.

As per the requirements of the clause 5.7 of LPS4 the following applies to development under this policy:

Any new dwelling shall have a maximum floor area of 120 square metres.

A maximum of three dwellings, including existing dwellings, on lots 750 sq m or less. On lots over 750 sq m an additional dwelling for every 150 sq m in excess of 750 sq m.

These requirements are provided in the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 provisions. There are no variation criteria applicable to these requirements.

3. BUILT FORM Objective: Ensure good quality design outcomes including design that is responsive to local character and context.


28 June 2017

Page 70

3.1 Visual appearance The design of a development contributes greatly to the visual interest of the building and the character of a local area. A building’s aesthetics and articulation not only adds to the composition and detailing of a building’s facade but also the appearance of the building and perceived bulk and scale.

To satisfy the visual appearance requirement of this policy guidance will be taken from the City of Fremantle’s Design Advisory Committee on the visual appearance of the place.

3.2 Rear setback Setbacks are the space between proposed buildings and the boundary. Setbacks are important to the amenity of new development and buildings on adjacent sites.

In established suburbs the rear setback, compared to a side setback, is more important as traditionally large backyards adjoin each other and the setback between the rear adjoining boundaries has, in the past, been substantial. The rear setback area is also generally where the mature vegetation on a site is located. The purpose of the rear setback requirement is therefore to maintain this separation, retain the existing pattern and mature trees.

DEEMED-TO-COMPLY All buildings set back five metres from the rear lot boundary.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES Council may consider a reduction to the 5m rear setback requirement where:

The adjoining property to the rear has: A building with a wall 5m or more in length located within 2 metres of the common

boundary or An existing ground level 1m or more higher than the subject site at the rear boundary

or

Greater protection of existing mature trees could be attained than would otherwise be achieved with the 5m setback requirement or

Outdoor living areas and/or some of the Deep Planting Zone would be more suitably located centrally on the site so as to gain better use of the northern aspect for development.

3.3 Private outdoor living Private outdoor living spaces are outdoor living areas, including balconies, courtyards and terraces for private use. These spaces enhance the amenity and indoor/outdoor lifestyle of residents and support indoor-outdoor living.

DEEMED-TO-COMPLY

A minimum of 30 sqm of outdoor living area per dwelling with minimum length and width dimension of 4m, directly accessible from a habitable room. 20 sqm of the area is to be without permanent roof cover.

Outdoor living areas and balconies shall predominantly face north, east or west. DESIGN PRINCIPLES Council may consider a variation to the deemed-to-comply requirements where:

Private outdoor living areas and balcony spaces are of appropriate size, location and orientation to enhance liveability for residents.


28 June 2017

Page 71

4. SUSTAINABILITY Objective: Mandate higher than standard sustainability requirement in building design & construction.

Buildings designed and constructed sustainability deliver greater environmental, social and economic outcomes

4.1 Sustainable design Sustainable buildings utilise passive environmental design that responds to local climate and site conditions to provide optimal orientation, shading, thermal performance and natural ventilation. Sustainable design additionally reduces reliance on heating and cooling technology and minimises energy use, resource consumption and operating costs over the life of the building. Other sustainable design measures include the use of sustainable construction materials, recycling, material re-use, energy & water efficient features, harnessing of renewable energy sources and appropriate water management.

A sustainability report is to accompany the development assessment application. The report is to outline the sustainability commitments of the development proposal and demonstrate: DEEMED-TO-COMPLY

The development achieves a star rating of one star in excess of the current energy efficiency requirement of the National Construction Code. The star rating shall be certified by an accredited energy assessor.

The provision of a minimum 1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel system. DESIGN PRINCIPLES In cases where the deemed-to-comply photovoltaic requirements cannot reasonably be met, Council may consider the achievement of an additional half (0.5) star as an alternative means of complying with this policy. Alternative building methods that cannot meet the requirements above will be considered on their own merits and deemed acceptable where they demonstrate higher than standard sustainability outcomes through the submitted sustainability report.

5. OPEN SPACE Objective: Maintain the traditional open feel of private lots in suburban areas, whilst also allowing for viable development of smaller housing typologies.

Open space is generally the area of the lot not occupied by building(s). This includes areas under eaves, usable flat roof areas, uncovered driveways and car parking and also patios and verandahs where open on at least two sides. Traditionally suburban lots had a high (approximately 70%) open space percentage.

5.1 Open space requirement Designing new development with a larger open space (as defined by the R-codes) requirement maintains the traditional feel of suburban areas and increases the amenity for residents of the development.

DEEMED-TO-COMPLY

A minimum of 70% of the entire development site must be open space.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES Council may consider a reduction in open space to a minimum of 60% open space where -


28 June 2017

Page 72

an existing dwelling is retained or adapted with no significant enlargement or other alteration to the existing building footprint or

a building assessed as having ‘some’ or more cultural heritage significance is retained or

a building with a high degree of embedded energy is retained or

a minimum 50% of the available open space includes areas that are provided as uncovered outdoor living areas and/or deep planting zones.

6. TREES AND LANDSCAPING Objective: Provide for existing and new trees on development sites, proportionate to achieving viable development of smaller housing typologies.

Established tree and garden areas (landscaping) play an important role in integrating new buildings into their surrounding streetscape and the existing neighbourhood context. There are also many positive environmental benefits of trees and gardens including urban cooling through shade, clean air from ecological processes, habitat for wildlife, aesthetic appeal to the urban landscape and rain and storm water benefits.

6.1 Canopy cover Trees contribute to the local environment, while creating a varied, interesting and attractive landscape that builds on sense and character of place. Existing trees on private land represent a significant proportion of tree canopy within our urban areas. Significant loss of urban tree canopy, due to private development, is an increasing focus of community concern. Retaining existing trees or planting new trees is critical for urban ecology and maintaining a liveable environment. DEEMED-TO-COMPLY Retain or plant at least one tree on site that meets the following requirements -

Healthy specimen with ongoing viability as identified by a suitably qualified arborist.

At least 3m in height and/or have a trunk with a diameter of at least 100mm, one metre from the ground and/or has a canopy of 3m or more or the potential to reach these measurements.

List of preferred tree/plant and Western Australia weed register species in appendix 1 to this policy. [to be established]

DESIGN GUIDANCE

Prior to lodging a development application obtain an arboricultural report on health and structural condition of existing trees. Healthy existing trees should be retained where possible. If trees are identified for retention seek specialist arboricultural advice on ‘rootable soil area’, management during construction and post construction monitoring to ensure the health of trees.

A condition of planning approval for the retained or planted tree to be maintained and not removed will be included on all developments assessed under this planning policy.

6.2 Deep planting zone Deep planting zones support healthy plant and tree growth and green spaces. Mandating a deep planting zone ensures the loss of vegetation to make way for new development is reduced and a sufficient uncovered and unpaved open space area is set aside and protected from further development. The mandatory requirement for a deep planting zone from LPS4 is as follows:

A minimum 25% of the development site area shall be provided as deep planting zone.


28 June 2017

Page 73

The deep planting zone is to be clearly delineated from other areas and 50% of the deep planting zone must be provided on the rear proportion of the site.

LPS4 definition: Deep planting zone means an area of the lot for the exclusive use of supporting plant life. The deep planting zone shall: Be water permeable, unpaved and uncovered Be a minimum length and width dimension of 4.5 metres Not be used for vehicle parking or access Contain no buildings, pergolas, swimming pools or external fixtures. DESIGN GUIDANCE Deep planting zones are to be considered early in site planning, especially where existing trees are identified for retention. The deep planting zone can be included as part of the open space for the development. A condition of planning approval for the deep planting zone to be retained as a deep planting zone (as per the definition) will be applied to all approved development applications. 7. COMMUNITY Objective: Promote private land development outcomes that would help foster social interactions between new smaller dwellings, adjoining development & the street.

The interaction of a private development internally between residents and externally between residents and the existing neighbourhood and street is important to improve safety and enhances social interactions of residents and the wider community.

7.1 Communal space Communal spaces provide opportunities for casual social interaction among residents and can assist with social integration. Communal space also contributes to the appeal of a development and the wellbeing of residents. The size, location and design of communal space will vary depending on the site context and the scale of development. In designing these spaces, an emphasis should be placed on their quality and potential to deliver benefit to residents and visitors. DEEMED-TO-COMPLY Where there are three or more dwellings on a site communal space that is accessible to all residents of a development site and with a minimum dimension of 3m of usable and effective communal space is to be provided DESIGN PRINCIPLES Council may consider a reduction in the communal space requirement where-

The development demonstrates good access to quality green open space within five minutes (400m) walking distance.

DESIGN GUIDANCE

Design solutions for communal space that is usable and effective may include seating at building entries, near letter boxes and adjacent to streets or shared garden, garden sheds or laundry etc.


Communal space can be internal or external space and may be co-located with deep soil areas or can be provided as a landscaped roof top terrace or a common room.

Communal space in larger developments should consider greater dimensions.


28 June 2017

Page 74

7.2 Development fronting the street The street interface is the transition area between the dwelling, its private or communal space at the street edge and public domain. The interface of the development contributes to the quality and character of the street and improves safety and enhances social interactions. DEEMED-TO-COMPLY

Direct access from the street to front of at least one dwelling and may include existing retained dwelling.

Habitable room windows and porches overlooking the street in at least one dwelling in the development (may include any existing retained dwelling).

The design should positively address adjoining public parks, open space or bushland where applicable.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES Council may consider a variation to the deemed-to-comply requirement where- The interface of the development contributes to the quality and character of the street and improves safety and enhances social interactions. 8. VEHICLE MOVEMENT AND PARKING Objective: Appropriate allocation of land required for car parking & movement for smaller house development.

Design, location and integration of parking garages/carports and driveways are essential to:

The efficient use of land on a development site

Tree retention

Amenity of the streetscape

Limiting the impact on ecological factors such as water permeability

Safety of residents and pedestrians.

8.1 Vehicle access and movement Vehicle access points are important connections between the street and the site and can have negative impacts on the streetscape and pedestrians. Additionally, the land required for driveways and movement circles on a development site increases the impermeable surface of the site. Vehicle access should be designed to maximise safety and reduce impermeable surfaces.

DEEMED-TO-COMPLY The deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-codes [5.3.5 Vehicle access] is amended as follows:

Driveways shall be water permeable in construction; no hardstand or impermeable paved driveways will be approved on site

The minimum width of a driveway shall be 2.75m.

The maximum width of a driveway shall be 3m.

If the existing driveway/crossover doesn’t allow access to the rear of the site, then an additional crossover is permitted subject to a 3m maximum width and in aggregate width of crossovers on a development site to not be over 6m.

Reduced or no turning circles can be considered where it is demonstrated clear sight lines are provided at pedestrian and vehicle access points for pedestrian and cycle safety and vehicles can safety enter and exit the site and street. This does not apply where the site abuts a primary distributor road.


28 June 2017

Page 75

8.2 Vehicle parking In order to provide a diverse and attractive streetscape the space required for cars needs to be carefully considered.

The mandatory requirement for a vehicle parking from LPS4 is as follows:

A maximum of 1 vehicle parking bay shall be provided for each new dwelling & a maximum of two car bays for any existing dwelling on the development site.

The vehicle parking bay requirement above, can be waived for one small dwelling (up to 60 sqm in floor area) in a development.

Visitor parking shall not be provided for developments of less than 5 dwellings. DEEMED-TO-COMPLY

A maximum of two car bays to be provided to the front of the development.

The existing dwelling parking space can be used for rear development(s).

Parking surfaces shall be water permeable in construction; no hardstand or impermeable paved vehicle parking will be approved on site.

No double garages will be permitted fronting the street (unless existing).

Carport requirements as per local planning policy 2.9 – Residential streetscapes policy DESIGN GUIDANCE

Car share facilities are strongly encouraged.

Council will not provide on street resident parking permits for development under this policy.

Cr J McDonald MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording to the purpose of the policy: The purpose of this policy is to complement the planning controls set out in Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) clause 5.7 special control area provisions for infill development [proposed scheme amendment No. 63]. The purpose of these controls is to allow for an alternative development type that provides smaller dwelling options that are responsive to local character and context. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Bryn Jones Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald


28 June 2017

Page 76

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording in section 5.1 Open space requirement, design principals :

a minimum 50% of the available open space includes areas that are provided as uncovered and permeable outdoor living areas and/or deep planting zones.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Bryn Jones Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald


MOVED: Cr J Strachan Council: 1. Pursuant to regulation 35(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning

Schemes) Regulations 2015, adopt the following amendment to City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

a. Insert the following in 5.1 Operation of special control areas after 5.1.1 (f) and

amend formatting of list

(g) special control area provisions for small infill development shown in Schedule 12 and notated on the scheme map.

b. Insert the following after 5.6 O’Connor Industrial Interface clause 5.6.5.

5.7 Special control area provisions for small infill development 5.7.1 Notwithstanding the minimum and average site area and plot ratio

requirements of clause 5.1.1, 6.1.1, table 1 and table 4 of the Residential Design Codes, Council may, at its discretion, grant development approval for the development of a Grouped Dwelling(s) and/or Multiple Dwelling(s) on a property with a density coding of R35 or lower in the areas defined on the map in Schedule 12 where the lot is over 600 sqm in size and the development complies with all of the following criteria: a) Any new dwelling shall have a maximum floor area of 120 square

metres.

b) A maximum of three dwellings, Including any existing dwelling(s), on lots 750 sq m or less. On lots over 750 sq m one additional


28 June 2017

Page 77

dwelling for every 150 sq m in excess of 750 sq m may be approved.

c) A maximum of one vehicle parking bay shall be provided for each new dwelling and a maximum of two car bays shall be provided for any existing dwelling on the development site.

d) The vehicle parking bay requirement of 5.7.1 b), can be waived for one small dwelling (up to 60 sqm in floor area) in a development.

e) Visitor parking shall not be provided for developments of less than 5 dwellings.

f) A minimum of 70% open space, as defined by the R-Codes, shall be provided over the entire development site unless otherwise provided for in a local planning policy.

g) A minimum 25% of the development site area shall be provided as a deep planting zone. The deep planting zone can be included as part of the open space for the development and 50% of the deep planting zone must be provided on the rear proportion of the site.

h) A minimum of one tree, to Council specification, is required to be retained or planted in the deep planting zone on the site.

5.7.2 The requirements detailed in clause 5.7.1 are not capable of variation

under clause 4.8.2.1.

5.7.3 Clause 5.7.1 only applies to the development of grouped and/or multiple dwellings and does not apply to applications for subdivision.

5.7.4 Notwithstanding the permitted development requirements under clause

4.3.5 and Schedule A Supplemental provisions to the deemed provisions clause 61 (m) a Small Secondary Dwelling will not be permitted or granted planning approval on the same lot as a development approved under 5.7.1.

5.7.5 Other buildings including outbuildings are only permitted on the

development site where requirements of 5.7.1 are met.

c. Insert into Schedule 1 Dictionary of defined words and expressions – general definitions after Council

Deep planting zone: means an area of the lot for the exclusive use of supporting plant life. The deep planting zone shall:





d. Insert new Schedule 12 after 6.11 Schedule 11 – Development Contribution

Areas

6.12 Schedule 12 – Special control area provisions for small infill development


28 June 2017

Page 78

e. Insert the following words into 6.12 Schedule A – Supplementary provisions to the deemed provisions clause 78 Advisory Committees (6) b in between ‘zones’ and ‘without’:

“or a development application proposed under clause 5.7 Special control area provisions for small infill development,”

2. In its opinion, the amendment is a complex amendment for the following

reason: it is an amendment relating to development that is of a scale, or will have an impact, that is significant relative to development in the locality.

3. Authorise the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer execute the relevant scheme

amendment documentation. 4. Authorise the amendment be submitted to the Environmental Protection

Authority for determination of whether an environmental review is required. 5. Subject to the Environmental Protection Authority determining that an

environmental review is not required, pursuant to regulation 37 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 the scheme amendment be referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Commission be informed that the City of Fremantle has resolved to proceed to advertise the amendment without modification.

6. Approve the following draft Local Planning Policy 3.20 – Special control area

provisions for small infill development for the purposes of advertising in


28 June 2017

Page 79

accordance with the procedures set out in clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals:

DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.20 – Special control area provisions for infill development PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to complement the planning controls set out in Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) clause 5.7 special control area provisions for infill development [proposed scheme amendment No. 63]. The purpose of these controls is to allow for an alternative development type that provides smaller dwelling options that are responsive to local character and context. APPLICATION This policy applies to lots specified in 6.12 Schedule 12 – Special control area provisions for infill development of LPS4 and reproduced in part 1 (Location) of this policy.

The policy is set out in the themes derived from the community engagement on the Freo Alternative (refer to figure 1). The Freo Alternative was a community engagement process that ran in late 2016. The Freo Alternative explored the idea of smaller housing in Fremantle with the community. Each theme derived from the Freo Alternative has an objective which needs to be met. The deemed-to-comply criteria are one way to achieve the objective. The design principles are an alternative way of meeting the theme’s objective. For some themes additional guidance is provided. Note: not all themes have deemed-to-comply, design principles or design guidance.

Policy Key

DEEMED-TO-COMPLY – The requirement to meet the objective DESIGN PRINCIPLES – An alternative way to meet the objective DESIGN GUIDANCE – Guidance on how to meet the deemed-to-comply requirement

STATUTORY BACKGROUND Clause 5.7 special control area provisions for infill development [proposed scheme amendment No. 63], in the City’s LPS4 sets out the requirements for development under this policy.

Where not provided for in this policy all definitions are as per the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 or Residential Design Codes (R-codes).

All other planning documents that apply to the development type should be recognised and understood as part of the application process. Other applicable planning documents will include: — Residential Design Codes with the exception of site area, lot boundary setback (with regard to the rear setback), open space, setback of garages and carports (for specific provisions provided below), outdoor living areas, parking (for specific provisions provided below), Vehicular access (for specific provisions provided below).


28 June 2017

Page 80

— Local Planning Scheme No.4 — Other local Planning policies relating to development control or the area.

Eight themes as derived from the community during the engagement on the Freo Alternative. 1. LOCATION Objective: Promote smaller housing types in areas with access to public transport and local amenities.

A key objective of the policy is to provide for a diversity of smaller housing sizes in Fremantle’s suburban areas located near public transport, commercial areas, public parks and amenities.


28 June 2017

Page 81

As per the requirements of the clause 5.7 of LPS4 development of housing under this policy can be considered on properties in areas identified on the map in Schedule 12 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (reproduced above) and where the site is 600 sq m or over.

The development would additionally need to meet all the requirements of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and this local planning policy. 2. HOUSING CHOICE Objective: Provide diversity of housing size and type in suburban areas to increase housing choice.

Household sizes have reduced in the City of Fremantle in recent times, while new housing being built are the largest yet. The purpose of this policy is to give smaller households another housing option in areas losing diversity of housing size.

As per the requirements of the clause 5.7 of LPS4 the following applies to development under this policy:

Any new dwelling shall have a maximum floor area of 120 square metres.

A maximum of three dwellings, including existing dwellings, on lots 750 sq m or less. On lots over 750 sq m an additional dwelling for every 150 sq m in excess of 750 sq m.

These requirements are provided in the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 provisions. There are no variation criteria applicable to these requirements.

3. BUILT FORM Objective: Ensure good quality design outcomes including design that is responsive to local character and context.


28 June 2017

Page 82

3.1 Visual appearance The design of a development contributes greatly to the visual interest of the building and the character of a local area. A building’s aesthetics and articulation not only adds to the composition and detailing of a building’s facade but also the appearance of the building and perceived bulk and scale.

To satisfy the visual appearance requirement of this policy guidance will be taken from the City of Fremantle’s Design Advisory Committee on the visual appearance of the place.

3.2 Rear setback Setbacks are the space between proposed buildings and the boundary. Setbacks are important to the amenity of new development and buildings on adjacent sites.

In established suburbs the rear setback, compared to a side setback, is more important as traditionally large backyards adjoin each other and the setback between the rear adjoining boundaries has, in the past, been substantial. The rear setback area is also generally where the mature vegetation on a site is located. The purpose of the rear setback requirement is therefore to maintain this separation, retain the existing pattern and mature trees.

DEEMED-TO-COMPLY All buildings set back five metres from the rear lot boundary.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES Council may consider a reduction to the 5m rear setback requirement where:

The adjoining property to the rear has: A building with a wall 5m or more in length located within 2 metres of the

common boundary or An existing ground level 1m or more higher than the subject site at the rear

boundary or

Greater protection of existing mature trees could be attained than would otherwise be achieved with the 5m setback requirement or

Outdoor living areas and/or some of the Deep Planting Zone would be more suitably located centrally on the site so as to gain better use of the northern aspect for development.

3.3 Private outdoor living Private outdoor living spaces are outdoor living areas, including balconies, courtyards and terraces for private use. These spaces enhance the amenity and indoor/outdoor lifestyle of residents and support indoor-outdoor living.

DEEMED-TO-COMPLY

A minimum of 30 sqm of outdoor living area per dwelling with minimum length and width dimension of 4m, directly accessible from a habitable room. 20 sqm of the area is to be without permanent roof cover.

Outdoor living areas and balconies shall predominantly face north, east or west. DESIGN PRINCIPLES Council may consider a variation to the deemed-to-comply requirements where:

Private outdoor living areas and balcony spaces are of appropriate size, location and orientation to enhance liveability for residents.

4. SUSTAINABILITY


28 June 2017

Page 83

Objective: Mandate higher than standard sustainability requirement in building design & construction.

Buildings designed and constructed sustainability deliver greater environmental, social and economic outcomes

4.1 Sustainable design Sustainable buildings utilise passive environmental design that responds to local climate and site conditions to provide optimal orientation, shading, thermal performance and natural ventilation. Sustainable design additionally reduces reliance on heating and cooling technology and minimises energy use, resource consumption and operating costs over the life of the building. Other sustainable design measures include the use of sustainable construction materials, recycling, material re-use, energy & water efficient features, harnessing of renewable energy sources and appropriate water management.

A sustainability report is to accompany the development assessment application. The report is to outline the sustainability commitments of the development proposal and demonstrate: DEEMED-TO-COMPLY

The development achieves a star rating of one star in excess of the current energy efficiency requirement of the National Construction Code. The star rating shall be certified by an accredited energy assessor.

The provision of a minimum 1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel system. DESIGN PRINCIPLES In cases where the deemed-to-comply photovoltaic requirements cannot reasonably be met, Council may consider the achievement of an additional half (0.5) star as an alternative means of complying with this policy. Alternative building methods that cannot meet the requirements above will be considered on their own merits and deemed acceptable where they demonstrate higher than standard sustainability outcomes through the submitted sustainability report.

5. OPEN SPACE Objective: Maintain the traditional open feel of private lots in suburban areas, whilst also allowing for viable development of smaller housing typologies.

Open space is generally the area of the lot not occupied by building(s). This includes areas under eaves, usable flat roof areas, uncovered driveways and car parking and also patios and verandahs where open on at least two sides. Traditionally suburban lots had a high (approximately 70%) open space percentage.

5.1 Open space requirement Designing new development with a larger open space (as defined by the R-codes) requirement maintains the traditional feel of suburban areas and increases the amenity for residents of the development.

DEEMED-TO-COMPLY

A minimum of 70% of the entire development site must be open space.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES


28 June 2017

Page 84

Council may consider a reduction in open space to a minimum of 60% open space where -

an existing dwelling is retained or adapted with no significant enlargement or other alteration to the existing building footprint or

a building assessed as having ‘some’ or more cultural heritage significance is retained or

a building with a high degree of embedded energy is retained or

a minimum 50% of the available open space includes areas that are provided as uncovered and permeable outdoor living areas and/or deep planting zones.

6. TREES AND LANDSCAPING Objective: Provide for existing and new trees on development sites, proportionate to achieving viable development of smaller housing typologies.

Established tree and garden areas (landscaping) play an important role in integrating new buildings into their surrounding streetscape and the existing neighbourhood context. There are also many positive environmental benefits of trees and gardens including urban cooling through shade, clean air from ecological processes, habitat for wildlife, aesthetic appeal to the urban landscape and rain and storm water benefits.

6.1 Canopy cover Trees contribute to the local environment, while creating a varied, interesting and attractive landscape that builds on sense and character of place. Existing trees on private land represent a significant proportion of tree canopy within our urban areas. Significant loss of urban tree canopy, due to private development, is an increasing focus of community concern. Retaining existing trees or planting new trees is critical for urban ecology and maintaining a liveable environment. DEEMED-TO-COMPLY Retain or plant at least one tree on site that meets the following requirements -

Healthy specimen with ongoing viability as identified by a suitably qualified arborist.

At least 3m in height and/or have a trunk with a diameter of at least 100mm, one metre from the ground and/or has a canopy of 3m or more or the potential to reach these measurements.

List of preferred tree/plant and Western Australia weed register species in appendix 1 to this policy. [to be established]

DESIGN GUIDANCE

Prior to lodging a development application obtain an arboricultural report on health and structural condition of existing trees. Healthy existing trees should be retained where possible. If trees are identified for retention seek specialist arboricultural advice on ‘rootable soil area’, management during construction and post construction monitoring to ensure the health of trees.

A condition of planning approval for the retained or planted tree to be maintained and not removed will be included on all developments assessed under this planning policy.

6.2 Deep planting zone Deep planting zones support healthy plant and tree growth and green spaces. Mandating a deep planting zone ensures the loss of vegetation to make way for


28 June 2017

Page 85

new development is reduced and a sufficient uncovered and unpaved open space area is set aside and protected from further development. The mandatory requirement for a deep planting zone from LPS4 is as follows:

A minimum 25% of the development site area shall be provided as deep planting zone.

The deep planting zone is to be clearly delineated from other areas and 50% of the deep planting zone must be provided on the rear proportion of the site.

LPS4 definition: Deep planting zone means an area of the lot for the exclusive use of supporting plant life. The deep planting zone shall: Be water permeable, unpaved and uncovered Be a minimum length and width dimension of 4.5 metres Not be used for vehicle parking or access Contain no buildings, pergolas, swimming pools or external fixtures. DESIGN GUIDANCE Deep planting zones are to be considered early in site planning, especially where existing trees are identified for retention. The deep planting zone can be included as part of the open space for the development. A condition of planning approval for the deep planting zone to be retained as a deep planting zone (as per the definition) will be applied to all approved development applications. 7. COMMUNITY Objective: Promote private land development outcomes that would help foster social interactions between new smaller dwellings, adjoining development & the street.

The interaction of a private development internally between residents and externally between residents and the existing neighbourhood and street is important to improve safety and enhances social interactions of residents and the wider community.

7.1 Communal space Communal spaces provide opportunities for casual social interaction among residents and can assist with social integration. Communal space also contributes to the appeal of a development and the wellbeing of residents. The size, location and design of communal space will vary depending on the site context and the scale of development. In designing these spaces, an emphasis should be placed on their quality and potential to deliver benefit to residents and visitors. DEEMED-TO-COMPLY Where there are three or more dwellings on a site communal space that is accessible to all residents of a development site and with a minimum dimension of 3m of usable and effective communal space is to be provided DESIGN PRINCIPLES Council may consider a reduction in the communal space requirement where-

The development demonstrates good access to quality green open space within five minutes (400m) walking distance.


28 June 2017

Page 86

DESIGN GUIDANCE

Design solutions for communal space that is usable and effective may include seating at building entries, near letter boxes and adjacent to streets or shared garden, garden sheds or laundry etc.


Communal space can be internal or external space and may be co-located with deep soil areas or can be provided as a landscaped roof top terrace or a common room.

Communal space in larger developments should consider greater dimensions.

7.2 Development fronting the street The street interface is the transition area between the dwelling, its private or communal space at the street edge and public domain. The interface of the development contributes to the quality and character of the street and improves safety and enhances social interactions. DEEMED-TO-COMPLY

Direct access from the street to front of at least one dwelling and may include existing retained dwelling.

Habitable room windows and porches overlooking the street in at least one dwelling in the development (may include any existing retained dwelling).

The design should positively address adjoining public parks, open space or bushland where applicable.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES Council may consider a variation to the deemed-to-comply requirement where- The interface of the development contributes to the quality and character of the street and improves safety and enhances social interactions. 8. VEHICLE MOVEMENT AND PARKING Objective: Appropriate allocation of land required for car parking & movement for smaller house development.

Design, location and integration of parking garages/carports and driveways are essential to:

The efficient use of land on a development site

Tree retention

Amenity of the streetscape

Limiting the impact on ecological factors such as water permeability

Safety of residents and pedestrians.

8.1 Vehicle access and movement Vehicle access points are important connections between the street and the site and can have negative impacts on the streetscape and pedestrians. Additionally, the land required for driveways and movement circles on a development site increases the impermeable surface of the site. Vehicle access should be designed to maximise safety and reduce impermeable surfaces.

DEEMED-TO-COMPLY The deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-codes [5.3.5 Vehicle access] is amended as follows:


28 June 2017

Page 87

Driveways shall be water permeable in construction; no hardstand or impermeable paved driveways will be approved on site

The minimum width of a driveway shall be 2.75m.

The maximum width of a driveway shall be 3m.

If the existing driveway/crossover doesn’t allow access to the rear of the site, then an additional crossover is permitted subject to a 3m maximum width and in aggregate width of crossovers on a development site to not be over 6m.

Reduced or no turning circles can be considered where it is demonstrated clear sight lines are provided at pedestrian and vehicle access points for pedestrian and cycle safety and vehicles can safety enter and exit the site and street. This does not apply where the site abuts a primary distributor road.

8.2 Vehicle parking In order to provide a diverse and attractive streetscape the space required for cars needs to be carefully considered.

The mandatory requirement for a vehicle parking from LPS4 is as follows:

A maximum of 1 vehicle parking bay shall be provided for each new dwelling & a maximum of two car bays for any existing dwelling on the development site.

The vehicle parking bay requirement above, can be waived for one small dwelling (up to 60 sqm in floor area) in a development.

Visitor parking shall not be provided for developments of less than 5 dwellings. DEEMED-TO-COMPLY

A maximum of two car bays to be provided to the front of the development.

The existing dwelling parking space can be used for rear development(s).

Parking surfaces shall be water permeable in construction; no hardstand or impermeable paved vehicle parking will be approved on site.

No double garages will be permitted fronting the street (unless existing).

Carport requirements as per local planning policy 2.9 – Residential streetscapes policy

DESIGN GUIDANCE

Car share facilities are strongly encouraged.

Council will not provide on street resident parking permits for development under this policy.

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham

CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald


28 June 2017

Page 88

Cr D Thompson returned to the meeting at 8.42 pm.

PC1706-10 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 68 - MIXED USE ZONE ON HAMPTON ROAD AND BROCKMAN PLACE, SOUTH FREMANTLE - FINAL ADOPTION REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Previous item PC 1609-11

2. Schedule of submissions 3. Traffic Study

SUMMARY This report recommends council to significantly modify scheme amendment 68 and readvertise the amendment for additional public comment in light of submissions and comments received during the consultation period. Scheme amendment 68 applies to the mixed use area west of Hampton Road, at Brockman Place, South Fremantle. The purpose of the amendment is to enable redevelopment through changes to the planning requirements for the area. In considering the scheme amendment council previously resolved to seek public comment on the draft provisions. This included internal referral to the City’s Infrastructure and Project Management team to consider the potential traffic impacts for the area. The comment period has now concluded and a total of 24 submissions have been received. In light of these submissions, significant modifications have been proposed. It is recommended that council readvertise these changes prior to approving an amendment for this area.


28 June 2017

Page 89

BACKGROUND

The subject sites are located in the southernmost part of South Fremantle. The Strang Street precinct to the north-east of the sites has been gradually undergoing revitalization efforts following a local planning scheme amendment to allow larger scale, higher density new development. Further south in the City of Cockburn increased residential density allowances have also been generating development activity, notably in the Cockburn Coast structure plan area. The scheme amendment which is the subject of this report was initiated to enable similar redevelopment opportunities in the Brockman Place precinct through proposed increased density and building height allowances. The amendment area is currently predominantly occupied with older commercial and light industrial land uses which are favourable sites for redevelopment. On 28 September 2016 council resolved to initiate a scheme amendment for the subject sites. The purpose of the amendment was to increase the residential density and the building heights for Brockman Place and in doing so improve the potential for redevelopment. The September 2016 report (PC 1609-11) to council has been attached for additional background on the amendment. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications to the 16/17 budget. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The procedure for dealing with a scheme amendment is set out in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015. The regulations state that following public advertising the local government must review the proposed amendment in the light of any submissions made and resolve to do one of the following:


28 June 2017

Page 90

(i) to support the amendment without modifications; (ii) to support the amendment with proposed modifications to address issues raised in the submissions; or (iii) not to support the amendment. The officer recommendation is considered to satisfy these requirements and recommends that council proceed to support the amendment with proposed modifications.

CONSULTATION

Community feedback was sought during the public comment period, which ran from 21 January 2017 to 6 March 2017 – 44 days in total. Advertising consisted of:

Notice in the Fremantle Gazette on 21 January 2017 and 11 February 2017

Scheme amendment documents and an electronic submission form were provided on the City’s ‘mysay’ webpage

Scheme amendment documents located at the City of Fremantle administration building

Letters to owners/occupiers within 200m of the subject site

Letters to service agencies and government organisations

Email notification inviting comment to all precinct groups

Community information session held on 16 February 2017 A total of 24 submissions were received at the close of the consultation period. The following table provides an overview of the level of support from each submission. Table 1. Summary of submissions received

Level of support

No comment

No objection Support Object Neutral Total

Su

bm

itte

r

Inte

rest

Department/Agency 1 6 0 0 0 7

Owner/Occupier 6 8 3 17

Total 1 6 6 8 3 24

The following main themes arose from comments in the submissions:

vehicle movement, access and traffic

Hampton Road setback

residential density

building height

revitalisation These themes are considered in the officer comment section of this report. For the detailed list of submissions refer to attachment 1. A traffic study was also undertaken by the City’s Infrastructure Projects team, which considered the possible development yields, and the likely impact that this would have


28 June 2017

Page 91

on the existing road network (attachment 2). Discussions on the study results are detailed in the officer comment section of this report.

OFFICER COMMENT

A variety of themes arose from the submissions, which were relevant to the amendment provisions. Submissions from surrounding residents were mixed. Concerns relating to issues such as height, traffic and density were common however a number of comments were also received in support of redevelopment and revitalisation. In addition to the public comments, further technical investigation was done by City officers on the traffic and vehicle movement issues to supplement the concerns raised by residents. This study highlighted significant concerns over the existing road layout and interaction with Hampton Road (see attachment 2). Based on the submissions and comments there are two clear choices for the amendment area; either refuse to support the amendment proceeding in its current form as it cannot be reasonably supported or make significant changes that will help alleviate some concerns. Officers have recommended the latter. Where appropriate, modifications have been proposed to the provisions as part of the officer comment. Some of these modifications are considered to be significant changes and these changes will need to be readvertised should Council choose to proceed with the amendment as recommended. Vehicle movement, access and traffic

The City’s traffic engineers provided a traffic study during the submission period to offer a better understanding the road network challenges. It was expected that significant increases to the residential density would have cause added road use. The severity of this impact is compounded by the busy nature of Hampton Road, the existing single entry and exit of Brockman Place and the absence of a comprehensive internal road network restricts how much development can be reasonably supported. Initially it was suggested within the scheme amendment that direct access from Hampton Road be discouraged in order to reduce the stop start of vehicles entering from Hampton Road. The existing entrance of Brockman Place would therefore serve the majority of the development in the area. Brockman Place was identified within the traffic study to be inadequately performing presently and the level of increased vehicle movement could not be supportable. The study also considered whether allowing vehicle access to the lots fronting Hampton Road would alleviate some of the issues from the Brockman Place intersection. This would disperse some of the queuing, which could aid Brockman Place. The traffic generated as a result of increased density is considered to equate to an unacceptable service level for vehicles, potentially resulting in significant vehicle movement delays, driver frustration and possible safety risks as drivers make errors in judgement because of the delays. This level of service is a result of the high vehicle traffic volumes on Hampton Road and lack of storage facilities or turning pockets for vehicles, meaning that turning vehicles


28 June 2017

Page 92

cause delays by stopping a lane of traffic. Appropriate upgrading of Hampton Road would also be needed to ensure vehicles entering the subject site do not create delays along Hampton Road. The use of turning lanes to vehicle access points could ensure the impact to Hampton Road is reduced. A suggestion within the traffic study was to create a signalised access point that linked Brockman Place and the northern lots. This could reduce the congestion and queuing at Brockman Place by creating a consistent traffic flow to and from the sites. The intersection of Clontarf Road and Hampton Road was identified as being a suitable solution as the intersection is already signalised. The proximity of the existing signals elsewhere along Hampton Road also means the Clontarf Road intersection is the only appropriate solution. The northern most lots provide an important opportunity that could alleviate some of the traffic challenges by opening Brockman Place with an additional entry. This scenario however, relies heavily on landowner cooperation to coordinate an appropriate contribution solution. Additionally, comprehensive staging and timing is also needed for this scenario to be appropriately achieved, which has not been progressed by the landowners within the area. It is challenging to ensure that this high level of coordination can be achieved for future redevelopment. As this cannot be guaranteed, it is recommended that the scheme amendment be scaled back to reduce the potential development yield and associated traffic generation from redevelopment. Additional requirements on appropriate solutions for mitigating some of the traffic issues are also recommended to be included in the amendment provisions. The following changes have been recommended for vehicle movement, access and traffic:

allow vehicle access from Hampton Road

include a requirement for a traffic impact assessment to be carried out at the time of a development application proposal. This will need to demonstrate that the proposed development does not undermine the surrounding network

require signalised vehicle access, or an alternative solution that allows for coordinated entry and exit to the northern areas of the amendment area.

Residential density As a result of the conclusions reached in the traffic study a lower residential density is recommended. Several of the submissions received raised concern over the intensity of residential development and the flow on effect this would have to localised traffic. Several submissions were also supportive of the increased development opportunities as means of revitalising the area. The Brockman Place area offers a prime location for intensification with large lot sizes and proximity to surrounding local amenities such as the nearby local centre with shopping facilities, local primary and secondary schools and green spaces and South Beach. The existing challenges associated with the road network however hinder the ability to reasonably resolve additional traffic issues generated by increased numbers of residents. Vehicle movement was considered exclusively in relation to the residential


28 June 2017

Page 93

component of the proposed development. This tested whether the proposed residential density was suitable to the areas context. Increasing the residential density within the area is acknowledged to have a significant impact on the area’s existing traffic issues; however the potential for improvement of the area through redevelopment can still provide a balanced compromise. At present, the Brockman Place area has development capabilities up to R60 for mixed-use developments (through clause 4.2.5 of the scheme). Scheme amendment 68 proposed to limit the R60 ability and alternatively provide opportunity to develop up to RAC-3 density. It is no longer considered appropriate to support an increase in density to RAC-3 without a comprehensive internal road network solution. It is therefore recommended that an R80 density be applied to the scheme amendment area, with the addition of specific traffic mitigation requirements, as an alternative option that is significantly scaled back to the previous proposal. With the addition of changes to development heights, the R80 density still has the potential of offering a needed injection of new development and activity into the area. The following changes have been recommended for residential density:

change the residential density code for the amendment area to R80

remove the ‘bonus’ densities of R100, R160 and RAC-3 Building height The proposed scheme amendment originally provided for an increase in building heights from 7m to a possible 24.5m. An important component of the scheme amendment is to facilitate redevelopment through increasing height allowances. One of the greatest limitations with the existing planning provisions for this site is the height requirements of 7m, which results in a maximum of two storey developments. The rationale behind the proposed heights was to reflect the approach taken within the area at Strang Street on the opposite side of Hampton Road and to be appropriate to the residential density proposed for the area. The overall heights, while considered consistent with those heights on the adjacent side of the road, do not reflect the residential density changes proposed. In order to more appropriately reflect the revised residential density now proposed, modification to the building heights are also recommended. Some submissions raised concerns on the potential bulk and interference of existing views with relation to the original height proposal. The proposed height reduction is considered to address some of these concerns. Heights that reflect the R80 density have been recommended for the area. The heights within the R-Codes are considered appropriate for the density suggested. Irrespective of whether the land use is exclusively residential or exclusively non-residential these heights would apply for all new developments on these sites. These heights prescribed for R80 are 12m wall height and a 15m roof height. The following changes have been recommended for building height:


28 June 2017

Page 94

change the permitted height to be as per the R80 height as set out in Table 4 of the R-Codes

remove the bonus height allowances of 15m, 17.5m and 24.5m Hampton Road setback Significant concern was expressed by landowners regarding the 15m setback for Hampton Road lots. This setback was set to give a similar design outcome to the development at Strang Street on the opposite side of Hampton Road. Additionally, this setback requirement was intended to ensure new development did not compromise any likely upgrades as part of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) improvements. Uncertainties remain regarding the future public transport upgrade requirements in the area. The Public Transport Authority (PTA) and Department of Transport (DoT) did not provide comments on the amendment and staging and timing of any likely upgrades has not been suggested. Increasing residential density and improving public transport both interconnect and both require equal consideration. In increasing the residential density within the area the need and desire for more rapid public transport increases. Additionally, increases to residential density in the broader South Fremantle and Cockburn areas will also be impacted and influenced by the ability to upgrade Hampton Road when planning for the future needs of residents. It is essential that any new development still enables enough flexibility to achieve these increasing demands. Along with ensuring flexibility for potential public transport, the area has significant traffic management challenges that are likely to need upgrading with increased development. A setback area also provides flexibility for necessary upgrades such as the turn pockets suggested for vehicle entries. It is recommended that the setback is reduced to 10m and allowance for this area to be used for visitor parking. This will ensure the area is undeveloped and able to be flexibly used if it is necessary in the future. The following changes have been recommended for the Hampton Road setbacks:

reduce the setback from 15m to 10m

include requirement to provide vehicle access upgrades if identified to be needed Additional setbacks In light of the scaling back of the amendment, the previously proposed area to be ceded to the City is recommended to be removed. The provisions to cede this land are no longer considered appropriate as the bonuses previously afforded for this site no longer apply. The area between properties 229B Hampton Road and 1/6 Brockman Place are still considered an appropriate location that can link new residents with the existing dual use path to Hollis Park and South Beach. A 6m setback has been proposed as an alternative that would ensure any new development does not compromise the future ability to provide a linkage through to the dual use path. In creating the linkage, it would be the responsibility of the City to formally acquire the land in order to create a publicly accessible link.


28 June 2017

Page 95

The following changes have been recommended for setback requirements:

remove the provision that requires land to be ceded to the City

include a 6m setback requirement for 229B Hampton Road. Significant modifications Officers have recommended that Council support significant modifications to the amendment. These changes are as a result of submissions and relate predominantly to the traffic challenges within the area that cannot be simply resolved in the amendments current form. Under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 the significant changes will require readvertising for a minimum of 21 days prior to being presented back to Council.



COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Council:

1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and Attachment 3.

2. Resolve pursuant to regulation 51 of the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to advertise modifications to Amendment No. 68 to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as follows prior to consideration of the amendment for final adoption:

a) As shown on the map below, amend the Scheme map to apply a

residential density coding of R80 to 3 (lot 44), 5 (lot 50) and 6 (lot 1, 2 and 3) Brockman Place and 223 (lot 304, 47, 48 and 49), 227 (lot 550), 229 (lot 40), 229B (lot 100), 231 (lot 101), 231A (lot 4) and 233-235 (lot 5) Hampton Road, South Fremantle.


28 June 2017

Page 96

b) Insert new Sub Area 4.3.7 below, into Schedule 8: Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle.

Sub Area 4.3.7

R80


28 June 2017

Page 97

(a) Within sub area 4.3.7, clause 4.2.5 does not apply; and Building Height and Setbacks -

1. Clause 4.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ does not apply;

2. Notwithstanding the height requirement in clause 4.1 above, building

heights shall be as per the R80 height requirements in Table 4 of the residential design codes for all new development regardless of the land use(s) proposed.

3. A minimum street setback of 10 metres applies to Hampton Road, South

Fremantle frontages. 4. A minimum street setback of nil metres to developments fronting Brockman

Place, South Fremantle. 5. A minimum setback of 6m applies to 229B Hampton Road for the length of

the lot only where the common boundary of 1/6 Brockman Place is shared. 6. To prevent excessive breaks in building frontages to Hampton Road, the

maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to Hampton Road is no more than 8 metres.

Vehicle Access –

7. All new development at 223 (lot 304, 47, 48 and 49), 227 (lot 550), 229 (lot 40) Hampton Road must be served by a single vehicle access from Hampton Road and integrated with the signalised intersection of Hampton Road and Clontarf Road unless an alternative access agreement is approved by the City of Fremantle.

8. For all new development a Traffic Impact Assessment must be undertaken

by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and shall be submitted in support of an application for development approval. The Traffic Impact Assessment must show, to the satisfaction of the City, that the proposed vehicular ingress and egress arrangements will not have a detrimental impact on the existing road network.

9. Any vehicular access upgrades proposed or required as part of a new

development proposal must be provided at the developer’s expense to the satisfaction of the City.

10. Visitor parking may be permitted within the street setback area fronting

Hampton Road. Other Development Standards -


28 June 2017

Page 98

11. Investigation of potential site contamination to the satisfaction of the DEC. 12. Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning, residential land use will

not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level fronting Hampton Road.

13. In the part of all new buildings with frontage to Hampton Road, the ground

floor level must be no more than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site. Buildings shall incorporate active ground level frontages to Hampton Road, South Fremantle.

COUNCIL DECISION

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED to defer consideration of Scheme Amendment No. 68 to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting by December 2017. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



28 June 2017

Page 99

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION Before proceeding to readvertise modifications to the scheme amendment which would limit the density of future development to R80 due to the limitations of the existing local road network, it would be worthwhile holding further discussions with landowners in the area. If owners were prepared to mutually support arrangements to improve the road network, including funding of any necessary land acquisition and construction works, it could enable more coordinated higher density development to be permitted through the scheme amendment. This would represent a more beneficial form of urban renewal in this area in the long term.


28 June 2017

Page 100


FPOL1706-12 LEIGHTON BEACH DOG EXERCISE AREA EXTENSION

Meeting Date: 14 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Field Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: City of Fremantle dog off lead area at Leighton Beach

Map of rocky outcrop at Mosman Beach Map of dog off lead area Copy of petition (Confidential attachment under separate cover)

SUMMARY On the 21 November 2016, a petition was received requesting that Council consider extending the dog off lead area at Leighton beach. The current off lead area commences at the Mosman Park boundary and runs south approximately 209 metres. The petition requests an extension of the dog off lead area further south, by approximately 2 kilometres, to include all of Leighton Beach, Port Beach and Sandtrax Beach except during daytime in summer. The City currently has 18 designated dog off lead exercise areas for the 3,125 City of Fremantle registered dogs. There is also a 1.5 kilometre stretch of dog off lead area that runs north from Leighton Beach, through Mosman Park and finishes in Cottesloe. This report recommends that Council does not support the petition, however supports considering an extension of the Leighton Dog Beach exercise area further south by approximately 290 metres between the months of May through to October. BACKGROUND The Leighton Beach dog exercise area is an iconic location used regularly by Fremantle residents and visitors from all over Perth. During the summer months the area receives in excess of 4,000 visitors per day, this reduces to below 100 per day during the winter months. Users of this area begin their walk at the commencement of the dog beach, which is located 209 metres south of the boundary of Mosman Park, and follow the beach north through Mosman Park and into Cottesloe where the dog off lead area finishes at the Beach Street Groyne. During the winter months the northern walk along the beach is interrupted in the Town of Mosman Park due to higher tides near a rocky outcrop that restricts beach access. Access paths exist at numerous points to assist with the negotiation of this location, while the less favourable walking conditions along the paths may deter some it is felt to be not unusual or unexpected for a natural area in this environment.


28 June 2017

Page 101

The City has received a petition to consider a request to extend the current dog off lead area at Leighton Dog Beach south by approximately 2 kilometres to include the main Leighton Beach, Port Beach and Sandtrax, but not during the peak period times of summer. A total of 522 signatures were attached to the petition. The breakdown is as follows:

City of Fremantle – 171

Western Australia – 351 Various comments were attached to the petition by the organiser: “It is line with progressive change in other shires and councils”. “It will bring more people to a very underused area of Leighton beach”. “It will get dog walkers off the path which will advantage cyclists and joggers”. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There will be no financial implications should the dogs off lead area remain as is. If the dog off lead area is extended south by approximately 291 metres there will be costs associated with the installation of signage, dog bags and extra bins. Total cost less than $4,000. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Should council support the petition, The Dog exercise and prohibited areas policy would be required to be amended. CONSULTATION The City’s Park and Landscapes team have provided advice on the Port Beach and Sandtrax area and have agreed that the petition should not be supported. This report recommends that should Council consider extending any beach to include an of leash dog area, that community consultation, should occur in accordance with the City’s Community Consultation Policy. OFFICER COMMENT While it is acknowledged that extended open space has significant benefits for dogs to exercise and interact with their owners, it should be appreciated that Leighton Beach, Port Beach and Sandtrax are used all year around by the community and organisations such as Royal Life Saving Society, Polar Bears and other board riding associations. The activities associated with the above and undertaken at these locations may not be compatible with a total dog off lead exercise area. If dog waste is left unattended on the beach where beach users congregate, this may contain bacteria and parasites which can cause infections amongst the young and elderly who are a significant group that frequent Leighton Beach, Port Beach and


28 June 2017

Page 102

Sandtrax. There may also be environment and safety considerations associated with allowing an entire beach to be dog off leash. Should Council wish to consider a compromise to the petition, an alternative may be to extend Leighton Dog Beach further south by approximately 290 metres during the colder months only. This will include a portion of Leighton Beach that is used seasonally as a launch area for the Kite Boarding Association. In addition by extending the dog exercise area to this location an additional car park is available to alleviate the congestion associated with the over use of the main Leighton Dog Beach car park. In any event should Council be inclined to support the petition or extend any dog beach, it is the officers recommendation that public consultation should occur in accordance with City’s Community Consultation Policy. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority Required.


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council:

1. Receive the petition dated 21 November 2016.

2. Not support the petition requesting the extension of the dog off lead area to include the main Leighton Beach, Port Beach and Sandtrax.

3. Consider the extension of the Leighton Beach dog exercise area further south by approximately 290 metres during the non-peak months of May through to October further to community consultation in accordance with the City’s Community Consultation Policy.

4. That a further report be provided to Council once community consultation has

been undertaken with the results of the petition being provided to Council. Cr A Sullivan MOVED parts 1 and 2 of the Officer's Recommendation: Council:

1. Receive the petition dated 21 November 2016. 2. Not support the petition requesting the extension of the dog off lead area

to include the main Leighton Beach, Port Beach and Sandtrax. CARRIED: 7/0


28 June 2017

Page 103

Cr A Sullivan MOVED parts 3 and 4 of the Officer's Recommendation: Council

3. Consider the extension of the Leighton Beach dog exercise area further south by approximately 290 metres during the non-peak months of May through to October further to community consultation in accordance with the City’s Community Consultation Policy.

4. That a further report be provided to Council once community consultation

has been undertaken with the results of the petition being provided to Council.

CARRIED: 4/3

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Council:

1. Receive the petition dated 21 November 2016. 2. Not support the petition requesting the extension of the dog off lead area

to include the main Leighton Beach, Port Beach and Sandtrax. 3. Consider the extension of the Leighton Beach dog exercise area further

south by approximately 290 metres during the non-peak months of May through to October further to community consultation in accordance with the City’s Community Consultation Policy.

4. That a further report be provided to Council once community consultation

has been undertaken with the results of the petition being provided to Council.

COUNCIL DECISION

Cr D Thompson MOVED an Alternative Recommendation to the Committee’s Recommendation to include the following wording:

1. Receive the petition dated 21 November 2016.

2. Not support the petition requesting the extension of the dog off leash

area to include the main Leighton Beach, Port Beach and Sandtrax.

3. Delegate to the CEO consideration of the extension of the Leighton dog

exercise area up to a maximum of 150 metres further south on an all

year- round basis, with specific attention being paid to:

Improved access for persons with limited mobility


28 June 2017

Page 104

Improved signage to provide clear directions in relation to the

defined off-leash dog area

provision of a water point to the dog beach area

SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION For ease of access there is logic in extending the off leash area a further 150 metres South (approx) to line up with the end of the car park . This will increase legibility both in terms of parking and access. This could be designated “Off Leash Dog Beach Parking” area.


28 June 2017

Page 105


Cr J Strachan MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered FPOL1706-10, FPOL1706-11, FPOL1706-14, FPOL1706-15, FPOL1706-16 and FPOL1706-17. SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


The following item number FPOL1706-10 was moved and carried en bloc.

FPOL1706-10 CONTRACTUAL ENGAGEMENT OF KERRY HILL ARCHITECTS FOR THE DETAILED DESIGN PHASE OF THE CIVIC BUILDING

Meeting Date: 14 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Architect for Civic Building – Competition Brief SUMMARY The contractual arrangement with Kerry Hill Architects (KHA) through the design competition process was for a period of 24 months and has now expired. This report is to request Council enter in to a new contract with Kerry Hill Architects to conclude the design and development drawings for the proposed new administration centre. It is proposed to appoint KHA without going through a further tender process. Below are the reasons for appointing without a further tender:

1. The previous contractual arrangement with KHA was for a period of 24 months. That timeframe has now expired. In order to protect the City’s interests a new contract should be agreed and entered into with KHA.

2. The intellectual property in the design of the new civic centre rests with KHA

and the City is purchasing a licence to use their design to build the new


28 June 2017

Page 106

civic building. Therefore KHA is the ‘sole source provider’ of the Councils agreed civic building design.

BACKGROUND In late 2013 the City conducted an international architectural design competition to appoint an Architect to redevelop the City’s civic and administration building, as part of the Kings Square redevelopment project. The process used to select a preferred bidder complied with the requirements of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. At the meeting of Council of 20 August 2014, it was resolved; “That Council: 1. appoints Kerry Hill Architects (KHA) as the City’s architects for the redevelopment

of the civic and administration building as part of the Kings Square redevelopment project;

2. accepts the fee proposal for stages 1 and 2 of the project from KHA, as outlined in this report, of 8.5% total cost based on final construction costs; and

3. accepts the fee for stage 1 of the project to achieve a development approval, included in the total cost, of $585,230”

Clause 5.8 of the Architectural Design Competition briefing document (attached) stated the City and winner “…enter into a contract for a period of up to 24 months after the announcement of the winning scheme. The 24 month period may be varied by agreement between the City and the winner. If the City determines to proceed with the project after the agreed period it may do so with an alternate procurement process”. Clause 4.3 of the competition briefing document stated the City and its Contractor would enter into standard contract AS 4122-2010 with procedural amendments to suit the Local Government. The City now wishes to engage KHA for phase 2 of the project – detailed design and tender specification. The City proposes to use the Australian Standard Contract AS4122-2010 – General Conditions of Contract for Consultants, with no amendments. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The accepted fee through the original design competition process was for 8.5% of construction costs. This figure will remain the same for the new contract. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Under Division 2 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 –Regulation 11 provides when tenders have to be publicly invited. Clause (2) states that ‘tenders do not have to be publicly invited according to the requirements of this Division if’, sub-clause (f) the local government has good reason to believe that, because of the unique nature of the goods or services required or for any other reason, it is unlikely that there is more than one potential supplier’.


28 June 2017

Page 107

The City believes ‘it is unlikely that there is more than one potential supplier’ for the remaining architectural services required by the City for the purposes of the project for the following reasons:

KHA won an open public competition for the building design. The KHA design was subsequently accepted by Council and KHA were instructed to develop the concept design. The intellectual property, or copyright, of the design remains with KHA. The City is essentially purchasing a licence to use the design on the nominated site for the new building. KHA are therefore the sole architectural practice able to deliver the selected competition design. This is central to the justification of applying ‘sole source provider’ to the continued appointment of KHA.

In addition, the work already carried out by KHA means that the project is unique and KHA have sole detailed knowledge of much of the building design and the integration of the work by sub-consultants. The project has now entered Design Development stage and is on a critical timeframe/program to have the project ready to call public tenders for its construction to follow on from demolition of the existing civic and administration building.

Legal advice has confirmed the City’s justification for considering KHA a sole source provider. Risks to the project and with the supplier will be mitigated through the use of the Australian Standard AS4122-2010 General conditions of Contract for Consultants, with minor amendments. CONSULTATION Nil OFFICER COMMENT Having reviewed the current and future position of the agreement between the City and KHA, it is recommended that the City continue utilising the services of KHA for the detailed design of the new civic building on a sole source basis and using the Australian Standard Contract AS4122-2010 General Conditions of Contract for Consultants. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority Required


28 June 2017

Page 108


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council:

1. Agree to enter into a new Contract with Kerry Hill Architects as a sole source provider for the detailed design of the Civic Building for the reasons stated within this report.

2. Agree to enter into contract, using Australian Standard Contract AS4122-

2010 General Conditions of Contract for Consultants, with Kerry Hill Architects for the detailed design and tender stage of the Civic Building for the fee of 8.5% of the construction value as per the original resolution SGS1408-17.

3. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate the terms (except the

fee) of the new Contract with Kerry Hill Architects. SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



28 June 2017

Page 109


FPOL1706-11 PRINCIPLES FOR THE STREET AND RESERVE TREE POLICY

Meeting Date: 14 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Parks and Landscapes Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

SUMMARY Key principles for the planting and management of the City’s 13 000 street and reserve trees are outlined for approval. The approved principles will be used to guide the development of the Street and Reserve Tree Policy. The final policy will be referred back to Council for adoption. This report recommends that Council adopt the key principles for the development of the Street and Reserve Tree Policy. The policy will be presented back to Council for consideration. BACKGROUND The City manages over 13 000 street and reserve trees for the community. It is the City’s role to manage trees in a safe, effective and efficient manner to provide maximum benefit to the community. Works include planning for new trees, pruning, maintenance, protection and removal. Planting and maintenance works are undertaken by qualified landscape contractor’s to best practice standards. Arboriculture works are undertaken by qualified arborists to Australian Standards, best practice and state government guidelines. Tree management is currently guided by the City’s Tree Planting and Preservation Policy (2005). This Policy was last adopted in 2005 and requires updating. This report sets out the key principles for tree management including tree planting, pruning, maintenance, removal and protection during development for the City. The approved principles will be used to develop the Street and Reserve Tree Policy. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS No specific legal implications. CONSULTATION The City’s Development Approvals business unit has provided comment and review on the key principles.


28 June 2017

Page 110

OFFICER COMMENT Trees are a dominant feature in landscapes and set the character and image of the city. They help create attractive streetscapes and reserves and provide benefits to the community including:

reduction in air pollution

control of storm water

mitigation of wind and noise

improved biodiversity

shade and reduced UV exposure

reduced heat island effect and energy demand

enhanced sense of place and wellbeing

increased property values

carbon dioxide reduction

visual screening

encouragement of outdoor activity. Strategically, the Green Plan 2020 identifies the importance of trees in creating the City’s urban forest and Green Plan linkages. Their ongoing management is crucial to meeting the City’s goals in reducing urban heat island effect, increase canopy cover and improve biodiversity. The City manages trees through planning, planting, maintaining, pruning and protecting trees to ensure they continue to provide the benefits to the community. The following key principles will guide the development of the Street and Reserve Tree Policy. Tree Planting The City is responsible for planting street and reserve trees throughout the City. Trees are planted in the winter to improve establishment. Trees are planted in areas identified in the annual program and to improve green linkages as identified in the Green Plan 2020. The City will determine the species and location of the tree within the verge. Street Tree Requests Residents can get a tree planted on their verge through the City’s tree request program. The City will select the tree species and location on the verge to fit in with services and infrastructure. The City will plant, stake, mulch and water the tree through the two year establishment period. Street Tree Planting by Residents Residents can only plant street trees on their verge with written approval from the City. The City will determine the species and location of the tree to ensure it doesn’t interfere with services or infrastructure. Trees are to be planted to the City’s specifications to ensure the long term health and vitality of the tree. Trees planted without the City’s approval will be assessed for suitability to determine whether the tree will be retained or removed. Tree Pruning and Maintenance The City is responsible for pruning and maintaining street and reserve trees. Trees will be pruned as part of the annual program to:


28 June 2017

Page 111

remove hazardous branches

improve form

remove dead / dying wood

uplift low hanging branches

clear trees from powerlines and utilities. Residents can request street tree pruning by contacting the City. Pruning is undertaken in accordance with Australian Standards AS4373: Pruning of Amenity Trees and Guidelines for the Management of Vegetation near Power Lines (Government of Western Australia). Tree Removal The City is responsible for removal of street and reserve trees. Street trees will only be removed if the tree:

is dead

is diseased

is dangerous, damaged or structurally unsound

is planted without the City’s approval and is deemed not suitable for retention. Tree removal to enable development will only be considered if no other reasonable design option exists. The applicant will be required to compensate the City for the costs associated with the removal and the replacement of the tree. The City will investigate tree removal requests by residents. Trees will not be removed if the tree:

species, form, size, shape or location is not the personal preference of the resident

is an inconvenience for construction works

blocks views

shades a residence

drops natural debris such as leaves, flowers, fruit and bark. Tree Protection at Development Sites Street trees are to be protected on all development sites for the duration of construction. The tree is to be protected by a square of fencing around the tree trunk to help protect the root zone and tree in accordance with Australian Standards. If the tree is damaged or dies due to construction works, the applicant will be required to compensate the City for the costs associated with the removal and replacement of the tree. The City will develop a Street and Reserve Tree Policy based on the key principles adopted by Council in this report. The policy will be presented back to Council for consideration. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority Required


28 June 2017

Page 112


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council adopt the following key principles for the development of the Street and Reserve Tree Policy: Tree Planting The City is responsible for planting street and reserve trees throughout the City. Trees are planted in the winter to improve establishment. Trees are planted in areas identified in the annual program and to improve green linkages as identified in the Green Plan 2020. The City will determine the species and location of the tree within the verge. Street Tree Requests Residents can get a tree planted on their verge through the City’s tree request program. The City will select the tree species and location on the verge to fit in with services and infrastructure. The City will plant, stake, mulch and water the tree through the two year establishment period. Street Tree Planting by Residents Residents can only plant street trees on their verge with written approval from the City. The City will determine the species and location of the tree to ensure it doesn’t interfere with services or infrastructure. Trees are to be planted to the City’s specifications to ensure the long term health and vitality of the tree. Trees planted without the City’s approval will be assessed for suitability to determine whether the tree will be retained or removed. Tree Pruning and Maintenance The City is responsible for pruning and maintaining street and reserve trees. Trees will be pruned as part of the annual program to:

remove hazardous branches

improve form

remove dead / dying wood

uplift low hanging branches

clear trees from powerlines and utilities. Residents can request street tree pruning by contacting the City. Pruning is undertaken in accordance with Australian Standards AS4373: Pruning of Amenity Trees and Guidelines for the Management of Vegetation near Power Lines (Government of Western Australia). Tree Removal The City is responsible for removal of street and reserve trees. Street trees will only be removed if the tree:

is dead

is diseased

is dangerous, damaged or structurally unsound


28 June 2017

Page 113

is planted without the City’s approval and is deemed not suitable for retention.

Tree removal to enable development will only be considered if no other reasonable design option exists. The applicant will be required to compensate the City for the costs associated with the removal and the replacement of the tree. The City will investigate tree removal requests by residents. Trees will not be removed if the tree:

species, form, size, shape or location is not the personal preference of the resident

is an inconvenience for construction works

blocks views

shades a residence

drops natural debris such as leaves, flowers, fruit and bark. Tree Protection at Development Sites Street trees are to be protected on all development sites for the duration of construction. The tree is to be protected by a square of fencing around the tree trunk to help protect the root zone and tree in accordance with Australian Standards. If the tree is damaged or dies due to construction works, the applicant will be required to compensate the City for the costs associated with the removal and replacement of the tree. SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



28 June 2017

Page 114


FPOL1706-14 DELEGATED AUTHORITY REGISTER REVIEW

Meeting Date: 14 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Governance Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Delegated Authority Register 2017

Delegated Authority Register amendment notes SUMMARY Council is required to undertake a review of all delegated authority each financial year. All delegations have been reviewed to ensure that the Chief Executive Officer, Officers and Committees have the discretion to exercise delegated authority under the relevant legislation. This report recommends that Council adopt the reviewed Delegated Authority Register as shown in attachment 1. BACKGROUND In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995, Council is required to review the register of delegations at least once every financial year. The City's current Delegated Authority Register was last review and adopted by Council on 22 June 2016. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Sections 5.42 and 5.44 of the Local Government Act 1995, prescribes that Council may delegate certain powers and duties to the Chief Executive Officer and other officers. A delegation authorises persons or class of persons to exercise powers that the Council would ordinarily exercise. The City of Fremantle has established a Delegated Authority Register to improve the timeliness and efficiency of decision making for stakeholders. In some instances Acts and Regulations require Council to make a direct appointment to a person or class of persons. For example, the Food Act 2008 is an Act that allows an Enforcement Agency (Local Government) to delegate authority but does not allow the ability for the Chief Executive Officer to sub-delegate that authority. In addition, where legislation provides for the direct delegation to authorise a person or class of persons by other agencies or decision makers, no delegation is required from the local government for example: The Environmental Protection Act 1986 allows for the appointment by the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Environment Regulation to grant delegated authority direct to local government Environmental Health Officers. The authorisation is dealt with in the relevant legislation and, where required, the


28 June 2017

Page 115

Instrument of Delegation or Notice of the appointment is advertised in the Government Gazette. Where an officer of the local government is able to exercise a power under an Act or Regulation but has no discretion in how that power is exercised, officers are able to carry out that power without having a written delegation from Council. This is known as “acting through”. For example, if a provision of an Act specified that a local government must refuse an application that does not contain the applicants’ name, there is no need for the Council to provide delegation to officers to refuse applications for this reason as officers are unable to exercise any discretion, they must refuse the application. CONSULTATION Nil OFFICER COMMENT A thorough review has been undertaken of the City's Delegated Authority Register with the intention of producing an up to date, comprehensive and workable register that complies with relevant legislation and meets the operational needs of the City of Fremantle. Some of the key amendments to the Delegated Authority Register are outlined below;

• The overall presentation of the document has been changed and delegations have been renumbered,

• Deletion of references to those officers sub-delegated by the Chief Executive Officer,

• Inclusion of ‘Councils understanding’ to acknowledge the general principles, for the exercise and use of delegated authority,

• Development of new delegated authority which captures delegations that may currently sit within policy,

• Correction of references to legislation, • Additional information included in regard to:

– Where the authority to delegate comes from – Which Act (including section) is being delegated – Whether (and where) the authority to sub-delegate exists

• Broadened conditions generally to allow for flexibility in undertaking operational functions and duties,

• Division of lengthy delegations to improve clarity, • Removal of unnecessary or inaccurate delegations, • Development of new delegated authority where gaps have been identified.

A complete list of the amendments is outlined in Attachment 2. Upon adoption of the proposed Delegated Authority Register 2017/2018 (Attachment 1) the previous register adopted by Council on 22 June 2016, will be superseded and all delegated authority as outlined within that register will be revoked. In order to meet the City's legislative requirements it is recommended that Council acknowledge that a review has been undertaken and adopt the proposed Delegated Authority Register 2017/2018.


28 June 2017

Page 116

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority Required


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council approves the delegations including amendments, new delegations and appointments, as detailed in the Delegated Authority Register 2017/2018 as shown in attachment 1 of the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation committee agenda dated 14 June 2017 SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



28 June 2017

Page 117

The following item number FPOL1706-15 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

FPOL1706-15 ELECTORAL ACTIVITIES AND SIGNAGE POLICY

Meeting Date: 14 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Governance Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: SG10 Election Signs Policy SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to present the Electoral Activities and Signage Policy to Council for consideration. Adoption of the policy will enable the City to flexibly accommodate temporary short term election related activities and signage within the City of Fremantle. This report recommends that Council adopt the Electoral Activities and Signage Policy. BACKGROUND The City currently regulates election signage through its Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law and Council policy SG10 Election Signs. However the process of obtaining approval for signage approval can be cumbersome for such short term display. The proposed policy is intended to replace the current council policy SG10 to update and outline the Councils preference to relax regulation in relation to activities and signage arranged for electoral purposes while ensuring safety and consideration for community members is maintained. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS If adopted by Council the proposed policy will become an official Council Policy and will prescribe the way in which the City responds to election activities and signage. Activities and signage that do not meet the provisions within the policy will be subject to the City’s ordinary approval procedures in accordance with the City of Fremantle Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law or the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4.

CONSULTATION

Nil.


28 June 2017

Page 118

OFFICER COMMENT

The proposed policy outlines the City's position in relation to allowing electoral activities and signage throughout the City of Fremantle during an election period. The policy is intended to apply to a short window of time. Namely, 8 weeks prior to an election date until 48 hours following the close of polls. Upon adoption of the proposed policy, SG10 Election Signs policy will become obsolete. The intent of the policy is to flexibly accommodate temporary short term election related activities and signage within the City of Fremantle municipality and to clearly outline the City's requirements in relation to such matters. It is anticipated that this policy will provide clarity to both candidates and community members about when, where and under what circumstances it is appropriate to hold election campaign activities and erect signage. Any signage that is not in accordance with Council policy or approved by the City through other means, may be removed by the City in accordance with Council policy. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority Required

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council: 1. Approve deletion of current Council Policy, SG10 Election signs; and 2. Adopt Electoral Activities and Signage Policy as a policy of Council, as set

out below: Electoral Activities and Signage Policy

Policy statement This policy establishes the City of Fremantle’s position in relation to the activities and signage that may occur during the weeks leading up to a Federal, State or Local Government election. Policy scope It will be acceptable to hold small informal activities and erect election signage, in most instances, without the obligation to meet compliance requirements ordinarily imposed by the City, provided such signage and activities are safely conducted. Policy The City allows flexibility in relation to election signage and activities. Provided the guidelines outlined in this policy are met, election signage and small public activities do not need approval from Council.


28 June 2017

Page 119

Guidelines: During the period of election activity, commencing 8 weeks prior to the election and ending 48 hours following the close of the polls formal approval will not be required for: Signs in public places which are:

no higher than 1 metre above natural ground level or exceed an area of 1m2 on any side;

freestanding and, therefore, not attached to any structure, post or tree.

containing clear and legible writing or symbols.

in the case of mobile advertising vehicle or trailers, comply with the parking regulations and/or signs applicable to that parking area and must not pose a safety risk.

not placed on a carriageway, dividing strip, traffic island, or roundabout, within fifty (50) metres of a signalised intersection or pedestrian activated crossing.

not placed within six (6) metres of an intersection or junction, or in any other location that may pose a safety hazard or obstruction to pedestrians or road users.

not erected within 100 meters of a guard controlled children’s crossing.

not attached to any street name, traffic direction or parking sign or to the associated pole.

not placed so as to cover any City signs or markings.

not placed so as to restrict the sight distance of other signs and traffic control devices.

not to resemble or be mistaken by road users as a traffic control device. Signs on private property which are:

displaying non-commercial messages and clearly be displayed for election purposes only.

not erected on heritage listed properties in a way that may cause any damage to any structure.

in the case of mobile advertising vehicle or trailers, compliant with the parking regulations and/or signs applicable to that parking area and must not pose a safety risk.

not more than one towable mobile advertising trailer per car park


not erected on private property, unless they are safely and securely erected on property that is not considered to be of heritage importance and with the approval of the property owner.


not to resemble or be mistaken by road users as a traffic control device. Activities in public places which are:

considered to be small activities.

inclusive and welcoming.


28 June 2017

Page 120

providing information that is clear and accurate.

not causing a safety hazard or obstruction to pedestrians or road users.

not held within 100 meters of a guard controlled children’s crossing during school crossing times.

The person or party responsible for the sign or activity must ensure that public safety is not compromised while signs are being installed or removed or activities are being undertaken and there is no disruption to traffic or pedestrian movement during the process. The person or party responsible for the sign or activity and any persons acting on their behalf, accept full responsibility for any personal injury, damage or loss in any way arising out of or a consequence. Signs and activities that do not fit within the guidelines of this policy are subject to the usual approval and compliance organisational requirements. Definitions and abbreviations Election means periodic and general elections and includes referenda and other public votes. Land means all land under the care, control or management of the City but excludes a road where part of the road is a nature strip or footpath. Municipal Building means any building that is owned or held under a management order or control of the City, and includes any recreation centre, library and alike. Road means the definition under the provisions of the Land Administration Act 1997 and Main Roads Act 1930. Election signs means An election sign is a notice on public display which encourages a person to vote for a particular political candidate or gives information or instructions in a written or symbolic form for a candidate or party in the election, or for a referendum whether held for Federal, State or Local Government purposes. Small Activity means less than 5 organisers/representatives involved in the organisation and/or running of an informal activity/event.” ALTERNATIVE OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION/ COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council:

1. Approve deletion of current Council Policy, SG10 Election signs; and

2. Adopt Electoral Activities and Signage Policy as a policy of Council, as set out

below:


28 June 2017

Page 121

Electoral Activities and Signage Policy

Policy statement This policy establishes the City of Fremantle’s position in relation to the activities and signage that may occur during the weeks leading up to a Federal, State or Local Government election. Policy scope It will be acceptable to hold small informal activities and erect election signage, in most instances, without the obligation to meet compliance requirements ordinarily imposed by the City, provided such signage and activities are safely conducted. Policy The City allows flexibility in relation to election signage and activities. Provided the guidelines outlined in this policy are met, election signage and small public activities do not need approval from Council. Guidelines: During the period of election activity, commencing 8 weeks prior to the election and ending 48 hours following the close of the polls formal approval will not be required for: Signs in public places which are:

no higher than 1 metre above natural ground level or exceed an area of 1m2 on any side;

freestanding and, therefore, not attached to any structure, post or tree.

containing clear and legible writing or symbols.

in the case of mobile advertising vehicle or trailers, comply with the parking regulations and/or signs applicable to that parking area and must not pose a safety risk.

not placed on a carriageway, dividing strip, traffic island, or roundabout, within fifty (50) metres of a signalised intersection or pedestrian activated crossing.


not erected within 100 meters of a guard controlled children’s crossing.

not attached to any street name, traffic direction or parking sign or to the associated pole.

not placed so as to cover any City signs or markings.


not to resemble or be mistaken by road users as a traffic control device. Signs on private property which are:

displaying non-commercial messages and clearly be displayed for election purposes only.


28 June 2017

Page 122

not erected on heritage listed properties in a way that may cause any damage to any structure.

in the case of mobile advertising vehicle or trailers, compliant with the parking regulations and/or signs applicable to that parking area and must not pose a safety risk.

not more than one towable mobile advertising trailer per car park


not erected on private property, unless they are safely and securely erected on property that is not considered to be of heritage importance and with the approval of the property owner.


not to resemble or be mistaken by road users as a traffic control device. Activities in public places which are:

considered to be small activities.

inclusive and welcoming.

providing information that is clear and accurate.

not causing a safety hazard or obstruction to pedestrians or road users.

not held within 100 meters of a guard controlled children’s crossing during school crossing times.

The person or party responsible for the sign or activity must ensure that public safety is not compromised while signs are being installed or removed or activities are being undertaken and there is no disruption to traffic or pedestrian movement during the process. The person or party responsible for the sign or activity and any persons acting on their behalf, accept full responsibility for any personal injury, damage or loss in any way arising out of or a consequence. Signs not removed within 7 days of the close of polls may be removed and destroyed. Removal of non-compliant signs, by or on behalf of the City, may result in any resultant costs or expenses being recovered from the person or party responsible. These costs may include both the removal and/or destruction of offending signs. Signs and activities that do not fit within the guidelines of this policy are subject to the usual approval and compliance organisational requirements. Definitions and abbreviations Election means periodic and general elections and includes referenda and other public votes. Land means all land under the care, control or management of the City but excludes a road where part of the road is a nature strip or footpath.


28 June 2017

Page 123

Municipal Building means any building that is owned or held under a management order or control of the City, and includes any recreation centre, library and alike. Road means the definition under the provisions of the Land Administration Act 1997 and Main Roads Act 1930. Election signs means a notice on public display which encourages a person to vote for a particular political candidate or gives information or instructions in a written or symbolic form for a candidate or party in the election, and that complies with the requirements of section 187 of the Electoral Act 1907 – “Authorisation of Election Campaign Material” in regard to the authorisation of electoral signage. Small Activity means less than 5 organisers/representatives involved in the organisation and/or running of an informal activity/event.” REASONS FOR CHANGE TO OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION Amendments have been made to the policy in response to the suggestions raised at the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee Meeting held on the 14 June 2017. The following amendments add further clarity to the policy; A provision to allow the Local Government to recoup losses in relation to the removal of non compliant election signage, and a suggestion for the expansion of the definition for 'election signs' to include reference to those requirements of the Electoral Act 1997. SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



28 June 2017

Page 124


FPOL1706-16 ADOPTION OF COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 2017 TO JUNE 2018

Meeting Date: 14 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Governance Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

SUMMARY In accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, Council is required to resolve each year the days and times when Ordinary and Committee meetings shall be held. Meeting dates, including the time and location, are then advertised to provide the Fremantle community and its stakeholders with the opportunity to attend a meeting should they wish to. It is a requirement of the Local Government Act 1995 to advertise the meetings that are open to the public in the next 12 months, at least once a year. The new schedule provides a monthly cycle of meeting dates for the; Planning Committee, Strategy and Project Development Committee, Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee, Library Advisory Committee, the Audit and Risk Management Committee and the Ordinary Meeting of Council. The new schedule has been extended to June 2018 to align with the end of a financial year. This report recommends that Council adopt the meeting schedule for the Ordinary Meeting of Council and standing committees for the period of July 2017 to June 2018. BACKGROUND Each year Council is required to consider the timing of the Council and Committee Meeting dates for the following year. These dates must be advertised in accordance with Section 5.25(1)(g) of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 12(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996. The City of Fremantle traditionally holds Ordinary Council Meetings on the fourth Wednesdays of each month, and Committee meetings in the first two weeks of the month except in December. In past years, Council has agreed to hold fewer meetings in December, as Council is cognisant that many members of the community are enjoying holidays during this period. Should, the Council Meeting or Committee Meeting dates change during the year, an advertisement will be placed in local newspapers and notices will be placed on City notice boards and the website.


28 June 2017

Page 125

Agendas and Minutes for all meetings will be made available at the City’s Administration Office, the Fremantle Public Library and online at www.fremantle.wa.gov.au FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS These dates must be advertised in accordance with Section 5.25(1)(g) of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 12(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996. CONSULTATION Nil OFFICER COMMENT The council and committee meetings are currently held on Wednesdays at 6pm on the following monthly meeting cycle; Week 1 Planning Committee Week 2 Strategy and Project Development Committee Week 2 Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation (F- POL) Committee Week 4 Ordinary Meeting of Council The Library Advisory Committee meetings are held quarterly, prior to the F-POL committee. The Audit and Risk Management Committee meetings are held on every second month on the Tuesday prior to the F-POL committee. Council has recently committed to making itself more accessible to the Community by taking Council and Committee meetings out ‘on the road’. It is anticipated that the location for the first phase of this initiative will be the North Fremantle Community Hall (Thompson Road). It is currently expected that this arrangement will commence towards the end of the 2017 calendar year. In preparation for this move the City is arranging some building upgrades to the North Fremantle Community Hall and is also improving accessibility from the car park (end of Hevron Street) which is directly behind the Community Hall. The City will advertise and provide a more detailed update once a definitive date has been agreed. Currently, all meetings of Council and Standing Committees are held in the Council Chamber at the Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street Fremantle. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority Required

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


28 June 2017

Page 126


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council adopt the meeting schedule for the Ordinary Meeting of Council and Standing Committees for the period, July 2017 to June 2018 as set out below:

Week Committee / council meeting Date Time

July

1 Planning Committee 5 July 2017 6.00 pm

2 Strategy and Project Development Committee

10 July 2017 6.00 pm

2 Audit and Risk Management Committee 11 July 2017 5.30 pm

2 Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation (F-POL)

12 July 2017 6.00 pm

4 Ordinary Council 26 July 2017 6.00 pm

Aug

1 Planning Committee 2 August 2017 6.00 pm


7 August 2017 6.00 pm

2 Library Advisory committee Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation (F-POL)

9 August 2017 5.30 pm 6.00 pm

4 Ordinary Council 23 August 2017 6.00 pm

Sept

1 Planning Committee 6 September 2017 6.00 pm


11 September 2017 6.00 pm

2 Audit and Risk Management Committee 12 September 2017 5.30 pm


13 September 2017 6.00 pm

4 Ordinary Council 27 September 2017 6.00 pm

Oct

1 Planning Committee 4 October 2017 6.00 pm


9 October 2017 6.00 pm


11 October 2017 6.00 pm

4 Ordinary Council 25 October 2017 6.00 pm

Nov

1 Planning Committee 1 November 2017 6.00 pm


6 November 2017 6.00 pm

2 Audit and Risk Management Committee 7 November 2017 5.30 pm

2 Library Advisory committee Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation (F-POL)

8 November 2017 5.30 pm 6.00 pm


28 June 2017

Page 127

4 Ordinary Council 22 November 2017 6.00 pm

Dec

1 Planning Committee 6 December 2017 6.00 pm

2 Ordinary Council 13 December 2017 6.00 pm

Jan

2 Planning Committee 10 January 2018 6.00 pm


15 January 2018 6.00 pm

3 Audit and Risk Management Committee 16 January 2018 5.30 pm


17 January 2018 6.00 pm

4 Ordinary Council 24 January 2018 6.00 pm

Feb

1 Planning Committee 7 February 2018 6.00 pm


12 February 2018 6.00 pm

2 Library Advisory Committee Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation (F-POL)

14 February 2018 5.30 pm 6.00 pm

4 Ordinary Council 28 February 2018 6.00 pm

Mar

1 Planning Committee 7 March 2018 6.00 pm


12 March 2018 6.00 pm

2 Audit and Risk Management Committee 13 March 2018 5.30 pm


14 March 2018 6.00 pm

4 Ordinary Council 28 March 2018 6.00 pm

April

1 Planning Committee 4 April 2018 6.00 pm


9 April 2018 6.00 pm


11 April 2018 6.00 pm

3 Ordinary Council 18 April 2018 6.00 pm

May

1 Planning Committee 2 May 2018 6.00 pm


7 May 2018 6.00 pm

2 Audit and Risk Management Committee 8 May 2018 5.30 pm

2 Library Advisory Committee Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation (F-POL)

9 May 2018 5.30 pm 6.00 pm

4 Ordinary Council 23 May 2018 6.00 pm

June

1 Planning Committee 6 June 2018 6.00 pm


11 June 2018 6.00 pm


28 June 2017

Page 128


13 June 2018 6.00 pm

4 Ordinary Council 27 June 2018 6.00 pm

SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



28 June 2017

Page 129


FPOL1706-17 FORMALISE - LOT 3086 (NO.13) RENNIE CRESCENT LOT 3086 (MOORNI BOORN PARK) - AS A RECREATION RESERVE

Meeting Date: 14 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Director of City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachment 1: Copy of Certificate of Title Volume 2831 Folio 493

SUMMARY This report seeks Council approval to formalise Lot 3086 (No.13) Rennie Crescent, Hilton as a Recreation Reserve in response to the enquiry from the Department of Lands (DoL), being part of the State Government’s Land Asset Sales Program. The DoL is reviewing its register of land formerly transferred from the State as a Crown Grant in Trust (Conditional freehold tenure). As part of this review, the DoL has noted that both Lot 3086 (Moorni Boorn Park) and Lot 2999 (Fred Notley Day Care Centre) were issued in favour of the City of Fremantle upon the condition that the land is to be used and held solely for the purposes of ‘Aged Persons


28 June 2017

Page 130

Accommodation’. Both lots were contained within the same Certificate of Title (‘CT’) with Lot 2999 being transferred to Access Housing in 2013 leaving Lot 3086 as described on CT Volume 2831 Folio 493. The DoL conducted a desk top review and identified Lot 3086 as being underdeveloped and /or underutilised for the purpose of ‘Aged Persons Accommodation’ and would this land be surplus to the City’s requirements. The City of Fremantle (‘City’) has responded to the DoL enquiry with a proposal to create a Reserve with the management order in favour of the City for the purpose of ‘Recreation’ over Crown Grant Lot 3086 on Deposited Plan 190411, Hilton. The DoL has assigned the request to their Case Management – Metropolitan and Peel Team for further actions. The proposal will require a Councils endorsement. This report recommends that Council Seek Minister for Lands to approve the creation of a Reserve with the Management Order to the City of Fremantle for the purpose of “Recreation” over Certificate of Title Volume 2831 Folio 493 being Crown Grant Lot 3086 on Deposited Plan 190411. BACKGROUND In 1993 the Minister for Lands issued a Conditional freehold title over Lot 3086 on Deposited Plan 190411 and Lot 2999 on Deposited Plan 190411 in favour of the City of Fremantle on the condition that the land is to be used and held solely for the purposes of ‘Aged Persons Accommodation’. The City has maintained Lot 3086 (Moorni Boorn Park) as a park for the local community to enjoy for the last 18 to 20 years. On 13 December 2013, Lot 2999 being the location of Fred Wright Memorial Homes was transferred to Access Housing. The DoL endorsed the transfer of land pursuant to section 75 (5) of the Land Administration Act 1997. On 05 April 2017 – The Department of Lands wrote to the City as part of the State Governments Land Assets Program. They identified Lot 3086 on Plan 190411 as possible surplus to the City of Fremantle’s requirements as the land was not being utilised for the purpose of aged care. 05 May 2017 – The City responded to the DoL noting the current use of the land as a local park. However the City also acknowledged that the current purposed of the land requires an amendment and asked the DoL to consider a process to secure Lot 3086 by way of a Management Order issued to the City for the purpose of ‘Recreation’. 11 May 2017 – The DoL advised the City that their Assessment Team had completed an investigation into the enquiry seeking to create a Reserve for the purpose of ‘Recreation” over Crown Grant Lot 3086 on Deposited Plan 190411, Hilton. The request has now been assigned to the Case Management – Metropolitan and Peel Teem.


28 June 2017

Page 131

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The City will be required to hand over Certificate of Title Volume 2831 Folio 493 to the Crown for the creation of a management order. The City has listed this asset (Financial Land Asset No. 104613) as a Crown Grant in Trust with the Conditional Tenure noted. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The proposed creation of a Reserve for the purpose of recreation is pursuant of Section 75(5) of the Land Administration Act 1997 as noted below; Section 75 is headed “Transfer of Crown land in fee simple subject to conditions. … “(5) Neither the fee simple, nor any other estate or interest, in conditional tenure land can be transferred without the written permission of the Minister, which may be given subject to conditions.” The conditions requested in this instance, is that a reserve be created for the purpose of ‘Recreation”. CONSULTATION Nil OFFICER COMMENT The Department of Lands in their correspondence with the City, noted that; ‘Conditional freehold land is traditionally granted to organisations that have demonstrated appropriate social and community benefit. It is essential that when the land is no longer required or not being used for its designated purpose, the land should be transferred back to the State.’ The City considers the best option is to transfer Lot 3086 back to the Crown and request that a reserve to be created for the purpose of ‘recreation’ with the management order in favour of the City. As Lot 3086 is maintained as a park for 18 to 20 years, it would be reasonable to consider that the local community has an expectation that the land would continue to be utilised in its current form as a park for recreation. Economic implications There are no additional economic implications as the proposal requests the continuation of a park already maintained by the City for a number of years. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority Required


28 June 2017

Page 132


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council

1. Requests the Minister for Lands to approve the creation of a ‘Reserve’ with the Management Order to the City of Fremantle for the purpose of “Recreation” over Certificate of Title Volume 2831 Folio 493 being Crown Grant Lot 3086 on Deposited Plan 190411 known as Moorni Boon Park.

2. If part 1 above is granted, approves the surrender of the Crown Grant in

Trust (Conditional Freehold Tenure) over Certificate of Title Volume 2831 Folio 493 being Crown Grant Lot 3086 on Deposited Plan 190411 known as Moorni Boon Park.

SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



28 June 2017

Page 133

Cr R Pemberton MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered SPD1706-1, SPD1706-2, and SPD1706-3. SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 12 JUNE 2017

The following item number SPD1706-1 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

SPD1706-1 KINGS SQUARE PROJECT - UPDATE REPORT

Meeting Date: 12 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Kings Square Project Director Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: A presentation will be made to the committee on various

elements of the draft public realm masterplan. SUMMARY This report presents an update on the Kings Square Project to the Strategy and Project Development Committee, including:

Sirona’s Project

Property settlement has occurred between Sirona Capital and the City of Fremantle on the Queensgate building and carpark.

Works on the Sirona sites (Queensgate and former Myer site) are anticipated to commence within 2 months.

City’s Project

Planning review of the new Civic Building has been completed (subject of a separate report to Planning Committee and Council).

The masterplan for the broader public realm has been further developed – elements of which will be presented and discussed at committee meeting.

Communication

A joint external communication strategy between Sirona and the City has been developed.


28 June 2017

Page 134

Traders around Kings Square have been contacted / visited to establish lines of communications and introduce key personnel.

It is anticipated that the first Kings Square Business Forum will be convened towards the end of June and will provide an opportunity to share information directly with traders and establish a two-way dialogue with key stakeholders.

Background Designs for the new buildings in Kings Square are progressing. The private development on the Myer/Queensgate site has progressed past development approval stage and is being documented for construction purposes. The schematic building design for the new civic building was approved by council in March 2017. It is anticipated that the City’s administration will relocate offices in the last quarter of 2017 enabling demolition of the existing building to commence in advance of the construction of the new Civic Building. The public realm masterplan is progressing to ensure that the overall Kings Square Redevelopment project remains integrated in terms of design and delivery.

OFFICER COMMENT

Sirona’s Building The property settlement between Sirona and the City has been completed. Sirona have now appointed a preferred head contractor and anticipate site works commencing within 2 months. This will initially be the erection of site fencing and preparing the Queensgate building (not carpark) for demolition, including getting all regulatory approvals in place. The former Myer building will also be partially demolished – stripped downed to basic floor plates and columns that will then be significantly modified. City’s Building The City has undertaken a comprehensive planning appraisal of the proposed new building in terms of compliance with the local planning scheme. The City has also subjected this appraisal to a peer review by an external planning consultant. The details and results of this planning work are consolidated into a separate report to the Planning Committee and Council. Public Realm Various aspects of the public realm design have been progressed since the previous Strategy and Project Development Committee. The Kings Square Project Director will present further material at the committee as part of finalising the draft masterplan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The overall project estimate for the new Civic Building, including fees and costs, is $50m.

CONSULTATION

Various activities around consultation and communication have occurred or are planned for the Kings Square project:


28 June 2017

Page 135

A joint external communication strategy between Sirona and the City has been developed that will provide an overarching framework for all external communications.

Traders around Kings Square have been contacted / visited to establish lines of communications and introduce key personnel.

It is anticipated that the first Kings Square Business Forum will be convened towards the end of June and will provide an opportunity to share information directly with traders and establish a two-way dialogue with key stakeholders.

Engagement sessions have begun with children and their carers as part of understanding community needs and developing the brief for a bespoke playscape design in Kings Square.




MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Strategy and Project Development Committee receives this report. SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



28 June 2017

Page 136


SPD1706-2 DEVELOPMENT OF 2 POINT STREET, FREMANTLE

Meeting Date: 12 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Economic Development and Marketing Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil SUMMARY Following an open tender process, the City of Fremantle approved the sale of 2 Point Street, Fremantle to SKS Land Pty Ltd (SKS) on 28 November 2012. The sale provisions include specified timeframes where certain outcomes need to be achieved by SKS. At its meeting on 26 April 2017 council resolved (FPOL1704-8) to provide an extension of time to SKS of two years, from January 2018 to January 2020, to commence development on 2 Point Street with five conditions. One of those conditions was that:

1. SKS meet the council requirement of 26 October 2016 (SPD1610-8) to place a sales office for the residential component of the development within Fremantle by July 2017.

Senior officers met with SKS on 24 May 2017 to discuss the resolution of FPOL1704-8, including the agreement for the City to lease the existing car park from January 2018 and the undeveloped portion of the site from July 2017. Officers expect those agreements will be finalised as planned. SKS reaffirmed their commitment to the project and emphasised the ongoing development of their other projects in Northbridge and Elizabeth Quay. In relation to condition 1. above, SKS have appointed Colliers to lead the sales program for the Fremantle development. SKS aim to achieve 50 pre-sales from a total of 99 apartments. SKS and Colliers prefer to launch the sales program in spring of this year, which will mean later than the council condition of July 2017. This is considered by officers to be of no major consequence and SKS report that they are committed to the deadline of January 2020 to commence development. Colliers and SKS are currently exploring locations for the sales office and are in contact with local leasing agents. This report recommends that Council adjust the condition to provide for a launch of the sales program from 1 July 2017 to no later than 1 October 2017.


28 June 2017

Page 137

BACKGROUND

After an open tender process, the City of Fremantle approved the sale of 2 Point Street, Fremantle to SKS Land Pty Ltd (SKS) in November 2012. At is meeting on 26 April 2017, council resolved: Council provide an extension of time to SKS of two years, from January 2018 to January 2020, to commence development on 2 Point Street on the conditions that:

1. SKS meet the council requirement of 26 October 2016 (SPD1610-8) to place a sales office for the residential component of the development within Fremantle by July 2017.

2. SKS lease the vacant portion of the site shown in this report to the City until January 2020 for $1 per year to allow the City to deliver an outcome that activates the site for public benefit. All future revenue generated by the City from this site will be retained by the City. All costs associated with managing the site will be the responsibility of the City.

3. At the next opportunity, SKS terminate the contract with Wilson Parking for the management of the existing Point Street car park and provide the City with an offer to manage the car park on the following basis:

a. The City charges 20% of gross revenue as a management fee to cover costs.

b. After deduction of the City’s 20% management fee, remaining revenue is split 50-50% between SKS and the City.

4. SKS must continue to meet all outstanding conditions of the original contract of sale that was adopted at the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated the 28 November 2012 (C1211-11).

5. In the event that SKS provide a legal commence the development at any time after June 2019, the agreements in recommendation 2 and 3 of this item are terminated.

Refer to FPOL1708-8 for more detailed background. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications related to the recommendations of this report. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS If council approve the recommendation of this report, officers will formally notify SKS of the extension to this condition of sale. CONSULTATION To comply with the Local Government Act 1995, the City prepared and advertised a business plan for the sale of the property in the 2012/13 financial year. Members of the community were invited to comment on the sale as part of that process.


28 June 2017

Page 138

OFFICER COMMENT

Collier’s request, on behalf of SKS, is considered acceptable. Currently, Colliers are refining the details of the sales program and are in contact with Fremantle property owners regarding the establishment of a sales office in a prominent location. SKS have stated that they are still committed to the development timelines and that the adjustment to the launch of the sales program is expected to be advantageous to the sales strategy.




MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council amend the sales condition related to the development of 2 Point Street, Fremantle to be that SKS are required to place a sales office, for the residential component of the development of 2 Point Street Fremantle, within Fremantle by 1 October 2017. Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation change October to September: CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson


28 June 2017

Page 139

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council amend the sales condition related to the development of 2 Point Street, Fremantle to be that SKS are required to place a sales office, for the residential component of the development of 2 Point Street Fremantle, within Fremantle by 1 September 2017. SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



28 June 2017

Page 140


SPD1706-3 INFORMATION REPORT - JUNE 2017

The following information report briefing sets-out where various projects listed in the Strategic Community Plan 2015-2025 are at. Given the time frame of the Plan, not all projects will be active at the same time. Some priority review may be required once the 2017/18 budget is adopted.

PART A: URBAN DESIGN PROJECTS KINGS SQUARE DEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: King’s Square Project Director See separate item. FREMANTLE OVAL REDEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: Director City Business A project budget is proposed for FY 2017/18, while a new staff resource will be available to work on advancing the City’s interests here. NORTHERN GATEWAY Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects This precinct has a number of current activities / potential projects: river crossings, Cantonment Hill, access to the waterfront and rejuvenation of the northern end of Queen Victoria Street. Cantonment Hill is dealt with below; river crossing matters will emerge from what happens to the port while waterfront access is to be considered through the South Quay concept. Work on the northern end of Queen Victoria Street is not a part of the current work program. CANTONMENT HILL Responsible officer: Manager, Parks Construction is ongoing with earthworks continuing and retaining wall and stairs being built. Program remains on target for September 2017 completion. PORT FUTURE Responsible officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects The SW Group is in the process of arranging a briefing of relevant state agency directors on how the state can assist in advancing development of activity centres. The City expects to be part of that briefing and will use the opportunity to begin lobbying for South Quay / Victoria Quay to move forward. At the time of writing no dates had been canvassed. Officers have met with the Freight and Logistics Council of WA (chaired by Nicole Lockwood) who are bringing the various parties involved together in order to get coordinated advice to government. Work on the second harbour is moving forward with a


28 June 2017

Page 141

taskforce being established within the state. The inner harbour would benefit from a similar taskforce with one or two positions being common to both taskforces. In order to advance South Quay an early priority for the second harbour would be to construct the car delivery facility or have this function be undertaken at another port. A project budget is proposed for FY 2017/18, while a staff resource will be available to work on advancing the City’s interests, as development of the inner and second harbours gathers momentum. VICTORIA QUAY / SOUTH QUAY Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects A staff resource will be available to initiate work on this from FY 2017/18, with any needed monies being included under the Port Future budget. How these projects develop is likely to fall out of governance structures established to develop the inner and second harbours – see Port Future discussion above. STATION PRECINCT REDEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects It is anticipated that initial planning work to the station precinct will be linked with the Victoria Quay / South Quay project both in terms of urban integration and timing. POINT STREET REDEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: Director City Business See separate item. FISHING BOAT HARBOUR REDEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects The Italian Club has undertaken some preliminary feasibility work for their site and has requested an opportunity to brief elected members. The scheduled May 2017 briefing has been postponed at the Club’s request. No new date has yet been requested.

PART B: TRANSPORT PROJECTS FREIGHT LINK Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects On 8 June Main Roads WA published its updated Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2016-2019. This plan shows “Leach Hwy – Upgrade of High Street between Carrington St and Sterling Hwy” as a development project with a contract value of “$100-$120m.” The schedule shows expressions of interest are expected to be called in April 2018, with works commencing in January 2019 and finishing in December 2020. The project officer is Max Bouga (9323-6210). Officers have developed and presented to elected members indicative designs for the High Street upgrade, including the High Street / Stirling Highway intersection. City officers have met with local members of parliament and are seeking a meeting with Main Roads WA. A verbal report on this design and the outcomes of meetings held will be presented at the meeting. A draft freight movement strategy is being finalised and will initially be presented to the Port Futures Working Group for feedback.


28 June 2017

Page 142

LIGHT RAIL ~ CONNECTING FREO WITH REGIONAL GROWTH CENTRES Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects Heavy rail Officers presented informally with elected members regarding the state government’s Metronet proposal and possible implications to the City. The Thornlie extension is shown on Metronet as coming to a station at South Lake and then directly onto Fremantle. The benefits this brings to Fremantle were recognised at the briefing Budget provision for both heavy and light rail is proposed for the 2017/18 financial year. Light rail The SW Group report on light rail is progressing and officers have reviewed a preliminary report (prior to findings being included). It is anticipated that a draft report will be provided for review in late June 2017. Findings will be presented to elected members at the first available opportunity after this. In anticipation of the SW Group investigation findings, officers have been undertaking preliminary investigations of routes using a development approach. GREATER FREMANTLE PARKING PLAN Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects Officers are continuing to work on the projects and issues as outlined in prior reports. INTEGRATED ROAD HIERARCHY Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects This work is currently scheduled for 2017/18 financial year.

PART C: ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS ONE PLANET Responsible officer: Manager Strategic Projects The City intends to sign up to the Cities Power Partnership, a national local government program run by the Climate Council. The program aims to share knowledge and celebrate emissions reduction measures of local councils across Australia. Within six months of joining the program, the City will identify five actions that they will strive to achieve. These actions can align with existing actions under the One Planet Strategy. The City is required to complete a simple survey on the progress of identified actions every six months. There are no financial implications associated with the program, and no deadlines or penalties if the City fails to progress on identified actions. The next project milestone will be signing up to the program prior to the launch date of 19 July 2017. Additional One Planet updates include:

Adoption of the Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law is underway. Next project milestone: advertising expected to start in mid-June

Use of the Sustainable Events Guidelines and Checklist has been reviewed. Next project milestone: updates to the Events Package completed by the end of June 2017.

One of two Living Smart courses completed. Next project milestone: second course to be run in November / December 2017.


28 June 2017

Page 143

Program for a new ‘Sustainability Walkabout’ through Fremantle completed. The walk is aimed at children and families and will be run out of the Meeting Place. No further milestones.

One Planet Action Plan. Next milestone: report 2017 action plan to council following adoption of 2017/18 budget.

FREMANTLE ENERGY PLAN Responsible officer: Manager Strategic Projects Corporate Energy Plan: Preparation of the Corporate Energy Plan is underway and an informal presentation was delivered to elected members on 6 June. The next project milestone will be the completion of the draft report by the end of June 2017. The final report is expected in late July 2017. Solar Farm South Fremantle landfill site see separate item KNUTSFORD STREET REDEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: Manager Strategic Planning LandCorp has been considering conditions for a formal offer to purchase the depot site from the City. LandCorp still appears committed to acquiring the site and demonstrating leading edge sustainability initiatives in line with Council’s resolution dated 22 February 2017; however, it has deferred making a formal offer. LandCorp’s Executive have asked its staff for further advice to provide a greater level of confidence that LandCorp can purchase the site at market value while balancing sustainability initiatives, appropriate built form and commercial imperatives. This additional work should be concluded by the end of June. URBAN FOREST PLAN Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects The Urban Forest Plan is a detailed plan building on the baseline data from the 2001 Green Plan review. Cost estimates and final document content are being finalised. Officers expect to bring the Greening Fremantle Strategy 2020 and the Urban Forest Plan to council in the July round of meetings. A presentation of the draft Strategy and Plan will be made at Committee on the night. This presentation includes a financing strategy. GREEN SPACES Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects The final concept design of the Hilton Pocket Park was approved by Council in April 2017. Indicative costs for FY 2017/2018 are $50,000. Hilton Pocket Park detailed design has begun with a site survey completed. A budget of $15,000 has been requested for concept design for a pocket park in White Gum Valley in the 2017/2018 financial year.


28 June 2017

Page 144

BIODIVERSITY AND GREEN LINKAGES Responsible officer: Manager, Parks A report will be going to Council in June to adopt the principles for the Verge Policy. This will help the City implement green linkages through verges within the City. The winter tree planting program is also commencing with the planting of 500 trees throughout the City. CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION FRAMEWORK Responsible officer: Manager, Parks No update at this time STRATEGIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Responsible officer: Manager, Sustainable Services An internal review of current operational waste processes and procedures is progressing, this will provide background information for the SWMP and assist in providing additional context for the analysis and review of the results of the impending FOGO trial through the SMRC (October 2017-June 2018).

PART D: OTHER PROJECTS NEW OPERATIONS CENTRE Responsible officer: Manager Assets The project proposal for a new operations centre (2 Jones St) is currently on hold subject to further direction from Council. BOUNDARY REVIEWS Responsible officer: Director City Business No update at this time COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ONE/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council endorse the indicative high level concepts for the High Street Upgrade between Carrington Street and Stirling Highway as shown in the diagrams presented to the June 2017 Strategy and Project Development Committee (High Street Concept Version 2 Amherst Street to Carrington Street, sheets 1 and 2 dated 09/06/2017), for the purpose of progressing discussions between the City and State Government.


28 June 2017

Page 145

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TWO/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr R Pemberton The information report for June 2017 be received. SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



28 June 2017

Page 146

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

Nil.

COUNCIL ITEMS

C1706-1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - MAY 2017

Meeting Date: 28 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager of Finance Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Statement of Comprehensive Income – 31 May 2017

Statement of Financial Activity by Nature and Type – 31 May 2017 Statement of Financial Position – 31 May 2017 Statement of Net Current Assets – 31 May 2017 Schedule of Accounts Paid – 31 May 2017 Cash and Investment Summary Report – 31 May 2017 Debtors Outstanding Report – 31 May 2017 Payment Report (EFT and Cheque) (viewed electronically) - May 2017 Payment Report (Purchasing Cards) for April and May 2017 (viewed electronically)

SUMMARY

This report provides an analysis of financial performance for May 2017 based on the following statements: • Statement of Comprehensive Income; • Statement of Financial Activity; and • Statement of Financial Position. An analysis of financial performance based on The Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1) shows an actual year to date operating surplus of $10,891,121 a favourable variance of $4,712,400 compared with the current budgeted surplus of $6,178,721. An analysis of financial performance based on The Statement of Financial Activity (Attachment 2) shows that the end of year forecast of a municipal cash surplus of $648,330 a favourable variance of $648,330 compared with the current budgeted surplus of $0 at February budget review.


28 June 2017

Page 147

The end of year forecast capital works expenditure of $14,663,508, an unfavourable variance of $607,105 compared with the current budgeted capital expenditure of $15,270,613 at February budget review. An analysis of financial position based on Statement of Financial Position (Attachment 3) and Statement of Net Current Assets (Attachment 4) shows that the City held $38.64 million (excluding $305,412 held in trust) in cash and short term investments as at 31 May 2017. The end of year forecast of cash and cash equivalents is $53.29 million, including $42.30 million in Reserves and $10.99 million in unrestricted cash. The level of the City’s unrestricted cash is continuing to decline on an annual basis.

BACKGROUND

The following comments are provided on the key elements of Council’s year to date financial performance as at 31 May 2017. 1. Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1) Actual Financial Performance to 31 May 2017

- Actual operating income of $72.28 million is $33,822 more than the year-to-date

budgeted income of $72.24 million (refer to explanation within the report).

- Actual operating expenditure of $61.39 million is $4.68 million less than the year-

to-date budgeted expenditure of $66.07 million (refer to explanation within the report).

- Actual operating surplus of $10.89 million is $4.71 million more than the year-to-

date budgeted operating surplus of $6.18 million (a favourable variance). 2. Capital Works (The Statement of Financial Activity - Attachment 2)

- Actual capital works expenditure of $8.71 million (excluding committed

expenditure of $3,553,258) is $1.89m less than the budgeted capital works expenditure of $10.60 million (an unfavourable variance). The city has capital budget remaining of $6.60 million.

COMMENT

Operating Income, Operating Expenditure and Capital Expenditure graphs provide a comparison of how actual income/expenditure compares to budget and actuals for the previous financial year. Comments are provided on each graph regarding the actual end of year financial position.


28 June 2017

Page 148

Operating Income (excluding profit on disposal of assets)

Note: Operating income includes: rates, service charges, operating grants,

subsides and contributions, reimbursement income, fees and charges, interest earnings and other revenue. Non-operating (Capital Grant) income has been excluded for operating income.

Actual operating income of $72.28 million is $33,822 more than the budgeted

income of $72.24 million (a favourable variance).

Operating Expenditure (excluding loss on disposal of assets)

Note: Loss on sale of assets has been excluded from the Operating expenditure.


28 June 2017

Page 149

Actual operating expenditure of $61.39 million is $4.68 million less than the budgeted expenditure of $66.07 million (a favourable variance).

Capital Expenditure

Actual capital expenditure of $8.70 million is $1,89 million less than the year-to date budgeted expenditure of $10.60 million (an unfavourable variance).

MAJOR VARIANCE ANALYSIS At its meeting on 30 June 2016 (Item SC1606-1 refers), Council adopted nature and type as the preferred reporting format with 10% and $25,000 threshold as the levels for explanation of variances. The following is an explanation of significant Operating and Capital variances identified in the Statement of Comprehensive Income and Statement of Financial Activity:

Major Variance Items

YTD Actual to Budget Variance

Employee costs - Agency Labour Unfavourable variance of $181,025 is mainly due to the engagement of agency labour in Waste Collection team, Building Facilities team and Construction and Maintenance team to cover the vacant positions and provide additional labour force to maintain the service level.

Unfavourable

$181,025 Over budget

37.73%


28 June 2017

Page 150

Cash Investments The graph below summarises the maturity profile of the City’s investments at market value as at 31 May 2017.

The chart below is showing the cash investments at the carbon support/non-support position financial institutions at 31 May 2017. There are $23.9 million of investments with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon, representing 62% of the total investments.

Note: Reference for financial institutions not supporting the unlocking of carbon is (http://www.marketforces.org.au/). Forecast on Capital Expenditure The City’s capital expenditure is predicted to be less by $607,015 from a budget of $15.27 million to a forecast of $14.66 million. The following comments are provided on material project variances between the current budget and forecast.

http://www.marketforces.org.au/


28 June 2017

Page 151

Project 10325 Refurbish Cantonment Hill Naval Store to heritage standards and public access requirements: The forecast for this project was reduced from $680,000 to $163,000, a variance of $517,000. There is no impact on municipal cash surplus as it was budgeted to be funded from the Cantonment Hill Master Plan reserve. This project will be carried forward to 2017/18. Project 10902 Installation of an EV Charging Station: The forecast for this project was reduced from $169,970 to $8,000, a reduction of $161,970 in line with the year-to-date actuals. The project has been placed on hold. The funding was budgeted from reserves. This has no impact on cash surplus. Project 10469 Install New Lighting Equipment Road Reserve: Forecast reduced by $55,000 due to the delay in supplies and a delay from Western Power. The balance has been carried forward to the budget in 2017/18. Purchase Card Expenditure Reports April and May 2017 purchase card transaction reports have been provided.


This report is provided to enable Council to assess how revenue and expenditure is tracking against the budget. It is also provided to identify any budget issues which Council should be informed of. Year to date performance to the period ended 31 May 2017:

A municipal cash surplus of $4.12 million (a favourable variance of $9.97 million);

An operating surplus of $10.89 million (a favourable variance of $4.71 million); and

A capital works expenditure of $8.70 million (an unfavourable variance of $1.89 million).

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 34 requires a monthly financial activity statement along with explanation of any material variances to be prepared and presented to an ordinary meeting of council. Under section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 12(1);

a) Council has delegated authority to the CEO under item 3.2, Accounts for Payment - Authorisation of, to make payments from the municipal fund and trust fund.

The lists of accounts paid are presented in accordance with Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 13(1) and (3)


28 June 2017

Page 152

CONSULTATION

Nil

OFFICER COMMENT

This report is provided to Council to assess operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities in the 2016/17 adopted budget.

The YTD operating performance for the City of Fremantle for the period ended 31 May 2017 resulted in an overall $9.97 million favourable variance being identified, which are mainly due to the timing difference of the projects. Capital projects were under year to date budget by $1.89m. Our end of year operating deficit is predicted to decrease from $3.87 million to $2.92 million and municipal cash surplus is predicted to increase from the original/current budget of $0 to $648,330.


Absolute Majority Required

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That Council: 1. Receive the City of Fremantle Financial Report including the Statement of

Comprehensive Income, Statement of Financial Activity, Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Net Current Assets for the period ended 31 May 2017

2. Receive the payments authorised under delegated authority and detailed in

the list of invoices for May 2017, presented as per the summaries set out in the attached schedules and include creditors that have been paid in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.


28 June 2017

Page 153


For Against



28 June 2017

Page 154

C1706-3 REPORT TO COUNCIL - AWARD OF TENDER FCC491.17 BUILDING MAINTENANCE

Meeting Date: 28 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager City Assets Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Tender evaluation matrix

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to consider tender number FCC491/17 for Building Maintenance. This report recommends that council accepts the tenders submitted for the eight Building Maintenance scopes of work. The tender evaluation was undertaken using the selection criteria provided in the tender document.

BACKGROUND

Tender FCC491/17 for Building Maintenance services was advertised on Wednesday 1 March 2017 and closed on Friday 17 March 2017. Tender documents requested pricing for 8 scopes of work. Tenders were accepted for all scopes of work or specific scopes of work. The scopes of work required are:

1. Scope A - Glazing 2. Scope B - Asbestos 3. Scope C - General Building 4. Scope D - Pest Control 5. Scope E - Fencing 6. Scope F - Painting 7. Scope G - Fire Services 8. Scope H - Roofing

A total of 26 tender responses were received across the various scopes, with a number submitting an offer for more than one scope of work, for the City’s consideration. Based on council officer assessment of relevant qualitative and quantitative criteria the highest ranking tenderers have been recommended to be engaged to undertake the maintenance works. The contract is for a two year period with the first year being based on the fixed tendered price and the second year being subject to a rise and fall price variation adjustment using CPI. The financial spend under this contract is estimated at $1 217 664 excluding GST for the two years. Projected spend for the first year is $604 000 excluding GST with recognition CPI will apply in the second year to offset the remaining allocated budget.


28 June 2017

Page 155


The table below summarises the available budget and recommended tender price by the recommended tenderers for the maintenance services:

Description Expenditure Budget

Budget

Proposed budget for 17 / 18 Financial Year $1 502 563

Expenditure

Expenditure incurred to date: $0

Activities

Tender number FCC491/17 (forecast expenditure for 2017 / 2018 financial year) – excludes Electrical and Plumbing services

$604 000

Total expenditure (forecasted) $604 000

Balance $898 563

Note: Remaining $898 563 will be required for Electrical Services and Plumbing Services which did not form part of this tender. Sufficient funding provision has been allocated in the 2017 / 2018 budget to deliver the services within budget. A budget of approximately $613 664 will be required for financial year 2018 / 2019. This figure includes a CPI increase of approximately 1.6% for the second contracted year.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Tenders were invited in accordance with section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and the tendering procedures and evaluation complied with part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

CONSULTATION

Nil

OFFICER COMMENT

Detail Tender FCC491/17 for Building Maintenance services across a number of City properties and locations was advertised on Wednesday 1 March 2017 and closed on Friday 17 March 2017.


28 June 2017

Page 156

Essential details of the contract are outlined below:

Contract type Schedule of Rates

Contract duration Two Years

Commencement date On or about 1 July 2017

Completion date 30 June 2019

Tender evaluation

Tender submissions were received from the following contractors and evaluated by the tender evaluation panel:

Wizard Plumbing, Gas and Drainage;

West Coast Construction and Demolition;

Maxwell, Robinson and Phelps;

Minc Services WA;

RKM Building Group;

Protek 24/7;

Protector Fire Services;

Pro Spec Group Pty Ltd;

Perrott Painting;

Orixon Pty Ltd;

MCL Commercial Services;

M Construction WA Pty Ltd;

JDS Building & Maintenance;

HECS Fire;

Jasmin Carpentry & Maintenance;

Fremantle Glass Pty Ltd;

Essential Fire Services Pty Ltd;

Enviro Infrastructure Pty Ltd;

Distinctive Pest Control;

Devco Holdings Pty Ltd;


28 June 2017

Page 157

DCFM Australia Pty Ltd;

Emso Maintenance;

Modus Property;

Bug Busters Pty Ltd;

AWB Building Co; and

AE Hoskins & Sons.

The tender evaluation panel establishes whether the tender submissions conform to the conditions for tendering and selects a suitably qualified and experienced contractor. The tender evaluation panel comprised:

Purchasing Officer;

Asset Project Officer;

Coordinator Building Services; and

Asset Technical Officer. Tenderers were required to disclose information that might be relevant to an actual or potential conflict of interest and disclose if they had any relationship with City of Fremantle employees involved in the tender process. Members of the tender evaluation panel are required to disclose any actual or perceived interest with any of the tenderers. No disclosures were made. To obtain the broadest possible comparison base, each of the tenders was evaluated against the following tender selection criteria and was in turn graded in the tender evaluation matrix.

Item No Description Weighting

1 Relevant Experiance 25%

2 Skills & Key Personnel 20%

3 Demonstrated Understanding 30%

4 Price 25%

All tender submissions received were conforming to the tender requirements. The tender submitted by Fremantle Glass scored the highest rating for Scope of Work A – Glazing with 70 points. The tender submitted by West Coast Construction and Demolition Pty Ltd scored the highest rating for Scope of Work B – Asbestos Removal with 44 points. The tender submitted by Emso Maintenance scored the highest rating for Scope of Work C – General Building with 82 points. The tender submitted by Complete Pest Control scored the highest rating for Scope of Work D – Pest Control with 78 points.


28 June 2017

Page 158

The tender submitted by Emso Maintenance scored the highest rating for Scope of Work E – Fencing with 77 points. The tender submitted by Perrott Painting scored the highest rating for Scope of Work F – Painting with 85 points. The tender submitted by HECS Fire scored the highest rating for Scope of Work G – Fire Services with 70 points. The tender submitted by Pro Spec Group scored the highest rating for Scope of Work H – Roofing with 88 points. The remaining tender submissions received lower scores. The recommended tenderers were assessed as having the experience, resources and demonstrated understanding and management processes to safely undertake the works and deliver a high level of service as described in the specification, in accordance with the terms of the tender document. The evaluation process determined that the tenders from Fremantle Glass, West Coast Construction and Demolition Pty Ltd, Emso Maintenance, Complete Pest Management, Perrott Painting Maintenance, HECS Fire and Pro Spec Group provided a conforming tender. A number of the recommended providers have previously worked with the City on various related projects and have provided a good level of service that met the City’s requirement. Reference checks indicate that the recommended tenderers have provided satisfactory service delivery to their customers on similar services and projects, and will be suitable suppliers to the City of Fremantle. Environmental considerations All respondents and recommended tenderers declared compliance with the four principles of NBIA and do not have contracts with suppliers profiting from offshore detention. Risk consideration

An assessment undertaken by Dun and Bradstreet indicates that all the recommended tenderers have the financial capacity to undertake the contract.

There are no strategic or corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report. Specific risk assessments have been developed for the services requested in the tender and will be used on the safe delivery of these services. Comment All the recommended tenderers scored well against the qualitative and quantitative criteria required to safely deliver each scope of work.. The tenderers provide the City with the ability to deliver good value for money outcomes for the services provided during the contracted period.


28 June 2017

Page 159

Subject to acceptance of the tender, the proposed implementation program is scheduled below:

Award contract: 1 July 2017 Commence services: On or about 1 July 2017 Completion: 30 June 2019




MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Council award tender FCC491/17 for a tendered price of $1 217 644 (excluding GST) for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2019 on the following basis;

a) Glazing Works: Fremantle Glass.

b) General Building Maintenance and Fencing: Emso Maintenance

c) Pest Control: Complete Pest Management

d) Painting: Perrott Painting Maintenance

e) Fire Services: HECS Fire, and

f) Roofing: Pro Spec Group


For Against



28 June 2017

Page 160

ATTACHMENT 1 Tender Evaluation Matrix for Scope of Work A – Glazing

Service Delivery

Plan Relevant

Experience

Key Personnel

Skills and

Resources

Demonstrated

Understanding Price

Total

Score

Tenderer (Company Name) 25 20 30 25 100

Wizard Plumbing Gas and Drainage 0 0 0 25.0 25.0

Minc Services WA 0 0 0 17.0 17.0

JDS Building Maintenance 0 10 0 15.0 25.0

Fremantle Glass 15 15 18 22.0 70.0


28 June 2017

Page 161

ATTACHMENT 2 Tender Evaluation Matrix for Scope of Work B – Asbestos

Service Delivery

Plan Relevant

Experience

Key Personnel

Skills and

Resources

Demonstrated

Understanding Price Total Score



West Coast Contruction and

Demolition Pty Ltd 13 15 0 15.9 43.9


RKM Building Group WA 0 15 0 15.9 30.9

Orixon Pty Ltd 13 8 0 6.8 27.8



28 June 2017

Page 162

ATTACHMENT 3 Tender Evaluation Matrix for Scope of Work C – General Building

Service Delivery

Plan Relevant

Experience

Key Personnel

Skills and

Resources

Demonstrated






Emso Maintenance 21 13 23 25.0 82.0



Protek 24/7 20 16 17 19.0 72.0

Pro Spec Group 15 15 20 22.4 72.4

Orixon Pty Ltd 15 10 15 18.4 58.4

MCL Commercial Services 12 10 15 6.0 43.0

M Construction WA Pty Ltd 20 14 24 7.9 65.9


Jasmin Carpentry and Maintenance 16 10 17 9.7 52.7

Enviro Contracting 20 15 24 14.1 73.1

Devco Building 21 16 15 13.9 65.9

DCFM Australia 15 10 18 14.0 57.0

Modus Property 20 17 25 15.1 77.1

AWB Building Co 15 8 15 15.8 53.8

AE Hoskins and Sons 21 16 24 20.0 81.0


28 June 2017

Page 163

ATTACHMENT 4 Tender Evaluation Matrix for Scope of Work D – Pest Control

Service Delivery

Plan Relevant

Experience

Key Personnel

Skills and

Resources

Demonstrated




Maxwell Robinson & Phelps 21 16 21 14.1 72.1



Complete Pest Control 21 14 18 25.0 78.0

Bug Busters 20 14 22 16.5 72.5


28 June 2017

Page 164

ATTACHMENT 5 Tender Evaluation Matrix for Scope of Work E – Fencing

Service Delivery

Plan Relevant

Experience

Key Personnel

Skills and

Resources

Demonstrated






Emso Maintenance 20 10 22 25.0 77.0



Protek 24/7 0 8 0 19.2 27.2

Pro Spec Group 12 15 18 23.7 68.7

Orixon Pty Ltd 15 0 0 19.5 34.5


Jasmin Carpentry and Maintenance 12 0 0 9.7 21.7


DCFM Australia 12 8 0 14.3 34.3

Modus Property 20 14 24 15.9 73.9

AWB Building Co 0 0 0 16.6 16.6


28 June 2017

Page 165

ATTACHMENT 6 Tender Evaluation Matrix for Scope of Work F – Painting

Service Delivery

Plan Relevant

Experience

Key Personnel

Skills and

Resources

Demonstrated








Protek 24/7 12 0 0 17.7 29.7

Perrott Painting Maintenance 22 18 20 25.0 85.0

Orixon Pty Ltd 12 0 0 19.0 31.0





Devco Building 14 8 0 13.3 35.3


Modus Property 18 12 12 15.3 57.3

AWB Building Co 18 12 17 16.1 63.1



28 June 2017

Page 166

ATTACHMENT 7 Tender Evaluation Matrix for Scope of Work G – Fire Services

Service Delivery

Plan Relevant

Experience

Key Personnel

Skills and

Resources

Demonstrated






Protek 24/7 0 0 0 19.6 19.6

Protector Fire Services 20 12 20 8.6 60.6


Hecs Fire 20 12 20 18.0 70.0

Essential Fire Services 21 14 17 6.7 58.7


28 June 2017

Page 167

ATTACHMENT 8 Tender Evaluation Matrix for Scope of Work H – Roofing

Service Delivery

Plan Relevant

Experience

Key Personnel

Skills and

Resources

Demonstrated








Protek 24/7 20 15 15 21.3 71.3

Pro Spec Group 20 18 25 25.0 88.0

Orixon Pty Ltd 12 0 0 20.5 32.5






Modus Property 20 17 25 16.9 78.9

AWB Building Co 20 10 18 17.6 65.6



28 June 2017

Page 168

Cr I Waltham vacated the chamber at 9.08 pm during the following item and returned at 9.10 pm prior to determination.

C1706-4 ADOPTION OF BUDGET 2017/2018

Meeting Date: Council, 28th June 2017 Responsible Officer: Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Annual Budget 2017/2018

SUMMARY

To consider and adopt the Municipal, Trust and Reserve Fund budget for the 2017/2018 financial year together with supporting schedules, including imposition of rates and minimum payments, adoption of fees and charges, setting of elected members fees for the year and other consequential matters arising from the budget papers. The budget document has been prepared in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 and Australian Accounting Standards. This report recommends that Council adopt the 2017/2018 Budget which comprises Statutory Financial Statements, setting of rates and associated rate charges, annual fees and charges, use of reserve funds and Elected Member fees and allowances.

BACKGROUND

The draft 2017/2018 budget has been compiled based on principles contained in the Strategic Community Plan and Corporate Business Plan. The 2017/2018 draft budget has been prepared in accordance with the presentations made to Councillors’ at budget workshops held between May to June 2017. The presented budget for 2017/2018 will deliver a net balanced budget at the end of financial year (Rate Setting Statement). The proposed differential general rates and minimum payments were approved by the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee (under delegation) on 10 May 2017 and advertised for public comment. No submissions were received by 5 June 2017 when the public comment period closed.


The report sets the 2017/2018 City of Fremantle budget implications.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The draft budget 2017/2018 has been prepared in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 and Australian Accounting Standards.


28 June 2017

Page 169

Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires that no later than 31 August in each financial year, or such extended time as the Minister allows, each local government is to prepare and adopt, (Absolute Majority required) in the form and manner prescribed, a budget for its municipal fund for the financial year ending on the next following 30 June.

Divisions 5 and 6 of Part 6 of the Local Government Act 1995 refer to the setting of budgets and raising of rates and charges. The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 details the form and content of the budget. The draft 2017/2018 budget as presented is considered to meet statutory requirements.

CONSULTATION

While no specific consultation has occurred on the draft 2017/2018 budget, community consultation and engagement has previously occurred during development of the Strategic Community Plan from which the Corporate Business Plan was developed. In addition, the proposed differential rates were advertised in The Herald on Saturday 13 May 2017. No comments were received. Extensive internal consultation has occurred between all Directorates and through workshops with elected members.

OFFICER COMMENT

The main features of the draft budget include:

The budget has been prepared with a 1.9% average general rate increase in line with financial plans contained in Plan for the Future. This increase applies to all differential general rate categories. A further detail analysis on the proposed rates is below.

The City will generate $43.9m in general rate income, an increase of $1.6m on last year. The rate income generated by the City for this budget comprises 59% of total revenue sources.

Total budget income is $90.6m, comprised of $3.2m in capital grants, $12.7 in proceeds from sale of assets and $74.7 in operating income (including rate income).

Total budget expenditure is $101.3m, comprised of $20m in capital expenditure, $79.6m in operating expenditure and $1.7m in loan repayments.

The capital works programme (inclusive of carried forward projects) totals $20m, which is being funded by;

o $3.3m from grants and contributions,

o $12.8m transferred from reserves,

o $3.9m from municipal funds and proceeds from sale of assets.

A highlight of key capital projects to be undertaken is reported on below. The full capital works programme is contained within attached budget document.

There are no new loan borrowings proposed for next financial year

Reserve funds are expected to decrease by $2.9m during 2017/18 Significant transfers to reserves are:

o $12.65m to Investment Reserve from Proceeds from Sale of Land

Significant transfers from reserve are:


28 June 2017

Page 170

o $10.6m from Investment Reserve for the construction of Administration

Building

o $2.2m from Investment Reserve for the Administration Building

demolition

o $990k from Stan Reilly Reserve for the construction of the Stan Reilly car

park

o $1.1m from Cantonment Hill Master Plan Reserve for various capital and

operating projects at Cantonment Hill

Operating Budget The total operating revenue budget totals $74.7m and is comprised of:

o Rates

Total revenue from rates (general and specified area rates) will increase by $1.6m (from $42.4m in 2016/17 to $44m in 2017/18)

o Operating grants, subsidies and contributions

Total revenue from operating grants, subsidies and contributions will decrease by $300k (from $3.8m in 2016/17 to $3.5m in 2017/18)

o Fees and charges

Fees and charges have generally increased by 3%. Total revenue from fees and charges will decrease by $2m (from $25.5m in 2016/17 to $23.5m in 2017/18). Details on individual fee and charge proposed are provided in the Fees and Charges schedule that forms part of the Annual Budget document.

o Interest Earnings

Total revenue from interest earnings will increase by $172k (from $1.8m in 2016/17 to $2m in 2017/18).

o Other revenue

Total revenue from other revenue will decrease by $164k (from $1.5m in 2016/17 to $1.3m in 2017/18).


28 June 2017

Page 171

The total operating expenses budget totals $79.6m and is comprised of:

o Employee costs

Total expenses from employee costs will decrease by $249k (from $37.4m in 2016/17 to $37.2m in 2017/18)

o Materials and contracts

Total expenses from materials and contracts will increase by $2.3m (from $26.3m in 2016/17 to $28.6m in 2017/18)

o Utility Charges

Total expenses from Utility charges will decrease by $319k (from $2.3m in 2016/17 to $2m in 2017/18).

o Depreciation

Total expenses from depreciation will increase by $294k (from $7.2m in 2016/17 to $7.5m in 2017/18).

o Interest expenses

Total expenses from interest expense will decrease by $69k (from $845k in 2016/17 to $776k in 2017/18).

o Insurance expenses

Total expenses from insurance expense will decrease by $123k (from $753k in 2016/17 to $630k in 2017/18).

o Other expenses

Total expenses from other expenses will decrease by $121k (from $3m in 2016/17 to $2.9m in 2017/18).

Rates - 59%, $44,083,813

Operating grants, subsidies and

contributions - 5%, $3,509,518

Fees and charges - 31%, $23,493,473

Interest earnings - 3%, $2,006,756

Other revenue - 2%, $1,281,170

Operating Revenue Sources Budget 2017/2018

Rates - 59% Operating grants, subsidies and contributions - 5%

Fees and charges - 31% Interest earnings - 3%

Other revenue - 2%


28 June 2017

Page 172

Operating Projects The operating budget 2017/2018 includes the following key operating projects:

An additional $597k towards improvements to management of natural resource areas, provision of a response team for parks and suburbs and to manage fly tipping across the district.

Additional $70k towards improvements in the management of the recycling centre attached to the City’s operations centre.

Additional funding of $160k to improve maintenance of large verges in the eastern suburban areas.

$3.4m for the provision of services provided by the Fremantle Arts Centre.

$1m for the provision of festivals during the year.

$3m for the provision of activities and services at the Fremantle Leisure Centre.

$690k for the Fremantle Legal Centre services.

$1.67m for the provision of Library service for Fremantle and East Fremantle communities.

$3.71m towards maintenance of the community’s buildings.

$2.1m towards maintenance of our roads and community assets.

$5.4m for the maintenance of our parks and open spaces.

$7.2m for delivery of our waste management services.

Improve local parks (Hilton & WGV) $130k.

Add to lawn area at Bathers Beach $32k

Employee costs - 47%, $37,168,192

Materials and contracts - 36%, $28,572,723

Utility charges - 2%, $1,999,796

Depreciation on non-current assets - 9%,

$7,528,936

Interest expenses - 1%, $776,086

Insurance expenses - 1%, $630,198

Other expenditure - 4%, $2,952,664

Operating Expenses Budget 2017/2018

Employee costs - 47% Materials and contracts - 36%

Utility charges - 2% Depreciation on non-current assets - 9%

Interest expenses - 1% Insurance expenses - 1%

Other expenditure - 4%


28 June 2017

Page 173

Provide overflow parking at Leighton Beach $70k.

Provide temporary car park North Fremantle Town Centre $40k

High Tide Project - $205k - A public art exhibition presented as part of Fremantle Festival. Includes large scale outdoor works and in gallery works. The event will focus on activation of the west end and is collaboration between the city, state government, federal government, Notre Dame, UWA and BID.

Capital Projects The capital budget 2017/2018 includes the following key operating projects:

Commence the construction of the joint community and sports facility at Fremantle Park $1.8m.

Commence the construction of the new Civic/Library and Administration Centre $10.6m.

Road Improvement works to the value of $1.9m.

New Car Park on South Terrace (former Stan Reilly site) $990k.

New and upgraded footpaths $421k.

Bike Network improvements $68k.

Cantonment Hill redevelopment $1.07m.

Replacement of play equipment $150k.

Buildings - 69%, $13,773,700

Equipment - 2%, $454,000

Furniture and Fittings - 4%, $857,000

Roads - 10%, $1,967,360

Carparks - 5%, $1,005,000

Drainage - 1%, $160,000

Footpaths - 2%, $421,360

Bike Network - 1%, $68,000 Parks and Open Space -

6%, $1,289,100

Capital Expenditure Budget 2017/2018

Buildings - 69% Equipment - 2% Furniture and Fittings - 4%

Roads - 10% Carparks - 5% Drainage - 1%

Footpaths - 2% Bike Network - 1% Parks and Open Space - 6%


28 June 2017

Page 174

Proposed Rates The valuation of GRV rate properties is undertaken by the State Government’s Landgate Valuation Services on a three yearly cycle. For budget 2017/2018 rate valuations have been revalued for all GRV rated properties. The valuation is based on gross rental values as at 1 August 2015. The revaluation provided a general 3.8% decrease in residential values. In order to make the GRV rate increase as equitable as possible across the various rating classifications the Rate in the Dollar was set based on a median sample of rate valuations for each category. The calculated Rate in the Dollar was then applied to all ratepayers within the rating category. This can result in considerable variation within individual ratepayers’ accounts, due to the varying valuation movements, which is unavoidable. Council endorsed at its committee meeting held on 10 May 2017 the advertising of the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the proposed differential rates and minimum payments for 2017/2018. The rates modelling has been progressed based upon an average general increase of 1.9%. An advertisement calling for public submissions was placed in ‘The Herald’ on the 13 May 2017. The deadline for submissions was 5 June 2017. At the expiration of this statutory advertising period no submissions were received. The proposed 2017/2018 rating structure, nominated Rates in the Dollar and minimum payments which are recommended for consideration are outlined this schedule:

PROPOSED ADVERTISED

Differential Rating Category Minimum Payment

Rate in the Dollar

Minimum Payment

Rate in the Dollar

Residential Improved $1,283 0.070000 $1,283 0.070125

Residential Vacant $1,260 0.108910 $1,156 0.098900

Commercial and Industrial General

$1,283 0.077894 $1,283 0.077894

Commercial and Industrial Vacant

$1,283 0.139998 $1,283 0.140247

City Centre Commercial $1,283 0.082371 $1,283 0.082371

Nightclubs $1,283 0.139999 $1,283 0.140248

The following differential rate categories have changes in the proposed rate to be levied and the advertised rate in the dollar:

Residential Improved A reduction in the Rate in the Dollar of 0.000125 (-0.18%) is proposed. The change is as a result of further rates modelling calculations being undertaken on an individual rate category basis. In order to make the GRV rate increase as equitable as possible across this differential the Rate in the Dollar was set based on a median sample of rate valuations. The adjusted Rate in the Dollar ensures a maximum of 1.9% average rate increase is yielded from this differential.

Residential Vacant


28 June 2017

Page 175

An increase in the Rate in the Dollar of 0.010010 (10%) is proposed. The change is as a result of further rates modelling calculations being undertaken on an individual rate category basis. In order to make the GRV rate increase as equitable as possible across this differential the Rate in the Dollar was set based on a median sample of rate valuations. An increase in the Minimum Payment of $104 (9%) is proposed. The change is to commence aligning the Minimum Payment for this rate category with other differential rate categories. Both adjusted Rate in the Dollar and Minimum Payment reflect the City’s intention to encourage development of all vacant rateable land to be in the best interests of the community.

Commercial and Industrial Vacant A reduction in the Rate in the Dollar of 0.000249 (-0.18%) is proposed. The change is as a result of further rates modelling calculations being undertaken on an individual rate category basis. In order to make the GRV rate increase as equitable as possible across this differential the Rate in the Dollar was set based on a median sample of rate valuations. The adjusted Rate in the Dollar ensures this differential is not twice the lowest differential general rate (Residential Improved) in accordance with 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995.

Nightclubs A reduction in the Rate in the Dollar of 0.000249 (-0.18%) is proposed. The change is as a result of further rates modelling calculations being undertaken on an individual rate category basis. In order to make the GRV rate increase as equitable as possible across this differential the Rate in the Dollar was set based on a median sample of rate valuations. The adjusted Rate in the Dollar ensures this differential is not twice the lowest differential general rate (Residential Improved) in accordance with 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995.

The minimum payments were re-evaluated in accordance with section 6.35(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 to ensure the general minimum is imposed on not less than 50% of the number of properties in each category. The rate revenue generated from each rating differential is represented in the graph below.


28 June 2017

Page 176

Reserves Reserves purposes are proposed to be adjusted this year with the commencement of the Kings Square project. The purposes of each reserve are provided below. Any proposed changes from previous year have been highlighted in bold text; Investment Reserve Fund:

Purpose of Reserve

Established for the purpose of realising and making investments in income

producing assets. Funds will not be withdrawn from the reserve to subsidise

operating or recurrent expenditure, nor shall funds be withdrawn for the purposes

of providing community facilities that do not provide a commercial rate of return,

unless specifically decided otherwise by Council.

For requirements associated with the redevelopment project including

building and associated costs of the new administration and civic centre in

Kings Square.

Council Policy SG14 Investments – Property and Other Non-Current Assets also

refers.

Residential Improved - 53%, $22,997,797

Residential Vacant - 2%, $934,959

Commercial & Industrial General - 27%, $11,995,068

Commercial & Industrial Vacant - 1%,

$423,789

City Centre Commercial - 16%, $7,097,241

Nightclubs - 1%, $290,614

Rate Differential Mix Budget 2017/2018

Residential Improved - 53% Residential Vacant - 2%

Commercial & Industrial General - 27% Commercial & Industrial Vacant - 1%

City Centre Commercial - 16% Nightclubs - 1%


28 June 2017

Page 177

Source of Income

Net proceeds of sale of nominated freehold properties, unless otherwise resolved

by Council.

Net proceeds from the sale of miscellaneous parcels of land, unless otherwise

resolved by Council.

Heritage Places Reserve: Purpose of Reserve

Finance the major upgrading and maintenance (including painting) to the

Fremantle Town Hall.

Conserve heritage places already owned by or vested in the Council.

Augment external funds allocated to the City for the purpose of heritage

conservation.

Provide assistance to other owners of heritage places within the municipality

where Council is satisfied that this is a proper, cost-effective and lawful use of the

funds.

To administer conservation fund appeals.

To finance the additional costs of higher specified infrastructure improvements

(e.g., footpaths, roads, landscaping, buildings, etc.) to areas abutting or adjacent

to heritage places where the higher specifications are incurred to maintain the

area in sympathy with the heritage place.

Purchase heritage properties within the municipality of Fremantle,

o Which are in a distinct need of conservation.

o Council can conserve according to the Burra Charter principles.

o Enable Council to demonstrate the Burra Charter model of conservation for

others to follow.

o In Council’s estimation would not otherwise be conserved (restored) in

accordance with Burra Charter principles.

o Finance major renewal, restoration or maintenance to heritage properties.

o Council Policy SG30 Heritage Places Reserve also refers.

Source of Income

Municipal Fund contribution as approved by Council in the Annual Budget.


28 June 2017

Page 178

Net sale of proceeds from sale of properties whose initial acquisition and

restoration was financed from this reserve.

Parking Reserve (Previously Parking Dividend Equalisation Reserve):

Purpose of Reserve

Provide a smoothing out of revenue contributions to municipal operations from

commercial parking activities. That is to be achieved as follows:- (a) by

transferring net profits in excess of budget to the reserve, and (b) if required,

when there is a material (i.e., plus 1%) net loss, transferring funds from the

reserve to municipal fund to compensate for the loss.

Fund commercial parking capital equipment and facilities or parking infringement

capital equipment and facilities to the extent that the funds available in the

reserve exceed 2.5% of budgeted gross parking revenue.

Source of Income

Transfer from the municipal fund: - (i) net profit on commercial parking operations

exceeding a set figure in the budget. Note: Net profit is calculated including

depreciation and allocated support service costs, but excludes capital; and/or (ii)

Transfer from the municipal fund amount(s) determined by Council through the

Adopted Budget or Budget Review in relation to parking operations.

Transfer from municipal fund amount(s) determined by Council through the

Adopted Budget or Budget Review in relation to parking infringement operations.

Net proceeds from sale of parking facilities as determined by Council through the

Adopted Budget or Budget Review.

Net Sale Proceeds of City owned Car Parks, unless specifically decided otherwise

by Council.

Renewable Energy Reserve:

Purpose of Reserve

To purchase sufficient carbon offsets to maintain the City's carbon neutral status.

Any project or activity to reduce the City’s reliance on carbon generated energy

within the One Planet Strategy.

For environmental design needs in the new Administration/Civic building.

Source of Income

Municipal Fund contribution as approved by Council in the Annual Budget.

Leighton Precinct Maintenance Reserve:


28 June 2017

Page 179

Purpose of Reserve

To hold any specified area rate income raised during the financial year that were

unspent at 30 June in relation to the Leighton Precinct maintenance.

To fund the above normal costs associated with maintaining the higher standard

of the landscaping of the Leighton residential area.

Source of Income

Revenue raised from a specified area rate that was unspent at the end of the

financial year, i.e., 30 June.

Leisure Centre Upgrade Reserve:

Purpose of Reserve

Provide funds for major upgrading and refurbishment works at the Fremantle

Leisure Centre.

Source of Income



Fremantle Town Hall Refurbishment Reserve:

Purpose of Reserve

Provide funds for major refurbishment of the historic Fremantle Town Hall.

Source of Income



Cantonment Hill Master Plan Reserve:

Purpose of Reserve

Fund capital works at Cantonment Hill in accordance with the Cantonment Hill

Master Plan.

Source of Income



Kings Square Improvements Reserve:

Purpose of Reserve

Fund capital works improvements to Kings Square.


28 June 2017

Page 180

Source of Income



Former Stan Reilly Property Site Development Reserve:

Purpose of Reserve

Fund demolition and capital works for development of the former Stan Reilly

site.

Source of Income



HACC Asset Replacement Reserve:

Purpose of Reserve

Fund capital works approved under the HACC program.

Source of Income

Transfer from municipal fund of surplus HACC operational grants at end of

financial year.


Absolute Majority Required


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council:

1. 2017/2018 Budget

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Part 3 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the council adopt the Municipal Fund Budget as contained in


28 June 2017

Page 181

Attachment 1 for the City of Fremantle for 2017/2018 financial year which includes the following:

Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type showing a net result for that year of ($1,681,972)

Statement of Comprehensive Income by Program showing a net result for that year of ($1,681,972)

Statement of Cash Flows

Rate Setting Statement showing an amount required to be raised from rates of $43,939,468

Notes to and Forming Part of the Budget

Capital Budget Program

Transfers to/from Reserve Accounts

2. Differential Rates

Pursuant to Sections 6.32, 6.33, 6.34 and 6.35 of the Local Government Act 1995 council impose the following differential general rates and minimum payments on Gross Rental Values for 2017/2018 financial year:

Differential Rating Category Minimum Payment

Rate in the Dollar

Residential Improved $1,283 0.070000

Residential Vacant $1,260 0.108910

Commercial and Industrial General $1,283 0.077894

Commercial and Industrial Vacant $1,283 0.139998

City Centre Commercial $1,283 0.082371

Nightclubs $1,283 0.139999

3. Concessions Pursuant to Section 6.47 of the Local Government Act 1995 council adopts to grant rate concessions of $220,833 to the properties identified and as prescribed in Note 13 of the draft 2017/2018 Budget.

4. Instalments

Pursuant to Section 6.45 of the Local Government Act 1995 and regulation

64(2) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, council nominates the following due dates for the payment by instalments:

a) Full payment :

Due date - Monday 28th August 2017 b) Four (4) instalment option :

1st instalment due date - Monday 28th August 2017 2nd instalment due date – Monday 30th October 2017 3rd instalment due date – Tuesday 2nd January 2018 4th instalment due date – Tuesday 6th March 2018

5. Administration Charge


28 June 2017

Page 182

Pursuant to Section 6.45 of the Local Government Act 1995 and regulation 67 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, council adopts an instalment administration charge of $39.00 fixed for the 4 instalment plan where the owner has elected to pay rates and charges through the instalment option; being $13.00 for each instalment after the initial instalment is paid. 6. Instalment Interest

Pursuant to Section 6.45 of the Local Government Act 1995 and regulation 68 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, council adopts an interest rate of 5.5% where the owner has elected to pay rates and charges through an instalment option. 7. Penalty Interest

Pursuant to Section 6.51(1) and subject to Section 6.51(4) of the Local Government Act 1995 and regulation 70 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, council adopts an interest rate of 11% for rates, charges and costs of proceedings to recover such charges that remains unpaid after becoming due and payable. 8. Fees and Charges Pursuant to Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, council adopts the Fees and Charges included within Fees and Charges schedule of the draft 2017/2018 Budget included as Attachment 1. 9. Elected Members’ Fees and Allowances for 2017/2018

Council note that the review of fees has been released by the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal on 11 April 2017 and adopt the following: a) Pursuant to Section 5.99 of the Local Government Act 1995 and regulation

34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, council adopts the following annual fees for payment of elected members in lieu of individual meeting attendance fees:

Mayor $47,046

Deputy Mayor $29,619

Councillors (Committee Chairpersons) $31,364

Councillors $29,619 b) Pursuant to Section 5.99A of the Local Government Act 1995 and

regulation 34A and 34AA of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, council adopts the following annual allowances for elected members:

ICT Allowance $3,500

Mayor Vehicle Lease $15,000 c) Pursuant to Section 5.98(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 and

regulation 33 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, council adopts the following annual local government allowance to be paid in addition to the annual meeting allowance:


28 June 2017

Page 183

Mayor $88,864 d) Pursuant to Section 5.98A of the Local Government Act 1995 and

regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, council adopts the following annual local government allowance to be paid in addition to the annual meeting allowance:

Deputy Mayor $22,216

10. Reserve Funds Approve the purpose of the Reserve Funds as amended and provided within this report.

11. Material Variance

In accordance with regulation 34(5) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, and AASB 1031 Materiality, the level to be used in statements of financial activity in 2017/2018 for reporting material variances shall be 10% or $100,000, whichever is greater.


For Against



28 June 2017

Page 184

At 9.14pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED that items numbered SPD1706-4, FPOL1706-19, and C1706-2 be closed to members of the public in accordance with Section 5.23(2) (a,c, and e) of the Local Government Act. RESOLUTION FOR CONFIDENTIALITY MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That items SPD1706-4, FPOL1706-19, and C1706-2 be closed to members of the public in accordance with Section 5.23(2) (a,c and e) of the Local Government Act 1995. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


At 9.14pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt requested the public to vacate the chamber to allow discussion on items SPD1706-4, FPOL1706-19, and C1706-2, which was deemed to be confidential.

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

SPD1706-4 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT PROPOSED SOLAR FARM AT SOUTH FREMANTLE LANDFILL SITE

Meeting Date: 12 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Correspondence from Epuron – project status and

proposal


28 June 2017

Page 185

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:

(e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal - (i) a trade secret; (ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or (iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of

a person COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council:

1. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and agree the terms of an extended Exclusive Working Agreement with Epuron which includes principles for negotiation of a long term lease for the landfill site based on a potential agreement between Epuron and a power retailer.

2. Resolves that the City’s next tender for the supply of electricity for

contestable sites should give consideration to a preference for ‘locally sourced green power’. The preference is subject to the annual cost of procuring electricity being no more than 10% greater than the total expenditure by the City on electricity under its current contestable power contract and the purchase of carbon offsets.

Note: Receive and note the report on the proposed solar farm at the South Fremantle landfill site including it’s reference to the emerging findings of the forthcoming of the draft Energy Plan. Reconfirms it’s One Planet commitment “of carbon neutrality for corporate emissions to 2020 via a mix of green power purchase options, renewable energy and energy efficiency measures and have in place a plan to being 100% powered by renewable energy by 2025.


28 June 2017

Page 186


For Against



28 June 2017

Page 187

At 9.19 pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt declared a impartiality interest in item number FPOL1706-19 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. At 9.19 pm the Deputy Mayor assumed the chair.

FPOL1706-19 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT - FREMANTLE MARKETS

Meeting Date: 14 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Fremantle Markets Warders Cottage Proposal

Fremantle Markets: a vision to purchase and reinvigorate the Warders Cottages


This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following: (c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government and

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting.


MOVED: Cr I Waltham Council request that the Chief Executive Officer prepare, for council consideration at the next appropriate council meeting, a business plan for the extension of the Fremantle Markets’ lease, subject to the State Heritage Council accepting the Fremantle Markets’ proposal for the W1 Warders Cottage, as long as the proposal provides for suitable activation of the cottages. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald


28 June 2017

Page 188

C1706-2 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR STRATEGIC PLANNING AND PROJECTS

Meeting Date: 28 June 2017 Responsible Officer: Chief Executive Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil


This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:

(a) a matter affecting an employee or employees


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council accept the recommendation of the Chief Executive Officer to employ Paul Garbett in the role of Director Strategic Planning and Projects. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/1


28 June 2017

Page 189

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE MAYOR, B PETTITT DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 10.08 PM.


28 June 2017

Page 190

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1. The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2. The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3. The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO

4. These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5. The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.

All input is of equal value 6. No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7. Local Government in WA is a representative democracy. Elected Members and the CEO are charged under the Local Government Act with the responsibility to make decisions based on fact and the merits of the issue without fear or favour and are accountable for their actions and decisions under law. Elected Members are accountable to the people via periodic elections. As it is a representative democracy, decisions may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.


28 June 2017

Page 191


Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8. The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9. The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10. City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11. The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.

Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12. As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.


28 June 2017

Page 192


Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13. The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14. In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15. Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16. Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


28 June 2017

Page 193

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has

been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government

and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing,

detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.


28 June 2017

Page 194