minutes - city of fremantle...december 2013 124 lac1402-2 library benchmarking project 2012-2013 136...

MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 26 February 2014, 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

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 3

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 3

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR 4

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS 4

TABLED DOCUMENTS 4

LATE ITEMS NOTED 5

COUNCIL ITEMS 5

C1402-5 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL ELECTORS MEETING - 24 FEBRUARY, 2014 5

COMMITTEE REPORTS 9

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 5 FEBRUARY 2014 9

PSC1402-19 THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 62 (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH UNDERCROFT - (KS DA0534/13) 9


PSC1402-25 SOUTH STREET NO. 399 (LOT 324) SAMSON - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE, TWO STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (19 RESIDENTIAL UNITS) - (AA DA0366/13) 25


PSC1402-26 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 78 (LOT 27), NORTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO SMALL BAR - (KS DA0473/13) 36

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 12 FEBRUARY 2014 47

SGS1402-2 CONSIDERATION FOR LEASE OF UNIT 1 J SHED TO SUNSET EVENTS (UPDATED) 47


PSC1402-22 REVIEW AND PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF LPP2.9 RESIDENTIAL STREETSCAPE POLICY - ADOPT FOR ADVERTISING 79


PSC1402-31 INTEGRATED TRANSPORT STRATEGY INITIAL SCOPE 93

PSC1402-33 AMENDMENT 53 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO 4 - REQUEST TO REZONE NO 69 SOUTH STREET AND NO 146 HAMPTON ROAD FROM RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE - FINAL ADOPTION 98

PSC1402-34 COUNCIL REPORT FOR MODIFICATIONS TO LPP2.2 - SPLIT DENSITY CODES AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY SCHEDULE - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 105

PSC1402-35 AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.4 - BOUNDARY WALLS IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 119

LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 12 FEBRUARY 2014 124

LAC1402-1 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICE REPORT OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013 124

LAC1402-2 LIBRARY BENCHMARKING PROJECT 2012-2013 136

LAC1402-3 TOY LIBRARY QUARTERLY REPORT - OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013 141


SGS1402-1 FOOTPATH PROGRAM - ADDITION OF AMHERST STREET FOOTPATH SECTIONS 145

SGS1402-3 NOTICE OF MOTION - MAYORS FOR PEACE LEAD CITY INVITATION - MAYOR BRAD PETTITT 148

SGS1402-4 WHY MAKE SENSE? PORT BEACH EVENT 151

SGS1402-5 ACCEPTANCE OF TOBACCO CONTROL GRANT FROM CURTIN UNIVERSITY ON BEHALF OF THE WA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 157

SGS1402-7 ADOPTION OF THE BUSINESS ATTRACTION POLICY 160

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 165

Cr D Coggin left the meeting at 10.59 pm prior to consideration of the following items and did not return. 165


PSC1402-21 CONSIDERATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SUB AREA 1.3.2 OF LOCAL PLANNING AREA 1 165


PSC1402-32 REVIEW OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11 MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS 180


SGS1402-6 RESUBMISSION OF THE PLASTIC BAG REDUCTION LOCAL LAW 2014 194

SGS1402-8 AMENDMENT TO FREMANTLE LEISURE CENTRE FEES AND CHARGES 198

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 203

C1402-1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - JANUARY 2014 203

COUNCIL ITEMS 210

C1402-3 METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM – MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH REFORM PARTNERS 210

C1402-4 COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEM - TENDER FCC413/13 MARKET STREET LIGHTING UPGRADE 214

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 215

LATE ITEMS 215

C1402-6 2014 - APPLICATION FOR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL - MAYOR AND DIRECTOR TECHNICAL SERVICES 215

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 218

C1402-2 CONSIDERATION OF DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO SUBMIT AN OFFER TO PURCHASE OF 2 JONES STREET O'CONNOR 218

CLOSURE OF MEETING 220

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council 26 February 2014

Page 1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held in the Council Chambers, Fremantle City Council

on 26 February 2014 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Mayor, Dr Brad Pettitt declared the meeting open at 6.03pm 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

Brad Pettitt Mayor Cr Doug Thompson North Ward (arrived at 8.20pm) Cr Robert Fittock North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward Cr Simon Naber City Ward Cr Dave Coggin East Ward (arrived at 6.45pm) Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward Cr Sam Wainwright Hilton Ward Cr Bill Massie Hilton Ward Cr Jon Strachan South Ward Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward Cr David Hume Beaconsfield Ward Cr Josh Wilson Deputy Mayor / Beaconsfield Ward Mr Graeme Mackenzie Chief Executive Officer Mr Glen Dougall Director Corporate Services Ms Marisa Spaziani Director Community Development Mr Philip St John Director Planning and Development Services Mr Peter Pikor Director Technical Services Ms Linda Omar Minute Secretary Mr Luis Puig Economic Development Coordinator Mr Tom Griffiths Manager Economic Development Mr Ian James Strategic Urban Designer Ms Natalie Martin Goode Manager Statutory Planning Mrs Nadine Hume Property Services Administrator


Page 2

There were approximately 60 members of the public and 3 member/s of the press in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Nil

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr D Thompson request for a leave of absence from 20 April 2014 to 6 May 2014 (inclusive) is approved. SECONDED: Cr R Fittock CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The following member of the public Richard Wilkes spoke in relation to item SGS1402-2 and made a statement on behalf of the Swan River People and Families. Jacqueline Kannis spoke in relation to item PSC1402-19


Page 3

Paul Sheehy spoke in relation to item PSC1402-25 Maria Tedesco spoke in relation to item PSC1402-26 Eloise Dortch spoke in relation to item SGS1402-2 Teresa Rocchi spoke in relation to item SGS1402-2 Len Desales spoke in relation to item PSC1402-25 Claudia Green spoke in relation to item SGS1402-2 The following members spoke in relation to item PSC1402-26 David Hawks Kingsley Black Ariana Black The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item SGS1402-2: Anna George Pat Winnacott Anna O'Sullivan Nicolas Gurr Shirley Burbidge Harmony Bob Reece Frank Acocella Richard Mehan Joanne Fuller Errol Allen Agnveshka Kiera John Dowson Adrian Glamorcan Angela Birmingham Dick Bayham David Chitty spoke in relation to item SGS1402-2 in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation.

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Cr R Fittock declared a impartiality interest in item number PSC1402-25. Cr R Fittock advised he has perceived impartiality however will remain in the chamber and vote. Mayor, Brad Pettitt declared a financial interest in item number C1402-5. Mayor advised this item is for Council to approve international and attendance of a study tour in Japan.

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS


Page 4

Cr B Massie advised the Council he attended the Attack on Australia - Bombing of Darwin Memorial Service held at the RSL Memorial Park on 19 February 2014 on behalf of the Council.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr R Pemberton vacated the chamber at 7.58 pm. That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated Wednesday 29 January 2014 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. SECONDED: Cr R Fittock CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

Cr R Pemberton returned to the meeting at 7.59 pm.

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR

Nil

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS

Nil

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Attachment 1 - Additional Documents - Various Amendments on Attachment 2 - Late Item Agenda - C1402-5 - Application for International Travel - Mayor and Director Technical Services Attachment 3 -Late Item Agenda C1402-6 - Consideration of Minutes of Special Electors Meeting - 24 February 2014


Page 5

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Late Item Agenda - C1402-5 - Application for International Travel - Mayor and Director Technical Services Late Item Agenda C1402-6 - Consideration of Minutes of Special Electors Meeting - 24 February 2014

COUNCIL ITEMS

At 7.59 pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt brought forward item/s C1402-6 for discussion.

C1402-5 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL ELECTORS MEETING - 24 FEBRUARY, 2014

DataWorks Reference: 096/076 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Council 26 February, 2014 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Minutes of the Special Electors Meeting

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To receive the minutes of the Special Electors Meeting from Monday 24 February, 2014 and consider the two resolutions passed at the meeting.

BACKGROUND

On 11 February, 2014 the City received a request from the Fremantle Inner City Residents Association (FICRA) to hold a special electors meeting to discuss the proposal to enter into a land transaction for the disposal of Unit 1 J Shed, Fleet Street Fremantle. The request included a list of 158 signatures.

COMMENT

In discussion with the Mayor and FICRA it was agreed to hold the proposed electors meeting prior to the Council meeting considering the proposal. This meant that council could not satisfy the fourteen (14) day advertising requirement under the Local Government Act 1995 but would result in the ability for the community to put forward a resolution for consideration before a possible decision is made by council at the February Council meeting. Approximately two hundred (200) community members attended the meeting which was held in the Town Hall on Monday 24th February, 2014. At the request of FICRA and the agreement of the Chief Executive Officer numbered voting slips were provided to Fremantle residents with identification as being eligible to be on the electoral roll. One


Page 6

hundred and eighty seven (187) voting slips were issued, three (3) were handed back by attendees who left prior to voting on the two resolutions. Two resolutions were carried at the meeting; Resolution One

1. Council declines to enter into a lease for Unit 1 J Shed and surrounds, Fleet Street, Fremantle to Sunset Events Pty Ltd based on the parameters of the advertised Consultation Plan from December 2013, and

2. Council seeks to release a new Expression of Interest (EOI) for the lease of a small bar/cafe/gallery for Unit 1 J Shed, Fleet Street Fremantle on the basis of the following; a) The maximum license applicable to the lease be a small bar of 120 persons, b) The lease be contained within the built structure of J Shed, and c) The outside area remain open and accessible to the general public.

3. Council develops a policy for the use of the open space area adjacent to the J Shed, Fleet Street Fremantle, whereby any proposed use of the space for a concert venue be allowed via individual permits on a one-off basis.

Resolution Two

That the item in the February 2014 Council agenda on the proposal to lease Unit 1 J Shed (SGS1402-2) occur as the first item on business at the council meeting.

The first resolution is identical to an alternative recommendation provided by Cr Bill Massie to be considered with the item SGS1402-2. It would make practical sense to consider the alternative with that item. Council would not be able to consider the resolution twice at the same meeting and therefore it is proposed that council resolve to note the resolution from the special electors meeting at this point and leave the consideration of the resolution under Cr Massie’s alternative during consideration of item SGS1402-2. The second resolution may also be noted. The Mayor usually seeks to have items of interest for gallery attendees to be dealt with first. This and other items would normally be considered that way and it is anticipated that the Mayor will order the items to accommodate interested community attendance on the night.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

Nil. Legal

Section 5.28 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides for electors to seek a special meeting of electors. The Act also requires that minutes of the meeting are to be kept and that any resolution/s from the meeting need to be considered by Council at the next ordinary council meeting, or the meeting after that.


Page 7

Operational

The Council is considering a report in this agenda on the proposal to enter into a lease for Unit 1 J Shed. Consideration of the resolution of the special electors meeting will coincide with the consideration of that item. The special electors meeting was held prior to this council meeting to allow for any resolution to be placed before council prior to a possible final decision on this matter. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The special electors meeting provided two resolutions for the consideration of council. The first is seeking council to reject the proposal to enter into a lease with Sunset Events for Unit 1 J Shed in accordance with the proposal advertised in December 2013. The resolution mirrors and alternative recommendation provided by Cr Bill Massie and can therefore be considered as part the deliberation of item SGS1402-2. The second resolution seeks to have the item SG1402-2 dealt with as the first order of business. As it is normal process for the Mayor to seek council indulgence to re-order items based on community attendance it is considered that the Mayor will seek to have items of interest to attendees considered prior to other items as a matter of course.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The Special Electors Meeting was requested by the community under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council receives the minutes and notes the two (2) resolutions from the Special Electors Meeting of 24 February, 2014.


Page 8

SECONDED: Cr A Sullivan CARRIED: 12/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie


Page 9

COMMITTEE REPORTS

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 5 FEBRUARY 2014

PSC1402-19 THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 62 (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH UNDERCROFT - (KS DA0534/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 February 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1111-186 (2 November 2011) Attachment 1: Development plans Attachment 2: Site photos Attachment 3: Approved Plans for PSC 1111-186 Date Received: 5 November 2013 Owner Name: Michael Reynolds & Charlotte Hamlyn Submitted by: As above Scheme: Mixed Use (R25) Heritage Listing: N/A Existing Landuse: Vacant Lot Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘A’

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee as objections were received which cannot be dealt with through conditions of planning approval and discretionary and design principle assessments have been sought from planning requirements that are, on balance, not considered to meet the relevant criteria. The applicant is seeking planning approval for a two storey Single House with undercroft at No. 62 (Lot 1) Thompson Road, North Fremantle (subject site).


Page 10

The application has been assessed against the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Council’s relevant Local Planning Policies and requires the following discretionary decisions:

Primary street setback;

Boundary fences;

Boundary wall;

Open space;

Setback of garage;

Garage width;

Sightlines;

Site works; and

Overshadowing. On balance, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the requirements of the R-Codes and Council’s LPP2.4 and LPP2.9 in relation to the proposed primary street setback, solar access for adjoining sites and the southern boundary wall. Accordingly, on balance, the application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

No. 62 Thompson Road, North Fremantle is 229m2 and zoned Mixed Use with a density coding of R25 and is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area. The subject site is located on the western side of Thomson Road and comprises a vacant lot which is not identified as having any cultural heritage significance on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory or Heritage List. The subject site is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area and is bound by the street block of Thompson Road, Alfred Road, Leslie Road and Stirling Highway. The subject site forms part of the subdivision of the parent lot No. 62 (Lot 102) Thompson Road, North Fremantle approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on the 27 July 2000 (refer DA329/00) into two survey strata lots. The applicant was awarded a density bonus, subsequently resulting in the subdivision of No. 62 (Lot 102) Thompson Road, North Fremantle with undersized lots inconsistent with the R-Coding applicable to the site. On 17 November 2011 (determined by PSC at its meeting on 2 November 2011) the City granted conditional approval for a two storey Single House at No. 62 Thompson Road, North Fremantle (refer DA0208/11). Performance based assessments from the Residential Design Codes (2010 revision) were granted in relation to surveillance of the street; street walls and fences; sightlines at vehicle access points; garage door; buildings setback from boundary; boundary walls; outdoor living areas; excavation and fill; and visual privacy Design elements. The approved plans are included in Attachment 3. DETAIL

On 5 November 2013 the City received an application seeking planning approval a two storey Single House with undercroft at No. 62 Thompson Road, North Fremantle.


Page 11

Revised plans were received on 17 December 2013 providing an accurate overshadowing diagram and building height dimensions as requested by the City. A further set of revised plans were received on 24 January 2014 addressing minor inconsistencies between plans. The Single House is proposed as follows: Lower level

Double Garage; and

Store.

Ground level

Terrace;

Kitchen;

Dining;

Entry;

WC; and

Living. Upper level

Bed (x3);

Study;

Ensuite;

Bath;

Laundry; and

Courtyard. For further details refer to ‘Attachment 1’ for development plans. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 26 November 2013, the City had received 1 submission. The following issues were raised:

Overshadowing;

Site works;

Open space;

Boundary wall;

Primary street setback;

Sightlines; and

Garage width. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Discretions sought against policy requirements or assessment against the R Code’s design principles are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.


Page 12

PLANNING COMMENT

Setback of garages

Required Provided Discretion

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

Garage located on property boundary of Thompson Road in front of the front wall of the dwelling.

Garage located in front of dwelling.

The garage setback is considered to meet the discretionary criteria of LPP2.9 for the following reasons:

The setback of the garage is consistent with the nil setback of the double carport associated with the northern adjoining property at No. 64 Thompson Road, North Fremantle and the nil setback of the single garage associated with No. 64A Thompson Road, North Fremantle. Further, the southern adjoining property has a double garage setback forward of the front wall of the dwelling; and

The impact of the garage upon the streetscape is considered reduced due to its construction within an existing retaining wall.

Primary street setback


Building with wall height of less than 4m: 5m.

Garage - 0m (refer assessment above).

5m (refer assessment above).

Building with wall height greater than 4m: 7m.

5m. 2m.

The southern adjoining property at No. 60 Thompson Road, North Fremantle, has a building with an external wall height that exceeds 4m which is setback in excess of 9m from Thompson Road; the northern adjoining property at No. 1/64 Thompson Road, North Fremantle has a building with an external wall height in excess of 4m which is setback in excess of 7m; and no other buildings with an external wall height that exceeds 4m in height that are setback within 7m from Thompson Road exist within the prevailing street. On this basis, the discretion is not considered to meet the discretionary criteria of LPP2.9 as the proposal is inconsistent with the setback of buildings of comparable height within the prevailing streetscape. On balance, Council may wish to support the discretion for the following reasons:

The discretion pertains to a portion of building up to 3.7m in height (above the 4m building height requirement) within 2m of the required setback. Given the topography of the subject site and adjoining properties in the prevailing street inclining away from Thompson Road, Council may consider the resultant projecting element associated with the reduced setback to be minor;

The reduced setback can be considered to be softened by the nil setbacks of the garage and carport associated with the two properties to the north and the 4m setback of the double garage associated with the property to the south; and


Page 13

Council may wish to consider the unusual lot size and dimensions (refer subdivision DA329/00 in Background section of this report) of the subject site given the R25 density coding of the subject site in the assessment of this element.

Boundary fences

Element Required Provided Discretion

Southern boundary fence.

Boundary fencing up to 1.8m in height from natural ground level.

Between 1.9m and 3.7m in height from natural ground level.

Between 0.1m and 1.9m.

Northern boundary fence.

Between 1.7m and 2.9m in height from natural ground level.

Up to 1.1m.

It is acknowledged that the southern boundary fence will restrict the access of sunlight to established vegetation that exists at the southern adjoining property but the extent of this impact is not considered to significantly compromise the amenity of this adjoining property and the fence is supported against the discretionary criteria of LPP2.8 for the following reasons:

The fence abuts open space associated with the southern adjoining property and will not impact upon the amenity of this property’s outdoor living area by means of restriction of sunlight or a sense of confinement;

Further, the boundary fence will not restrict the access of sunlight to any major openings associated with the adjoining property; and

The fence assists in protecting privacy between the subject site and southern adjoining property.

The northern boundary fence is also considered to meet the discretionary criteria of LPP2.8 for the following reasons:

The fence abuts a vehicle access way associated with the western adjoining property and is not considered to have any significant impact upon the amenity of any northern adjoining properties by means of restriction of sunlight or contribution to a sense of confinement.

Lot boundary setback

Element Required Provided Discretion

Ground level - north.

2.3m (reduced by half the width of adjoining vehicle access).

0m. 2.3m.

Upper level - north.

1.5m (reduced by half the width of adjoining vehicle access).

0m. 1.5m.

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


Page 14

Any impacts of building bulk associated with the proposed development are considered to be reduced by the northern adjoining access leg (between 3.2m and 4.1m in width);

Located on the northern elevation the development will not result in any significant restriction of sunlight for northern adjoining properties; and

The setback does not result in a loss of privacy for adjoining properties and complies with the visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes.

Boundary wall


Where located on a property with a frontage of less than 10m, not higher than 3m with a average of 2.7m and up to 9m in length along one side boundary.

Southern boundary comprising a 4.45m length at 1.75m in height setback in from the primary street with the remainder of the wall between 5.2m and 7.2m in height and 21.25m in length.

Maximum height: 4.2m; Average height: 4m; and Length: 16.65m.

The proposed boundary does not support the design principles of the R-Codes or additional factors of assessment of LPP2.4 as the wall will restrict sunlight accessing an upper level major opening on the northern elevation of the ancillary dwelling located in the eastern portion of the southern adjoining property at No. 60 Thompson Road, North Fremantle during winter months. Further, the boundary wall will restrict the access of sunlight to established vegetation associated with the southern adjoining property. However, on balance, Council may wish to support the proposed boundary wall for the following reasons:

The majority of the shadow cast from the proposed dwelling will fall upon the eastern portion of the southern adjoining property and on this basis will not significantly restrict the access of sunlight to this property’s outdoor living area or major openings associated with its Single House (located in the western portion of the site). This shaded portion of the site comprises mostly open space and an ancillary dwelling;

If the southern wall of the dwelling was setback at the required 3m in accordance with the lot boundary setback requirements of the R-Codes (whilst with such a setback a dwelling would be difficult to achieve upon the subject site) the dwelling would still shade the northern upper level major opening associated with the ancillary dwelling and a portion of the property’s open space located between the ancillary dwelling and Single House;

The area of open space between the ancillary dwelling and Single House is already shaded by a large tree which exists upon the southern adjoining property and another large tree which exists at the subject site;

It is deemed that the boundary wall will have an impact upon the amenity of the adjoining ancillary dwelling by means of building bulk but any impact of building bulk upon the outdoor living area or major openings associated with the southern adjoining Single House is considered to be minimal. Further, it is acknowledged that the provision of a flat roof within the height requirements of the North Fremantle


Page 15

Local Planning Area reduces the overall impact of building bulk upon the southern adjoining property;

Taking into consideration the small and narrow width of the lot in the context of the area and its east to west orientation, the boundary wall is considered to make effective use of space onsite without compromising privacy between the subject site and southern adjoining property; and

The boundary wall will not restrict any views of significance for any adjoining property.

Garage width

Deemed to comply requirement Provided

Garages not to occupy greater than 50% of lot frontage.

Garage occupies 100% of lot frontage.

The garage width is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

Given the nature of the undercroft car parking and topography of the subject which inclines from Thompson Road the dwelling maintains visual connectivity between the ground level Kitchen and Dining and upper level Bed 1 and the streetscape; and

The impact of the garage upon the streetscape is softened for the following reasons:

o The garage is built into the existing retaining wall;

o The majority of the southern adjoining property’s street frontage is

comprised of a double garage;

o The entire street frontage of the northern adjoining property is comprised of

a double carport; and

o The garage is adjoined by a vehicle access leg to its north associated with

the western adjoining battleaxe lot which creates the appearance of the garage door occupying less than 100% of the lot frontage.

Sightlines


Walls reduced to no greater than 0.75m in height within 1.5m of vehicle access points or provided with a 1.5m clearance or truncation.

Wall height exceeds 0.75m and no truncation provided. Garage abuts Thompson Rd property boundary.

The proposal is not considered to provide unobstructed views from the garage to the adjoining footpath to ensure clear sightlines for view of the footpath and its pedestrians and on this basis does not support the design principles of the R-Codes. Sightlines to the south in the form of a truncation, however, are not considered capable of being provided as they are obstructed by the height of the adjoining retaining wall associated with the southern adjoining property at No. 60 Thompson Road, North Fremantle. On this basis, should Council seek to approve the application, Council may consider a condition that requires the provision of convex mirrors that support clear lines of sight to the north as follows:


Page 16

“That convex mirrors be provided within the garage that provide unobstructed sight lines between the garage and Thompson Road on both the northern and southern sides of the garage to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.”

Open Space


50% provision of open space. 43%.

The development is considered to support the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The dwelling is considered to have sufficient open space within the front setback area (above the garage) in addition to the adjoining battleaxe access leg to the north of the subject site to support an attractive streetscape;

The proposed dwelling and its outdoor areas are considered to have sufficient access to sunlight;

Whilst the southern boundary wall may result in an impact of building bulk upon the adjoining property, increasing the open space onsite to comply with the deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes is not considered to reduce its impact. Further, the building bulk and open space onsite is considered consistent with the Mixed Use zoning of the locality; and

Sufficient open space is considered to be provided for future residents for external pursuits.

Site works

Deemed to comply requirement

Provided

No greater than 0.5m fill within 1m of a lot boundary.

Between 0.5m and 2m of fill within 1m of southern property boundary for a length of 4.75m; and Between 0.75m and 2.2m of fill within 1m of northern property boundary for a length of 11.3m.

The development is considered to comply with the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The proposed fill is considered to respond to the natural sloping topography of site, inclining from Thompson Road to the west (rear). The degree of fill is considered to be balanced with excavation in the eastern portions of the site;

The proposed fill along the southern boundary of the site abuts open space associated with the southern adjoining property and on this basis its impact upon this property is considered to be reduced; and

The proposed fill along the northern boundary of the site abuts a vehicle access way associated with the western adjoining property and for this reason is not considered to have any significant impact upon northern adjoining properties.

Overshadowing



Page 17

R25 – No greater than 25% (151.75m2) of shadow cast upon southern adjoining property, including shadow cast from western adjoining property at No. 62A Thompson Road, North Fremantle.

49% (297.43m2) results from both the proposed development and existing Single House associated with the western adjoining property at No. 62A Thompson Road, North Fremantle. 33% (200.31m2) results from the proposed development.

The development will result in the overshadowing of a north facing major opening for the ancillary dwelling associated with the southern adjoining property and on this basis is not considered to directly support the design principles of the R-Codes and should not be supported. On balance, taking into consideration the small and narrow width of the lot within the context of the area and the east to west orientation of the lot, Council may support the development against the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

Effective solar access for the proposal is considered to be ensured for the proposed dwelling in its design;

The development will not result in the overshadowing of the southern adjoining property’s outdoor living area or any north facing major openings associated with its Single House;

The development will not result in the overshadowing of any existing solar collectors. Further, the development will not restrict the future provision of solar panels upon the roof of the Single House associated with the southern adjoining property;

The bulk of overshadowing upon the southern adjoining property pertains to its ancillary dwelling, double garage and a portion of its open space. Much of this area is already shaded by a large tree upon the southern adjoining property and another which exists upon the subject site; and

The dwelling is within the height requirements for the North Fremantle Local Planning Area. This requirement pertains to a 7.5m maximum external wall height and does not specify a maximum roof height requirement. On this basis, the provision of a dwelling with a flat roof within the 7.5m building height requirement is considered to be a sympathetic design measure toward the reduction of shadow cast from the proposal.

Comparison of proposal with previous planning approval As discussed in the background section of this report Council previously granted planning approval for a two storey Single House at No. 62 Thompson Road, North Fremantle (refer DA0208/11). In comparing the approved development to that proposed in this application the level of discretion and design principle assessment sought in this application is considered to result in a greater amenity impact upon the southern adjoining property and the streetscape. Further, changes in the planning framework now require assessment against the revised solar access for adjoining sites requirement of the R-Codes (August 2013 review) which requires the level of shadow upon the southern adjoining property to be assessed in conjunction with the shadow cast from other adjoining properties and the primary street setback requirements of Council’s LPP2.9. It should be noted that the extent of overshadowing cast upon the southern adjoining property associated with the development in the previous approval was lesser than that resulting from the development proposed in this application and whilst the garage was


Page 18

proposed on the front property boundary in the previous approval, the dwelling was setback in accordance with the relevant R-Codes requirements. CONCLUSION The application has been assessed against the requirements of the City’s LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant Council policies. The proposed primary street setback does not meet the requirements of Council’s LPP2.9 nor does the boundary wall as proposed support the design principles of the R-Codes or additional factors of assessment contained within LPP2.4. Further, overshadowing associated with the proposal does not directly meet the design principles of the R-Codes. Accordingly, on balance, the application is recommended for refusal. However, if Council do not consider the proposed primary street setback to be significantly detrimental to the Thompson Road streetscape and the development to not result in a significantly detrimental impact upon the southern adjoining property as a result of the proposed boundary wall and overshadowing, the following alternative recommendation has been provided: That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House with undercroft at No. 62 (Lot 1) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 17 December 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

3. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the southern and northern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. That the timber screen located along the southern property boundary in the primary

street setback area not exceed a maximum height of 1.6m from finished floor level to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. That any the primary street fence located along the southern property boundary

meet the definition of ‘visual permeability’ above 1m in height from natural ground level in accordance with the requirements of LPP2.8 Fences Policy to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to the occupation of the development, vehicle crossovers shall be constructed

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

7. That convex mirrors be provided within the garage that provide unobstructed sight

lines between the garage and Thompson Road on both the northern and southern


Page 19

sides of the garage to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House with undercroft at No. 62 (Lot 1) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with Council’s LPP2.9 Residential Streetscapes Policy in relation to its primary street setback; and/or

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the design principles of the R-Codes and

Council’s LPP2.4 in relation to solar access for adjoining properties and boundary walls.

At Committee - Cr R Pemberton MOVED a deferral as follows: To defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Service Committee meeting to allow the applicant to prepare revised plans addressing streetscape issues and issues relating to impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties to the south. LOST: 3/4 At Committee - Cr R Fittock MOVED the original Officer's Recommendation as follows: That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House with undercroft at No. 62 (Lot 1) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with Council’s LPP2.9 Residential Streetscapes Policy in relation to its primary street setback; and/or

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the design principles of the R-Codes and

Council’s LPP2.4 in relation to solar access for adjoining properties and boundary walls.

LOST: 2/4 At Committee - Cr R Fittock MOVED the following alternative recommendation: That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House with undercroft at No. 62 (Lot 1) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):


Page 20


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

3. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the southern and northern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.








lines between the garage and Thompson Road on both the northern and southern sides of the garage to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

At Committee - Cr J Strachan MOVED an amendment to the alternative recommendation to include an additional condition to read as follows: 8 The garage being set back a minimum of 2m from the front boundary LOST: 3/4 At Committee - Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the alternative recommendation to include an additional condition to read as follows: 8 the garage door and crossover being a maximum width of 5m and located to allow

for the planting of a street tree to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

LOST: 3/4 At Committee -Cr R Fittock MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include an additional condition to read as follows: 8 the garage door and crossover being reduced in width and located to allow

for the planting of a street tree to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 21

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Jon Strachan Cr Robert Fittock Cr David Hume Cr Bill Massie

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House with undercroft at No. 62 (Lot 1) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):


2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the southern and northern

boundaries shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.








lines between the garage and Thompson Road on both the northern and southern sides of the garage to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. The garage door and crossover being reduced in width and located to allow for the

planting of a street tree to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 22

Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to remove the date 17 December 2013 in Point 1 and replace with 24 February 2014: SECONDED: Cr B Massie CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to delete the following wording from Part 8 "The garage door and crossover being reduced in width and located to allow for": SECONDED: Cr B Massie CARRIED: 12/0

For Against


COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan


Page 23

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House with undercroft at No. 62 (Lot 1) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 24 February 2014. 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. 3. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the southern and northern

boundaries shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. That the timber screen located along the southern property boundary in the

primary street setback area not exceed a maximum height of 1.6m from finished floor level to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. That any the primary street fence located along the southern property

boundary meet the definition of ‘visual permeability’ above 1m in height from natural ground level in accordance with the requirements of LPP2.8 Fences Policy to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to the occupation of the development, vehicle crossovers shall be

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

7. That convex mirrors be provided within the garage that provide unobstructed

sight lines between the garage and Thompson Road on both the northern and southern sides of the garage to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. The planting of a street tree to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer,

City of Fremantle.


Page 24

SECONDED: Cr B Massie CARRIED: 11/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr Sam Wainwright


Page 25


At 7.59 pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt brought forward item/s PSC 1402-25 for discussion. Cr D Thompson arrived at 8.20 pm prior to consideration of the following item.

PSC1402-25 SOUTH STREET NO. 399 (LOT 324) SAMSON - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE, TWO STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (19 RESIDENTIAL UNITS) - (AA DA0366/13)

TITLE OCM MINUTE MASTER - 26 FEBRUARY 2014

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 19 February 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1311-1556 November 2013 Attachments: 1 – Revised Development Plans

2 – 6 November PSC Item (PSC1311-155) Date Received: 31 July 2013 Owner Name: J Townes & Big Moreton Pty Ltd Submitted by: Bernard Seeber Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential (R15) and unzoned Heritage Listing: Not Heritage Listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Residential Building Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 26

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for five, two storey Residential Buildings containing a total of 19 individual residential units. The application was considered at the Planning Services Committee (‘PSC’) meeting of 6 November 2013 where the Committee made the following resolution;

‘The application be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee in order for the applicant to amend plans and address the issues raised in the report, public submissions and the following specific matters;

Compatibility with existing scale and form;

Compatibility with local character;

Density of occupation;

Parking and access.’ On 19 December 2013, the applicant submitted amended plans which;

Reduced the number of units on the site from 22 to 19, although the total floor space of the proposal increased from 833.9m2 to 881m2;

Maintained the same amount of vehicle parking (20 bays);

Further articulated the built-form of the proposal by breaking the former 3 building proposal into 5 buildings;

Includes a centralised laundry building, further landscaping details and details of perimeter fencing to the site;

Included a detailed landscaping plan, additional detail relating to external finishes and 1.8m high fences to the rear and side boundaries; and

Included a mix of unit sizes. The amended plans are considered to specifically address concerns raised by the Committee and as required by the planning framework relating to scale, form, character and to some extent, density of occupation. The amended plans also seek to address issues of access to the site, specifically pedestrian access, though the proposed vehicle access point remains unchanged. It is recognised that the proposal is still of a density greater than the surrounding locality. However the amended plans are considered to sufficiently address the requirements of the planning framework relating to the objectives of the Residential zone ,applied design requirements of the Residential Design Codes (‘R-Codes’) and the matters previously raised by the PSC. The application is therefore recommended, on-balance, for approval. Should the Committee form a different view, an alternative recommendation for refusal is also provided.


Page 27

BACKGROUND

The subject site is located at No. 399 (Lot 324) South Street, Samson and is partly zoned ‘Residential’ and partly unzoned (the eastern portion of the lot) pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’). The subject site exists opposite the intersection of South Street and Plane Tree Grove and borders the eastern extent of the City of Fremantle boundary. The subject site contains an existing single storey Single House and is 1,526m2 in size. Additional background information is included in the previous report on this matter contained at Attachment 2. The application was considered at the PSC meeting of 6 November 2013 where the Committee made the following resolution;

‘The application be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee in order for the applicant to amend plans and address the issues raised in the report, public submissions and the following specific matters;

Compatibility with existing scale and form;

Compatibility with local character;

Density of occupation;

Parking and access.’ On 19 December 2013, the City received amended plans and justification addressing the above resolution. DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for Demolition of existing building and construction of five, two storey Residential Buildings (19 residential units) including; The plans the subject of this report represented a revised proposal that was previously considered by the Committee at its meeting of 6 November 2013. The revised proposal differs from the original proposal in the following ways;

Reduced the number of units on the site from 22 to 19, although the total floor space of the proposal increased from 833.9m2 to 881m2;

Maintained the same amount of vehicle parking;

Further articulated the built-form of the proposal by breaking the former 3 building proposal into 5 buildings; and,

Included a detailed landscaping plan, additional detail relating to external finishes and 1.8m high fences to the rear and side boundaries; and

Included a mix of unit sizes. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

As per the explanation contained in the previous report on this matter (see Attachment 2), applications for ‘Residential Buildings’ are to be assessed against the equivalent development form prescribed by the R-Codes. The assessment is to be merits based


Page 28

and the R-Codes used as a guide only. For the purpose of this report, the proposal has been assessed in accordance with the ‘Multiple Dwelling’ The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R Codes and planning policies. Discretionary decisions and assessment against the relevant design principles are sought against these requirements in relation to;

Land Use (Discretionary Use); and,

Primary Street Setback.

These decisions are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Main Roads Western Australia The originally submitted plans (now amended) for the application were referred to MRWA as the subject site abuts a portion of South Street identified as a ‘Category 2’ primary regional road. MRWA provided the following comments;

‘Main Roads objects to the current proposal on the grounds that access is sought from South Street when other access points, off a local road, are possible. Main Road have advised...that access off South Street will not be supported by Main Roads when another access is possible.’

In accordance with the City’s delegation to approve the proposal under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, if the City is to make a decision contrary to the MRWA advice, the City forgoes its delegation; the WAPC is then to determine the application. The revised proposal was not referred to MRWA a second time as no change to site access is proposed. The recommendation of this report reflects the need to refer a recommendation for approval to the WAPC for determination. Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. Consistent with previous advertising of the application, the proposal was advertised as a ‘significant’ application in accordance with Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 31 January 2014, the City had received 22 submissions. The issues raised in the submissions are summarised as follows;

The amended plans do not satisfactorily address concerns raised during the previous consultation on this application;

The cladding of the proposed structure is inconsistent with the surrounding brick and tile buildings;

Inadequate parking will result in high traffic volumes and safety concerns.


Page 29

The proposal will result in a lot of off-site parking which will impact on amenity and streetscape. Particular concern is raised for off-site parking on Temby Court and Rushby Way.

Inadequate on-site parking is provided.

The design of the buildings reflects temporary type development which does not reflect the existing residential built form.

The building is poorly designed and will impact on property values.

The existing area consists of family homes. This proposal will disturb this built form character.

The proposed front boundary setback is unacceptable. The proposal is too close to South Street.

Approval of the proposal will set an undesirable precedent for similar proposals above the stated density.

The proposal and increased density will impact on the privacy and safety of the neighbourhood.

If access cannot be provided from South Street, the access will be sought from Rushby Way. This will dramatically increase local traffic and impact on safety and the quiet residential neighbourhood.

The local area is already at a high enough density.

The proposal could increase crime.

The clothes drying areas provided are considered insufficient to cater for the units proposed;

The proposed vegetation to the vehicle parking area is likely to have an impact on existing overhead power lines. The species selected are not suitable for growth nearby to these lines.

The City previously advertised the now superseded proposal via the same method. At the conclusion of the previous advertising period the City had received 32 submissions, of which all objected to the proposal. A summary of the issues raised and the applicants response to these issues is contained in the previous report on this matter (see Attachment 2). Heritage As the application proposes demolition of an existing primary structure at the subject land, the application was referred to the City’s internal heritage staff for assessment. A heritage assessment was prepared which raised no objection to the demolition of the existing Single House on site. PLANNING COMMENT

Details relating to the clarification and assessment of the proposed development are contained in the previous report on this matter at Attachment 2 of this report. The land use, being ‘Residential building’ is to be considered against the objectives of the Residential zone contained at clause 4.2.1(a). The table below outlines and considers the relevant objectives of the Residential zone;

Scheme Objective Previous Proposal Current Proposal

4.2.1(a)(i) provide for The proposal allows for a The amended proposal


Page 30

residential uses at a range of densities with a variety of housing forms to meet the needs of different household types, while recognising the limitations on development necessary to protect local character;

range of densities and housing types to meet the need of different household types compared with the predominantly single house stock in the nearby area. For reasons to be discussed further in this report, the proposal is not considered to protect local character, particularly in regards to the prevailing R15 density coding.

diversifies the type of residential accommodation available on the site and the proposal generally provides a form of accommodation that differs from the surrounding locality. This assists in providing a range of residential density and housing forms, thereby satisfying this objective.

(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;

The proposal is considered to broadly meet the design based requirements of the R-Codes and City policy. Notwithstanding this, the appearance of the buildings proposed is unsympathetic to the pattern of single dwelling development in Samson. The buildings proposed present as several, individual dwellings which is inconsistent with the predominant character of the area.

The amended plans diversify the external treatment of buildings and also increase the number of buildings on-site from 3 to 5. This allows the proposal to present more as single dwellings as opposed to larger multiple dwelling buildings. The amended form of the buildings proposed is considered more sympathetic to the surrounding locality.

(iii) encourage high standards of innovative housing design which recognises the need for privacy, energy efficient design and bulk and scale compatible with adjoining sites;

The design of the proposal is considered to be of a reasonable quality. For reasons to be discussed further in this report, the proposal is not considered to be of a scale compatible with adjoining site.

The design of the proposal is considered to be of acceptable quality. The articulated form of buildings proposed through the amended plans is considered sympathetic to the character of surrounding buildings in terms of scale and bulk; particularly when viewed from the primary street. The buildings are considered to present to South Street as two storey ‘dwellings’ (rather than 6 units) given the well articulated form and layout of openings.

(iv) recognise the importance of traditional

The subject site is the only property in Samson with

Officer’s comments remain unchanged.


Page 31

streetscape elements to existing and new development;

direct access to South Street. It exists in no clearly defined streetscape.

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

The land use, being residential in nature, is considered compatible with the character of the area. However, the proposed density and bulk is considered to be inconsistent with the defined character of the area and of potential detriment to amenity.

The land use is considered on balance to be compatible with the residential character of the area. The amended plans are considered to address concerns relating to building bulk and scale (see comments above).

On the basis of the above, on balance the proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of the Residential zone. Density & Intensity Comments relating to the density and intensity of development in the surrounding locality are contained in the previous report on this matter at Attachment 2.

Development Form Dwelling Density Maximum Capacity*

Single House, Grouped or Multiple Dwellings

2 dwellings 12 (6 per dwelling)

Proposed (Residential Building)

19 units +19

* Refers to the maximum unrelated persons permitted in a single dwelling by the R-Codes.

The subject site would be theoretically capable of achieving approval for up to 2 Multiple or 2 Grouped Dwellings, or 2 Single Houses pursuant to the R15 code. In this instance, these dwellings would be limited to a capacity of not more than 6 unrelated persons (see table above). Single House sites are also capable of accommodating an ‘Ancillary Dwellings’, which may further increase the effective density of a site. While the effective density proposed is considered to be greater than that in the surrounding locality, the impact of the proposal is considered to be on balance lessened and otherwise considered to be manageable based on the following factors;

The form of the development, in relation to its building bulk, scale and design are considered to be generally consistent with the objectives of the Residential zone as required pursuant to clause 4.2 of LPS4;

The proposal addresses and gains access from South Street. There are limited activities to the south of the subject site (within the immediate locality) that would attract a significant number residents to the area. Conversely, there are a number of retail, hospitality and employment activities on the northern side of South Street as well as public transport opportunities. This means there will be a greater degree of interaction between the proposal and that on the northern side of South Street and less interaction with the surrounding residential area on the southern side of South Street;


Page 32

Access to the proposed site is restricted to South Street only. Moreover the proposed vehicle parking provided on-site is considered sufficient for the proposed number of units. In the opinion of officers, the proposal will have limited interaction with adjoining residential sites;

Council may be of the opinion that the proposed intensity of the ‘Residential Building’ is not manageable and may result in significant detrimental impacts on the existing amenity of the adjoining residential area. An alternative recommendation is provided at the conclusion of this report should the Council form this view. Primary Street Setback

Required Provided Design Principle Assessment

6m (reduced to a minimum of 3m where compensating area provided)

1.4m 1.6m

As discussed earlier in this report, the application has been assessed against the provisions of a Multiple Dwelling pursuant to the R-Codes. A setback of 6m is required for Multiple Dwellings pursuant to Table 1 of the R-Codes. The R-Codes permits a reduction in the setback up to half the requirement (3m) where a compensating area equal to the incursion is provided behind the 6m setback line. In this instance, the application provides a sufficient compensating area, but goes beyond the maximum reduction of up to 3m. The proposal is considered to meet the relevant design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

There are no other dwellings or buildings within the ‘prevailing streetscape’ as other buildings on adjoining sites gain access from Jose Court and Temby Court. Therefore, there is not considered to be an impact on any established streetscape character or pattern of development;

There are examples, albeit in minor development forms (such as patios, outbuildings etc.) near rear boundaries to South Street of a similar setback distance. In these instances, the setback of these buildings would meets the deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes as they adjoin the rear boundaries of the respective sites; and,

The lesser setback does not encroach into the South Street road reserve nor does it contribute adversely to other amenity impacts such as overshadowing or visual privacy.

Essential Facilities As noted in the previous report on this matter (see Attachment 2), the provision of laundry facilities were discussed. The amended plans make provision for an on-site laundry room centrally located within the subject site. Provision of this laundry room is considered to satisfy this issue.


Page 33

CONCLUSION

The application seeks planning approval for five, two storey Residential Buildings containing a total of 19 individual residential units. The application was considered at the PSC meeting of 6 November 2013 where the Committee elected to defer the application in order for the applicant to pursue modifications to the proposal. It is recognised that the proposal is still of a density greater than the surrounding locality. Despite this, the amended plans are considered to sufficiently address the requirements of the planning framework relating to the objectives of the Residential,and applied design requirements of the R-Codes and matters previously raised by PSC The application is therefore recommended, on-balance, for approval. Should the Committee form a different view, an alternative recommendation for refusal is provided as follows; ‘That the application be REFUSED under the under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the proposed Demolition of existing building and construction of five, two storey Residential Buildings (19 residential units) at No. 399 (Lot 324) South Street, Samson, as detailed on plans dated 19 December 2013, subject to the following conditions; 1. The proposal is inappropriate having regard to the purposes for which the land is

zoned and Clause 4.2.1(a) of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 in so far as; a) The proposed density and intensity of the use proposed does not safeguard

or enhance the amenity or protect the local character of the surrounding area or pursuant to c4.2.1(a) (i) and (iv).

b) The development does not safeguard and enhance the amenity of Samson as the development form is considered unsympathetic to the surrounding area pursuant to c4.2.1(a)(ii); and,

c) The bulk and scale of the proposal is considered incompatible with adjoining sites in the context of the single house, low density development of adjoining sites pursuant to c4.2.1(a)(iii).’


Page 34

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for APPROVAL under the under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the proposed Demolition of existing building and construction of five, two storey Residential Buildings (19 residential units) at No. 399 (Lot 324) South Street, Samson, as detailed on plans dated 19 December 2013, subject to the following conditions; 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans,

dated 19 December 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. The residential buildings are limited to a maximum of 19 beds (one in each bedroom) at any one time.

3. Prior to occupation, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the

approved plans or any approved modifications thereto to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All landscaped areas are to be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to occupation, any screening device(s) or material shown on the plans hereby approved shall be either: a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor

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

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

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

level, or d) screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive

Officer, City of Fremantle, in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.




Page 35

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

Advice to WAPC

I. In the event that the WAPC supports the proposal however considers that vehicular access should not be gained from South Street, the City would not be supportive of the development if vehicular access was gained via Temby Court which would require rezoning of park land in the City of Fremantle and/or the City of Melville.

LOST: 2/4

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Bill Massie Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Josh Wilson

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting in order for the applicant to further address the points raised in the Planning Services Committee resolution dated 6 November 2013. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 7/6

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume

Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Josh Wilson Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 36


At 7.59 pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt brought forward item/s PSC 1402-26 for discussion. Mayor, Brad Pettitt vacated the chamber at 8.16 pm during the following item and Deputy Mayor, Cr J Wilson assumed the Chair. At 8.19pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt returned and assumed the Chair prior to determination. At 8.16 pm the Deputy Mayor assumed the chair.

PSC1402-26 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 78 (LOT 27), NORTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO SMALL BAR - (KS DA0473/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 February 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Acoustic report Attachment 3: Bin storage plan Date Received: 26 September 2013 Owner Name: Tesonzie P/L Submitted by: Ariana Black trading as Rosaceous Scheme: Development zone Heritage Listing: Level 2 Existing Landuse: Restaurant Use Class: Small Bar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee as objections were received during the advertising period which are unable to be addressed through conditions of Planning Approval.


Page 37

The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a partial change of use from ‘Restaurant’ to ‘Small Bar’ at No. 78 (Lot 27) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (subject site). The subject site is zoned Development Zone and is located within Development Area 15 which has no adopted structure plan or detailed area plan. On this basis, the proposed use is not cross referenced in the zoning table and requires Council discretion in its determination. Further, Council discretion is sought in relation to the relaxation of car parking requirements in accordance with LPS4. Subject to recommended conditions that seek to reduce the impact of the proposal upon adjoining residential properties, the application is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND No. 78 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle is zoned Development zone and is located within Development Area 15 of which no structure plan or detailed area plan has been adopted by Council. The subject site is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area and comprises a total land area of 1382m2. The subject site is identified as having cultural heritage significance on the City’s Heritage List (Level 2) and is included within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area. At its meeting on 20 July 2005 Council granted conditional approval for a mixed use commercial/residential development and refurbishment of hotel at No. 80 (Lot 700) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (refer DA733/04). On 28 November 2007 the City granted conditional approval for the change of use to Shop and alterations at No. 80 (Lot 700) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (refer DA347/07). On 13 November 2008 the WAPC approved the survey strata of No. 80 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle, resulting in strata plan no. 51329 of which Lot 27 (No. 78) is comprised. On 9 December 2011 the City granted conditional approval for internal alterations and a change of use to medical centre, restaurant, consulting rooms and health studio to the existing commercial building at No. 78 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (refer DA0435/11). On 3 September 2012 the City granted conditional approval for the partial change of an existing Medical Centre and Shop to Restaurant at No. 78 (Lot 27) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (refer DA0328/12). The use was approved without any restriction on its hours of opening. DETAIL The applicant is seeking planning approval for a partial change of use from ‘Restaurant’ to ‘Small Bar’ at the subject site. The Small Bar use is sought to operate ‘cocktail party’ style functions and seminars at the subject site with its focus to remain upon food. Such events may include:


Page 38

String quartets, comedy evenings, small plays;

Wine and food evenings; and

Art exhibitions. Proposed hours of operation are as follows:

Monday to Thursday – 7am to 9pm; and

Friday and Saturday – 7am to midnight. The applicant has advised the City that a maximum of 70 patrons are anticipated onsite at any one time. For further details development plans and a description of the proposal are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. Additional information was requested by the City on 11 October 2013 on advice from the City’s Environmental Health department. The following information was provided to the City on 6 November 2013:

Acoustic report and associated noise management plan (contained as ‘Attachment 2’ of this report); and

Further, on 17 December 2013 the applicant provided additional information identifying the location of the bin storage associated with the proposed use. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, and Council’s Local Planning Policies. The discretion sought in relation to the proposed land use and car parking requirements are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION Fremantle Ports The subject site is located within Fremantle Port Buffer Area 2 and on this basis was referred to the Fremantle Port Authority for comment on 1 October 2013. Comment was received on 16 October 2013 advising that the proposal is required to comply with the built form requirements for Area 2. The application proposes no alterations to the existing building, simply a change of use. Main Roads The application was referred to Main Roads for comment on 3 October 2013 due to the subject site abutting Stirling Highway. Comment was received on 9 October 2013 advising the City that Main Roads has no objections to the proposal. Mains Roads advised the applicant that the property is impacted by an increased road reserve as shown on the Land Protection plan 1.7151 for the current Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment 1210/41, the Rationalisation of Stirling Highway.


Page 39

Environmental Health The City requested an acoustic report associated with the proposed use on advice from the City’s Environmental Health department. Subsequently, inconsistencies were found within the report provided by the applicant on 4 November 2013 and a revised copy was requested seeking corrections. On 15 January 2014 a revised Acoustic report (relevant portions contained as ‘Attachment 4 of this report) was provided to the City and was subsequently referred to the City’s Environmental Health department for comment. Environmental Health advised that they supported the proposed change of use subject to it operating in accordance with the Acoustic report provided. The main management conditions recommended in the acoustic report which are relevant to matters raised in submissions from adjoining properties are as follows:

Limitations on usage of southern car parking bays;

Entry and exit for patrons to be through the main entrance door on Stirling Highway only;

Rubbish to be deposited far from southern adjoining residents and to be conducted within certain hours;

Doors and windows to be shut at all times;

Management is to ensure no loitering occurs outside the building at any time;

Deliveries to occur during daytime hours;

Music shall be at a suitable level for normal conversation to occur;

Music within the venue shall not exceed 75 dbA;

Bass frequency amplifiers should be avoided within the venue;

No amplified or percussive music to be performed in the venue;

Reverberation time for music is recommended to be kept below 0.7 seconds;

No music system to be located outdoors;

For outdoor dining, seats and tables shall have rubber feet and stacking of chairs shall be done with care; and

Outdoor dining shall be limited to the covered area on the Stirling Highway side of the premises between 07:00 and 19:00 hours from Monday to Saturday.

Heritage No material alterations are proposed to the original built fabric of the building at No. 78 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle and on this basis no heritage assessment is required. Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 18 October 2013, the City had received 12 submissions highlighting the issues raised in the following table:

Submissions/Objections table from initial public advertising period for DA0473/13 (2 October to 18 October 2013)

No. COMMENT ISSUES RAISED (summarised)

1. Noise Location of bin storage and associated noise

Congregation of patrons in laneway (south of building) at night


Page 40

2. Anti-social behaviour Alcohol consumption

Safety of residents

Security

Damage to property

Mess and rubbish left in car park

3. Car parking -

4. Traffic Access issues

An overflow of parking may block White Street.

5. Land use incongruent with surrounding character of locality

Other pubs/bars in locality

6. Impact upon property values -

7. Loss of amenity to residents in locality Odours associated with bin storage

8. Against strata by-laws -

In response to the submission of additional information, including a noise management plan and acoustic report, the application was readvertised to adjoining properties. At the conclusion of this second advertising period being 25 November 2013 the City received a further nine submissions raising similar concerns to issues raised in the initial advertising period and the following additional concern in relation to privacy:

People looking from car park into residences. Concerns raised in relation to the suitability of the small bar use within the existing strata are considered issues relevant to being dealt with by the body corporate and relevant by-laws under the Strata Titles Act 1985. It is noted however that matters relating to noise are not specifically covered in the strata by-laws. Concerns in relation to strata by-laws are not considered relevant to this application’s determination against the Planning and Development Act 2005. Relevant planning concerns will be addressed in the planning comment section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT Land Use As the subject site is located within Development Area 15 which has no adopted structure plan or detailed area plan the proposed use is not classified in the LPS4 zoning table. On this basis Council’s discretion is sought in relation to the Small Bar use within the Development zone. Clause 6.2.4.2 of LPS4 states: 6.2.4.2 Notwithstanding clause 6.2.4.1, the Council may recommend subdivision or approve the development of land within a Development Area prior to a structure plan coming into effect in relation to that land, if the Council is satisfied that this will not prejudice the specific purposes and requirements of the Development Area.


Page 41

Nos. 78 (Lot 27) & 80 (Lot 1) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle currently comprise a mixed use development consisting of Multiple dwellings, a Restaurant, Shop, Health studio, Consulting rooms and Medical centre. The proposed partial change of use from Restaurant to Small Bar is considered to be consistent with and support the ongoing mixed use nature of Nos. 78 (Lot 27) & 80 (Lot 1) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle. Development Area 15 adjoins land to the north zoned Local Centre, land on the opposite side of Stirling Highway is zoned Mixed Use and the Development Area abuts Stirling Highway which is a Primary Regional Road that is proposed to be widened. In accordance with clause 8.2 (t) of LPS4 a change of use for an approved Restaurant use to Small Bar is permitted without planning approval subject to the use operating within the same hours of operation within both the Local Centre and Mixed Use zones. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to prejudice the specific purposes and requirements of the Development Area and to generally be in accordance with the intent of LPS4. Matters to be considered by Council Based on issues raised in the submissions and the matters to be considered by Council outlined in clause 10.2 of the scheme, the following assessment is provided: The compatibility of a use or development within its setting The proposed use is considered to be consistent with the mixed use nature of the development (refer to land use section above). Concern was raised in relation to the location of the bin storage due to associated odour and noise. Glass and rubbish disposal will be required to be conducted in accordance with the Acoustic report which is recommended to be enforced through a condition of approval. Further, the location of the bin storage has been identified to be at the basement level car park underneath the existing multiple dwellings in the northern portion of the site as per the plan dated 17 December 2013 (contained as ‘Attachment 3’ in this report). This bin storage location is considered to be in accordance with the acoustic report’s requirement for bin storage to be located as far as possible from the southern adjoining properties. The location of this bin storage has been recommended to be enforced through a condition of approval. Any social issues that have an effect upon the amenity of the area The applicant has provided both a harm minimisation plan and acoustic report for the proposed use. Subject to the use operating within both these frameworks the proposed use is not considered likely to result in significant adverse social issues that may be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining residential properties or the locality. A condition of approval is recommended to ensure that the use operates in accordance with the Acoustic report dated 15 January 2014. The harm minimisation plan is considered to be dealt with and implemented through the applicant’s requirement to obtain liquor licensing from the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor. It is understood that the Small Bar use is sought so the venue can serve liquor to standing patrons at ‘cocktail party’ style functions. The applicant states that the focus of the venue will remain on food. The balance of both food and alcohol are considered to


Page 42

reduce the likelihood of alcohol related antisocial behaviour. The current approved Restaurant use has no limitation on its hours of opening and may trade in evenings. The impact associated with a change in land use from Restaurant to Small Bar is considered minimal provided that hours of operation are limited and the recommendations of the acoustic report are adhered to with the major change being that liquor can be served to patrons whilst standing up. Also Small Bar land uses limit the number of patrons to a maximum of 120 at any one time, whilst Restaurant as a land use has no restriction on the number of patrons allowed within the venue. The applicant has advised that the proposed use does not seek to have in excess of 70 patrons onsite at any one time. Council may consider a maximum of 120 patrons within the proposed Small Bar excessive due to its close proximity to Residential uses and may wish to enforce a condition of approval limiting a maximum of 70 patrons onsite at any one time. Further, to support the amenity of adjoining residential land uses conditions of approval have been recommended that limit hours of opening to those proposed and restrict the Small Bar use from the use of car parking bays in the car parking area located south of the Rose Hotel building. Preventing use of the car parking bays in the southern portion of the site may reduce the likelihood of antisocial issues in this area as this portion of the site is not considered to have ready surveillance from the street and directly abuts southern adjoining residential properties. Car parking The subject site comprises 24 onsite car parking bays exclusively serving the commercial uses within the Rose Hotel on Lot 27 between the hours of 8am and 8pm. The other commercial uses on site include consulting rooms, shop and medical centre. The applicant has advised that the car parking bays (12 bays) provided in the southern portion of the site will not be utilised for the proposed use due to potential amenity and noise impacts for adjoining residents as recommended in the acoustic report. This will be enforced through a condition of approval as discussed. This leaves 12 of 24 bays onsite capable of servicing the proposed use in addition to existing uses onsite. On 3 September 2013 the City granted conditional approval for the partial change of use for the existing Medical centre and Shop to Restaurant at No. 78 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (refer DA0328/12). A variation to the car parking requirements of LPS4 was supported for 11 car parking bays on the basis of a reciprocal parking arrangement being made with the owners of the Croatian Catholic Church at No. 92 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle. The current onsite car parking provision and shortfall is as follows:

Use Requirement Proposed Variation

‘Restaurant’, 51.91m² of dining area proposed

1 Car Parking Bay per 5m² dining area

11 Bays Nil 11 Bays

1 Delivery Bays per service/storage area

2 Bays Nil 2 Bays

1 Bicycle Racks - 1:200m² gla

1 Rack 1 Rack Nil

LPS4 does not specify a parking requirement for a Small Bar land use but Council has previously determined this land use’s parking requirement against that required for a Tavern which will be used in the assessment of this application. The car parking requirement for Tavern is 1 car parking bay for every 2.5m2 of public bar area or 1 car parking bay for every 5m2 of lounge/garden area. As the proposal does not provide for a


Page 43

specific bar area within the premises the latter parking requirement for Tavern has been applied. On this basis, the car parking requirement for Small Bar is consistent with the car parking requirement for Restaurant. The existing Restaurant land use was approved based on a parking assessment for a dining area of 51.91m2 (tenancy 4). The current application proposes to increase the effective floor area of the Small Bar use to both tenancy 3 and 4 which comprises an effective Small Bar lounge area of 112.59m2. The current onsite car parking calculation is as follows:

Use Requirement Proposed Variation

‘Small Bar’, 112.59m² of lounge area

1 Car Parking Bay per 5m² lounge area

23 Bays Nil 35 bays (23 bays associated with use and reduction in provision of 12 car parking bays in southern portion of site).

1 Delivery Bays per service/storage area

1 Bays Nil 1 bay

Bicycle Racks - N/A

N/A N/A N/A

Thus the overall car parking requirement has increased based on the additional floor area sought for the site (12 bays) and the reduction in onsite car parking provision (12 bays in southern portion of the site will not be utilised by the proposed use). It is recommended that Council support the car parking shortfall in accordance with the relaxation of parking requirements of LPS4 for the following reasons:

The subject site is in close proximity (less than 250m) from the North Fremantle rail station and is located on Stirling Highway which is a high frequency bus route. Further, the North Fremantle rail station provides a public car parking area comprising approximately 70 car parking bays;

All but five of the car parking bays located in the parking area to the north of the Rose Hotel building are exclusively provided for visitor parking associated with commercial uses within the Rose Hotel building between hours of 8am to 8pm. The majority of resident car parking is provided underneath the Multiple dwelling development which is protected by security access. On this basis, it is unlikely that the proposed use will have any significant impact upon resident parking amenity onsite; and

It is noted that a delivery bay is required to be provided for the proposed Small Bar use. This requirement poses no change to the existing delivery bay requirement associated with the approved Restaurant use which was waived in planning approval DA0328/12 on the basis of there being sufficient space for the access of a delivery vehicle to the south of the subject site.

CONCLUSION The application has been assessed against the City’s LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and relevant Council policies. The partial change of use requires Council


Page 44

discretion in its determination as the subject site is located within Development Area 15 which has no applicable structure plan. Further, Council discretion is sought in relation to a car parking shortfall associated with the proposed use. It is considered that the Small Bar use is consistent with the mixed use nature of the development onsite and local planning context. Further, subject to conditions, the proposed use is not considered to have any significant impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality in the nature of the use or car parking shortfall. Accordingly, the application is recommended for condition approval. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial change of use from Restaurant to Small Bar at No. 78 (Lot 27) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, Business Management Plan and Acoustic report, dated 25 September 2013 and 15 January 2014 respectively. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. The use is to operate in accordance with the Acoustic report – Noise assessment for change of use for the Rose Medical and Aesthetic Centre dated 15 January 2014 to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Any bins associated with the Small Bar use are to be stored in the location indicated in blue on the approved basement plan dated 26 September 2013 and are not permitted to be stored anywhere else onsite to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. That any onsite car parking associated with the Small Bar use be limited to the car parking bays to the north of the Rose Hotel building and the use shall not occupy any car parking bays located in the southern parking area as indicated in red on the approved basement plan dated 25 September 2013 to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. That the Small Bar hours of operation be limited to 7am to 9pm from Sunday to Thursday and 7am to 12am on Fridays and Saturdays to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Advice Note:

i. The applicant is advised the subject site is impacted by an increased road reserve as shown on the Land Protection plan 1.7151 for the current Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment 1210/41, the Rationalisation of Stirling Highway. For further information the applicant is advised to contact Main Roads WA on 138 138.


Page 45

ii. This decision does not remove the obligation of the applicant/owner to seek the necessary approvals under the strata titles act.

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate The application be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee in order for the matters raised in corresponded dated 21 February 2014 from solicitors representing one of the strata owners to be further investigated. SECONDED: Cr B Massie CARRIED: 12/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr J Strachan MOVED an amendment to the above to defer the item with delegation to the Planning Services Committee. SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 12/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 46

COUNCIL DECISION

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate The application be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee in order for the matters raised in corresponded dated 21 February 2014 from solicitors representing one of the strata owners to be further investigated with delegation to the Planning Services Committee. SECONDED: Cr R Fittock CARRIED: 11/2

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Simon Naber


Page 47

At 8.20 pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt brought forward item/s SGS1402-2 for discussion.

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 12 FEBRUARY 2014

Cr R Fittock vacated the chamber at 8.21 pm during the following item and returned at 8.23 pm prior to determination.

SGS1402-2 CONSIDERATION FOR LEASE OF UNIT 1 J SHED TO SUNSET EVENTS (UPDATED)

DataWorks Reference: 048/002, 034/005 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: SGS 12 February, Council 26 February. 2014 Previous Item: C1311-12, SGS1312-1 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1 - Submission from Anna George (under

separate cover) Attachment 2 - Letter from Department of Aboriginal Affairs (under separate cover) Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions (under separate cover)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To consider the proposed lease for Unit 1 J Shed with Sunset Events Pty Ltd and the public submissions received commenting on the Consultation Plan to Lease Unit 1 J Shed, Fleet Street, Fremantle to Sunset Events Pty Ltd. It is recommended Council support the business plan with some minor changes to the provisions of the lease for clarity and greater control on management of the venue and reduction of patron numbers. Consideration is also sought to approve delegated authority for the Chief Executive Officer to finalise the Lease negotiation with Sunset Events Pty Ltd.

BACKGROUND

In November 2012 Council resolved to seek “the front glass-walled studio of J-Shed to be put out for lease through a competitive process as a bar/café/gallery as a major attractor for the whole area. This should include space for artists in Arthur Head precinct to be able to exhibit their work on a priority basis. At other time the gallery space would be for rent like the Moores building.”

An expression of interest process was undertaken in early 2013 in which Sunset Events was selected as the preferred interest. The City has since undertaken negotiations for a lease with Sunset Events for a term of 21 years for Unit 1 and a portion of the surrounds to J Shed. At the ordinary meeting in November 2013 Council considered a report providing the essential terms of the negotiations and resolved the following;


Page 48

“The proposed lease for Unit 1 J-Shed between the City of Fremantle and Sunset Events be deferred to the December, 2013, Strategic and General Services Committee to consider the advertising of a business plan in accordance with section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995 outlining the commercial terms of the lease so that the community has greater opportunity to make comment prior to the lease being finalised.” An item to Strategic and General Services Committee sought approval for a consultation plan for the proposed lease between the City of Fremantle and Sunset Events. The following resolution adopted; “The Strategic and General Services Committee, acting under delegation item 1.1, approve the Consultation Plan for the proposed lease to Sunset Events for Unit 1 J-Shed, Fleet Street, Fremantle, to be advertised for a period of six weeks.” The City advertised the consultation plan regarding the proposal to enter into a land transaction through disposal of Unit 1 J Shed Fleet Street, Fremantle in the form of a Lease. The plan outlined the proposal from Sunset Events and the essential terms and conditions of the lease negotiations. Prior to Strategic and General Services Committees resolution the City invited stakeholders to an information session in November 2013. Further to this a public information session was also held on Tuesday 14 January 2014 outlining the proposal to interested persons. An outline of the proposal was advertised in the West Australian, Fremantle Herald, Fremantle Gazette and social media directing those wanting to comment to the City’s website which enabled them to view the detailed consultation plan.

COMMENT

The public consultation generated 328 responses in total with 268 in support of the lease proposal with Sunset Events, 57 opposed and 1 neutral. The general reasoning behind this support was a belief that the venture would enhance the social and cultural attributes of Fremantle, the area was appropriate for this type of development and there was a need for more live music venues supporting the local music industry. Of the remaining which were not in support of Sunsets proposal the majority felt that the location and size was not suitable for the proposed use and had environmental and noise concerns for when events would be held. Two petitions were received, one of 200 signatures opposing the proposal has also been provided by the Fremantle Inner City Residents Association (FICRA) and one of 14 signatures opposing the proposal provided by local residents. FICRA has also advised their intention to seek a Special Electors Meeting on this matter on 24th February, 2014. This will occur before this report is considered by Council. The objections reasons can be broken into the following main categories; Patron Numbers


Page 49

One of the common themes coming through is that the venue described in the plan is too large. The consideration of a licence allowing up to 850 patrons during opening hours through the week has been described as a “liquor barn”. In seeking a bar/cafe/gallery which is a major attractor it is not considered that council had a particular size in mind, but the size being proposed has received a great share of the opposition comment. Generally, the opposition opinion trend is towards seeking a small bar outcome where numbers are kept to 120 patrons. The sense of the submissions is that this fits more with the Management of Alcohol Policy of council, will ensure better management of the venue and lower the risk of anti-social behaviour. The policy is considered later in this report. Whilst these comments do not necessarily cast negativity on the proposed lessee (Sunset), they do query the ability of any licensed venue to ensure good orderly behaviour by patrons and especially on departure from the venue. The issue of venue management will be more appropriately addressed during the liquor license application, however if supported, the lease will support the applicants own request to keep the venue to beer, cider and wine and will not seek to support the supply of spirits. This will generally ensure a more mature type operation. The City has been negotiating patron numbers with Sunset Events. Further consideration has been given to how the actual patronage may turn-over during the day and whether up to 850 patrons would actually be at the venue at one single point in time. These further negotiations with Sunset have centred around what minimum number they believe would work for their business model and ensure a return on their investment. The City also proposed the ability to provide for different patron allowances at different times of the week, fewer during the Monday to Thursday periods and more on Fridays to Sundays. Also being considered is whether the lease could allow for a lower number to start with and an allowance to increase the number if the applicant could demonstrate their management of the venue and commitment to creative industries and the arts hub over a period of time. The applicant has considered these options and agreed to limiting the number of patrons to 500 with the ability to upscale subject to council approval at its discretion. The liquor license application will seek 850 however the lease will restrict that number. This will give council some control over the management of the venue numbers between the 500 and 850 range. The lease could also contain a clause that allowed the numbers to be pulled back if management of the venue started to fail. This would allow Council to maintain control in the possibility that a new entity takes over the lease at some point in the future. Whilst the applicant will seek a license of up to 850 patrons the liquor license application may see the actual approval, if provided, set a lower number. The new agreement to start at 500 does not meet the reduction being sought through the opposition submissions. The ability to increase and decrease patrons will give some flexibility to council to ensure the venue is managed appropriately to reduce the risk of poor management. The lower this number the lower the level of risk would be.


Page 50

A proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and Sunset Events will provide a good guide as to the way the venue can be managed and the approach to creative industry outcomes being sought. This MOU, if agreed to, will allow council the ability to gauge how and if it allows the patron numbers to be changed and will set the expectations of both Sunset and the City in the performance of the venue. The size of the proposal has also seen some submissions comment the proposed venue may “take-over” the area and dominate the other tenants in the area. Sunset has held meetings with surrounding tenants to develop relationships to support shared working outcomes and the lease size has been reduced during negotiations. The expression of interest sought a venue which would attract visitors to the area and therefore the venue was always going to be the main tenant in that regard. Alcohol Management Policy One of the strengths of the proposal by Sunset is their commitment to ensuring the creative industry vibe is the main theme. Sunset commit to ensure that the creative industry and arts hub vibe are the point of difference the venue will market and provide. When compared to other licensed venues around the Fremantle CBD this license is in the upper range. However, the venue will be broken into four distinct areas. Firstly the internal fitout will provide for long table seating bringing about a shared seating arrangement similar to the bread in common fitout. It will also include a small bar area so patrons can view the food and beverage options. A mezzanine space will also be created with a casual lounge type fitout to allow patrons to chill and hook into the wireless, read the paper and enjoy the atmosphere and views. Outside the plan is to keep it casual and relaxed and keeping the area as a sit-down space. Various outdoor arrangements will be made from artist made table and seats to picnic rugs and sun chairs with umbrellas. Acoustic music will be played and kept to levels which will not require patrons to have to raise their voice over. Sunset acknowledge that they need their brand to be different and feel they want to retain a niche feel that is left of centre from the mainstream market. The venue will not be serving liquor products such as spirits. It aims to brew beer, which is likely to occur at their premises in O’Connor, support the creative industry in its branding both in style and through sponsorship of events. A small “nano” brew may be produced on-site. Submissions confer the opinion that the proposal is outside the Council’s own Alcohol Management Policy. Aspects of the policy do suggest a preference to smaller venues;

supports restaurant and small bar licence categories as the type of low risk licensed venues that best compliment the City's desired character and identity for Fremantle,

a general presumption against large or high risk licensed premises in the City centre trading past 1am, and

a general presumption against licensed premises outside of the City centre trading past 12am.

Aspects of the policy also suggest circumstances in which council could support a larger venue;


Page 51

a vibrant and sustainable night time economy, promote small business, protect public health and enhance amenity,

support for licensed premises where alcohol is not the primary activity, and

is ancillary to other compatible uses carried out on site. Council will need to consider the intention of the policy when assessing this proposal. Noise/Venue Management The environmental modelling being undertaken by Sunset is suggesting the venue based noise should not impact on the local community during normal operation activities. The limited ticketed events will require more detailed modelling but will be required to remain within guidelines. Another area of noise concern would be the egress of patrons from the venue. The relaxed, casual style of the proposal should ensure a range of age groups at the venue which should see a relaxed cordial exit from the venue by patrons. End of night patrons may leave with more noise and Sunset have agreed to provide appropriate management policies which would ensure staff remain onsite well past closing to monitor and control where necessary. Discussion has also centred around closing the whalers tunnel an hour before closing so that egress will not occur directly through the west end at closing time. It is considered that patrons who depart before closing time would usually be better behaved as they have chosen to leave. By getting the patrons to flank the west end at closing time may provide better egress noise management. This aspect of the operations will also be considered through the liquor license application and it is expected this matter will also influence the number approved, if approved, by the Department of Racing and Gaming (RGL). RGL may make comment on the security and facilities contained within the venue. RGL can also restrict the license to ensure only beer, cider and wine alcoholic beverages are served. RGL provide the ability for members of the public to raise concerns on how a venue is managed through section 117 of the Liquor Control Act. A lodgement under this section can lead to a review of the license of a venue. The lease can restrict the operational hours of the venue to ensure appropriate closure times, and through the MOU ensure that management aims are achieved if the applicant seeks to make changes to patron numbers. Heritage Being the site of european settlement for the swan river colony, the area contains heritage significance. Submissions have raised the need to consider this significance. During time since white settlement the area has been through a number of changes. Previous conservation reports have accounted for these changes and the identification of heritage features. The planning application process will consider the heritage aspects of the development and consider any necessary conditions to ensure heritage is protected and/or interpreted where necessary. The lease will include a requirement to seek planning approval and abide by any conditions set under any approval given. The lease boundary can also be adjusted to allow for any heritage condition which may be placed on an application for development.


Page 52

Indigenous Heritage Comments have been received on the indigenous significance of the site. Officers are unaware of any current registrations of the site but acknowledge these can be considered as part of the planning application process and appropriate conditions provided if necessary. A letter is attached from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs advising there is no registration over the site. Stated Aims for Arthur Head Submission comments include clarification as to how the Council’s stated aims for the area fit with this proposal. The view being that the proposal does not fit with the stated aims. The City of Fremantle’s stated aims for the Arthur Head area are;

To activate the West End and attract visitors to the area,

To create a space where arts and culture meets the public,

Where you can see and interact with artists and have contact with arts in practice,

Celebrate the history and heritage of the area,

Include the Bathers Beach environment, and

Promote as an Indigenous heritage place. The proposal from Sunset seeks to cultivate the creative industries as its niche. As discussed above Sunset wish to use the arts hub focus as a point of difference in the business operations of the venue. This would include allowing artists in residence to let space in the area to create and display their work, be involved with the other Arthur Head holdings to ensure good outcomes when a visiting artist is receiving positive outcomes from their incubation, and for promotion and support of arts events and attraction to the area for various arts events and businesses. Promotion of indigenous heritage could be undertaken by Sunset. They have discussed this with the City in the past, and indicated they would need council guidance on how best to provide this outcome, but would be happy to consider this need. Safety and Cleanliness of Area There are some submissions which reflect on the possibility of safety concerns with more people being around especially into the evening hours. The concern being that safety will become more hazardous. Whilst safety is a concern and needs to be monitored the reverse could also be argued. Having more people around will likely improve passive surveillance and therefore improve safety around the area. More people may also lead to greater levels of rubbish being left in the area, especially if “take-aways” lead to patrons remaining in the location after closing times. It is anticipated that the venue security will remain in the area after closing to ensure all patrons move on in a cordial manner and do not leave the area in an untidy situation. External Leased Area


Page 53

The proposal includes leasing a portion of the outside area on the western side of J Shed. Comment has been made that this will restrict the use of and impose on the other tenants in J Shed. This aspect of the proposal has been discussed with Sunset and they have considered various options to ensure impact on other tenants is minimal. The City has also discussed the need to ensure legibility between Fishing Boat Harbour and Victoria Quay. One of the main purposes of activation is to encourage the linkage between these areas. The City will continue to explore the options for this space which will balance the above needs and the requirements for the venue. Parking Parking is a premium item in the West End. A venue of this size will impose on the parking opportunities in the West End. Sunset are in discussion with TAFE to utilise their area during non-core TAFE hours and will promote public transport advice for their ticketed events. There is parking available on Victoria Quay which usually have sufficient night time availability and patrons could access other parking options around Fremantle. Whilst patrons will seek to park as close to the venue as possible parking in itself should not prevent a development, but it is an issue which will need to be managed. In response to these main concerns it should be considered that Sunset Events have a diverse background in organising events in Fremantle and regional Western Australia and acknowledge the necessity of factoring in the environmental impact their festivals may have. Unlike their other events the premises at J Shed will be a full time endeavour so it would be even more in Sunsets favour to ensure the reserve is actively maintained. As the organiser of the Blues “N” Roots festival which takes place annually in Fremantle Sunset Events is aware of the protocols regarding the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and the need for City approval for non complying events which includes adequate noise management planning, assessment and consideration. Detailed comments received and Officer Responses have been attached separate to this item for reference.


Financial

The proposed lease provides an annual income that can be utilised in maintaining the heritage buildings and developing the surrounding reserve area. The commencing rent of approximately $72,000 p.a. Any proposed redevelopment will be at the cost of Sunset Events and not impact on City’s budgets. Legal

Local Government Act 1995 and Commercial Tenancy Agreement Act 1985.


Page 54

Arthur Head Reserve is vested to the City of Fremantle for the designated purpose of “Historical Buildings, Recreation and Community Services”. The City has the power to Lease or Licence any portion of the land outside of the permitted reserve purpose for a period up to twenty one (21) years subject to Minister for Lands approval and the condition that all income derived from the management of the reserve is used solely for the purpose of the care, maintenance and development of the reserve. The lease will contain a clause which requires approval by the Minister for Lands before being endorsed. Being an A class reserve, if the Minister is of the opinion the proposed lease does not conform with the management order, the Minister can consider an application to change the order. The lease could not be re-considered before the order is changed. Operational

The City will continue to finalise the lease based on the essential terms to be approved by council. The lease will not be formally executed until this time. Once the lease is executed and approved by Minister for lands the lessee will commence to seek development and liquor licensing approvals. If these approvals are granted, the lessee will commence construction works to the premises. It is not anticipated this business will commence operations for approximately 2 years after the lease is signed. Organisational

Nil.

CONCLUSION

Based on the suggested changes to the proposed lease from the issues raised through the public responses received from the consultation plan, and provided in the commentary of this report, it is recommended council consider a lease with Sunset Events for Unit 1 J Shed and part of the open space adjacent. Numbers for the venue can be managed through the lease process to ensure the venue is properly managed and to ensure Sunset deliver on creative industry outcomes that reflect the intent of the proposal. The commencement patron numbers are recommended to be reduced further to 500 with provision to increase only at council discretion and provision to reduce back (if increased) at council discretion if management of the venue is not meeting expectation.


1.1 Diversity of People and Lifestyles and 2.1 Vibrant and Diverse Economic Activity


As contained within this report.


Page 55




1. Council agrees to enter into a Lease of Unit 1 J Shed, Fleet Street, Fremantle to Sunset Events Pty Ltd in accordance with the December 2013 Consultation Plan and with the following;

a) the lease to include provision for up to 1 500 patrons for ticketed events, b) the lease to include provision for up to 850 patrons for normal operations, c) the lease include provision to restrict patrons to 500 for normal operations but

with allowance under absolute council discretion to increase this to up to 850 if the tenant demonstrates creative industry outcomes and appropriate venue management,

d) the lease also include the ability to reduce numbers back to 500 if unsatisfactory venue management is not corrected at the absolute discretion of council.

2. Council delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise the lease in

accordance with the December 2013 Consultation Plan and terms identified in part 1 above.

3. Council,

a) Receives and acknowledges the community submissions in relation to the proposal to lease Unit 1 J Shed to Sunset Events, and

b) Seeks the City to advise all submission providers of the council decision. At Committee - Cr D Hume MOVED an amendment to part 1 (b) of the Officer's Recommendation to remove the following wording:

b) the lease to include provision for up to 850 patrons for normal operations,

CARRIED: 6/0 At Committee - Cr D Hume MOVED an amendment to part 1 of the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording:

d) the outside leased area include no more than 50% of the open spaced area adjacent to J Shed.

CARRIED: 6/0


Page 56

At Committee - Cr D Hume MOVED an amendment to part 1 of the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording:

e) the lease also include provision of a possibility to expand onto the eastern side of J Shed towards the round house precinct.

LOST: 2/4 At Committee - Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: 2) Lease income to be set aside for first-priority application to costs associated

with the enhancement, maintenance and management of the Arthur Head Arts Hub and precinct;

CARRIED: 5/1 At Committee - Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: 3) That fees and charges be paid for the use of areas outside of the lease area and

that the City develop an equitable fees and charges schedule for consideration in the next appropriate budget round;

CARRIED: 6/0 At Committee - Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: 4) That the City and the lessee enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

in relation to the lease area and the Arthur Head Arts Hub with the aim of delivering a venue that provides opportunities to showcase an extensive range of arts and creative industries in a progressive and stimulating atmosphere that inspires fresh and interesting social engagement. The MOU shall include, but not be limited to the following: a) A clear statement that the primary character of the venue will be defined by

its role in supporting and showcasing a range of arts and creative industries;

b) A commitment to ensure that the inclusion of both the creative arts and food service are each individually of greater emphasis in defining the character of the place compared to the consumption of alcohol, including a commitment to providing a suitable range of affordable food;

c) A commitment to best practice in encouraging responsible drinking including management strategies aimed at delivering positive behavioural change both in the venue and in the precinct as a whole, including implementation of management strategies targeted to lower the risk of poor social behaviour;


Page 57

d) That the proposed beverage brand associated with the site be associated with boutique craft brewing and a more cultured approach to consuming alcohol as an accompaniment to food and social activity. The brand should be aligned with the creative industries generally;

e) A commitment to ongoing investment in programmes that support the creative industries being centred at the venue or the arts hub generally;

f) Developing a venue that is welcoming to the broad public including tourists, families and beach goers as appropriate to this inner city waterfront location of considerable cultural significance.

CARRIED: 6/0 At Committee - Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: 5) The lessor and lessee mutually agree that the lease boundaries are established

for the purpose of executing the lease so as to enable the lessee to investigate the planning, heritage, urban design, and landscaping matters relevant to the proposed development of the lease area through the design development process and the determination of any required applications by the appropriate authorities.

6) The lessor and lessee to mutually agree to make such minor modifications to the lease boundaries that accommodate the detailed design of the proposal and the area generally with such minor modifications to be to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

CARRIED: 6/0 At Committee - Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording:

7) The lessor and lessee mutually agree to work collaboratively to develop a masterplan and/or detail design for the lease area, the overall reserve and adjoining areas, that seek to include, but are not limited to, the following:

a) Develop a place where visitors feel welcome and the design gives expression to the precincts underlying historical significance. The design and programming of the space should provide visitors with an opportunity to experience the physical reality of early European settlement and the type of environment that existed prior to European settlement;

b) Develop a place where visitors enjoy the combination of beach, ocean, endemic vegetation, natural and modified limestone landforms, historic buildings, cultural activity & creative arts. The precinct should offer the visitor physical pleasure and relaxation, information about a place of considerable cultural significance, creature comforts and amenities, and, importantly, an emotional experience.


Page 58

c) Develop the J-Shed precinct as a transition zone that links Bathers Beach with the maritime character associated with the Slip Street Precinct and Victoria Quay;

d) Identify short, medium and long term urban design and servicing of the J-Shed studios in liaison with existing tenants;

e) Improve the presentation of J-Shed to the surrounding spaces including to Fleet Street, Bathers Beach and the Arthur Head areas to the east;

f) Improve the pedestrian movements between Bathers Beach through to the Slip Street Precinct and Victoria Quay beyond, in liaison with Fremantle Ports, TAFE and any other identified stakeholders;

g) Provides a legible northern gateway and pedestrian access point to Bathers Beach;

h) Develop proposals that reveal, conserve, and interpret archaeological sites in the vicinity;

i) Provide improved and unrestricted pedestrian connectivity between the J-Shed precinct and the elevated areas of Arthur Head to the east;

j) Address any unpleasant microclimate implications of the open space areas as far as reasonably possible and include appropriate urban design and landscape responses that can diminish the impact of the hot summer sun and strong sea breezes on the precinct, aiming always to establish a more enjoyable foreshore experience;

k) Develop a landscape palette that assists with the creation of shade, protection from strong winds, and references the original coastal and limestone outcrop environments. Include materials that reflect and amplify the original materials and form of the headland. Maintain or remove existing vegetation as deemed appropriate to establish a quality and sustainable landscape, including the existing Norfolk Island Pines in Fleet Street.

l) Improve pedestrian pathways and routes in the Bathers Beach precinct and the Whalers’ Tunnel to accommodate the anticipated increase in public and commercial activity in the area and to improve public safety and amenity;

m) Develop an interpretation strategy for the precinct to include and highlight the indigenous and non-indigenous cultural significance;

n) Improve public parking in the precinct and adjoining areas to serve the precinct generally and the lease area specifically, including identifying any parking arrangements that may be required as a condition of planning approval in relation to the new development;

o) Improve way-finding between the proposed development and other key activities including the passenger rail station and other forms of public transport, public car parks, and nearby precincts such as the West End, Victoria Quay, Bathers Beach, the Fishing Boat Harbour and the Esplanade Reserve;

p) Includes appropriate reinstatement of a portion of the J-Shed and, where appropriate, new low profile and architecturally sensitive additions that do not detract from the important outlooks above the cliffs;


Page 59

q) Improve lighting of the precinct, including the foreshore, without causing glare at public viewing points above the cliffs;

r) Provide adequate protection from coastal forces and sea level rises as required;

s) Ensures improvements are made for the long term and not just for the lifespan of the lease.


8) Council acknowledges that in addition to the works to be carried out by the lessor within the lease area that considerable additional works are required in the areas adjacent to the lease and J-Shed generally. Council acknowledges that the City will be responsible for carrying out such external/adjacent works where they are not directly required as part of the lessee’s needs and/or to satisfy any conditions imposed on the lessee by the relevant authorities. Works to be implemented by the City will as far as is reasonably possible be implemented in a timely manner and so as to establish an integrated precinct. The City shall develop a capital works improvement schedule for its portion of the improvements identified in the proposed masterplan/design and prepare a costed implementation plan for consideration in the appropriate budget cycle.


9) Lessee to participate as a member of an Arthur Head Arts and Culture Hub Management Group with the other members of the precinct, the City and relevant creative arts stakeholders.

CARRIED: 6/0

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

1. Council agrees to enter into a lease of Unit 1 J Shed, Fleet Street, Fremantle to Sunset Events Pty Ltd in accordance with the December 2013 Consultation Plan and with the following; a) the lease to include provision for up to 1 500 patrons for ticketed events, b) the lease include provision to restrict patrons to 500 for normal

operations but with allowance under absolute council discretion to increase this to up to 850 if the tenant demonstrates creative industry outcomes and appropriate venue management,


Page 60

c) the lease also include the ability to reduce numbers back to 500 if unsatisfactory venue management is not corrected at the absolute discretion of council.

d) the outside leased area include no more than 50% of the open spaced area adjacent to J Shed.

2. Lease income to be set aside for first-priority application to costs

associated with the enhancement, maintenance and management of the Arthur Head Arts Hub and precinct;

3. That fees and charges be paid for the use of areas outside of the lease area

and that the City develop an equitable fees and charges schedule for consideration in the next appropriate budget round;

4. That the City and the Lessee enter into a Memorandum of Understanding in

relation to the Lease area and the Arthur Head Arts Hub with the aim of delivering a venue that provides opportunities to showcase an extensive range of arts and creative industries in a progressive and stimulating atmosphere that inspires fresh and interesting social engagement. The MOU shall include, but not be limited to the following:

a) A clear statement that the primary character of the venue will be defined

by its role in supporting and showcasing a range of arts and creative industries;

b) A commitment to ensure that the inclusion of both the creative arts and food service are each individually of greater emphasis in defining the character of the place compared to the consumption of alcohol, including a commitment to providing a suitable range of affordable food;

c) A commitment to best practice in encouraging responsible drinking including management strategies aimed at delivering positive behavioural change both in the venue and in the precinct as a whole, including implementation of management strategies targeted to lower the risk of poor social behaviour;

d) That the proposed beverage brand associated with the site be associated with boutique craft brewing and a more cultured approach to consuming alcohol as an accompaniment to food and social activity. The brand should be aligned with the creative industries generally;

e) A commitment to ongoing investment in programmes that support the creative industries being centred at the venue or the arts hub generally;


5. The lessor and lessee mutually agree that the lease boundaries are

established for the purpose of executing the lease so as to enable the lessee to investigate the planning, heritage, urban design, and landscaping matters relevant to the proposed development of the lease area through the design development process and the determination of any required applications by the appropriate authorities.


Page 61

6. The lessor and lessee to mutually agree to make such minor modifications to the Lease boundaries that accommodate the detailed design of the proposal and the area generally with such minor modifications to be to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. The lessor and lessee mutually agree to work collaboratively to develop a

masterplan and/or detail design for the lease area, the overall reserve and adjoining areas, that seek to include, but are not limited to, the following:

a) Develop a place where visitors feel welcome and the design gives

expression to the precincts underlying historical significance. The design and programming of the space should provide visitors with an opportunity to experience the physical reality of early European settlement and the type of environment that existed prior to European settlement;

b) Develop a place where visitors enjoy the combination of beach, ocean, endemic vegetation, natural and modified limestone landforms, historic buildings, cultural activity and creative arts. The precinct should offer the visitor physical pleasure and relaxation, information about a place of considerable cultural significance, creature comforts and amenities, and, importantly, an emotional experience.


d) Identify short, medium and long term urban design and servicing of the J-Shed studios in liaison with existing tenants;




h) Develop proposals that reveal, conserve, and interpret archaeological sites in the vicinity;



k) Develop a landscape palette that assists with the creation of shade, protection from strong winds, and references the original coastal and limestone outcrop environments. Include materials that reflect and amplify the original materials and form of the headland. Maintain or remove existing vegetation as deemed appropriate to establish a quality and sustainable landscape, including the existing Norfolk Island Pines in Fleet Street.

l) Improve pedestrian pathways and routes in the Bathers Beach precinct and the Whalers’ Tunnel to accommodate the anticipated increase in


Page 62

public and commercial activity in the area and to improve public safety and amenity;

m) Develop an interpretation strategy for the precinct to include and highlight the indigenous and non-indigenous cultural significance;






s) Ensures improvements are made for the long term and not just for the lifespan of the lease.

8. Council acknowledges that in addition to the works to be carried out by the

lessor within the lease area that considerable additional works are required in the areas adjacent to the lease and J-Shed generally. Council acknowledges that the City will be responsible for carrying out such external/adjacent works where they are not directly required as part of the lessee’s needs and/or to satisfy any conditions imposed on the lessee by the relevant authorities. Works to be implemented by the City will as far as is reasonably possible be implemented in a timely manner and so as to establish an integrated precinct. The City shall develop a capital works improvement schedule for its portion of the improvements identified in the proposed masterplan/design and prepare a costed implementation plan for consideration in the appropriate budget cycle.

9. Lessee to participate as a member of an Arthur Head Arts and Culture Hub

Management Group with the other members of the precinct, the City and relevant creative arts stakeholders.

10. Council delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise the

lease in accordance with the December 2013 Consultation Plan and terms identified in part 1 above.

11. Council,


b) Seeks the City to advise all submission providers of the council decision.


Page 63

CARRIED: 6/0 REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The removal of Part 1b ensures greater clarity that the intention is to reduce the advertised patronage size to a starting point of 500. By ensuring no more than 50% of the grassed area is provided in the lease the area will remain accessible for the general community. The idea of creating a bridge to the round house precinct makes legible sense and would allow for greater synergy with the arts hub. Parts 2 – 9 were added to further clarify the creative hub outcomes being considered with this proposal. Cr A Sullivan MOVED an alternative recommendation to the Committee's Recommendation to read as follows:

2. Lease income to be set aside for first-priority application to costs

associated with the enhancement, maintenance and management of the Arthur Head Arts Hub and precinct;

3. That fees and charges be paid for the use of areas outside of the lease

area in a manner consistent with the approach adopted for other reserves in Fremantle. That the City develop an equitable fees and charges schedule for consideration in the next appropriate budget round along with relevant policy provisions to cover the occasional use of space outside the leased area by J-Shed tenants;

4. That the City and the lessee enter into a Memorandum of Understanding

with the aim of delivering a venue that provides opportunities to showcase an extensive range of arts and creative industries in a progressive and stimulating atmosphere that inspires fresh and interesting social engagement. The MOU should include, but not be limited to the following:

a) A clear statement that the primary character of the operation will be a

micro-brewing and artisan food provider as part of an iconic and high-quality music venue, and that one of the key functions of the venue will be to support and showcase a diverse range of arts and creative industries including exhibiting J Shed and Arthur Head artists’ work as a priority;

b) A commitment to maintain a well-balanced focus on food, craft beverages, creative industries and music as appropriate to service the arts precinct and foreshore setting;

c) A commitment to best practice in encouraging responsible drinking including management strategies aimed at delivering positive behavioural change, including implementation of management strategies targeted to lower the risk of poor social behaviour;

d) That the proposed beverage brand connected to the proposal be associated with quality craft brewing and the brand should be aligned with the creative industries generally;


Page 64

e) A commitment to ongoing investment in programmes that support the creative industries being centred at the venue;


5. The City and lessee mutually agree that the lease boundaries are


6. The City and lessee to mutually agree to make such minor modifications

to the Lease boundaries that accommodate the detailed design of the proposal and the area generally with such minor modifications to be to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. The lessee is to consult with the City regarding details of the design for

the lease area as required. The City and lessee shall mutually agree to work collaboratively to develop a concept design for the lease area and adjoining areas so that works by each party are appropriately integrated and seek to include, but are not limited to, the following:



b) Develop a place where visitors enjoy the combination of beach, ocean, endemic vegetation, natural and modified limestone landforms, historic buildings, cultural activity and creative arts. The precinct should offer the visitor physical pleasure and relaxation, information about a place of considerable cultural significance, creature comforts and amenities, and, importantly, an emotional experience.


d) Accommodates the short, medium and long term urban design and servicing of the J-Shed studios in liaison with existing tenants;




h) Accommodates appropriate proposals that reveal, conserve, and


Page 65

interpret archaeological sites in the vicinity; i) Provide improved and unrestricted pedestrian connectivity between

the J-Shed precinct and the elevated areas of Arthur Head to the east;


k) Develop a landscape palette that assists with the creation of shade, protection from strong winds, and references the original coastal and limestone outcrop environments. Include materials that reflect and amplify the original materials and form of the headland. Maintain, replace and/or remove existing vegetation as deemed appropriate to establish a high quality and sustainable landscape.

l) Improve connections to pedestrian pathways and routes in the Bathers Beach precinct and the Whalers’ Tunnel to accommodate the anticipated increase in public and commercial activity in the area and to improve public safety and amenity;

m) Incorporate aspects of an interpretation strategy for the precinct to include and highlight the indigenous and non-indigenous cultural significance;






s) Ensures fixed improvements are of a robust nature and sustainable for the long term and not just for the lifespan of the lease.

8. Council acknowledges that in addition to the works to be carried out by

the lessee within the lease area that considerable additional capital works will be identified in the proposed concept plan in the areas adjacent to the lease and J-Shed generally. Council acknowledges that the City will be responsible for carrying out such external/adjacent works where they are not directly required as part of the lessee’s needs and/or to satisfy any conditions imposed on the lessee by the relevant authorities. Works to be implemented by the City will as far as is reasonably possible be implemented in a timely manner so as to establish an integrated precinct.


Page 66

The City shall develop a capital works improvement schedule for its portion of the improvements identified in the proposed concept design and prepare a costed implementation plan for consideration in the appropriate budget cycle.

9. Council acknowledges that a heritage interpretation plan should be

developed for the precinct to include and highlight the indigenous and non-indigenous cultural significance of the place. The City to prepare a scoping report for consideration by Council in 2014;

10. The lessee to participate as a member of any Arthur Head Arts Hub

management group, along with the City and other stakeholders in the precinct, that may be established from time to time for the purpose of maintaining and improving the arts hub.



12. Council,



SECONDED: Cr R Fittock Cr S Wainwright MOVED a minor amendment to the amendment to delete 4 (d) SECONDED: Cr I Waltham LOST: 5/8

For Against

Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Robert Fittock Cr Doug Thompson Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Cr J Strachan MOVED an amendment to the recommendation to replace Part 4 (d) to read as follows: d) Consuming alcohol as an accompaniment to food and social activity SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton


Page 67

CARRIED: 10/3

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin

Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to the Alternative Recommendation to include the words 'family friendly' in Part 7 (b) after the words "creature comforts and". SECONDED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt CARRIED: 12/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Bill Massie

Mayor, Brad Pettitt put Cr A Sullivan alternative recommendation as amended above to read as follows (as shown in italics): Cr A Sullivan MOVED

2. Lease income to be set aside for first-priority application to costs associated with the enhancement, maintenance and management of the Arthur Head Arts Hub and precinct;


area in a manner consistent with the approach adopted for other reserves in Fremantle. That the City develop an equitable fees and charges


Page 68

schedule for consideration in the next appropriate budget round along with relevant policy provisions to cover the occasional use of space outside the leased area by J-Shed tenants;







d) That the proposed beverage brand connected to the proposal be associated with quality craft brewing and consuming alcohol as an accompaniment to food and social activity the brand should be aligned with the creative industries generally;










Page 69



b) Develop a place where visitors enjoy the combination of beach, ocean, endemic vegetation, natural and modified limestone landforms, historic buildings, cultural activity and creative arts. The precinct should offer the visitor physical pleasure and relaxation, information about a place of considerable cultural significance, creature comforts and family friendly amenities, and, importantly, an emotional experience.






h) Accommodates appropriate proposals that reveal, conserve, and interpret archaeological sites in the vicinity;






n) Improve public parking in the precinct and adjoining areas to serve


Page 70

the precinct generally and the lease area specifically, including identifying any parking arrangements that may be required as a condition of planning approval in relation to the new development;







the lessee within the lease area that considerable additional capital works will be identified in the proposed concept plan in the areas adjacent to the lease and J-Shed generally. Council acknowledges that the City will be responsible for carrying out such external/adjacent works where they are not directly required as part of the lessee’s needs and/or to satisfy any conditions imposed on the lessee by the relevant authorities. Works to be implemented by the City will as far as is reasonably possible be implemented in a timely manner so as to establish an integrated precinct. The City shall develop a capital works improvement schedule for its portion of the improvements identified in the proposed concept design and prepare a costed implementation plan for consideration in the appropriate budget cycle.

9. Council acknowledges that a heritage interpretation plan should be

developed for the precinct to include and highlight the indigenous and non-indigenous cultural significance of the place. The City to prepare a scoping report for consideration by Council in 2014;

10. The lessee to participate as a member of any Arthur Head Arts Hub

management group, along with the City and other stakeholders in the precinct, that may be established from time to time for the purpose of maintaining and improving the arts hub.



12. Council,



Page 71


SECONDED: Cr R Fittock CARRIED: 12/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Bill Massie

Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to Cr A Sullivan's Alternative Recommendation Part 1 (b) and (d) (as shown in italics): b) the lease include provision to restrict patrons to 500 for normal operations

but with allowance under absolute council discretion to increase this to up to 850 if the tenant demonstrates creative industry outcomes and appropriate venue management, and a demonstrated commitment to implementing the Memorandum of Understanding

d) the outside leased area include no more than 50% of the open spaced area adjacent to J Shed, and that some of the area closest to the water be retained for public use

SECONDED: Cr J Strachan CARRIED: 8/5

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Dave Coggin Cr David Hume


Page 72

Cr S Naber MOVED an amendment to Cr R Pemberton Alternative Recommendation to amend the provision of restrict patrons from 500 to 400 in Part 1 (b). SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 7/6

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

Cr Dave Coggin Cr Josh Wilson Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Robert Fittock

Cr S Naber MOVED an amendment to Cr R Pemberton Alternative Recommendation to amend the councils discretion to decrease the number of patrons from 850 to 600 in Part 1 (b). SECONDED: Cr I Waltham LOST: 6/7

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Sam Wainwright

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION To lower the risk of any issues that may occur. Cr S Naber MOVED an amendment to Cr R Pemberton Alternative Recommendation to amend the provision of restrict patrons from 500 to 400 in Part 1 (c).


Page 73

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 9/4

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume

Cr J Wilson MOVED a minor amendment (as shown in italics) to Cr S Naber to Part 1 (c) of the recommendation to read as follows:

c) the lease also include the ability to reduce numbers back to 500 400 if unsatisfactory venue management in accordance with the MOU

SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/3

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr J Strachan MOVED an amendment to Cr S Naber's Alternative Recommendation to delete Part 1 (a): SECONDED: Cr I Waltham


Page 74

LOST: 3/10

For Against

Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr S Naber MOVED an amendment to Part 1 (a) of Cr S Naber's Alternative Recommendation to allow up to 12 occasions for the year. SECONDED: Cr B Massie CARRIED: 8/5

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Dave Coggin Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the liquor licence policy.

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt

1. Council agrees to enter into a lease of Unit 1 J Shed, Fleet Street, Fremantle to Sunset Events Pty Ltd in accordance with the December 2013 Consultation Plan and with the following;

a) the lease to include provision for up to 1 500 patrons for ticketed

events on up to 12 occasions per year,

b) the lease include provision to restrict patrons to 400 for normal operations but with allowance under absolute council discretion to


Page 75

increase this to up to 850 if the tenant demonstrates creative industry outcomes and appropriate venue management, and a demonstrated commitment to implementing the Memorandum of Understanding

c) the lease also include the ability to reduce numbers back to 400 if unsatisfactory venue management in accordance with the MOU

d) the outside leased area include no more than 50% of the open spaced

area adjacent to J Shed, and that some of the area closest to the water be retained for public use

2. Lease income to be set aside for first-priority application to costs associated with the enhancement, maintenance and management of the Arthur Head Arts Hub and precinct;


area in a manner consistent with the approach adopted for other reserves in Fremantle. That the City develop an equitable fees and charges schedule for consideration in the next appropriate budget round along with relevant policy provisions to cover the occasional use of space outside the leased area by J-Shed tenants;







d) That the proposed beverage brand connected to the proposal be associated with quality craft brewing and and consuming alcohol as an accompaniment to food, the brand should be aligned with the creative industries generally;




Page 76









b) Develop a place where visitors enjoy the combination of beach, ocean, endemic vegetation, natural and modified limestone landforms, historic buildings, cultural activity and creative arts. The precinct should offer the visitor physical pleasure and relaxation, information about a place of considerable cultural significance, creature comforts and family friendly amenities, and, importantly, an emotional experience.






h) Accommodates appropriate proposals that reveal, conserve, and interpret archaeological sites in the vicinity;


j) Address any unpleasant microclimate implications of the open space


Page 77

areas as far as reasonably possible and include appropriate urban design and landscape responses that can diminish the impact of the hot summer sun and strong sea breezes on the precinct, aiming always to establish a more enjoyable foreshore experience;











the lessee within the lease area that considerable additional capital works will be identified in the proposed concept plan in the areas adjacent to the lease and J-Shed generally. Council acknowledges that the City will be responsible for carrying out such external/adjacent works where they are not directly required as part of the lessee’s needs and/or to satisfy any conditions imposed on the lessee by the relevant authorities. Works to be implemented by the City will as far as is reasonably possible be implemented in a timely manner so as to establish an integrated precinct. The City shall develop a capital works improvement schedule for its portion of the improvements identified in the proposed concept design and prepare a costed implementation plan for consideration in the appropriate budget cycle.


Page 78

9. Council acknowledges that a heritage interpretation plan should be developed for the precinct to include and highlight the indigenous and non-indigenous cultural significance of the place. The City to prepare a scoping report for consideration by Council in 2014;

10. The lessee to participate as a member of any Arthur Head Arts Hub management group, along with the City and other stakeholders in the precinct, that may be established from time to time for the purpose of maintaining and improving the arts hub.



12. Council,



SECONDED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 8/5

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin

Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Jon Strachan Cr Bill Massie Cr Sam Wainwright


Page 79


Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered PSC1402-22.

PSC1402-22 REVIEW AND PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF LPP2.9 RESIDENTIAL STREETSCAPE POLICY - ADOPT FOR ADVERTISING

DataWorks Reference: 117/039 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 5 February 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1301-9 (30 January 2013)

PSC 1309-141 (25 September 2013) Attachments: 1. Research on LPP2.9 PSC and Council decisions

2. Track changes modified LPP2.9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Local Planning Policy 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy (LPP2.9), was adopted by Council in January 2013 and came into effect the following February. Since the adoption of LPP2.9 the Western Australian Planning Commission updated the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) in August 2013 and in September 2013 Council considered a public submission requesting a review of aspects of LPP2.9. Council considered the request and resolved that a review of the policy would be reasonable after it had been in operation for one year. The policy has now been in effect for one year. The purpose of this report is to present to Council a review of LPP2.9 and recommended changes to the policy based on this review. BACKGROUND

In January 2013 Council considered and adopted the Local Planning Policy 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy (LPP 2.9). The policy came into formal effect on 19 February 2013. One of the main elements of the policy that represented a significant change to the previous streetscape policy was the introduction of suburb specific prescribed minimum front ground and upper floor setbacks that can be varied provided that, amongst other things, the proposed setbacks are consistent with properties within the prevailing streetscape (3 properties either side of the subject site). The policy also provided for the first time criteria to allow for carports in the front setback where there are no other similar placed carports in the street. In August 2013 the Western Australian Planning Commission updated the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). The R-codes are essentially the same, however some wording has been modified such as ‘Acceptable Development’ is now ‘Deemed to Comply’ and the former ‘Performance Criteria’ provisions are now called ‘Design Principles’. Several provisions have also been modified slightly and all parts have been re numbered.


Page 80

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 August 2013 a public submission was made recommending that LPP 2.9 be reviewed. The submission states (summarised):

1. Existing large front setbacks that were implemented during the post war era were to give balance to lot sizes between 700 – 1000m2 so that there was an equal portion of frontyard and backyard;

2. One solution to the current affordability crisis is medium density living; 3. LPP 2.9 makes it difficult to develop cottage style lots although it does preserve

streetscapes on quarter acre lots; 4. LPP 2.9 results in an unbalanced outcome for street front lots of 450m2 or less; 5. Proposed amendments to LPP 2.9 include:

a. The upper floor setback requirements should not apply to lots less than 300m2 in area and the R Codes should apply instead;

b. LPP 2.9 shall not apply to areas without an established residential streetscape;

c. LPP 2.9 shall not apply where the application of the policy would result in an inadequate backyard area; and

d. The provisions of the R Codes should apply instead of LPP 2.9 if it can be demonstrated that a better environmental outcome can be achieved via the setback provisions of the R Codes.

Council considered the request at its ordinary meeting on 25 September 2013 and resolved: That Local Planning Policy 2.9 - Residential Streetscape Policy be referred back to the Planning Services Committee for discussion after 12 months of operation (after February 2014). CONSULTATION

Should Council resolve to amend LPP2.9 in accordance with the modifications suggested in this review report, the draft amended policy will be advertised in accordance with the requirements of clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for a minimum of 28 days.

PLANNING COMMENT

LPP2.9 has been in effect for one year (February 2013 – February 2014). Officers have reviewed the planning applications submitted during this period to which LPP2.9 applied, focusing on those applications that required Planning Services Committee or Council approval and have further considered the request to amend LPP2.9. The review and request are discussed below. Review of LPP2.9

LPP2.9 is made up of the following five parts: 1. Setback of Buildings including Garages and Carports under the main roof of the

development 2. Setback of Garages and Carports not under the main roof of the development 3. Building orientation 4. Building Height and Scale 5. Additions and Extensions for heritage listed properties.


Page 81

Parts two, three, four and five of the policy are considered to be working well. The allowance of carports in the front setback (part 2) where they are of lightweight construction has reduced the number of such applications that are required to be considered by Council and provided more certainty to owners when planning their building design. Similarly, the minimum distance of four metres from the main roof ridge for additions and extensions to heritage listed properties (part 5) has provided firm criteria. Lastly, the discretionary criteria under parts 3 (building orientation) and 4 (height) are not triggered often however when they are the discretionary criteria have provided a satisfactory assessment and suitable outcome. Accordingly, in review, no modifications to parts two, three, four and five of the policy are proposed. Part 1 - Setback of Buildings including Garages and Carports under the main roof of the development Table 1. Prescribed Primary Street Setback

Local planning Area Prescribed minimum street setback for development with a 4 metre or less external wall height

Prescribed minimum setback for development with an external wall height greater than 4 metres

Fremantle 5m 7m

North Fremantle 5m 7m

South Fremantle 7m 10m

Beaconsfield 7m 12m

White Gum Valley 7m 12m

Samson 6m 9m

O’Connor 8m 12m

Hilton (excludes the Hilton

Heritage Area) 7m 9m

Under part 1 of LPP2.9 where a proposed development does not meet the prescribed street setback of table 1 (above) for the corresponding proposed wall height it requires assessment under the discretionary criteria of 1.2 of the policy. The discretionary criteria on which to consider a reduced setback are the same for single storey and two storey development. Variation to the prescribed setback may be considered, at Council’s discretion, where the proposed development meets at least one of the following criteria: i. The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of buildings of

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

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

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

Generally the prescribed street setback for buildings with an external wall height of 4m or less in table 1 (above) when used in conjunction with the discretionary criteria above are considered appropriate. However, officers consider there is scope to improve the prescribed street setback provisions for developments with an external wall height of


Page 82

greater than 4m and modify the discretionary criteria slightly to address specific circumstances that have arisen through use of the policy. Officers reviewed planning applications from 2013, focusing on those applications that required Planning Services Committee or Council approval. Twenty one development applications (DAs) were identified. All of the 21 DAs identified proposed two storey development and were presented to Council because the development did not meet the prescribed street setback for buildings with an external wall height of greater than 4m. In many cases the ground floor also did not meet the prescribed street setback (refer to attachment 1). Accordingly all 21 of the DAs required a discretionary assessment under LPP2.9. Table 2 below details the circumstances for presenting the DAs to Council and provides the officer’s recommendation and subsequent Council decision in relation to each DA. Table 2. DAs presented to Council as they did not meet the prescribed street setback of table 1 and required assessment under LPP2.9’s discretionary criteria

Circumstances for presenting DA to Council

Number of DAs

Officer recommendation

Council decision

Does not meet the prescribed street setback; Consistent with the prevailing streetscape

5 5 Approve All Approved

Does not meet the prescribed street setback; Not consistent with the prevailing streetscape

11 8 Approve 10 Approved

3 Refuse 1 Refused

Does not meet the prescribed street setback; No existing streetscape to assess the prevailing streetscape on

5 4 Approve All Approved

1 Refuse

Total 21 17 Approve 4 Refuse

20 Approved 1 Refused

The 21 DAs presented to council can be grouped, as shown above in table 2, into three different types:

Primary street setback consistent with the prevailing streetscape – this type of development is acceptable under the discretionary criteria of LPP2.9. Such applications were presented to Council early in 2013 to establish a precedence for delegated authority;

Primary street setback not consistent with the prevailing streetscape – this development type cannot be approved under the discretionary criteria of LPP2.9, however, on balance, eight DAs of this type were recommended by officers for approval and three for refusal. Subsequently Council approved ten of the eleven DAs;

No existing streetscape – the discretionary criteria in LPP2.9 goes some way to provide for this situation in part ii, “does not result in a projecting element”, however this criteria is not considered to fully or adequately provide for such instances as the criteria only applies to circumstances of unique road and/or lot layout or topography. Five DAs of this type have been presented to Council, one with a recommendation for refusal. Council approved all five of these DAs.

From this research it is clear that there is scope to modify the policy to address instances where development does not meet the prescribed (table 1) street setback and is not


Page 83

consistent with the prevailing streetscape, however is still considered acceptable by Council. This instance has been identified in two separate DA types above. Both of these types and an officer recommendation for modification to LPP2.9 to address each are discussed below.

Development not consistent with the prescribed street setback or prevailing streetscape The prescribed street setbacks of table 1 take into account a local planning area’s predominant street setbacks. The one storey (4m external wall height or less) street setback is based on an average setback measurement of typical streets in the local planning area. The two storey (>4m external wall height) prescribed street setback is based on the largest setback measured in a local planning area. The purpose of the two prescribed setbacks is to allow for a more acceptable street setback than outlined in the R-codes table 1 as each local planning area’s prescribed setback is based on the individual characteristics of the area. The prescribed street setback, when used in conjunction with an assessment of the prevailing streetscape’s setback, was designed to limit the possibility of a proposed development projecting in front of existing development in an established streetscape. In a review of planning applications over the past year, however, officers have found many examples of development approved by Council that does not meet the prescribed street setback and is not consistent with the prevailing streetscape. Eleven planning applications have been presented to Council that are examples of this development type e.g. not consistent with the prescribed street setback and not consistent with the prevailing streetscape. All of the 11 applications proposed development with an external wall height of greater than 4m and two storeys. In most cases the ground floor setback was consistent with the prevailing streetscape and therefore Council was only asked to further consider the first floor’s setback discrepancy. Of these 11 applications, Council refused one. Generally the discretions were approved because the proposed setback discretion was considered to be minor and the outcome was not going to compromise the existing streetscape. While the policy provides some capacity for consideration of this application type, there is scope to further refine LPP2.9 to better align the policy with what has shown in the review to be acceptable to Council and to better allow for this development type to be assessed and determined. Accordingly, officers propose an amendment to the Beaconsfield, White Gum Valley and O’Connor local areas minimum prescribed street setback for buildings with an external wall height of greater than 4 metres. Seven of the 11 applications discussed above were in the local areas that have a 12m prescribed primary street setback in table 1 for development with a wall height of greater than 4m. These examples were all approved by Council with a reduced setback of approximately 10m. Accordingly officers propose the 12m setback be reduced to a 10m as per table 3 below. Table 3 – proposed modification to table 1 of LPP2.9

Local planning Area Minimum prescribed street setback for development buildings with an external wall height of 4 metres or less external wall height

Minimum prescribed street setback for development buildings with an external wall height of greater than 4 metres

Fremantle 5m 7m


Page 84



Beaconsfield 7m 12m 10m

White Gum Valley 7m 12m 10m

Samson 6m 9m

O’Connor 8m 12m 10m

Hilton (excludes the Hilton

Heritage Area) 7m 9m

No established streetscape The definition of prevailing streetscape used in the discretionary criteria of part one of LPP2.9 only includes consideration of the three buildings either side of the development fronting the same street. This definition however does not provide for occasions where there are no buildings either side fronting the same street. Council has considered five examples of this development type and has approved all five. The examples have included situations where the lot is the first to develop on a new street or an existing right of way or the development of a property that is the product of a corner lot subdivision. In all examples if there were other outbuildings or houses on the same street they could not be included in the assessment of prevailing streetscape as they did not primarily front the same street. The R-codes recognises such situations and allows for a reduction in the setback to 2.5m for right of way lots and former corner lots. Officers consider the 2.5m setback to be appropriate in some situations (e.g. lane way development), however not appropriate in all situations (e.g. where the lot is the first to develop in a new street). Accordingly officers propose additional discretionary criteria whereby Council can consider a variation to the prescribed street setback where there is “no prevailing streetscape”. This criterion would further allow Council to consider development, on a lot where there is no existing streetscape, on its own merits. A note will be included in the policy to provide examples of what is meant by “no prevailing streetscape”. Similarly, it is difficult to assess the setback on lots that are the product of a corner lot subdivision and front an established street. These lots are usually swallower than the existing street and development based on the prescribed street setback results in development to the very rear of the lot. Officers consider a solution would be to allow a setback that considers the setback of the existing house on the corner in conjunction with the other buildings in the prevailing street. This would produce a better outcome in the streetscape and allow for a stepping of the setback from the existing corner house to the other houses in the street. Proposed modification: Include the following discretionary criteria into part 1 after iii of the policy: Variations to the requirements of clause 1.1 [table 1] may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to the proposed development meeting at least one of the following criteria: i. The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of buildings of

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

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


Page 85

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

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

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

Note: No prevailing streetscape applies to, but is not limited to, instances where development is proposed on a lot where there are no other Grouped Dwellings or Single Houses adjoining the lot that front the same street as their primary street. Examples include situations where the lot is the first to develop on a new street or right of way, or development of a lot that adjoins a commercial property. R-code updates The R-codes were updated in August 2013, six months after the adoption of LPP2.9. LPP2.9 now refers to redundant R-code provisions. Updating reference to the provisions is a simple fix and does not change the policy in any way other than updating the numbering to reflect the new numbering in the 2013 R-codes. The updates are detailed in table 4 below. Table 4 – Updates to R-code references in LPP2.9

Current wording in LPP2.9 Proposed modifications

Section 5.3.1 of the Residential Design Codes states that a local government may adopt a Local Planning Policy which varies or replaces specific acceptable development provisions of the Residential Design Codes. A Local Planning Policy may also contain development provisions for any aspect of residential development that is not provided for in the Codes.

Part 7 of the Residential Design Codes 2013 states that a Local Planning Policy may contain provisions that amend or replace specific deemed-to-comply provisions.

Those Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes that are varied or replaced by this policy are 6.2.1 A1.1 – A1.2, 6.2.3 A3.1 – A3.5, 6.2.8 A8 and 6.7.1 A1.1

Those deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes that are varied or replaced by this policy are clauses 5.1.2 C2.1, 5.1.6 C6, 5.2.1 C1.1, C1.2 and C1.5.

Part 6 of the Residential Design Codes Part 5 of the Residential Design Codes

Response to request for review The request put forward to Council in August 2013 to amend LPP2.9 commended Council for upholding more traditional town planning models, however questioned whether the prescribed setbacks are appropriate to use when the solution to the housing affordability crisis is medium density living. The request further concluded that the LPP2.9 setbacks produce “unusual and fairly detrimental” block balance outcomes for street with lots of 450m2 or less. The request suggested four modifications for Council to consider. Each of the modifications requested in the public submission are separately addressed below -


Page 86

a. The upper floor setback requirements should not apply to lots less than 300m2 in area and the R-codes should apply instead.

The majority of Fremantle’s Residential zone has a density coding of R20 and R25, which have a minimum lot size of 350m2 and 300m2 respectively. The R30 coding has a minimum lot size of 260m2. Officers see merit in smaller lots maximising development of their site by building two storey dwellings, however such a provision would predominantly only be applicable to R30 or higher coded land of which there are small pockets in North Fremantle and Beaconsfield and larger areas in Fremantle and South Fremantle. These local planning areas, especially South Fremantle, have distinct local streetscapes. Allowing for a reduction in the setback in these areas for smaller for smaller lots could potentially compromise streetscapes and undermine the intent and purpose of LPP2.9. Accordingly, officers do not support the proposed modification.

b. LPP 2.9 shall not apply to areas without an established residential streetscape.

Officers partially agree with this suggestion. As mentioned above the current LPP2.9 does not adequately provide for instances where there is no established streetscape. Instead of excluding such instances officers propose additional discretionary criteria provisions in the policy to assist the consideration and assessment of such proposals. c. LPP 2.9 shall not apply where the application of the policy would result in an

inadequate backyard area.

An adequate or inadequate backyard area is very much a subjective assessment based on the homeowner’s preference and lifestyle. The “backyard area” equivalent of the R-codes is the outdoor living area requirement which requires 30 square metres in areas with a density coding of R20 and R25, and 24 square metres in R30 coded areas. Infill development by its nature creates smaller backyards to provide for a new lot and even with a large front setback most new developments can sufficiently provide for the R-codes outdoor living area requirement at the rear.

Officers do not consider a clause based on this point to be a favourable outcome in the streetscape and therefore do not support this suggestion. Officers do, however, note that infill subdivision can result in applicants preferring to provide outdoor living areas to the front of new developments to provide for a larger area of usable land. In turn, this can then result in a proposal for solid fencing to the primary street. Consideration of this situation is provided for in Local Planning Policy 2.8 -Fences policy.

d. The provisions of the R Codes should apply instead of LPP 2.9 if it can be

demonstrated that a better environmental outcome can be achieved via the setback provisions of the R Codes.

Officers consider there are few genuine instances where a better environmental outcome could be achieved and reasonably justified at the expense of the negatively impacting on the existing streetscape. On the contrary there is concern that such a provision would be open to exploitation and false justification. Accordingly, officers do not support the proposed modification. CONCLUSION Local Planning Policy 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy (LPP2.9), was adopted by Council in January 2013 and came into effect the following February. Since the adoption


Page 87

of LPP2.9 the Western Australian Planning Commission updated the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) in August 2013 and in September 2013 Council considered a public submission requesting a review of aspects of LPP2.9. Officers undertook a review of LPP2.9 and generally consider the policy to be an improvement on previous streetscape policies and working well. The main finding from the review is that there is an opportunity in part one, prescribed street setbacks, for further refinement to reduce slightly the maximum setback and the discretionary criteria. No other parts of the policy are considered to require modification apart from modifications required to update references to the R-codes. Therefore, officer’s recommend Council adopt the modifications to LPP2.9 and adopt the proposed amended LPP2.9 for the purpose of public advertising. OFFICER'S AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council adopt the following draft amended Local Planning Policy 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy for advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 2.4 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.9

RESIDENTIAL STREETSCAPE POLICY

ADOPTION DATE: 19/02/2013 AMENDED DATE: ??/??/2014 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND Clause 5.2.2 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 states that unless otherwise provided for in the Scheme, the development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the Residential Design Codes (R-codes) is to conform to the provisions of the R-codes. Part 7 of the Residential Design Codes 2013 states that a Local Planning Policy may contain provisions that amend or replace specific deemed-to-comply provisions. Those deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes that are varied or replaced by this policy are clauses 5.1.2 C2.1, 5.1.6 C6, 5.2.1 C1.1, C1.2 and C1.5. Clause 10.2 of the Scheme empowers the Council to consider a broad range of considerations and impose conditions relating to these in dealing with an application for planning approval.


Page 88

APPLICATION The provisions of this policy apply to all residential development assessed under Part 5 of the Residential Design Codes, except where specific provisions are contained within a Local Area Planning Policy or equivalent. In the event that there is a conflict between this policy, and a provision contained within a Local Area Planning Policy, the most specific policy provision shall prevail. DEFINITIONS Prevailing streetscape means the characteristics (generally limited to the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the development Table 1. Prescribed Primary Street Setback

Local planning Area Minimum prescribed street

setback for buildings with an

external wall height of 4

Minimum prescribed street

setback for buildings with an

external wall height of


Page 89

metre or less greater than 4 metres

Fremantle 5m 7m



Beaconsfield 7m 10m

White Gum Valley 7m 10m

Samson 6m 8m

O’Connor 8m 10m

Hilton (excludes the

Hilton Heritage Area) 7m 9m

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vii. Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or viii. Where the proposed development is on a lot directly adjoining a

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

Notes: 1. Development additionally needs to meet the requirements of Clause 4 of

this policy which relate to building height and scale. The requirements of Clause 4 are not related to the requirements of Clause 1. 2. No prevailing streetscape applies to, but is not limited to, instances where development is proposed on a lot where there are no other Grouped Dwellings or Single Houses adjoining the lot (three either side) that front the same street. Examples include situations where the lot is the first to develop on a new street or right of way, or development of a lot that adjoins a commercial property.

2. Setback of Garages and Carports not under the main roof of the

development 2.1 Garages, carports and outbuildings, except as provided for below, are to be

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


Page 90

2.2 Where the property is not on the Heritage List, carports may be located in

front of the dwelling where the development meets all of the following criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with front doors and windows facing and clearly visible from the street.


Page 91

3.2. Variations to the requirements of clause 3.1 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to the proposed development meeting at least one of the following criteria:

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

in the prevailing streetscape; or ii. The proposed orientation is consistent with the traditional angular

orientation of buildings, particularly in the case of corner lots where dwellings are typically set square to the corner splay of the lot; or

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

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

4. Building Height and Scale 4.1 All properties not subject to specific provisions of Local Planning Scheme

No. 4 or a local area planning policy (in relation to height), shall be subject to the category B building height requirements of Table 3 of the Residential Design Codes.

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

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

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

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

i. The proposed building height is consistent with the predominant

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

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

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

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

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


Page 92

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

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

5.2 Variations to the requirements of clause 5.1 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to an assessment of the proposed development’s compatibility with and impact on the heritage significance of the property. Due consideration will be given to the heritage assessment prepared under Local Planning Policy 1.6 Preparing heritage assessments and approval will only be granted where the development is considered compatible with the heritage significance of the property. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 13/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie


Page 93


Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered PSC1402-31, PSC1402-33, PSC1402-34, PSC1402-35, LAC1402-1, LAC1402-2, LAC1402-3, SGS1402-1, SGS1402-3, SGS1402-4, SGS1402-5, and SGS1402-7 SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

The following item number PSC1402-31 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

PSC1402-31 INTEGRATED TRANSPORT STRATEGY INITIAL SCOPE

DataWorks Reference: 165/005 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 19 February 2014 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Strategic Transport Planner Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present Council with an overview of the proposed Integrated Transport Strategy, its intended scope, major themes and process for its development. It is recommended that the project is approved to progress immediately, with an interim report back to Council in mid 2014. BACKGROUND Strategic Policy Context:


Page 94

The City of Fremantle (CoF) Strategic Plan 2010-2015 sets out the ‘Strategic Imperatives’ the Council will focus on over the plan period. Transport is a major component of the Plan, with the overarching strategic imperative to ‘lead in the provision of environmentally and economically sustainable transport solutions’. To achieve this, the Plan calls for the ‘development of an Integrated Transport Strategy that responds to emerging transport technologies and peak oil’.

This project seeks to fulfil this task by delivering an Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) in the 2014/15 financial year. Associated and Complimentary Projects:

A range of strategic planning projects have been developing over the past few years which will inform the development of an ITS. These include;

- Investigations into the feasibility of a transit corridors linking Fremantle with gowth areas to the east and south.

- Amendment 49 to the LPS.

- The review of Bike Plan.

- Preliminary work on the development of the CoF Central City Structure Plan.

- The Cockburn Coast Structure Plan.

- The King’s Square Urban Design Strategy.

- Various work with the South West Group.

- CoF submission to the State Government’s draft Public Transport Plan.

- Investigative work regarding the High Street widening project.

DETAIL

Intended scope;

The development of an ITS will draw together the various strategic land-use and transport planning work that has taken place in recent years, and provide a comprehensive overview of Councils position on a range of transport issues and opportunities.

It will be guided by the Transport aspirations set out in the Council Plan 2010-2015. The policy horizon for the ITS will be the next 15 (approx) years, to broadly align with Directions 2031 and Fremantle 2029. It will be updated every 4 years in order to respond to any evolving priorities of the Council, and any significant changes in land-use and transport trends.

The ITS will be informed by population, employment and transport statistics and forecasts from a range of sources, including the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the WA Department of Planning, Department of Transport, Main Roads, Fremantle Ports, PTA, Transperth, and site specific information for consented developments in the region. Function:


Page 95

The ITS will establish Council’s broad strategic position on a range of transport and land use issues, and provide a basis for more detailed plans, amendments and other projects relevant to the transport network (see. Fig 1).

It will also act as a reference to guide Council’s advocacy for improvements to the transport system that are managed by the State Government and other agencies.

Fig. 1. Policy context

Major themes:

The ITS will provide a strategic position on a variety of transport issues and opportunities, including:

- Future population and employment growth and the need for transport improvements to cater for and stimulate the growth of Fremantle;

- An adopted position regarding the preferred alignment of public transport corridors between Fremantle and the growth areas of Cockburn Coast, Cockburn Central, Murdoch and Canning Bridge;

- Required capacity and frequency improvements across the existing public transport network;

- An adopted street hierarchy, to guide the future management and enhancement of the street network;

- An adopted future cycling network, to guide future updates of the Local Bicycle Plan;

- Clear policy regarding the provision of new car parking and the management of existing parking assets; and

- Clear policy regarding the City’s management of traffic related to the Port, including preferred road freight routes and rail freight usage targets.

In developing the ITS, other priorities will be identified and addressed where appropriate. Process:

Detailed action plans, with site specific

reccomendations.

Strategic position on transport and land use

issues and opportunities.

High level vision and strategy for the City of

Fremantle. Strategic Plan 2010-2015

Integrated Transport Strategy

Local Bicycle

Plan 2014-18

Local Area Traffic

Management

Parking Plans

Planning Scheme

Amendments

Other action plans


Page 96

The ITS will be developed by the Planning Policy and Projects Team, with input from relevant internal CoF and external stakeholders.

It is expected that a draft ITS will be presented to Council by mid 2014, with potential for public consultation and stakeholder feedback to inform a final ITS in late 2014 – early 2015.

A detailed project plan will be developed to set out the relevant phases of the project and timing. CONSULTATION

The preferred methods and timeframe of consultation on the ITS will be established through the detailed project plan, to be developed upon Council’s endorsement of the scope of the project. CONCLUSION

Strategic transport planning is a clear priority for the CoF, as set out in the Strategic Plan 2010-2015. The development of an ITS will enable the Council to establish in detail its priorities for the future of the transport network, bringing together a variety of projects and policies which have been progressed in recent years.


Page 97

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That Council approve the preparation of an Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) in accordance with the scope outlined in the officers’ report, and the draft ITS be presented to Council for further consideration by the end of July 2014. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 98


PSC1402-33 AMENDMENT 53 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO 4 - REQUEST TO REZONE NO 69 SOUTH STREET AND NO 146 HAMPTON ROAD FROM RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE - FINAL ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 218/059 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PSC 19 February 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Schedule of submissions Date Received: 20 July 2013 Owner Name: Estate of Domenico Pangiarella and Vittoria Pangiarella Submitted by: Dynamic Planning and Developments on behalf of Lui

Pangiarella


Page 99

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present the public submissions received during advertising of Amendment 53 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’ or ‘Scheme’). Amendment 53 was adopted for public advertising by Council on 25 September 2013. The amendment proposes to rezone the properties addressed as No. 69 (Lots 17 & 18) South Street and No. 146 (Lot 16) Hampton Road, Beaconsfield (subject site) from Residential to Mixed Use. Eleven submissions were received during the public advertising of Amendment 53. None of the issues raised by the submitters are considered to warrant modifications to the amendment and it is therefore recommended that Council resolve to adopt Amendment 53 to LPS4, without modification. BACKGROUND

On 20 July 2013 the City received a request from Dynamic Planning and Development, on the behalf of the landowners, for the City to initiate an amendment to LPS4 to rezone the properties addressed as No. 69 (Lots 17 & 18) South Street and No. 146 (Lot 16) Hampton Road, Beaconsfield from Residential to Mixed Use. The requested amendment to LPS4 to rezone the subject site to Mixed Use was supported as:

- The Mixed Use zoning will enable additional land uses consistent with the property’s historical use and complementary to the surrounding land uses, as well as being appropriately located along two main public transport routes;

- The Mixed Use zoning will enable a mixed use development of the property with greater residential density and diversity however within a similar built form envelope to what is presently allowable;

- The existing provisions of LPS4 and the R-Codes provide sufficient control to ensure the protection of the amenity of the surrounding residential properties; and

- Land use and redevelopment under the Mixed Use zoning can be undertaken in a manner that conserves the heritage significance of the buildings on site.

Council adopted proposed Amendment 53 for public advertising on 25 September 2013 (Refer to Council minutes 25 September 2013, item PSC1309-129). CONSULTATION

Following referral from the Environmental Protection Authority advertising was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005, regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals. The proposed Scheme amendment was advertised for public comment from 19 November 2013 until 17 January 2014 (60 days), with advertisements placed in the Fremantle Gazette newspaper. The City’s precinct groups, utility companies, adjoining neighbours of the subject site (within a 100m radius) and other interested parties and key agencies were also


Page 100

specifically notified and copies of the amendment documents were made available for viewing at the Service and Information Counter at the Town Hall Centre and on the City’s website. The following table provides an overview of the categories of submitters and the levels of support/objection or otherwise:

Submitter type Support with comments

Object Neutral / other

Total

Private citizens 1 1 2

Government agency 9 9

Total 11

The comments made by the submitters are provided in Attachment 1 to this report, along with a responding officer comment and recommendation whether the submission should be upheld, rejected or noted. The main issues raised are addressed in the following ‘Planning Comment’ section. PLANNING COMMENT

Traffic, parking and vehicle movement Two private citizen submitters raised concern that future development of the site may create traffic and parking problems in the area. Furthermore it was suggested that future redevelopment of the site should allow space at the rear of the site to allow vehicles exiting the rear ROW to turnaround so as to exit to South St in a forward motion. It appears that currently vehicles from the ROW use the subject site’s vacant rear area to either turn around to exit South St, or travel through the site to exit to Hampton Road. LPS4, associated local planning policies and the Residential Design Codes provide well established requirements and criteria to consider the car parking, traffic and vehicle movement aspects of development under the proposed Mixed Use zoning. This existing framework is considered appropriate for dealing with these factors of future development for the site. New development will be required to provide on-site car parking at a rate specified by the planning framework depending on the land use, unless there are specific circumstances that warrant Council to reduce that rate. Vehicle access and egress from the site will be assessed at the development application stage however it is noted that the Department of Transport have provided comments on a development application currently being assessed by the City that vehicles should enter and exit the site in a forward motion (DA0444/13). The suggested vehicle circulation is that Hampton Road should be the entry point and South Street the exit location. This vehicle circulation plan is proposed as part of the development application for the site (refer Figure 1).


Page 101

Figure 1: Traffic and vehicle movement Traffic in the area is already considerable with Hampton Road and South St experiencing approximately 20,000 and 13,600 vehicle movements per day respectively. The redevelopment potential of the site under the proposed Mixed Use zoning is not anticipated to noticeably add to the general traffic in the area. It is also noted that Main Roads WA and the Department of Transport did not raise any concerns regarding additional traffic generation in their submissions on the amendment. With regards to the suggestion that an area should be allocated at the rear of the site to allow for vehicles to turn around from the ROW, there are no encumbrances on the titles of the subject site that provide any rights of access for the properties that utilise the ROW. It is beyond the ability of the local planning scheme amendment process to encumber a property in this manner for the benefit of others; rather such an encumbrance would be undertaken at a subdivisional stage or by private agreement with the affected landowners. The width of the ROW (6.44m – 6.48m) would ordinarily be sufficient to allow for turning of vehicles if the vehicles are parked on the adjoining property (i.e. the vehicle turns off the ROW and parks on the property, then reverses and turns so as to exit in a forward motion). It is acknowledged that 2 dwellings front the ROW (156 & 158 Hampton Rd, both constructed circa 1890) and do not have space for


Page 102

on-site parking if accessed from the ROW, however both of these properties do have a crossover to Hampton Road and parking for 1-2 vehicles. It is recommended that Council consider these submissions however that no modification be made to the proposed amendment. CONCLUSION Public consultation of Amendment 53 was undertaken in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and Local Planning Policy 1.3: Public Notification of Planning Proposals. No issues were raised by submitters that are considered to require modifications to the Amendment. It is therefore recommended that Council consider the submissions as outlined in this report and Attachment 1, and determine to adopt the Amendment without modification. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council: 1. Pursuant to Regulation 17(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 considers

the submissions in Attachment 1 – Schedule of Submissions and whether in respect of each submission Amendment 53 should be modified accordingly or the submission rejected; and

2. Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and

Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, resolves to adopt without modification Amendment No. 53 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

(i) Amend the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 map by replacing the ‘Residential’

zone that applies to Lots 17 & 18 on Plan 286 (No. 69 South Street, Beaconsfield and Lot 16 on Plan 286 (No. 146 Hampton Road, Beaconsfield) with a ‘Mixed Use’ zone, shown as follows:


Page 103

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


Page 104


For Against



Page 105


PSC1402-34 COUNCIL REPORT FOR MODIFICATIONS TO LPP2.2 - SPLIT DENSITY CODES AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY SCHEDULE - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING

DataWorks Reference: 117/021 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 19 February 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects and Policy Actioning Officer: Statutory Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: C0710-4 (17 October 2007) Attachment: 1. Local Planning Policy 2.2 (adopted 17/10/2007) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks Council approval to advertise a draft modified Local Planning Policy 2.2 Split Density Codes and Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule (LPP2.2). LPP2.2 was adopted 17 October 2007 and has not been reviewed since this date. The policy provides a framework for the achievement of the higher density code in areas with split density codes and prescribes requirements for the City’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule (the Schedule) at Part B of the policy. The proposed modifications update the framework of the policy and simplify and strengthen the requirements in the Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule. Specifically, all of the Schedule’s (Part B) existing requirements have been replaced with the requirement to achieve a NatHERS star rating of one star in excess of the relevant energy efficiency requirement prescribed by the Building Codes of Australia and the provision of a photovoltaic solar panel system and rainwater tank. It is recommended that the modified local planning policy be adopted for advertising for public comment in accordance with clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4. BACKGROUND

Local Planning Policy 2.2 – Split Density Codes and Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule (LPP 2.2) was adopted 17 October 2007 (see Attachment 1) and since this date has not been revised. The policy provides a framework for the achievement of the higher density code in areas with split density codes and prescribes requirements for the City’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule. Within the City’s split density coded areas, there are estimated to be between 850 and 1050 lots still capable of subdivision under the higher density code and therefore potentially subject to the requirements of the City’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule. Revision of the Schedule is considered necessary as many of the current Schedule’s requirements are deemed outdated and already covered within the current


Page 106

energy efficiency requirements of the BCA which have come into force since the policy was adopted in 2007. Further, discretionary approval from the City is often sought by applicants to deviate from some of the current requirements of the Schedule because of practical difficulties in complying with them (e.g. grey water reuse systems). Whilst applicants commonly propose alternative sustainability features in such cases, it can often be difficult for officers to assess whether such alternatives are of equivalent sustainability value. For these reasons it is considered that revisions to the Schedule should be made to more efficiently contribute to an increased standard of energy efficient housing stock within the City’s split density coded areas and ensure more consistent and effective application of LPP 2.2. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

LPP2.2 exists in response to clause 5.3.4 of LPS4 as follows: “5.3.4 Split Density Codes Where a site is identified as having a split density coding and is connected to reticulated sewerage, the higher code may only be applied where one or more of the following specific requirements are addressed to the satisfaction of Council— (a) a building of cultural heritage significance is retained on the lot, (b) provision of “low income housing”, (c) buildings designed in accordance with Council’s energy efficiency and sustainability

schedule, and (d) removal of a non-conforming use. In all other circumstances, the lower of the two Codes prevails.” CONSULTATION

Part 2 of LPS4 requires that draft local planning policies are to be publically advertised for a minimum period of 28 days. Local planning policy, LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals, provides further guidance as to the extent of public advertising for local planning policies. The requirements of LPP1.3 are:

- Notice in local newspaper for two consecutive weeks; - City of Fremantle website notification; and - Precinct group notification.

Should Council resolve to adopt the draft local planning policy for advertising, it is recommended the advertising process be undertaken in accordance with the above provisions.

PLANNING COMMENT

The current policy is comprised of three parts; Part A – Split Density Codes Policy, Part B Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule and Part C – Conditions of Planning Approval (please see Attachment 1). The proposed modifications to the policy will overall


Page 107

make minor amendments to Part A of the policy, revise the requirements of the City’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule as prescribed in Part B of the policy and the subsequent deletion of Part C. These are discussed further in detail below. Recommended Revision – Part A of LPP2.2 The following table identifies and explains the modifications proposed to Part A of LPP2.2:

Modification Reasons for modification

1. Add the following text to ‘STATUTORY BACKGROUND’ - “This Local Planning Policy is prepared under the provisions of Part 2 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘the Scheme’)” and remove the existing text “this policy provides guidance as to the requirements of the Council to satisfy this clause.”

The modification provides statutory background to the preparation of the policy under LPS4 and clarifies the status of the document as policy not ‘guidance’.

2. Add the heading “APPLICATION” with the following text - “This policy applies to land with a split density code as identified on the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 map.”

To provide clarification to the application of the policy.

3. Addition of ‘Definition and Terms’. To provide clarification around certain terms used in the policy.

4. Addition of the heading “POLICY” and “REQUIREMENTS TO SATISFY” to “PART A – SPLIT DENSITY CODES”.

To provide clarification between Parts A and B of the policy.

5. Delete existing Clause 2.3 which is considered to be a typographic mistake in the policy. Modify existing clause 2.2(a) to require development seeking the density bonus on the basis of ‘low income housing’ to comply only with the definition of ‘low income housing’ and eliminating the additional requirement to comply with the City’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule.

A grammatical correction and a modification that will enable the application of the higher density based solely on the provision of ‘low income housing’ in accordance with clause 5.3.4 of LPS4. Currently the policy requires development meeting the definition of ‘low income housing’ to also demonstrate compliance with the City’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule in accordance with clause 2 of the policy. Officers consider this overly onerous and inconsistent with the clause 5.3.4 of the Scheme.

6. In clause 3.1 “Part 2” has been changed to read “Part B”.

To ensure the numbering and titling is consistent within the policy.

7. Modify Clause 3.1 to delete “but is not applicable under clause 5.4.5 of the Scheme”.

In 2007 this clause in LPS4 pertained to energy efficiency


Page 108

requirements for residential development. The Scheme has since been amended and this clause deleted. The current clause 5.4.5 of LPS4 is not relevant to energy efficient development or this policy.

8. Lettering of (a) and (b) added to the two options provided for compliance with clause 3.3.

To improve the formatting of the policy and ensure consistency with the formatting throughout the policy.

9. In clause 3.3 (now clause 3.3(a)) delete the text “Council may waive one or more of the requirements in a case where the applicant can demonstrate it meets objectives in an alternative way”.

The modified Schedule will require compliance with the BCA and NatHERS rating requirements. Additionally, the revised Schedule grants the discretion to opt for an additional half star rating in lieu of each additional item (rain water tank and/or photovoltaic panel requirements).

10. In clause 3.3 (now 3.3(a)) replace the term “building(s)” with “dwelling(s)”.

The term ‘dwelling’ is more specific to the type of development the policy is applied to.

It is recommended that Council support the above minor adjustments to the policy to ensure the consistent and correct application of the policy. Recommended revision - Part B of LPP2.2 The City is estimated to have between 850 and 1050 lots capable of subdivision or development at the higher density code within the City’s split density coded areas. It is also the case that the vast majority of subdivision and development that has occurred at higher densities in these areas has occurred on the basis of compliance with the City’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule (Part B of the current policy). Accordingly, there is considered to be an opportunity to build upon the City’s existing process for the achievement of increased standards of energy efficient housing in split coded areas through a simple policy revision. The outcome of the recommended revision is intended to result in a significantly higher standard of energy efficient housing stock in the City of Fremantle, and ensure that the policy objectives are achieved in a more efficient and consistent manner. Building Codes of Australia (BCA) and the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) Since the adoption of the policy in 2007 the Building Codes of Australia (BCA) energy efficiency requirements have increased from a five star standard to a six star standard. Additionally, the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) has been introduced to set national standards for software used to rate the thermal performance


Page 109

capabilities of Australian houses in accordance with the improved BCA energy efficiency requirements and in a manner that is measurable, flexible and technically reliable. Many of the requirements of the City’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule of LPP2.2 are now covered in the energy efficiency requirements of the BCA. Officers consider the City’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule should exist to go beyond minimum standards for energy efficiency prescribed by the BCA; however the current Schedule requirements may not actually result in increased standards of energy efficiency despite sometimes incurring extra costs to the developer. The following table depicts which elements in the Schedule do and do not overlap with current BCA energy efficiency requirements:

Schedule requirements that overlap with BCA energy efficiency requirements

Schedule requirements that are outside the BCA energy efficiency requirements.

Orientation to true north with the home's living space located on the north side of the building. This does not include utility areas bathrooms, toilets, laundries or bedrooms.

Provision of rainwater tank(s) of at least 3000 litres that is plumbed to the toilet or washing machine.

The external side wall of the home should have a setback of a minimum 4 metres from the northern boundary (the intent of this provision is considered to be covered in the BCA’s acknowledgement of solar access).

Landscape plans prepared and submitted that demonstrate a water wise garden through the use of local species and other suitable Australian and low-water using plants. Plans should detail were grey water will flow to in order to optimise plant growth and irrigation, where required should be subsurface.

All east and west windows should be tinted or shaded.

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

No black or dark grey coloured roofs. East and west external walls are not to be dark coloured. Eaves with a minimum horizontal distance from the walls of 500mm.

Greater than 30m2 of outdoor living with direct solar access at winter solstice.

Insulation (minimum R4 roof insulation and minimum R2.5 wall insulation) shall be installed and maintained thereafter.

A gas boosted solar hot water system shall be installed and maintained thereafter (It should be noted that water heating is addressed in the BCA but does not contribute to the overall star rating of the dwelling).

Installation of water-efficient fixtures, including 3A-5A rated taps, toilets and showerheads (It should also be noted that water efficient fixtures are addressed in the BCA but do not contribute to the overall star rating of the dwelling).


Page 110

Ventilators in the roof void (above the insulation layer) shall be installed and maintained thereafter. Ventilators should be capable of being closed during winter conditions.

Opportunity to capitalise upon the BCA system for energy efficiency The energy efficiency requirements of the BCA and the NatHERS rating tools are considered to provide technically reliable, measurable and flexible requirements and ratings for residential development. The City’s Principal Building Surveyor regards it more appropriate to define a specific star rating than to define specific construction standards for residential energy efficiency. The BCA energy efficiency requirements are measurable though NatHERS accredited software and have been proven technically reliable in ensuring that a higher star rating actually results in an overall energy benefit for the dwelling. On the other hand, prescribed construction standards as contained within the current Schedule (e.g. restrictions on roof material colours) cannot ensure whether any overall energy benefit is actually achieved. Building surveyors have regarded the BCA energy efficiency requirements and their measurement through NatHERS accredited rating tools to have made the greatest contribution to residential building energy efficiency in Australia. Furthermore, the system has been praised in its coordinated and consistent approach across the country. Currently, LPP2.2 allows applicants to vary the requirements of the Schedule provided the proposed alternative meets the objectives of the Schedule. The majority of applications assessed against the policy to date have involved some type of variation from Schedule requirements, and the City’s planning officers have to use judgment on matters outside their professional expertise in the evaluation of alternative residential energy efficiency and sustainability measures. Variations from the current Schedule requirements are commonly sought in relation to the provision of a grey water reuse system, R2.5 wall insulation and the 4m northern boundary setback for the dwelling. Achieving the BCA energy efficiency requirements through compliance with an energy efficiency star rating, on the other hand, allows for design flexibility in how the overall energy efficiency of the dwelling is achieved through software that reliably measures this standard in the dwelling. The BCA energy efficiency requirements are considered an effective means of achieving residential energy efficiency and a revision of the City’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule could harness the technical reliability, and measurability of the BCA energy efficiency requirements. Further, achieving increased standards of energy efficiency through the BCA and NatHERS star rating assessment tools is considered to ensure a high standard of flexibility and consistency, and does not require planners to use their non expert judgement in determining the adequacy of energy efficiency alternatives. Compliance with the current 6 star BCA requirement can be demonstrated through either the deemed-to-satisfy (prescriptive requirements) or the Performance Requirements of the BCA. One way of demonstrating compliance with the Performance Requirements is through the NatHERS rating tools and the associated star rating. The City’s Principal Building Surveyor estimates that currently 70% of building permit applications for class 1A buildings (dwellings) seek compliance with the BCA energy efficiency requirements through the NatHERS rating tools. As deemed-to-satisfy requirements only exist for 6


Page 111

star ratings, all dwellings that require a star rating in excess of the current 6 star standard will be required to be achieved through the Performance Criteria and specifically in the case of this proposed revision to the Policy, the NatHERS rating tools. The cost of an energy efficiency assessment for simple building designs has been estimated to be $200 to $400, and for complex building designs $400 to $1500+. Further, the Building Commission of Western Australia deems it difficult to provide an exact cost of the achievement of an additional star rating, but estimates that for a $200,000 construction value home in Western Australia, the added costs associated with an increase from 5 to 6 star rating are likely to be approximately between 0.2% and 2% of construction cost. Other sources explain in some cases an additional star rating may be achieved at no additional cost at all. Recommended Revision of Part B (the Schedule) It is recommended that Council revise the Schedule/Part B of LPP2.2 in accordance with matters discussed above, requiring dwellings to achieve an overall star rating of one star in excess of the current BCA standard, plus the provision of a photovoltaic solar panel system and a rainwater tank. The revised Schedule is proposed as follows: PART B - ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY SCHEDULE 1. All of the following requirements must be achieved in order to comply with the City’s

Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule:

(a) The dwelling shall demonstrate a Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme

(NatHERS) star rating one star in excess of the current energy efficiency

requirement of the Building Codes of Australia for class 1A buildings; and

(b) The NatHERS star rating for the dwelling shall be certified by a NatHERS

accredited energy assessor using NatHERS accredited software and shall be

provided at the development application stage; and

(c) Provision of a minimum 1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel system; and

(d) Provision of a minimum 3000L capacity rainwater tank plumbed to either a

toilet or laundry within the dwelling; or alternatively an approved grey-water

reuse system that collects grey water from the laundry and bathroom and re-

directs it for garden irrigation/ground water recharge

2. The following conditions of approval will be placed on all relevant planning approvals:

(a) That the dwelling achieve a NatHERS accredited energy efficiency star rating

of [insert relevant star rating] stars that is certified by a NatHERS accredited energy assessor to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle;


Page 112

(b) Prior to occupation, a minimum 1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel system shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle; and

(c) Prior to occupation, a 3000L rainwater tank plumbed to a toilet and/or laundry

shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle (or if a grey-water reuse system is provided instead of a rainwater tank, the condition shall state: Prior to occupation, an approved grey-water reuse system that collects grey water from the laundry and bathroom and re-directs it for garden irrigation/ground water recharge shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle).

3. In cases where an applicant demonstrates that the requirements of clause 1(c) and/or

1(d) of Part B cannot reasonably be met, Council may accept the achievement of an

additional half (0.5) star NatHERS star rating in lieu of each of the items at clause

1(c) and/or 1(d) as an alternative means of complying with this policy.

The revision seeks to address dwelling sustainability across areas of thermal performance, renewable energy and water conservation in keeping with the objectives of the current Schedule. This offers sustainability measures outside of, and in addition to, the efficacy and measurement of the BCA system, however, offers a level of discretion in the ability for applicants to ‘trade off’ the water tanks and/or solar panels for an additional half star NatHERS rating each if the applicant cannot meet these requirements for a good reason (i.e. limitation of roof space, excessive shading from adjoining property, etc.). The requirement to achieve one star in excess of the current BCA requirement would at the present time result in the development of dwellings that achieve a 7 star rating. Given the evolving nature of the BCA energy efficiency requirements, the policy wording requiring “one star in excess” as opposed to explicitly referring to 7 stars avoids the possible need to further amend the policy to correspond to any future increase in the energy efficiency star rating required under the BCA. This policy requirement would be dealt with at the application stage by the applicant providing development plans certified by a qualified NatHERS energy assessor that demonstrate compliance with the required energy efficiency star rating (one star in excess of current BCA requirement). The relevant star rating will further be enforced through a condition of approval. The revision proposes the deletion of the native landscaping requirements due to practical difficulties in enforcing compliance. It is also proposed to delete the mandatory requirement for a grey water reuse system for the following reasons:

The schedule is applied to properties seeking higher densities and thus smaller lot sizes, and often involves the creation of lot sizes where there is insufficient disposal area for the provision of a grey water reuse system;

There is debate in relation to the sustainability of grey water reuse systems due to their use of energy; and


Page 113

Feedback has also suggested grey water reuse systems may have a negative impact upon the plumbing system of a dwelling as the absence of grey water flushing the plumbing system may result in blockages.

However it is proposed to retain the option for an applicant to propose a grey water system instead of a 3,000L rainwater tank if they prefer to do so. The recommended requirement to provide a rainwater tank is considered an appropriate water conservation measure to replace the mandatory grey water system and native landscaping requirements of the current Schedule. Although it is acknowledged that the effectiveness of rainwater tanks in Perth is limited by local climatic conditions (i.e. most annual rainfall occurs during a relatively short winter period), nevertheless research undertaken on behalf of the Water Corporation suggests that a rainwater tank used for indoor and outdoor purposes at a single dwelling could reduce annual average consumption of scheme water by between 9% and 28% depending on tank size. The cost of installing a 3,000L rainwater tank is likely to add approximately $3,000 - $3,500 to the construction cost of a new dwelling. Overall, the revision capitalises upon the strengths of the BCA energy efficiency requirements and NatHERS software whilst also encompassing sustainability measures outside these systems. If the BCA expands in the future to encompass renewable energy and water conservation requirements, then these requirements within the policy will become unnecessary and the policy will require further revision. Alternative recommendation Alternatively, Council may consider the replacement of all of the existing requirements listed in Part B/the Schedule with the sole requirement for any new dwelling to achieve an overall energy efficiency star rating of 2 stars in excess of that required under the BCA. Currently, this would result in the requirement for the provision of an 8 star house and the strength of this alternative is that all energy efficiency measures for the dwelling would be measured through the efficacy of the NatHERS rating tools. However, this alternative limits dwelling sustainability measures to thermal performance and does not include renewable energy or water conservation measures. Recommended revision - Deletion of Part C Part C in the current policy pertains to conditions of planning approval for energy and water and an advisory note in relation to northern orientation and vegetation. Conditions have been integrated into Part B/Schedule of the revised policy. On this basis, Part C has been deleted. CONCLUSION The revision of the policy is considered to refine the existing policy whilst maintaining its overall aim of incentivising higher standard energy efficient housing in split density coded areas. The BCA energy efficiency measures for thermal performance and NatHERS rating tools are considered strong in their means of ensuring technical reliability, measurability and flexibility. It is recommended that Council adopt the revised policy on the basis of using the BCA and NatHERS energy efficiency requirements whilst also addressing renewable energy and water conservation sustainability in the requirement for photovoltaic solar panel systems and rainwater tanks.


Page 114

It is therefore recommended that Council resolve to adopt the revised policy for the purpose of advertising. Following the close of advertising, a further report will be presented to Council for consideration for the final adoption of the revised policy. OFFICER'S AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council adopt the following amended Local Planning Policy 2.2 Split Density Codes and Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule for advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 2.4 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

CITY OF FREMANTLE


SPLIT DENSITY CODES AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY SCHEDULE

ADOPTION DATE: 17/10/2007 AMENDED: ??/??/2014 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND This Local Planning Policy is prepared under the provisions of Part 2 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘the Scheme’). Clause 5.3.4 of the Scheme prescribes the matters on which the Council is required to be satisfied in order to grant a higher density code to land having a split code. APPLICATION This policy applies to land with a split density code as identified on the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 map. DEFINITION AND TERMS Building Codes of Australia (BCA):

The Building Code of Australia (BCA) is a uniform set of technical provisions for the design and construction of buildings and other structures throughout Australia. The BCA is produced and maintained by the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB), and given legal effect through the Building Act 1975.

Class1A Building:

A single dwelling being a detached house, or one or more attached dwellings, each being a building, separated by a fire-resisting wall, including a row house, terrace house, town house or villa unit.

Nationwide Housing Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS):

http://www.masterbuilders.asn.au/laws-codes-and-regulations/building-act


Page 115

The Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) sets national standards for software used to rate the thermal performance capabilities of Australian houses. The NatHERS scheme accredits software tools which measure the thermal potential of houses; sets standards for professionals offering NatHERS ratings; can be used to inform improvements to house design; and provides one option to demonstrate compliance with the minimum energy efficiency standards for new buildings outlined in the Building Code of Australia.

POLICY PART A - SPLIT DENSITY CODES – REQUIREMENTS TO SATISFY 1. Retention of a building of cultural heritage significance

1.1 In this case a building of cultural heritage significance shall be taken to mean a

building on the State Register of Heritage Places or the City of Fremantle Heritage List. For purposes of Clause 5.3.4 of the Scheme, the Council may, at its discretion, accept a building which is not on the State Register or Heritage List as having cultural significance where demonstrated by the applicant by:

(a) Submitting a report demonstrating this prepared by an accredited

heritage professional; and

(b) Submitting an indication of the manner in which the applicant intends to conserve the property; and

(c) Nominating the property for inclusion on the Heritage List as part of the

City’s annual programme. 1.2 A higher density code may be granted on the basis of the retention of a

building of cultural heritage significance in the case of either subdivision or development of land. In both cases, a condition shall be imposed or recommended requiring the building to be retained.

1.3 Where a higher density coding has been granted on the basis of retention of a

building of Cultural Heritage Significance:

(a) In the case of development, a condition will be imposed on the approval requiring that the building be retained;

(b) In the case of subdivision, a condition will be recommended to the Western Australian Planning Commission requesting that a Restrictive Covenant be placed on the title of the new lot containing the building to be retained restricting future owners from demolition of the building.

2. Provision of ‘low income housing’

2.1 The term ‘low income housing’ is defined in the Scheme. A higher density coding may be granted on the basis of the provision of such housing in the case of either subdivision or development of land.


Page 116

2.2 Where a higher density coding has been granted on the basis provision of ‘low

income housing’:

(a) In the case of development, a condition will be imposed on the approval requiring that the new dwelling(s) be restricted in use to comply with the definition of ‘low income housing’ contained in Schedule 1 of the Scheme;

(b) In the case of subdivision, a condition will be recommended to the

Western Australian Planning Commission requesting that a Restrictive Covenant be placed on the title of the vacant lot restricting future development and use of the land to purposes which comply with the definition of ‘low income housing’ contained in Schedule 1 of the Scheme.

3. Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule

3.1 The Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule is shown as Part B of this

policy. This Schedule is applicable to split density codes in accordance with the Scheme.

3.2 A higher density coding may be granted on this basis in the case of either

subdivision or development of land. 3.3 Where a higher density code is sought on the basis of compliance with the

Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule:

(a) In the case of a development application, the applicant is required to demonstrate as part of the application that the new dwelling(s) to be constructed on the site will comply with the required elements of the Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule which is contained as Part B of this policy;

(b) In the case of subdivision, a condition will be recommended to the Western Australian Planning Commission requesting that a Restrictive Covenant be placed on the title of the vacant lot(s) requiring that the land may not be developed or used in any manner which is not in accordance with the City of Fremantle Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule.

4. Removal of a non-conforming use

4.1 The term ‘non-conforming use’ is defined in the Scheme, and that definition

shall also be used in the application of this policy. 4.2 A higher density coding may be granted on the basis of removal of a non-

conforming use in the case of either subdivision or development of land. In both cases, a condition shall be imposed or recommended requiring that the use be ceased.

PART B - ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY SCHEDULE


Page 117

1. All of the following requirements must be achieved in order to comply with the

City’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule:

(a) The dwelling shall demonstrate a Nationwide House Energy Rating

Scheme (NatHERS) star rating one star in excess of the current energy

efficiency requirement of the Building Codes of Australia for class 1A

buildings; and

(b) The NatHERS star rating for the dwelling shall be certified by a NatHERS

accredited energy assessor using NatHERS accredited software and

shall be provided at the development application stage; and

(c) Provision of a minimum 1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel system; and

(d) Provision of a minimum 3000L capacity rainwater tank plumbed to either

a toilet or laundry within the dwelling; or alternatively an approved grey-

water reuse system that collects grey water from the laundry and

bathroom and re-directs it for garden irrigation/ground water recharge.

2. The following conditions of approval will be placed on all relevant planning

approvals:

(a) That the dwelling achieve a NatHERS accredited energy efficiency star

rating of [insert relevant star rating] stars that is certified by a NatHERS accredited energy assessor to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle;

(b) Prior to occupation, a minimum 1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel system

shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle; and

(c) Prior to occupation, a 3000L rainwater tank plumbed to a toilet and/or

laundry shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. (Or if a grey-water reuse system is provided instead of a rainwater tank, the condition shall state: Prior to occupation, an approved grey-water reuse system that collects grey water from the laundry and bathroom and re-directs it for garden irrigation/ground water recharge shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle).

3. In cases where an applicant demonstrates that the requirements of clause 1(c)

and/or 1(d) of Part B cannot reasonably be met, Council may accept the

achievement of an additional half (0.5) star NatHERS star rating in lieu of each

of the items at clause 1(c) and/or 1(d) as an alternative means of complying

with this policy.


Page 118


For Against



Page 119


PSC1402-35 AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.4 - BOUNDARY WALLS IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING

DataWorks Reference: 117/010 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PSC 19 February 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1401-13 Attachments: LPP2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development with

‘tracked changes’ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents, for Council’s consideration, an amended Local Planning Policy 2.4 - Boundary Walls in Residential Development (LPP2.4), in accordance with the principles to guide a revision to the policy as adopted on 29 January 2014. The proposed amendments are considered necessary to ensure that LPP2.4 remains consistent with the recently revised Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and so that the policy is applied correctly in line with Council’s view on boundary wall development within residential areas. It is recommended that Council adopt the amended policy for the purpose of public advertising. BACKGROUND

Council’s current local planning policy, LPP2.4 was adopted in 2008 and amended in 2010. Since that time the R-Codes have been revised twice, most recently in August 2013. The provisions of LPP2.4 are reflective of the Council’s view regarding boundary wall development within residential areas and generally provide stricter development controls than the R-Codes – reflecting the community’s concerns with boundary wall development and in recognition of the traditional built form of Fremantle’s residential areas. On 29 January 2014, Council adopted eight principles to guide a review of LPP2.4 in order to bring the policy in line with the recently revised R-Codes and to ensure the correct application of the policy. Council’s resolution from 29 January 2014 is as follows: That Council instruct the City to prepare an amended local planning policy, LPP2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development, based on the principles described as follows: 1. The policy will not define a boundary wall, rather the policy will apply the R-Codes

definition of a boundary wall – i.e. a wall, on or less than 600mm, from any lot boundary, other than a street boundary.


Page 120

2. The policy will consider a boundary wall that abuts a property used for non-

residential purposes as ‘deemed to comply’ development, as is currently the case under the existing LPP2.4.

a) The policy will continue to provide ‘deemed to comply’ provisions for boundary

walls on lots with a frontage of less than 10 metres. b) ‘Deemed to comply’ provisions for boundary walls on lots with a frontage of 10

metres or greater, or battleaxe lots, won’t be provided in the revised policy, as is currently the case.

c) The ‘deemed to comply’ dimensions for boundary walls on land coded R20 and

R25 in the local planning policy will be revised to be consistent with the Residential Design Codes.

4. The policy will include the R-Codes ‘deemed to comply’ provision ‘where both the

subject site and the affect adjoining site are created in a plan of subdivision submitted concurrently with the development application.’

5. The policy will provide clarity as to what Council will consider an appropriate level of

impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to assist in determining applications against the design principle 5.1.3 P3.2 of the Residential Design Codes.

6. The policy will not replace the ‘deemed to comply’ provision C4.2(ii) of the R-Codes

relating to Multiple Dwelling boundary wall development in areas coded R80-R160 and/or R-AC.

7. The policy will not elaborate on the ‘design principle’ of the R-Codes relating to

Multiple Dwelling boundary wall development in areas coded R80-R160 and/or R-AC.

8. The policy will review clause numbering, terminology and referencing to ensure

consistency with the R-Codes. PLANNING COMMENT

LPP2.4 has been amended in accordance with Council’s above resolution of 29 January 2014. The amended policy is presented as part of the officer’s recommendation, however Attachment 1 also provides a ‘tracked changes’ version of the amended policy for Council’s benefit. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION Part 2 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 requires an amended local planning policy to be advertised for public comment for a minimum period of 28 days. It is proposed LPP2.4 be advertised for 28 days.


Page 121

CONCLUSION

LPP2.4 has been amended in accordance with the principles for revision adopted by Council on 29 January 2014. It is therefore recommended that Council adopt the proposed amended LPP2.4 for the purpose of public advertising. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council adopt the following draft amended Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development for advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 2.4 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

CITY OF FREMANTLE


BOUNDARY WALLS IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

ADOPTION DATE: 22 October 2008 AMENDED: 23 June 2010 and __ ____ 2014 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND

This local planning policy has been prepared under Part 2 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Part 7 of State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes, August 2013 (R-Codes). APPLICATION This policy applies to the assessment of boundary walls in residential development as provided by clause 5.1.3 P3.2 and C3.2 A2 of the R-Codes. This policy applies in addition to any other applicable requirements under Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the Residential Design Codes and any other relevant Local Planning Policy. POLICY Deemed-to-comply requirements The deemed-to-comply provisions of clause 5.1.3 C3.2 of the R-Codes are replaced with the following: Walls may be built up to a lot boundary behind the street setback (specified in Table 1 and in accordance with clauses 5.1.2, 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the R-Codes),


Page 122

within the following limits and subject to the overshadowing provisions of clause 5.4.2 and Figure Series 11 of the R-Codes: i. Where the construction of a boundary wall/s is specifically permitted by the

City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 or another Local Planning Policy; or ii. Where the wall is proposed to abut an existing or simultaneously constructed

boundary wall of similar or greater dimensions; or iii. Where the wall is proposed to abut a property that is not used for residential

purposes; or iv. Where the wall is proposed on a lot, not including a battleaxe lot, with a

frontage (as defined by the Residential Design Codes) of less than 10 metres and complies with the following:

i) In areas coded R20 and R25, walls not higher than 3.5m with an average

of 3.0m or less, up to a maximum length of the greater of 9m or one-third the length of the balance of the lot boundary behind the front setback, to one side boundary only; or

ii) In areas coded R30 and higher, walls not higher than 3.5m with an

average of 3m for two-thirds the length of the balance of the lot boundary behind the front setback, to one side boundary only.

or

v. Where both the subject site and the affected adjoining site are created in a

plan of subdivision submitted concurrently with the development application. Design Principle assessment Design principle 5.1.3 P3.2 of the R-Codes states: ‘P3.2 Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this:

Makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living areas;

Does not compromise the design principle contained in clause 5.1.3 P3.1;

Does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property;

Ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for adjoining properties is not restricted; and

Positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.’

In considering a proposed boundary wall against the design principle of the R-Codes, Council will be satisfied that the boundary wall meets the criteria of the third point above where, after considering the proposal against the criteria of points 2, 4 and 5, Council considers that the proposed boundary wall presents no significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property.


Page 123


For Against



Page 124

LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 12 FEBRUARY 2014

The following item number LAC1402-1 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

LAC1402-1 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICE REPORT OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013

DataWorks Reference: 039/007 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 February 2014 Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Julie Caddy, Manager Library and Information Service Decision Making Authority: Council Previous Item: Nil Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To provide information to the two Councils on the operation and performance of the Fremantle City Library during the previous quarter. This item reports on Library operations, issues and achievements for the quarter October - December 2013.

STATISTICS (a) Membership - October - December 2013 Performance Indicators

Members per capita:

Fremantle 0.23

East Fremantle 0.17

% of total Membership:

New Members 7%

Expired Members 6%

Statistics

Population

City of Fremantle 29,471

Town of East Fremantle 7,595

Membership

Fremantle (residents, workers, students)

6,885

East Fremantle (residents, workers,


Page 125

students) 1,313

Melville residents 852

Cockburn residents 1,277

Cottesloe residents 298

Kwinana residents 56

Rockingham residents 65

Other WA residents 715

Online members 0

Temporary members 439

Total 11,900

New members Expired members

833 724

(b) Library Access - October - December 2013 Performance Indicators

Per hour open Per staff FTE Per library member

Circulation transactions 149 8,300 8.8

Visitors 91 3,875 5.4

Active borrowers 43.8 2,430 2.6

Reference enquiries 8.4 466 0.5

Local History enquiries 1.7 302 0.05

Fre-info enquiries 2.8 1,946 0.16

Internet use within library 10.7 597 0.6

% of loans

Requests for items in stock

6.3%

Items borrowed from other libraries

1.7%

Overdue notices sent 2.5%

Statistics

Library access

Hours open 704.5

Visitors 64,321

Active borrowers 30,860

Staff (FTE) 16.6

In House Internet Use 6,447

Wifi Use 1,142

Circulation transactions

Loans and renewals 59,497

Returns 45,924

Items on loan 13,062


Page 126

Reservations 3,758

Requests sent to other libraries

1,130

Requests received from other libraries

1,386

(c) Access to Information and Resources - October - December 2013 Performance Indicators

% of total stock

Total loans and renewals 126%

Items on loan 13,062

New stock received 6%

Statistics

User assistance

Service desk reference enquiries

5,921

Fre-info enquiries 1,946

Local History enquiries 590

Online catalogue searches

16,293

Library web page hits 16,781

Use of Online Databases

Fre-info 33,320

Local History online photographs

5,885

Britannica Online 42,944

Health and Wellness 8

ANZ Reference Centre 78

Novelist 3

Popular Magazines 110

Ancestry.com 2,876

Carters Antiques 47

Freegal 739

Other

East Fremantle Parking permits issued

25

New stock items received SLWA Local

2,294

575


Page 127

COMMENT

October to December is traditionally the quietest quarter of the year for the library, as the academic year draws to a close and people’s focus is on the festive season. Library use however remained strong this quarter, with some areas such as memberships exceeding the previous quarter. Local History The quarter saw the completion of several projects in the Local History area.

The reorganisation of the climate controlled room was completed and has not only made the materials more accessible, but created space to accommodate future archival storage needs.

The large collection of local, state and federal electoral rolls has been documented, catalogued and organised and easier access will assist with the many family history queries received.

A further eighteen months of the Fremantle Gazette from 2004 to 2006 has been microfilmed. Microfilming the newspapers conserves the content and frees space.

The VHS video collection has been assessed and a batch of film sent to an audio visual engineer for conversion to digital format.

Another batch of oral history interviews is being digitised bringing the total hours converted since July to eighty six.

The Arthur Head collection, the result of an extensive project in 1988 to document the history of the reserve, required rehousing for conservation purposes. The materials are now organised in archive boxes and stored in the climate controlled archive room which will prevent any further deterioration. Over four hundred images have now been added to the new digital management database. The software is very user friendly for staff and customers. In December a local resident launched a Facebook page called “Fremantle As It Was, As We Were” with the purpose of encouraging interest in the history of Fremantle through the use of images. Part of the postings to the page involved the use of some of the Library’s copyrighted online images without acknowledgement and with ownership identification removed. A meeting was held with the page’s owner who had not realised the legal implications of usage in this way and who acted quickly to redress the problems. The resident is now collaborating with the Local History Librarian towards an event for the 2014 Fremantle Heritage Festival which will provide a venue for individuals to bring in historical images for scanning and addition to the Local History Collection. It is hoped that this cooperative project will result in a new wave of historical images which have not been previously available In November the State Library Foundation organised a series of talks around Fremantle in association with the launch of the digitised Mary Ann Friend journal. The Local History Librarian presented a short informative session to demonstrate how the collection can be used to research the history of Fremantle. Databases which are available online were promoted as well as the large archival and print photographic collections.


Page 128

In addition to the many short queries, Local History librarians undertook over thirty seven hours research work on individual queries which were over an hour in duration. Customer feedback is often received verbally, but written comments are appreciated and are often typical of reactions to information the Local History Librarians are able to provide. This expression of thanks was received following provision of information for a query about the Freecorns store in Fremantle: “Oh my goodness, I’m so happy I could cry. This is great. Thanks so much for your help on this front. Very very greatly appreciated!” Promotion New window graphics for the library were installed late in the quarter to promote the service. The design is bright and cheerful and targets the range of services available from the library. Feedback to date has included comments such as ‘so that’s where the library is’ and ‘I didn’t know they did that’. One person emailed to say ‘I saw your wonderful front windows and had to send an email to compliment you on the design and look.’ The ABC show Australian Story featured a talk by Susan Swingler that was filmed earlier in the year at a library guest speaker event. A display of work by East Fremantle Primary School children was of interest to the community. ‘Great women, great girls’ focused on the lives of residents of a Hilton aged care facility. The students interviewed the residents and produced posters about the life of each, as well as interviews which could be listened to as part of the display. A display promoted the “Top 50 Books You Can’t Put Down,’ part of the nationwide celebration of ‘Get Reading’ campaign. Laminated copies of the book covers and book marks to promote the titles held at Fremantle were displayed alongside the books. Customer response to this promotion was very good, with titles quickly being borrowed. Other displays included: Amnesty international artworks, Mental Health Week; International Day for People with Disabilities and a Reconstructed Books Display. Events The highlight of the quarter was a presentation by bestselling, Western Australian author Tim Winton, attracting a sold out audience of over 450 people. A partnership with Dymocks Garden City resulted in a large amount of media coverage which recognised Fremantle City Library. Tim was “on tour” promoting his new novel “Eyrie”. The shy and quiet author was interviewed by the West Australian book editor, William Yeoman on the stage of the Town Hall. He warmed to the audience sharing information on his personal writing style and funny stories of how his characters came to fruition. It was standing room only in the Town Hall with many people trying to buy tickets at the door. Question time ran for over half an hour with Tim encouraging the audience to keep asking questions. His softly spoken voice caused a few problems for some audience members but it was a very engaging chat with a world renowned author, with one attendee comment typifying the response: “Excellent presentation, so friendly and kind”. In a very different event a week later, Barry Heard, a Vietnam veteran presented his book Well Done Those Men to an audience of thirty five. Barry spoke candidly and


Page 129

openly about his wonderful childhood in country Victoria and then of the mind numbing horror and brutality of his experience in the Vietnam war. Mental illness, followed by years of emotional separation from family and friends followed, and he spoke of how the experience of writing about his journey would assist his recovery from self destruction and sadness. Feedback from attendees included: “Amazing and brutally honest, a story that must be told!”; An amazing insight into the horrific effects of war on brave Australians”. Twelve library members attended the annual meeting of library members and following presentation of the library annual report and election of Library Advisory Committee representatives, were privileged to hear an engaging and funny talk from Brian Ciccotosto. Former President of the South Fremantle Football club and champion player, Brian shared his interesting life story including his challenges as an Italian AFL player in the 1970’s, much to the dismay of his Father who dreamt of a Soccer playing son. He talked about his commitment and involvement in South Fremantle Football Club and the development of a long list of champion Aboriginal players. Preparations are underway for ‘Library Lovers Week’ in February including both debut and established authors speaking about their books on Love and Romance. A panel of writers will also be offering advice on writing and publishing romance novels at a full day event on February 14. The quarterly booksale was promoted as part of the nationwide Garage Sale Trail. As well as the usual promotional avenues, the national website for the Garage Sale Trail was used to publicise the library sale. The Saturday opening of the Customer Service counter required a different layout for the sale and possibly helped promote the opening of that service to the community. Disability Week was marked with a display promoting themed library resources and accessible services such as homebound delivery, as well as the Geoff Gallop Digital Library (Association for the Blind of WA). Demonstrations of the Read Easy Machine which enlarges text and converts print to audio were offered throughout the week and free hearing tests were provided by Australian Hearing Services. All timeslots for those tests were fully booked by the week before. Operations The popular Outdoor Reading Room (ORR) returned for the beginning of summer with an additional purpose built trolley funded by the Library Board Excellence award received for the program. The community quickly embraced the facility, using materials and seating from day one. The ORR complements the food area of the Kings Square markets when that is operating, allowing people to read while enjoying their lunch but is also well used when the market is not present. Initial deliveries of Council purchased stock were received from the national distributor contracted to provide this material during 2013/14. The company has been very cooperative and professional in meeting local processing requirements and receipt of pre-processed materials has reduced staff workload in this area.


Page 130

A flyer was developed to assist understanding of library acceptance of donations. While donated stock is always appreciated, there are often items that cannot be used, and a written explanation allows staff to communicate this more clearly. Review and enhancement of previous shelf rearrangements occurred during the quarter, assisting accessibility of shelves and visibility of resources. Positive feedback has been received from library members however a need for clear signage was identified and will be addressed. A review of the magazine collection undertaken in conjunction with annual subscription renewals has resulted in new additions to the collection, with some little used titles removed. A trial was implemented to place current copies directly for loan, following increasing theft of these titles from display shelves. The annual process to identify little used or missing volumes commenced in early December. Many items will be exchanged for new stock, or placed differently in the library to increase their exposure as a result of this. Items which cannot be found will be written off as losses. A review of the handling of customer requests for items from other libraries was conducted and a new process introduced to streamline and improve accuracy of data entry. Staff A new Librarian Young People’s Services commenced in October on a twelve month contract, following a temporary move by the permanent incumbent to the State Library of WA. The TAFE student who completed an eight week practicum during August/September was added to the library casual list. Two Leisure Centre staff continued their redeployment at the library, contributing well to processes and providing much needed assistance during times of staff shortage. Tremendous response has been received following a listing at the Volunteer Centre for volunteer Shelf Checkers. There has been strong interest in this work, and several people gave time very quickly to help keep the library stock in good order and accessible to customers. Support was given to a library student who had to base an assignment on a real workplace. An all staff training day was organised to provide skills in approaching people who behave inappropriately or present challenges to staff. The learning from this was quickly put to use when a couple of difficult situations presented in the weeks leading up to Christmas. The Library Manager attended a seminar entitled Change Happens, which included presentations on local government amalgamations in Auckland, restructure in the State Library of Victoria and transition of country telecentres to a new role. The information shared was very relevant to any change management situation and will be useful into the future.


Page 131

E-Library The library registered for the national Esmart Libraries program, developed by the Alannah and Madeleine Foundation and aimed at preventing cyberbullying and other inappropriate online behaviour in the online environment. Two staff attended training and are working on a business case to progress this during 2014. A meeting was held with the vendor representative regarding a solution for the library wifi access problem that began in July 2013. Following clarification, the company was able to identify and quickly solve the problem which was welcomed by customers and staff alike. Since that time the service has performed as expected. The Library Manager participated in a State working group examining feasibility and implementation issues for RFID tagging of new stock purchased with State funding. It is anticipated this will be introduced in the 2014/15 financial year, and if so, will certainly make conversion to RFID more affordable for local governments in the future. A new international standard for cataloguing known as Resource Description and Access (RDA) has been gradually introduced since 2010, with many libraries, including the National Library of Australia, implementing it in 2013. Most of the records received from the State Library of Western Australia are already in this format. The E-Librarian attended training which introduced the main concepts and ways of presenting bibliographic data to users. Implementation at Fremantle will be an ongoing project. With the year drawing to a close, and future budgets in mind, a number of vendors have been approaching libraries to demonstrate their library management or support systems. The eLibarian has attended some of these demonstrations to ensure up to date knowledge of the marketplace when developing forward plans for the library. Fre-info The number of Fre-info desk and email queries showed a similar pattern to previous years. Website hits for the Fre-info online databases, excluding the calendar remain constant as well. There were a total 781 events listed in the calendar for 2013. The most popular hit on the What’s on and calendar sections of the City website was the entry for New Year's eve plus 196 views of the post on facebook. Fre-info received the usual telephone calls asking if there were fireworks in Fremantle on New Year’s Eve and any events for families. Other events which received many hits during the quarter were: Fremantle Festival events, Christmas church services and cruise ship visits. The Events e-newsletter had 150 new subscribers this quarter, taking the total to 2825 subscribers. Hotmail and Yahoo subscribers continue to have problems receiving the e-newsletter due to changes to the security protocols by those companies. The Fremantle School Holiday Guide has an increasing audience accessing it online. Exposure via the website and council facebook pages aids in raising the profile. There were 3982 impressions (briefing skimming) on the October holidays’ online guide and


Page 132

865 reads which is defined as spending time on the publication. The guide is also made available to take from the Fre-info desk and Toy library. The Community Information Librarian has joined a working group set up by the South West Metro Partnership Forum to develop an online directory of the human services offered in the local government areas of Melville, Cockburn and Fremantle. At this stage the directory is still in the planning phase with no decision made on how much or even how Fre-info records can be incorporated into the directory. It is expected the Librarian will take a leading role in developing the database. A sample of the variety of queries this quarter:

Where to buy a miniature statue of Bon Scott.

Request by Japanese film crew for information about the Cappuccino strip and the number of cafes in Fremantle, as a background for a tourist film.

Requests for free Christmas Day lunch and hampers.

When is the National hotel opening.

Young People’s Services (YPS)

Program Number of Sessions

Children Attending

Total Attendance

Baby Rhyme Time 9 191 377

New Parents Group 3 42 85

Toddler Tales 17 131 260

StoryTime 22 230 436

Class Visits to the Library 7 150 168

Outreach sessions to schools, playgroups, day-care centres

13 421 477

Total 71 1165 1803

Due to staff changes there were limited special events for classes to visit the library this quarter. The October school holiday program was also not run for that reason. Lance Holt Primary School’s split year 4/5 class visited the Library twice at the end of October to sharpen up on their research and note taking skills with assistance from the Librarian YPS. The class topic for their reports was ‘Kings, Queens and Cool Castles’ and the students chose such a diverse and quirky range of topics that tested the library resource collection with support needed from inter-library loan items. Lance Holt’s PP/yr1 class continued to enjoy their visit every second Thursday for storytime, a craft activity and book loans until the end of November. The Kindergarten class come at the end of the term for a very special storytime and presentation of their Better Beginnings Green bags. A special Christmas storytime was enjoyed immensely by all staff and children at Stepping Stones child development centre early in December. It was such a hit that the staff requested it become a regular event once or twice each term. Unfortunately due to very hot weather, the Christmas themed storytime at the Toy Library had only a small turn out despite bookings for 15 children and their parents. Despite the small numbers the event was enjoyed by all.


Page 133

Library staff created a pirate themed stall at the East Fremantle Festival. There was a variety of activities promoting both the Library and the Toy Library, which attracted a wide age range of children. A selection of party hire toys from the Toy Library was available for children to play on, plus they could create their own badges on Bookaneer badge cut-outs for the Ocean themed day, along with receiving pirate stickers or making eye-patches. This was a great day for the Library with several hundred children participating in the activities over the three hours. The Children’s library hosted the Gwenyth Ewens Art Exhibition and awards night, which attracted approximately 130 creative and artistic entries from four local Primary schools. The awards night had a greater attendance than the previous year which was fantastic. The library will take on management of this event from 2014, and a staff member was delegated to shadow the current organiser to learn how the event comes together. The Young People’s Librarian and the Community Devleopment Youth Project Officer worked with Fremantle Fast Track’s art teacher and students to produce two large artworks for the new teen area. These were handed over at the end of the year and will be hung early in 2014. Thursday storytimes continue to attract strong crowds, while Saturday sessions have struggled to attract consistent numbers. Saturday storytime will be discontinued from 2014 and an additional weekly Baby Rhyme Time session will be trialled for one term due to the large numbers attending the current session. Many special storytimes to local school classes were provided towards the end of term four. These storytimes promoted the Better Beginnings Green program and were especially exciting to all the kindergarten and pre-primary students as they were presented with their very own book and book bag to take home and keep. Toddler Tales participants expressed their appreciation of the storytime service for 18-30 month olds in this quarter’s evaluation forms. One parent reported that the best thing about toddler tales is the “Interactive reading activities and crafts”, another said “…the presenter combined structure, friendliness and a real sense of fun and enjoyment”. Overall most have mentioned how keen their children are to come to the library, which is a key aim of the program. It is clear to see the changes these children go through as they become familiar with not only the session and its structure but with the library as a whole over the ten week program. In October a deaf couple with a hearing child attended one of the Library’s monthly New Parent Group information sessions. The mother was very interested in bringing her hearing child along to be part of the baby rhyme time sessions and asked whether an Auslan interpreter might be available to enable her to understand the rhymes and songs. The Perth TAFE Auslan lecturer was contacted to see if students might be interested in helping out as part of their learning. Two students volunteered until the end of 2013, enabling signed rhyme time to happen in the library. The hearing impaired mother was very pleased with the result, and continued to attend weekly sessions. The initiative was greeted positively by other parents in the group, with comments received about how great it was to make the sessions more accessible for people with disabilities. Library Advisory Committee


Page 134

At the Annual Meeting of Library Members, Ms Marilyn Cacavas and Mr Michael Stack were re-elected to the Library Advisory Committee, a decision endorsed by Council at its December meeting. The participation and contribution of all community representatives to this Committee is very much appreciated. Thanks must also go to the Town of East Fremantle’s Cr Maria Rico, who as Deputy Presiding Officer for the Committee, was able to step in at short notice to chair the annual meeting.


Financial

Nil Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

Although the calendar year was winding down, the October to December quarter continued to be a busy one for the library, with usage higher than for the same period in 2012.


Operations library and information.


Nil


Information only no decision required.


Page 135

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor Brad Pettitt That the information be received. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 136


LAC1402-2 LIBRARY BENCHMARKING PROJECT 2012-2013

DataWorks Reference: 032/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 February 2014 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Julie Caddy, Manager Library and Information Service Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Library Benchmarking End of Financial Year Report

2012-2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The results of a library benchmarking project for the 2012-13 financial year are presented for information.

BACKGROUND

The Fremantle City Library participates in an annual benchmarking project with libraries from the municipalities of Nedlands, South Perth, Subiaco, Cambridge and Victoria Park. Eight financial and participation Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are reported on annually and others based on participation, stock and workload are reported on a quarterly basis. Within the six participating library services, Fremantle serves the second largest population base after South Perth, with Subiaco having the lowest catchment population.

COMMENT

Annual KPIs are: 1. Operational expenditure per member 2. Operational expenditure per capita 3. Local stock spending per member 4. Local stock spending per capita 5. New Stock added as a percentage of Total Stock 6. Salary cost per opening hour 7. Cost per transaction 8. Percentage of local government expenditure on libraries 9. Public use PCs per capita.

Quarterly KPIs are:

1. Number of Visits per Active Member 2. Active Resident Members as a % of Local Population 3. New Members per 100 Head of Population 4. Average Percentage of Stock on Loan 5. Issues per Stock Item 6. Net ratio of ILL Borrowing (+ve) to ILL Lending (-ve)


Page 137

7. Transactions per Hour Open 8. 1,000 Transactions per FTE

For the first time an annualised report of the quarterly KPIs was also collated. A copy of the full report is attached to this agenda. It should be noted that loan limits at Fremantle were increased from January 2013 to bring them in line with the benchmarking partners. Lower limits for the first half of the reporting year will impact on comparability of KPIs regarding loans or transactions. Annual Fremantle has the third highest operating expenditure per member, and the fifth highest per capita. The consultant commented on the demographic serviced by the Perth Library which shows substantially higher expenditure in both these areas than anyone else. Perth serves a much higher non resident population than any others, and their budget accommodates this demand. Fremantle has the lowest rate of expenditure on local stock, spending $1.18 per capita against Nedlands which spends $4.17 and Perth which spends $6.19. The low expenditure makes Fremantle very dependent on State supplied stock. 5552 new items were received from State Library of WA funding during 2012/13 which equates to a 14% stock replacement rate for SLWA owned stock. This rate is only achieved because this library reduced its per capita stock size a few years ago, getting rid of several thousand old and little used state owned material as a one off project. Fremantle’s percentage of new stock added against total stock is third lowest, reflecting the higher local stock expenditure of other benchmarking partners, as well as the lower state owned stock held per capita. Fremantle’s salary cost per opening hour is the second highest. Mainly attributed to the fact that the City of Fremantle has its own Award which pays higher than the Local Government Award, this is also because Fremantle offers highly valued specialist services for its community such as Community Information and Local History, which require additional resourcing. Cost per transaction is highest for Fremantle. The benchmarking project uses total costs to calculate this amount, and in this library a percentage of operational costs contribute to areas such as Local History and Community Information which are not directly involved in circulation and membership transactions. Fremantle shows the lowest percentage of local government expenditure on its library. Quarterly Fremantle has the fifth highest number of library visits per active member, with an average of 720 people per day over the year. Number of visitors is dependent on many factors, including opening hours, location and accessibility of online services. Fremantle has a strong commitment to downloadable books, audio books and music, which removes the need for people who use these services to visit the library on a regular basis.


Page 138

Fremantle has the second lowest rate of resident members as a percentage of population, passing only Perth. Fremantle and Perth are located in city centres which have a regional pull, and both have a high percentage of non resident members which affects this KPI. The benchmarking group have decided to change this in 2013-14 to consider active members regardless of residence which should enable a better result. Fremantle has the fourth highest level of new members per capita. This library is very invisible to many people and staff receive regular calls asking where it is. It will be interesting to see whether promotional efforts such as the window graphics will improve the new member rate in 2014. Fremantle shows the highest percentage of stock on loan throughout the year, and the third highest rate of loans per stock item. This indicates that Fremantle’s stock works hard for its community. People may be holding onto items for a longer period, perhaps related to the lower levels of new stock funding and input. Fremantle is the third highest lender of items to other libraries, perhaps a result of staff commitment to providing this service in a timely and efficient manner which causes libraries to more often send their requests this way in the first instance. This library is fifth highest in the KPI for transactions per hour open, but the difference between the top six libraries is not high. Again the strong commitment to downloadable resources may impact on this result. Fremantle has the lowest transactions per FTE, however this calculation includes specialist staff who play no role in handling loan or membership transactions. KPIs reported to council in the library quarterly reports exclude those positions and are probably a better representation of this indicator. All libraries open for similar hours each week with Fremantle slightly above the average. Other data collected but not developed as KPIs, indicates that Fremantle:

Had less hits on its online catalogue than all libraries – navigability of the Fremantle website is an issue for many customers and a problem regularly assisted by staff

Has the lowest collection size within the group except for Manning and Mt Claremont which are very small branch libraries

Ran the lowest number of events (adult and children's) to draw people into the library (except for Mt Claremont).


Financial

Nil Legal

Nil Operational


Page 139

Benchmarking provides an opportunity to compare service strengths and weaknesses against other libraries and determine how these can be leveraged in future service planning. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The benchmarking results from 2012/13 provide useful data to trigger analysis of service levels against other libraries. Discussion among the six library authorities has raised issues around the increasing presence in libraries of online databases, ebooks, eaudio books and downloadable music such as Fremantle provides. Use of these resources is not counted as loans or transactions, however they now replace traditional library services for many people and create a staff workload. The project definitions and parameters are regularly reviewed towards future data collection and analysis in order to provide a more complete overview of service measurement.




Nil


Information only no decision required


MOVED: Mayor Brad Pettitt That the information in this report be noted.


Page 140


For Against



Page 141


LAC1402-3 TOY LIBRARY QUARTERLY REPORT - OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013

DataWorks Reference: 023/013 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 February 2014 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Julie Caddy, Manager Library and Information Service Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A summary of the operation and performance of the Fremantle Toy Library for the quarter is provided.

BACKGROUND

The Fremantle Toy Library is jointly funded by the City of Fremantle and Town of East Fremantle and a quarterly report is presented to the two Councils.

COMMENT

Membership

Fremantle Residents

East Fremantle Residents

Total

Individuals 305 58 363

Families 186 37 223

New Members

Fremantle Residents


Total

29 10 39

Deleted Members

Fremantle Residents


Total

6 19 25

Visitors


Page 142

October 693

November 641

December 447

Total 1781

*Family means at least one parent and usually one or more accompanying children

Loans

East Fremantle residents

Fremantle residents

Total

Toys 235 1799 2034

Books 81 1953 2034

Audio Visual items 10 241 251

Total 326 3752 4319

Income

6 month concession

12 month concession

6 month full fees

12 month full fees

Party Hire

Total

October $0 $164.00 $496.00 $1248.00 $40.50 $1948.50

November $94.00 $82.00 $372.00 $936.00 $140.50 $1624.50

December $94.00 $82.00 $124.00 $624.00 $128.30 $1052.30

Totals $188.00 $328.00 $992.00 $2808.00 $309.30 $4625.30

Membership for the Toy Library has increased on the previous quarter, with higher numbers for both authorities. Fremantle resident memberships are 6% higher, and 17% more memberships are held by East Fremantle residents. The approaching summer and a move to outside activities for children is an encouragement for Toy Library membership. Loans of general library material continued to be strong, it is interesting to see the number of book loans equalling toy loans for the quarter. Visitor numbers remain strong indicating community appreciation of the facility. The Toy Library closed from December 23rd for two weeks annual shutdown, coinciding with the closure of the Hilton Community Centre over the same period. Members accept this closure over the Christmas/New Year period but demonstrate that they have missed the service by visiting in large numbers as soon as the Toy Library re-opens. The Work Plan service report was submitted to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) as part of the requisite acquittal for the funding received under their Budget Based Funding program. This funding covers the acquisition of new toys for the Toy Library each year. Following a toy fundraiser catalogue promotion in the previous quarter, stock enabled by personal orders from members and their families, began to be delivered during the quarter. Toys to the value of $165 were able to be ordered for the collection thanks to members who supported the promotion.


Page 143

Over the last quarter the costume collection has grown with many new additions, thanks to the sewing volunteer. Promotion of the collection through two different costume displays for Halloween and Christmas, with a special dress up storytime for Christmas has increased member awareness of the collection. In the weeks leading to Christmas the collection was popular, with many of the Christmas themed costumes in high demand. Party equipment hires have been steady over the past quarter however it is planned to improve on this next year. Photos of all party hire toys have been photographed for incorporation into a promotional flyer. In addition a small selection of these toys were used by the library along with the badge machine for the East Fremantle Festival which was visited by several hundred children and family members within the community. It is expected this will encourage more people to visit the Toy Library and hire these items for future parties. The badge machine is now available for hire and is expected to be well used by community groups.


Financial

Nil Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The Toy Library continues to play an important role in child development for many families in the community.




Nil


Page 144


Information only no decision required.


MOVED: Mayor Brad Pettitt SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 145


The following item number SGS1402-1 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

SGS1402-1 FOOTPATH PROGRAM - ADDITION OF AMHERST STREET FOOTPATH SECTIONS

DataWorks Reference: 091/015 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 February 2014 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Peter Pikor, Director Technical Services Actioning Officer: Phillip Adams, Manager Infrastructure Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Aerial image of approximate proposed location of

footpath

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The current footpath program has a budget of $362 532, and a number of the footpath projects are now complete. Final costs for the program are expected to come under budget and this will be reflected at budget review as appropriate. However, City officers have been approached on a number of occasions to provide a footpath to allow for disabled access to public transport within Amherst Street, Fremantle and given the extent of funding anticipated to be available and the current availability of resources to complete the work, it is proposed to include this particular project in the overall footpath program now.

BACKGROUND

City officers have been approached requesting disabled access to the public transport bus stop and shelter in Amherst Street (both sides), between Stack Street and Knutsford Street (north of Stack Street), Fremantle. Currently, wheelchair access to the stop / shelter can only be gained by traversing through a track in the verge area. This movement is difficult and potentially may be dangerous for wheelchair users. Transperth is not prepared to rationalise stops / shelters and move the existing stop locations. Effective disabled access to these locations will require construction of a small footpath section with lengths of approximately 60 - 70 metres, with associated pram ramps.

COMMENT

Council has approved a budget for footpath works to be undertaken in the current financial year. Works on the program are substantially completed and funding surpluses have been identified for the overall program. To fund the expected cost of around $9 000 for the proposed footpath sections in Amherst Street and this funding can be reallocated from the Beach Street footpath project which will have surplus funds.


Page 146

Current resources are available to complete these relatively minor works and it is proposed to use these excess funds to complete the project at this stage, rather than wait until after the formal budget review (which will effectively defer the works for around two months). It is noted that the balance of the funding within the footpath program will be assessed and presented at budget review as appropriate. Attachment 1 to this report gives an indication of the approximate location of the footpath, which will be finalised once Committee supports this proposal and a final site visit has been undertaken.


Financial

There are no specific budget implications, as the footpath program has been already approved through Council. Following investigation of the Beach Street footpath project, an estimated cost to complete this work there will be funds available of $9 000 that can be reallocated to the proposed Amherst Street footpath works. Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

Funding for the section of footpath within Amherst Street, Fremantle has been identified as being available within the overall footpath program and it is proposed to apply that excess funding to this work prior to formal budget review.


Nil


Nil




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan


Page 147

Council approves the construction of the Amherst Street, footpath sections from Stack Street to Knutsford Street with funds of $9 000 that are available from the Beach Street footpath project. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 148


SGS1402-3 NOTICE OF MOTION - MAYORS FOR PEACE LEAD CITY INVITATION - MAYOR BRAD PETTITT

DataWorks Reference: 039/040 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 February 2014 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Information brochure – Mayors for Peace

2. Letter and background material – Mayors for Peace Secretariat – March 2010

3. Letter appreciation - Mayors for Peace dated 12 December 2013 and extract of agenda number 4 – 8th General Conference Mayors for Peace

ELECTED MEMBER SUMMARY Background In 1982 at the UN 2nd Special Session on Disarmament, the Mayor for Hiroshima called cities to promote the total abolition of nuclear weapons, and strengthen transnational solidarity among cities to facilitate collective efforts towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. Mayors for Peace (MFP) arose from that call and are an international organisation which aims to support the nuclear weapons disarmament process, calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons by 2020, and encourages member cities to engage in activities that foster cultures of peace. www.mayorsforpeace.org Currently there are 5 860 member cities in 158 countries. The Oceania region includes 128 cities, of which 87 are from Australia. In Western Australia the following cities are members of MFP:

City Joined

Albany 2005

Bridgetown-Greenbushes 2005

Christmas Island 2011

Cockburn 2011

Darebin 1983

Denmark 2010

Fremantle 2005

Mount Barker 2009

Subiaco 2005

Victoria Park 2011

Wyndham 2011

http://www.mayorsforpeace.org/


Page 149

Secretary General of Mayors for Peace, Yasuyoshi Komizo, met the Mayor in November 2013, to initiate a proposal for Fremantle to become a "lead city" within the organisation, with responsibility for its member cities in Western Australia. Mr Adrian Glamorgan and Ms Elizabeth PO' of MFP, Fremantle have also met with the Secretary General and will be invited to coordinate the working group. Implications of being a “Lead City” The City would facilitate the formation of a community working group (up to five volunteer members), to liaise directly with the Mayor. It is anticipated that administration staff in the CEO/Mayor’s office would be the ongoing Council contact. The community working group would assist the City/mayor/Council to achieve its responsibilities as a nominated “lead city” of MFP by:

identifying ways for the City of Fremantle to further foster a culture of peace within the city;

organising a one day conference for existing WA MFP member cities;

organising complementary community activities to promote MFP; and

developing a future plan (2015-2018) to bring to Council by December 2014.


Simple majority

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Cr A Sullivan MOVED the Officer's Recommendation with a minor amendment to part 2a as shown in italics: 1. That the invitation for the City of Fremantle to be a lead city within the

Oceania Region for Western Australia Mayors for Peace organisation, be accepted.

2. Council endorses the creation of a community working group to:

a) identify ways for the City of Fremantle to further foster a culture of peace and nuclear disarmament within the city;

b) organise a one day conference for existing WA MFP member cities; c) organise complementary community activities to promote MFP; and d) develop a future plan (2015-2018) to bring to Council by December 2014.


Page 150


For Against



Page 151


SGS1402-4 WHY MAKE SENSE? PORT BEACH EVENT

DataWorks Reference: 219/020 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 February 2014 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Tom Griffiths, Manager Economic Development and

Marketing Actioning Officer: Marie La Frenais, Coordinator Event Management Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Why Make Sense? Event Submission

Why Make Sense? Event Site Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Event organising company Horizons Touring (Horizons) has requested that the next ‘Why Make Sense?’ event be held in the City of Fremantle at Port Beach. Horizons is proposing to hire the Port Beach Sandtracks area for the event to be held on the weekend of Friday 18, Saturday 19 and Sunday 20 of April as well as the Friday 25, Saturday 26 and Sunday 27 of April 2014 from 6pm to 1am for each of those six event days. The event activities will include music concerts using local and international DJs, cultural events, and food and drink offerings (including alcohol). The infrastructure for the event will be in place for 14 days from 15 to 28 April 2014 and will be packed down into shipping containers so that the beach will become completely available to the public on non-event days and until noon on the six event days. There is no request for the waiving of hire fees - the City will be charging council hire fees to the total of $19,092 plus the $90 bookings fee and a bond of $20,000. This is a commercial 18 years and over ticketed event with a capacity to host 3,000 patrons. Tickets are expected to sell between $25 and $35 (subject to change) for each of the six event days. As this is a fenced commercial event (on the event days and times indicated above) on a public beach, Council approval is required. Key points related to the event are:

The event organiser will arrange a shuttle bus to travel to and from the North Fremantle train station to the event. The shuttle bus will operate before the event and after the event to ensure the operator responsibly manages patrons once the event finishes each night and that they depart the area safely.

The entire event area will be fenced off from noon to 1am on event days. The perimeter fence will include a catchment device at its base to ensure that no rubbish from the event escapes the event area at any time.

The entire event area will be subject to ‘industrial raking’ after each event to ensure no rubbish is left in the event area, there will be no glass served at the event at anytime.


Page 152

Sand dunes to the north of the event area will not used for the operations of the event, and will be fenced off for dune protection purposes.

City car bays on Port Beach Road will be used on event days by the organiser as space for food operators, bars serving alcohol, toilets and the shuttle bus drop-off area. These facilities will be accommodated within the securely fenced event area.

With respect to noise management in the city, the area is considered to be ideal for a professionally managed event due to its relative isolation.

BACKGROUND

Hosted in different urban or suburban environments, the ‘Why Make Sense?’ event concept draws inspiration from its surroundings to present a unique set of artists from local and international bands, DJs and food vendors to create a small boutique festival style event. The event has previously been held in Grand Lane in the Perth CBD in March 2013. The City of Perth has also granted Horizons a number of event spaces over the last year including Ozone Reserve for the New Year’s event 2013/14. No issues have occurred between the City of Perth and Horizons in relation to the management of these events. As an event organizer, Horizons is regarded within the industry as being highly professional and trustworthy. ‘Why Make Sense?’ is an 18 years and over event involving the sale of alcoholic drinks. In terms of patron demographics, the event is comparable to St. Jerome’s Laneway festival. As a matter of course, all liquor license regulations set out by Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor will be adhered to, and consultation with relevant business units within the City will occur.

COMMENT

The benefits to Fremantle from hosting the event are:

Direct revenue from fees and charges.

The opportunity for a number of Fremantle businesses to participate in the event by operating food stalls and bars.

The opportunity for local musicians to participate in the event.

80% of ticket purchases are expected to be from outside the greater Fremantle region, exposing many new people to Fremantle.

Trialling the use of the Sandtracks area at Port beach as an occasional event space for hire. If Council are satisfied with the trial, ongoing use of this area will raise additional revenue for the City and should deter illegal parties that occasionally occur at this location and cause problems for the community (e.g. littering).

Due to its geographical location there is expected to be little no noise impact on local residents.

OFFICERS COMMENT COORDINATOR PARKS AND LANDSCAPES The Parks and Landscape Department is not opposed to the proposed event given the planned measures to protect the environmental values of the coastal vegetation and general area.


Page 153

OFFICERS COMMENTS MANAGER HEALTH, BUILDING AND COMPLIANCE Health, Building and Compliance business unit recommends the applicant prepare an acoustic report to demonstrate that music noise emanating from the event will comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 when measured at residential, commercial and industrial premises surrounding the venue. It is recommended that the applicant liaises with and obtains approval from the Department of Racing, Gaming & Liquor and WA Police if the event is proposed to include the sale, supply or consumption of liquor. It is recommended that a comprehensive risk management plan is developed by the applicant and submitted for review by the City's Manager Community Safety & Parking in relation to this potentially high risk public event.


Financial

N/A Legal

N/A Operational

Subject to approval of this report, Horizons will prepare and submit a safety/risk management plan, traffic management plan, site plan with clear indication of the first aid areas, clear indication of emergency exit for the sites, the event’s security company agent licence and the event’s public liability insurance.

The organiser will arrange a shuttle bus service before and after the event to take patrons from North Fremantle train station to and from the event. The organiser is in discussions with the Salt on the Beach restaurant to develop a mutually beneficial parking plan for the event days. Additionally, the organiser will work with relevant stakeholders to develop a traffic management plan to temporarily reduce traffic speed limits on Port Beach road (as a precaution as it should not be necessary for any patrons to cross that road). Organisational

Environmental Health will require the following permits and certificates at least 60 days prior to the event:

Public building certificate, structural engineer’s certificate (stage/structures), certificate of electrical compliance.

Trading in Public Places approval for food stalls.

Additional toilet facilities.

Additional rubbish bins.

Regulation 18 approval (if noise limits are to be exceeded).


Page 154

Various business units will undertake monitoring and facilitation activities prior to, during and following the event.

CONCLUSION

Attracting the ‘Why Make Sense?’ event to Fremantle will be a significant achievement, attracting participants and an audience from across the Perth metropolitan area. While there is an inherent risk in approving any event in the city, the administration is satisfied that this event organiser is highly professional and can demonstrate a track record of delivering similar high-quality and safe events. It is recommended that the City approves the event.


The agreement reflects Council’s goal that Fremantle be recognised as a unique city of cultural and economic significance.


Preliminary discussions with Salt on the Beach restaurant, the Fremantle Ports and WA Police has been undertaken and all stakeholders are supportive of the proposal and have confidence in this event organiser. Stakeholders will be engaged in more detail by the event organiser should Council approve this report.




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council approves the Why Make Sense event on the following conditions:

1. No fees or charges will be waived. The event organiser will be charged council hire fees to the total of $19,092 plus the $90 bookings fee and a bond of $20,000. Any additional fees or charges that arise will also be charged.

2. The event organiser fences off all sand dunes in the area to protect the

environment and dune vegetation from event patrons. 3. Further consultation is undertaken with Salt on the Beach restaurant, Fremantle

Ports and WA Police in relation to speed limits along Port Beach Road and other logistical issues as needed.

4. Costs associated with health and compliance permits including traffic

management and Regulation 18 (noise management), along with professional beach raking as per the City’s tendered contractor are charges to be imposed on the event organiser.


Page 155

5. All required plans are submitted to the administration at least sixty days prior to the event.

6. The event organiser must promote the new place marketing branding for

Fremantle – ‘Fremantle. Be part of the story’ where possible. Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: 7. Hire income to be set aside for first-priority consideration of costs associated

with the enhancement, and management of the Port Beach infrastructure. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Simon Naber Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Doug Thompson

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council approves the Why Make Sense event on the following conditions:

1. No fees or charges will be waived. The event organiser will be charged council hire fees to the total of $19,092 plus the $90 bookings fee and a bond of $20,000. Any additional fees or charges that arise will also be charged.

2. The event organiser fences off all sand dunes in the area to protect the

environment and dune vegetation from event patrons. 3. Further consultation is undertaken with Salt on the Beach restaurant,

Fremantle Ports and WA Police in relation to speed limits along Port Beach Road and other logistical issues as needed.

4. Costs associated with health and compliance permits including traffic

management and Regulation 18 (noise management), along with professional beach raking as per the City’s tendered contractor are charges to be imposed on the event organiser.


Page 156

5. All required plans are submitted to the administration at least sixty days prior to the event.

6. The event organiser must promote the new place marketing branding for

Fremantle – ‘Fremantle. Be part of the story’ where possible. 7. Hire income to be set aside for first-priority consideration of costs

associated with the enhancement, and management of the Port Beach infrastructure.


For Against



Page 157


SGS1402-5 ACCEPTANCE OF TOBACCO CONTROL GRANT FROM CURTIN UNIVERSITY ON BEHALF OF THE WA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

DataWorks Reference: 106/066; 141/013 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 February 2014 Responsible Officer: Matthew Piggott, Manager Health, Building & Compliance Actioning Officer: Joseph Zappavigna, Senior Environmental Health Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Nil EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The WA Department of Health through Curtin University Office of Research & Development has approved a grant of $5 372.73 plus GST to the City of Fremantle. The grant has been provided for the purpose of installing ‘no smoking’ signs at two patrolled beaches and at as many children’s playgrounds in the City of Fremantle as the grant funding will allow. BACKGROUND

The City of Fremantle Environmental Health Services applied for grant funds that were made available under the second phase of the ‘Tobacco Control Grants Scheme’. The City of Fremantle was successful in receiving a grant of $5 372.73 plus GST to install 'no smoking' signs at two patrolled beaches and at children’s playgrounds.

COMMENT

The installation of 'no smoking' signs from funds made available through this grant will help to raise awareness in the community of the public places where smoking tobacco is not allowed. The grant funds will be spent to print and install permanent sign posts at two patrolled beaches and at as many children’s playgrounds in the City of Fremantle as the grant funding will allow. The City’s Environmental Health Officers possess enforcement powers under the Tobacco Products Control Act & Regulations. The installation of clearly visible 'no smoking' signs will assist the City's officers to provide an enforcement role when faced with deliberate refusal by members of the public to comply with WA's smoking bans.


Financial

In accordance with the conditions stipulated by Curtin University, the City agrees to print and install 'no smoking' signs using the grant funds. The project completion date is 31 July 2014. Project acquittal is due by 31 October 2014.


Page 158

Legal A Financial Evaluation Report and Financial Report are to be submitted to Curtin University by 31 October 2014. Any unused funds have to be returned to Curtin University. Operational

The Senior Environmental Health Officer will coordinate the ordering, printing and installation of the signs with the assistance of City Works Depot staff. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The City accepts a grant of $5 372.73 plus GST from Curtin University on behalf of the Department of Health for the purpose of installing ‘no smoking’ signs at two patrolled beaches and at as many children’s playgrounds in the City of Fremantle as the grant funding will allow.


The installation of 'no smoking' signs will help to raise awareness in the community of the public places where smoking tobacco is not allowed. It will also assist officers enforce WA's tobacco control laws in the case of wilful non-compliance by members of the public.


Nil COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1. Council accepts the grant for $5 372.73 plus GST from Curtin University on

behalf of the WA Department of Health. 2. The 2013/2014 budget be amended as summarised in Table 1:


Page 159

Table -1. Proposal to amend the City’s budget.

Budget Category/ Sub Category

Existing Budget Expenditure /(Revenue)

Variation to Budget Expenditure /(Revenue)

Revised Budget Expenditure /(Revenue)

Account String (Budget amount refers to this account)

Revenue

Operating Revenue - Grant Operating Other Govt Agency

Nil ($5,372.73)

($5,372.73) 54.52310.4214.00.00.00000

Total Funding ($5,372.73)

Expenditure

Operating Expenditure – Goods

Nil $5,372.73 $5,372.73 54.52310.6823.00.00.00000

Total Expenditure $5,372.73

Net Variation to Budget – Deficit/(Surplus)

Nil


For Against



Page 160


SGS1402-7 ADOPTION OF THE BUSINESS ATTRACTION POLICY

DataWorks Reference: 069/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 February 2014 Previous Item: N/A Responsible Officer: Tom Griffiths, Manager Economic Development and

Marketing Actioning Officer: Luis Puig, Economic Development Coordinator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Business Attraction Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In recent years, the City has worked towards implementing the Economic Development Strategy 2011-2015 and the recommendations of the Fremantle Retail Model Plan 2010. While achievements have been made to facilitate improvement in Fremantle’s retail sector, such as the establishment of the Fremantle BID, additional efforts are required to continue to build on this momentum and to attract new high-value businesses to Fremantle that attract more people. One economic development priority for the City for the coming 18 months is small business attraction and retention. This involves attracting and retaining unique small businesses that add to the overall appeal of Fremantle as a place to visit. A business attraction policy has been drafted to help achieve this goal. The draft policy has the following objectives:

Support the effective implementation of the City of Fremantle Economic Development Strategy 2010-2015 and the Retail Model Plan 2010.

Proactively incentivise and accelerate the attraction of businesses that add value to Fremantle’s offering as a visitor destination and generate benefits for its residents, workers, visitors and the business community in the long-term by improving Fremantle’s overall appeal.

Encourage eligible population-driven businesses (mainly retail and hospitality) to sign long term leases for properties within the City of Fremantle Local Government Area.

Encourage local property owners and leasing agents to attract those key businesses that fit Fremantle’s distinctive character and appeal, and add to its overall value proposition for visitors.

The draft policy may be executed in one of three ways:

1. The City of Fremantle may provide a one-off rate discount up to 33% of annual rates to property owners who lease property at ground level to eligible businesses that add value to the overall Fremantle offering. Rate


Page 161

discounts must be passed onto the new tenant in a direct financial manner such as (but not limited to) a rent-free period, reduced rent or reduced outgoings.

2. The City of Fremantle may provide a one-off cash incentive of up to a

maximum of $10,000 to eligible businesses that meet this policy’s criteria and are committed by a signed commercial lease agreement within a property in the City of Fremantle Local Government Area.

3. Vacant council-owned properties may be offered to eligible businesses at a

discounted lease up to $10,000 below market rates for one year. The three items are mutually exclusive. That is, a business cannot receive more than one of the items. Eligible businesses are defined as those that add value to the Fremantle’s overall offering by bringing something unique to the city that will attract more people to Fremantle.

BACKGROUND

The City’s current Economic Development Strategy was adopted by Council in 2011 and covers the years 2011 to 2015. While significant achievements have been made since adoption of the Strategy, its intent and goals continue to be relevant and provide clear direction for the organisation and major stakeholders within Fremantle. A report was approved by Council on 18 December 2013 that agreed that:

the City continues to work on the basis that the Strategy direction is still applicable and that its goals are still appropriate;

the City will prepare a new Economic Development Strategy in early-mid 2015 that will encompass the City’s new geographical boundaries and refreshed areas of focus.

The 18 December 2013 report outlined the main economic development and marketing priorities for the City for the coming 18 months as follows:

Small business attraction and retention – attracting and retaining unique small businesses that add to the overall appeal of Fremantle as a place to visit. Efforts will be made to support boutique, one-off (or limited number) businesses that are not easily replicable in other activity centres.

Place marketing – developing a new ‘consumer brand’ for Fremantle that will include a new creative theme to supersede ‘Find yourself in Fremantle’.

Investment attraction – continuing efforts to improve the perception of Fremantle as a place to invest in property development and/or business.

Events attraction – based on the target markets identified, work with event organisers to attract major events to Fremantle that add to its point of difference (e.g. St Jerome’s Laneway festival, Fringe Festival, Open House).

Creative industry development – continuing to work with Business Foundations and Notre Dame to progress the recommendations in the Centre for Creativity and Innovation report.


Page 162

Stakeholder management – working closely and productively with major stakeholders such as Business Foundation, Chamber of Commerce, Fremantle BID, Fremantle Ports and Notre Dame University to achieve collective goals and to work collaboratively on projects of common interest.

COMMENT

A recent audit of the Fremantle CBD retail market conducted by the administration found an estimated retail vacancy rate of 7.4%. This is higher than retail vacancy rates across Australia, particularly for city centre locations. According to research by Jones Lang LaSalle, national retail vacancies in Australia rose to 4.0% at June 2013. That research also suggests that most traditional city centres are a performing poorly with the national CBD retail vacancy rate rising to 6.7% for the same month. While the Fremantle vacancy rate is only slightly higher than CBD retail vacancy rates in other cities, many high profile retail premises remain vacant (e.g. Market Street and South Terrace) which is cause for concern. The administration has prepared well-presented information that it distributes to businesses that are considering re-locating to Fremantle. The material includes a compendium of private properties available for lease, as well as those owned by the City. Officers also distribute objective data relating to foot traffic, expected investment and retail performance to encourage informed decision-making by prospective businesses. In addition, regular efforts are made to highlight the new high-value businesses that have recently opened in Fremantle (e.g. MANY 6160, Bread in common, The National Hotel, The Raw Kitchen, Deca Bodega, Don Tapas) to generate positive attention. While these activities are important and contribute to improving the perception of Fremantle as an attractive place to open a retail or hospitality business, business decisions are ultimately financial. Therefore, these incentives are considered to be vital in proactively accelerating business attraction at this crucial stage in Fremantle’s evolution by swaying a business decision in Fremantle’s favour. The City has made a strong commitment to existing businesses by supporting the establishment of the Fremantle BID, and by making considerable funding contributions to that organisation for five years until the end of the 2016/17 financial year (at this stage). The BID’s primary purpose is to support business retention and development. This policy would enable the administration to dovetail with the BID’s work more effectively and make a direct and purposeful attempt to address the ongoing issue of retail vacancy within the city. By incentivising high-value or high-appeal businesses (and not the owners of vacant buildings), the City is rewarding the activity that it aims to see (i.e. new unique small businesses opening in Fremantle) and not the activities that do not support its strategic goals (i.e. owners of long vacant retail premises). Business grants have been successfully used by the City of Perth since 2008/09 financial year (up to $20,000) and have been distributed to between 10-20 businesses each year since that policy was adopted. City officers have first-hand experiences with that policy and the implementation of it.


Page 163


Financial

N/A Legal

N/A Operational

It is important to note that the incentives will not be provided where the financial viability of the business is dependent on approval of that incentive. Prospective applicants must demonstrate strong financial viability and a solid business plan. The policy incentives are not intended to be used as a reward for an eligible business that has already relocated to Fremantle.

CONCLUSION

Since the launch of the City’s Economic Development Strategy, a number of key activities are currently driving Fremantle’s revitalisation such as amendments to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme Num. 4 and Kings Square redevelopment. Additionally, there have been more development applications lodged, application approvals and building approvals in Fremantle than in any equivalent period since the America’s Cup in 1987. The level of public and private investment in the pipeline totals nearly $1 billion which is boosting investor confidence. However, further investment needs to take place to capitalise on the current momentum generated for Fremantle and to achieve the retail targets articulated in the Strategy by 2015. This policy will provide the City with a direct tool that it can use to attract businesses that are assessed as being high in appeal and unique to Fremantle (such as MANY 6160, Bread in common, The National Hotel, The Raw Kitchen, Deca Bodega, Don Tapas). It is expected that this policy may be unpopular with some members of the business community, particularly those existing businesses that do not directly benefit from its implementation immediately. However, there is sufficient evidence from comparable programs in other cities to suggest that policies such as this help to increase the size of the overall ‘retail pie’ for Fremantle by filling retail vacancies that are damaging the visitor experience and having a negative effect on the performance of existing businesses and visitor numbers. While new businesses may be seen as direct competitors by some existing businesses, experience in other cities shows that any short-term loss in revenue is usually offset by a sustainable increase in visitor numbers and overall retail/hospitality performance. Additionally, in depth discussions have taken place with the Fremantle Chamber of Commerce CEO and the Executive Manager of the Fremantle BID regarding this policy. As representatives of the broad business community and with an ability to take a strategic view, both organisations are highly supportive of this policy.


Page 164


Economic Development Strategy 2011 - 2015


None




MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council adopts the Business Attraction Policy (February 2014) as outlined in attachment 1 of the SGS Agenda. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 165

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

CR D COGGIN LEFT THE MEETING AT 10.59 PM PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS AND DID NOT RETURN.


PSC1402-21 CONSIDERATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SUB AREA 1.3.2 OF LOCAL PLANNING AREA 1

DataWorks Reference: 218/055 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 05 February 2014 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Strategic Planner Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1203-47 (Council 28 March 2012) – Final Adoption of

Amendment PSC1108-148 (Council 24 August 2011) – Initiation of Amendment PSC1202-26 (Council 22 February 2012) – Principles for modifications to Amendment

Attachments: Nil


Page 166


Page 167

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to allow Council to consider the principles of a possible amendment to the provisions of Sub Area 1.3.2 of Local Planning Area 1 – City Centre in Schedule 12 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4. Sub Area 1.3.2 formed part of Scheme Amendment 49 and included associated provisions to change the development requirements of a number of key sites within the inner east end of the City Centre zone, including allowing additional discretionary height at some sites. Since gazettal of Amendment 49 on 18 January 2013, property industry feedback has suggested that some provisions may not achieve the intended outcomes. Subsequently, officers engaged the services of Cameron Chisholm Nicol architects to undertake a high level investigation of the commercial viability of the provisions with a case study on a specific site. With regard to these investigations, officers recommend in principle the following amendments to Sub Area 1.3.2 of LPA1:

Remove the mandatory 15% Office land use requirement;

Modify the additional discretionary height provisions to –

o reduce the percentage of Affordable Housing required; and

o include an additional provision that requires a percentage of the total

residential yield (excluding affordable housing dwellings) to have zero car parking bays;

Delete the reference to storeys and refer to building height in metres only;

Remove the Residential Design Code requirement for on-site visitor car parking for residential dwellings;

Consider inclusion of an additional site. Should Council agree to the principles of a scheme amendment, officers will prepare a scheme amendment proposal to be presented to Council for formal initiation. Therefore it is recommended that Council support the principles of an amendment to Sub Area 1.3.2 of LPA1 as outlined in this report. BACKGROUND

Scheme Amendment 49 was gazetted on 18 January 2013. Amendment 49 included a new sub area, Sub Area 1.3.2, and associated provisions, to change the development requirements of a number of sites within the inner east end of the City Centre zone. The purpose of the Amendment is to help achieve the Council’s strategic objectives for increased retail and commercial activity and residential population in the city centre zone. The associated development requirements for sites in Sub Area 1.3.2 address land use, building heights and setbacks and other development standards, and are based on the development principles prepared by the City Centre Strategic Sites Working Group to inform this Amendment. Key development provisions of Sub Are 1.3.2 include:

Mandatory minimum 15% of NLA within all new development to be Office land use on sites of 3000sqm or greater.

No parking requirements for Office land uses where located above ground floor level.

As of right maximum building heights.


Page 168

Additionally, sub area 1.3.2 allows a number of the sites within the sub area to seek additional discretionary height (above the as of right building height) subject to meeting a suite of criteria. This criteria includes:

Distinctive architecture and exceptional design quality

Five Star Green Star

High quality landscaped and publicly accessible pedestrian environment at ground level

Provision of Affordable Housing

Limited to 40% of the total site

Maximum of nine storeys Since gazettal of the Amendment, the following development applications have been received for the sub area:

52 Adelaide Street (DP/13/00823)

o Seven storey hotel and ground floor restaurant

o Ground floor commercial tenancies

o Site not large enough to trigger additional discretionary height

2 Point Street (DAP80008/13)

o Site previously owned by CoF and purchased subject to a tender

agreement

o Proposal includes a hotel, multiple dwellings, restaurant and shop land

uses

Kings Square Development Project (City of Fremantle and Sirona Capital Management) – ground floor retail and upper floor office is proposed on all sites

o Former Myer site (part site 9)

o Queensgate site (part site 9)

o Spicer site (site 10a/b)

Officers have observed overall take up of development within the sub area to have been slower than expected over the past twelve months, with concern elements of the current provisions may not be favourable in encouraging development, particularly under the additional discretionary height provisions. With consideration of this, officers engaged the services of Cameron Chisholm Nicol (CCN) to undertake high level investigation of the commercial viability of the current provisions of Sub Area 1.3.2 on a nominated site, 2 Queen Street (Lot 1 - Target). Overall, it was also observed facilitation of the required office land use is largely contingent on demand and often on pre commitment from a tenant/buyer. Whilst this provision may benefit city centre diversity and some investor product it will not always be consistent with market demands and with the commercial objectives of some investors and may have the capacity to deter development rather than promote it. It was also observed there to be a number of commercial pressures that work against the incentives offered in relation to the additional discretionary height allowance, providing minimal encouragement for development beyond the ‘as of right’ development requirements. The observations of CCN’s investigations are considered and discussed in detail in planning comment below, with in principle officer recommendations for amendment to the provisions of sub area 1.3.2 for Council’s consideration. CONSULTATION


Page 169

Should Council resolve to direct the City to prepare an amendment to Sub Area 1.3.2 of LPA1 of the Scheme, and if Council supports initiation of amendment to the Scheme, The Amendment will be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for assessment, prior to the commencement of advertising. Assuming the EPA does not require an environmental assessment, the amendment will be publicly advertised for not less than 42 days in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005, the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals.

PLANNING COMMENT

Officers consider the following current scheme provisions identified in CCN’s investigations warrant consideration for possible amendment:

Mandatory 15% Office land use requirement

Additional discretionary height provisions –

o Affordable Housing requirement

Reference to building height in storeys and metres

Visitor car parking for residential dwellings Additionally, officers recommend in principle the inclusion of an additional site into the sub area. Each of these items are discussed in further detail below, including background to the item, CCN’s observations and officer comments and in principle recommendations. Sub Area 1.3.2 – 15% Office land use requirement A provision of Sub Area 1.3.2 of LPA1 of the Scheme requires ‘A minimum of 15% of the net lettable area within all new development on sites with a development site area greater than 3000sqm shall be provided for Office use.’ The following provisions of Sub Area 1.3.2 are complementary to this requirement:

o Residential uses will not be permitted in new buildings at ground level adjacent to

Queen Street, Adelaide Street and Kings Square

o Land uses at ground level shall contribute to generating interest and activity within the

adjacent public realm. Background – Office land use requirement The requirement for a percentage of Office land use within the Sub Area was initially identified by the City Centre Strategic Sites Working Group, to encourage a significant amount of new high quality large floorplate office floorspace within the city centre and a mandatory requirement to include office floorspace in all larger developments was recommended. The provision of new high quality office floorspace within the city centre is also identified as a key objective of the City’s Strategic Plan and Economic Development Strategy, with a general target of 70,000sqm. Feedback from some property owners in response to the working group’s recommendation at the time was that the 15% requirement was too high. Subsequent submissions on the Amendment during its advertising generally recognised that new, high-quality office space within the city centre is an important goal; one landowner submitted objection to the mandated minimum percentage based on a detailed report


Page 170

prepared by a consultancy group. The report contended that, based on historical demand for office space within Fremantle and projected population growth, application of the mandated percentage to development on larger development sites would lead to a far greater supply of office floorspace than what the market could absorb and this could potentially impact on the viability of development if it was perceived that the supplied office space would not be filled upon time of completion. Current observations CCN’s investigation of the mandatory Office requirement made the following observations:

Commercial office development is contingent on demand and often on pre commitment from a tenant/buyer. Whilst this provision may benefit city centre diversity and some investor product it will not always be consistent with market demands and with the commercial objectives of some investors and may have the capacity to deter development.

In order to encourage Office land use, the provision of car bays is not required for Office provided above ground floor within the Scheme. It is however likely that the commercial imperative of the market will require the provision of car parking, generally at 1 bay per 50-100sqm, particularly in relation to strata office development. The City currently requires car parking at a higher rate of 1 bay per 30sqm.

A maximum car parking rate for both ground and above ground Office is recommended to provide more flexibility for the investor and more certainty for the City.

Residential and leased offices are not always a preferred model for developers. Some developers do not provide commercial office as part of their product.

With regard to the provision “Land uses at ground level shall contribute to generating interest and activity within the adjacent public realm”, the Office land use essentially has to be located on the first floor (above ground floor). In the case of a residential developer who may wish to maximise residential yield, in some circumstances this may reduce the viability of the development by requiring two floors of the development for commercial/office purpose, thus reducing the potential number of dwellings.

Officer comment

The requirement for 15% office applies to development site areas greater than 3000sqm. Sites capable of this include those sites currently with a development application/approval with the City for the Kings Square development project, including the former Myer site, Queensgate, and the Spicer site. These sites have the potential to provide approximately 40% of the target additional office floor space for the City centre (as set out in the table below) and meet the intent of the provision in providing new high quality large office floorspace. It is also observed the Fremantle Port, along with the City and the PTA, are continuing work on the Victoria Quay commercial precinct plan, with the proposal to include approximately 30,000sqm of A grade commercial office and essentially a further approximately 40% of the City’s target for office floorspace.

Site Proposed Office floorspace

Victoria Quay Commercial Precinct Approx. 30,000sqm


Page 171

Former Myer site (part site 9) Approx. 14,500sqm

Queensgate (part site 9) Approx. 8,500sqm

Spicer site (site 10a/b) Approx. 6,000sqm

Total 59,000sqm

The provision of the Office land use at the remaining qualifying sites of sub area 1.3.2, when provided within a predominantly residential development as the market is currently demanding, may potentially result in a piecemeal approach to the provision of Office floorspace that will not provide more than the absolute minimum floor space required, and may not be of a high standard. Officer recommendation Officers observe the original intent of this provision is to facilitate new high quality, large floorplate, employment-generating office floorspace. As outlined above, up to approximately 84% of the City’s office target could potentially be provided within the Kings Square development project sites and the future Victoria Quay Commercial Precinct. These development sites propose wholly office land use of a large scale, high grade and quality. Therefore, in consideration of CCN’s observations and in acknowledgement that the Kings Square development project and the Victoria Quay Commercial Precinct will essentially fulfil 84% of the City’s office target, in addition to some future market driven smaller office development within the City, officers recommend the removal of the mandatory 15% Office requirement from sub area 1.3.2 to allow the market to determine the land use above the ground floor. This will provide developers with flexibility and the ability to be responsive to the market, produce high quality commercial specific product, and potentially contributes further to the available residential (including affordable housing) floor space within the sub area. Additional discretionary height provisions - reduce the Affordable Housing requirement and inclusion of a percentage of zero car bays for residential dwellings A. Reduce the Affordable Housing requirement - Current requirement

Sub area 1.3.2 allows a number of the sites within the sub area to seek additional discretionary height subject to meeting a suite of criteria. This criteria includes:

Distinctive architecture and exceptional design quality

Five Star Green Star

High quality landscaped and publicly accessible pedestrian environment at ground level

Provision of Affordable Housing The requirement for a percentage of Affordable Housing is set out as follows: Where the net lettable area within the development for residential purposes is greater than 1000sqm, a minimum of 15 per cent of the residential net lettable area shall be provided for ‘affordable housing’. Council may, at its discretion, consider the provision of the required amount of affordable housing on an alternative development site(s) within the general locality of the development site.


Page 172

‘Affordable Housing’ is defined in the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as: Affordable housing refers to dwellings which households on low-to-moderate incomes can afford, while meeting other essential living costs. It includes public housing, not-for-profit housing, other subsidised housing under the National Rental Affordability Scheme together with private rental and home ownership options for those immediately outside the subsidised social housing system. Background – Affordable housing requirement At its meeting on 27 July 2011 the Council considered a report on the “Facilitation of Affordable and Diverse Housing through the Planning System” from the Community Development department. One of Council’s resolutions on this item was for officers to prepare an Amendment to the Scheme ‘to include discretionary provisions linking development incentives (e.g. building height/density bonuses) to provision of a percentage of affordable housing on identified key development sites’. In accordance with this resolution, the provision of ‘low income housing’ (as defined in the Scheme) was included as one of the performance criteria for discretionary additional height within the Amendment 49 as follows: “Where the net lettable area within the development for residential purposes is greater than 1000sqm, a minimum of 10 per cent of the residential net lettable area shall be provided for ‘low income housing”. During advertising of the Amendment, twenty-three submissions commented on the provision of Low Income Housing, with the majority of submissions received on this provision supporting the initiative, while five of these proposed further investigation or clarification, particularly in regard to market viability, the definition of low income housing and delivery mechanisms. The landowner of Site 1 objected to the provision and two submitters (Shelter WA and Department of Housing) suggested increasing the proposed discretionary criteria percentage to 15%. Upon final adoption of the Amendment, Council resolved to modify this clause to replace ‘low income housing’ with the term ‘affordable housing’ (as defined in the Department of Housing’s Affordable Housing Strategy 2010-2020 – Opening Doors to Affordable Housing and included in the Scheme as part of this Amendment) for consistency with the State housing strategy and in order to broaden the potential affordable housing initiatives that are offered by the various key agencies, for example shared equity programs, in addition to social housing. Council also resolved to increase the required percentage of Affordable Housing from 10% to 15%. Officer comment CCN’s investigation showed that for the case study site, the additional dwellings provided through the additional discretionary height essentially results in a net zero increase in overall market dwelling yield once the 15% affordable housing component has been accounted for. Further high level assumptive calculations undertaken by officers generally show a similar outcome for other additional discretionary height sites where residential land use may be proposed.


Page 173

Although based on one development site, and not the whole sub area, CCN’s observations demonstrate that even before consideration is given to the cost and viability imposts of the remaining criteria of the additional discretionary height provision (i.e. 5 star green star rating and exceptional design quality, plus the additional construction costs that apply in any event to buildings above 29m in height due to different construction code requirements), the 15% affordable housing requirement upfront is a considerable deterrent to developers in pursuing the additional discretionary height. As a consequence, none of the desired outcomes of affordable housing, five star green star or exceptional design quality may be achieved in the development. Presently, affordable housing has not been provided in proposed development within sub area 1.3.2 since its gazettal. Where additional discretionary height has been sought at site 9, no residential development has been proposed and therefore the 15% affordable housing requirement has not been triggered. However, officers note in the time since the gazettal of Amendment 49, the City has sought to provide affordable housing and/or low cost housing through City owned sites outside of the sub area through a tender of sale requirement – for example, 50 Pakenham St (SGS1306-17 30 October 2013) and most recently, 7 Quarry St (see item SGS1401-2 22 January 2014). It is understood investigations are also being undertaken to identify additional City owned sites whereby affordable housing may be provided. Additionally, as part of a Scheme amendment proposal for a Department of Housing site adjacent to the city centre, the City and the DoH have agreed for future development to contain between 10-15% social housing, and a minimum of 30% of the remaining yield as affordable housing on this site. Officer recommendation Officers acknowledge the provision of affordable housing within the City a strategic priority of the Council. With consideration of the observations above, to allow a development to be viable as well as achieve the provision of affordable housing within the sub area, officers recommend in principle the reduction of the percentage of affordable housing from 15% to 10% and Council’s continued investigation into strategic sites capable of delivering affordable housing with the City. In consideration of the proposed reduction in affordable housing, officers have additionally proposed a new provision for inclusion in the additional discretionary height criteria, with the intent to provide lower cost housing through a nominated percentage of zero car bays for residential dwellings. This is discussed in detail below. B. Additional provision - Percentage of zero car bays for residential dwellings If Council supports the in principle removal of the 15% Office requirement, officers broadly calculate that this will increase the amount of available residential floorspace by approximately 13% within the sub area (and subsequently, floor space available for affordable housing). The City’s Scheme, in addition to those requirements set out in the sub area, additionally requires in development comprising of ten or more multiple dwellings, a minimum of 25 per cent of the total number of dwellings must have a maximum floor area of 60 square metres, to provide lower cost housing through diversity in dwelling size. The potential increase in the available private market residential floorspace is estimated by officers contribute a further approximately 12% of dwellings at 60sqm or less. The CCN report also observed the provision of car parking bays to be a sizeable financial impost on the cost of housing. For example, the cost of a car bay for a multi-


Page 174

residential development is estimated at $25-30,000 per bay and this impost is effectively on sold to the buyer. Officers have therefore recommended an additional provision to the additional discretionary height provisions that would require 5% of the total residential yield (excluding the affordable housing dwellings) to have zero car parking bays. Council may also want to consider allowing these dwellings to provide a bicycle/scooter bay in lieu of the car bay, and possible limitation on eligibility for on-street parking permit. It is considered this provision to facilitate housing that is more affordable within the current market; dwellings without a car bay will potentially have a greater appeal to the homebuyer as opposed to the investor, as well as contributing to the City’s diversity in housing and promotion of environmentally friendly transport options. Officer recommendation for additional discretionary height provisions - affordable housing requirement and inclusion of a percentage of zero car bays for residential dwellings Officers recommend, in principle, the following amendment to this requirement of the additional discretionary height provisions, including an additional provision to facilitate housing that is more affordable within the current market:

reducing the requirement for Affordable Housing from 15% to 10%; and

including an additional provision that requires that requires 5% of the total residential yield (excluding the affordable housing dwellings) to have zero car parking bays.

Additional discretionary height provisions - Remove the reference to building height in storeys

Sub area 1.3.2 allows a number of the sites within the sub area to seek additional discretionary height subject to meeting a number of criteria. The additional discretionary height is permitted at the following sites as follows:

Site Additional discretionary height

Maximum building height achievable

1 +14.4m 38.9m

2 +7.2m 28.2m

4 (Target and Westgate Mall)

+10.8m 35.3m

6a (Johnson Court) +7.2m 31.7m

6b +7.2m 21.2m

6c +7.2m 24.7m

9 +5.7m 28.2m

One of the requirements in application of the additional discretionary height is that “there are no more than 9 storeys above ground level within the development, with the exception of development on Site 1”. Based on a scenario of a ground floor to ceiling height of 4.5m (as required in the sub area), a floor to ceiling height of 3m on the upper floors, a nine storey building (including ground floor) could be equivalent to approximately 30m total building height. Officers are aware that some developers may offer a residential product with 2.8m floor to ceiling heights at the upper floors and this would potential allow an additional storey within some of the prescribed heights.


Page 175

With regard to the above, the additional discretionary height provisions allow two sites, sites 4 and 6a, a maximum building height above 30m. With regard to site 4, the application of nine storeys to the maximum building height of 35.3m would potentially allow an additional one to two storeys under the above scenarios. With the additional requirement that the discretionary height be limited to 40% of the development site area the removal of a storey limitation could potentially provide an additional 5-10% floor space over the entire site, and although this is a marginal increase, in combination with the principles as proposed in this report, may contribute to a greater commercial viability of the site. Officer recommendation The removal of the reference to storey allows greater flexibility in design within the maximum height, potentially an increase in floor area in sites 4 and possibly 6a, as well as providing a single and clear interpretation of maximum building height. Therefore officers recommend in principle the removal of the provision that “there are no more than 9 storeys above ground level within the development, with the exception of development on Site 1”. Visitor car parking for residential dwellings The Residential Design Codes require 0.25 visitor car bays per dwelling. CCN’s report observes a relaxation in visitor bay requirements will have a positive impact on affordability and viability of development however removal of the requirement should be assessed against the overall requirement for visitor parking in the City centre. Officers consider availability of public car parking within the City centre adequate to address the needs of visitors to residential development.

With regard to the above, in all cases of residential development within the City centre, officers recommend an additional provision to remove the R Code requirement for on-site visitor car parking.

Consideration of inclusion of additional site - 35 William St, Fremantle Officers propose the inclusion of 35 William Street into Sub Area 1.3.2 for Council’s in principle consideration. As depicted on the map below, the subject site is enveloped by existing sub area 1.3.2 sites both to the north, east and west. The existing building was built in 1980 and for its receipt of the Fremantle Award for contemporary infill in 1983, was nominated and adopted onto the City’s Heritage List. The site has been identified for removal from the Heritage List by City Heritage officers upon revision of the City’s Heritage List in the near future.


Page 176

Currently, the following provisions of the City’s Scheme and relevant local planning policies apply to this site:

Land area 3572sqm

LPS4 Zoning City Centre

Local Planning Area Local Planning Area 1 - Sub area 1.3.1 West End

Residential density coding R-AC3

Current building height requirements Sub Area 1.3.1

Maximum of 3 storeys

Maximum building height 11.0m

Additional storey setback 14.0m

Heritage listing/area Level 3

Built 1980, Fremantle Award 1983 for contemporary infill

West End Conservation Area, zone 5 - Central Core

Local planning policies Precinct 5, Paddy Troy Mall

Existing approvals N/A

The location of the site provides for natural inclusion into the sub area and would allow the potential for development complementary to that proposed within the adjoining King


Page 177

Square development project (including Queensgate and the Spicer sites) and further contribute to achieving Council’s objective for increased retail commercial activity within the City centre zone. Should Council support, in principle, inclusion of this site into Sub Area 1.3.2, maximum building height for this site will also need to be further investigated by officers and presented to Council should initiation of an Amendment be supported. CONCLUSION

Sub Area 1.3.2 formed part of Scheme Amendment 49 and included associated provisions to change the development requirements of a number of key sites within the City Centre zone to facilitate the Council’s strategic objectives for increased retail and commercial activity and residential population in the city centre zone. Since gazettal of Amendment 49 on 18 January 2013, property industry feedback has suggested that some provisions may not achieve the intended outcomes. Subsequently, officers engaged the services of Cameron Chisholm Nicol to undertake an independent high level investigation of the commercial viability of the provisions for a specific ‘case study’ site. With regard to these observations, officers recommend in principle the following amendments to Sub Area 1.3.2 of LPA1:

Remove the mandatory 15% Office land use requirement;

Modify the additional discretionary height provisions to –

o reduce the percentage of Affordable Housing required from 15% to 10%;

and

o include an additional provision that requires 5% of the total residential yield

(excluding affordable housing dwellings) to have zero car parking bays (and possibly investigate provision of scooter parking in lieu of the car bay);

Delete the reference to storeys and refer to building height in metres only;

Remove the R Code requirement for on-site visitor car parking for residential dwellings;

Consider inclusion of an additional site, 35 William Street, Fremantle. Officers acknowledge the proposed provision of high grade large scale office space in the Kings Square development project sites and Victoria Quay Commercial Precinct to provide a significant percentage of the City’s new office floor space target and consider overall the proposed amendments would allow greater flexibility and the ability for developers to be responsive to the market and further encourage development of commercial and residential floor space within the sub area. Therefore it is recommended that Council support the principles of an amendment to Sub Area 1.3.2 of LPA1 and authorise the drafting of a scheme amendment to the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4.


Page 178


That Council support the preparation of an amendment to the City Centre Sub Area 1.3.2 provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 in accordance with the following principles for presentation to Council for further consideration:

i. Remove the mandatory 15% Office land use requirement; ii. Modify the additional discretionary height provisions to –

a. reduce the percentage of Affordable Housing required from 15% to 10%; and

b. include an additional provision that requires 5% percentage of the total residential yield (excluding affordable housing dwellings) to have zero car parking bays;

iii. Delete the reference to storeys and refer to building height in metres only; iv. Remove the Residential Design Code requirement for on-site visitor car parking

for residential dwellings; v. Investigate 35 William Street, Fremantle for inclusion as an additional site within the

sub area.

At Committee - Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following conditions: vi review the discretionary criteria and provisions relating to building volume vii review discretionary criteria for building height to include the development of

predominately office use as an alternative to the provision of affordable housing.

viii investigate lot 381 William Street for inclusion as an additional site within the sub area.

CARRIED: 6/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council support the preparation of an amendment to the City Centre Sub Area 1.3.2 provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 in accordance with the following principles for presentation to Council for further consideration:

i. Remove the mandatory 15% Office land use requirement; ii. Modify the additional discretionary height provisions to –

a. reduce the percentage of Affordable Housing required from 15% to 10%; and

b. include an additional provision that requires 5% percentage of the total residential yield (excluding affordable housing dwellings) to have zero car parking bays;

iii. Delete the reference to storeys and refer to building height in metres only;


Page 180


Cr S Naber left the chamber at 11.02 pm and did not return.

PSC1402-32 REVIEW OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11 MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS

DataWorks Reference: 117/034 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 19 February 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: 24 April 2013 PSC1304-58; 24 July 2013 PSC1307-107;

27 November 2013 PSC1311-183 Attachments: 1. Text track Changes Version: Local Planning Policy 3.11

– McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is present and propose an amendment to the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle (LPP3.11) to Council. Officers recommend that Council adopt the modified local planning policy for public comment. In April 2013, the City was requested by H.L.M Holdings, the owner of the former Matilda Bay Brewery Site – 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (the applicant), to consider amending the City’s LPP3.11 to include additional height on the applicant’s site.


Page 181

The request was presented to Council in April and Council resolved to hold the request in abeyance until all landowners in the LPP3.11 area were contacted to establish whether they were willing to participate in a coordinated approach to reviewing LPP3.11. A further report went to Council in July advising that there was only limited landowner support for an extensive review of LPP3.11. In November Council considered a report recommending proposed modifications to the policy. This report was deferred to enable further consultation with specifically the owners of 130 Stirling Highway and 9-11 McCabe Street, North Fremantle. Following further consultation, officers consider there is scope to modify LPP3.11 in a limited way that considers and safeguards view corridors and the amenity of the area in a manner consistent with the original purpose of the policy. Therefore officers propose limited changes to the policy that would allow for additional building height, at Council’s discretion, in one defined location of area H (to the rear of the former Matilda Bay Brewery/Ford factory heritage building), subject to meeting specific design criteria. The other modifications to the policy are general updates to the wording and a reduction in height on part of the applicant’s site fronting McCabe Street. BACKGROUND

In April 2013, the City was requested by Greg Rowe and Associates along with Mackay Urbandesign and Oldfield Knott Architects acting on behalf of H.L.M Holdings, the owner of the former Matilda Bay Brewery Site – 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (the applicant), to consider amending the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle (LPP3.11 or the policy).

LPP3.11 was adopted by Council in April 2009 (Refer to 22 April 2009 Council minutes PSC0904-72) and was based on the McCabe Street height study. This area includes a number of significant potential redevelopment sites such as the former One Steel site at 140 Stirling Highway, 9-11 McCabe Street (Tasker’s site) and 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (the former Matilda Bay Brewery site). The heights prescribed by the policy, for the area, are as depicted in figure 1 below.


Page 182

The applicant originally requested LPP3.11 be modified to include an increase in the building height permissible under the policy to up to 40m in height in zone H behind the former Matilda Bay Brewery building as per figure 2 below.

The request was presented to Council at its ordinary meeting 24 April 2013 (PSC1304-58) and Council resolved to hold the request in abeyance until all landowners in the LPP3.11 area could be contacted to establish whether they were willing to participate in a coordinated approach to reviewing LPP3.11. Following Council resolution all landowners in the LPP3.11 area were contacted and a further report was presented to Council 24 July 2013 (PSC1307-107). This report conveyed that there was only limited


Page 183

support for a comprehensive review of the policy from landowners in the area and the item was deferred to allow further discussion with landowners.

Proposed modifications to LPP3.11 were presented to Council on 27 November 2013 (PSC1311-183). Council resolved at this meeting: That the matter be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to enable further consultation with the owners of 130 Stirling Highway and 9-11 McCabe Street. For further background please see previous ordinary meeting of Council reports (24 April 2013 PSC1304-58; 24 July 2013 PSC1307-107; 27 November 2013 PSC1311-183). CONSULTATION

The City has been in discussion with the landowners in the policy area and held two landowner meetings following Council’s resolutions 24 April and 24 July 2013. The first landowner meeting was held on the 11 June 2013 with the landowners/ representatives from the following properties:

9 - 11 (Lot 315, 326 and 18) McCabe Street (Taskers), North Fremantle

130 (Lot 5, 12, 218, 219, 220, 221, 314 & 253) Stirling Highway (Matilda Bay), North Fremantle

140 (lot 2) Stirling Highway (One Steel), North Fremantle

21 (Lot 19) McCabe Street, North Fremantle The second landowner meeting was held 30 July 2013 and included representatives/landowners from:

9 - 11 (Lot 315, 326 and 18) McCabe Street (Taskers), North Fremantle

130 (Lot 5, 12, 218, 219, 220, 221, 314 & 253) Stirling Highway (Matilda Bay), North Fremantle

140 (lot 2) Stirling Highway (One Steel), North Fremantle The City’s officers have also individually met several times with the applicant and landowners and representatives from 9 - 11 McCabe Street and 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle. After Council deferred adoption of the proposed modified LPP3.11 on the 27 November 2013 the Mayor, Chair of Planning Services Committee and City officers held a further meeting with the landowners of 9 - 11 McCabe Street and 130 Stirling Highway. The modified policy map and additional discretionary criteria recommended in this report have been developed by officers having regard to issues discussed at this meeting. PLANNING COMMENT

The purpose of LPP3.11 is to identify limitations on the maximum heights of new buildings that Council will apply in assessing structure plans and subsequent planning applications for the development of land zoned development zone (development area 18) in McCabe Street, North Fremantle. The policy is intended to help ensure that new buildings developed in the area do not adversely affect the visual amenity of the locality in general or the amenity of occupiers of nearby residential properties. In particular, the


Page 184

policy is intended to help safeguard important views from publicly accessible viewpoints towards and over the Indian Ocean and the Swan River and the setting of existing buildings and landscape features of cultural heritage significance. The City’s officers have undertaken considerable consultation with the applicant and other landowners in the LPP3.11 area following the applicant’s original request to review LPP3.11 in April 2013. This consultation has indicated to the City that there is only limited support for a comprehensive review of the policy and no additional proposals have been put forward from other landowners. Accordingly officers considered the applicant’s request only and consider there is scope to allow for additional building height on a limited portion of the former Matilda Bay brewery site, on a discretionary basis, where view corridors are taken into account and buildings are limited in footprint, well designed and include environmentally sustainable design features. Officer’s recommend limited modification to the policy that would allow for additional height on the applicant’s site in a specified location, subject to specific design criteria being fulfilled to Council’s satisfaction, and a reduction in height on the applicant’s site to the front of 9-11 McCabe Street, North Fremantle (Tasker’s site). The modifications to LPP3.11 are considered to be in keeping with the intent of the policy, which is to allow for development that safeguards and respects view corridors, whilst enhancing the area by providing well designed, environmentally sustainable development. The other modifications to the policy are general updates to the wording. The proposed map and text modifications to LPP3.11 are discussed in detail below. Map modifications

Figure 3. Proposed modifications 1 & 2 to the heights of new buildings in LPP3.11 on the former Matilda Bay Brewery area


Page 185

Officers propose two modifications to the LPP3.11 map. These are numbered and circled in figure 3 above and explained below.

Modification 1. In a select portion of area H, named area H2, officers propose that future development can be considered up to a height of 33m above natural ground level. The base “as a right” permitted height would remain 17m as currently in the policy. For development to be considered capable of approval with additional height up to 33m it would have to meet the criteria as set out in the text part of the policy (see text modification discussion below). This criteria includes the requirement for development to consider the State Planning Policy 2.6 – Coastal Planning Policy (where applicable), be 5 star Green Star rating in design, conserve the heritage significance of the heritage building, be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, not encroach on view corridors as defined in the McCabe Street Height Study and be limited in building footprint.

The additional height proposed in zone H2 (up to 33m) is substantially more than the current policy allows for (17m). Officers acknowledge this and consider the limited area of zone H2 and the supplementary text criteria in the policy, on which to consider developments proposed up to 33m in height, to be adequate measures to allow for the greater height. The premise on which the policy is based is that height of new development considers and maintains the view corridors in the area. Proposed zone H2 is aligned with, and outside of, the key view corridors identified on the policy map. Development of greater height can only be considered in a limited area and on a limited footprint within zone H2 and development must be 5 star green star and exceptional in design.

Accordingly, officers consider the text and map modifications to be an appropriate compromise of allowing for a limited portion of zone H to develop with additional height in exchange for exceptional design that enhances the amenity of the area. Modification 2. Officers propose that the western corner of zone E, currently 20m height limit, be reduced to a 14m height limit, by including this portion of zone E into zone F1. The reason for this is through consultation with landowners in the area it has became clear that development in the current 20m height limit in zone E along the McCabe Street site frontage could result in an approximately six storey high building directly in front of the Taskers site (9 – 11 McCabe St) due to the sloping topography of the site. As this would potentially block river views from the Taskers site, which already has planning approval for the first phase of a comprehensive redevelopment and could result in development which is contrary to the aims of the policy, it was considered a modification to the map in this area would achieve greater consistency with the overall intent of the policy. Text modifications In addition to the map modifications officers propose modifications to the policy text. The general updates to the wording are where the policy references the Residential Design Codes, the State Planning Policy 2.6 – Coastal Planning Policy and a provision in the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). All of these documents have been updated since the policy was adopted in 2009. The text updates are discussed below:

State Planning Policy 2.6 – Coastal Planning Policy (SPP2.6) SPP2.6 was modified in July 2013. The building height limits in the policy still apply to all development within 300 metres of the horizontal shoreline datum, however the


Page 186

policy no longer specifies a height limit (the previous SPP2.6 specified a height limit of 25 metres) and land uses. Instead the policy provides planning criteria to have regard to when specifying a height limit. LPP3.11 has been modified to reflect these changes.

Residential Design Codes 2013 The Residential Design Codes were updated in August 2013. The parts have been modified and changed around slightly for example, the single house and grouped dwelling requirements which were in part six are now in part five and the multiple dwelling requirements which made up part seven now form part six. Also the former “acceptable development” provisions are now named “deemed to comply”. The new wording and clause numbers have been updated as part of this review of LPP3.11.

LPS4 Scheme amendment No. 49 (gazetted January 2013) introduced into LPS4 variations to the height provisions for minor projections above the building. The provisions now in LPS4 are the same as those provided for in LPP3.11. Accordingly, to strengthen the policy provisions, and so as not to double up on similar requirements across the City’s planning framework, the policy has been modified to reference the new provision in LPS4.

Additional height criteria The more substantial text modification to the policy is the inclusion of capacity for Council to exercise discretion to grant approval for a building height up to 33m in zone H2 in circumstances where Council is satisfied that certain criteria are met. As such this height limit is not “as of right”; the base building height in area H2 is 17m as it is under the existing policy. Development between 17m and 33m in height would need to meet additional criteria. The criteria proposed are similar to, and modelled on, the current wording in the policy for discretionary additional height on a portion of 140 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (One Steel site). The proposed criteria to be satisfied in considering whether to exercise discretion to approve the additional height are as follows:

(a) The development must achieve a ‘green design’ (Green Star system) rating equivalent to at least 5 star, incorporating low energy and water use, on-site energy generation, natural cross ventilation, recycling, etc;

(b) Where applicable, the development must satisfy the planning criteria in policy measure 5.4 of State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy;

(c) The development must incorporate works to conserve the heritage significance of the heritage building;

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

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

(f) The aggregate footprint of the portions of the development exceeding 17 metres in height must not occupy more than 60% of the total land area in zone H2, and any individual portion of the development over 17 metres in height must not have a footprint greater than 20% of the total land area in zone H2.


Page 187

The purpose of the criteria to gain the additional height is to only have development at a greater height where that development is of exceptional design, respects the heritage of the adjacent building, is green in design and does not impact on view corridors in the policy area. The proposed requirements would therefore require any development proposed up to 33m in height to be of exceptional design and architecture, contain green building features (5 star green star), consider the State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy and additionally conserve the heritage building. Proposed criterion (e) further reinforces the intent of the policy by only allowing development that does not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study”. Furthermore proposed criterion (f) limits the aggregate size of the footprint of proposed building(s) between 17m and 33m in height to no more than 60% of the total land area in the zone and limits the footprint of any individual building to an area no greater than 20% of the zone’s total land area. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the construction of one bulky 33m high building that could potentially obstruct views. The provision would potentially allow for development of more than one relatively small footprint, slender tall building in a manner that would allow for views between each taller building in addition to preserving the key view corridors upon which the policy height zones are based. The land area of zone H2 is approximately 6,390m2. The recommended provisions in criterion (f) could potentially enable a proposed development comprising a combination of buildings up to 33m in height that in aggregate equal a maximum footprint of approximately 3,834m2 and no single building of this height could have a footprint of larger than 1,278m2 (for example a footprint approximately 40m x 32m). Officers consider this to be a reasonable outcome especially considering the current height limits under the policy. It is also noted that development up to 17m in height in the zone is not restricted by the same criteria under this policy. It would therefore be acceptable for the applicant to propose a combination of buildings up to 17m and up to 33m in height in the zone. The footprint and configuration of development in this zone would further be informed by the plot ratio requirements of the Residential Design Codes (assuming residential land use) and the requirement in Schedule 11 of the Local Planning Scheme for a road connection between McCabe Street and Coventry Parade. These factors, as well as the policy’s criteria, would inform the design and assessment of any future proposed structure plan which is required prior to comprehensive redevelopment of the site. Overall, officers consider the six (a-f) criteria on which to consider additional height up to 33m in zone H2 will ensure development of greater height does not adversely impact on the policy area and the surrounding area, in terms of view corridors and standards of amenity. For Council’s benefit a ‘track changes’ version of the policy text is provided in attachment 1. Officers consider the recommended amendments represent a reasonable balance between maintaining the important urban design principles which underpin the current policy whilst also considering the differing views and interests of the landowner of No. 130 Stirling Highway and other landowners in the area regarding the planning merits of permitting higher development in limited locations. However it is acknowledged that there


Page 188

may be scope for further minor refinement of the policy amendments after consideration of submissions made during the public consultation period. In accordance with normal procedures, the report to Council following the public consultation period will address issues raised in any submissions received. CONCLUSION

This report follows extensive consultation between the City and landowners in the LPP3.11 area since the City was first approached with a request to modify the heights on 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle in April 2013. In light of the lack of support from the majority of landowners in the area for a comprehensive review of LPP3.11 officers consider a limited amendment that is restricted to modification of the height limits on No. 130 Stirling Highway, where the modification does not impact on the overall purpose and principles of the policy, is appropriate. It is therefore recommended that Council resolve to adopt the recommended modifications to Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle described in this report for the purposes of public comment. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopt the following draft modified Local Planning Policy for the purpose of advertising for public submissions:

CITY OF FREMANTLE


MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE - HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS

ADOPTION DATE: 22 April 2009 AMENDED DATE: ??? AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4

1. PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of the policy is to identify limitations on the maximum heights of new

buildings that Council will apply in assessing planning proposals relating to land adjacent to McCabe Street, North Fremantle as defined by the shaded area on the plan below:


Page 189

1.2 The policy is intended to help ensure that new buildings developed in the area

defined on Plan No. 1 above do not adversely affect the visual amenity of the locality in general or the amenity of occupiers of nearby residential properties. In particular, the policy is intended to help safeguard important views from publicly accessible viewpoints towards and over the Indian Ocean and the Swan River and the setting of existing buildings and landscape features of cultural heritage significance.

2. APPLICATION OF POLICY 2.1 The policy applies to all land within the area defined on Plan No. 1 that is zoned

under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), unless any such land is subject to specific or general height controls under the provisions of Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Height Requirements) of LPS4, in which case the provisions of the Scheme shall prevail.

2.2 Council will apply the policy in determining applications for planning approval to

undertake development under Part 8 of LPS4, and in determining structure plans and detailed area plans under Part 6 of LPS4 in cases where such plans include information regarding proposed building heights. The policy applies to development proposals involving both residential and non-residential land uses.

3. STATUTORY BACKGROUND 3.1 This policy has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of LPS4 relating to

the preparation and adoption on local planning policies.


Page 190

3.2 Clause 5.2.2 of LPS4 states that unless otherwise provided for in the Scheme, the

development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the Residential Design Codes is to conform to the provisions of the Codes.

3.3 Part 7.3 of the Residential Design Codes (R-codes) states that local planning

policies may contain provisions that amend or replace deemed to comply provisions set out in part 5 and 6 of the R-codes in relation to various design elements including building height. This local planning policy replaces the deemed to comply provisions relating to building height set out in design element 5.1.6 and 6.1.2 of the R-codes.

4. POLICY 4.1 General 4.1.1 Plan No. 2 defines a series of building height zones within the area covered by this

policy. The maximum height of any new building shall not exceed the height above ground level prescribed in the height zone applying to the location of the proposed new building, except for any variations as specified in 4.1.5 below.

4.1.2 Maximum building height will be measured as the vertical distance in metres from

ground level to the highest part of the main building structure, irrespective of whether that part of the structure is a wall, parapet or roof.

4.1.3 For the purpose of measuring building height above ground level, the meaning of

ground level is the level which existed prior to the proposed development. Any site works associated with the proposed development which involve alterations to existing ground level must be included within the same application for planning approval. If any such site works involve filling above existing ground level, the depth of proposed fill as well as the height of the proposed new building(s) must be accommodated within the maximum height of development specified in this policy. The contents of this policy do not preclude Council from exercising its discretionary ability under clause 5.8.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to increase the standard applicable height limit by up to 0.5 metres where there is a variation in ground level over a development footprint of greater than 1 metre.

4.1.4 Where the main structure of a building is located in more than one height zone as

shown on Plan No. 2, the part of the building in each height zone must comply with the maximum height requirement for that zone.

4.1.5 Council may approve planning proposals involving variations to the maximum

building heights prescribed on Plan No. 2 in the following circumstances:

Minor projections above the highest part of the main building structure may be permitted subject to the criteria in clause 5.8.1.3 of LPS4

Minor projections out from the side of a main building structure over land within an adjoining height zone where a lower maximum building height requirement applies, in cases where no part of the projection is more than 3m away from the main building structure and the total area of all


Page 191

projections is no more than 10% of the ground floor area of the building. Minor projections will be interpreted as including plant and equipment, canopies, awnings, verandahs and balconies, including balconies intended for regular human use.

In the part of Zone D that is within 60 metres of the eastern boundary of the Stirling Highway road reserve on the north side of McCabe Street, a building of a maximum height of 25 metres may be approved by Council at its discretion subject to the proposed development demonstrating that it complies with all of the following criteria:

(a) The development must achieve a ‘green design’ (Green Star system) rating equivalent to at least 5 star, incorporating low energy and water use, on-site energy generation, natural cross ventilation, recycling, etc; (b) The development must incorporate non-residential ground floor uses that contribute to the function of the locality as an activity and/or tourist node; (c) The development must satisfy the planning criteria in policy measure 5.4 of State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy; (d) The design of the development must perform the urban design function of an ‘entry statement’ into the City of Fremantle, including design qualities that convey a contemporary coastal aesthetic informed by the local context of North Fremantle and the Indian Ocean foreshore; and (e) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle.

In the part designated zone H2 on the policy map behind the former Matilda Bay brewery building, a development with a maximum height of 33 metres may be approved by Council, at its discretion, subject to the proposed development demonstrating that it complies with all of the following criteria:

(a) The development must achieve a ‘green design’ (Green Star system) rating equivalent to at least 5 star, incorporating low energy and water use, on-site energy generation, natural cross ventilation, recycling, etc; (b) Where applicable, the development must satisfy the planning criteria in policy measure 5.4 of State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy; (c) The development must incorporate works to conserve the heritage significance of the heritage building; (d)The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4; and (e) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle. (f) The aggregate footprint of the portions of the development exceeding 17 metres in height must not occupy more than 60% of the total land area in zone H2, and any individual portion of the development over 17 metres in height must not have a footprint greater than 20% of the total land area in zone H2.


Page 192

4.2 Specific Requirements Additional to General Policy Provisions 4.2.1 Height Zone A – 133 -141 Stirling Highway. Notwithstanding the general maximum

building height of 11 metres permitted under this policy, the built form of any new development in this zone must incorporate at least two significant gaps between buildings down to ground level of sufficient width to provide views of the Indian Ocean from ground level on Stirling Highway. One of these gaps must approximately align with the axis of McCabe Street at its intersection with Stirling Highway.

4.2.2 Height Zones H and J – new development will be assessed in terms of its impact

upon the Matilda Bay Brewing Company building (former Ford Motor Company assembly plant) which is included on the Heritage List under the provisions of clause 7.1 of LPS4. Consideration will be given to the extent to which proposed new development helps to conserve and reveal the significance of the heritage place, including its identified significant attributes and features, through the siting and design of new buildings including their massing, bulk, relationship to street frontages and degree of separation from the heritage place in order to give prominence in the streetscape to the heritage place.


Page 193

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting to allow opportunity for further discussion with land owners over possible further amendments to the draft policy. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

Cr Jon Strachan


Page 194


SGS1402-6 RESUBMISSION OF THE PLASTIC BAG REDUCTION LOCAL LAW 2014

DataWorks Reference: 039/074 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 26 February 2014 Previous Item: SGS1301-4; SGS1202-8; SGS1203-7; SGS1207-5;

SGS1209-8, SGS1301-4. Responsible Officer: Paul Garbett, Manager Planning Projects and Policy Actioning Officer: Melanie Bainbridge, Sustainability (Strategic) Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: (Redrafted) Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law 2014

(Redrafted) Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law 2014 (track changes included) Joint Standing Committee (JSC) Report Confidential Attachment (under separate cover)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law 2012 as adopted and submitted by Council to the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation was disallowed by Parliament on 29 October 2013. Legal advice was sought to determine a pathway forward on plastic bag reduction with respect to the redrafting or discarding of the local law. On balance of this advice it is recommended that the redrafted local law be adopted, readvertised and submitted for reconsideration by Parliament.

BACKGROUND

The local law was originally advertised from the 16 October 2012, closing 6 December 2012 post its adoption by Council. Significant support for the local law was received during the advertising period, with over 65% of submissions in favour of the local law being enacted. The City had created a marketing strategy around the local law and proposed a ‘hard start’ date of the 21 August 2013. This official launch date was unable to be observed due to the local law not having been considered by the Joint Standing Committee / Parliament which did cause some issues with retailers who had been preparing for this date. The local law was disallowed in October 2013 and the Plastic Bag Free City working group came together in November 2013 to consider whether to pursue the course of action or move towards a voluntary campaign. It was decided to seek legal advice on the reports and publicly available political debate to determine whether redrafting the law to address the outlined issues would be feasible, or whether it would be unlikely to succeed in any case.


Page 195

COMMENT

The City sought legal advice from McLeods Legal to assess the report prepared by the Joint Standing Committee on the disallowance (see confidential attachment) and the Hansard transcripts on the Parliamentary debate around the issue to determine whether redrafting and resubmitting the local law, with amendments, was feasible, or whether too many objections had been raised in the debate for these costs to be borne by the City. The legal advice provided found that the local law itself, with the exception of clause 6, was “within the power of the Local Government Act 1995”. With respect to the driver of the disallowance, the only legal concern of note was the mandatory charge for alternative bags supplied through retail outlets (clause 6). It was determined that local government cannot legally impose a mandatory charge for retailers to collect. They can, however recommend that retailers charge for bags, at their discretion. The working group then requested a redraft of the local law, removing clause 6 in keeping with this advice for consideration by the group and resubmission to Council for adoption. The redrafted local law is attached, as is a ‘marked-up’ copy to outline the changes made to the document. The only substantive changes are that the law will no longer require retailers to charge a minimum fee of 10 cents for each alternative shopping bag provided to shoppers and that some penalties have been revised for consistency with laws in other jurisdictions.


Financial

The redrafting and legal advice pertaining to the local law has incurred some further costs, which have been borne by the City’s operating budgets. The subsequent implementation of an education campaign for the local law will require more material resources, which are not currently budgeted for. It is recommended that quotes be sought from qualified marketing agencies to develop and deliver a broad scale marketing and communications campaign / plan for the local law if adopted. Legal

Legal advice has been supplied to the Council as a confidential attachment to this Council item. The purpose and effect of the Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law 2014 remain largely unchanged from the 2012 version, with only very minor amendments and the removal of one clause. The purpose of the local law is to reduce the use of plastic shopping bags within the City of Fremantle. The effect of the local law is to prohibit retailers from providing single use plastic shopping bags. Operational

The City does not currently have a full enforcement plan for this local law. The City’s experience with local businesses is that they are law abiding organisations and as long as the requirements are clearly spelt out and they have reasonable time to adjust, significant compliance procedures should not be necessary. This will however need to be


Page 196

reviewed once the law is enacted. If necessary, a resourced compliance strategy will need to be put in place at that time. Organisational

Discussions have been undertaken with the Compliance section of the Environmental Health Unit, who have agreed to undertake checks during their routine program.

CONCLUSION

The legal advice provided on the redrafting of the Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law 2014, has led to a series of minor amendments and subsequently the local law, if adopted by Council, will need to be readvertised in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act.


The City has adopted a position stating that it will become a “Plastic Bag Free City”. This local law would codify this position.


The City will need to undergo another full advertising and comment period, and will also need to develop a full marketing and communications strategy around the local law. Learning from past experience it is recommended that while communication of the passage of the local law is paramount, no hard start date should be imposed on retailers, even post advertising and community consultation processes being undertaken. This is due to the uncertain nature of the passage of the law through the Joint Standing Committee and Parliamentary process. This process took over a year from adoption to disallowance previously, and these timeframes can be fluid. Instead a soft launch / transitional three month process from the allowance of the local law, should this eventuate, will be given to all retailers, along with significant marketing campaign materials to assist retailers in communicating the impact of the law to customers. Additionally the City is working with The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) and its delegated committee Municipal Waste Advisory Committee (MWAC) to ensure that, during this process, other local governments are given the means to submit an identical local law and to support the advocacy process around this campaign.


Absolute Majority Required


Page 197


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council adopts the Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law 2014 as included in Attachment 1 of the SGS Agenda. SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Bill Massie


Page 198

SGS1402-8 AMENDMENT TO FREMANTLE LEISURE CENTRE FEES AND CHARGES

DataWorks Reference: 091/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 12 February 2014 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: John East, Manager Fremantle Leisure Centre Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Market Industry Fee Comparison Report (attached to the

Council Agenda)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Fremantle Leisure Centre (FLC) is installing a new facility management software suite to improve both business management processes and customer service delivery. The new system will give members, swim school clients and multi visit card holders improved access into the centre. New additions to the current (2013/14) leisure centre fees and charges, are to coincide with the re-opening of the FLC including the new facility software which are outlined below.

1. Purchase - access card / RFID wrist band 2. Lost replacement - access card / RFID wrist band 3. Personal training 4. Membership contract cancellation 5. Membership 3 month upfront payment option

BACKGROUND

The current fees and charges schedule consists of a lost replacement card fee of $3.00. This fee does not reflect the cost of the new card and wristband system. The previous access cards were made on the centre’s card printer. The new access cards are pre-printed with the City of Fremantle and FLC logos and barcode and cost $5.00. The current personal training fees are structured for either a 30 or 60 minute session, and there is demand to offer a 45 minute program with new fees required. Currently, there is no administration cancellation fee for up-front payments and direct debit health and fitness memberships. If a member decides to break their membership contract and request a refund, there is significant administration work required by both the leisure centre and finance staff. The cancellation fee is now considered as an industry standard. There is no 3 month upfront payment option, the three month option was only available by a direct debit payment option. The 3 month direct debit option would no longer be available due to the lengthy administration processes to set-up and manage.


Page 199

COMMENT

The new fee for the access cards/wrist bands will ensure that the City is covering costs. Health and Fitness members and Swim School clients have the price of the access card/wrist band built into their fees. Multi visit pass holders will receive a pre-printed bar coded card cost which is built into the fee. A customer can choose to upgrade to an RFID swipe card or waterproof wrist band for an additional charge if they desire. See table below.

Personal training programs are very much an industry standard and are offered at all fitness centres. In order to make our personal training packages more attractive to members, we will offer 45 minute sessions to our program.

Membership contract cancellation – Early cancellation fee Up front and direct debit Health and Fitness membership cancellations will incur an early cancellation fee of $75.00. Membership 3 month upfront payment option A 3 month upfront membership term is replacing all the direct debit membership options that were less than 12 months. The only direct debit option will be a 12 month fixed term. The following up front membership terms available are 3 / 6 / 12 months. The new fee has been market researched and is below the industry market value - see the attached agenda item.


Page 200


Financial

No financial impact - costs for the cards/wrist bands are recovered. Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The access cards are a vital component to the new facility management software. The cards/wristbands will allow for improved customer service, improved management controls and reporting ability. If a member/user loses or misplaces their card, the cost to re-issue another card is recovered. Offering a 45 minute personal training session will be attractive to clients and there is current demand for these sessions. A 3 month upfront payment option is offering members a short term membership without entering into direct debit contract, this is attractive to users who want a short term membership without the hassle of entering into a direct debit payment plan with less administration processes involved.


Nil


Nil


Page 201


Absolute Majority Required


Council adopts the new fees and adjusts the fees and charges schedule 2013/2014 as outlined below; and in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995.

Fremantle Leisure Centre Access Card Fees

Description Current Fee New Fee

Replacement printed barcode card $3.00 $5.00

Replacement RFID printed card / waterproof wrist band

n/a $15.00

Multi visit upgrade RFID printed card / waterproof wrist band

n/a $10.00

Personal Training

Description Fee Description Fee

45 minute session 2:1 training 45 minute session

1 session $45 1 session $75

5 sessions package $210 5 sessions package $345

10 sessions package

$400 10 sessions package

$660

Membership 3 month upfront payment option

Description Fee Suspension time allowed

3 month (full) $249.60 14 days (7 days minimum)

3 month (concession)

$216.00 14 days (7 days minimum)

3 month (off peak) $187.20 14 days (7 days minimum)

Membership contract cancellation – Early cancellation fee

Description Current Fee New Fee

Early cancellation fee

Nil $75.00


Page 202

SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr D Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie


Page 203

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered C1402-1, C1402-2, C1402-3, C1402-4 SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


C1402-1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - JANUARY 2014

DataWorks Reference: 087/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Council 26 February 2014 Previous Item: C1401-1 of 29 January 2014 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Alan Carmichael, Manager Finance and Administration Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Statement of Financial Activity by Nature to 31 January

2014 Statement of Financial Position as at 31 January 2014 Determination of Closing Funds (Net Current Assets) as at 31 January 2014 Schedule of Accounts Paid January 2014 Investment Report to 31 January 2014 Debtors Outstanding as at 31 January 2014 Payment Report (EFT & Cheque) for January 2014 (viewed electronically) Payment Report (Purchase Cards) for January 2014 (viewed electronically)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City adopted its Annual Budget on 24 July 2013 with an estimated municipal surplus of $100,000.


Page 204

This report highlights any issues that may impact on the financial position to 30 June 2014 and the opening funds for the 2013/2014 Budget.

BACKGROUND

The 2013/14 budget was adopted on 24 July 2013 with an estimated municipal cash surplus of $100 000. At the Council meeting of 29 January 2014 the estimated surplus was reduced to $98,000 with the approval of a $2,000 donation to a club. At its meeting on 28 August 2013 (Item SGS1308-7 refers), Council adopted nature and type as the preferred reporting format with 2.5% and a threshold of $250 000 as the level for explanation of variances.

COMMENT

When adopting the budget, the City also committed to find a further $1 000,000 in operational savings during the year and those savings were reflected in the employee costs budget adopted. At this stage of the financial year, the City is on target to achieve these operational savings, although there are some previously unforseen costs impacting this achievement as outlined below. Organisational Comment Depreciation: As a consequence of fair value adjustments at 30 June 2013 for the financial statements, the depreciation now being calculated is materially under the adopted budget for some asset classes. The main areas impacted are fleet, furniture and equipment, roads and parks. This expense is non cash so will not affect the bottom line of the budget. Adjustments to the amended budget will be actioned in the Mid Year Review. Capital Expenditure: With 58% of the financial year elapsed and excluding the proposed depot land purchase for $14 million, we have spent 38% of the capital budget and it is likely to narrow in the following months unless the program is varied at budget review in March 2014. City Management Chief Executive Office Costs to finalise proposal for the Local Government Reform requirements have seen this part of the budget track more than expected. These costs will level out over the remaining months. Costs associated with the move of the tourist wheel on Esplanade Reserve ($80,380) have also impacted on the budget for this area. Marketing & Development


Page 205

Revenues are below anticipated budget levels YTD and it is intended to reduce the budgets by a total of $90,000 at budget review. Expenditure is above the anticipated levels for this time of the year by $205,000 part of which is explained by the payments for the BID and the up-lighting of High Street in the first half of the year. Visitors Centre The Visitor Centre budget has a net $60,000 deficit to the budget at the end of January. Revenue is down it is proposed to reduce the annual revenue budget of $212,737 by $90,080 at budget review. Events Management Events expenditure is also running at deficit to the budget for the end of January by $156,000. Costs associated with the public events for the Fremantle Football Club finals appearance was not anticipated in the budget and runs at $124,000 at the end of January. This along with proposed revenue reduction of $62,420 will need to be addressed at the mid-year budget review. Human Resources Expenditure is above the year to date estimate by $136,000. This is due to the costs associated with the cultural analysis program of $45,000, a change management program needed in corporate services $5,500 and staff issues requiring support programs of $10,000 along with a cost for changes to the payroll software which was unforseen for $20,000. The software costs may be managed through other areas and this will be taken into consideration at the midyear review. The City has received a large workers compensation adjustment charge of $297,000 that was not planned for and is impacting on the $1,000,000 in operational savings being implemented across the budget. Operational savings are being achieved but will need to be further reviewed to ensure it is achieved in light of some additional costs. Corporate Services Financial Services Interest on investment revenue has improved over the past month. Whilst still below year to date estimates by $105,000 ($841,000 received) the trend is moving back in the right direction and sits at 52% of the annual budget. The sale of Point Street was estimated to occur in September and add to investment interest revenue from October. This will be offset by continued revenue from parking in Point Street carpark. Commercial Property Lease revenue is below year to date estimates by $283,000 ($2,423,000 received) at the end of January. The major contributor to this is the Queensgate building which is $128,000 ($658,000 received) below target. This is attributed to the tenancies starting to vacate due to the proposed redevelopment plans. Other contributors will be rent reviews which will kick in during the course of the year.


Page 206

Commercial Parking Parking revenue is currently $526,000 ($6,785,000 received) above year to date estimates. Point Street parking revenue of $228,000 makes up approximately $188,000 of this surplus to date. On-street revenue is also contributing a surplus year to date amount of $129,000 ($1,844,000received) and all other carparks are showing slightly better figures than estimated, except for Queensgate which is showing a deficit of $64,000 ($823,000 received to date). Parking Services - Integrated Patrols Revenue from parking infringements is below estimates for year to date by $405,000 ($1,209,000 received). This is to some extent off-set by reduced legal costs follow-up action by $99,000 ($163,000). The commercial parking surplus is also assisting in off-setting this deficit and the city will continue to monitor this position. Community Development Cultural Development A successful Fremantle Festival program along with Wardarnji and Children’s Fiesta was completed with only a small over expenditure. This is a significant part of the festivals budgeted program. Fremantle Arts Centre The Arts Centre ramps up this time of the year with the concert program and bazaar. Expenditure is tracking well to budget at the end of January with 53% spent and will be monitored through the summer months when the majority of expenditure occurs. There will be three less South Lawn concerts than expected Leisure Centre The upgrade of the Fremantle Leisure Centre will be coming to an end over the next month. Most of the water based revenue streams are estimated to kick in around the end of March and the city will monitor this to ensure we are aware of how that tracks. The upgrade project ($3,197,680) is fully committed and from project reports is tracking slightly over budget. The project completion time is being reconsidered at this time and may impact on the budget; however it is too early in the conversation to develop an understanding of this impact. Planning and Development Statutory Planning Revenue from planning fees is above estimates by $120,000 ($436,000 received) at the end of December. This is a pleasing sign considering fees have generally been below estimates for the past couple of years. Expenditure is also down giving this service a positive result for the half year position.


Page 207

Building Services Revenue from fees for building applications are also up on estimates for the year by $3,700 ($166,000). Not normally a surplus that would warrant a comment but again is a good sign when reflecting on the past couple of years. Technical Services Infrastructure Projects The annual operating program of works is well underway. Budget is tracking within the year to date estimates with 51% spent to date. This is likely a reflection of timing of projects against budget estimates. The program will be monitored though to ensure there are no surprises. Parks Parks & Landscapes operations are running surplus to budget for the end of January by $495,000 ($2,778,000 expended) although this is also likely a reflection of timing of projects against budget estimates. Waste Domestic and commercial waste is tracking with budget to the end of January.


Financial

This report is provided to enable Council to keep track of how the allocation of costs is tracking against the budget. It is also provided to identify any issues against budget which Council should be informed of. Legal

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). Operational

This report is provided to Council to keep track of the operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities provided for under the 2013/14 adopted budget by reporting actual revenue and expenditure against budget. Organisational


Page 208

No direct impact but results year to date may highlight matters that have arisen or may need to be addressed in the future.

CONCLUSION

There are several matters impacting the budget that will need to be reviewed at mid-year. The Fremantle Football Club finals events, the workers compensation adjustments and the cultural awareness organisational review are the significant areas impacting on the current bottom line. Other areas such as property leases and parking will remain under review. The completion of the Leisure Centre upgrade will be monitored as it becomes operational shortly. At this time of the year managers and officers are examining the information on any significant areas of savings or surplus as the organisation undertakes the Mid Year Review Process. The financial statements as attached for further review of payments made during January and cash deposits at the end of January. Also attached is the year to date statement of financial activity and balance sheet for information.


Nil


Nil




MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt

1. The City of Fremantle Financial Report including the Statement of Financial Activity, Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Closing position for the period ended 31 January 2014 is received,

2. Council receives the payments authorised under delegated authority and

detailed in the list of invoices for January, 2014, 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.


Page 209


For Against



Page 210

COUNCIL ITEMS

The following item number C1402-3 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

C1402-3 METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM – MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH REFORM PARTNERS

DataWorks Reference: Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 26 February 2014 Previous Item: Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Draft MOU between reform partners

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following on from its response to Robson Report in July 2013, the Premier and Minister for Local Government announced the state government’s preferred model for local government on 12 November 2013 and has now submitted that in the form of proposals to the Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB). Since the announcement the Cities of Melville, Kwinana and Fremantle, and the Town of East Fremantle have been working closely together in preparation for the extreme workload that will be required to implement the government’s reforms within the government’s previously stated timeframes. These Councils have formed a Local Implementation Committee (LIC) - (East Fremantle not yet formalised), currently preparing a regional submission to the LGAB, and engaged consulting firm Ernst & Young to assist in the preparation of transition plans for each reform partner within a consistent framework. The proposal to enter into a MOU further strengthens the relationships between the partners and also demonstrates to the government, LGAB, other stakeholders and our communities that we will work cooperatively for the best outcomes possible. Council is requested to endorse entering into the MOU.

BACKGROUND

On 30 July 2013 the state government, in response to the recommendations contained in the Robson Report, announced plans to amalgamate several Local Governments across metropolitan Perth. The plans include expanding the City of Perth boundaries and reducing the number of metropolitan Local Governments from 30 to 14. Local governments were requested to lodge proposals to the LGAB by 4 October with the government indicating that the Minister would also lodge proposals with the LGAB if he was not satisfied with the proposals that had been lodged. Each of the partners lodged proposals seeking to vary the governments then preferred model. In response to the proposals lodged, the government amended its model, most


Page 211

significantly in the south west metropolitan region and announced that it was lodging its final preferred model as proposals to the LGAB on 12 November 2013. The preferred model now sees a Greater Fremantle that incorporates all of the Town of East Fremantle and parts of Cockburn and Melville, an expanded City of Melville, and an expanded City of Kwinana incorporating about two thirds of the City of Cockburn.

COMMENT

The government’s current model reflects strongly the proposals lodged by the City of Kwinana and the City of Fremantle, with the City of Melville also supporting the model although it had lodged three proposals, one of which was consistent with the government’s earlier model. Whilst the Town of East Fremantle remains formally opposed to any amalgamations, it has indicated that the current model is a preferred model if reform is forced upon them. The local government industry as a whole recognises that the government’s reform proposals place a significant strain on the resources and abilities of the industry to implement while at the same time continuing to provide effective quality services to the community. This is made even more difficult by the lack of a clear process and the uncertainty even now of the eventual model given that the LGAB can make different recommendations to the Minister. The current timeline for the LGAB to undertake its enquiries and make recommendations to the Minister is mid 2014. The Minister then will consider the recommendations, no doubt through State Cabinet, and announce the government’s decision around August 2014. The industry is then expected to be “up and running” with the new structures by 1 July 2015. What is evident from these very tight timeframes is that unless affected local governments across the metropolitan area can work cooperatively together with their reform partners throughout this process (and beyond), communities are likely to suffer with a reduction in the number and quality of services. It is therefore essential that planning for the most likely outcomes is undertaken now and is also undertaken in a manner that each local government can align its effort to ensure effective use of resources and therefore the best potential outcomes for communities. Recognising this, it is proposed that the Cities of Melville, Kwinana and Fremantle, and the Town of East Fremantle enter into a MOU. Whilst the MOU is not a legally binding agreement, it does formally acknowledge the commitment of each local authority to work together to implement the reform proposals. The MOU sets out the purpose and objectives of the agreement and the commitments by each participant in the areas of financials, human resources, communities, strategic planning and the management of assets. The commitments recognise the potential impacts on existing organisations and their people, both staff and community, and seek to minimise any disadvantage caused through the reform process.


Page 212

The MOU acknowledges that the reform outcomes can provide potential benefits and efficiencies through a model of shared resources and commits the participants to exploring those opportunities as we move through the process. The MOU is also an important mechanism from a transparency perspective to indicate to government, key stakeholders, and community that each partner is capable and willing to work cooperatively for the best outcomes through the process. Finally, whilst the City of Cockburn is advocating strongly against the government’s current proposals and therefore not willing to consider being a party to this MOU at this time (and that position is respected), we are all confident that when the decisions are made about the final boundaries the City of Cockburn will work cooperatively with its ultimate reform partners to ensure the best outcomes for its community.


Financial

The process of local government reform carries significant financial imposts on local governments and as yet it is not known how much the state government will contribute to assist in the implementation of reform. Entering into the MOU carries no financial risk to the City. In fact the MOU seeks to safeguard the finances of each partner throughout the process. Legal

As indicated in the report, the MOU is not a legally binding agreement so carries no legal risk. Operational

The agreements in the MOU will guide the operations of the City through the reform implementation period, but will not otherwise impact on effective operations of the City. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The government’s reform program is getting close to becoming a reality and it is critical that potential reform partners have clear strategies in place to effectively implement the reforms. The Cities of Melville, Kwinana and Fremantle, and the Town of East Fremantle have been working cooperatively together in preparation for the expected announcements in the middle of this year. The MOU proposed is a formal commitment to that cooperative effort and it is recommended that Council authorise the signing of the MOU.


As outlined in the report


Page 213

PRECINCTS AND OTHER COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS PLUS OTHER CONSULTATION

Nil




MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That Council:

1. authorise the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding, as attached, between the City of Fremantle, City of Melville, City of Kwinana and the Town of East Fremantle; and

2. delegates authority to the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to accept minor changes to this MOU provided any changes do not alter the intent of the agreement.


For Against



Page 214


C1402-4 COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEM - TENDER FCC413/13 MARKET STREET LIGHTING UPGRADE

ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FCC413/13 FOR MARKET STREET LIGHTING UPGRADE

DataWorks Reference: 39/073

Author: Glen Dougall Director Corporate Services The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Market Street Lighting Upgrade to be awarded to GDK Electrical Services for the sum of $219,695.30 inc GST. The MPAP is comprised of the Director Corporate Services, the Director Community Development, the Director Technical Services and the Director Planning and Development Services or their delegate (the delegate must be an operational manager not involved as a requestor or evaluator), and one operational manager or coordinator who is independent to the area from which the contract or tender relates

COUNCIL DECISION

That the information report is received MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



Page 215

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

LATE ITEMS

Mayor, Brad Pettitt vacated the chamber at 11.14 pm and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. At 11.14 pm the Deputy Mayor Josh Wilson took the chair.

C1402-6 2014 - APPLICATION FOR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL - MAYOR AND DIRECTOR TECHNICAL SERVICES

DataWorks Reference: 097/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 26 April 2014 Previous Item: N/A Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Invitation to Waste to Energy Study Tour

Draft Itinerary for Waste to Energy Study Tour

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The State Government is sending a Western Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Japan in support of the ongoing collaboration between Japan and WA. One part of this trip will include a visit to the Waste to Energy Plant in Tokyo to support the Barnett state government’s Zero Waste by 2020 policy by undertaking a process that eliminates municipal waste ending up as land-fill. In a letter dated 20 January 2014, the Hon Phil Edman MLC, Member for South Metropolitan Region extended an invitation to join the Waste to Energy Study plant tours 27 to 30 April 2014 and follow up workshops. Following the waste study tour, the Mayor is liaising with sister city Yokosuka for a cultural exchange visit, hosted by the Mayor, City of Yokosuka Mr Yuto Yoshida. Yokosuka is a three hour train journey from Tokyo.

BACKGROUND

Council adopted Policy PO-0002 PO-0002 – Elected member allowances and entitlements (current, retiring or defeated) in 2011 which provides for an allowance for individual elected members to undertake training or attend conferences of their choice, relevant to the role of the elected member. That policy states that any international training, conferences and seminars must be approved by council prior to the event. The Mayor identified this invitation to the Chief Executive Officer at the Leadership Group meeting held on 3 February 2014 and it was suggested that Mr Peter Pikor, Director Technical Services could also benefit from this opportunity, relative to the City Works business unit provision of waste management services and the City being a participant member of the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council.


Page 216

The Director of Technical Services is the City’s representative on the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council regional executive group. The City of Fremantle disposes of its residential waste and recyclables at the SMRC Regional Resource Recovery Centre which includes the Waste Composting Facility (WCF). The Waste Composting Facility has a life of approximately 10 years and the Regional Council together with its member Councils is considering the future strategic direction for options on waste disposal. In the overall industry, Waste to Energy options are currently being investigated and the opportunity to participate in a study tour of this technology will assist in gaining valuable information. It is likely that some major decisions on waste will be made in the coming month, including the appropriateness of waste to energy as part of the city waste and recycling mix.

COMMENT

The details of the conference are as set out in the attachment documents for further information:


Financial

Costs associated with the Waste to Energy Study tour will be funded in accordance with PO-0002 - Elected member allowances and entitlements (current, retiring or defeated). The approximate known costs associated with travel and other related expenses while attending the Waste to Energy Study Tour at this time are as follows:

Cost

Mayor Airfares Economy return

$1,750

Accommodation 5 nights @ $350/night

$1,750

Train Tokyo to Yokosuka Return fare

TBA


TBA

Director Airfares Economy return

$1,750


$1,750

Legal

Nil Operational


Page 217

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The opportunity to accompany a State Delegation on this tour, which is specific and well organised and supports the City’s ongoing commitment to efficient waste management the reduction of landfill and recycling and is therefore recommended for council approval.


It is likely that some major decisions on waste will be made in the coming month, including the appropriateness of waste to energy as part of the city waste and recycling mix.


Simple majority required.


MOVED: Cr J Wilson 1. That council approve:

a) the attendance of Mayor Dr Brad Pettit and Director Technical Services, Mr Peter Pikor at the Waste to Energy Study tour in Tokyo Japan on 26 to 30 April 2014.

b) the visit to Fremantle sister city Yokosuka by the Mayor, 30 April to 4 May 2014.

c) costs associated with the Waste to Energy Study tour will be funded in accordance with PO-0002 - Elected member allowances and entitlements (current, retiring or defeated).

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 6/3

For Against

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan Cr Sam Wainwright


Page 218

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS


C1402-2 CONSIDERATION OF DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO SUBMIT AN OFFER TO PURCHASE OF 2 JONES STREET O'CONNOR

DataWorks Reference: 049/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 26 February 2014 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Nadine Hume, Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1 - Map of 2 Jones Street O'Connor

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:

(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: Mayor, Brad Pettitt 1. To approve delegated authority for the Chief Executive Officer to submit an

offer for the purchase of 2 Jones Street, O’Connor on the condition the offer is made subject to the development and approval of a Business Plan in accordance with section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995, and;

2. The approved delegation in 1 above be on the provision of an offer.


Page 219


For Against



Page 220

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE MAYOR, B PETTITT DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 11.23 PM.


Page 221

CITY OF FREMANTLE

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

The Council adopted a Community Engagement Policy in December 2010 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1. The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2. The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3. The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4. These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5. The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.

All input is of equal value 6. No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.


Page 222


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.

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


Page 223


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.

Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13. The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14. In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15. Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16. Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


Page 224

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has

been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government

and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing,

detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.


Page 225

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 26 February 2014, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council

26 February 2014

Page 2