minutes - city of fremantle minutes - 13... · chris williams . peter neale . ... marion kelly ....

MINUTES

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 13 January 2016, 6.00pm

PLANNING COMMITTEE

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

on 13 January 2016 at 6.00 pm. DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 6.00 pm. NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." IN ATTENDANCE Dr Brad Pettitt Mayor (arrived at 6:35pm) Cr Jon Strachan Presiding Member / South Ward Cr Doug Thompson North Ward Cr Simon Naber City Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham Deputy Presiding Member / East Ward Cr Josh Wilson Beaconsfield Ward / Deputy Mayor Ms Natalie Martin Goode Action Director Strategic Planning & Projects Mr Paul Garbett Manager Strategic Planning Miss Emmaline Wallace Minute Secretary There were approximately 30 members of the public and 0 member/s of the press in attendance. APOLOGIES Cr Jeff McDonald Hilton Ward Cr Bryn Jones North Ward LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Minutes - Planning Committee 13 January 2016

Nil PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Nil DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1601: Alex Cockran The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1604: Brian Smith The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1604: Susan Green The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1605: Chris Williams Peter Neale The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1606: Michael Purvess The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1607: Tom Brooking The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1608: Marion Kelly


The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609: Frances Spence Walter Wilson Ramrez The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609: Sophia Tony Michael Forest The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1610: Kim Short Stewart Devinsh Brad Russell The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1613: Sylvia Miller The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1614: Ben Doyle The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1614: Annette DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS Cr I Waltham declared a proximity interest in item number PC1604. Cr I Waltham declared a financial interest in item number PC1608. LATE ITEMS NOTED Nil


CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 2 December 2015 as listed in the Council agenda dated 16 December 2015 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham

TABLED DOCUMENTS Nil


DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register PC1601 DEFERRED ITEM - THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 100 (LOT 20) NORTH

FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0310/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 January 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1509-5 (2 September 2015)

PSC 1510-2 (7 October 2015) PSC1511-2 (4 November 2015)

Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans (revised) Attachment 2 – Previous Item (4 November 2015)

Date Received: 3 July 2015 Owner Name: Alex Cochrane and Terri Zhang Submitted by: Braham Architects Scheme: Mixed Use R25 Heritage Listing: Level 3 Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: A

Page 1


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for two storey additions and alterations to an existing Single House at No. 100 Thompson Road, North Fremantle. The application has been referred to Planning Committee (PC) on a number of occasions, who resolved to defer the matter several times to provide the applicant the opportunity to amend and/or provide further information in regard to the proposed overshadowing and boundary walls. At the PC in November, the application was deferred to allow the applicant and submitter to undertake mediation, with the view to amending plans further. As a result of the mediation undertaken, plans have been amended that the objecting submitter is now supportive of. It is considered that the amendments made strengthen the reasons for approval, but that the application is still on balance. The application is therefore recommended for on balance conditional approval. BACKGROUND

This application has been presented to the Planning Committee (PC) on three previous occasions:

• 2 September 2015; o The application was presented with a recommendation for on balance refusal

due to the level of overshadowing and the proposed southern boundary walls; o PC resolved to defer the application to allow the applicant to present amended

plans that increased the setback and reduced overshadowing to the southern neighbour.

• 7 October 2015; o Revised plans received by the City were considered to satisfy officers concerns

to an extent, and as such the application was referred with a recommendation for on balance approval, as opposed to the previous set of plans recommended for on balance refusal;

o PC resolved to defer the application as follows – In order for the applicant to submit sections that indicates specifically where

overshadowing occurs on the adjoining properties southern windows.

• 4 November 2015; o On 15 October 2015, the applicant provided additional information on the plans

that demonstrated the overshadowing impact on the adjoining neighbour. o PC resolved to defer the item for the following reasons- In order for the City to seek consent from the neighbour and the applicant to

participate in professional mediation at the cost of the City regarding the overshadowing issue.

The landowner of the subject site and neighbouring objecting landowner, participated in mediation organised by the City. As a result, amended plans were provided on 21 December 2015 that amended the roof pitch of the additions from 64 degrees to 50 degrees, reducing the level of overshadowing thrown on the southern lot.

Page 2


For further, detailed background on the subject site, please refer to the previous item. DETAIL

On 3 July 2015, the City received an application for two storey additions and alterations to an existing Single House. The development plans have been amended to alter the roof pitch of the additions from 64 degrees to 50 degrees. Internal alterations have also occurred to allow for amended roof form (i.e. relocation of ensuite and walk in robe). The applicant and submitter have undergone mediation, with the neighbour now supportive of the proposed amendments. Revised development plans are included as attachment 1. For further detail on the application, please refer to the previous item. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the deemed to comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. The elements that do not meet the deemed to comply provisions, are as per previous versions of the report and are summarised as follows, with the level of overshadowing reduced; Boundary walls; Visual privacy and Solar access for adjoining site.

CONSULTATION

Community The application has previously been advertised to affected neighbouring landowners. As per the reasons for deferral by PC, mediation has been undertaken between the landowner of the subject site and the objecting neighbour, with suitable changes being proposed by the applicant that are to the satisfaction of the southern neighbour.

PLANNING COMMENT

Solar access for adjoining sites As a result of mediation undertaken between the neighbours, the rear additions have been revised as shown below -

Page 3


Figure 1 – Street elevation, October plans

Figure 2 –Street elevation, December plans

Page 4


Figure 3- Rear elevation, October plans

Figure 4 – Rear elevation, December plans

Page 5


Figure 5 – Overshadowing diagram, October plans

Figure 6 – Overshadowing diagram, December plans Deemed to Comply October

plans Revised plans Design Principle Assessment

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 183 The level of shadow has been decreased by approximately 4% (13sqm). It is still considered that the on balance arguments for approval relating to the overshadowing still stand as follows -

• There are no roof mounted solar collectors existing on the southern site; • The ground floor windows affected are glass blocks that currently obscure light

entering; • The outdoor living area is covered by a solid patio roof and is therefore currently

shaded; and • An outbuilding on the subject site currently partially overshadows the neighbouring

site.

Page 6


Should PSC disagree with the reasons to support the overshadowing, the following reasons for refusal could be considered:

• The overshadowing impacts the rear outdoor living area of the adjoining site which while covered, is open on the northern side;

• There is space on the northern side of the site to allow the addition to be setback further, reducing overshadowing; and

• Openings for habitable rooms (living area) are located on the northern elevation. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Diverse and Affordable Housing Policy:

• Provision of housing which is diverse and affordable to meet the current and future needs of the City’s residents to increase the amount of affordable and diverse housing options.

Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: • More affordable and diverse (mixed use) housing option for a changing and

growing population. • Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage.

ALTERNATIVE OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION As the application has been recommended for approval on balance, an alternative recommendation has been provided for PSC’s consideration: That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 100 (Lot 20) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes in respect to solar access for adjoining sites.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy – LPP 2.4

Boundary walls in residential development in regards to the southern boundary wall.

Page 7


OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION / COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 100 (Lot 21) 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 21 December 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0310/15, on

plans dated 15 October 2015 the study window located on the east elevation shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• coloured sand render; • face brick; • painted surface; or, • other approved finish and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.

5. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not irreparably damage any original or significant fabric of the building. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Page 8


CARRIED: 50 For Against Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham

Page 9


REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register PC1602 SOUTH STREET, NO. 399 (LOT 324), SAMSON CONSTRUCTION OF

FIVE, TWO STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (BP DA0366/13) ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 January 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1311-155 (6 November 2013)

PSC1402-25 (19 and 26 February 2014) PSC1405-83 (28 May 2014)

Attachments: 1 – Amended Development Plans (30 November 2015) 2 – 28 May 2014 PSC Item (PSC1402-25) 3 – 19 February 2015 PSC Item (PSC1402-25)

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 10


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for five, two storey Residential Buildings containing a total of 16 individual residential units. The application was considered at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 28 May 2014. The resolution from that meeting was to recommend approval to the Western Australian Planning Commission subject to condition and the following advice note:

‘The WAPC is advised that the City supports the current proposal on the basis of access being provided from South Street only. Land to the south of the subject site is currently vested for public open space purposes and the land to the east is owned freehold by the City of Melville. Therefore South Street is the only legal frontage to the subject site. To provide an alternative frontage, the POS reserve(s) would need to be closed or modified and the Melville land would need to be purchased by the applicant. The City would not support the closure of the POS reserve to the south of the subject site.’

Due to Main Roads WA (MRWA) advice not being consistent with the City’s recommendation of approval in regards to the access configuration from South Street, the City was required to have the application referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for determination. The WAPC have since been in discussion with relevant parties involved to arrange for the plans to be amended to reflect the advice provided by MRWA. On 30 November 2015, amended plans were provided which conform to the advice provided by MRWA, which essentially repositioned the crossover from South Street further to the west so as to negate the ability of vehicle drivers, upon exiting the site, to turn east via crossing over the road island in the median strip. Further to this alteration, the following changes have been made to the plans: • The number of units is reduced to 16 from 18; • Reduction in car parking to accommodate the revised unit provision; and • Addition of internal vehicle access between crossover and parking. 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 R-Codes and the matters previously raised by the Planning Committee as well as MRWA. The application is therefore recommended, on-balance, for approval. Should the Committee form a different view, an alternative recommendation for refusal is also provided. 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 LPS4. The subject site exists opposite the intersection of South Street and Plane Tree Grove and

Page 11


borders the eastern extent of the City’s municipal boundary with the City of Melville. 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 3. The application was considered at the PSC meeting of 19 February 2104 and Council meeting of 26 February 2014 where the following resolution was made;

‘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.’

On 4 April 2014, the City received amended plans and justification addressing the above resolution. The application was considered at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 28 May 2014 who resolved as follows: “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 (18 residential units) at No. 399 (Lot 324) South Street, Samson, as detailed on plans dated 4 April 2014, subject to the following conditions;

1) This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 4 April 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) The residential buildings are limited to a maximum of 18 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


Page 12


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.

1. 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.

2. 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 Note The WAPC is advised that the City supports the current proposal on the basis of access being provided from South Street only. Land to the south of the subject site is currently vested for public open space purposes and the land to the east is owned freehold by the City of Melville. Therefore South Street is the only legal frontage to the subject site. To provide an alternative frontage, the POS reserve(s) would need to be closed or modified and the Melville land would need to be purchased by the applicant. The City would not support the closure of the POS reserve to the south of the subject site.” DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for the construction of five, two storey Residential Buildings (16 residential units). The plans the subject of this report represented a revised proposal that is different to the proposal considered by Council at the Full Council meeting on 28 May 2014. The revised proposal differs from the previous version of development plans in the following ways;

• The number of units is reduced to 16 from 18; • Reduction in car parking to accommodate the revised unit provision; • Relocation of the South Street crossover access further to the west; and • Addition of internal vehicle access between crossover and parking.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

As per the explanation contained in the previous report on this matter (see Attachment 3), 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 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’ provisions of the R-Codes. 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;

Page 13


• 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 further 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. A summary of the MRWA referral and the impact their comments have on the assessment of the application are contained at Attachment 3. Essentially the previous referral comment from MRWA did not support the access from South Street, and preferred access from the south via Temby Court. However due to land tenure issues, and the difficulty of obtaining access to Temby Court due to this segment of land to the west owned by the City of Melville, the feasibility of this particular access arrangement was limited. In light of this, MRWA have advised that a crossover positioned further to the west on South Street would be a suitable compromise, and would restrict vehicles turning right onto South Street via crossing the island. Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. Having regard to the fact that the application had already been advertised as a ‘significant’ application in accordance with Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals twice before, the following actions were taking in this course of consultation;

• Neighbour notification to all properties within 100m radius of the subject site; • Notice of the revised proposal being included on the City’s website.

At the time of this report being finalised, a total of one submission was received that raised the following matter (summarised):

• The development is incongruent with the area Any submissions received after the finalisation of this report and before the close of submissions (11 January 2016) will be forwarded to Planning Committee members. The City previously advertised the now superseded proposal on two occasions. A summary of the issues raised and the applicants response to these issues is contained in the previous report on this matter (see Attachment 3). PLANNING COMMENT

Land use 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;

Page 14


Scheme Objective Current Proposal

4.2.1(a)(i) provide for 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;

The amended proposal 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 presents more as single dwellings as opposed to larger multiple dwelling buildings, given the layout and size of the residential buildings. In particular, splitting the building form into a number of structures allows the building, when viewed from adjoining residential properties, to present as two or three Grouped Dwellings. 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 acceptable quality.

The articulated form of buildings proposed through the amended plans is considered to be more 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. The revised proposal also includes the use of high quality timber and aluminium finishes arranged in a way consistent with a contemporary two storey house.

(iv) recognise the importance of traditional streetscape elements to existing and new development;

The subject site is the only property in Samson with 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 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

Page 15


Development Form Dwelling Density Maximum Capacity* Single House, Grouped or Multiple Dwellings

2 dwellings 12 (6 per dwelling)

Proposed (Residential Building)

16 units +16

* 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 Dwelling’, 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 of 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;

• 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)

3m – 13.5m 0m

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, and therefore meets the deemed-to-

Page 16


comply. It is also noted that in the previous version of the plans, the primary street setback was 2.4m, which was supported under the applicable design principles. CONCLUSION

The application seeks planning approval for five, two storey Residential Buildings containing a total of 16 individual residential units. The amended plans are considered to address concerns raised previously by the Committee and as required by the planning framework relating to scale, form, character and to some extent, density of occupation. Furthermore the revised plans are considered to sufficiently address the advice provided by MRWA in relation to the location of the crossover to South Street. To the end, the plans are therefore consistent with the referral comment by provided by MRWA. On this basis the application is recommended, on-balance, for approval. However 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 construction of five, two storey Residential Buildings (16 residential units) at No. 399 (Lot 324) South Street, Samson, as detailed on plans dated 30 November 2015, 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).’


MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be APPROVED under the under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the construction of five, two storey Residential Buildings (16 residential units) at No. 399 (Lot 324) South Street, Samson, as detailed on plans dated 30 November 2015, subject to the following conditions; 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 30 November 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

Page 17


2. Notwithstanding condition 1, the components of the units indicated to be used for the purpose of a laundry, as notated by ‘LDY’ on the approved plans, are hereby deleted and do not form part of this planning approval.

3. The residential buildings are limited to a maximum of 16 beds (one in each

bedroom) at any one time. 4. 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.

5. 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


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.

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. 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.

Advisory Notes

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

Page 18


CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham

Page 19


At 6:09 pm Cr I Waltham declared a proximity interest in item number PC1604 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. PC1604 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY CLOSURE AND

AMALGAMATION WITH NO.S 10 AND 12 KELLOW PLACE, FREMANTLE

ECM Reference: 158/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 January 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Land Administrator Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1509-9 (23 September 2015) Attachments 1: Application – to close the Pedestrian Access Way

between Kellow Place and Swanbourne Street, Fremantle.

Attachments 2: Infrastructure Projects – PAW Physical Assessment Attachments 3: WAPC PAW closure (Option B) Guidelines

Figure 1 - PAW (Lot 55) Swanbourne Street is shown in red. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to submit to Council the results of an advertising and public comment period of not less than 35 days in relation to the proposed permanent closure and amalgamation of the Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) being Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, linking Kellow Place, Fremantle (see Figure 1). The proposal to close the PAW resulted from an application received by the City of Fremantle (‘City’) on 01 December 2014 from the owners of 10 and 12 Kellow Place, Fremantle (‘Applicant’). The Applicants propose to close and amalgamate

Page 20


the PAW with their adjoining properties. The application is supported with a petition signed by 17 of the owners adjoining Kellow Place. The petition is not included in this report to maintain the privacy of the signatories. During the advertising period from 13 October 2015 to 01 December 2015, the City has received eight (8) submissions including one from the Applicant with eleven (11) signatures (with addresses included) in support of the proposal. From the eleven (11) signatures, nine (9) also appeared in the original petition with two (2) new signatures. Of the eight (8) submissions, six (6) were objections to the proposal received from people living both within and outside of Kellow Place, Fremantle. As a result of public advertising it is noted that people living outside Kellow Place are utilising the PAW as a safer route (reduced traffic flow) to connect with the Stevens Street Reserve and the Fremantle City Centre. The residents living within Kellow Place who support of the proposed PAW closure are doing so in order to reduce crime with a home invasion and burglary in March 2014 experienced by an owner identified. The other residents of Kellow Place who object to the proposal currently utilise the PAW for the purpose of connectivity with Stevens Street Reserve, the Fremantle Hospital and City Centre – the objectors living outside of Kellow Place have also indicated the same connectivity centres. Further details with regard to the public submissions are included in a Table of Submissions contained in the community consultation section of this report. The City has received submissions in support and objecting to the proposed PAW closure and amalgamation with valid reasons outlined for both positions. Therefore the Council is provided with 2 options one granting approval and the other being a refusal. On balance it is recommended that the PAW is closed for the following reasons:

• The stairs and steep incline at the Swanbourne Street end of the PAW prevents wheel chair and pram access.

• The total number of people supporting the proposed closure is twenty two

(22) compared to six (6) people objecting to the proposal.

• The removal of the PAW is not considered to significantly inconvenience people - the additional walking distance without the use of the PAW is calculated at 194 metres.

• Increased security for the property owners and residents of Kellow Place,

Fremantle – where the majority of people in support of the proposed closure are located.

BACKGROUND

On 01 December 2014 the Applicants provided a formal submission to the City proposing the closure and amalgamation of the PAW together with a supporting petition signed by 17 out of 25 property owners with access to Kellow Place, Fremantle. The Applicants

Page 21


allege that the PAW is a major contributor to criminal incidents, endured by the residences over many years. On 8 December 2014, the City’s Technical Services Officers proceeded with an internal investigation to identify the infrastructure located within the PAW. On 19 January 2015 the City contacted Western Power (WP) with regard to an underground distribution cable located within the subject PAW. On 27 January 2015, WP advised the City that the Infrastructure would require re-location and requested that the Applicants should apply to Western Power as to the costs involved. WP indicated that they prefer to relocate their infrastructure rather than creating an easement as an alternative option. The Applicant subsequently wrote to the WP on 29 January 2015. On 18 March 2015 WP wrote back to the Applicant and provided their fee structure. The Applicant accepted the costs and asked that the City obtain a valuation of the PAW in order to estimate the overall costs involved to purchase of the portions of PAW for amalgamation subject to all statutory approvals. On 20 April 2015 the City wrote to the Department of Lands (DoL) providing all details currently available and requested a valuation from Valuation Services. On 28 April 2015 the DoL declined to provide a valuation without a Council resolution to support the Closure. The DoL had in the past provided valuations in relation to similar requests, however due to the costs involved they no longer provide the service. On 29 April 2015 the Applicant was advised and subsequently elected to obtain his own valuation and asked the City not to proceed pending the results of the valuation. On 07 May 2015 the Applicant received an estimated valuation and asked that the City proceed with the proposed PAW closure and amalgamation process. The formal process requires a Pedestrian Access Way Physical Assessment in (‘Assessment’) accordance with the WAPC 2009 Guidelines for the closure of PAW’s. The assessment was conducted by the City’s Infrastructure Projects Department and the work and costs were scheduled to commence in the new financial year due to current budget commitments. The usage element of the assessment was scheduled to be carried out after the school holidays in July in order to obtain a true usage figure. On 27 July 2015 the City conducted a short survey to target the property owners (with access to Kellow Place) who did not sign the petition. The survey resulted in three owners supporting the proposal with three owners against and two not responding. On 3 August 2015 the Assessment was completed with the inclusion of a Police report providing statistics on Police “Reported” and “Attendances” within the subject area. On 23 September 2015 (PSC1509-9) the City resolved to;

1. “Undertake a public consultation and advertising process including a 35 day public comment period in regard to the proposed permanent closure and amalgamation of the Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) as described on Certificate of Title Volume 1726 Folio 648 on Diagram 69767 being Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, Fremantle

Page 22


linking Kellow Place – pursuant of Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and the West Australian Planning Commission PAW closure procedure (October 2009).

2. Following the completion of the advertising period, consider any submissions in a

report to Council for a final decision to either support or reject the proposal to permanently close the Pedestrian Access Way described in (1) above.”

In accordance with Council’s resolution, a public advertising period commenced from 13 October 2015 ending on the 01 December 2015. The results of the advertising are considered elsewhere in this report. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The City is required to follow the "Procedure for the Closure of Pedestrian Access Ways" as set out in the October 2009 WAPC Planning Guidelines ("Guidelines"). The new, simplified procedure for dealing with the closure of pedestrian access way's is based on Section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997 which sets out a process by which an amalgamation of remnant Crown land may be achieved which is described as follows. Step 1 The City receives a request for closure of a PAW and prepares a closure

report (See attachment 2 - Infrastructure Projects – PAW Physical Assessment) which addresses the range of matters set out in 3-9 of appendix 1. Step 5 of appendix 1 with the heading “Connectivity Assessment” provides the basis to assess the connectivity of an area around each community facility and should be carried out based on a walkable catchment with a radius of 400 metres. This radius should be increased to 800 metres in the case of large-scale community facilities such as town centres, train stations, bus stations, schools, district open space or other facilities likely to attract large numbers of people. The walkable catchment (ped shed) technique is explained fully in appendix 3 of the WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhoods.

Step 2 The City refers the closure report to all relevant infrastructure providers and any other agencies for comment.

Step 3 The City consults the community likely to be affected by the proposed closure (including all abutting landowners) and seeks their comments in writing.

Step 4 The City assesses any comments and advice received from infrastructure providers, agencies and the community and determines whether to close the PAW or retain it and keep it open.

Step 5 If the City resolves to close the PAW it advises all abutting landowners of its decision and seeks support for the closure and agreement on how to proceed.

Step 6 The City submits a written request to close the PAW to the WAPC with relevant supporting information.

Step 7 The WAPC assesses the proposal and communicates it decision to the local government.

Step 8 On receipt of the WAPC's endorsement, the local government proceeds with the closure, and refers the request to State Land Services for processing.

A more detailed explanation of the process is included in attachment 3

Page 23


COMMENTS An initial Dial before You Dig (DBYD) search identified the following infrastructure located within the PAW:

• Western Power – Low voltage cable • Water Corporation – Critical water pipeline • Atco Gas Australia – Service point

The Applicants will be required to pay all costs associated with the proposed PAW closure and amalgamation including the relocation of any infrastructure services and/or easement requirements. The City has written to the public utilities in accordance with statutory requirements. The resulting responses are detailed within the external submissions section of this report together with public advertising. PAW Connectivity With reference to appendix 3 of the WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhoods - the walkable catchments, sometimes referred to as ped-sheds, are maps showing the actual area in a five minute walking distance from any centre, or ten minutes from any major transport stop such as a railway station. The centre could be a neighbourhood or town centre. The walkable catchment is simply a technique for comparative evaluation of how easy it is to move through an urban area in order to get to and from these centres or facilities. Walkable catchment calculations are expressed as the actual area in a five-minute walking distance as a percentage of the theoretical area in a five-minute walking distance. The theoretical five-minute walking distance is shown as a circle with a radius of approximately 400 metres drawn around any particular centre. This is an area of 50ha. When calculating a ten-minute walking distance, the radius used is about 800 metres, resulting in a circle area with an area of 200 hectares (see Figure 2). In relation to the subject PAW (Lot 55) Swanbourne Street; the walking distance from the Fremantle Hospital (central point of hospital) to Kellow Place via the PAW is approximately 620-640 metres. The same walking route without access to the PAW increases to approximately 900 metres. The PAW currently serves as an east/west connector with public use noted as both within and outside Kellow Place. The detour required should the accessway be closed is calculated at 194 metres to the same position if the access way were open (see Figure 3)

Page 24


Figure 2 – Circles indicate walking distances of 400m and 800m radiuses from PAW (Lot 55) Swanbourne St.

Figure 3 - red arrows indicate an additional walking distance of 194m should the PAW be closed.

Page 25


INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS COMMENT

In accordance with the WAPC legislative requirements, a Pedestrian Access Way Physical Assessment was carried out by the City’s Traffic and Design Officer (see Attachment 2). The Assessment noted that no lighting existed at either end of the PAW. The City has taken action to remove the ground level vegetation to allow clear sight of the entry points as well as a clear view through the PAW (see Attachment 2 - photos 7 and 8). The clearing of vegetation has increased the PAW design aspect from a medium vulnerability PAW with a score of 7, to a Low vulnerability PAW with a score of 11 (see table below).

The design and risk criteria of the PAW may be further improved with the installation of lighting as noted in the table above (Point 3). The options and budget requirements to provide street lighting at either end of the PAW are estimated in the dot points below.

Page 26


• The cost to install unmetered supply pits (UMS) approximately $13,000.00. Therefore based on previous Western Power charges to install a streetlight, the cost generally ranges between $12,000.00 and $15,000.00 per light.

• An alternative option is the installation of solar powered lighting. Solar power

street lights currently range in cost between $8,000.00 and $11,000.00 per light. The subject PAW does contain surrounding vegetation (trees) which may affect the suitability for solar powered lights.

EXTERNAL SUBMISSIONS

Community

Applicants original Petition supplied in December 2014. The Applicant has provided a petition in support of the proposed PAW closure and amalgamation signed by 17 of the property owners located within and abutting Kellow Place, Fremantle. A City of Fremantle conducted a short survey to target other Kellow Place and Bolton Place property owners within the same area who did not sign the petition resulting in three owners in support, three owners objecting to the proposal with two not responding. Responses from Public Utilities The Water Corporation (WC) made the following comments with regard to their initial objection to the proposal. The objection was later reversed upon the implementation of strict conditions. “The closure will affect the 100CI water main (reticulation) and this main cannot be cut and capped and the reason is as below:

• Kellow Place sits at the high point, and there is a hydrant located at H7 Kellow Place.

• Cutting and capping the 100CI will break the reticulation loop and make the

hydrant unworkable (lack enough pressure and flowrate). There will also be water quality issues as well.”

The WC’s additional comments are noted below - removing their objection to the proposal. “The Water Corporation has no objection to the closure, however gates with locks, are to be installed at both ends of the PAW and at the proponent’s expense. Keys are to be provided and Water Corporation must have access to the water main – 24/7.” The Applicant is aware of the WC conditions and has indicated acceptance of those conditions. Western Power has infrastructure located within the subject area – the Applicant has made contact with the relevant officers within Western Power and will continue to liaise with them subject to all PAW closure/amalgamation statutory approvals. All other public utilities contacted by the City had no objection to the proposal.

Page 27


Results of Public advertising The proposed permanent closure and amalgamation of the PAW being Lot 55, Swanbourne Street, Fremantle (as shown in figure 1) was advertised from 13 October to 01 December extending the statutory minimum requirement from 35 days to 50 days. Public advertising included:

• Advertisement placed in the Fremantle Herald (NewsBites). • Proposal advertised on the City of Fremantle “Have your Say” website. • Two advertising signs were placed either end of the PAW at the access points of

Kellow Place and Swanbourne Street. • Letters sent to all occupiers and owners living within Kellow Place including the

owners of the corner properties with Bolton Street addresses. • Letters sent to public utilities requesting their comments. • Council resolution and report sent to the Department of Planning to provide

information with regard to the proposal. At the conclusion of the public advertising period, the City has received eight (8) submissions including one from the Applicant with eleven (11) signatures (with addresses included) in support of the proposal. From the eleven (11) signatures, nine (9) also appeared in the original petition with two (2) new signatures. Of the eight (8) submissions, six (6) were objections to the proposal received from people living both within and outside of Kellow Place, Fremantle. A survey conducted by the City in July 2015 to target the property owners within Kellow Place who did not sign the Applicants petition resulted in three (3) owners in support of the proposal and three (3) owners against – two of the owners against the proposal also provided a formal submission during the advertising period and are included in the table of submissions. All duplicated submissions or signatures to submissions are removed from the final number count in order to register a single objection or support for the proposal from each person. Therefore, with the duplications removed, the total number of people supporting the proposal is twenty two (22) and with six (6) people objecting to the proposal. All written submissions and signatures resulting from the public advertising are included in the table of submissions below. Table of Submissions – Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, Fremantle linking Kellow Place – Proposed Closure and amalgamation.

SUBMITTER NAME

SUBMITTER ADDRESS

COMMENTS (IN POINT FORM) OFFICERS RESPONSE

ATCO Gas Australia

Success No Objection • ATCO Gas Australia has

confirmed that no assets exist inside this lot.

Comments noted

Western Power

Perth No Specific comments at this time.

Applicant has corresponded with

Page 28


• Western Power (WP) note overhead power line and/or underground cables, adjacent to or traversing the property exist.

Western Power and received feedback in relation to the Western Power infrastructure located within the PAW.

Telstra Perth No Objection • Telstra records indicate that no

Telstra assets are located within the area of the proposal.

Comments noted

Water Corporation

Perth No Objection - subject to the following conditions: • Gates with locks are to be

installed at both ends of the PAW and at the proponent’s expense.

• Keys are to be provided and Water Corporation (WC) must have access to the water main – 24/7.

WC Infrastructure requiring protection with initial comments noted below.

• Cannot relocate 100CI water

main as it sits at the high point – cutting and capping the 100CI will break the reticulation loop and make the hydrant at 7 Kellow Place unworkable (lack of pressure and flowrate).

• A hydrant is located at No. 7 Kellow Place.

• There will also be water quality issues.

Land Administration Officer responded in writing to the original objection by the WC and asked whether a right of access easement would be acceptable to the WC. Water Corporation removed their original objection to the proposal on 27/11/2015 subject to the conditions as noted. An easement was not considered necessary by the WC.

Department of Fire & Emergency Services (DFES)

No Comment • Advise that the DFES have no

comment regarding this matter.

No Comments noted.

Public Submissions

Submitter 1

Fremantle No Objection – in Support • Although we use the PAW

Comments noted

Page 29


frequently, we support the proposal on the basis that closing the PAW will improve security within Kellow Place.

Submitter 2 Fremantle Objection • Observed use of the PAW from

people walking dogs to children on their way to school both escorted and unescorted. Also people from Bolton Place using the PAW to access Stevens Reserve. An observation prior to 8.00am in early November noted 8 people using the walkway traveling west.

• Police incident reports have limited details. Without further information you cannot confirm that the PAW directly contributed to the incidents. While there is every sympathy with a neighbour who has suffered a most disturbing event and traumatic after effects are understandable.

• The houses along Swanbourne and Stevens Streets may be vulnerable with extensive verge foliage that could hide miscreants. Kellow place is quiet and well observed by residents. It is possible that any crime problems that arise have no bearing on Kellow Place and the walkway is not detrimental.

Comments noted. City responded to submitter with regard to Police Reports. A request for further information from the Police would require a FOI for each incident with a delay of at least 3 months. The City has taken measures (in Aug 2015) to improve the security and safety of the PAW by removing vegetation to allow clear sight of the entry points and through the PAW. Since that time, the City has not received any reports of anti-social behaviour or incidents.

Submitter 3 Fremantle Objection • Lived near area for 27 years with

the lane in use. • The PAW is for the public to use. • Keep doors and windows

securely locked from burglars. • If the laneway is closed will add

another car to the road congestion.

• Concern that the closure of the PAW is likely to encourage some people to shortcut and pass though submitters property.

• Police statistics can be used to

Comments Noted

Page 30


advantage – noting there is no police presence in the area.

• Many residents use the PAW to walk to the oval and Fremantle CBD.

• It is morally not right to close a public access way.

Submitter 4 Fremantle Objection • Safety Issue - the PAW is the

only way to exit submitters property in an emergency due height levels of own property.

• Lived in the area for 22 years and uses the PAW. Normally chats to people walking dogs and some live outside Kellow Place who prefers to use the PAW rather than other ways to reach Steven Street Reserve.

• The PAW is valuable with respect to feeling connected with people outside Kellow Place.

Comments Noted.

Submitter 5 White Gum Valley (WGV)

Objection • The PAW currently provides a

safe and convenient route from my home in WGV via Virginia Ryan Park into central Fremantle and also to Stevens Reserve.

Comments noted.

Submitter 6 WGV Objection • We regularly walk our dogs from

WGV through Virginia Ryan Park and access Swanbourne Street via the PAW including access to Stevens Reserve or walking to Fremantle.

• There are no footpaths in Bolton Place or Kellow Place so we are walking on the road with 2 dogs. To detour through quieter Kellow

Comments noted

Page 31


Place shortens the walking distance on the road and avoids having to deal with cars coming off Swanbourne Street.

• Object to a public access way being closed off to the public to meet some individual complaints.

Submitter 7 Supported with 11 signatures

Fremantle No Objection – in Support • Main reason for support of

closure is an improvement to security. The home invasion and robbery noted on the Applicants cover letter to the petition occurred in March of 2014. The Applicant noted that Police attending pointed out the proximity of the PAW as a major contributing factor.

Comments noted The submission letter supplied in support of the proposal with the signatures of 11 owners (including the applicant) with 9 nine of the names also included in the original petition of 18 names submitted to Council on 23/09/2015.

Submitter 8 Fremantle Objection • Frequently use the PAW to walk

to Virgina Ryan Park with our dog and two young grandchildren.

• The PAW into Kellow Place is the shortest and safest route to the park from my home.

• The alternative route, i.e. along Swanbourne Street and left into Bolton Street is unsafe.

• Neither side of Bolton Place has a footpath and cars parked on the verge block pedestrian access, forcing pedestrians onto the road.

• Traffic swings fast from Swanbourne Street into Bolton Place, making it hazardous especially for pedestrians walking east along Bolton Place. While Kellow Place does not have footpaths, traffic speed along the street is moderate.

Comments noted

Page 32


• Dispute the Assessment by the City’s Traffic Design Officer that ‘the primary use of the PAW would be exclusively convenient for residents of Kellow Place as the PAW does not provide a quicker route for pedestrians using the area without detouring into Kellow Place’.

• Submitter is aware of others from WGV who regularly use the Virgina Ryan Park and Kellow Place PAW as a safer, more traffic-calmed walking route from the Valley into Fremantle.

• Additional lighting could be another means to effectively deal with anti-social behaviour in the PAW as an alternative to closing the PAW.

CONCLUSION The Applicants propose to close the PAW for the purpose of amalgamation with their adjoining properties located at No. 10 and 12 Kellow Place, Fremantle. The Applicants have requested the PAW closure due to the belief that the PAW is a major contributor to crime in the area of Kellow Place. Police Incident and Attendance reports obtained as part of the PAW Assessment Report show a greater number of reports within Kellow Place rather than Swanbourne Street, as noted in the graphs shown in attachment 2 (figures 2-4). The police reports do not indicate whether the properties backing onto Steven Street and Swanbourne Street were accessed from these locations or from the PAW directly. The submitters who object to the proposal have indicated that the PAW is currently utilised by the residents living both within and outside of Kellow Place, Fremantle as an access link to Stevens Street Reserve and the Fremantle Hospital and City Centre. The City has removed the vegetation from the PAW in August 2015 to improve the sight lines from both entrances including the full length of the PAW. The addition of lighting would further improve the design of the PAW. From August 2015, the City has not received any reports of incidents occurring within the PAW which may be as a result of the improved sight lines thereby removing places to hide within the PAW. The results of the applicant’s petition, the City’s survey and submissions resulting from public advertising indicate both support and opposition to the proposed PAW closure and amalgamation. Therefore, the Council is provided with two resolutions - Option 1 to approve the proposal and Option 2 to refuse the proposal as noted below. On balance it is recommended that the PAW is closed for the following reasons:

Page 33


• The stairs and steep incline at the Swanbourne Street end of the PAW prevents wheel chair and pram access.

• The total number of people supporting the proposed closure is twenty two (22)

compared to six (6) people objecting to the proposal.

• The removal of the PAW is not considered to significantly inconvenience people - the additional walking distance without the use of the PAW is calculated at 194 metres.

• Increased security for the property owners and residents of Kellow Place,

Fremantle – where the majority of people in support of the proposed closure are located.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Option 1 – Approval

1. NOTE the results of the public comment period from the 13 October 2015 to the 01 December 2015 in relation to the proposed permanent closure and amalgamation of the Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) as described on Certificate of Title Volume 1726 Folio 648 on Diagram 69767 being Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, Fremantle - linking Kellow Place, Fremantle.

2. That Council; APPROVE the proposed pedestrian access way (PAW) closure

and amalgamation of Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, Fremantle with the adjoining properties being No. 10 and No. 12 Kellow Place, Fremantle - subject to the following conditions:

a. The Water Corporation (WC) require the Applicant to install gates with locks at

both ends of the PAW with keys supplied to the WC allowing full 24 hour a day, 7 days a week access.

b. The Applicant is to comply with any Western Power requirements in relation to their infrastructure located within the PAW.

c. The Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with the proposal as described in item 1.

3. The City indemnifies the Department of Lands against any claim for compensation

that may arise from the proposed closure and amalgamation of the PAW as described in item 1 in accordance with Section 58 (4) of the Land Administration Act 1997.

Option 2 - Refusal


Page 34


2. That Council; REFUSE the proposed pedestrian access way (PAW) closure and amalgamation of Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, Fremantle after consideration of the current usage of the PAW as a safe link to public open spaces and the City Centre. The City of Fremantle will take the following measures to improve the PAW safety and security rating by;

a. The installation of lights at either end of the PAW b. Schedule regular maintenance of the PAW to keep the sight lines clear of

vegetation. Cr J Strachan moved option 1 of the officer's recommendation as follows:

Option 1 – Approval


2. That Council; APPROVE the proposed pedestrian access way (PAW) closure

and amalgamation of Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, Fremantle with the adjoining properties being No. 10 and No. 12 Kellow Place, Fremantle - subject to the following conditions:

a. The Water Corporation (WC) require the Applicant to install gates with locks at

both ends of the PAW with keys supplied to the WC allowing full 24 hour a day, 7 days a week access.

b. The Applicant is to comply with any Western Power requirements in relation to their infrastructure located within the PAW.

c. The Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with the proposal as described in item 1.

3. The City indemnifies the Department of Lands against any claim for compensation

that may arise from the proposed closure and amalgamation of the PAW as described in item 1 in accordance with Section 58 (4) of the Land Administration Act 1997.

Lost: 0/4

For Against Cr Simon Naber

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Doug Thompson Cr Josh Wilson

Page 35


COMMITTEE DECISION

Cr J Strachan moved option 2 of the officers recommendation as follows Option 2 - Refusal


2. That Council; REFUSE the proposed pedestrian access way (PAW) closure

and amalgamation of Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, Fremantle after consideration of the current usage of the PAW as a safe link to public open spaces and the City Centre. The City of Fremantle will take the following measures to improve the PAW safety and security rating by;

a. The installation of lights at either end of the PAW b. Schedule regular maintenance of the PAW to keep the sight lines clear

of vegetation. CARRIED: 4/0 For Against Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson Cr Josh Wilson

Page 36


Mayor, Brad Pettitt arrived at 6:35 pm prior to consideration of the following item. Cr I Waltham returned to the meeting at 6:35 pm. PC1605 TUCKFIELD STREET, NO. 65 (LOT 202), FREMANTLE - STATE

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SECTION 31 RECONSIDERATION (TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE) - (CJ DA0101/14 - DR47/2015)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 January 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1501-1 (14 January 2015)

PSC1411-170 (5 November 2014) Attachments: Attachment 1 – Revised development plans

Attachment 2 – Previous item Attachment 3 – Heritage Comment

Date Received: 9 February 2015 (SAT application for review) Owner Name: Christopher and Theresa Williams Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Historic site Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P

Page 37


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Planning Services Committee has been invited to reconsider a decision made in January 2015, for the construction of a two storey (with undercroft garage) Single House. The applicant has participated in SAT mediation with the City and has provided a set of revised plans for the City’s reconsideration in accordance with section 31 (1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004. The revised plans have been reviewed, and while there are still some design principle and discretionary assessments being sought against requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and local planning policies, the revised design is now considered to satisfy Design Principles. Additionally, the revised design is supported on heritage grounds. The development is recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

No. 65 Tuckfield Street, Fremantle is zoned Residential with a density code of R25. The subject site is located within the Fremantle Local Planning Area on the south eastern side of Tuckfield Street with a lot area of 302m2. The subject site is identified as having cultural heritage significance on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a historic site. The subject site is located within the street block bound by Tuckfield Street, Malcolm Street, Canning Highway and East Street. Planning history for the site is as follows:

• On 15 March 2005 the City refused planning approval for the demolition of an existing dwelling, shed and pool and construction of two two-storey dwellings at No. 65 Tuckfield Street, Fremantle (DA715/03). One of the reasons for refusal was that the proposed replacement dwelling was considered to have a detrimental impact upon the streetscape and its immediate setting within Tuckfield Street. The decision was appealed at SAT who approved the application for demolition and the rear dwelling, but did not grant planning approval to the proposed dwelling upon the front lot due to the proposed dwelling being detrimental to the streetscape and character of the locality.

• On 19 September 2005 the WAPC granted conditional approval for a two lot

freehold subdivision at No. 65 Tuckfield Street, Fremantle (WAPC 121665).

• The City granted conditional approval on 18 October 2006 for the development of a two storey Single House (which is now constructed) upon the rear created lot at No. 65A Tuckfield Street, Fremantle. This approval was granted with the involvement of the SAT as the length of time taken to determine the application resulted in a deemed refusal (DA0175/06).

• On 27 February 2014, the City received an application for the addition of a two

storey (with undercroft) Single House on No. 65 (the front lot) Tuckfield Street. The application was presented to the Planning Committee on 5 November 2014, and deferred to allow the applicant to reduce the impact of the upper floor on the

Page 38


streetscape. Minor amendments to the plans were provided that did not satisfy officers or Elected Members concerns regarding the development. The application was subsequently refused at an Ordinary Council Meeting on 28 January 2015 as follows –

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey with undercroft Single House at No. 65 (Lot 202) Tuckfield Street, Fremantle, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the Residential Design

Codes in respect to Building Height (external wall and roof pitch and site works.

2. The proposal would be detrimental to the existing streetscape in accordance with clause 10 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4, having particular regard to 10.2(s), (w) and (zg).

On 9 February 2015, the City received notice of an application for review by SAT from the applicant. Mediation has been undertaken with the applicant, with an amended set of plans to be presented to PC for reconsideration. DETAIL

On 9 February 2015, the applicant lodged an application for review of the decision made by Council in January 2015, for the development of a two storey (with under croft) Single House. Changes made between refused plans and proposed plans include the following –

• Alteration to roof form, to be of a lesser height and predominantly flat roof design, with a sloped portion at the front of the elevation;

• Altering the upper floor orientation and design (now square to street, as oppose to on an angle);

• Removal of screening/features on front façade; • Reduction in overall building height by 2.4m and size of the upper floor; • Internal alterations to floor plan of all stories; • Increase in setback of upper floor; • Addition of roof terraces; • Increase in the size of the undercroft garage; and • Alteration in design of side elevations

o South western – alteration to openings, reduction in overall height by 2.4m, reduction in height of wall on boundary, flattening of verandah element to reduce bulk from pitched roof design, simplified design and materials, reduction in length of upper floor elevation, upper floor square to the boundary

o South eastern – alteration to flat roof (total height now to where top of wall used to be), reorientation of upper floor (now square with the boundary line), minor alteration to opening, greater setback to south western boundary.

o North eastern – alteration to boundary wall (removal of pitched roof elements, increase in height to central portion, reduction in other sections), screening of

Page 39


ground floor openings, flat roof design reduction in length of upper floor elevation by 3m, upper floor terraces.

Figure 1 - Refused street elevation

Figure 2 – Revised street elevation Revised development plans are included as attachment 1.

Page 40


STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Local Planning Policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed to comply requirements cannot be used for a reason for refusal. In this particular application, the design elements listed below do not meet the deemed-to-comply provisions and seek policy discretions.

• Boundary wall; • Open space; • Sightlines; • Site works and retaining; and • Visual privacy.

Discussion of these elements is included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Fremantle Ports The previous set of plans were referred to the Fremantle Port Authority for comment due to its location within Area 2 of the Buffer Area, with the following advice received – The built form requirements for Area 2 include treatments to windows, openings, air conditioning systems, quiet house design criteria and roof insulation. We would request that the proposal be assessed for compliance with these requirements. The Council’s buffer policy also requires that a notification or memorial be placed on the title (s), again this would preferably be a condition of approval. Due to the general nature of this advice, and that the essence of the development has not significantly altered, the application was not referred again. As the application is now recommended for approval, conditions are recommended to meet the above requirements. Heritage The previous plans were not supported by Heritage as the upper floor was considered to be too prominent and obtrusive in the existing streetscape. The revised plans were referred to the City’s Heritage Coordinator for comment, with the following noted – The current proposal is a completely new design.

Page 41


It is considered that the design of the proposed new house shows an understanding, and respects the significance, of the streetscape within the near vicinity of the site. It is considered that the design of the house has responded positively to its context regarding its siting, and the articulation of its massing and scale, while avoiding imitation. It is recommended that the proposal be supported. Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as design principle assessments are being sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 11 December 2015, the City had received one joint submission from three neighbours. The following issues were raised (summarised):

• Bulk scale and appearance from the street

o Compromises heritage character of streetscape and amenity of area.

o Presents as three level dwelling from street.

o Setback out of context and reduces ability to appreciate heritage dwelling on corner.

o Demolished dwelling was single storey.

• Overlooking

o Overlooking issues to the north exacerbated.

o Loss of amenity and impact on privacy.

o Overlooks front setback area.

o Verandah’s could be considered not to be private, but are actually screened well by vegetation and used frequently.

o Frosting of windows not enough to provide privacy.

o Louvres don’t provide sufficient screening.

o Consideration should be given to age profile of roof deck users.

o Study is a living room and should be assessed against greater setback requirements.

o Entry area will overlook.

o Street elevation of roof deck not screened.

• General

o Modernist design not sympathetic to streetscape.

o Trust opinion of heritage officers to make judgement.

o City provides for areas where modernist design can be built.

o Council should consider clause 10.2.1

Page 42


o Roof deck attempts to be part of open space.

• On boundary walls

o Boundary walls do not meet deemed to comply requirements of R Codes.

o Will restrict access to ventilation, necessary for heritage building abutting the development.

o Loss of natural light to children’s bedrooms, a laundry, the children’s bathroom and an ensuite.

o Health issues result with the restriction of natural light, and fresh air.

o Loss of energy saving ability from restriction to natural light.

• Overshadowing

o Has potential to impact on major openings.

• Driveway width exceeding 6m • Not sufficient detail to assess screening. • Misleading driveway cross section. • Streetscape context depicts incorrect roof profiles of adjoining properties. • Glazed balustrading not shown on all elevations. • Planter box on roof deck not correctly depicted. • Site plan shows spot levels of roof or are incorrect.

The applicant has provided justification with their application, which they have advised is also their response to the above submissions. This is included as attachment 3. PLANNING COMMENT Boundary wall Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle

Assessment North east (1.7m) 0m 1.7m South east (1-1.1m) 0m 1-1.1m The proposed boundary wall on the north eastern boundary is supported for the following reasons;

• The proposed boundary wall will abut openings on the northern property that are non-habitable (ensuite, bathroom, laundry), and partially abut a bedroom window (see diagram below);

Page 43


• Should the openings be altered to be major openings (ie. bedrooms and/or living areas), the variations in the height of the boundary wall and the setback of the adjoining site, would contribute to allowing for sufficient amenity to these rooms;

• The existing boundary fence and vegetation on the subject site partially obscure

these windows. • The adjoining property is setback 1-1.5m from the boundary, allowing for sufficient

ventilation to openings; • The proposed boundary wall does not impact on outdoor living areas; • The boundary wall assists in preventing overlooking from living areas and the

raised verandah; • The level of building bulk proposed by the boundary wall is reduced by the

articulation in height provided along the elevation; • Does not result in a significant impact on the existing streetscape; • Does not result in a significant impact on the amenity of adjoining properties • The proposed boundary wall is on the north eastern boundary, therefore not

impacting the adjoining properties ability to access winter sun from their northern side.

The proposed south eastern boundary wall is supported for the following reasons:

• The impact of building bulk to the adjoining property is not considered to be significant;

• This portion of the subject site abuts a garage and vehicle access for the adjoining site (65a Tuckfield Street), ensuring part of the wall complies with LPP 2.4;

• Given the boundary wall abuts a garage and vehicle access, it will not restrict access to ventilation or sunlight for major openings or outdoor living areas;

• The boundary wall is to the rear of the site and will therefore have no impact on the existing streetscape.

Open space Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle

Assessment 50% (151m2) 43% (130m2) 7% (19m2) The proposed level of open space is supported for the following reasons:

Page 44


• The application has been assessed by the City’s Heritage Coordinator and is considered to be suitable in the existing streetscape;

• The proposed Single House is setback to the required distance from the street as outlined by LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy;

• There are sufficient setbacks and open space to allow for access to natural sunlight for the dwelling;

• The Single House is separated from the house to the south by a battle axe driveway leg, and while boundary walls are proposed on the northern boundary, the upper floor is setback with a useable, open roof top deck that does not contribute to a significant amount of building bulk;

• As well as the open street setback area, two roof decks and a courtyard are provided for residents of the dwelling to enjoy outdoor spaces;

• There are sufficient setback areas provided to allow for external fixtures and essential facilities.

Sight lines Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle

Assessment Truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of where walls, fences, other structures adjoin vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street and where two street intersect.

No truncation, solid element reduced to be less than 0.75 with fence above

Required

The proposed Primary Street fence has not altered in this revision of the plans, with the exception of a notation explaining its compliance with LPP 2.8’s requirements for visual permeability. . While the development does not meet the Deemed to Comply requirements for sight lines by being completely free of obstruction, the fence is proposed to be visually permeable above 0.75m height. In this regard, the fence is considered to provide sufficient sightlines for the safety of vehicles and pedestrians and is supported. Site works and retaining Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle

Assessment 500mm 0 to 1m 0 to 500mm Site works and retaining are proposed throughout the site, including on the boundary, to accommodate an undercroft garage and bedroom for the dwelling. The site works are supported for the following reasons:

• The Single House meets Deemed to Comply Building Height requirements;

Page 45


• Site works are largely excavation, with a portion of fill, that ensures the natural ground level of the site is respected, and the ground floor reflects that of the adjoining properties;

• The undercroft garage created by the site works, allows for secure car parking, with minimal impact on the streetscape, by partially concealing the garage; and

• The site works do not result in a negative impact on the amenity of adjoining properties.

It should be noted, that while site works have not significantly altered from those proposed on the previously determined plans, the overall bulk and height of the building has decreased through the redesign of the form and design of the building. Visual privacy Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle

Assessment Rear roof deck (north east) – 7.5m

Nil (+ louvered screening) 7.5m

Front roof deck (south east) – 7.5m

5.4m 3.1m

Front roof deck (north east) – 7.5m

4.2m 3.3m

Rear roof deck – north east The proposed roof deck at the rear of site, includes louvered screening directing views to the east. It is considered that given the proposed planter included on the deck, and the proposed screening, that the only view available for occupants of the deck will be of an upper floor wall on the adjoining property that does not have minor or major openings. The proposed screening is supported in its current formation. Front roof deck – south east The proposed front roof deck is proposed to overlook the front setback area of the adjoining property to the south east, and the vehicle access leg of the rear property which meet the Deemed to Comply requirements of the R-Codes. The remainder of the deck does have the potential to overlook behind this street setback area, however is supported without screening for the following reasons:

• The only habitable room window that has the potential to be overlooked, is obscured by screening material on the window opening and due to its size, would be considered a minor opening;

• The remainder of the windows are for non-habitable rooms, i.e. laundry, bathroom.

• The setback area is unlikely to be used as active outdoor space; • No outdoor living areas are overlooked.

Front roof deck – north east

Page 46


The proposed front roof deck is proposed to overlook the front setback area of the adjoining property to the north east, which meet the Deemed to Comply requirements of the R-Codes. The deck also has the ability to overlook behind this setback line, however is supported without screening for the following reasons;

• The front portion of the adjoining property is single storey, so much of what is overlooked is likely to be roof;

• Significant views are available to the north and is likely where occupants of the deck will view (i.e. across the front setback area);

• Openings to non-habitable rooms occupy the front area of the site; • The 1-1.5m wide setback area is unlikely to be used for active habitable space,

being wide enough for access and maintenance purposes only; • Outdoor living areas are not impacted by the proposed roof deck.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic document: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

• More afford diverse housing option for a changing and growing population. • Improve physical presentation of the City’s streetscapes. • Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage.

CONCLUSION The revised plans are considered to satisfactorily address all design principles and discretionary clauses where relevant. The previous reasons for refusal have been addressed, in particular –

• Building height – meets Deemed to Comply • Site works – meets Design Principles (as discussed above) • Clause 10.2 – o Since the refusal of the application, the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 have been gazetted. The Regulations included deemed clauses which are intended to replace existing clauses of Local Planning Schemes. As such, Clause 10.2 Matters to be Considered, has been replaced by Clause 67 Matters to be considered by local government. 10.2s) - the way in which buildings relate to the street and adjoining lots,

including their effects on landmarks, vistas, the landscape or the traditional streetscape, and on the privacy, daylight and sunlight available to private open space and buildings

10.2w) – the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal

10.2zg) – any relevant submissions received on the application

Are considered replaced by –

Page 47


67m) – the compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including, but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development

67n) – the amenity of the locality including the following- o Environmental impacts of the development o The character of the locality o Social impacts of the development

67y) Any submission received on the application It is considered that the revised design provides an appropriate building for the existing streetscape, and is a significant improvement on the previous design given its reduced height, improved façade and reduction in upper floor building bulk. As discussed in the content of the report above, the application is considered to address relevant design principles and is recommended for conditional planning approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION / COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr J Strachan The applicant and the State Administrative Tribunal be advised that the revised plans are supported, and the previous Planning Committee decision dated 2 February be substituted with the following - That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey (with undercroft) Single House at No. 65 (Lot 202) Tuckfield Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 23 November 2015. 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.


otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the design and materials of the

development shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy L.P.P2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

i. Glazing to windows and other openings shall be laminated safety glass

of minimum thickness of 6mm or “double glazed” utilising laminated or toughened safety glass of a minimum thickness of 3mm.

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

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

Page 48


4. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0101/14, on plans dated 23 November 2015, a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land that the subject site is located in close proximity to the Fremantle Port and may be subject to noise, odour and activity not normally associated with residential use. The notification is to be prepared by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties prior to occupation.

5. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the north eastern and

south eastern boundary shall be of a clean finish in either;

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

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

CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham

Page 49


PC1606 PARRY STREET, NO. 12 (LOTS 1, 2 & 3), FREMANTLE APPROVED 5 STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (DAP00515) - SATISFACTION OF PLANNING APPROVAL CONDITION NO. 17

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 January 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1508-4 (5 August 2015) Attachment 1: Applicants Justification and Amended plans

Report for PSC1508-4 (5 August 2015) Date Received: 3 December 2015 Owner Name: Parry Street Management Pty Ltd Submitted by: Cameron Chisholm Nicol Scheme: Mixed Use (R-AC3) Heritage Listing: 1A (State Heritage Register) Existing Landuse: Two Storey Commercial Building Use Class: Restaurant – ‘A’, Multiple Dwellings – ‘A’

Page 50


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In August 2015 the Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) approved a 5 storey mixed use development at 12 Parry Street, Fremantle subject to conditions (ref DAP005/15). Condition 17 of the approval requires that the 2 northern units located on the 4th floor (top floor) be further setback to reduce building bulk impacts on the adjoining northern properties. The wording of the condition does not give any specific guidance on what proportion of the units should be setback and by how much. The applicant has submitted amended 3rd and 4th floor plans indicating an increased setback to the adjoining northern residential property but not the adjoining northern commercial property. It is considered that the amended plans satisfy the intent of the condition and it is therefore recommended that the applicant be advised accordingly. BACKGROUND

Planning Committee considered the proposal 5 August 2015 and resolved to make a recommendation to the Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) that states:

1. Acting under delegation the Planning Services Committee defers its decision on the application for a five storey mixed use development (40 multiple dwellings and restaurant) subject to part 2 below;

2. Planning Services Committee seeks the JDAP to refer the application for

demolition back to the City of Fremantle so that the City can more fully consider;

i. The heritage value of the 1939 building under the Municipal Heritage Inventory, and

ii. To allow consideration of the demolition of the 1939 building and its impact for Fremantle.

The JDAP on 14 August 2015 approved the development subject to conditions. Condition 17 of that approval states:

17. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the two northern located multiple dwellings on the fourth floor shall be setback from the northern boundary to reduce building bulk impacts on the northern adjoining properties, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

DETAIL

The applicant has submitted amended plans to address condition 17 (refer to Attachment 1) and has provided the following justification:

“Whilst the Condition requires a ‘setback’ to the fourth floor only we have responded by introducing a set back at Levels 3 and 4 in the location of the

Page 51


northern boundary that most impacts the adjoining owner whose concerns Condition 17 seeks to address.

This follows a brief conversation after the JDAP meeting where the adjoining owner approached us and said that his concern was more about the portion of the wall that interfaced with his boundary. The additional setback introduced at levels 3 and 4 measures 1.5 meters and adds to the current series of setbacks that range from 3.8 meters to 1.1 meters.”

CONSULTATION

Community Whilst there is no requirement to formally advertise the amended plans, the adjoining affected residential owner at 3 Quarry Street, Fremantle was given the opportunity to review the revised floor plans. At the time of writing this report the adjoining owner had not requested to view a copy of the plans and no comments were received. JDAP There is no requirement for the amended plans to be referred back to the JDAP as the condition wording states “to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.” PLANNING COMMENT

The wording of condition 17 does not provide any specific guidance on what proportion of the 2 northern units should be set back and by how much. The only residential property abutting the subject site to the north is property A as indicated in the aerial below. Property B is a non-residential property owned by the City.

Page 52


The amended plans provide an increased setback on both the 3rd and 4th floors to reduce building bulk as viewed from property A. It is considered that a reduction in building bulk of the proposed development as viewed from property A would offer greater amenity improvements for the occupiers of this residential property than the users of commercial building B. On this basis it is considered that the intent of condition 17 has been satisfied. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Diverse and Affordable Housing Policy:

• Provision of housing which is diverse to meet the current and future needs of the City’s residents to increase the amount of affordable and diverse housing options.

Economic Development Strategy 2011 -15:

• More residents; more commercial office space; more retail floor space; particularly in the Fremantle CBD.

• Development of additional retail space. • New commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing employment

opportunities. Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

• New commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing employment opportunities.

• More diverse (mixed use) housing option for a changing and growing population. • Improve physical presentation of the City’s streetscapes. • Provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting

development and renewal in designated precincts within the City.

Page 53


• Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage. • Maintain and grow tourist and visitor servicing.


MOVED: Cr J Strachan The applicant is advised that the amended plans for the third and fourth floor submitted on 3 December 2015 are considered to be satisfactory for the purpose of addressing the intent of condition 17 of the planning approval granted by the Joint Development Assessment Panel at their meeting on 14 August 2015 for Parry Street, No. 12 (Lots 1, 2 & 3), Fremantle – 5 Storey Mixed Use Development (DAP005/15). CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham

Page 54


PC1607 NORFOLK STREET, NO. 24 (LOT 66), FREMANTLE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE (3) STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (BP DA0393/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 January 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1: Revised Development Plans

Attachment 2: State Heritage Office Advice Attachment 3: Internal Heritage Comment Attachment 4: Fremantle Ports Advice

Date Received: 10 August 2015 (amended plans received 4 November 2015)

Owner Name: Mayland Nominees Pty Ltd Submitted by: Brooking Design Architects Scheme: City Centre Heritage Listing: Level 3 Existing Landuse: Shop Use Class: Commercial Use Permissibility: ‘P’

Page 55


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for the demolition of an existing heritage listed building and the construction of a three (3) storey mixed use development. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to a number of submissions that are unable to be addressed through the imposition of planning approval conditions, as well as the requirement for merit based assessments against requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Local Planning Policies (LPPs) including:

• Outdoor living areas; • Parking; • Design of car parking spaces; • Dwelling size; • Utilities and facilities.

On the basis of advice provided by the City’s Heritage department, as well as the State Heritage Office (SHO), the demolition of the existing building is considered to be supportable. Further, the planning discretions being sought are deemed to meet the applicable design principles of the R-Codes and the relevant discretionary criteria of LPS4. As such, the application is recommended for on-balance planning approval, subject to conditions. BACKGROUND

No. 24, Lot 2 Norfolk Street, Fremantle (subject site) is zoned ‘City Centre’ in accordance with the City of Fremantle’s (the City’s) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The subject site has been identified by the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (Management Category Level 3) as a place of cultural heritage significance and subsequently adopted under the City’s Heritage List and is located within the West End Conservation Area which is a designated Heritage Area made pursuant to clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site encompasses a total lot area of approximately 240m² and is of a north-west (rear) to south-east (front) orientation. The site is improved by an existing single storey building (circa 1940) of rendered masonry finish and with a tiled hipped roof extending over the now enclosed front verandah and a projecting hip to the street front. The enclosed verandah is mostly glazed and retains a solid brick pier at its eastern end. Adjacent to the subject site (north east) is No. 26-28 Norfolk Street, Fremantle, which has been adopted under the Heritage Council of Western Australia’s State Register of Heritage Places. Consequently, the application was referred to the Heritage Council for comment as to determine any impact the proposed works may have on this site. The Heritage Council’s advice has been provided as Attachment 5 of this report. Norfolk Street includes several places of cultural heritage significance included on the City’s Heritage List. These properties include numbers 8, 12-14, 16, 22, 24 and 26-28 Norfolk Street, Fremantle. Further, the existing Norfolk Island Pine trees within the street verge and the limestone features at No. 38 Norfolk Street, Fremantle have also been adopted. The Heritage Listed properties at No. 22 & 26-28 Norfolk Street, Fremantle are located on either side of the subject site (located south-west and north-east respectively).

Page 56


All three properties, adopted under the City’s Heritage List, represent Fremantle housing dated from 1865 to c1940. Relevant site history includes: On 14 December 2011, the City refused planning approval for a three storey

addition and alterations and a change of use to Restaurant (Café) or Commercial to Existing Building (DA0444/11). This refusal was formed on the basis that the proposal did not conserve and enhance a place of heritage significance.

On 14 December 2011, the City refused planning approval for the demolition of the heritage building (DA0148/11).

The original plans were sent to the State Heritage Office, given that the subject site is adjacent to a State Heritage listed property (26-28 Norfolk Street). SHO provided advice stating non-support for the proposal on the basis that the proposed development is considered to have an adverse impact on the adjacent property to the east by virtue of a incompatibility with its heritage significance, in addition to the proposed building being out of scale and thereby detracting from the visual continuity of the adjacent property. Further detail on this matter is provided in the ‘Consultation’ section of this report. DETAIL

On 10 August 2015, the City received a development application (DA0393/15) for the demolition of the existing building and construction of three (3) storey mixed use development including: Two commercial spaces on the ground floor designated as being used for office or

shop; 6 Multiple Dwellings including:

o 2 Units consisting of two bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen, dining and

living areas, and a balcony; o 4 Studio Units consisting of one bedroom, one bathroom, a kitchen and

living area, and a balcony.

The revised plans received on 4 November 2015 as a result of State Heritage Office comments made the following changes from the original proposal:

• Amended the setback of the first floor from the primary street; • Redesigned the ground level façade facing the street; • The car parking manoeuvring space was amended to comply with AS2890.1; • Changes in the floor area to gross floor area, particularly reducing the size of the

office/shop rooms; • Changes to the finish of the façade in an east and westerly direction in so far as

altering the colour palette and materials proposed to blend in with adjacent development.

Refer to Attachment 1 for revised development plans.

Page 57


STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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

• Outdoor living areas; • Parking; • Design of car parking spaces; • Dwelling size; and • Utilities and facilities.

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

State Heritage Office (SHO) The original proposal was referred to the SHO as the site abuts a building included on the State heritage Register. The following comments were received. “Findings

• The proposed works include the demolition of the existing single storey building at 24 Norfolk Street, Fremantle and the construction of a 3 storey mixed use development. The development will be located adjacent to 26-28 Norfolk Street, Fremantle that is included on the State Register of Heritage Places.

• The Statement of Significance for 26-28 Norfolk Street notes that the place

contributes to the corner streetscape and precinct values of Norfolk Street, Parry Street and South Terrace. It has aesthetic and social values for its intact late 1900s simplistic architecture that contributes to west Fremantle’s colonial architecture of the convict period. The scale and materiality of the proposed new build may impact such identified values of the registered place.

Advice

• A Dilapidation Survey of 26-28 Norfolk Street is to be prepared by an appropriate qualified professional and submitted to the State Heritage Office prior to the application for a Building Permit.

• The dominance of the proposed development’s complex material palette and

scale may detract from the significance and aesthetic values of the registered place that is single storey at the street front and of a simplistic architecture design. Consideration should be given to revising such details to better respect the values of the state registered place.

Page 58


The following point is also provided from a heritage perspective to assist the City of Fremantle in its determination of the proposed development, but is provided as comment only:

• Streetscape vistas of the south-west elevation of 26-28 Norfolk Street have been unimpeded since at least 1940-41 when the residence at 24 Norfolk Street was constructed. The proposed development will interrupt the above vista and the design could be revised to better respond to the site’s historical relationship with the registered place. Specifically, the scale and setback of the north-east corner and the nil front setback of the proposed development could be revised to provide visual access to the south-west elevation of 26-28 Norfolk Street.”

The revised plans received on 4 November 2015 were referred to the SHO on 5 November 2015, and SHO provided a response on 26 November 2015, with the following advice on the revised plans: “Findings

• As per our advice of 1 September 2015, the applicant was requested to revise the design of the new build’s complex material palette and bulk and scale to minimise adverse impact on the significance of the adjacent registered place.

• The revised design, and accompanying Justification Report, adequately addresses our comments. The new build’s simpler glazed materiality and set back of the bulk at ground floor level allows a greater visual appreciation of the south-west elevation of 26-28 Norfolk Street, Fremantle.

• Drawing PO3 Rev B also illustrates that a 3 storey scale development in this streetscape is not out of context and due to its positioning the registered building will maintain its corner landmark status.

Advice Based on the comments provided above, we can confirm that we do not have any objection to the proposed development on the condition (as per our September 2015 advice) that a Dilapidation Survey of 26-28 Norfolk Street is prepared by an appropriately qualified professional and submitted to the State Heritage Officer prior to the application for a Building Permit.”

Refer to Attachment 2 for full copy of SHO advice. City’s Heritage Department A heritage assessment of the proposed development was required to be undertaken in accordance with L.P.P. 1.6 Preparing Heritage Assessments as the property is identified and adopted by the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Management Category Level 3. The City’s internal heritage comment was finalised on 15 October 2015, with the following recommendations made in respect to the proposed development:

• The degree of positive and negative impact on the place in terms of its heritage significance is:

Page 59


House, 24 Norfolk Street Fremantle is an example of World War ll modest rendered and painted brick former house which does have limited historic value as a representative a house built during the austerity of the war period. However, the place is no longer used as a residence, due to its limited physical significance the place has been determined of ‘limited’ significance in its own right and within the streetscape context. Therefore, in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Scheme 4 Clause 5.15, Council may grant planning approval for demolition. Overall, the proposed development is considered acceptable on heritage grounds with the following conditions: • Prior to the commencement of development that further details are provided of the

proposed façade and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle;

• Following investigation of the original mortar and render method and materials and prior to the commencement of proposed conservation works to the boundary wall to 26-28 Norfolk Street that further details are provided and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, Fremantle;

• That the proposed gate between 24 Norfolk Street and 26-28 Norfolk Street is not

attached to the heritage building;

• Prior to commencement of the development an archaeological investigation of the subject site shall be undertaken at the applicant’s expense in accordance with Clause 7.7.3 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4. The findings of this investigation including a report shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Fremantle.

• An archival record will be prepared and submitted to the City of Fremantle for

approval before the commencement of any works. The archival record should consist of the following:

• Measured Drawings

The measured drawings should be sketch standard, freehand drawings will be accepted provided they are neat and clearly presented. All drawings should be approximately to scale, with key dimensions shown.

• Site plan (1:500 or 1:200)

• Floor plan/s (1:100 or 1:50)

All documents are to be of A4 size or folded into A4 size.

• Photographs

Digital photographs are to be taken of the building (once vacated). Photographs are to be in colour, of a high quality, and are to show the current state of the place. Each image should be clearly labelled, with a description of what is depicted in the photograph and the date it was taken. The photographs are to include:

Page 60


i) a general/overall photograph of the building to be demolished, showing its setting including the streetscape;

ii) photographs of the four external facades, all rooms and any special architectural features;

iii) the plans are to show the position, direction and number of each photograph.

Note: It is recommended that for the next City of Fremantle review of the Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) that the 24 Norfolk Street be removed from the Heritage List and be updated and retained on the MHI for historic purposes.

Refer to Attachment 3 for a full copy of the internal heritage assessment. Fremantle Ports The application was referred to Fremantle Ports, given that the subject site is located within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port Buffer, and the following comments were provided: The requirements of the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.3 – Port Buffer Area Design Guidelines (LPP 2.3) for Area 2 will be applicable to the development; specifically in regard to the built form of the development and the registration of a notification or memorial on the title of the subject lot. It would be appreciated if these requirements could be included as conditions of approval. Conditions of approval reflecting this advice are recommended. Refer to Attachment 4 for a full copy of the Fremantle Ports submission. Parks and Landscape Management The proposal was referred to the City’s Parks and Landscape Management department due to the proximity of a large Norfolk pine tree to the subject site. The following comments were made in relation to the proposal: No excavation (is) to occur on the verge around the mature Norfolk pine during building works. If the need arises that excavation work is required on the verge, Council officer to be onsite to observe works. Any minor limb reduction over the property requires Council approval and Council to undertake.

An advice note is provided to inform the applicant of this requirement. Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, due to a number of discretions being sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 8 October 2015, the City had received 8 submissions. The following issues (summarised) were raised:

• The proposed three storey development presents an excessive height, bulk and

scale when considering the existing heights of development along Norfolk Street.

Page 61


• The development would have a negative impact on the heritage character of the immediate area, particularly in respect to the adjoining state heritage listed building.

• The car parking allocation and manoeuvring space provided is inadequate in the context of the development overall.

These concerns are discussed in further detail in the “Planning Comment” section of this report. The plans were not readvertised to affected neighbours given that the changes were minor in nature and were mostly consistent with the original version of the plans.

PLANNING COMMENT

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 City Centre Zone The site is zoned ‘City Centre’ under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS 4). Clause 4.2.1(b) of LPS4 identifies the objectives of the ‘City Centre’ zone as follows: “Development in the city centre zone shall –

(i) Provide for a full range of shopping, office, administrative, social, recreation, entertainment and community services, consistent with the region-serving role of the centre and including residential uses, and

(ii) Comply with the objectives of local planning area 1 of schedule 12,

(iii) Conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by

development Clause 5.15 Demolition of Buildings and Structures Clause 5.15 of LPS4 states:

5.15.1 Council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

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

(b) does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage

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

5.15.2 In considering an application under 5.15.1, Council shall have regard to any heritage assessment required under Clause 7.4.

‘Cultural Heritage Significance’ is defined under Schedule 1 of LPS4 and has the same meaning as in the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1995: “[M]eans, in relation to a place, the relative value which that place has in terms of its aesthetic, historic, scientific, or social significance, for the present community and future generations”.

Page 62


As detailed in the comments provided by SHO and the City’s internal heritage department, the proposed demolition is considered to be supportable on heritage grounds, given that the existing building is determined to be of ‘limited’ significance, and it’s compatibility with the adjoining heritage listed site. Furthermore, the current building, as stated in the heritage comment, is not considered to make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality in which it is located. The following is an excerpt from the internal heritage assessment which details the reasoning in relation to the above: House, 24 Norfolk Street, is a typical modest rendered and painted brick and tile single storey former residence built 1940/41.The house is considered of no particular architectural merit and also has limited aesthetic value in terms of its remaining significant fabric, or contribution to the streetscape and the surrounding area. It has limited historic value as a modest single storey house built during World War ll. Also there is a loss of associations as the place is no longer being used as a residence. Due to the loss of physical fabric the heritage values are no longer embodied in the place. Therefore it can be determined that the house and associated outbuildings are of ‘limited significance’. Furthermore, the classification of the heritage significance has been guided by The Criteria for the Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas. This particular document was not available at the time of the previous assessment of the site, and due to the criteria provided in this documentation, this current heritage assessment has differed, resulting in the determination of 24 Norfolk Street being of limited heritage significance. On the basis of the above, the proposed demolition is considered to satisfy clause 5.15.1 of LPS4, and therefore the demolition is deemed to be supportable. Residential Design Codes 6.3.1 – Outdoor living areas (balcony)

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

Area Minimum of 10m² with a minimum dimension of 2.4m

3.84m² - 17m2, minimum dimension

of 1.2m (Studio Units) – 2.0m (2 bedroom units)

Up to 6.16m² and 0.4 - 1.2m minimum

dimension

The proposed outdoor living areas are considered to be supportable for the following reasons:

• The balconies afforded to the studio units are capable of use in conjunction with a habitable room of the dwelling, given that the outdoor living area is to be directly accessible from the living room and kitchen spaces.

• The balconies to the studi units are oriented towards the north and as such, allow for the infiltration of winter sun throughout the dwellings.

Page 63


• While it is recognised that the outdoor living area itself is relatively small considering the deemed-to-comply requirement, the space is deemed to provide a suitable area in the context of the overall floor area of the studio dwellings.

• While the 2 bedroom unit balcony has a 2.0m minimum dimension where the deemed t comply provisions require 2.4, the total balcony size is 17.0m2 which is well in excess of the 10m2 deemed to comply requirement.

It should be noted that the City has previously supported outdoor living areas with an area substantially less than the deemed-to-comply, with an example being 81 Queen Victoria Street, which had a number of outdoor living areas approved below 10m². The smallest outdoor living area in this application was 4.32m² (ref. DA0001/13). 6.3.3 – Parking


Multiple Dwellings 8 (6+1.5) 2 6 Office 3 0 3

The proposed car parking allocation is considered to be supportable for the following reasons: • The office and residential car parking provision is supported under clauses 5.7.3.1 (a)

(i) and (ii) of LPS4. Clause 5.7.3.1 (a) of LPS4 is as follows:

5.7.3.1 Council may: (a) Subject to the requirements of Schedule 12*, waive or reduce the standard parking requirement specified in Table 3 subject to the applicant satisfactorily justifying a reduction due to one or more of the following:

(i) the availability of car parking in the locality including street parking, (ii) the availability of public transport in the locality, (iii) any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces

by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces,

(iv) any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land,

(v) legal arrangements have been made in accordance with clause 5.7.5 for the parking or shared use of parking areas which are in the opinion of the Council satisfactory,

(vi) any credit which should be allowed for a car parking demand deemed to have been provided in association with a use that existed before the change of parking requirement,

(vii) the proposal involves the restoration of a heritage building or retention of a tree or trees worthy of preservation,

(viii) any other relevant considerations. • In relation to clause 5.7.3.1 (a) above, the subject site is located within close

proximity to the ‘CAT’ bus service on South Terrace, situated approximately 600m

Page 64


from a train station along the Fremantle line, and has numerous nearby car parking sites, including, but not limited to;

o The Henderson Street (Queensgate) parking facility, which contains 850 bays, is 250 metres from 24 Norfolk Street;

o Parking at the corner of Marine Terrace and Norfolk Street; o Fremantle Hospital parking.

A study conducted by Luxmoore in 2012 found that there were 944 car parking bays available for public use within Precinct 6, in which Norfolk Street is located. However, it is noted that out of these 944 public car parking bays, only 7% (66), at the time of the study, were vacant at peak demand. 6.3.4 – Design of car parking spaces


Manoeuvring space For a car bay width of 2.4m – ‘apron’ width of 7m (as per AS.2890.1).

6.3m

0.7m

The proposed manoeuvring space is considered to be supportable for the following reasons; • The car parking manoeuvring space provided is considered to provide an adequate

space for vehicles to enter and exit, albeit with an increased number of turns. However, the required number of turns is still deemed to provide convenient, accessible and secure parking for residents. In addition, the increased garage width space to either side of the bays allows for flexibility in manoeuvring in that vehicles are able to adjust the movement of the turning circle with less of an impediment than if the opening was narrower.

• The car parking facilities are to have a negligible impact on the streetscape, given that the proposed garage is to be constructed at the rear of the site.

6.4.3 – Dwelling size


Minimum plot ratio area for each dwelling

40m²

32.25m² for the Studio Dwellings

(excluding balconies)

7.66m²

The proposed dwelling size for the studio dwellings is considered to be supportable for the following reason; • Each dwelling within the development is considered to be of a sufficient size to cater

for the needs of residents. Whilst it is acknowledged that the size of the studio dwellings is, in comparison to the two bedroom dwellings, significantly more confined,

Page 65


the dwellings are still able to provide essential facilities such as a kitchen, bathroom and a living area.

• The development proposes 6 multiple dwellings, with two of these being two bedroom dwellings and the remainder being studio dwellings. Taking into account the overall size of the development, such a level of diversity is considered to provide a reasonable range of dwellings types and sizes.

6.4.6 – Utilities and facilities


Lockable storage area Accessible from outside the dwelling,

with a minimum dimension of 1.5m and at least 4m².

Not accessible from outside the

dwelling, minimum

dimension of 1.05m and a

1.44m².

0.45m,not

accessible from outside the dwelling

and 2.66m².

The proposed storage areas are considered to be supportable for the following reasons; • The storage areas provided on the balconies for each are considered to provide a

sufficient space for the residents, despite not being accessible from outside the dwelling.

• The location of the storage areas is deemed to be both secure and convenient for residents to access.

The storage areas are incorporated into the balconies in such a way so as to be partially screened from view when positioned outside the dwelling. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is considered to be consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Diverse and Affordable Housing Policy:


Economic Development Strategy 2011 -15: • More residents; more commercial office space; more retail floor space;

particularly in the Fremantle CBD. • New commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing employment

opportunities. Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

• New commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing employment opportunities.

• More affordable and diverse (mixed use) housing option for a changing and growing population.

• Provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting development and renewal in designated precincts within the City.

Page 66



MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a three (3) storey mixed used development at No. 24 (Lot 66) Norfolk Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 4 November 2015, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 4 November 2015. 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.

Notwithstanding condition 1, the proposed gate between 24 Norfolk Street and 26-28 Norfolk Street is not to be attached to the heritage building, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

otherwise approved, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to the commencement of development an archaeological investigation is

to be undertaken by a suitably qualified person at the applicant’s expense and a copy of the report of that investigation is submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to commencement of development, further details are to be provided

detailing the proposed works to boundary wall to 26-28 Norfolk Street that specifically address the original mortar and render methods, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the design and materials of the

development shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy L.P.P2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

a) Glazing to windows and other openings shall be laminated safety glass

of minimum thickness of 6mm or “double glazed” utilising laminated or toughened safety glass of a minimum thickness of 3mm.

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

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

6. Prior to commencement of development, an archival record is to be made of the

building to be demolished and submitted to the City of Fremantle for approval, and shall include:

Page 67


a) A site plan prepared at 1:200 scale, floor plan(s) of the building and four elevations prepared at 1:100 scale.

b) Digital photographs taken of the building (once vacated) to include: i) a general/overall photo of the building to be demolished; ii) photos of each of the four elevations; iii) internal photos of all rooms; and iv) photos of any special architectural features.

Advice Note

(i) For any excavation work or construction activity occurring in close proximity to the Norfolk pine in the road reserve, please contact the City’s Parks and Gardens department on 9432 9999.

(ii) In relation to the archaeological investigation condition, please refer to

Local Planning Policy 2.7 - Archaeological Investigation As A Condition Of Planning Approval.


Page 68


At 6:09 pm Cr I Waltham declared a financial interest in item number PC1608 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. PC1608 ELLEN STREET, NO. 39 (LOT 31), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY

SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0436/15) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 January 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development plans

2 – Site photos 3 – Heritage comment 4 – Updated heritage comments 5 – State Heritage Office comments

Date Received: 9 September 2015; 1 December 2015 (amended plans)

Owner Name: LJ Green & J Davies Submitted by: Atrium Homes (WA) Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential (R35) Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for the development of a vacant site as a two storey Single House fronting Ellen Street, Fremantle. The application is presented to the Planning Committee (PC) on the basis of objections received during the community consultation period.

Page 69


The application seeks discretionary assessment against and local planning policies in relation to lot boundary setbacks (including boundary walls).. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant planning criteria and is therefore supported. The proposal is also seeking design principle assessment in relation to garage door width and visual privacy under the R-Codes. The proposal is considered supportable in relation to garage door width, and also in relation to visual privacy. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the southern side of Ellen Street between Stirling Street and Parry Street, Fremantle, opposite Fremantle Park and adjacent to Christian Brothers College. The subject site is zoned Residential under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) but Central City under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The subject site is coded R35 and is located within the Fremantle Local Planning Area as specified on the scheme map of LPS4. The subject site is not heritage listed but is located adjacent to No. 37 Ellen Street, which is adopted on the City’s Heritage List (and given a management category of Level 1B under the City’s Municipal Inventory of Heritage Places) and No. 41-51 Ellen Street, being part of Christian Brothers College, which is included on the State Heritage List. DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Single House fronting Ellen Street, Fremantle, including;

• A ground floor area containing two bedrooms, activity room, service areas and a garage structure with access via Ellen Street; and,

• An upper floor containing an additional bedroom area, main living areas and a balcony to Ellen Street.

On 1 December 2015 the City received amended development plans in order to address concerns raised by the City’s heritage department. Development plans (as amended) are included in this report at Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance the relevant provisions contained within LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. The proposed development seeks design principles assessments relating to the following deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes;

Page 70


• Lot boundary setbacks (including boundary walls); Not meeting the deemed-to-comply criteria cannot be used as a reason to refuse an application. Further discussion of these elements is included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 due to policy discretions and R Codes design principles assessment being sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 30 September 2015, the City had received 1 submission foreshadowing a more detailed submission. On 28 October 2015 the City received the more detailed submission, which raised objections to the proposal. The objection is summarised as follows;

• The adjoining place at No. 37 Ellen Street is heritage listed and the proposal prevents access to the boundary wall. This will impede maintenance of this important wall;

• The proposal will impact on air-vents to the side wall of No. 37 Ellen Street. These vents allow for airflow to the wall;

• Construction of the boundary wall will impede adequate access to light and ventilation to the adjoining site;

• The proposed garage is not consistent with the character of the street and adjoining sites and is a dominant feature;

• The height of the building means there will be a restriction on light access to the rear of No. 37 Ellen Street;

• It is recommended the design be reversed to provide the boundary wall to the opposite side boundary.

Further discussions of the relevant planning issues are made in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. Heritage department (internal) The application was referred to the City’s Heritage Planner as the site adjoins No. 37 Ellen Street, which is included on the City’s Heritage List and given a management on the City’s Municipal Inventory of Heritage Places of ‘Level 1B’. The advice of the Heritage Planner (provided at Attachment 3) is as follows;

• The design of the proposed dwelling is unsympathetic to the character of the established streetscape;

• The form of the design reads as a collection of parts instead of a simple unified composition;

• The streetscape would benefit greatly from the redesign of the proposal that better reflects the simple character of buildings in the streetscape;

Page 71


• The proposed boundary wall will impede access to the adjoining boundary wall at No. 37 Ellen Street. Restricted access will impact the ability to properly maintain the wall and potentially cause damage over time.

The applicant subsequently submitted amended plans on 1 December 2015 after meeting with the City’s heritage planners in light of the concerns raised. The amended plans have been reviewed by the City’s heritage planners whom provided the following comments:

“…I have viewed the amended plans that have noted that there is an improvement on the design of the front façade. There is a preference for the front to be symmetrical rather than angled, however overall the proposed residence showing a front balcony extending across the front is more appropriate to the streetscape and the proposal can be supported on heritage grounds.”

The amended proposal is therefore now supported on heritage grounds. State Heritage Office The application was referred to the State Heritage Office (SHO) as the subject site adjoins places include on the State register of heritage places. On 9 November 2015, the SHO provided the following comments;

“Findings • The proposal is for a two storey residence, to be constructed at 39 Ellen Street,

Fremantle, adjacent to Christian Brothers College. • The house will be face and rendered brick and tile, in a contemporary style. • The house is adjacent to a modern portion of the school buildings, which separate

it from the older, heritage listed portion. • The house will not have a negative impact on the cultural significance of Christian

Brothers College. Advice The proposed development, in accordance with the plans submitted, is supported.”

Infrastructure Projects and Delivery The application was referred to the City’s Infrastructure Projects and Delivery department for comment. The department advised that approval of the proposed development would result in the loss of at least 1 existing on-street car bay. PLANNING COMMENT

5.1.3 Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design

Principle assessment

Page 72


West Walls built up to or within 600mm of a boundary behind the front setback line within the following limits; (b) where the wall is proposed to abut an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of similar or greater dimensions.

2.8m long x up to 6.7m high, 0.3m from the western boundary

See comments.

The proposed western boundary wall is of similar dimensions to an existing boundary wall on the adjoining site at No. 37 Ellen Street (see Attachment 2). Design element 5.1.3 and the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary walls in residential developments (LPP2.4) specify that walls proposed to existing boundary walls meet the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. The proposed boundary wall is of a lesser height (6.7m proposed while the adjoining wall measures approximately 7.2m) but a greater length. The proposed wall will extend approximately 2.8m further south along the western boundary than the adjoining boundary wall. The proposed western boundary wall is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways;

• The proposed boundary wall does not result in a loss of access to daylight or direct sunlight owing to its location of the western boundary. The additional 2.8m long section of wall partially abuts a further section of single storey boundary wall on the adjoining site;

• The boundary wall is not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or building bulk at it affects only a small portion of the boundary and the rest of the development is sufficiently setback from this boundary; and,

• The boundary wall does not impact on any views of significance or existing significant vegetation.

5.2.2 Garage width Deemed-to-comply Provided Design

Principle assessment

Where a garage is located in front of a dwelling, the door and supporting structures facing the primary street is not to occupy more than 60% (6.4m) of the frontage at the setback line as view from the street.

61% (6.5m) 1% (0.1m)

The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

• The visual connectivity between the street and the dwelling is maintained. Views from major openings and the entry to the dwelling to the street are provided;

Page 73


• The width of the garage structure is only marginally above the deemed-to-comply requirement to that it is considered indistinguishable to a proposal that otherwise meets the criteria.

• The additional 0.1m garage door width is virtually indistinguishable from a garage door that meets the deemed to comply requirements of the R Codes as viewed from the street,

5.4.1 Visual privacy

Deemed-to-comply Proposed Design principle assessment

6.0m setback to western boundary from upper floor scullery (southern elevation) within 45 degree cone of vision

~1.0m 5.0m

The proposal is considered to satisfy the design principles for the following reasons:

• Overlooking is likely to affect the rear-most portion of the western adjoining property, being No. 37 Ellen Street, with overlooking occurring over an outbuilding roof, and rear vegetated area which does not appear to be the outdoor living area of that property.

• It is noted that no major openings to the western adjoining property will be overlooked.

Easement The subject site is burdened by an easement which specifies that eaves and gutters overhang the subject site by 0.39m. Based on the 0.3m setback and lower wall height proposed, the proposed development does not affect the gutters and eaves. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The application has no strategic implications. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two storey Single House at No. 39 (Lot 31) Ellen Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans,

dated 1 December 2015. 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 new/modified vehicle crossover shall be separated from any verge infrastructure

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

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

Page 74


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

3. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern boundary shall be

of a clean finish in either;

• coloured sand render; • face brick; • painted surface; or, • other approved finish and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.

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

approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. COMMITTEE DECISION

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that indicate a more sympathetic facade design having regard to the heritage streetscape. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson Cr Josh Wilson

Page 75


Cr I Waltham returned to the meeting at 7:07 pm. PC1609 DOURO ROAD, NO. 31 (LOT 27), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO

STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0538/15) ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 January 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site photographs Date Received: 16 November 2015 Owner Name: Frances Spence & Walter Wilson-Ramirez Submitted by: Arcologic Design Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D

Page 76


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 31 Douro Road, South Fremantle. The application has been assessed against the requirements of Local Planning Policies, Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and requires Design Principle and/or discretionary assessment against a number of design elements which include -

• Lot boundary setback (south); • Boundary wall (south); • Visual privacy; and • Solar access for adjoining sites.

The application was advertised to neighbouring landowners for comment, with three (3) submissions received. Due to the objections received, the application is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) for determination. Additionally, while the Officers Recommendation is for approval, this is on balance, due to the lot boundary setback and overshadowing. BACKGROUND

No. 31 Douro Road, is located on the southern side of Douro Road, South Fremantle. The street block is bound by Douro Road to the north, Daly Street to the east, Thomas Street to the west and Development Area 2 (South Fremantle Landfill sites) to the south. The lot is zoned Residential R25, and is located in the South Fremantle Heritage Area. It is not on the City’s Heritage List or MHI and is currently occupied by a Single House, which is proposed to remain as part of this development. A search of the property file revealed no relevant planning history for the site. DETAIL

On 16 November 2015, the City received an application for the addition of a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No.31 Douro Road, South Fremantle. The proposal includes the following –

• Two storey Grouped Dwelling; o Living/kitchen/dining; o 2x bedrooms; o Studio; o Laundry.

• One (1) car bay; • Drying court; • Alfresco area.

The applicant provided amended plans dated 17 December 2015 that have made the following changes –

Page 77


• Alteration to roof form (i.e. partial slope to allow further access to sunlight to the southern property),

• Increase in lot boundary setback to southern boundary; • Reduction in building height by 100mm; • Increase in privacy screening to upper floor balcony.

Development plans are included as attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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

• Boundary walls (south); • Lot boundary setback (south); • Visual privacy; • Solar access for adjoining sites.

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

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the application is seeking Design Principle assessments and discretion against the following design elements –

• Boundary walls (south); • Lot boundary setback (south); • Visual privacy; • Solar access for adjoining sites.

At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 11 December 2015, the City had received three (3) submissions. The following issues were raised (summarised):

• Deep concerns of the significant negative impact the proposed development

poses. • Strongly object to double storey dwelling this close to the boundary; • Unacceptable to build on the boundary. • Whole backyard would be virtually overshadowed – would result in

compromised gardening and compromised lifestyle.

Page 78


• All windows regardless of size should be frosted. • Suffer monetary losses from devaluation of our property and a compromised

future development potential. • Overshadowed in the afternoon, reducing sunlight - have plans for pool and

entertaining area in my backyard. • Restriction of westward view from my alfresco. • Obstruction of light. • Noise impacts from the close proximity of the property. • Privacy concerns. • Lack of adequate car parking will increase congestion on Douro Road.

As a result of submissions, the applicant chose to amend the plans.

PLANNING COMMENT

Lot boundary setback Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle

Assessment South (upper floor) – 2m 1.4m 600mm The proposed upper floor setback is supported for the following reasons:

• The southern sites (No. 53 Daly Street) primary outdoor living area is at the rear of the existing house, and does not about the development site.

• Major openings will not be impacted given the house does not abut the development site, allowing for the amount of sunlight and ventilation to these openings is not impacted by the reduced setback;

• Visual privacy is not impacted by the reduced setback. Notwithstanding the above reasons, building bulk is increased by the reduced setback and while the rear of the adjoining lot is currently occupied by a vegetable garden it has the potential to be subdivided and developed in the future.

Page 79


For the reasons listed above, the lot boundary setback is considered supportable on balance. Boundary walls Deemed to Comply Provided Discretion South (ground floor laundry) – 1m 0 1m The proposed southern boundary wall is for a laundry, and measures 3.6m long x 3.2m high. The proposed boundary wall is supported for the following reasons:

• The single storey boundary wall occupies only 6% of the 56m long northern boundary of the adjoining site;

• The boundary wall will not abut an existing outdoor living area or major openings and will therefore not impact on the access of direct sunlight and ventilation;

• Given the laundry is a non-habitable room, the impact of privacy on the neighbouring landowner is considered to be minimal;

• The single storey boundary wall is not considered to create a significant loss of amenity for the adjoining landowner;

• Given the boundary wall is to the rear of the site, and will not be visible from the street, the impact on the streetscape is nil.

Solar access for adjoining sites Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle

Assessment R25 – 25% reduced proportionate to percentage of the affected properties northern boundary =8.29% (83.89sqm)

11.5% (116sqm)

3.21% (32sqm)

The proposed level of shadow able to be thrown on the adjoining site under the Deemed to Comply requirements of the R-Codes is reduced from the normal R25 requirement, as the southern site (53 Daly Street), shares its northern boundary with two lots (31 Douro, and 53a Daly). Ordinarily, a R25 zoned property has a 25% figure to work with, which on the southern site, equates to 253sqm. In this instance, due to the shared lot boundary, No. 31 Daly Street is only able to overshadow 8.29% (or 83.89sqm) to meet the Deemed to Comply. As a result of submissions received, the applicant chose to amend the plans that resulted in a change in the overshadowing from 13.3% (135sqm) to 11.5% (116sqm). It is considered that the level of solar access provided to the southern site can be supported for the following reasons on balance:

• The portion of the site overshadowed is currently occupied by a vegetable garden, and will not impact on an outdoor living area or major openings;

• The shadow will not be thrown on any roof mounted solar collectors; • The other site to the north of the affected property is occupied by a Single House,

setback over 5m from the boundary, significantly reducing the amount of shadow currently thrown on the existing Single House.

Page 80


Notwithstanding the above, PSC could form the view that the level of shadow thrown is not acceptable given that it will impact on the rear yard of No. 53 Daly Street and vegetable garden (which could be considered active open space) of the adjoining site. It is acknowledged, that No. 53 Daly Street has the potential to be subdivided and developed in the future. It is anticipated that the northern portion of the site would be allocated for outdoor living area’s, however at the time of writing this report, the City has not received plans or applications for the development of this portion of the site. It should be noted however, that the Design Principles of the R-Codes, do not refer to future developments on site, rather specifically refers to “existing” outdoor living areas, habitable rooms and solar collectors, none of which currently exist on this portion of the site. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Diverse and Affordable Housing Policy:


Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: • More affordable and diverse (mixed use) housing option for a changing and

growing population. • Provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting

development and renewal in designated precincts within the City. CONCLUSION AND ALTERNATIVE OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION Notwithstanding that while City officers have assessed the application and believe that the development is supportable against relevant Design Principles on balance, should PSC wish to determine otherwise, the following alternative recommendation is provided – That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 31 (Lot 27) Douro Road, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 17 December 2015, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes

in respect to the upper floor southern lot boundary setback and solar access for adjoining sites.

Page 81



MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 31 (Lot 27) Douro Road, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 17 December 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

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

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

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

4. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0538/15, on plans dated 17 December 2015 the balconies on located on the north elevation shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

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

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

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

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

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

of Fremantle.

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

Page 82


Advice note: i. The applicant is advised, that while screening is shown in the correct position on

the plans, as limited detail has been provided in terms of its compliance, a condition of approval has been recommended to ensure the screening installed meets R-Code requirements.

COMMITTEE DECISION

Cr J Strachan MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit amended plans to increase the upper floor southern setback and decrease overshadowing. CARRIED: 5/1 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Josh Wilson

Page 83


PC1610 STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL S31 RECONSIDERATION TERRENE LANE, NO. 14 (LOT 125), OCONNOR TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0128/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 January 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1507-10 – 8 July 2015 Attachments: 1. Development Plans (as amended)

2. Supporting documentation from applicant re: overshadowing 3. Previous PC report (PSC1507-10 – 8 July 2015) 4. Additional supporting documentation from applicant re: overshadowing (received 24 December 2015)

Date Received: 20 August 2015 (SAT application received); 22 December 2015 (amended plans)

Owner Name: KL Short and LJ Short Submitted by: Building Lines Approvals Pty Ltd Scheme: Development Area 8 (Residential R40) Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘A’

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented before the Planning Committee (PC) in the form of a section 31 reconsideration as ordered by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

Page 84


At its meeting held 8 July 2015, the PC considered an application for two storey dwelling and resolved as follows: “That the application be REFUSED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 125) Terrene Lane, O’Connor, as detailed on plans dated 3 June 2015, for the following reasons;

1. The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 1.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy in relation to the upper floor setback of the proposal. The setback is inconsistent with clause 1.2(i) & (ii) of Local Planning Policy 2.9 in so far as it is inconsistent with the prevailing streetscape character and represents a projecting element into the established street setback line.

2. The proposal does not meet the design principles of design element 5.4.2 of

the R-Codes. The proposal will result in an impact on amenity by way of light restriction to outdoor living areas and major openings on the adjoining site.

3. The proposal does not meet the design principles of design element 5.2.2 of

the R-Codes in so far as the width of the garage proposed is considered to dominate the streetscape.

4. The proposal is considered inconsistent with clause 10.2(f), (i), (o), (s) and

(w) of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 having regard to the compatibility of the development within its setting.”

On 20 August 2015, the Applicant made an application to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) for review of the PC’s decision. The original proposal considered by PC at its meeting of 8 July 2015 included a number of discretionary decisions and design principle assessments, including:

• Primary street setback (ground and upper floor) (Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy);

• Solar access; • Open space; • Boundary walls (Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential

Development); • Garage width; and, • Lot boundary setbacks.

All were ultimately either supported by the City and/or PC with exception of the following three matters, which formed the reasons for the refusal of the application:

• Overshadowing; • Upper floor street setback; • Garage door width.

Of the above three matters, the amended proposal submitted as part of the SAT mediation is now considered supportable in relation to the upper floor street

Page 85


setback (subject to a condition to reduce its bulk) as well as garage door width. In relation to overshadowing, it is acknowledged that the design has been revised to improve the situation, however it is still not considered, on-balance, that the amended proposal satisfies the design principles. Accordingly the application is, on-balance recommended for refusal. It is also acknowledged that based on previous SAT decisions, the City may have difficulty in defending this should it proceed to a full hearing at SAT. BACKGROUND

At its meeting held 8 July 2015, the PC considered a planning application for a two storey dwelling and resolved as follows: “That the application be REFUSED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 125) Terrene Lane, O’Connor, as detailed on plans dated 3 June 2015, for the following reasons;

1. The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 1.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy in relation to the upper floor setback of the proposal. The setback is inconsistent with clause 1.2(i) & (ii) of Local Planning Policy 2.9 in so far as it is inconsistent with the prevailing streetscape character and represents a projecting element into the established street setback line.

2. The proposal does not meet the design principles of design element 5.4.2 of the R-Codes. The proposal will result in an impact on amenity by way of light restriction to outdoor living areas and major openings on the adjoining site.

3. The proposal does not meet the design principles of design element 5.2.2 of the R-Codes in so far as the width of the garage proposed is considered to dominate the streetscape.

4. The proposal is considered inconsistent with clause 10.2(f), (i), (o), (s) and (w) of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 having regard to the compatibility of the development within its setting.”

Subsequently, on 20 August 2015, the Applicant made an application to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) for review of the PC’s decision. Since the SAT review was lodged, as part of the SAT proceedings, the following has transpired:

• 28 August 2015 – City advise submitters to DA0128/15 of SAT appeal; • 2 September 2015 - Directions hearing at SAT; • 14 October 2015 – Mediation held on-site, followed by reconvening at the City’s

offices; • By 11 November 2015 – applicant to submit amended plans and supporting

information to the respondent (the City). This was undertaken; • By 25 November 2015 – the respondent is to provide comment on the revised

plans. This was undertaken; • 8 December 2015 – Mediation held at SAT; • By 11 December 2015 – the applicant is to provide additional information to the

City; • 16 December 2015 – Mediation held at SAT; • By 21 December 2015 – applicant to submit amended plans to the City for

reconsideration. This was undertaken;

Page 86


• Pursuant to s 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the respondent is invited to reconsider its decision on or before 27 January 2016. It is noted that upon submission of the amended plans to the City by 21 December 2015, and in order to meet the SAT order, the application is being considered by the PC at its meeting of 13 January 2016.

On 24 December 2015, the applicant submitted additional supporting plans and information which substantiates and supports their arguments in relation to the design principle assessment, particularly in relation to overshadowing. These plans and information are contained as Attachment 4. Further background information is included in the report previously considered by PC on 8 July 2015 which is included in Attachment 3. DETAIL On 18 March 2015, the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a two storey Single House at No. 14 Terrene Lane, O’Connor. The application history is outlined in the background section above, including PC’s original resolution and the subsequent SAT appeals process to date. The original proposal originally considered by PC at its meeting of 8 July 2015 included a number of discretionary decisions and design principle assessments, including:






Matters that were ultimately either supported by the City or PC do not warrant further discussion as part of this reconsideration; however they can be viewed in the report previously considered by PC on 8 July 2015 which is included in Attachment 3. The following amendments have been made to the plans dated 22 December 2015, since PC resolved to refuse the application at its meeting of 8 July 2015:

Permitted Refused Amended Change Overshadowing 35% 38%

(125.4m2) 36.6%

120.78m2) -1.4% (-4.62m2)

Upper floor street 10m 2.71m- 4.50m +1.79m-0.05m

Page 87


setback 4.495m Garage door width 60% 80% 80% No numerical

change. Aesthetics / design

only It is noted that the applicant has made substantial changes to the layout and design of the proposal since PC resolved to refuse the application at its meeting of 8 July 2015, and that they have duly considered recommendations made by the City’s officers, particularly in relation to the upper floor setback and the garage door width. A copy of the development plans (as amended) is contained within this report as Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Discretionary decisions and design principle assessment matters pertaining to PC’s original consideration and what is now being proposed has been discussed above in the ‘detail’ section of this report. A more detailed discussion of the above is provided in the 'Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The amended plans were not required to be readvertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS and given the timeframes provided for by SAT in relation to this application, specifically the time between the applicant submitting amended plans, the Christmas holiday period and when the City had to have its reconsideration report written, it didn’t offer the necessary 2 week time frame to allow this to occur. The City has informally offered the adjoining southern neighbour an opportunity to view the amended plans and provide comment within a period of less than 2 weeks. The following comments were provided:

1. We will be rejecting the new plans 2. The overshadowing is still a major issue. The end of both the first and second

stories are in line with the end of our roofline (i.e outdoor area). This completely blocks off sunlight to our outdoor living area and most of our garden.

3. This is in addition to the sunlight in our indoor entertainment area, kitchen and dining area being completely blocked through the windows that exist near the site boundary between the two properties.

Page 88


4. The overshadowing is above the limit of 35% and therefore we cannot see how it can be recommended for approval

PLANNING COMMENT

Solar access (overshadowing)

Deemed-to-comply Refused Amended Change R40 = 35% shadow cast, of site

area of adjoining property 38%

(125.4m2) 36.6%

(120.78m2) -1.4%

(-4.62m2) The amended proposal is, on-balance, not considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’, for the following reason:

• The proposal will overshadow a portion of the outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property;

During the SAT mediations, the City primarily focussed on protecting and reducing the extent of overshadowing of the rear outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property. Whilst it is acknowledged that the design principles seeks to protect overshadowing of major openings to habitable rooms, it is noted that the location of this particular major opening is towards the middle of the overall length of the southern adjoining dwelling. In this context, it is highly probable that any two storey dwelling, which would typically be located towards the middle of a dwelling, taking into account the requirements of LPP2.9, would likely completely cast a shadow over this particular area and whilst it may satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements in relation to solar access, it may completely overshadow major openings to habitable rooms in those areas. In this regard, the City considered the protection and reduction in the extent of overshadowing of the rear outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property as the most reasonable concern to drive changes to the design of the proposed dwelling. Notwithstanding the above, since the refusal of the application, the applicant has increased the upper floor setback to the southern boundary for the master beds’ walk-in-robe and ensuite by 1m, from 2.01m to 3.01m in an attempt to reduce the impact of overshadowing on the southern adjoining property. Put simply, the shadow affecting the rear of the southern adjoining property has been reduced in length for approximately 1m from the original plans, which ensures that the impact upon the outdoor living area is improved. A comparison of the upper floor plans considered by PC in July 2015 and the amended plans is below.

Page 89


Upon review of the approved development plans for the single house as contained within the southern adjoining property, it is apparent that that dwelling has a significant area at the rear which can be reasonably used, or be considered to be usable outdoor living area. This area is indicated in red in the image below. The area equates to approximately 70m2, which is considered substantial in the context of the density code of R40, which requires a minimum of only 20m2. Of the approximate area of 70m2, approximately 30.45m2 (or 43.5%) is covered by the rear alfresco roof area.

Page 90


Figure 4 - Red indicates are of usable OLA that could be used reasonably, based on approved development plans

It is further noted, if the applicant chose to amend the plans so as to satisfy the deemed-to-comply requirement of 35%, which they could have done by making setback changes towards the front of the dwelling (ie closer to Terrene Lane), the proposal would still overshadow the outdoor living area the same amount and the City could not legally refuse the application. The extent of the shadow cast by the proposal over the outdoor living area is approximately 2m2 greater than the shadow cast upon the outdoor living area by the existing 1.8m high dividing fence and the shadow cast by the dwelling on the southern adjoining property itself. PC may form the opinion that given the amount of usable outdoor living area is comparatively high in the context of the applicable density code, together with the changes made to the plans, that the proposal does now address the ‘design principles’, insofar that the development has since been redesigned so as to protect solar access to the southern adjoining properties outdoor living area. Should this be the case, the proposal would warrant approval. An appropriate alternative recommendation has been provided in the ‘conclusion’ section of this report. Street setback (upper floor only)

Required Refused Amended Change Minimum prescribed street setback for buildings with an external wall height of greater than 4 metres = 10m

2.71m-4.495m

4.50m +1.79m-0.05m

Clause 1.2 of LPP2.9 sets out the discretionary criteria:

Page 91


“Variations to the requirements of clause 1.1 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to the proposed development meeting at least one of the following criteria: i. The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of

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

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

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

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

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

The amended proposal sees an increased setback of the upper floor from 2.71m up to 4.50m, representing a minimum increase of 1.79m, which the City considers a significant improvement. It is worth noting that the sites located along Terrene Lane have a ‘restrictive covenant’ placed on the title pertaining to the orientation of any development upon those lots burdened. The restrictive covenant states as follows:

“Unless otherwise approved by the City not to permit, nor suffer to permit, development on the Land Burdened unless such development is designed to provide for a suitable interface and adequate surveillance of public open space, including without limitation low fencing and orientation towards public open space”.

The R-Codes defines the term ‘primary street’ as:

“Unless otherwise designated by the local government, the sole or principal public road that provides access to the major entry (front door) to the dwelling”.

Given that the restrictive covenant that is applicable to this site requires development to be orientated towards the park the City in the past with other developments along Terrene Lane with the same restrictions, has designated the public open space as being the ‘primary street’, which has resulted in Terrene Lane becoming more of a rear-loaded laneway. In the context of requiring compliance with the deemed standards of LPP2.9, being a 10m setback, this factor should be taken into consideration. The eastern side of Terrene Lane slopes by approximately 1.5m downwards from the south (near College Corner) down to the subject site. The subject site is also the northern-most residential lot on Terrene Lane (refer image below), with a vehicle turnaround area and open space reserve immediately to the north of the site. In this context, and combined with the changes made to the upper floor setback, it is considered that the proposal on balance now satisfies discretionary clause 1.2(ii), in that 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 and also the topography of the land.

Page 92


It could be argued however that as there is no other 2 storey developments in the “prevailing streetscape”, the upper floor does result in a projecting element in the streetscape. It is acknowledged however that 4 Terrene Lane is two storey with an upper floor front setback of approximately 5.6m.

The amended proposal does include ‘selected louvre screening’ to the southern elevation of the upper floor, front balcony which is considered to add to the bulk of the upper floor, particularly its impact upon the streetscape as viewed from the south towards the site, specifically in terms of its bulk. The City does not consider the proposed screening to be necessary to overcome any visual privacy concerns, and therefore does not provide any meaningful solution to a planning issue as prescribed by the R-Codes. In this regard, the City considers an acceptable solution as being the same balustrading as detailed on the northern elevation of the upper floor, front balcony on plans dated 22 December 2015. The City considers this solution to be open in design, lightweight and of minimal visual impact upon the streetscape. In the event that PC is of the same opinion, it would be recommended that the following condition be imposed on any planning approval:

“Prior to issue of a building permit, the southern elevation of the upper floor, front balcony be amended so as to have the same balustrading as detailed on the northern elevation of the upper floor, front balcony on plans dated 22 December 2015, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.”

Garage door width

Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

Garage door (and supporting structures) not to occupy more than 60% of the frontage

80% See comments

The proposal is now considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ for the following reasons:

• Terrene Lane itself is a narrow street, with no footpaths and an existing pattern of dwellings with double garages that are setback relatively closely to road itself;

• In light of the above, the introduction of variable finish and materials on either side of the garage door itself (ie on walls either side of the door) serve to visually break

Page 93


up the perceived impact of the door itself upon the streetscape. It is considered that the introduction of the variable finish and materials, particularly on the northern side of the garage door is also greatly assisted by the walls’ truncation towards the front door entrance, which provides added visual relief.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s Economic Development Strategy 2011-15; the proposed potentially increases the number of residents in the area. CONCLUSION

The original proposal originally considered by PC at its meeting of 8 July 2015 included a number of discretionary decisions and design principle assessments, including:






Of the above three matters, the amended proposal is now considered supportable in relation to the upper floor street setback (subject to a condition to reduce its bulk) as well as garage door width. In relation to overshadowing, it is acknowledged that the design has been revised to improve the situation, however it is still not considered, on-balance, that the amended proposal satisfies the design principles. The Planning Committee has on numerous occasions indicated particular sensitivities relating to overshadowing issues even on single storey proposals. The design principles of the R Codes allow a significant amount of scope in their interpretation from a very conservative interpretation (as has been the Committee’s in the recent past), to a very liberal one. Based on the Committee’s more conservative interpretation of the design principles relating to overshadowing, the application is, on-balance recommended for refusal. It is also acknowledged that based on previous SAT decisions, the City may have difficulty in defending this should it proceed to a full hearing at SAT. Alternative recommendation Should Council be willing to support the proposal in its current form, the following alternative recommendation is provided:

Page 94


That the application be APPROVED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 125) Terrene Lane, O’Connor at No. 14 (Lot 125) Terrene Lane, O’Connor, subject to the following conditions:

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

dated 22 December 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year prior, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the southern boundary shall be of a clean finish in either; • coloured sand render; • face brick; • painted surface; or, • other approved finish and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to issue of a building permit, the southern elevation of the upper floor, front balcony be amended so as to have the same balustrading as detailed on the northern elevation of the upper floor, front balcony on plans dated 22 December 2015, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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


MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be REFUSED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 125) Terrene Lane, O’Connor, as detailed on plans dated 22 December 2015, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not meet the design principles of design element 5.4.2 of the R-Codes. The proposal will result in an impact on amenity by way of light restriction to outdoor living area on the adjoining site.

2. The proposal is considered inconsistent with clause 10.2(i), (o) and (s) of Local

Planning Scheme No. 4 having regard to the compatibility of the development within its setting.

Page 95


Lost: 0/6 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr J Strachan MOVED the following alternative recommendation:

COMMITTEE DECISION

That the application be APPROVED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 14 (Lot 125) Terrene Lane, O’Connor at No. 14 (Lot 125) Terrene Lane, O’Connor, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 22 December 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year prior, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the southern boundary

shall be of a clean finish in either; • coloured sand render; • face brick; • painted surface; or, • other approved finish and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to issue of a building permit, the southern elevation of the upper floor, front balcony be amended so as to have the same balustrading as detailed on the northern elevation of the upper floor, front balcony on plans dated 22 December 2015, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

Page 96


CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Doug Thompson Cr Josh Wilson

Page 97


PC1611 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY (LPP) 2.14 REVIEW OF ADVERTISEMENT POLICY (ADVERTISING)

ECM Reference: 117/046 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Planning Committee 13 January 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC0901-13 (OCM 21 January 2009), PSC0907-131

(OCM 22 July 2009), PSC0907-132 (OCM 22 July 2009) and PSC1011-217 (PSC 3 November 2010)

Attachment 1: D.B.H6 Sign and Hoardings Planning Policy Attachment 2: Draft LPP2.14 - Advertisement Policy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council initiate Local Planning Policy 2.14 – Advertisements policy for the purpose of advertising. The objective the local planning policy is to provide guidance in assessing planning applications for advertisements that are not otherwise permitted under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4). Accordingly, it is recommended Council adopt Draft Local Planning Policy 2.14, option 1, for advertising. BACKGROUND

On the 7 June 2011, the West Australian Planning Commission approved Scheme Amendment No. 24 to the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (the Scheme).The Scheme amendment introduced into LPS4 new permitted development provisions for signage in clause 8.2 and Schedule 5, new definitions in Schedule 1 relating to signs and slightly modified clause 11.2, which deals with the removal and repair of existing advertisements. Whilst Scheme Amendment 24 has increased the number of circumstances where advertising signs are permitted, the current policy for assessing Planning Applications for Advertisement proposals (D.B.H6 Sign and Hoardings) has not been reviewed since 18 August 1997. On this basis it is considered appropriate to review the Local Planning Policy so as to better deal with planning applications for advertising signs in light of Scheme Amendment No.24. The City considers that DBH6 contains largely subjective assessment criteria which can make consistency in the decision making process more difficult. On the 18 October 2015, the Planning & Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (P&D Regs 2015) were gazetted, which introduced significant statutory legislative changes for Local Planning Schemes within Western Australia, including the process required for reviewing and/or adopting new local planning policies. In summary,

Page 98


when a Council wishes to adopt new local planning polices the required process is now prescribed in Schedule 2 part of the P&D Regs 2015 and not within the Scheme. The key differences with these statutory changes in terms of local planning policy adoption are:

• Introduction of deemed provision for all Local Planning Schemes; • Reduction in the minimum public consultation time from 28 days to 21 days; • Allows a local government to include exempt development provision to be

introduced into Local Planning Policies rather than the common scheme amendments processes.

CONSULTATION

If Council resolves to adopt the draft local planning policy recommended in this report for the purpose of advertising, the local planning policy will be advertised for public comment for 28 days by:

• Two consecutive notices in the local newspaper; • Details on the City’s web site; and • Letter to all precinct groups

PLANNING COMMENT

Where an advertisement is not exempt from the requirement to obtain planning approval in accordance with clause 8.2(d) or Schedule 5 of the Scheme, a planning application is required. The current policy is outdated, does not provide clear criteria for the assessment of signage applications or exempt any advertisements from requiring planning approval. On this basis, it is considered appropriate to review the local planning policy framework in relation to signage The draft policy provides essential definitions, visual diagrams whilst introducing a table for exempt advertisements. Definitions The draft policy introduces a number of definitions pertaining to various types of signage as defined in the Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) and the reviewed DBH6 – signage policy and most commonly located and proposed within the City. The following signage classes have been identified within the policy: • Awning Fascia or Verandah Fascia Sign; • Below Awning or Verandah Sign; • Building Identification Sign; • Free Standing Sign; • Illuminated Sign; • Pole or Pylon Sign; • Projecting Sign; • Roof Sign; • Wall or Facia Sign;

Page 99


• Window Sign, • Animated Sign; and • Other Sign Parameters for Signage In acknowledging that there is a multitude of different advertisement types, it is considered that it should not necessarily always be the individual type of advertisement that is assessed in terms of development control, but rather a proposal’s overall amenity impact upon a building, site or immediate locality. Therefore the draft policy includes five assessment categories as to when and how an assessment of advertisements proposal would occur.

1) General requirements for all advertisements requiring planning approval, 2) Specific requirements for various types of advertisements and when such

advertisements will be deemed acceptable, 3) Discretionary Criteria when a proposal doesn’t address all relevant criteria

prescribed in 2 above, 4) Additional criteria when advertisements relate to a heritage listed property, and 5) Exempt advertisements when planning approval would not be required on zoned

or reserved land under the Scheme. One of the main components of the draft policy is the introduction of parameters for each of the individual signage classes where signage is deemed acceptable. At present, the City’s D.B.H6 policy provisions are largely objective based, with limited specific criteria for the assessment of specific signage classes. Accordingly criteria will be provided for each of the various signage classes to provide for circumstances where signage is deemed to comply. With regards to specific content of various advertisements (i.e. words or symbols) this is not a planning matter which is assessed as part of a development application and is governed by the Advertising Standards Board, which forms part of the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB). It is also important to note that regardless of the planning process any member of the community in any medium can lodge a complaint with the ASB development application process. Related to the above matter, at the ordinary meeting of Council on 25 November 2015 it was resolved to form a Working Group on Reducing Alcohol Related Harm. One of the terms of reference for the working group is to give specific consideration to alcohol advertisements and signage in the City. This working group will report back to Council before 39 June 2016 with its recommendations. Two of the more significant changes to this section of the policy relate to animated signage and signage that do not relate to activities carried out on site. Animated signage in particular has been subject to robust debate at recent committee and council meetings. A definition of ‘animated signs’ has been included that refers to content that moves, includes flashing or chasing lights, video, LCD and variable/changing messages. Staff explored whether the policy should prohibit all animated signage or develop specific criteria that identified when animated signage may be supportable (for example in industrial areas). The criteria developed for supportable animated signage was

Page 100


considered however to be difficult to administer therefore the approach was taken to prohibit animated signage [Clause 1.1 (g)]. Should the Committee wish to include discretionary criteria to support animated signage in particular instance, these could read as follows: “Animated signs are deemed acceptable where: (a) Animated signs are within the ‘Industry’ zone, not adjoining or adjacent to Residential

zoned property under the Scheme or abutting any Primary / Other Regional Road Reservation.

(b) An Animated sign must be compatible with the character of the streetscape within which it is proposed. Such signs will generally not be permitted within a designated heritage area, or on or adjacent to a heritage significant registered place.

(c) An Animated sign must be designed as an integral part of a building or structure, but

will not generally be approved where it takes the form of a roof sign, pole sign or pylon sign.

(d) The most appropriate locations for Animated signs include internal to buildings or

external locations whereby the signs is not clearly visible from adjoining or adjacent street(s) by passing motorists, for whom may be a distraction and therefore a safety hazard.

(e) The contents of any sign may move but not flash or pulsate in a manner likely to

cause a hazard or nuisance to motorists or the occupants of neighbouring properties.”

1.1 (h) – prohibits signs that don’t relate to the subject site A common type of signage application that often is controversial is advertisements that do not relate to activities that occur on site. These range from advertisement’s for popular beverages and for sale signs for large development sites. Clause 1.1 (h) of the draft policy proposes that advertisements will not be approved on private land which include,

i. the name, logo, or symbol of a company or other organisation that does not own

or substantially occupy the site or building on which the advertisement is located, or

ii. a product or service not provided on the site on which the advertisement is located;

iii. a product or service that does not form part of the signage displaying the name, logo or symbol; of a company or other organisation that owns or substantially occupy the site or building on which the advertisement is located; or

iv. signs for an activity or event not occurring on the site on which the advertisement is located.

Discretionary Criteria

Page 101


In circumstances where an advertisement does not meet the general requirements outlined in the policy, the draft policy allows for a proposal to be assessed against the relevant discretionary criteria for every defined type of advertisement. This approach is consistent with several of the more recently adopted planning policies including LPP 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes (reviewed in 2014) and LPP 3.7 – Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct (reviewed 2011). The draft discretionary criteria of the policy states as follows:

“Council may vary the requirements outlined within Clause 2 where it can be demonstrated that the following can be met to the satisfaction of the Council:

(a) the cumulative effect of the signage does not negatively impact on the

surrounding locality by way of visual clutter; and

(b) The scale and design of the signage is subservient to the building to which it relates, are sized in proportion with parapets, panels, windows and wall areas within close proximity to the proposed sign so as to not dominate the view of the building from the street.”

Should the City be of the opinion that an advertisement fails to satisfy the general advertisement provisions, it would seek to ensure that the proposed advertisement meets the general expectations prescribed by the discretionary criteria above. It is acknowledged that there are circumstances whereby certain types of advertisements require a restriction or limitation on the term of how long they should be erected for. One such example is advertisements that relate to sale of dwellings in a larger scale residential development that are located on vacant residential lots fronting, or have a high degree of visual exposure to major roads. Such examples require a responsive approach which needs to balance the need for such developments to gain market exposure, against the need of the City to ensure the preservation of the purpose, intent and objectives of a residential zoned property and the locality. The imposition of conditions of planning approval limiting the term of the approval for such examples has occurred in the past, and it is therefore considered appropriate to include such a requirement in the discretionary criteria given the absence of it within the current DBH6 policy. Such a requirement would be worded as follows:

“In addition to satisfying 2.1 (a) and (b) above, Council may impose a condition of planning approval restricting the term of that planning approval, should it be considered that the proposed advertisement has the ability to adversely impact the future amenity of the immediate locality if permanent approval was granted.”

Exempt Advertisement’s Schedule 5 of the Scheme includes a list of 9 types of signs that do not require planning approval. The recent gazettal of the P&D Reg’s 2015 allows for development exempt from the requirement to obtain planning approval to be included in a planning policy. On this basis it is proposed to include the existing provisions of Schedule 5 - Exempt Advertisements of the Scheme in the draft local planning policy. The introduction of these provisions into a local planning policy rather than the Scheme allows a Local Government more flexibility to review, adopt or amend such permitted development

Page 102


provisions rather than using the Scheme amendment process which is significantly longer and more complex. CONCLUSION

The proposed draft policy provides what is considered to be sufficiently general prescriptive criteria, but also include appropriate discretionary criteria. Therefore, it is recommended that Council resolve to adopt draft proposed Local Planning Policy for advertising for the reasons outlined above. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council adopt the following draft Local Planning Policy for the purpose of public advertising in accordance with the provisions of Part 2, Division 2 of the Planning & Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.14

ADVERTISEMENT POLICY

ADOPTION DATE: AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND Clause 60 of the Planning & Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (P&D Regs) requires a person to obtain the prior development approval of the local government unless that development is of a type referred to in clause 61 – Development for which development approval not required of the P&D Regs. In addition to the relevant sub clauses of clause 61 of the P&D Regs, the following Scheme provisions are also relevant. Clause 8.2(d) of the Local Planning Scheme No.4 (the ‘Scheme’) specifies that any change to words, pictures, symbols, or colours of an approved advertisement where the change does not affect the size or purpose of the approved advertisement does not require planning approval. Clause 8.2(e) of the Scheme specifies that advertisements listed in Schedule 5 of the Scheme are considered to be ‘permitted development’. Clause 12.5 - Schedule

Page 103


5 includes specific types of advertisements that are ‘permitted development’ and therefore exempt from the need to obtain planning approval. Clause 80 of the P&D Regs provides a Local Government with powers to issue a notice on the owners, occupiers or advertiser of properties that have advertisements that affects the amenity of the locality. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide requirements for advertisements where they require planning approval under the Planning & Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 and the Local Planning Scheme No.4 (the Scheme) and identify specific instances where signage is exempt from the requirement to obtain planning approval. APPLICATION This local planning policy is prepared under the provisions of Part 2 of the P&D Regs. In making a determination under this Scheme the local government must have regard to each relevant local planning policy to the extent that the policy is consistent with this Scheme. The provisions of this policy apply to all land zoned and reserved under the Scheme. For advertisements proposed on land not zoned or reserved under the Scheme, the provisions of this policy will be used for guidance purposes only when undertaking a planning assessment. Sections 1 and 2 of this policy can only be varied by section 3. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this policy the following definitions of the P&D Regs and the Scheme apply to this policy, ‘Advertisement’, ‘Sign’, Window Sign and ‘Temporary Sign’. In addition to these Scheme definitions, the following definitions apply: Awning or Verandah Fascia sign means an advertisement attached to the fascia of an awning or verandah.

Below awning or Verandah sign means an advertisement attached to or supported below an awning, verandah.

Page 104


Building identification sign and Wall or fascia sign means an advertisement attached to or painted on a wall or fascia of a building (including structures attached to the building) or on a structure that protrudes no more than 50mm from the wall, fascia or structure.

Pole, pylon or freestanding sign means advertisement which is erected on a permanently attached freestanding pole, pylon or other structure and used to advertise one or multiple tenancies on private land.

Projecting sign means an advertisement attached to and protruding perpendicularly or horizontally, from a building or structure but is not attached to the roof of the building or structure.

Roof sign means an advertisement that is displayed on, or erected on or above, the parapet or eaves or roof surface of a building.

Illuminated sign means an advertisement illuminated by internal and/or external lights or composed of light devices that do not flash, change intensity or pattern. Advertisement that is considered illuminated will generally be considered under another definition of a signand includes advertisements that are projected onto a building or vertical surface.

Animated Sign includes but not limited to any sign or its contents that moves, and includes flashing or “chasing” lights, as well as video signs, plasma and LCD screen signs and signs which are “trivision”, “variable message”, “changing message” and “fibre optic” signs.

Other sign means a sign that is not consistent with any of the other signage types defined for the purposes of this policy.

Exempt Advertisement means advertising that does not require the prior planning approval of Council.

POLICY

Page 105


1 GENERAL ADVERTISMENT PROVISIONS 1.1 General requirements applicable to all signs:

(a) Advertisements will not be approved on properties primarily used for residential purposes where the advertisement does not pertain to a relevant home business, occupation or store on the site unless otherwise provided for in another local planning policy.

(b) Advertisements are to be located and designed so as not to cause a

hazardous distraction to motorists, pedestrians or other road users. (c) Advertisements will be compatible with the style, scale and character of

the surrounding streetscape, and the predominant uses within the locality. Consideration will be given to the number and type of existing signs in the locality so as to avoid visual clutter.

(d) Advertisements shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle movements. (e) Illuminated signs are to be maintained to operate as an illuminated sign;

and (f) Advertisements are not to emit a flashing or moving light or radio;

animation or movement in its design or structure; reflective, retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design structure.

(g) Advertisements in the form of an Animated signs will not, be supported

by Council. (h) Advertisements will not be approved on private land which include,

i. the name, logo, or symbol of a company or other organisation that does not own or substantially occupy the site or building on which the advertisement is located, or

ii. a product or service not provided on the site on which the advertisement is located;

iii. a product or service that does not form part of the signage displaying the name, logo or symbol; of a company or other organisation that owns or substantially occupy the site or building on which the advertisement is located; or

iv. signs for an activity or event not occurring on the site on which the advertisement is located.

2 PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF ADVERTISMENT 2.1 The following provisions may be varied where it can be demonstrated that

the requirements of Clause 3 of this policy are met to the satisfaction of the Council.

2.2 Awning Fascia or Verandah Fascia Signs

Page 106


2.2.1 Awning fascia or verandah fascia signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) The advertisement(s) is contained within the depth of the existing fascia and does not exceed the length of the tenancy, and

(b) The advertisement(s) are restricted to three signs per street frontage

per tenancy. 2.3 Below Awning or Verandah Signs 2.3.1 Below Awning or Verandah signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) The advertisement(s) allows for a headway of at least 2.75m as measured from the immediate below footpath level; and

(b) The advertisement is located so that it is perpendicular to the building

façade; and does not exceed the width of the awning or verandah; and (c) The advertisement is restricted to one sign per street frontage per

tenancy and can be double sided.

2.4 Wall, Fascia, Building Identification or Projecting Sign 2.4.1 Wall, Fascia or Projecting Signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) The advertisement does not project above the fascia of the building and does not exceed the frontage of the tenancy; and

(b) The advertisement(s) are restricted to three signs per street frontage per

tenancy. 2.5 Free Standing Sign or Pole or Pylon Sign 2.5.1 Free Standing Sign or Pole or Pylon Signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) The advertisement is no more than the height of the immediately

adjoining subject building or no more than 6.0m in height whichever is the lesser; and

(b) The advertisement does not significantly obstruct the view between the

building and the street, thereby preventing casual surveillance of the street from the property and vice versa; and

(c) It can be demonstrated that the advertisement is consistent with a

particular design convention associated with a specific land use (ie pylon signs for petrol stations); and

(d) The advertisement is restricted to one sign per site, may include the

advertising of multiple tenancies and can be illuminated and / or double sided.

Page 107


2.6 Window Sign 2.6.1 Window Signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) Casual surveillance of the street is sufficiently maintained; and (b) The advertisement is no more than 50% coverage of the total window

area of the tenancy. 2.7 Roof Signs 2.7.1 Roof signs are deemed acceptable where:

(a) The advertisement does not project more than 1.5m above the height part of the roofline and does not exceed the length of the tenancy; and

(b) The advertisement is restricted to one sign per street frontage per tenancy and can be illuminated and / or double sided.

2.8 Other Signs 2.9.1 In assessing advertisement(s) that are not consistent with the signage types

defined within this policy, the advertisements shall be assessed against, and be consistent with Clause 1 and Clause 3 (where applicable) of this policy.

3 VARIATIONS TO STANDARDS 3.1 Council may vary the requirements outlined within Clause 1 and 2 where it

can be demonstrated that the following can be met to the satisfaction of the Council:

(a) the cumulative effect of the signage does not negatively impact on the

surrounding locality by way of visual clutter; and (b) The scale and design of the signage is subservient to the building to

which it relates, are sized in proportion with parapets, panels, windows and wall areas within close proximity to the proposed sign so as to not dominate the view of the building from the street.

4 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTIES ON THE HERITAGE LIST 4.1 In addition to the specific requirements outlined in this policy, the City is to

be satisfied that advertisement(s) proposed on properties included on the City’s Heritage List will not have a detrimental impact on the heritage significance of the site, in accordance with heritage advice provided as per the City’s L.P.P1.6 Preparing Heritage Assessments.

Page 108


4.2 In addition to any heritage advice provided in accordance with clause 4.1, Council will consider advertisements on heritage significant buildings acceptable when;

(a) The advertisement does not cover any significant architectural features

or detailing of a building, and (b) The advertisement does not significantly obstruct the view between the

building and the street. 5 Exempted Advertisements Land Use

and/or Development

Exempted Sign* Maximum Size & requirements

In all zones Property disposal • One sign per street frontage advertising for sale, lease or rent the property on which the sign is situated.

• Maximum area as follows—

Sites less than 5000 sqm - 2 sqm Sites greater than 5000sqm - 5 sqm

In all zones Construction sites • One sign per street frontage advertising details of the project, architects, contractors or builders, displayed only for the duration of the construction.

• Maximum area as follows—

Sites less than 5000 sqm — 2 sqm Sites greater than 5000 sqm — 5 sqm

In all zones Temporary sign (refer to definition in Schedule 1 of the Scheme)

• One sign per road frontage.

• Maximum area as follows— Sites less than 5000 sqm — 2 sqm Sites greater than 5000 sqm — 5 sqm

In all zones, excluding the Residential zone

Sign not permanently attached (refer to definition in Schedule 1 of the Scheme)

• One per street frontage,

• located on the lot to which the sign relates and directly relating to the goods, services, or functions of the property on which it is located,

Page 109


• maximum area 2sqm, and

• does not pose a hazard or obstruction to vehicle and/or pedestrian movement or sightlines.

In all zones, excluding the Residential zone

Window sign (refer to definition in Schedule 1 of the Scheme)

Provided the sign is/are displayed on the windows of the business premises from which the advertised item is sold, or the advertised services are supplied, and the total sign does not cover more than 50% of the total window area of the tenancy as viewed from the street.

In all zones Plaques or plates. On the site to which they pertain. Maximum area 0.2 sqm

In all zones Building identification Sign A single line of letters not exceeding 300mm in height and fixed to the façade of the building.

Local Reserves

Signs erected by a public authority, or on its behalf for the purpose of public safety or information and/or the direction and control of people, animals or vehicles

N/A

Road Reserves

Signs erected by a public authority, or on its behalf for the purpose of public safety or information and/or the direction and control of people, animals or vehicles

N/A

*The exempted signs specified exclude signs which contain any illumination or radio; animation or movement in its design or structure; reflective, retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design structure.

CARRIED: 5/1 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Jon Strachan

Page 110


PC1616 REVIEW OF MUNICIPAL HERITAGE INVENTORY AND HERITAGE LIST FUTURE WORK PROGRAMME

ECM Reference: 215/004 & 215/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 January 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Heritage Coordinator Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1511-9 & PSC1410-160 Attachment 1: Plan of Heritage Areas designated under Local Planning

Scheme No. 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present for Council’s consideration a recommended approach to the phasing and prioritisation of future stages of the review of the City of Fremantle Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and the Heritage List under Local Planning Scheme No. 4. The City has in recent years reviewed the MHI and Heritage List based on a rolling programme of reviewing the part of the MHI relating to one particular suburb each financial year. In 2015-16 the review is dealing with the suburb of North Fremantle. The introduction of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 in October 2015 has implications for this process. Under the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations, the demolition of a single house which is not on the heritage list or in a heritage area designated under the local planning scheme no longer requires development approval. Therefore the MHI/heritage list review process is effectively the only means still available to the City to identify places which are not currently included on the heritage list but may be of sufficient heritage significance to merit inclusion, and still require planning approval for demolition or significant alteration. Accordingly officers recommend that the sequence of areas to be examined in future stages of the MHI/heritage list review/updating programme should be determined on a risk-based approach, with priority being given to areas most likely to contain places of potential heritage significance which could currently be demolished without requiring planning approval. Officers consider that the whole suburb of White Gum Valley, the eastern part of Beaconsfield and parts of the suburb of Fremantle outside of the city centre (predominantly east of Hampton Road/Ord Street) are the areas most likely to contain houses of potential significance which have not been identified through previous MHI reviews, and which do not have ‘blanket’ protection from demolition through Heritage Area designation. Officers therefore recommend these three areas should be prioritised for the next phases of the MHI/heritage list review process once current work on North Fremantle is completed.

Page 111


BACKGROUND

The Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 obliges each local government to develop, maintain and review a municipal inventory of places of cultural heritage significance to the district (known as the Municipal Heritage Inventory or MHI). Clause 8 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the 2015 Planning Regulations) requires each local government to establish and maintain a heritage list to identify places that are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of built heritage conservation. These provisions took effect on 19 October 2015 and replace very similar provisions which formerly applied through clause 7.1 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). A report outlining the key implications of the 2015 Planning Regulations was presented to Council on 25 November 2015 (see previous item PSC1511-9). The City of Fremantle (the City) meets its obligations under the above legislation by undertaking a rolling programme of review and updating of the MHI and Heritage List using an area-based approach. The general aim is to complete the review of one suburb each financial year, subject to resource availability. The 2015-16 phase of the review is dealing with North Fremantle, and is currently in progress. A report on the outcomes of the review, including any recommended additions, deletions or changes to places on the MHI and Heritage List is planned to be presented to Council in June 2016. The stages involved in the review process for any given area, and typical timeframes (based on the North Fremantle review) are as follows:

1. Inspections of the area (street-by-street) to update records on places already entered in the MHI/Heritage List and identify additional places potentially suitable for inclusion. Research on history of places identified for potential addition to MHI/Heritage List. Approximate timeframe – 3 months.

2. Draft new or amended assessments and statements of heritage significance for each place recommended to be added, removed or have its MHI/Heritage List entry amended. Approximate timeframe – 1-2 months (depending on number of places).

3. Prepare overall report detailing all findings of review, including recommendations

for changes to MHI/Heritage List based on statements of significance. Approximate timeframe – 2 months.

4. Present a report to Planning Committee and Council for consideration and decision

in respect of each place recommended to be added to/deleted from MHI/Heritage List or have its entry modified.

5. Consult with owners and occupiers of affected places (minimum 21 day period

submission period), consider submissions and prepare a final report to Council with recommendations in respect of each place proposed to be added to/deleted

Page 112


from MHI/Heritage List or have its entry modified. Approximate timeframe – 2 months.

6. Council makes final resolution in respect of each place referred to in report, and

the MHI and Heritage List are updated accordingly. In recent years the City has used external heritage consultants to carry out some elements of the review process (mostly stages 1, 2 and 3) to enable City heritage officers to maintain service performance on other heritage work (especially development application heritage assessments). The use of consultants has been funded through an allocation as part of the annual operating budget for the Heritage service area. In 2015-16 this allocation is $40,000 which is anticipated to be fully expended on the North Fremantle phase of the review. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The City has a statutory obligation to establish and maintain an MHI and a heritage List under the legislation referred to in the Background section above. The City’s Local Planning Policy 2.6 - Procedure for Amending the Municipal Heritage Inventory and Heritage List sets out the assessment and consultation processes the City uses to determine the inclusion, removal or amendment to details of a place on the MHI and/or Heritage List. CONSULTATION

Prior entering a place onto the MHI and/or Heritage List, or modifying an existing entry, the City is required by the relevant legislation to consult with the owner(s) and occupier(s) and take into consideration their submissions on the matter. The consultation phase forms a significant part of the overall review process and is undertaken once Council has considered the initial recommendations arising from the review as outlined in the Background section above. PLANNING COMMENT

The report outlining the key implications of the 2015 Planning Regulations presented to Council on 25 November 2015 (PSC1511-9) identified that under the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations the demolition of a single house (or associated outbuilding, boundary wall, etc.) that is not included in the State Register of Heritage Places, a heritage list in accordance with the local planning scheme or within a heritage area designated under the scheme, does not require planning approval. Prior to the Deemed Provisions coming into effect under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 the demolition of any building, regardless of heritage status required planning approval. The City had previously used the requirement to obtain planning approval for demolition as a trigger to undertake a heritage assessment of a structure proposed to be demolished to determine whether it was of sufficient heritage significance to warrant

Page 113


inclusion on the heritage list under LPS4, and to consider the heritage implications of the demolition proposal. This mechanism is no longer available to the City. Therefore the broader area-based MHI/heritage list review process is effectively the only means still available to the City to identify places which are not currently included on the heritage list but may be of sufficient heritage significance to merit inclusion, and thereby remain subject to requiring planning approval for demolition or significant alteration. On this basis Council may consider that decisions about the extent and sequencing of areas to be examined in future stages of the MHI/heritage list review/updating programme should be risk-based, taking into account factors that affect the likelihood of places of potential heritage significance being demolished without requiring planning approval. These factors include:

• Whether an area is designated a Heritage Area under the local planning scheme – if so, all demolition proposals still require planning approval regardless of the heritage significance of individual buildings or structures.

• The predominant age, land use and other characteristics of development in an area – neighbourhoods or suburbs with a higher proportion of older housing stock are more likely to contain individual places of heritage significance than an area which has been developed more recently, such as Samson.

• The general level of recent or potential development activity in an area, which may be influenced by the zoning and density coding under LPS4 (e.g. is there potential to subdivide and/or redevelop under a split density coding) and by variations in land value and market appeal from one area to another.

Attachment 1 is a plan showing areas within the City of Fremantle designated as Heritage Areas under the local planning scheme. It will be noted that all of North Fremantle, all of South Fremantle and the western part of Beaconsfield (west of South Fremantle High School and Mather Road), Hilton (the garden suburb area) and most of central Fremantle are Heritage Areas, and therefore no demolition in these areas can occur without development approval. Of the remaining parts of the City, Sampson is a low density housing suburb built almost entirely during the 1980’s, and O’Connor is a predominantly industrial area with small pockets of relatively recent housing. Therefore officers do not consider these areas to be high priorities for review for MHI/heritage list purposes. The remaining parts of the City – the whole suburb of White Gum Valley, the eastern part of Beaconsfield and parts of the suburb of Fremantle outside of the city centre (predominantly east of Hampton Road/Ord Street) are considered to be the areas most likely to contain houses of potential significance which have not been identified through previous MHI reviews, and which do not have ‘blanket’ protection from demolition through Heritage Area designation. Officers therefore recommend these three areas should be prioritised for the next phases of the MHI/heritage list review process once current work on North Fremantle is completed. A number of factors determine the size of area which can effectively be reviewed at any one time. These include the capacity of City heritage staff to undertake elements of the review process (notably the property owner consultation stage and managing consultants used to carry out the preliminary inspection and research work) whilst also maintaining performance in other areas of heritage work; the availability, willingness and capacity of

Page 114


suitably qualified heritage consultants to undertake elements of the review process; and the amount of funding allocated for consulting services work in the annual operating budget. There are drawbacks in trying to review too large an area in one phase, even if sufficient funding for consultants’ services to do this was available in a single financial year – in particular, the preliminary investigation and landowner consultation stages can become overly long, and conflict with the need to allocate officer time to other heritage work areas. On this basis officers would not recommend attempting to review all three of the above mentioned areas in a single stage. Instead, it is suggested that the following two options be considered: Option 1 – review Beaconsfield (east), Fremantle (eastern areas) and White Gum Valley as three discrete areas in successive financial years, commencing in 2016-17. Officers anticipate that this could be achieved if the current level of budget allocation for MHI/heritage list review work was maintained over the next three years. Option 2 – review Beaconsfield (east) and White Gum Valley in a single combined stage and Fremantle (eastern areas) as a separate stage in two successive financial years commencing in 2016-17. This option would be likely to require a higher level of funding for external consultants’ services in the financial year that Beaconsfield/White Gum Valley is reviewed than Option 1. In terms of setting a priority order between the three areas, there is no strong technical justification to rank any one area above the others. However, on balance officers would recommend that the areas be reviewed in the following sequence:

1. Beaconsfield 2. White Gum Valley 3. Fremantle (eastern areas)

The reasoning for this recommended order is that Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley have in recent years experienced a higher level of residential subdivision and redevelopment activity of the type that is likely to generate pressure to demolish existing houses compared to the suburb of Fremantle. Based on demographic and economic forecasting and property market trends, this level of activity is anticipated to continue. Furthermore, lot configurations and the tendency for houses in the first two suburbs to be sited on deeper front setbacks (compared to Fremantle) makes it harder to develop subdivided lots whilst retaining the original house. In the event of the review proceeding based on Option 1, Beaconsfield is recommended to be dealt with before White Gum Valley based on a slightly higher rate of residential lot subdivision and infill development in recent years, which is projected to continue. Another reason for reviewing Fremantle after the other two areas is because the eastern parts of Fremantle (especially the streets between Hampton Rd and Swanbourne St and around Tuckfield St and East St) already have a much higher concentration of individually heritage listed places which are at no risk of demolition without planning approval. The determination of the sequence for further phases of the MHI review (covering South Fremantle, Hilton, etc.) could be determined as part of broader work programme and resource allocation decisions in 1-2 years’ time.

Page 115


CONCLUSION

In order to respond to prospect of houses of potential heritage significance being demolished without requiring development approval under the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, it is recommended that the eastern part of Beaconsfield, the whole suburb of White Gum Valley and parts of the suburb of Fremantle outside of the city centre (predominantly east of Hampton Road/Ord Street) should be prioritised as the next stages of the rolling review of the Municipal Heritage Inventory and Heritage List over the next 2-3 financial years, subject to appropriate resource availability. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The City’s Strategic Plan 2010-15 includes reference in the ‘Character’ Strategic Imperative to preserving the importance of built heritage and history. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION / COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council approve the following approach to undertaking future stages of the review of the Municipal Heritage Inventory and Heritage List under the local planning scheme in 2016-17 and subsequent financial years:

1. The following areas are the highest priority for review and should be reviewed in the sequence listed below as three discrete areas in successive financial years, commencing in 2016-17:

Parts of the suburb of Beaconsfield not included in the South Fremantle Heritage Area (generally the area east of Mather Road and the South Fremantle High school). The whole suburb of White Gum Valley. Parts of the suburb of Fremantle east of Hampton Road, Ord Street and James Street

2. That consideration be given to the level of funding allocated to the MHI/Heritage List review process as part of the 2016-17 budget planning process, and in the event of sufficient budget being allocated to this activity, a combined review of Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley should be undertaken as a single project in 2016-17, followed by a review of Fremantle (eastern areas) in 2017-18.

Page 116



Page 117


SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 64 - ADDITONAL DENSITY AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS HILTON LOCAL CENTRE - FINAL ADOPTION ECM Reference: 218/073 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 January 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: SPC1508-1 (26 August 2015)

SPC1506-5 (24 June 2015) SPC1503-1 (25 March 2015) SPC1409-3 (24 September 2014) PSC1403-47 (26 March 2014)

Attachments: 1 – Report to Ordinary Council Meeting SPC1508-1 (26

August 2015) 2 – Scheme Amendment Report 3 – Schedule of Submissions 4 – Submission on behalf of the owners of 308 South Street

Page 118


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Proposed scheme amendment 64 (Hilton Local Centre modifications to development standards) was initiated by Council for public consultation in October 2015. The purpose of this item is to report on the submissions received during the consultation period, and to recommend that Council adopt the amendment. Scheme amendment 64 proposes to modify and include new provisions into Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 7 – Hilton Specific Development Controls for Sub Area 7.3.1 relating to density, building height and vehicular access and design. The City received a number of submissions during the public consultation period. Comments raised during the consultation period related to vehicle access, treatment of Primary Regional Road (PRR) reserve, density bonus (where 1000sqm of ‘shop’ floor space is provided), base density code, maximum building height, active frontages and open space. The City also received a submission from a representative of the owners of multiple lots located to the northern side of South Street within the Scheme amendment area. The submission made a number of recommendations which have been considered and discussed in detail in the Planning Comment section of this report. It is recommended that the Council adopts the amendment with minor modification. BACKGROUND

During 2014 the City undertook a review of land adjoining and nearby to South Street to identify potential opportunities for higher density development. South Street has been identified as an important transport corridor connecting a number of employment and service areas between Fremantle and Murdoch. At its Ordinary Council Meeting of 26 March 2014 (refer to PSC1403-47) Council adopted an initiative to amend LPS4 to provide for higher density development along South Street. Subsequently a number of specific areas adjoining South Street were identified, which were formally considered in a report to the Ordinary Council Meeting of 24 September 2014. These areas include the Hilton Local Centre (the subject of this amendment No. 64), the White Gum Valley/Beaconsfield Local Centre (amendment No. 65) and the centre at Hampton Road and South Street (amendment No. 66). All three amendments propose increasing the density and development control provisions in their locations. At its meeting of 24 August 2015 (see Attachment 1), the Council resolved to adopt scheme amendment 64 for public advertising. The amendment relates to the location referred to above. The advertising period for the amendment concluded on 1 December 2015. The scheme amendment is now presented to Council for final adoption.

Page 119


DETAIL

Scheme amendment 64 proposed including new and modified development standards to the Hilton Local Centre while maintaining the existing base density coding of R20. Additionally, a minimum building height of 7 metres was proposed as part of amendment 64 which applies to all of sub area 7.3.1. Sub area 7.3.1 is currently separated into two separate areas: Area A and Area B. Modification to change the naming of the two areas was proposed as part of scheme amendment 64 (now read as Area 1 and Area 2) however the boundaries remain unchanged. Scheme amendment 64 while maintaining these two areas proposes modifications to the additional development standards which allow for an increase in the residential density and the maximum building height applied for Area 1 and Area 2. Amendment 64 modifies the previous criteria for achieving the additional development standards within the sub area. The criteria required to be met for Area 1 to achieve the additional development standard to a density code of R160 are as follows:

• Residential land uses not to be provided in new buildings at ground level that front South Street and Carrington Street.

• Vehicle access to development sites with frontage to South Street to use an alternative public road.

• Vehicle parking to be provided at the rear of buildings, below ground level and at roof top level where screened.

• For development fronting South Street a traffic impact assessment is to be undertaken in support of the development.

• Criteria specifying a minimum ground floor plate height (4.0m) and floor level (not more than 600mm above the adjacent footpath) to ensure pedestrian amenity and scale at footpath level and to ensure suitability for active non-residential ground floor uses.

• Primary street setback lots fronting South Street shall be a minimum of 10 metres and a maximum of 12m. Development on lots to any other roads is to have a minimum primary street setback of nil and a maximum of 2 metres.

• Maximum aggregate width between buildings to be no more than 6 metres. • Open space reduced to a minimum of 30% where development respects existing

or preferred neighbourhood character. Additionally, by meeting the above criteria and the following additional criteria a revised additional development standard can be applied for Area 1 to develop at a coding of R-AC1 with a maximum building height of 20m:

• The proposed development site area must be of 2400m2 or greater, and the development must be of distinctive architecture benefitting its location and exceptional design quality meeting the principles of good design listed under Clause 11.8.6.3 of the Scheme and satisfies at least one of the following additional criteria: o Incorporates a minimum of two levels of employment generating non-

residential land uses. o Incorporates at ground floor level a minimum of 1000m2 net lettable area

designed for occupation by a single tenancy for ‘shop’ land use.

Page 120


o A minimum of 10% of the residential net lettable area of the development shall be provided in the form of dwellings which meet the definition of ‘affordable housing’.

In addition to the above, amendment 64 modifies the previous criteria for achieving the additional development standards within Area 2 of sub area 7.3.1. The criteria required to be met for Area 2 to achieve the additional development standard to a density code of R100 and a maximum height of 14 metres are as follows:

• Development site area comprises a minimum 1000m2. • Vehicle access to development sites with a frontage to Carrington Street and an

alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road.

A full description of all proposed provisions are included in Attachment 2 of this report. CONSULTATION

The amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (‘EPA’) for confirmation that a formal environmental assessment was not required, in accordance with section 82 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. Community consultation was undertaken from 17 October 2015 to 1 December 2015 – 45 days in total. Advertising consisted of:

• Public advertising notices in the local newspaper – 17 & 24 October 2015; • Preparation of an ‘information sheet’ made available with the public inspection

of the amendment documents; • Notice being placed on the City of Fremantle website for the duration of

consultation period; • Notification of the amendment in the public area of City of Fremantle

administration building; • Letters of notification and inviting comment on the proposal to various service

agencies and government organisations; and, • Letters of notification and inviting comment to all precinct groups and to all

landowners and tenants within 100m of the sites effected by the amendment.

A total of 12 submissions were received at the close of the consultation period. Of the submissions received 10 were supportive, raised no objection or expressed conditional support to the proposed amendment, while 2 submissions provided clear objections. The comments raised by the objections related to the impact of future development built to the greater development height. Attachment 3 (Schedule of Submissions) provides a full list of the submissions with officer comments in response to any relevant concerns. PLANNING COMMENT

South Street transit corridor & planning review

Page 121


During 2014 the City identified the opportunity for higher density mixed use and residential development along South Street, one of the City’s key public transport routes. The rationale for the initiative was based upon a number of State Government planning and transport strategies. Further consideration of the applicable strategies is made in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of Attachment 1. The City reviewed the South Street area and identified the Hilton Local Centre as being suitable for higher density increases to incentivise development. land on the western side of Hampton Road, near to the intersection with South Street, South Fremantle, as being suitable for density development. Vehicle access off South Street Main Roads WA provided comments in support of the proposed requirement for a traffic impact/ access statement to be submitted for new developments at the development application stage. Additionally it was also noted that consideration should be given to assessing all of South Street, through an ‘access strategy’. The access strategy was discussed with Main Roads in further detail to determine the necessity of a strategy in the immediate term. The access strategy is recommended to be in a form of a policy to guide the approach to controlling access for individual lots off South Street, along its whole length. The access strategy was recommended as a long term option that the City may consider as a solution to future access for sites fronting South Street. In the opinion of City officers the requirement for landowners to provide a Traffic Impact Assessment for new development will assist in alleviating concerns with the access and traffic movement along South Street. Additionally this works to progressively ensure that access challenges are reduced with respect to each separate development proposal at the time of the development proposal being made. Should Main Roads WA consider that a further strategic approach to access restrictions is necessary for South Street in the future this work should be the responsibility of MRWA as the managing agency for most of South Street within the City of Fremantle, with the City assisting in undertaking such a project. However this is considered to be beyond the scope of the current scheme amendment and therefore no further modifications have been recommended to the amendment in respect of this issue. Primary Regional Road (PRR) reservation treatments One of the submissions received highlights the importance of the treatment of the road reserve and recommends modifying the provision relating to planning applications being approved only where MRWA has no objection. It is noted that flexibility could be provided through this condition with the recommended wording; however it is considered unlikely that a proposal which Main Roads is not supportive of would be approved and therefore it is not recommended that the wording of the provisions be changed. Notwithstanding the above, the City is conscious of the value of providing interim treatments of the reserve area and as noted in the officer report presented to Council on 26 August 2015, the Department of Planning has consistently advised “that they would not support any development within the South Street PRR reservation”. The City would be willing to further discuss opportunities for the PRR reserve area with Main Roads,

Page 122


Department of Transport and the Department of Planning to assist with improved treatments of the reserve. Base Density One of the submissions received by the City noted the impact of maintaining the base density coding of R20 for the amendment area. The submission raised concern with the limited development opportunities that are a result of having a lower density and further made recommendation that the City increase the base density to R60, rather than R20. Officers note the submission and justification for a density of R60 however, the City’s intent of maintaining the base density is to provide a significant ‘gap’ between the base density and the density bonus in order to provide greater incentive to development. It is also noted that the submission makes reference to Clause 5.2.5 of the Scheme and the ability to develop at R60. The current wording of the scheme amendment proposes that this provision be omitted from this sub area intentionally to create a greater incentive for develop to occur at the higher density. Based on the above, City officers do not recommend modifications to change the base density code from R20 to R60. Density Bonus for 1000sqm Retail Tenancy One of the submissions raised concern over the requirement to meet the minimum 1000sqm shop floor area in order to achieve the higher ‘bonus’ density of R-AC1. The minimum requirement for a single retail tenant, as highlighted within the submission, will influence the likely tenancies that could foreseeably occupy this space. It is acknowledged that the proposed 1000sqm lends itself to a small local centre retail development such as a supermarket; however as the submission has highlighted this floor area relies on the inclusion of only a few specific likely tenants and reduces the ability for a smaller ‘bespoke supermarket retailer’ option. The smaller ‘bespoke supermarket retailer’ recommended within the submission is considered to lend itself to a retailer of a similar nature to Fresh Provisions located in Bicton (Canning Highway/Petra Street local centre). City officers consider that a reduction to a minimum 750sqm floor area as suggested in the submission could attract smaller bespoke retail operators but still maintain the intent of providing a significant ‘single shop’ land use. Previous research by officers led to the currently proposed 1000sqm shop floor area as a figure that would facilitate a smaller size supermarket-type retail use that would support the Hilton local centre. Retailers like ALDI work with a smaller store footprint compared to other supermarkets, typically with stores of approximately 1,300m2-1,600m2. Other retail examples such as IGA stores range in floor sizes, but are generally around 1000sqm or larger. It is conceivable that reducing the minimum floor area requirement to 750sqm could still have the potential to attract smaller supermarket-type retailers, however on balance the 1000sqm minimum size is considered by officers to better meet Council’s intent in including this provision in the scheme amendment and therefore no modifications to the

Page 123


1000sqm shop floor area have been recommended. However should Council consider that the lower 750sqm minimum area would still accommodate the intention of this provision, this could be done as a minor modification to the officers recommendation. Maximum Building Height The maximum building height was commented on by two submissions; one suggesting an increased maximum building height and one objecting to the proposed increase to building height. The submission relating to increasing the maximum building height suggested the proposed heights, which are lower than the permitted heights of the R-Codes, be made consistent with the prescribed heights of the R-Codes in order to achieve consistency with the development outcomes envisaged by the R-Codes. The submission discusses the potential inconsistency with the R-Codes that a reduction in building height will be produce. It is noted that increasing the proposed building heights from those proposed will allow for greater development and reflect more similarly to the R-Codes deemed to comply provisions however the proposed building heights have been proposed to reflect the desired built form of the local centre with respect to the existing adjoining residential land uses. For the reasons outlined above no modifications to the proposed building height are recommended by City officers. Two levels of active street frontage It was raised as part of one of the submissions received that the provision for two active levels to street frontage is unclear due to the interpretation of active frontage generally relating to ground floor development. It is the intention of this provision to ensure that visual connectivity and interest is maintained for both the ground level and first floor, and to avoid development satisfying the minimum 7m height requirement by being single storey with a high, blank parapet wall. It is acknowledged that this provision as currently worded could be incorrectly interpreted as relating to the land use being non-residential; however this is not the intent of the provision. The provision was included as part of Council’s resolution on 26 August 2015 with the intention of improving the streetscape, providing consistency in built form and reinforcing the urban scale of the Local Centre. It is recommended that the provision for the first floor active frontage treatment should be included in greater detail within the Local Planning Policy to be adopted for this area. This would ensure the desired design outcome is achieved. Notwithstanding this recommendation, it is considered that it would still be beneficial to modify the scheme wording on “two levels of active frontage”. The following alterations to the wording have been made in order to ensure clarity in the intent of the provision and to ensure minimum design outcomes are met:

Page 124


A minimum building height of 7 metres, including a building façade on the primary street frontage which incorporates windows and doors at the ground floor and windows to the first floor level to create interest and a sense of activity within the building, applies within Area 1 and Area 2.

Open Space

One of the submissions received made comment on the proposed introduction of open space requirements for Area 1. The submission related to the increased requirement for 30% open space to be provided and recommends removing the development control in order to have open space governed by the height of development and plot ratio. The functional use of open spaces for multiple dwellings is an important consideration raised by the submission. It is considered that providing functional open space for multiple dwelling developments does not always require a percentage of open space to be provided. The purpose of providing open space is to ensure that practical spaces can be utilised by residents. The Residential Design Codes allows for open space for residential codes above R80 to be prescribed by the local authority. Additionally the Explanatory Guidelines discuss the importance of open space for multiple dwellings. The Explanatory Guidelines emphasise the importance of open space being used to respond to the features of the surrounding area as well as providing for the needs of occupants. In considering the context of the lots within Sub Area 7.3.1 and the provisions proposed for the setback of buildings, open space is intentionally incorporated into the requirements of the site. The requirement to provide additional open space may result in areas that have reduced functionality and purpose to the development. Additionally it is considered that specific design outcomes can be achieved through the use of a Local Planning Policy that is proposed to be developed for the sub area. In this regard the practical design outcomes for usable open space can be guided. For the reasons outlined above City officers recommend modifying the previously proposed open space requirement to exclude the requirement for the additional 30% open space provision for Area 1. An additional provision has been included which increases the outdoor living area requirements of the R-Codes. This provision is considered to provide an increase in the access to active outdoor living areas for residents, and a more practical means of ensuring amenity areas for multiple dwelling occupants. An increase to the deemed to comply requirement from 10sqm of outdoor living area to 15sqm has been proposed which will replace the 30% open space provision previously proposed for the amendment area. Amendment process

Page 125


On 19 October 2015 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 came into effect, replacing certain process provisions under the City’s LPS4. This includes provisions relating to scheme amendments. The Regulations apply a tiered approach to scheme amendments; basic, standard and complex amendments. This scheme amendment is considered to be a ‘standard’ amendment, because it matches key characteristics described in the definition of a standard amendment in the new Regulations as follows:

• Amendment provisions are consistent with the objectives in the scheme for the zoning applying to the area subject to the amendment;

• Minimal impact on land outside the area the subject of the amendment; • Amendment does not have any significant environmental, social, economic

or governance impacts.

The City has followed a process to date that reflects the process now applicable to a standard amendment (including advertising and consultation requirements). CONCLUSION Scheme amendment 64 has been prepared to allow for higher density development within the Hilton Local Centre. The amendment maintains the base density code of R20 and includes general development provisions including minimum building heights at street frontages and the provision of active uses to lower and ground levels fronting streets. Additionally it proposes additional development standards which apply if specified criteria are achieved. The new development standards relate to density, building height and vehicular access and design and are to be included in Schedule 12 of LPS4. During the consultation period the City received a submission from a planning consultancy on behalf of landowners within the amendment area and recommendations were made, which City officers have considered and have made some minor amendments to the criteria for additional development standards. It is recommended the amendment be adopted with minor modifications, which include;

• Delete Open Space provision and replace with Outdoor Living Area provision • Reword the provision relating to the minimum building height of 7 metres, to provide

greater clarification. COMMIITEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council – 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and

Attachment 3; 2. That Council resolve to, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and

Development Act 2005, to amend Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as follows:

Page 126


a) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Development Requirements) Local Planning Area 7 – Hilton by replacing Clause 7.1 Local Centre requirements with the following:

Zone (Within LPA Only) Maximum External Wall Height Local Centre 5.5m (except within Sub Area 7.3.1)

b) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development Requirements) Local Planning Area 7 – Hilton by inserting the following:

LOCAL PLANNING AREA 7 - BEACONSFIELD

7.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR SUB AREAS Sub Area 7.3.1

a) Within sub area 7.3.1, clause 5.2.5 does not apply.

b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub Area 7.3.1, clause 7.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ of

c) Local Planning Area 7 does not apply. A minimum building

height of 7 metres, including a building façade on the primary street frontage which incorporates windows and doors at the ground floor and windows to the first floor level to create interest and a sense of activity within the building, applies within Area 1 and Area 2.

d) Additional development standards shall be in accordance with

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

Page 127


the criteria and standards set out in the table below: Locations where additional development standards apply

Criteria to be met in order for additional development standards to apply

Additional development standards

Area 1 Land use a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning, residential land uses will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level with frontage to South Street and Carrington Street, to ensure new development shall incorporate design measures to generate interest and activity within the adjacent public realm. Vehicle access b) Vehicle access to development sites with frontage to South Street and an alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road. Vehicle access shall be designed to encourage coordination of access to adjoining properties. c) Vehicle parking shall only be provided: i. at the rear of buildings; and/or ii. below ground level; and/or iii. at roof top level where screened by other parts of the same development such that parked vehicles are not visible from the street. d) For new development with frontage to South St, a Traffic Impact Assessment is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and shall be submitted in support of an application for planning approval. Other design requirements

e) In the part of all new development with frontage to South Street, Paget Street, Victor (Area 1 only) and Carrington Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

f) The primary street boundary setback for

R160 residential density. A maximum building height of 17 metres (refer to 7.3.1 c) for minimum building height), except for land within 5 metres of the boundary of any lot outside of Sub Area 7.3.1 where a maximum building height of 14 metres will apply.

Page 128


development on lots with a primary street boundary to South Street shall be a minimum of 10 metres and a maximum of 12 metres. Council may approve development with a minimum street setback of less than 10 metres only in circumstances where Main Roads WA has no objection to the proposed development.

g) The primary street boundary setback for

development on lots with a primary street boundary to any road other than South Street shall be a minimum of nil and a maximum of 2 metres.

h) To prevent excessive breaks in building

frontages to South Street, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of building(s) at ground floor level on the frontage to South Street shall be no more than 6 metres on any one development site.

i) The deemed to comply provisions specified in

clause 6.3.1 of the Residential Design Codes for minimum outdoor living area size is to be replaced with a minimum area of 15m2 for Area 1.

Bonus development provisions for Area 1

Criteria to be met in order for revised additional development standards to apply

Revised additional development standards

On sites within Area 1 which have a development site area of 2,400m2 or more, Council may permit development in accordance with the ‘Revised additional development standards’ in the right hand column where, in addition to meeting the criteria above, the proposed development is of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design quality meeting the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of this Scheme, and also satisfies at least one of the following additional criteria: - Incorporates a minimum of two levels of employment-generating non-residential land uses, one of which shall be the ground floor level designed to generate interest and activity within the public realm; and/or

R-AC1 maximum plot ratio. A maximum building height of 20 metres (refer to 7.3.1 c) for minimum building height), except for land within 5 metres of the boundary of any lot outside of Sub Area 7.3.1 where a maximum

Page 129


- Incorporates at ground floor level a minimum of 1,000m2 net lettable area designed for occupation by a single tenancy for ‘shop’ land use as defined in Schedule 1 – Land Use Definitions of this Scheme; and/or - A minimum of 10% of the residential net lettable area of the development shall be provided in the form of dwellings which meet the definition of ‘affordable housing’ in Schedule 1 – Land Use Definitions of this Scheme.

building height of 14 metres will apply.

Area 2 Criteria to be met in order for additional development standards to apply


a) The development site area comprises a minimum 1,000m2. b) Vehicle access to development sites with a frontage to Carrington Street and an alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road. Vehicle access shall be designed to encourage coordination of access to adjoining properties. Note: While amalgamation and joint development of adjoining sites is expected to be the predominant means of providing alternative access to South Street as required in part b) above, alternative mechanisms such as the creation of easements or rights-of-carriageway may also be considered.

R100 residential density. A maximum building height of 14 metres (refer to 7.3.1 c) for minimum building height), except for land within 5 metres of the boundary of any lot outside of Sub Area 7.3.1 where a maximum building height of 11 metres will apply.

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

documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

4. Request the Minister for planning to grant final consent to Scheme Amendment No. 64 as referred to in (2) above.

5. Advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that pursuant to the

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the amendment hereby submitted is considered to be a ‘standard amendment’ for the purpose of the Regulations.

6. That upon final adoption of Scheme Amendment No. 64 Council will prepare a

set of draft Design Guidelines for the Hilton Local Centre, and work with the City’s Economic Development team and local stakeholders to develop an overall enhancement plan for the area. The design guidelines and overall enhancement

Page 130


plan should specifically include measures to secure the provision of awnings on new development frontages to Carrington Street and South Street, and other works within the public realm which contribute to improved weather protection, comfort and safety for people waiting for and departing from buses at stops in the locality.


Page 131


PC1614 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 65 - ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS WHITE GUM VALLEY/BEACONSFIELD LOCAL CENTRE - FINAL ADOPTION

ECM Reference: 218/072 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 January 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: SPC1506-3 (24 June 2015)

SPC1505-2 (27 May 2015) SPC1503-1 (25 March 2015) SPC1409-03 (24 September 2014) PSC1403-47 (26 March 2014)

Attachments: 1 – Report to Ordinary Council Meeting - SPC1506-3 (24 June 2015) 2 – Advertised proposed scheme amendment provisions 3 – Schedule of submissions

Figure 1. Amendment area EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council initiated proposed scheme amendment No. 65 to the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4 or Scheme) for public consultation in June 2015. The amendment proposes inserting two new sub areas into Schedule 12 for the White Gum Valley/Beaconsfield Local Centre and surrounding Residential area. The new sub areas contain an area A and area B. Each area proposes additional density (up to R80/R100) and height requirements (four to five storey) where specific criteria can be met.

Page 132


The City received a number of submissions during the public consultation period. Concerns raised in the submissions relate to building height, vehicle traffic and parking and the boundary of the amendment area. The purpose of this item is to report on the submissions received during the consultation period, and to recommend modifications to the advertised amendment in light of comments made. The proposed modifications would require a further advertising period, as they are considered more than minor. Accordingly officers recommend Council adopt the modifications to the amendment and authorise officers undertake further advertising on the proposed amendment modifications. BACKGROUND

In 2014 the City undertook investigations regarding its ability to encourage higher density mixed use and residential redevelopment along South Street, one of the City’s key public transport routes connecting a number of employment and service areas between Fremantle and Murdoch. At its Ordinary Meeting 26 March 2014 (refer to Council item PSC1403-47 for full background) Council adopted an initiative to amend LPS4 to provide for higher density development along South Street. As part of this resolution, Council requested further investigation into the potential for existing Local Centre, Neighbourhood Centre, Mixed Use and Commercial zones along South Street (including adjacent Residential zoned land) to function as nodes of mixed-use high-density development with a substantial residential component. Three locations along South Street were identified as being suitable for more intensive mixed-use redevelopment (refer to SPC1409-03 24 September 2014 for background). Each area requires a separate amendment to the City’s planning scheme in order to create more vibrant, attractive and sustainable local communities. The three amendments focus on an increase in population, greater diversity of housing types and commercial business, whilst simultaneously strengthening South Street’s status as a key transit corridor. The three scheme amendments and corresponding areas identified are:

• Amendment No. 64 - Hilton Local Centre • Amendment No. 65 (the subject of this report) - White Gum Valley/Beaconsfield

Local Centre • Amendment No. 66 - South Street and Hampton Road intersection

Page 133


Figure 2. Proposed planning scheme amendment areas No. 64, 65 and 66 Subsequently, at its meeting on 24 June 2015 (see Attachment 1), Council resolved to adopt scheme amendment No. 65 for public advertising. The amendment relates to the White Gum Valley/Beaconsfield Local Centre and surrounding Residential area. The location of the amendment is presented in figures 1 and 2 above. The advertising period for the amendment (including an extension period) concluded on 16 November 2015. DETAIL The subject area of the amendment - Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley local centre - is zoned Local Centre and Residential. These areas have a current height limit of up to two storeys and a low housing density (R20, R20/25 and R30). The advertised Scheme amendment proposes:

• Retaining the existing zoning (Local Centre and Residential), densities (R20, R25/25 and R30) and height requirements (the latter two controls as ‘base’ development standards);

• A minimum height of two storeys along South Street in area A to ensure redevelopment of the commercial hub is consistent with its purpose and location as a key transit route into the city; and

• Individual development controls for the Local Centre zone (Area A) and Residential zone (Area B) to allow for redevelopment through additional residential density and building height (as per below).

AREA A: In the Local Centre zone denoted in the Scheme amendment as Area A (refer to figure 1) a higher density (R100) with a maximum building height of 12 metres (external wall height) and 15 metres (top of pitched roof) is proposed where specific development controls are met. The proposed development controls relate to building height, street setbacks, vehicle access, activated ground floor frontages and minimum open space requirements. AREA B: In the Residential zoned area denoted in the Scheme amendment as Area B (refer to figure 1) a higher density (R80) and additional height (see below) is proposed

Page 134


where specific development controls are met. The proposed development controls include a minimum site area of 1 000 sqm (most likely to be achieved through amalgamation of existing lots) and coordinated access points to minimise individual access points by vehicles to South Street. The heights proposed in Area B are:

• 12 metre external wall height and 15 metre pitched roof height in the areas directly bordering Area A

• 9 metre external wall height and 12 metre roof ridge height within 15 metres from the boundary of Area B and residential zoned properties outside of Area B

• 6 metre wall height and 9 metre roof height within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area B. This is the same height limit as already applies to the existing adjoining residential properties in the area.

A full description the advertised proposed amendment is included in Attachment 2 of this report. CONSULTATION

The amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for confirmation that a formal environmental assessment was not required, in accordance with section 82 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. Written advice was received from the EPA on 27 July 2015 confirming that no assessment was required. Community consultation was undertaken from 22 August 2015 to 12 October 2015 with the consultation period subsequently extended to 16 November 2015 to allow for further consultation – 87 days in total. Advertising consisted of:

• Public advertising notices in the Fremantle Herald local newspaper – 25 & 29 August 2015;

• An information package including the Scheme amendment report, an ‘information sheet’ and submission forms made available at the City offices and on the website;

• Notice being placed on the City of Fremantle website for the duration of consultation period;

• Letters of notification and inviting comment on the proposal to various service agencies and government organisations; and

• Letters of notification and inviting comment to all precinct groups and landowners and tenants within at least 100m of the sites affected by the amendment.

During the further consultation period another letter (9 October 2015) was sent to the above amendment mailing list including the extended end of submission date, a ‘Frequently asked questions’ sheet and notice of the White Gum Valley Precinct Group meeting. Officers presented on the amendment at the precinct meeting attended by over 40 residents on Tuesday 3 November 2015.

Page 135


Summary of Submissions Nine agencies and 18 owner/occupiers in the White Gum Valley and Beaconsfield areas made submissions on the amendment. Six late submissions were received 18 December 2015, making a total of 33 submissions. The summary views expressed in those submissions are as follows - Position Number Object 10 – All owner/occupiers in the area Support – One conditional 7 – Six owner/occupiers; one agency that owns

land in the area (Housing Authority) Neutral - No objection/No comment 4 – One owner/occupier; three agencies Neutral - Comments 12 – Seven owner/occupier; five agencies

Total 33 The comments raised by submitters in support are summarised as follows:

• The Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley Local Centre hasn't seen changes for a long time. The changes are adequate and will go a long way to ensuring the ongoing viability of the Beaconsfield local centre. The proposed injection of higher density will encourage greater development, which will ultimately lead to more business, more shops and more people shopping in and around this specific area.

• Approve changes as proposed with potentially greater density increases in the area A to R120 or R160 if feasible.

• Two submissions proposed extending amendment area B. • Consider the types of uses in the area to create a sense of community.

The comments raised by the objectors are summarised as follows:

• The proposed height limit will result in buildings up to 5 storeys in height. This is inconsistent with local character/amenity;

• Higher density development that will increase traffic and result in more congestion and parking issues on adjacent streets;

• The validity of the 1000sqm site area requirement in area B and the ability to amalgamate with the neighbouring property was questioned.

• Heritage listed property or property with heritage value could be an issue for redevelopment.

Attachment 3 (Schedule of Submissions) provides a full list of the submissions with officer comments in response. PLANNING COMMENT

During 2014 the City identified the opportunity for higher density mixed use and residential development along South Street, one of the City’s key public transport routes. The rationale for the initiative was based upon a number of State Government planning and transport strategies. Further consideration of the applicable strategies is made in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of Attachment 1.

Page 136


The City identified the White Gum Valley/Beaconsfield Local centre, as well as two other locations (refer to figure 2), as being suitable for higher density development. Council subsequently initiated this amendment to the City’s Scheme. The main points raised in the submissions are summarised above under consultation and addressed below. Attachment 3 (Schedule of Submissions) provides a summary of each submission with officer comments in response. Development height A number of submissions received by the City noted the potential impact on local amenity arising from the proposed height of new buildings. Some submissions note the potential for a five storey development and the need to consider height buffers. Maximum building heights The advertised amendment proposes maximum building heights of 12m external wall and 15m pitched roof in area A and parts of area B where they do not abut residential development outside of area B. These height requirements would equate to a maximum of five storeys only where the roof space is utilised. In area A along South Street, however, the height requirement would equate to four storeys as a mandatory 4.0 metre ground floor plate height is required under the proposed amendment for development. The 4.0m ground floor plate height requirement would most likely result in the development of four storey buildings (owing to the remaining 11.0m of building height potential being divided into three storeys). Area B does not have the 4.0m ground floor building height and therefore may be able to develop to five storeys. Overall area A and area B would have the same maximum height limit of 15m to the pitched roof. The proposed 15.0m maximum building height (pitched roof) and resultant four to five storey development potential is considered to accord with the City’s original intent to allow for higher density development at a scale complimentary to the existing smaller scale, mostly residential development nearby to the scheme amendment area. Additionally, a height buffer is applicable in area B where area B adjoins Residential areas outside of area A and B (refer to discussion below). For these reason officers consider the height limit as proposed to be appropriate. Setback of development Some submissions raised concern over the physical setback of development in area A and area B, especially if area A developed first and therefore four to five storey development adjoined single storey residential in area B. Two submissions further noted the White Gum Valley side of the local centre (northern side of South Street) in area A is higher than the residential properties to the rear on Elizabeth Street. Investigation of the topographical map and a site visit has shown this height difference to be up to three metres at the rear boundary of the Local Centre South Street and Elizabeth Street properties. Development in Area A will therefore present as up to three metres higher to these properties. The purpose of this amendment and the proposed density and heights is to stimulate development of the area and create a transit-orientated hub around a local centre and

Page 137


high frequency transport route. Redevelopment of the area will likely occur in stages over a five to twenty year timeframe. Initially this could result in new development up to four to five storey located alongside existing single storey development. The adjoining single storey properties in area B, however, would have the same development potential (e.g. up to 15m pitched roof height) as property redeveloping in area A. Officers therefore consider it would be counter to the purpose of the amendment to restrict initial redevelopment through additional requirements. It is likely redevelopment of properties in area A would be set back from properties in area B as the amendment requires vehicle access to the rear of the development in area A: “vehicle parking shall only be provided at the rear of buildings and/or below ground level”. This would provide a further setback of new buildings in area A to area B. Additionally, factors that impact on the amenity of adjoining properties (e.g. building setback, overshadowing and visual privacy) will be considered and assessed as part of the planning assessment on any development application received. For example excerpts from the Residential Design codes 2015 are provided below for side setback and visual privacy. Officers consider these requirements and other aspects of the planning assessment, including neighbour notification, sufficient to the assessment of new development to the area. Excerpts from the Residential Design codes 2015

6.1.4 Lot boundary setbacks - Table 5 - Minimum lot boundary side setbacks

Width of the lot in metres (m) ≤14 15 ≥16 Side setback in metres (m) 3 3.5 4

6.4.1 Visual Privacy

Types of habitable rooms/ active habitable spaces

Set back within the cone of vision for R80+ development

Major openings to bedrooms and studies

3m

Major openings to habitable rooms other than bedroom and studies

4.5m

Unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces

6m

A height buffer is included as part of the proposed amendment for new development in area B where it would adjoin residential property outside of the amendment area (refer to area B height buffer discussion below). The height buffer would ensure that the height of new large scale development is limited in impact on the adjoining residential area that cannot redevelop above two storeys. The proposed height limit under the buffer in area B would be the same as the height limit for the adjoining residential area (e.g. 6m external wall height; 9m top of pitched roof/ two storey). Area B height buffer

Page 138


Figure 3. Area B Height buffer cross-section of existing and proposed heights diagram Advertised proposed amendment clause for height in area B:

The maximum external wall and roof ridge heights permitted within 5 metres of the boundary of any lot located outside of Area B shall be 6.0 metres and 9.0 metres respectively. The maximum external wall and roof ridge heights permitted within 15.0 metres but more than 5.0 metres from the boundary of any lot located outside of Area B shall be 9.0 metres and 12.0 metres respectively. In any other part of Area B the maximum external wall and roof ridge heights shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes.

The graduated height provisions in area B (clause and cross section of current and proposed heights diagram provided above) were not originally proposed in the amendment and instead were included through a motion of Council. In a haste to draft the provisions the intent of the wording was not as clear as it could have been. To clarify the provisions to ensure they are easier to understand and apply, officers propose the following rewording. The intent and effect remains the same, a stepping back of heights from adjoining residential areas, but the wording is considered less ambiguous. Officer’s recommended modification to amendment clause for height in area B:

The height requirements shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes for R80 coded land. A height buffer within Area B shall apply to development as follows -

• A maximum external wall height of 6 metres and top of pitched roof height of 9 metres for development in area B within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area B.


Boundary change to area B Three submissions proposed, for Council’s consideration, extending amendment area B to include additional lots. The submissions proposed extending area B to include:

• Housing Authority: 13 lots on the southern side of South Street to the west of the proposed Scheme amendment area;

• Planning Solutions: Six lots on the northern side of South Street to the east of the Scheme amendment area; and

• Six various owner/occupiers: Include the 23 additional lots on Fifth Avenue.

Page 139


These submissions as well as a proposal by officers to clarify the boundaries are discussed below. Housing Authority: Proposal to extend area B to the west

Figure 4. Housing Authority’s submission The Housing Authority’s submission requests 13 properties along South Street (numbers 171-191) up to Caesar Street, Beaconsfield be considered for inclusion into the amendment (refer to figure 4 above). The Housing Authority owns nine of these lots. The Housing Authority’s lots are each approximately 700 sqm. Four of the lots in the proposal (189A,189B, 191 and 191A South Street), closest to the proposed amendment area, are in private ownership and not owned by the Housing Authority. These privately owned lots are survey strata and are under 400 sqm in size. When setting the boundaries for the scheme amendment survey strata and grouped dwelling lots were generally omitted. The premise behind area B of the amendment is a site area requirement of 1000 sqm to provide for large scale and comprehensive development. Small lots in multiple ownership would therefore have less ability to contribute towards the development type anticipated by the amendment. Accordingly survey strata lots along the western side of area B became the natural boundary of the amendment area or strategic planning exercise. The properties to the east of Bruce Lee Reserve are predominantly owned by the Housing Authority and cover a large area. In their submission the Housing Authority stated that they are currently undertaking a review of their properties with a view to maximising development opportunities. Instead of including the Housing Authority’s lots in this Scheme amendment officers suggest the Housing Authority, with help offered by the City, undergo an exercise of reviewing all of their properties in the area and assessing the opportunities for comprehensive redevelopment. This exercise could then potentially form the basis of a separate scheme amendment. Planning Solutions: Proposal to extend area B the east

Page 140


Figure 5. Planning Solution’s submission On behalf of their client Planning Solutions support the amendment on the condition that the properties 20-26 (Lots 3 and 66) Taylor Street and 242-246 (Lots 32, 33, 34 and 35) South Street, White gum Valley (refer to figure 5 above) are included in the amendment. The subject lots are located on the northern side of South Street to the eastern side of proposed amendment area B. The six lots contain an established childcare centre and a single house. All of the six lots are in the ownership of one landowner. At the Ordinary Council Meeting 24 September 2014, the City identified a number of attributes on which to consider the various amendments adjoining the South Street transport corridor. The table below summarises these considerations and specifies how the additional lots address these elements.

Matter Officers response Appropriate zoning under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and LPS4

The additional lots are zoned Urban under the MRS and Residential under LPS4. Sites included in amendment area B have the same zonings.

Large development area (+1000m2)

The six lots measure 2,637m2 and are owned by one land owner.

Alternative access roads to South Street

Future development of the six lots could take access from Taylor Street.

Development of an area that would have limited impact on surrounding low density residential dwellings.

One of the lots contains a single house. This lot adjoins a single house to the north. The remaining five lots contain a single house converted into a childcare centre and associated structures and outbuildings. The childcare centre adjoins five grouped dwellings on one parent lot. If included in area B of the proposed amendment a height buffer (two storey for five metres and three storey for 15 metres from adjoining residential lots) would apply (refer to discussion above on the height buffer).

Sufficient services in the area to support increased density.

The additional lots are considered to have the same services as those sites already included in amendment area B.

Identified heritage listing The additional lots are not heritage listed.

Page 141


constraints which would encroach upon comprehensive development.

On balance, the additional lots are considered by officers to meet the characteristics identified earlier by the City. On the basis of the above, it is considered appropriate to include the additional lots in the amendment area. Officers additionally considered the inclusion of adjoining properties 12 and 18 Taylor Street, White Gum Valley. These lots are 602 sqm and 673 sqm respectively in size. While the properties are not heritage listed they are well established and in separate ownership to each other and to the six lots the subject of the amendment modification. For these reasons 12 and 18 Taylor Street are not recommended for inclusion in the proposed modification of the Scheme amendment. If the additional six lots were to be included into the amendment the change would not constitute a minor modification to the scheme amendment. This view is based on the following reasons:

• The lots are additional to the amendment area • Properties surrounding the six additional lots would need to be notified of the

variation to the amendment and provided with a chance to submit their views on the amendment to Council.

Consequently the scheme amendment would require re-advertising if it was to be modified to include the additional lots 20-26 (Lots 3 and 66) Taylor Street and 242-246 (Lots 32, 33, 34 and 35) South Street, White gum Valley. Six various land owners: Proposal to extend area B down Fifth Avenue On the 18 December 2015 the City received seven late submissions on the amendment. Six of the submissions were neutral and propose extending the proposed amendment provisions for area B (i.e. height up to 15 metres to top of pitched roof and R80 density coding, where specific requirements are met) down the eastern side Fifth Avenue to Lefroy Road. This would be an additional 23 lots. The reasons made in the submissions include:

• To provide consistency in the density coding for the street which faces onto a high density precinct being Caesar, Lefroy and South Streets;

• The whole of Fifth Avenue has ease of access to the key transit route to the City that is South Street;

• To remain in keeping with the streetscape; and

• To provide consistent approach to the planning and density coding.

One submission did not support the proposal to extend the amendment to the entire Fifth Avenue. As discussed above, the City identified a number of attributes on which to consider the various amendments adjoining the South Street transport corridor. The table below

Page 142


summarises these considerations and specifies how the additional lots in Fifth Avenue address these elements.

Matter Officers response Appropriate zoning under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and LPS4

The additional lots are zoned Urban under the MRS and Residential under LPS4. Sites included in amendment area B have the same zonings.

Large development area (+1000m2)

The site area requirement of 1000 sqm is intended to provide sufficient site size for well-designed comprehensive development at higher density. The 23 lots in Fifth Avenue are each around 530sqm in size and owned by individual landowners. Development of these lots under the proposed Scheme amendment provisions would require two or more lots to amalgamate. Smaller lots in multiple ownership would therefore have less ability to contribute towards the development type anticipated by the amendment. Additionally, due to the length of Fifth Avenue (approximately 400 metres) and number of properties included (23 lots) the resultant development could be difficult to coordinate and overly ad hoc. As discussed above the amendment area is likely to develop in stages over a 5-20 year timeframe, potentially resulting in larger scale developments alongside smaller existing built form for a considerable period of time. A linear pattern of development at higher density down one side of a relatively long street would also detract from the concept behind the amendment of a higher density ‘node’ centred on the South Street local centre.

Alternative access roads to South Street

Fifth Avenue can be used as an access road.

Development of an area that would have limited impact on surrounding low density residential dwellings.

The western side of Fifth avenue has a density coding of R30 and predominantly owned by the Department of Housing. The eastern side of Fifth avenue has a density coding of R20 and predominantly consists of single storey Single Houses in a mixture of old and newer homes. The properties on Fifth Avenue adjoin similar housing and the same density coding of R20 on Central Avenue. The advertised Scheme amendment proposed areas A and B extend a combined total of approximately 100m either side of the South Street local centre, creating a compact higher density node. The length of Fifth Avenue is approximately 400 metres. Extending the provisions fourfold would impact on Central Avenue and detract from the concept of a higher density ‘node’ centred on South Street.

Sufficient services in the area to support increased density.

The additional lots are considered to have the same services as those sites already included in amendment area B.

Identified heritage listing constraints which would encroach upon comprehensive development.

The 23 additional lots are not heritage listed. Fifth Avenue adjoins Central Avenue to the rear. Six lots on Central Avenue are heritage listed.

Page 143


The additional lots are not considered by officers to sufficiently meet the characteristics identified earlier by the City largely on the basis of the limited lot size, individual land ownership and the potential impact on adjoining low density residential dwellings. On the basis of the above, it is not considered appropriate to include the additional 23 lots in the amendment area. Boundary of area A and B The advertised proposed boundary of area A and B did not include the portion of land that is in the road reserve along the front of the properties on South Street. This portion of land within the Primary Regional Road reserve should be included in the local planning areas as it is privately owned and the full lot is required as part of any assessment under the existing and proposed Scheme requirements. Officers propose a modification to the proposed amendment map to remedy this anomaly as provided in the officer’s recommendation. Validity of development in area B In area B one of the proposed requirements prior to gaining additional density (R80) and height (up to 15m pitched roof) is a site area of 1000 sqm. Residential lots in area B on the southern side of South Street, Beaconsfield of are mostly less than 550 sqm. Lots in area B on the northern side of South Street, White Gum Valley are between 564 and 746 sqm. Accordingly lot amalgamation will be required to obtain the higher planning requirements proposed in the amendment. Some submissions questioned the validity of the 1000 sqm requirement for development in area B. The main concern being that a property could miss out on redevelopment because it could not establish 1000 sqm of land. The purpose of the 1000 sqm requirement is to provide enough land area for an effective large-scale redevelopment of the area. Development of the area, based on the proposed scheme amendment provisions, is unlikely to happen all at once. Instead, development is more likely to happen gradually and over a long period of time. As the area is already established officers estimate the timeframe for redevelopment would equate to a small number of developments in the short-term (1 to 5 year) and the majority of development in the medium to long-term (5-20 years). Development would be dependant market and investment opportunity. In the event that, in the future, a single property (lot) within area B was isolated by higher density redevelopment around it and could not on its own achieve the 1000 sqm site area requirements, Council could consider a pragmatic approach to redevelopment. Options for such an event would be covered by the City’s current Scheme including a variation to the site area requirements under 5.8 variations to site and development standards and requirements (includes height variation criteria). Traffic movements and vehicle parking A number of submissions received by the City raised concern about the potential impact additional traffic would have on traffic congestion and the availability of vehicle parking in the area. The provision of on-site vehicle parking is a matter of assessment at the point of a development application. Any new development is required to provide sufficient on-site

Page 144


parking to service the proposed uses. Traffic including the particular circumstances of the precinct is assessed at the same stage having regard to changes over time. Parking on the adjacent streets such as Stokes Street was specifically raised as a concern. Officers have logged the issue with the field services team to specifically look at and monitor parking issues in the area. Heritage Within the Scheme amendment area the properties: 2 Fifth Avenue, 1, 3, 4 and 6 Central Avenue and 199, 201, 205 and 211 are on the City’s heritage list and Municipal Heritage Inventory. The properties are shown shaded in figure 7 below.

Figure 7. Heritage listed places in proposed amendment area The heritage listing is not intended to exclude a property from redevelopment at the higher density under the amendment, though redevelopment would need to be more carefully considered to ensure new development is in keeping with the heritage significance of the place. Approval to demolish a heritage-listed property is not likely to be granted under clause 5.15 (demolition of buildings and structures) of the City’s Scheme and, comparatively to a vacant site redevelopment, could be considered more constrained for this reason. At the precinct meeting a question was raised on whether any properties on Elizabeth Street, White Gum Valley were heritage listed. Officers can confirm that no properties in Elizabeth Street, White Gum Valley are on the City’s heritage list or Municipal Heritage Inventory. Additional to details of heritage-listed properties ‘Inherit’ (the State Heritage Office’s public record of heritage properties) also contains notes on places. These notes are not statutory requirements and these properties are not on the City’s heritage list or Municipal Heritage Inventory. The following properties within the Scheme amendment area have notes applicable to the property in Inherit: 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 Stokes Street, 208, 213 and 221 South Street, 7 Central Avenue and 10 Fifth Avenue. Two of the submissions specifically referenced the Inherit notes for properties 14, 16, 18 & 20

Page 145


Stokes Street that state - The following places form a significant group and contribute to the streetscape of Stokes Street; 14, 16, 18 & 20 Stokes Street. As the properties mentioned above are not heritage listed nor in a heritage area, under the new Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations 2015) demolition of structures or buildings is permitted without the need to gain planning approval. Any further consideration of the heritage values of these properties should be dealt with as part of the MHI/Heritage List review process. A separate report on this matter is included in this agenda. Minor wording change A minor wording change is proposed to clarify the intent and wording of proposed clause c for both sub areas. In the advertised proposed amendment the following wording was proposed for clause c: A minimum building height of 7 metres (including two activated levels) applies within Area A. The intent of the provision is to ensure new development:

• is a minimum of two storeys in height to South Street; and • the visual connectivity and interest at both the ground level and first floor level is

maintained along South Street; • Pedestrian access to South Street is maintained.

The wording of this provision was questioned by a submitter in the submissions received on proposed Scheme amendment No. 64 - one of the City’s South Street transit corridor amendments in relation to the Hilton Local Centre and the subject of a final adoption report in this agenda. The submission raised the point that the provision for two active levels to street frontage is unclear due to the interpretation of active frontage generally relating to ground floor non-residential development. Accordingly, to be consistent with Scheme amendment No. 64 and to clarify the wording and intent of the provision officers propose the following new wording for both sub areas: c) A minimum building height of 7 metres, including a building façade on the South

Street frontage which incorporates windows and doors at the ground floor and windows to the first floor level to create interest and a sense of activity within the building, applies within Area A.

Amendment process Unrelated to the submissions, on 19 October 2015 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 came into effect, replacing certain process provisions under the City’s LPS4. This includes provisions relating to scheme amendments. The Regulations apply a tiered approach to scheme amendments; basic, standard and complex amendments. This scheme amendment is considered to be a ‘standard’ amendment, because it matches key characteristics described in the definition of a standard amendment in the new Regulations as follows:

Page 146


• Amendment provisions are consistent with the objectives in the scheme for the zoning applying to the area subject to the amendment;

• Minimal impact on land outside the area the subject of the amendment; • Amendment does not have any significant environmental, social, economic or

governance impacts. The City has followed a process to date that reflects the process now applicable to a standard amendment (including advertising and consultation requirements). CONCLUSION Scheme amendment 65 has been prepared to allow for higher density development at and around the White Gum Valley/Beaconsfield Local Centre. The amendment provides for development up to 15.0m and applies a density code of R80 and R100 where specific criteria are met. Due to the recommended inclusion of additional properties in the amendment area in response to submissions, it is recommended the amendment be re-advertised to the public prior to a final decision by Council on support for the amendment and a recommendation on its approval to the Minister for Planning. COMMITTEE & OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council – 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and

Attachment 3; 2. Resolve pursuant to regulation 51 of the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to advertise modifications to Amendment No. 65 to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as follows prior to consideration of the amendment for final adoption:

a) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 5 – Beaconsfield by replacing Clause 5.1 Local Centre requirements with the following:


b) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 5 – Beaconsfield by inserting the following:

LOCAL PLANNING AREA 5 - BEACONSFIELD 5.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR SUB AREAS

Page 147


Sub Area 5.3.1

a) Within sub area 5.3.1, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and Additional development standards b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub

Area 5.3.1, clause 5.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ of Local Planning Area 5 does not apply.

c) A minimum building height of 7 metres, including a building

façade on the South Street frontage which incorporates windows and doors at the ground floor and windows to the first floor level to create interest and a sense of activity within the building, applies within Area A.

d) Additional development standards shall be in accordance

with the criteria and standards set out in the table below:

Locations where additional development standards apply



Area A Land use a) Notwithstanding the provisions of

Table 1 – Zoning, residential land

Residential density R100. Maximum building height

Page 148


uses will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level with frontage to South Street, to ensure activation of development frontages to South Street.

Vehicle access b) Vehicle access to development

sites with frontage to South Street and an alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road. Vehicle access shall be designed to encourage coordination of access to adjoining properties.

c) Vehicle parking shall only be

provided at the rear of buildings and / or below ground level.

d) For new development with frontage

to South St, a Traffic Impact Assessment is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and shall be submitted in support of application for planning approval.

Other design requirements e) In the part of all new development

with frontage to South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

f) The minimum street setback shall

be 10 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, and the maximum street setback shall be 12 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback.

g) To prevent excessive breaks in

building frontages to South Street, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to South Street

as per the Residential Design Codes (refer to 5.3.1 c) for minimum building heights).

Page 149


is no more than 6 metres. h) Open space can be reduced to 30%

where development respects existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

Area B a) The development site comprises of

a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm.

b) Vehicle access to development


Note: While amalgamation and joint development of adjoining sites is expected to be the predominant means of providing alternative access to South Street as required in part B above, alternative mechanisms such as the creation of easements or rights-of-carriageway may also be considered.

Residential density code R80. The height requirements shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes for R80 coded land. A height buffer within Area B shall apply to development as follows - • A maximum

external wall height of 6 metres and top of pitched roof height of 9 metres for development in area B within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area B.


Page 150


Note: Where the above criteria are not met, the height requirements in 5.1 above apply.

c) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley by replacing Clause 6.1 Local Centre requirements with the following:


d) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley by inserting the following:

LOCAL PLANNING AREA 6 – WHITE GUM VALLEY 6.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR SUB AREAS Sub area 6.3.1

a) Within sub area 6.3.1, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and

Additional development standards b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub Area

6.3.1 clause 6.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ of Local Planning Area 6 does not apply.

c) A minimum building height of 7 metres, including a building façade on the South Street frontage which incorporates

Page 151


windows and doors at the ground floor and windows to the first floor level to create interest and a sense of activity within the building, applies within Area A.

d) Additional development standards shall be in accordance with

the criteria and standards set out in the table below:

Locations where additional development standards apply



Area A Land use a) Notwithstanding the provisions of

Table 1 – Zoning, residential land uses will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level with frontage to South Street, to ensure activation of development frontages to South Street.

Vehicle access b) Vehicle access to development


c) Vehicle parking shall only be

provided at the rear of buildings and / or below ground level.

d) For new development with frontage

to South St, a Traffic Impact Assessment is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and shall be submitted in support of application for planning approval.

Other design requirements e) In the part of all new development

with frontage to South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4

Residential density R100. Maximum building height as per the Residential Design Codes (refer to 6.3.1 c) for minimum building heights).

Page 152


metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

f) The minimum street setback shall

be 10 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, and the maximum street setback shall be 12 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback.

g) To prevent excessive breaks in

building frontages to South Street, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to South Street is no more than 6 metres.

h) Open space can be reduced to 30%

where development respects existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

Area B a) The development site comprises of

a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm.

b) Vehicle access to development


Note: While amalgamation and joint development of adjoining sites is expected to be the predominant means of providing alternative access to South Street as required in part B above, alternative mechanisms such as the creation of easements or rights-of-carriageway may also be considered.

Residential density code R80. The height requirements shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes for R80 coded land. A height buffer within Area B shall apply to development as follows - • A maximum

external wall height of 6 metres and top of pitched roof height of 9 metres for development in area B within 5

Page 153


metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area B.


Note: Where the above criteria are not met, the height requirements in 6.1 of Local Planning Area 6 above apply.


Page 154


REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register Cr J Strachan MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered PC1603, PC1612, PC1615. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham

Page 155


The following item number PC1603 was moved and carried en bloc. PC1603 PAKENHAM STREET NO.43 (LOT 200), FREMANTLE AMENDMENT

TO OPENING HOURS FOR EXISTING RESTAURANT (JL DA0556/15) ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 January 2016 (Planning Committee) Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: DA0175/11 (21 June 2011), DA0490/12 (22 September

2011) Attachment 1: Applicants Justification/ proposed opening hours Attachment 2: DA0522/12 - approved development plans Attachment 3: Applicants response letter to submissions Date Received: 23 November 2015 Owner Name: Hamlet Properties Submitted by: Fremantle Woodfired Bakery Pty Ltd Scheme: City Centre Heritage Listing: Level 2 / West End Conservation Area Existing Landuse: Restaurant / Industry Service Use Class: Restaurant / Industry Service Use Permissibility: P / A

Page 156


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fremantle (the City) is in receipt of a planning application which proposed amending the existing opening hours of the existing Restaurant located at No.43 Pakenham Street, Fremantle. The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) as objections have been received that cannot be resolved through conditions of planning approval. The City’s Environmental Health Services have advised that whilst a significant number of general smoke, odour and other health related complaints have been received since the Restaurant and Industry Service (bakery) use being undertaken, no breach against relevant Australian & New Zealand (AS) standards or other relevant Environmental Health Legislation has occurred to date. Overall, the additional opening hour for the Restaurant use (10pm – 11pm) is not considered likely to significantly intensify any odour, smoke and general noise complaints. Furthermore, it’s important to note that if any future complaints are received, investigated and found to be beyond the permitted levels or other Environmental Health standards or requirements, processes are in place to deal with any beaches outside of the planning regime. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND Site Background The subject site is located on the western side of Pakenham Street, Fremantle. The site is comprised of a single storey heritage listed Restaurant (Bread in Common) & Industry Service (bakery) and office approval granted in June 2011 and November 2012. The site is zoned City Centre under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), and is located within the City Centre Local Planning Area and is approximately 556m2. The site listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Management Category Level 2, and is further located within West End Conservation Area, which a designated Heritage Area in accordance with Clause 7.2 of LPS4. Planning Application background DA0175/11 - On 21 June 2011 Council granted planning approval for ‘Alterations and Additions to an existing Warehouse Building and change of use to Restaurant and Office. DA0338/11 - On 22 September 2011, the City granted planning approval for amending condition No.7 that requires storm water retention on site for DA0175/11 due to unforeseen issues with stormwater retention onsite within the West End sites. DA0490/12 – On 22 October 2012, Planning Approval was granted to amend the opening hours for the Restaurant use on site resulting in the following changes

Page 157


DA0175/11 - Existing Restaurant Approved Opening Hours:

DA0490/12 - Approved Restaurant Opening Hours

9:00am to 12:00 midnight six days a week

Sunday to Thursday - 7:00 am to 10:00pm Friday and Saturday 7:00am to 12:00 midnight

DA0522/12 – 27 November 2012, planning approval was granted for a partial change of use from Restaurant to Industry Service (Bakery). Refer to ‘Attachment 2’ below for copy of approved Development plans. As part of Council’s determination of DA0522/12 the following hours of operation for the Industry Service (bakery) use were as follows:

DA0522/12 - Existing Industry Service (Bakery) Opening Hours:

Sunday to Thursday 4.00am to 10.00pm Friday to Saturday 4.00am to 12 midnight

The operating hours of the week are not proposed to be altered by this application. DETAIL

The application proposes the following changes to the opening hours (as distinct from operating hours associated with the bakery) of the Restaurant use only on site.

DA0490/12 - Existing Restaurant Approved Opening Hours:

DA0556/15 - Proposed Restaurant Opening Hours

Sunday to Thursday - 7:00 am to 10:00pm, Monday to Thursday 7.00am to 11.00 pm

Friday and Saturday 7:00am to 12:00 midnight

Friday & Saturday 7.00am to 12.00pm midnight (unchanged)

Sundays 7.00am to 10.00 pm

(unchanged) The proposed amendment would result in one additional hour (10pm to11pm) Monday to Thursday, with all other opening periods for the Restaurant use remaining as already approved. The applicant states that,

‘the purpose of this is to not disappoint existing diners by asking them to leave before what they would normally expect to stay in a Restaurant and also to accept diners that are currently being turned away as early as 8.45pm, giving our inability to service them properly within an hour.

This becomes a difficult issue for us to manage, particularly in summer and is not consistent with hospitality within the important tourist precinct of Fremantle.’

Page 158


STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), and relevant planning policies. Discretions sought against LPS4 and policy requirements will be discussed in the planning comment section of this report. CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Council’s L.P.P1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. Advertising commenced on 26 November 2015 and concludes on 14 December 2015. A total of 8 submissions (6 objections and 2 supporting the proposal) were received. The letters of support raised the following matters:

1. Businesses such as this are vital to ensuring Fremantle is kept a vibrant, cultural and modern City,

2. These businesses help cub the sort of antisocial behaviour and revive the economy in an ailing city;

A summary of the key planning concerns raised regarding the proposal are as follows:

1. Smoke emission, 2. Odours generated by cooking flues and roof top equipment, 3. Noise generated by mechanical plant room equipment, 4. Noise form patrons of the premises, 5. Antisocial behaviour, 6. Rubbish / Littering issues, and 7. Traffic and general service vehicle congestion.

The applicant has provided a formal response to the concerns which can be viewed in Attachment 3 below. Internal referral – Environmental Health Department The application was referred internally to the City’s Environmental Health department who provided the following comments;

• The Bread in Common (BiC) Restaurant has regular pest control for all pests including rodents.

• The new owner or occupier of the closest residential unit at 37 Pakenham Street immediately north adjacent to BiC has not yet contacted the City to report any of the previous matters raised by the resident making regular complaints.

• The former resident was found to not always occupy the dwelling subject of the alleged impacts, so it made investigation of allegations difficult at times of vacancy.

• There are quite a few residents and tenants immediately adjacent to this food business who have not complained about BiC.

• Typically there are at least five food businesses in the surrounding streets that are in similar proximity to residents that have been operating with older exhaust

Page 159


equipment or renewed exhaust equipment that have not had the same resident scrutiny as BiC.

• The first and only noise monitoring completed in 2013 found that the alleged noise complied at the time with the standards for commercial and mixed use areas and no further action was required by the City or BiC.

• In the initial months of trade the contractors associated with the roof infrastructure took detailed steps to source extra dry, low smoke emitting wood and to test the correct start up loadings to generate the lowest amount of wood smoke from the baking ovens exhaust outlets.

• Added to this the main kitchen exhaust outlets where the majority of food is cooked to order over the different meal times resulted in cooking smells that were intermittent, heavily diluted with the mixing atmosphere and not consistent as each meal order is different.

• Prevailing winds rapidly diluted smoke and cooking smells thereby minimising any nuisance and investigations of the exhaust air emissions were determined to comply with the relevant Australian Standards and therefore with the Food Safety Standards.

• The EH Services strongly encouraged BiC management to engage directly with residents making complaints and they always welcomed direct contact from the very few complainants to immediately deal with any reported genuine concerns and to speed up investigation and introduce modification where practical.

PLANNING COMMENT In summary the applicant seeks planning approval to extend the current opening hours for the existing Restaurant from 10pm to 11pm Monday – Thursday, with all other opening hours remaining as currently approved. In review of the property file, since the subject site has been approved for Restaurant and Industry Service (bakery) uses, the City has received a total of 30 written complaints between the periods of January 2012 to date. A breakdown of these complaints and issues raised are as follows; Year Number of complaints

received in the calendar year (January – December)

Issue of compliant and numbers on each matter

2012 2 Noise generated by special events 2013 13 Noise – rooftop equipment

Noise – Land use Antisocial Behaviour issues Odour/ smells Smoke emissions Loitering Littering / General Rubbish issues

2014 14 Noise – rooftop equipment Noise – Land use Antisocial Behaviour issues Odour/ smells Smoke emissions Loitering Littering / General Rubbish issues

2015 1 Rodent issues

Page 160


All of the above written complaints received to date have been investigated by the City’s Compliance Department in conjunction with the City’s Environmental Health Department and to date no breach of relevant statutory Planning or Health requirements has occured. On an ongoing basis, City Compliance and Environmental Health Officer’s have been collaborating with the owners and nearby residents with regards to implementing various mechanical and monitoring devices to the rooftop plant equipment to help reduce amenity impacts arising from multiple complaints received by the City since the Restaurant opened. Of the complaints received, the City’s Compliance & Environmental Health Departments have provided multiple responses to the key reasons of complaints. A summary of these previous responses include the following information for the key areas of complaints: Noise/ Odour/ Smoke emissions

• Equipment noise, wood smoke and kitchen odours have been modified to varying degrees of success since the opening of the business,

• emissions to the atmosphere from any approved food business is not classed as pollution as there is a reasonable expectation that the discharge will routinely occur as part of the trade,

• Noise level testings regarding exceeding the relevant decibel levels as set out in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (as amended) has been undertaken at adjoining residential properties and no breach to these requirements had occurred,

• To reduce the impact of cooking emissions the City applies the Australian Standard – AS166.2-1991 to permit the discharge of cooking exhaust from every kitchen in the City on their merits.

Tobacco Smoke/ littering • Tobacco products are not prohibited from use in public places, like footpaths,

anywhere. • The management of the food business is encouraged to sweep up any litter

associated with its trade on a daily basis or sooner as required. • In any case, as often as humanly possible the City’s street cleaning patrol

regularly moves through the Fremantle CBD to remove all kinds of litter left behind by the public.

With regard to complaints such as loitering and antisocial issues, it’s important to note that such matters are not governed by the Planning legislation and typically such matters are dealt with by the Police Department. In terms of the rodent compliant, the applicants have installed baiting systems and these systems are regularly monitored. CONCLUSION In summary, extending the opening hours from 10pm to 11pm Monday to Thursday is supported as such a minor change isn’t considered to be unreasonable for the following reasons:

• A Restaurant use is a Permitted land use (without the need to obtain the prior planning approval of Council) within the City Centre zone,

Page 161


• The patronage envisaged to occupy the site during the evening period of 10-11pm (Monday and Thursday) is typically significantly less than that of busy day (11.30am to 2.30pm) and dinner (5.30pm – 9pm) periods,

• The proposed opening hours are consistent with other Restaurant businesses trading in close proximity of the site, and

• No breach of other non-planning relevant (Environmental/Health) statutory standards or requirements has occurred to date.

Council may be of a differing opinion to City Officers and considerthat such a change to the opening hours for the Restaurant would fundamentally result in further detrimental impact on the neighbouring residential properties and as such not support the application. If this was the case the following recommended would apply:

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Amendment to Opening hours of the existing Restaurant at No. 43 (Lot 200) Pakenham Street, Fremantle, for the following reason:

1. The proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the area under

clause 10.2 (p) of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 by reasons of increased impacts by way of smoke, odour emissions and additional noise generated.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION / COMMITTEE DECISION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Amendment to Opening hours of the existing Restaurant at No. 43 (Lot 200) Pakenham Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. The Opening hours for the Restaurant is limited to:

a) Monday to Thursday 7.00am to 11.00pm; b) Friday to Saturday 7.00am to 12.00pm; and c) Sunday 7.00am to 10pm


Page 162


The following item number PC1612 was moved and carried en bloc. PC1612 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED

AUTHORITY - OFFICE 2007 OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION / COMMITTEE DECISION

That the information is noted. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham

Page 163


The following item number PC1615 was moved and carried en bloc. PC1615 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 67 - BASIC SCHEME AMENDMENT TO

ALIGN LPS4 WITH THE NEW PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS - ADOPTION

ECM Reference: 102/009, 218/074 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 January 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1511-9 Attachments: 1. Previous item PSC1511-9

2. Track changes showing clauses proposed to be deleted from LPS4 3. Deemed provisions for local planning schemes (Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) were gazetted on 25 August and took effect on 19 October 2015, replacing the Town Planning Regulations 1967. Significantly the Regulations introduced a set of deemed provisions which are automatically ‘read into’ every local planning scheme in the State. A report on implementation of the Regulations was presented to Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 25 November 2015 with key actions allocated to timeframes – immediate, short term or longer term. One of the short term actions Council resolved to undertake was an audit of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4 or Scheme) to identify all clauses which are now superseded by the deemed provisions of the Regulations. Officers have completed this audit, and it has been used to draft a ‘basic’ category amendment to the Local Planning Scheme. The amendment proposes deletion of Scheme text which is now no longer required or is inconsistent with the deemed provisions. Also the current permitted development provisions in the City’s LPS4 that are supplementary to the Regulations have been retained but re-formatted in Schedule 15. Council is recommended to approve the scheme amendment as presented in this report. Under the new Regulations this amendment does not require a public comment period after Council adoption as it is a basic category amendment for administrative purposes only BACKGROUND The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) were gazetted on 25 August and took effect on 19 October 2015, replacing the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

Page 164


An information only report was presented to Planning Services Committee on 7 October 2015 (PSC1510-17). A further report proposing the City’s approach to integrating the Regulations into the City’s planning framework including review and amendment of the Local Planning Scheme was presented to the Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 25 November 2015 (Refer to the Council minutes PSC1511-9 attachment 1). This report also considered key actions and the timeframe for those actions (immediate, short term or longer term future). The part of the Council’s resolution on 25 November 2015 which is of relevance to this report was as follows:

2. That Council approve the following recommended actions to ensure compliance with requirements of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015:

i. Officers are to complete an audit of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4)

to identify all provisions which are now superseded by the deemed provisions of the Regulations, and use the audit to draft a ‘basic’ category amendment to the Local Planning Scheme to delete from the scheme all text which is inconsistent with the deemed provisions. The scheme amendment is to be reported to Council by the end of January 2016 for consideration to commence the formal scheme amendment process.

ii. Officers are to compile a schedule of all categories of development

permitted without planning approval under provisions within LPS4 which are additional to the deemed provisions of the Regulations, for inclusion as a Schedule of Supplemental Provisions in the drafting of the scheme amendment referred to in recommendation 2(i) above.

Basic Scheme amendment Under the new Regulations Scheme amendments are to be categorised as basic, standard or complex. Different timeframes and requirements apply to each. The amendment the subject of this report is a ‘basic’ amendment. A basic amendment is one which deals with administrative aspects of a scheme and does not require advertising. Guidance issued by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on implementation of the Regulations expressly states that amendments to delete provisions that have been superseded by the Regulations’ deemed provisions constitute a basic amendment. Following Council approval of the amendment the City can submit it directly to the WAPC for consideration. The WAPC then has 42 days to consider the basic amendment and provide a recommendation to the Minister. The key details of a basic scheme amendment are provided in table 1 below. Table 1. Overview of basic scheme amendment Amendment type Basic Example of use The amendment corrects an administrative error; is

consistent with the Model Scheme Text, other Acts, the MRS or State Planning Policy; deletes provisions that have been superseded by the Regulations’ deemed provisions; includes map changes consistent with a

Page 165


Amendment type Basic structure plan.

Council adopt amendment Required WAPC approval for amendment to be advertised

Not required

Advertising period None required Council to consider submissions N/A LG to forward amendment to WAPC Within 21 days of passing the resolution to prepare or

adopt a basic amendment WAPC to consider amendment Within 42 days. Can direct Local Government to advertise

amendment as standard or complex PLANNING COMMENT The most significant and immediate impact of the Regulations was the introduction of the deemed provisions (refer to attachment 3). As of 19 October 2015 the Regulations’ deemed provisions are automatically ‘read into’ every local planning scheme in WA. Planning schemes do not need to be altered for the deemed provisions to take effect. The text of any current scheme, including the City’s LPS4, is not automatically physically changed by the deemed provisions taking effect. Any provision of a planning scheme that is inconsistent with the deemed provisions is overridden and superseded by the deemed provisions, but physically retained in the Scheme until an amendment is adopted to remove the obsolete provisions. While local governments are not permitted to vary or remove a deemed provision, planning schemes can include ‘supplemental provisions’ which are consistent with but extend a matter covered in a deemed provision further. Retaining the superseded wording in a planning scheme is potentially confusing for readers, as they now effectively need to read two documents – the scheme and the deemed provisions schedule of the Regulations – side-by-side in order to identify where similar but inconsistent clauses exist and circumstances where the deemed provisions now prevail. In order to minimise the scope for confusion the WAPC recommends local governments audit their schemes to identify which provisions are now superseded by the deemed provisions, and then undertake a basic scheme amendment to delete from the scheme all clauses which are superseded by deemed provisions. City officers have audited LPS4 and prepared such an amendment to the Scheme, proposing deletion of clauses that have been superseded by the Regulations in the following parts of the scheme (refer to attachment 2 for track changes to LPS4):

Select clauses from: Part: 2 – Local Planning Policy Framework 6 – Special Control Areas 7 – Heritage and conservation protection 8 – Development of land 9 – Application for planning approval 10 – Procedure for dealing with applications 11 – Enforcement and administration

Page 166


Schedules: 1 – Dictionary of defined words and expressions - Specified definitions from General Definitions 6 – Form of application for planning approval 7 – Additional information for advertisements 8 – Notice of public advertisement of planning proposal 9 – Notice of determination on application for planning approval 15 – Minor development permitted without planning approval

Additionally, the deemed provisions include a clause on permitted development (Refer to attachment 3 clause 61. Development for which development approval not required). The existing LPS4 permitted development provisions are generally consistent with, or extend further than, the deemed provisions’ permitted development. Many of LPS4’s permitted development provisions or parts of the provisions (8.2 permitted development and Schedule 15 – Minor development permitted without planning approval) have therefore not been superseded by the deemed provisions. To provide clarity the WAPC has advised that existing scheme provisions which are considered additional to the deemed provisions may be retained but should be moved into a Schedule of Supplemental Provisions as part of the ‘basic’ scheme amendment. For ease of administration officers propose consolidating the relevant provisions from LPS4 (i.e. existing clause 8.2 and Schedule 15) into a new version of Schedule 15 which combines and updates the still relevant permitted development provisions. Only those provisions that are considered supplemental to the Regulations are proposed to be included in the new Schedule 15. The intent of the original provisions has been retained, though the wording has been reconfigured and updated to reflect the wording of the Regulations’ deemed provisions and Residential Design Codes 2015. No changes or new permitted development provisions are proposed as part of this basic Scheme amendment. In summary the majority of the supplemental permitted development provisions are of the following types:

Current permitted development under LPS4 not provided for at all in the Regulations; e.g. signage/advertisements, minor filling, retaining walls, painting, roofing and cladding materials. Permitted development provided for in the Regulations, however the City’s Scheme permits the development in more circumstances; e.g. specific internal works on heritage buildings, external fixtures and patios in heritage areas.

Refer to Officer’s recommendation for full proposed new text of Schedule 15.

Page 167


CONCLUSION The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 took effect on 19 October 2015. The most significant and immediate impact of the Regulations was the introduction of the deemed provisions. The deemed provisions supersede many clauses of the City’s LPS4. Consistent with Council’s resolution of 25 November 2015, officers recommend a ‘basic’ category amendment to the Local Planning Scheme that deletes Scheme text which is now no longer required or is inconsistent with the deemed provisions. The current Scheme permitted development provisions have also been reconfigured and inserted into Schedule 15. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION / COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr Jon Strachan 1. That Council resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development

Act 2005 and regulation 35 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, to adopt a basic amendment to the Local Planning Scheme No. 4. The amendment is for administrative purposes only. The amendment deletes provisions that have been superseded by the deemed provisions of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The amendment is adopted as follows:

i. Delete the following definitions from clause 12.1 General Definitions: Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions:

• advertisement • amenity • cultural heritage significance • local planning strategy • owner • place • premises • Residential Design Codes • substantially commenced • works • zone

ii. Delete the following clauses in their entirety:

Under Part 2 – Local Planning Policy Framework: • Scheme determination to conform with Fremantle Planning Strategy • Local Planning Policies • Relationship of Local Planning Policies to Scheme • Procedures for making or amending a local planning policy • Revocation of local planning policy Under Part 6 – Special Control Areas:

Page 168


• 6.2.1 Interpretation • 6.2.3 (Subdivision and Development in Development Areas) to 6.2.16

(Appeal) inclusive of clause 6.2 Development Areas Under Part 7 – Heritage and conservation protection: • 7.1.1 to 7.1.6 (inclusive) of clause 7.1 Heritage List • 7.2.1 to 7.2.8 (inclusive) of clause 7.2 Designation of a Heritage Area • 7.3 Heritage agreements • 7.4 Heritage assessments • 7.5 Variations to Scheme provisions for a heritage place or heritage area • 7.8 Heritage conservation notice Under Part 8 – Development of land: • 8.1 Requirement for approval to commence development • 8.2 Permitted developments • 8.3 Amending or Revoking a Planning Approval Under Part 9 – Application for planning approval: • 9.1 Form of application • 9.2 Accompanying material • 9.3 Additional material for heritage matters • 9.4 Advertising of applications • 9.5 Public inspection of applications Under Part 10 – Procedure for dealing with applications: • 10.1 Consultations with other authorities • 10.2 Matters to be considered by the Council • 10.3 Determination of applications • 10.4 Form and date of determination • 10.5.1 only of clause 10.5 Term of planning approval • 10.6.1 only of clause 10.6 Temporary approval • 10.7 Scope of planning approval • 10.8 Approval subject to later approval details • 10.9 Deemed refusal • 10.10 Review Under Part 11 – Enforcement and administration: • 11.1 Powers of the Council • 11.2 Removal and repair of existing advertisements • 11.3 Delegation of functions

iii. Delete the following Schedules in their entirety: 6 – Form of application for planning approval 7 – Additional information for advertisements 8 – Notice of public advertisement of planning proposal 9 – Notice of determination on application for planning approval 15 – Minor development permitted without planning approval

Page 169


iv. Delete “10.5.1(a)” from the wording of clause 10.5.2 and insert the words “71 of Schedule 2 – deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015” to the end of clause 10.5.2.

v. Insert the following into Schedule 15

15 – Development for which development approval not required (Supplementary Provisions) Except as otherwise provided in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, for the purposes of the Scheme the following development does not require the planning approval of the Council— (a) The carrying out of any building or works which affects only the interior of a

building where: i. the building is on the heritage list under clause 8 of the Planning and

Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; ii. The building(s) is used for Residential purposes; and iii. The works are confined to any of the following:

• Kitchen, bathroom or laundry fit out with no structural alterations; • Replacement of light fitting(s); • Painting/wall papering/plastering of internal walls; • Retiling; • Construction of new internal non-masonry, non-load bearing walls; • New floor covering placed over but not replacing existing floor

surface materials; or • Electrical and plumbing works.

(b) Any development, excluding signs/advertisements, which are temporary and in

existence for less than 14 days or such longer time as the Council agrees. (c) Any change to the words, pictures, symbols or colours of any approved

advertisement where the change does not alter the size or purpose of the approved advertisement,

(d) Any of the exempted classes of advertisements listed in Schedule 5, (e) Minor filling or excavation of land, provided there is no more that 500

millimetres change to the natural ground level, (f) Construction of a retaining wall less than 500 millimetres in height, (g) The painting or application of render on the external surface of any building or

structure, except where the building or structure is located in a place that is — (i) entered in the Register of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia

Act 1990; or (ii) the subject of an order under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990

Part 6; or (iii) included on the Heritage List under clause 8 of the Planning and

Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015,

Page 170


(h) The maintenance and repair of any building or structure being lawfully used immediately prior to the Scheme having effect except where the building is located in a place that is - (i) entered in the Register of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia


Part 6' (i) Works by any public authority acting pursuant to the provisions of any Act on,

in, over or under a public street, or works for a utility service, (j) Works urgently necessary for public safety, safety or security of plant or

equipment, maintenance of essential services, or protection of the environment,

(k) Removal of trees or vegetation areas except where trees and vegetation areas

are identified in the register of significant trees or vegetation areas. (l) The use of a single house, grouped dwelling or multiple dwelling as a short

stay dwelling, where occupied by 6 or fewer persons. (m) A small secondary dwelling which:

(i) is located on a lot with a minimum area of 450 square metres; (ii) is detached from the existing single house on the lot; (iii) is set back from the primary street and any secondary street by a

minimum of 6 metres; and (iv) conforms with the deemed-to-comply provisions of the following design

elements of the Residential Design Codes or the provisions of a local planning policy varying or replacing the deemed-to-comply provisions of any of the following design elements (as the case may be), as they apply to single houses: • Design Element: 5.1.2 Street setback; 5.1.3: Lot boundary setback; • Design Element: 5.3.1 Outdoor living area; • Design Element: 5.3.7 Site works; and • Design Element: 5.4.1 Visual privacy; 5.4.2 Solar access for adjoining

lots; 5.4.3 Outbuildings; and 5.4.4 External fixtures,

except where the small secondary dwelling is located within a place that is - (i) entered in the Register of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia



Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015,

(n) Replacing or altering roofing materials on a building where there is no change to the roof form and pitch except where the building is on a place that is - (i) entered in the Register of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia


Part 6; or

Page 171


(iii) included on the Heritage List under clause 8 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015,

(o) Adding, altering or replacing external cladding materials on a building where

there is no change to the building form and except where the building is on a place that is - (i) entered in the Register of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia



Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; or (iv) included in a Heritage Area under clause 9 of the Planning and

Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, (p) The modification of major and minor openings to a building where the

modification is within the relevant acceptable development provisions of the Residential Design Codes and except where the building is on a place that is -

(i) entered in the Register of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990; or

(ii) the subject of an order under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 Part 6;or


(q) Notwithstanding the provisions of clause 4.3 and clauses 5.7.1 to 5.7.4

inclusive, a change in the use of an existing building in the City Centre zone to any of the following uses: (i) Shop; (ii) Office; (iii) Restaurant; (iv) Small bar; or (v) Consulting rooms.

(r) Notwithstanding the provisions of clause 4.3 and clauses 5.7.1 to 5.7.4

inclusive, a change of use of a building which currently has planning approval for use as a Restaurant or Small Bar to use as a Restaurant or Small Bar where: (i) the building is on land zoned Mixed Use or Local Centre; and (ii) the new use operates in accordance with any conditions of planning

approval relating to the hours of operation that apply to the currently approved Restaurant or Small Bar use on the subject site,

(s) Fence in Heritage Areas under clause 9 of the Planning and Development

(Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 in the following circumstances - (i) within the secondary street setback up to 1800mm in height; or (ii) Any other fence within 3 metres of the boundary of any land depicted on

the Scheme map as a local reserve for open space or land shown on the Metropolitan Region Scheme as a regional reserve for parks and recreation up to 1200mm in height,

Page 172


(t) Screening material where attached to an existing fence and projecting no more than 500mm above the top of the fence at any point and is not situated within a primary or secondary street setback area,

(u) Outbuilding in Heritage Areas under clause 9 of the Planning and Development

(Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 where compliant with the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes for outbuildings,

(v) Private swimming pools and outdoor spas in Heritage Areas under clause 9 of

the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 where situated within a rear setback area and no greater than 1.8m in height,

(w) Patio in Heritage Areas under clause 9 of the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 where - (i) located within a side or rear setback area (excluding secondary street

setback areas); and (ii) compliant with the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design

Codes for outbuildings, (x) Shade structures in Heritage Areas under clause 9 of the Planning and

Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 where - (i) located within a side or rear setback area (excluding secondary street

setback areas); (ii) located more than 1 metre from any boundary; and (iii) no greater than 3 metres in height and 25 sqm in area,

(y) Single storey (ground level) additions and all alterations to a Single House on a

lot in a Heritage Area under clause 9 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 where the works - 1) are located within a rear setback area (excluding secondary street setback areas); and 2) are compliant with the applicable deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes,

(z) Single storey (ground level) additions and all alterations to Multiple and

Grouped Dwellings where the works - 1) are located within a side or rear setback area (excluding secondary street setback areas); and 2) are compliant with the applicable deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes; and 3) do not propose a boundary wall unless the boundary wall abuts an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of the same or greater dimensions.

except where the Multiple or Grouped Dwellings is located within a place that is - (i) entered in the Register of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia


Part 6; or

Page 173



(a) External fixtures on a place on the heritage list under clause 8 of the Planning

and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 where - (i) not exceeding 1.8m in height and fixed to a wall of a building which

faces the rear or a side boundary (excluding walls facing secondary streets); or

(ii) fixed to a plane of the roof of a building which faces the rear or a side boundary (excluding roof planes facing secondary streets), or to a flat roof, and projecting no more than 1m above the part of the existing roof to which the fixture is attached and no greater than 2m wide, or projecting no more than 2m above the highest part of the existing roof at any point in the case of an aerial or antenna; and

(iii) In all circumstances the maximum diameter of a satellite antenna or dish permitted without planning approval is 1m,

(b) External fixtures in a heritage area under clause 9 of the Planning and

Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 where - (i) not exceeding 1.8m in height and fixed to a wall of a building which

faces the rear or a side boundary (excluding walls facing secondary streets); or

(ii) fixed to a plane of the roof of a building which faces the rear or a side boundary (excluding roof planes facing secondary streets), or to a flat roof, and projecting no more than 1m above the part of the existing roof to which the fixture is attached or projecting no more than 2m above the highest part of the existing roof at any point in the case of an aerial or antenna; and

(iii) In all circumstances the maximum diameter of a satellite antenna or dish permitted without planning approval is 1m,

(c) Air conditioning units on a place on the heritage list or in a heritage area

under clause 8 and 9 respectively of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 where –

(i) not exceeding 1.8m in height and fixed to a wall of a building which faces a side boundary (excluding walls facing secondary streets); or

(ii) fixed to a wall or roof plane of a building which faces the rear boundary at a height not exceeding the highest part of the existing roof at any point; or

(iii) Excluding places on the heritage list an air conditioning unit on a building with a flat roof, in a position where the top of the air conditioning unit is not more than 1m above the highest part of the existing roof at any point,

(d) Water tanks on a place on the heritage list or in a heritage area under clause 8

and 9 respectively of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 where –

(i) fixed to a wall of a building which faces the rear or a side boundary (excluding walls facing secondary streets) at a height not exceeding the eaves height; or

Page 174


(ii) free standing within a side or rear setback area (excluding secondary street setback areas), and no greater than 2.4m in height if more than 1m from any boundary, or 1.8m in height if less than 1m from any boundary,

(e) Minor structures where –

(i) Within the primary street setback area below 2m in height excluding clothes lines; or

(ii) Below 3m in other cases, (f) Flag poles where –

(a) free standing and not more than 6m in height, and (b) not used for advertising purposes

except the flag pole is located within a place that is -

(i) entered in the Register of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990; or

(ii) the subject of an order under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 Part 6; or


(g) Outdoor hard surfaces where –

(i) Where the finished level of the surface is no more than 500mm above natural ground level; and

(ii) located within a side or rear setback (excluding secondary street setback areas) where the outdoor hard surface is located within a place that is included on the Heritage List under clause 8 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015,

(h) Demolition of the following structures on a place in a heritage area under

clause 9 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

(i) Outbuildings not of masonry or limestone construction with a floor area

of less than 25m2. (ii) Minor structures (iii) Patios (iv) Shade Structures (v) Carports (vi) External Fixtures (vii) Air Conditioners (viii) Private swimming pools and outdoor spas (ix) Water tanks (x) Flag poles

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

documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

Page 175


4. Request the Minister for Planning to grant final consent to Scheme Amendment No. 67 as referred to in (1) above.

5. Advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that pursuant to the

Planning and Development Regulations (Local Planning Schemes) 2015, the amendment hereby submitted is considered to be a ‘basic amendment’ for the purpose of the Regulations.


CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS Nil. CLOSURE OF MEETING THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8:47 PM.

Page 176


SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

The Council adopted a Community Engagement Policy in December 2010 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1. The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2. The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3. The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO

4. These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5. The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.

All input is of equal value 6. No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7. Local Government in WA is a representative democracy. Elected Members and the CEO are charged under the Local Government Act with the responsibility to make decisions based on fact and the merits of the issue without fear or favour and are accountable for their actions and decisions under law. Elected Members are accountable to the people via periodic elections. As it is a representative democracy, decisions may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.

Page 177



Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8. The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9. The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10. City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11. The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.

Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12. As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.

Page 178



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 179


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 180


Page 181


Page 182

Minutes Attachments - Planning Committee 13 January 2016

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 13 January 2016, 6.00 pm

Page 183

minutes - city of fremantle minutes - 13... · chris williams . peter neale . ... marion kelly ....

Documents