minutes - home | city of fremantle 7 june 2… · ross mcdonald the following ... recommendation...

MINUTES

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 7 June 2017, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 1

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 3

LATE ITEMS NOTED 3

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

TABLED DOCUMENTS 5

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 6

PC1706 -1 ADELAIDE STREET, NOS. 18-22 (LOTS 1 AND 2), FREMANTLE - FIVE (5) STOREY TOURIST ACCOMMODATION AND SHOP - (NB DA0117/16) 6

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 15

PC1706 -2 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 193 (LOT 1), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONAL USES OF RESTAURANT AND HEALTH STUDIO TO EXISTING MIXED USE BUILDING - (NB DA0104/17) 15

PC1706 -3 JOHN STREET, NO. 1/6 (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0124/17) 28

PC1706 -4 DOROTHY STREET, NO. 7 (LOT 4), FREMANTLE - TWO, TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (NB DA0086/17) 40

PC1706 -5 DOURO ROAD, NO. 1/19 (LOT 1 STPLN 70380), SOUTH FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO CONSULTING ROOM IN AN EXISTING MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (NB DA0157/17) 47

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 55

PC1706 -10 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 68 - MIXED USE ZONE ON HAMPTON ROAD AND BROCKMAN PLACE, SOUTH FREMANTLE - FINAL ADOPTION REPORT 55

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 65

PC1706 -6 ATTFIELD STREET, NO. 108 (LOT 2), SOUTH FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE ALTERATIONS TO ANCILLARY DWELLING - (CJ DA0141/17) 65

PC1706 -7 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 71

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 72

PC1706 -9 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 63 AND DRAFT PLANNING POLICY FOR SMALL INFILL DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL CONTROL AREA - ADOPT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 72

PC1706 -8 PLANNING AND SCHEME COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT - CITY OF FREMANTLE CIVIC BUILDING, KING'S SQUARE 108

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 112

CLOSURE OF MEETING 112

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION 113

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Planning Committee 7 June 2017

Page 1

PLANNING COMMITTEE

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

on 7 June 2017 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 6.02 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 6.07pm) Cr Jon Strachan Presiding Member / South Ward Cr Bryn Jones North Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham Deputy Presiding Member / East Ward Cr Jeff McDonald Hilton Ward Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Beaconsfield Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton Observing Mr Philip St John Chief Executive Officer Mr Paul Trotman Director Strategic Planning & Projects Ms Julia Kingsbury Manager Development Approvals Mr Paul Garbett Manager Strategic Planning Ms Sharn Bruere Senior Strategic Planner Ms Tahnee Bunting Strategic Planner Mr Nathan Blumenthal Planning Officer Mrs Kayla Beall Minute Secretary There were approximately 24 members of the public in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Cr Simon Naber


Page 2

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Nil

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1706-1: Ross McDonald The following members of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1706-1: Dr Alan Payne Robert Bodkin The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1706-2: Sandra Reed The following members of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1706-2: John Mocilac Michael Benson Marc Beattie The following members of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1706-3: Franco Ranallo Adam Calginari Tracey Goodall


Page 3

The following members of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1706-04: Mark Ellery John Kirkness The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1706-5: Cecilia Mitra The following member of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1706-10: Robert Boston

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Nil

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Nil

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the minutes of the Planning Committee dated 3 May 2017 as listed in the Council agenda dated 24 May 2017 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. CARRIED: 5/0

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Bryn Jones Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald

AMENDMENT TO MINUTES MOVED: Cr J Strachan The Minutes dated 05 April 2017 for Item PC1704-3, 5A Hope Street, White Gum Valley be amended as there was a condition 6 recorded in the final decision that was not moved or voted on. The decision should read as follows: COMMITTEE DECISION


Page 4

The Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 the demolition of the existing Single house and construction of a two storey Single house at No. 5A (Lot 1), Hope Street, White Gum Valley, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 20 December 2016. 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.

2. All stormwater discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site, to the

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0640/16 on

plans dated 20 December 2016, the new vehicle crossover shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0640/16 on

plans dated 20 December 2016, any redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be removed and the verge reinstated to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle and at the expense of the applicant.

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

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

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

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

ii. The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on

the plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;

submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration, or

submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the infrastructure.


Page 5

This request will be considered independently of any Planning Approval granted, and this Planning Approval should not be taken as approval for removal or modification of any infrastructure within the road reserve.

iii. 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.

iv. In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the relevant City of

Fremantle department or relevant service authority prior to the commencement of this development, this planning approval will be incapable of implementation.

CARRIED 6/0

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION: Committee felt it was fair and reasonable that Hope Street be considered the primary street.

CARRIED: 5/0

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Bryn Jones Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Nil


Page 6

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register Mayor, Brad Pettitt arrived at 6.07 pm prior to consideration of the following item.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Façade refurbishments to the heritage buildings.

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

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

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

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


Page 7

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

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

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

CONSULTATION

External referrals The amended application was not required to be referred to any external parties as the building itself is not registered but is adjacent to state registered properties. Previous State Heritage Office advice concluded that an analysis of the street views showed the development would have no discernible impact on the setting of the adjacent registered places. The amended proposal responds to the existing streetscape by increasing the street setback of the upper floors, in keeping with previous advice.


Page 8

Community The original application was advertised for comment and these comments are included in the original report in Attachment 2. The amended plans presented no additional variations and reduced the variations present in the original application, therefore, as per LPP 1.3: Public Notification of Planning Proposals, no additional advertising was required. Design Advisory Committee (DAC) The amended plans were presented to the 10 April 2017 DAC meeting. The amended design was considered to be consistent with the pattern of development in the adjoining streetscape and enhanced the dominance of the main façade of the retained building. The DAC supported the amendments and recommended minor improvements including removing the chamfer from the rear of the building and extending the balcony of the fifth floor above the fourth floor. The suggested improvements were not implemented for the following reasons:

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

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

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

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


Page 9

The applicant is advised that "visible from the street" is interpreted as setting back the upper level from the street so as not to be visible from the street based on the façade height of the existing heritage building.” The amended plans address the issues raised above and are recommended for conditional approval. Each aspect of the deferral is addressed below. Building height The original application included a fifth storey with a street setback in line with the fourth storey addition and therefore visible from the street above the height of the existing heritage building façade (10m street boundary height). At its meeting Planning Committee advised that the upper floor, being the fifth floor level, should not be visible from the street above the height of the existing façade of this existing heritage building. The proposal has been amended to increase the setback of the fifth floor level from Adelaide Street by approximately 4.45m to 8.95m so that when viewed from the street the upper level is located behind the sightline of the fourth floor level and therefore not visible from the street.

Figure 1: “Visible from the street” setback

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


Page 10

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

Figure 3: Previously proposed rear setback

Figure 4: Amended rear setback


Page 11

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

Figure 5: Rear setback diagram

The proposed setback reduces the effect of building bulk to the rear lot and allows light and ventilation to the major openings on the boundary of the Woodsons Building.


Page 12

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

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

Program Area 1 – Place Management, Activation and Urban Realm

Program Area 4 – Attraction of Business, Industry and Investment FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

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

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

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


Page 13

m) Traffic management n) Works affecting pedestrian areas.

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

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

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

6. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the owner shall contribute a monetary amount equal in value to one percent of the estimated development cost, as indicated on the Form of Application for Planning Approval, to the City of Fremantle for development of public art works and/or heritage works to enhance the public realm. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $3.25 million the contribution to be made is $32,500.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Page 14

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

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

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

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

ADVICE NOTES:

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

that Council may waive the requirement for the public art/heritage work contribution in accordance with clause 6 of LPP 2.19 where the development incorporates public art in the development to the same value as that specified in Condition 7 that is located in a position clearly visible to the general public on the site of the development. In determining the appropriateness and artistic merit of the public art, council shall seek relevant professional advice.

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

1. A better understanding of the front finishes and pergola structures. 2. Further examine opportunities to reduce the impact on the Woodsons

building. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

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


Page 15

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

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

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

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

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

land use

heritage

built form

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

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

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

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


Page 16

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

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

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

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

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

Restaurant (A), Community purpose (A)


Page 17

CONSULTATION External referrals Western Power: Western Power had no objections to the development; however, the applicant would be required to contact Western Power prior to the commencement of works to ensure safety due to the proximity of powerlines. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as discretions were sought under LPS4 and the R-Codes. The advertising period concluded on 31 March 2017 with 29 submissions received (inclusive of a petition signed by 14 residents) and eight (8) submissions in support. Of the objections, the following issues were raised:

lack of car parking for the site and in the area

land use will cause noise and impact amenity of nearby houses

new development overpowers the existing heritage house

the proposal is not sympathetic to the area

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

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

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

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

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


Page 18

Statutory and policy assessment Cl. 4.9.1 of LPS4 states:

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

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

land use

heritage

built form

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

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

In accordance with the above land use definitions, a yoga studio is considered to be a Health studio, which is an ‘X’ or not permitted use in a Residential zone and therefore cannot be approved.


Page 19

The applicant proposes that the studios will continue the existing Community purpose use that was included for consideration as part of the Home business approval (DA0353/16) and not form a new use. However, in this previous application nutritional health education classes were considered the primary Community purpose use with on-site physical education such as tai chi and yoga being incidental uses limited in size by the small floor area. Information submitted with the previous application showed yoga and tai chi classes would cater for up to 10 people with the education classes catering between 12-20 people. The proposed studios enlarge the exercise area and provide space for 24 – 30 additional instructors/patrons. The proposal also includes a waiting area and shower stalls to facilitate the use of the exercise rooms. Based on the statement of intent, size, layout, and amenities provided, the proposed additions are considered to be designed and equipped for physical exercise and constitute a new additional use of Health studio. The application is therefore recommended for refusal on the basis that the land use of Health studio is not a permitted use in a Residential zone and it will detrimentally impact the amenity of adjoining residential lots. Restaurant The ground floor Restaurant use is an ‘A’ use in the Residential Zone, which means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval after advertising the application. The proposed ‘A’ use has been assessed against the Matters to be considered by local government in cl. 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Sections of cl. 67 under which the subject proposal is not supported are discussed below:

(a) the aims and provisions of this Scheme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Page 20

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

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

The western side of South terrace between Russell Street and Rose Street is predominantly zoned Residential, with only a few sporadic Mixed use lots. The Mixed use component of South Terrace between the above streets is mostly confined to the eastern side, creating a clear distinction between the residential uses and the commercial uses (see Figure 1 below). A permanent non-residential use of the intensity proposed within one of these Residential zones is not compatible with the character of the adjacent residential area.

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

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

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

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

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


Page 21

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

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

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


Page 22

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

Element Setback Required Setback Proposed Discretion

Ground Floor 1.5 m 1.2 m 0.3 m


Page 23

(south)

Upper Floor (south) 1.8 m 0.9 m 0.9 m

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

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

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

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

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

Use Parking Required Parking Provided Shortfall

Single house 1 2 Nil

Home Business Nil Nil Nil

Community purpose 4 (as per DA74/90)

Nil 4

Health studio (1 bay/5 people)

6 Nil 6

Restaurant (1 bay/5 seats)

20 Nil 20

TOTAL 30


Page 24

Bicycle Racks

Use Racks Required Racks Provided Shortfall

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

2 Nil

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

Nil 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

heritage significance.

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


Page 25

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

6) The proposal does not include an adequate provision of car parking.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal complies with the following strategic plans: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people working in Fremantle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Page 26

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

f) The proposal provides inadequate arrangements for vehicle parking as per

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

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

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

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

demand for parking as a result of the proposed uses. Lost: 3/4

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Jeff McDonald Cr Jon Strachan Cr Bryn Jones

Cr J Strachan used his casting vote AGAINST the motion resulting in it being LOST. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: 1. REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme

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

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

under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 in accordance with clauses


Page 27

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

b) The proposal is detrimental to the amenity of the area and incompatible

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

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

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

to the cultural heritage fabric of the building under clause 67(k) and (L) of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

e) The lot boundary setback of the southern elevation does not satisfy the

Design principles of clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes by reasons of the impact of bulk and scale on the amenity of the adjoining southern property.

f) The proposal provides inadequate arrangements for vehicle parking as per

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

CARRIED: 4/2

For Against

Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald Cr Jon Strachan Cr Bryn Jones

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge

The above item is referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council for determination in accordance with 1.1 or 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register which requires that at least 5 members of the committee vote in favour of the Committee Recommendation in order to exercise its delegation.


Page 28

PC1706 -3 JOHN STREET, NO. 1/6 (LOT 1), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0124/17)

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

2: Site photographs

SUMMARY Approval is sought for a two (2) storey Grouped dwelling at No. 1/6 John Street, North Fremantle. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to the nature of some discretions being sought and comments received during the notification period that cannot be addressed through conditions of approval. The application seeks discretionary assessments against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Local Planning Policies. These discretionary assessments include the following:

land use

primary street setback

external wall height

boundary walls

lot boundary setbacks

sight lines

visual privacy. The application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL Detail Approval is sought for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 1/6 John Street, North Fremantle. The proposal consists of a two storey Grouped dwelling (five bedrooms, three bathrooms, kitchen/dining/family and sitting areas) and a double garage. Revised plans were submitted on 15 May 2017 that increased the primary street setback. Development plans are included as attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 9 March 2017 Owner name: Royce Leslie and Tracey Kathleen Goodall Submitted by: Shelford Constructions Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage listing: Norfolk Island Pine and House (Demolished) Existing land use: Nil (vacant) Use class: Grouped dwelling Use permissibility: D


Page 29

CONSULTATION External referrals Nil required. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The advertising period concluded on 6 April 2017, and two (2) submissions were received. The following issues were raised and are included as a summary in the table below.

Submission No.

Detail Officer comment

1. Concern relating to materials on south western elevation (feature wall of recycled brick and acrylic render) and stone pier.

There are no specific planning requirements relating to the proposed materials. Any boundary walls are required to be of a clean finish as per condition 5.

Overall size of garage concerning re: roof height. Will have a visual impact on neighbours and lane way.

The garage complies with Building height requirements. Discussion regarding the setback of the building is discussed in the report below.

Driver visibility onto street required for safety of pedestrians.

Vehicle sightlines are discussed in the report below.

2. Object to building height if greater than neighbouring homes.

Building height is discussed in the report below.

Height greater than neighbours would impede natural light access into habitable areas and courtyards of adjoining properties

Overshadowing meets the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes. Lot boundary setbacks and building height are


Page 30

Submission No.

Detail Officer comment

however discussed in the report below, and have consideration to access to sunlight for neighbouring properties.

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

land use

primary street setback

external wall height

boundary walls

lot boundary setback

sight lines

visual privacy. The above matters are discussed below. Background The site is located on the north western side of John Street in the North Fremantle Local Planning Area and the North Fremantle Heritage Area. The lot is also on the Heritage List as part of the former house at No. 8 John Street, which has been demolished. A two storey Grouped dwelling was approved by Planning Committee in December 2014 with a 6.35m external wall height on this site. This approval is valid until December 2018, and has not yet been acted upon. Matters to be considered Prior to issuing development approval, a local government is to have due regard to the matters to be considered in Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Specifically, for this application the following matters have been considered:

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

(m) The compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of

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


Page 31

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

(p) Whether adequate provision has been made for the landscaping of the land to

which the application relates and whether any trees or other vegetation on the land should be preserved

(y) Any submissions received on the application.

The proposed two storey Grouped dwelling is considered to address the matters to be considered for the following reasons:

The development is for a dwelling within a Residential zone, with further discussion on Scheme objectives included below.

The Grouped dwelling will abut existing similar residential land uses.

The bulk and scale of the building has been assessed against relevant planning requirements and is supported against discretionary principles as discussed below.

The site is currently vacant, with no indication of site contamination.

The Grouped dwelling is simple in form and not considered to result in detrimental impacts on the amenity of the locality.

The development is not considered to create adverse social impacts for the locality.

The application has been advertised, with the summarised content of submissions included above.

Land use A Grouped dwelling is a ‘D’ use in the Residential Zone, which means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. It is considered that the proposed Grouped dwelling land use is consistent with the objectives of the Residential zone as follows:

(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 lot is only capable of accommodating one dwelling, and due to the presence of common property, it cannot be a Single house, rather it must be a Grouped dwelling. As the site is a Grouped dwelling, it cannot have an Ancillary dwelling nor a Small secondary dwelling. The lot is also not capable of Multiple dwellings due to its lot size and density.

(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 development is assessed in greater detail below, however it is considered to be appropriate for its setting.


Page 32

(iii) Encourage high standards of innovative housing design which recognise the need for privacy, energy efficient design and bulk and scale compatible with adjoining sites The proposed Grouped dwelling is of a similar bulk and scale to adjoining sites, and allows sufficient spaces on site for privacy of occupants, as well as access to northern sunlight in open spaces and living areas.

(iv) Recognise the importance of traditional streetscape elements to existing and

new development

The existing streetscape does have some original heritage fabric, however it is largely occupied by new development, particularly adjoining the subject site.

(v) Conserve and enhance places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development, and There is no impact on the existing heritage place, due to its previous demolition.

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

Surrounding land uses are predominantly residential (i.e. Single house, Grouped dwellings) so it is considered that the amenity of the area will not be disrupted by another dwelling.

Primary street setback

Element Deemed-to-comply Proposed Discretion

Ground Floor 5m 5m Nil

Upper Floor 7m 5m 2m

As the proposal does not comply with the requirements above, the proposal is required to be assessed against clause 1.2 of LPP 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy.

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

John Street Characteristics

North-east No. 4B (Lot 501) Upper floor setback: 5.0m

No. 4A (Lot 500) Upper floor setback: ~5.0m

No.1/4 (Lot 1) Upper floor setback: N/A

South-west No. 8 (Lot 1) Upper floor setback: ~5.8m

No. 10A (Lot 1) Upper floor setback: ~6.0m

No. 12 (Lot 112) Upper floor setback: N/A


Page 33

Figure 1: Prevailing streetscape

The proposal is considered to be supportable against discretionary criteria clause 1.2(i) as there are two, two storey dwellings of comparable height that are setback the same distance from the street as what is proposed. Of the six buildings that can be included in the prevailing streetscape as defined by the policy, four are two storeys, and none have an upper floor setback to the prescribed 7m. One of these Grouped dwellings is immediately next door to the subject site (No. 4b), with the other being located two houses to the north-east (No. 4a). With the inclusion of this Grouped Dwelling, there will be a resulting three (3) Grouped dwellings in a row along John Street with a setback at 5m. Additionally, the other two, two storey buildings are setback to 5.8m and 6m on the upper floor, which is 1.2m and 1m less than the prescribed requirement. External wall height

Element Required Provided Discretion

External wall height 5.5m

6.1m 0.6m

As the proposed development has an external wall height greater than 5.5m, the proposal is required to be assessed against clause 4.8.1.1 of LPS4, which states:

Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 8, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following—


Page 34

For Council to have the legal ability to use this clause there must be a building next to the proposed development site that has an external wall height of greater than 5.5m. The Grouped Dwelling at No. 8 John Street has an external wall height of 7.1m and therefore Council may vary the maximum height requirements, should it be satisfied that the proposal meets (a) to (d) below.

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

The two storey part of the Grouped Dwelling is located toward the front of the lot. This helps protect the outdoor living areas of 4b John Street, and 2a Passmore Avenue which are on the north western side. The area marked in orange below shows the area at the rear of the site which is single storey or free of development only

Figure 2: Area of proposed open space at No. 1/6 John Street The two properties on either side of the development are two storey (see figure 1) and of a similar bulk and scale (if not wider), than this proposed development. There are also other two storey (or greater) developments in the area, including the four storey Pier 21 resort. The additional wall height is not considered to adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties or the locality.

(b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality,

The proposal is considered to effectively graduate the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality, particularly from the south-western adjoining property (up to 7.1m external wall height) down to the north-eastern adjoining property (up to 5.45m). Therefore, the proposed maximum external wall height of 6.1m, which sits at a height in between those two adjoining dwellings, is considered to satisfy (b) above.

(c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and


Page 35

The heritage listing of the site refers to a Norfolk Island Pine on another lot within the parent property, and a demolished house. As the site is vacant, there are no buildings with heritage value adjoining the site, this criteria is not relevant in this instance. (d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies. In relation to (d), as discussed in this report, the proposal is considered supportable against the discretionary criteria of Council Policy LPP2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the provisions of Council Policy DGN8 – Passmore Avenue (previously Lots 47 and 48 John Street). Boundary walls

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design principle assessment

North west (GF) 1m Nil 1m

North east (GF) 1m Nil 1m

South west (UF) – 4.6m Nil 4.6m

In accordance with Policy 2.4 – Boundary walls in residential development, boundary walls are permitted for lots with a frontage width of less than 10m (8.56m), where it meets the following: ii) in areas coded R30 and higher, walls not higher than 3.5m with an average of 3m for two-thirds the length of the balance of the lot boundary behind the front setback, to one side boundary only. As the proposed Grouped Dwelling has walls built up to the boundary on three boundaries, the proposal must be assessed against the Design principle criteria of the R-Codes and the Policy. It is considered that the proposal satisfies the Design principles of the R-Codes and Policy 2.4 and is supported for the following reasons:

The boundary walls are short in length to the boundaries (6.7m, 7.4m and 6.9m which reduces the impact on the adjoining neighbours.

The proposal, as conditioned to comply, will not impact on the visual privacy of the adjoining neighbours.

The boundary walls do not restrict direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for south-western, north-eastern and north-western adjoining properties.

Due to the location of the boundary walls being at the rear of the property, including the boundary wall that abuts the common property lot, they will not detract from the prevailing development context and streetscape.

The garage at the rear abuts a carport on the adjoining property that is setback approximately 1m.

By locating the Garage on the boundary, there is more effective, usable area for use as open space and outdoor living at the rear of the site.


Page 36

Lot boundary setbacks

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design principle assessment

North east (GF) 1.5m 1.2m 0.3m

North east (UF) 6.6m 1.2m - 3.01m 3.05m - 5.4m

The proposed lot boundary setbacks on the north eastern boundary are supported for the following reasons:

The north eastern setback on the upper floor is required to be 6.6m due to the major opening (balcony). This balcony has the potential to overlook the property to the north east and is recommended to be screened. As a result, the required setback would be reduced to 3m at which the proposed variation is less significant.

The narrow width of the lot limits the ability to articulate the building (resulting in a long wall), as it would restrict the internal floor area of the Grouped dwelling.

The upper floor is located in the front two thirds of the lot, with the upper floor being setback to comply with the R-Codes from the boundary adjoining property’s (No. 4B John Street) open rear yard.

The building is setback a minimum of 1.2m in most areas allowing for adequate ventilation to the adjoining building.

The proposed Grouped dwelling is on the southern side of the subject property and will not reduce access to northern sunlight.

Sight lines

Deemed-to-comply Provided Design principle assessment

Walls, fences and other structure 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 streets intersect.

Solid “brick screen wall” 0.943m high

0.193m

Although the proposed height of the screen wall at the front of the lot is not significantly higher than the 0.75m that the R-Codes note in the Deemed–to-comply criteria, a condition of approval is recommended to protect the safety of pedestrians, particularly as the fence will affect the four other Grouped dwellings who share the vehicle entry point. Visual privacy

Element Deemed-to-comply

Provided Design principle assessment

Balcony – North east 7.5m 1.9m 7.5m

Balcony – South west 7.5m 3.0m 4.5m

Study/bed 4 - North east 4.5m 2.9m 1.6m

Sitting – South west 6.0m 4.7m 1.3m


Page 37

The proposed balcony overlooks the property to the north east and south west. Openings off this balcony for the sitting and study/bed 4 also result in some overlooking. While some of the overlooking is over front setback areas, the remainder directly and obliquely overlooks the side boundary areas and openings of the adjoining dwellings and is therefore not supported. It is recommended that the north east and south west elevations of the balcony be screened. This will also remove the overlooking from the sitting and study openings. DGN8 – Passmore Avenue (previously lots 47 and 48 John Street) Clause 2 of DGN8 states:

“In assessing applications for new development on the vacant land at the front of the site, the Council shall take into consideration the impact of the development on the Local Area and the streetscape of John Street. Critical issues to consider in preparing designs for new residences in Passmore Avenue are the height, form, scale and mass of the new development, in order that the new development does not dominate the pattern of houses in the Local Area or the streetscape.” As discussed earlier in this report, the proposed height discretion is supported, as the proposal graduates the height between the two adjoining properties. In this regard, it is considered that the proposed form, scale and mass of the Grouped dwelling is both appropriate and acceptable and as such is not considered to dominate the pattern of houses in the local area or the streetscape. Therefore, the proposal is considered to satisfy clause 2 of Council’s DGN8 policy. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil


Page 38

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the two storey Grouped dwelling at No. 1/6 (Lot 1) John Street, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 15 May 2017. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0124/17, on

plans dated 15 May 2017, the balcony located on the north east and south west elevations, shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by one of the following mechanisms: a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor

level 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

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

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 the issue of a building permit, the primary street fence shall be truncated or reduced to 0.75m height within 1.5m of vehicle access points and street corners in order to provide adequate sight lines or otherwise comply with Clause 5.2.5 C5 of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the boundary wall

located on the south west, north west and north east boundary shall be of a clean finish in any of the following materials; a) coloured sand render b) face brick c) painted surface d) other approved finish


Page 39

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

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

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

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

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

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 40

PC1706 -4 DOROTHY STREET, NO. 7 (LOT 4), FREMANTLE - TWO, TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (NB DA0086/17)

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

2: Applicant’s Justification for Variations 3: Site Photos

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


maximum height (wall and roof)

visual privacy

land use. The proposal is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL Detail Approval is sought for the following:

two, two storey Grouped dwellings, each with a loft

vehicle access to the grouped dwellings via a right-of-way to Malcolm Street and pedestrian access to Dorothy Street

alterations to the existing Single house including external stairs and screening to rear windows

patio addition to the existing Single house. A copy of the development plans is included as Attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 17 February 2017 Owner name: Mrs Sandra Lee Walton-Ellery and Mr Mark John Ellery Submitted by: Sandra Lee Walton-Ellery Scheme: Residential – R25 Heritage listing: Not listed Existing land use: Single house Use class: Grouped dwelling Use permissibility: D


Page 41

CONSULTATION External referrals Nil required. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as discretions were sought under the R-Codes. The advertising period concluded on 17 March 2017 and two submissions were received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

The Grouped dwellings are too high and will block sunlight and views to the port.

The buildings are actually three stories.

The development allows views into our house.

The screening trees would have to be very large to protect privacy and would then overshadow our lot.

The design is not in keeping with the ambiance of the neighbourhood. The applicant has provided a response to the above concerns, stating that the visual privacy has been mitigated through screening and vegetation, the buildings have been oriented to reduce visual privacy to adjoining dwellings, the wall height variation will minimise any overshadowing, and the vegetation will reduce the impact of building bulk. A full copy of the comments is included as Attachment 2. It is noted that overshadowing from the dwellings as per the R-Codes does not impact the submitter’s property (to the east) and overshadowing from vegetation is not covered under planning legislation. The remaining concerns are addressed below.


Page 42

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


maximum height (wall and roof)

visual privacy

vehicular access

land use. The above matters are discussed below. Background The subject site is located on Dorothy Street between Tuckfield Street and East Street in Fremantle. The lot has access to Malcolm Street via a right-of-way off the rear (southern) boundary. The site is approximately 1 115 m2 in area. The ground slopes down approximately 2.5 m from Dorothy Street to the approximate mid-point of the existing house and then is relatively flat throughout the remainder of the lot. The site is not heritage listed nor in a heritage area. The site is currently occupied by a Single house fronting Dorothy Street that is proposed to be retained with some minor alterations. In September 2011 the Western Australian Planning Commission issued a conditional subdivision approval showing a similar lot layout as proposed in the current application but the conditions were not acted upon and the approval has since lapsed. Lot boundary setbacks Grouped Dwelling 1:

Element Setback Required Setback Proposed Variation

Ground Floor

Laundry (south) 1m 0.8m 0.2m

Store 1m Nil (east and south) Nil (south)

1m 1m

Upper Floor

Eastern Bathroom (south) 1.2m 0.8m 0.4m

Western Bathroom (south) 1.2m 0.8m 0.4m

The variations are supported under the Design Principles of LPP 2.4: Boundary Walls in Residential Development and Cl. 5.1.3 of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The southern boundary setbacks are located across from the heavily vegetated common property belonging to Nos. 10-12 Malcolm Street. This common property


Page 43

is approximately 5m wide and used solely for vehicle access. The reduced setback will have minimal impact on building bulk and ventilation.

The setback variation is for blank walls and will not create a visual privacy variation to adjoining lots.

The setback variation will not adversely impact solar access to habitable rooms or outdoor living areas for the southern properties.

Building to the boundaries allows more effective use of space for the outdoor living areas of the proposed dwellings.

The store is low in height and abuts an existing building on the boundary of the adjoining lot to the south and a car park to the east.

Grouped Dwelling 2:

Element Setback Required Setback Proposed Variation

Ground Floor

Store (east and south) 1m Nil

1m

Activity Room (north) 1m Nil 1m

Upper Floor

Deck (north) 2.5m 1.2m 1.3m

The variations are supported under the Design Principles of LPP 2.4 and Cl. 5.1.3 of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

Building to the boundaries allows more effective use of space for the outdoor living areas of the proposed dwellings.

The activity room has no openings and thus presents no visual privacy variation to the existing house on lot 3.

The store is low in height and abuts the common property access leg.

It is recommended that the deck be screened to the north to prevent overlooking to the outdoor living area of lot 3, which will also have the effect of bringing the setback into compliance as it will no longer be considered a major opening.

Maximum height (wall and roof) Grouped Dwelling 1:

Element Maximum Height Height Proposed Variation

Roof Ridge 9m 9.0m – 9.2m nil – 0.2m

Wall Height 6m 6.2m – 6.6m 0.2m – 0.6m

Loft Balcony Balustrade

6m 7m 1m

Grouped Dwelling 2:

Element Maximum Height Height Proposed Variation

Roof Ridge 9m 9.2m – 9.3m 0.2 – 0.3m

Wall Height 6m 6.3m – 6.6m 0.3m – 0.6m

Loft Balcony Balustrade

6m 6.7m 0.7m


Page 44

The variations are supported under the Design Principles of Cl. 5.1.6 of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The roof ridge discretions are for the middle portions of the ridges of the Grouped dwellings used as vents to improve the environmental performance of the houses.

The lofts are entirely contained within the roof spaces and consistent with the definition of ‘loft’ within LPS4.

The height variations are predominantly located near the centre of the site, away from adjoining houses and present minimal impact on building bulk or amenity to adjoining properties.

The slope of the walls continues the angle of the roofs and lessens the impact of the building bulk compared to a typical vertical wall.

The eaves of the roof are unenclosed, and generally obscure the additional wall height.

Building height of the loft balconies is measured to the top of the balustrade. The balconies are simple unroofed platforms except where the eaves of the roof overhang them. In this way, they present minimal bulk to adjoining properties.

The height variations will have minimal impact on access to direct sun into buildings and open spaces as the common property lot to the south is for vehicle access for Nos. 10-12 Malcolm Street, and the rear of No. 12 Malcolm Street contains a number of outbuildings as well as a sewerage easement, which will limit construction of habitable buildings.

The proposed landscaping will further obscure the bulk of the building as well as minimise privacy variations.

Visual privacy Dwelling 1:

Deck Orientation Setback Required Setback Proposed Variation

Eastern deck 7.5 m 5.4m – 7.5 m (east) 2.1 m - nil

4m (southeast) 3.5 m

Western deck 7.5 m 3 m (south) 4.5 m

The variations are consistent with the Design principles of Cl. 5.4.1 of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

Sightlines to the east overlook an outbuilding and large car park of the adjoining multiple dwelling development. No outdoor living areas or habitable rooms will be impacted.

Sightlines to the southeast predominantly overlook a neighbouring outbuilding and minimal open space.

Proposed trees, as shown in the landscaping plan, will obscure sightlines to the southeast. Due to this variation, the landscaping plan will be a condition of approval.

Sightlines to the south from the western deck predominantly overlook the common property vehicle access-way of the southern lots and the right-of-way.

The cone of vision extends slightly into the lot of No. 10 Malcolm Street, however sightlines to the outdoor living areas of that site will be obscured by existing vegetation.

Dwelling 2:


Page 45

Deck Orientation Setback Required Setback Proposed Variation

Northern deck 7.5m 2m (north) 5.5m

Eastern deck 7.5m 7.0m – 7.3m (east) 0.5m – 0.2m

3.1m (south) 4.4m

The variations are consistent with the Design principles of Cl. 5.4.1 of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

Overlooking to the east is to the adjoining car park of the multiple dwelling development and a small portion of lot 7 to the northeast of the subject site.

The deck is set far back from the adjoining lot. The southwestern corner of lot 7, where some overlooking occurs, is used as a car bay and does not include outdoor living areas or habitable rooms.

The northern deck is not considered to satisfy the Design principles of the R-Codes and is recommended to be screened to eliminate overlooking to the outdoor living area of the existing house on lot 3. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, two, two storey Grouped dwellings and additions to an existing Single house at No. 7 (Lot 4) Dorothy Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 19 May 2017. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to occupation of dwelling 2 as part of DA0086/17, on plans dated 19 May

2017 the deck located on the north elevation of dwelling 2, shall be screened in


Page 46

accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by one of the following mechanisms:

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

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

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

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 the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0086/17, on plans dated 19 May 2017, 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.

ADVICE NOTES:

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

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 47

PC1706 -5 DOURO ROAD, NO. 1/19 (LOT 1 STPLN 70380), SOUTH FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO CONSULTING ROOM IN AN EXISTING MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (NB DA0157/17)

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

2: Applicant’s Justification 3: Site Photos

SUMMARY Approval is sought for a change of use from Office to Consulting Room for a unit in an existing Mixed use development. The application has been assessed against the requirements of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), and a discretionary assessment is sought in regard to the following:

relaxation to onsite vehicle parking

land use. The application is recommended for on-balance approval. PROPOSAL Detail Approval is sought for a change of use from Office to Consulting Room. Details of the proposed use are as follows:

A total of three employees will be on-site at any one time consisting of one dentist, one dental assistant and one receptionist.

Hours of operation to be 8.30 am – 5.00 pm (Monday to Friday), and 8.30 am – 1.00 pm (Saturday).

Two car parking bays are provided for the exclusive use of the tenancy.

Deliveries are estimated to only occur once or twice per week.

Patients are seen by appointment only and visits usually last from 45 to 60 minutes.

A full copy of the development plans and the management plans are included as Attachment 1.


Page 48

Site/application information Date received: 27 March 2017 Owner name: Stadium Drive Pty Ltd Submitted by: The Mitra Superannuation Fund Scheme: Neighbourhood Centre zone Heritage listing: Not listed Existing land use: Office Use class: Consulting Room Use permissibility: D

CONSULTATION External referrals Nil required. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as discretions were sought regarding the provision of parking bays. The advertising period concluded on 4 May 2017, and no submissions were received. OFFICER COMMENT Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4; discretionary assessment is sought in regard to the following:

relaxation to onsite vehicle parking

land use. The above matters are discussed below.


Page 49

Background The subject site is located at the corner of Douro Road and Hulbert Street, South Fremantle. The parent property has a land area of approximately 1 363m². Tenancy 1, which is subject to this application, consists of 70m2 floor area. The site is improved by a three storey, with loft, Mixed use development. The site is zoned Neighbourhood Centre under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R25 (R60 density bonus applicable). The subject site is not on the City’s Heritage List, although it is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. A search of the property file revealed the following relevant planning history for the site:

On 28 May 2014 Council approved a Mixed use development including 20 Multiple dwellings, four Offices and a Shop/Lunch bar (DA0587/13) subject to relevant conditions and resulting in a total parking shortfall of 4 bays.

On 3 August 2016, Planning Committee approved an application for an amalgamation and change of use of tenancies 4 and 5 from Office to Consulting Room that included a total parking shortfall of 10 bays (DA0256/16).

On 12 December 2016, Planning Committee approved an application for a change of use of tenancy 3 from Office to Shop (DA0453/16) which included a total parking shortfall of 11 bays.

The subject application proposes a change of use of the last remaining Office tenancy to a Consulting Room for a dental practice. Car parking A history of the approved car parking variations resulting from previous applications to the change the use of the office tenancies is as follows: Original application (DA0587/13) - approved:


Car bays provided

Merit based assessment

20 x Multiple Dwellings (0.75 + 0.25 per dwelling)

20 32 (20 at grade bays + 12 stacker bays)

4 292m2 of Office

(1:30m2 – min. 3 bays) 10

120m2 of Lunch Bar (1:20m2)

6

TOTAL 36


Page 50

Units 4 and 5: Change of use – Office to Consulting Rooms (DA0256/16) – approved:


Car bays provided




10 70m2 of unit 1 Office

(1:30m2 – min. 3 bays) 3

76m2 of unit 3 Office (1:30m2 – min. 3 bays)

3

Consulting Rooms (5:1 practitioner)

10


6

TOTAL 42

Unit 3: Change of use – Office to Shop (DA0453/16) – approved:


Car bays provided




11 70m2 of unit 1 Office

(1:30m2 – min. 3 bays) 3

76m2 of unit 3 Shop (1:20m2)

4


10


6

TOTAL 43

As part of the overall development, 6 bays (including one universal access bay and one loading bay) were created in the road reserve and are available for public use. Current application In regard to the subject application to change the use of Unit 1, the proposed total parking shortfall for the overall Mixed use development is as follows:


Car bays provided




13 (two extra spaces arise due to change from Office to Consulting Rooms: see text below)

Proposed Consulting Rooms (5:1 practitioner)

5

76m2 of unit 3 Shop (1:20m2)

4


10


6

TOTAL 45


Page 51

Having regard for the individual tenancy, LPS4 requires a minimum of five car parking bays. The subject tenancy has been allocated two bays, leaving a shortfall of three bays. Under clause 4.7.3.1 of LPS4, Council may waive or reduce the car parking requirements for a proposal. This clause also allows Council to consider “any car parking deficiency associated with the existing use of the land”. The existing Office use of the subject tenancy has a one bay shortfall and this can be set against the three bay shortfall for the proposed Consulting Room, leaving the Consulting Room with a shortfall of two bays. The two bay car parking variation is supported for the following reasons:

The application proposes only a single dentist be on-site at any one time and a condition is included to that effect. This will limit the number of clients on-site at any one time.

There is considered to be sufficient on street parking available within a short walking distance from the site, particularly along Chester Street to the north.

The low intensity and nature of the land use is considered to be compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

The hours would be similar to that of the original approved Office land use for this tenancy as part of the redevelopment application (8.30 am to 5.00pm). These periods of the day are at a time where nearby residents would be typically working during the week.

There is adequate access to nearby public transport.

The subject tenancy is the last remaining office and there are unlikely to be any further changes of use in the near future.

Should Planning Committee be of the opinion that the overall shortfall resulting from the proposed change of use is unacceptable an alternative recommendation is provided. Land use The definition of Consulting Rooms in LPS4 is as follows:

means premises used by no more than two health consultants for the investigation or treatment of human injuries or ailments and for general outpatient care.

A Consulting Room is a ‘D’ use in the Neighbourhood Centre zone which means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. In exercising its discretion Council must have regard to the matters set out in clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 including the following:

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

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

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


Page 52

Clause 3.2.1(d) of LPS4 states that development within the Neighbourhood centre zone shall:

i) provide for the daily and convenience retailing, shops, café, office, administration and residential uses (at upper levels or where proposed as part of a mixed use development) which serve the local community and are located within and compatible with residential areas,

ii) ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality, and

iii) conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development.

The proposed change of use is considered to meet Cl 67 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2015 for the following reasons:

The proposed consulting room will provide a service to the local community.

The anticipated number of clientele to the site is limited by the small floor area proposed.

The application does not propose any changes to the built form which may impact the physical character of the neighbourhood.

The land use is restricted to one practitioner, which will limit the impact to surrounding areas, particularly in regards to parking.

The hours of operation are typical business hours, consistent with the hours of the commercial tenancies also located within the development and a dentist office is unlikely to generate excessive noise so as to impact the amenity of surround lots.

The low intensity and nature of the land use is considered to be compatible with the character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, this particular land use is considered to be of a comparable nature to the existing office land use.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people working in Fremantle FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, change of use from office to consulting room in an existing mixed use development at No. 1/19 (Lot 1 SSTPln70380) Douro Road, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):


Page 53

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 27 March 2017. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. The consulting room use hereby permitted shall be limited to the following opening hours:

8.30am to 5pm Monday to Friday

8.30am to 1pm Saturday

No trade Sunday

3. The hereby approved Consulting Room land use is limited to a maximum of one (1) practitioner onsite at any given time.

Cr H Fitzharding MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to delete condition 2: CARRIED: 6/0

For Against


COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, change of use from office to consulting room in an existing mixed use development at No. 1/19 (Lot 1 SSTPln70380) 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 27 March 2017. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. The hereby approved Consulting Room land use is limited to a maximum of

one (1) practitioner onsite at any given time.


Page 54

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 55

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

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

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

2. Schedule of submissions 3. Traffic Study

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


Page 56

BACKGROUND

The subject sites are located in the southernmost part of South Fremantle. The Strang Street precinct to the north-east of the sites has been gradually undergoing revitalization efforts following a local planning scheme amendment to allow larger scale, higher density new development. Further south in the City of Cockburn increased residential density allowances have also been generating development activity, notably in the Cockburn Coast structure plan area. The scheme amendment which is the subject of this report was initiated to enable similar redevelopment opportunities in the Brockman Place precinct through proposed increased density and building height allowances. The amendment area is currently predominantly occupied with older commercial and light industrial land uses which are favourable sites for redevelopment. On 28 September 2016 council resolved to initiate a scheme amendment for the subject sites. The purpose of the amendment was to increase the residential density and the building heights for Brockman Place and in doing so improve the potential for redevelopment. The September 2016 report (PC 1609-11) to council has been attached for additional background on the amendment. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications to the 16/17 budget. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The procedure for dealing with a scheme amendment is set out in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015. The regulations state that following public advertising the local government must review the proposed amendment in the light of any submissions made and resolve to do one of the following: (i) to support the amendment without modifications; (ii) to support the amendment with proposed modifications to address issues raised in the submissions; or (iii) not to support the amendment. The officer recommendation is considered to satisfy these requirements and recommends that council proceed to support the amendment with proposed modifications.

CONSULTATION

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

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


Page 57

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

Scheme amendment documents located at the City of Fremantle administration building

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

Letters to service agencies and government organisations

Email notification inviting comment to all precinct groups

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

Level of support

No comment

No objection Support Object Neutral Total

Su

bm

itte

r

Inte

rest

Department/Agency 1 6 0 0 0 7

Owner/Occupier 6 8 3 17

Total 1 6 6 8 3 24

The following main themes arose from comments in the submissions:

vehicle movement, access and traffic

Hampton Road setback

residential density

building height

revitalisation These themes are considered in the officer comment section of this report. For the detailed list of submissions refer to attachment 1. A traffic study was also undertaken by the City’s Infrastructure Projects team, which considered the possible development yields, and the likely impact that this would have on the existing road network (attachment 2). Discussions on the study results are detailed in the officer comment section of this report.

OFFICER COMMENT

A variety of themes arose from the submissions, which were relevant to the amendment provisions. Submissions from surrounding residents were mixed. Concerns relating to issues such as height, traffic and density were common however a number of comments were also received in support of redevelopment and revitalisation. In addition to the public comments, further technical investigation was done by City officers on the traffic and vehicle movement issues to supplement the concerns raised by residents. This study highlighted significant concerns over the existing road layout and interaction with Hampton Road (see attachment 2).


Page 58

Based on the submissions and comments there are two clear choices for the amendment area; either refuse to support the amendment proceeding in its current form as it cannot be reasonably supported or make significant changes that will help alleviate some concerns. Officers have recommended the latter. Where appropriate, modifications have been proposed to the provisions as part of the officer comment. Some of these modifications are considered to be significant changes and these changes will need to be readvertised should Council choose to proceed with the amendment as recommended. Vehicle movement, access and traffic

The City’s traffic engineers provided a traffic study during the submission period to offer a better understanding the road network challenges. It was expected that significant increases to the residential density would have cause added road use. The severity of this impact is compounded by the busy nature of Hampton Road, the existing single entry and exit of Brockman Place and the absence of a comprehensive internal road network restricts how much development can be reasonably supported. Initially it was suggested within the scheme amendment that direct access from Hampton Road be discouraged in order to reduce the stop start of vehicles entering from Hampton Road. The existing entrance of Brockman Place would therefore serve the majority of the development in the area. Brockman Place was identified within the traffic study to be inadequately performing presently and the level of increased vehicle movement could not be supportable. The study also considered whether allowing vehicle access to the lots fronting Hampton Road would alleviate some of the issues from the Brockman Place intersection. This would disperse some of the queuing, which could aid Brockman Place. The traffic generated as a result of increased density is considered to equate to an unacceptable service level for vehicles, potentially resulting in significant vehicle movement delays, driver frustration and possible safety risks as drivers make errors in judgement because of the delays. This level of service is a result of the high vehicle traffic volumes on Hampton Road and lack of storage facilities or turning pockets for vehicles, meaning that turning vehicles cause delays by stopping a lane of traffic. Appropriate upgrading of Hampton Road would also be needed to ensure vehicles entering the subject site do not create delays along Hampton Road. The use of turning lanes to vehicle access points could ensure the impact to Hampton Road is reduced. A suggestion within the traffic study was to create a signalised access point that linked Brockman Place and the northern lots. This could reduce the congestion and queuing at Brockman Place by creating a consistent traffic flow to and from the sites. The intersection of Clontarf Road and Hampton Road was identified as being a suitable solution as the intersection is already signalised. The proximity of the existing signals elsewhere along Hampton Road also means the Clontarf Road intersection is the only appropriate solution. The northern most lots provide an important opportunity that could alleviate some of the traffic challenges by opening Brockman Place with an additional entry. This scenario


Page 59

however, relies heavily on landowner cooperation to coordinate an appropriate contribution solution. Additionally, comprehensive staging and timing is also needed for this scenario to be appropriately achieved, which has not been progressed by the landowners within the area. It is challenging to ensure that this high level of coordination can be achieved for future redevelopment. As this cannot be guaranteed, it is recommended that the scheme amendment be scaled back to reduce the potential development yield and associated traffic generation from redevelopment. Additional requirements on appropriate solutions for mitigating some of the traffic issues are also recommended to be included in the amendment provisions. The following changes have been recommended for vehicle movement, access and traffic:

allow vehicle access from Hampton Road

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

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

Residential density As a result of the conclusions reached in the traffic study a lower residential density is recommended. Several of the submissions received raised concern over the intensity of residential development and the flow on effect this would have to localised traffic. Several submissions were also supportive of the increased development opportunities as means of revitalising the area. The Brockman Place area offers a prime location for intensification with large lot sizes and proximity to surrounding local amenities such as the nearby local centre with shopping facilities, local primary and secondary schools and green spaces and South Beach. The existing challenges associated with the road network however hinder the ability to reasonably resolve additional traffic issues generated by increased numbers of residents. Vehicle movement was considered exclusively in relation to the residential component of the proposed development. This tested whether the proposed residential density was suitable to the areas context. Increasing the residential density within the area is acknowledged to have a significant impact on the area’s existing traffic issues; however the potential for improvement of the area through redevelopment can still provide a balanced compromise. At present, the Brockman Place area has development capabilities up to R60 for mixed-use developments (through clause 4.2.5 of the scheme). Scheme amendment 68 proposed to limit the R60 ability and alternatively provide opportunity to develop up to RAC-3 density. It is no longer considered appropriate to support an increase in density to RAC-3 without a comprehensive internal road network solution. It is therefore recommended that an R80 density be applied to the scheme amendment area, with the addition of specific traffic mitigation requirements, as an alternative option that is significantly scaled back to the previous proposal. With the addition of changes to


Page 60

development heights, the R80 density still has the potential of offering a needed injection of new development and activity into the area. The following changes have been recommended for residential density:

change the residential density code for the amendment area to R80

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

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

remove the bonus height allowances of 15m, 17.5m and 24.5m Hampton Road setback Significant concern was expressed by landowners regarding the 15m setback for Hampton Road lots. This setback was set to give a similar design outcome to the development at Strang Street on the opposite side of Hampton Road. Additionally, this setback requirement was intended to ensure new development did not compromise any likely upgrades as part of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) improvements. Uncertainties remain regarding the future public transport upgrade requirements in the area. The Public Transport Authority (PTA) and Department of Transport (DoT) did not provide comments on the amendment and staging and timing of any likely upgrades has not been suggested.


Page 61

Increasing residential density and improving public transport both interconnect and both require equal consideration. In increasing the residential density within the area the need and desire for more rapid public transport increases. Additionally, increases to residential density in the broader South Fremantle and Cockburn areas will also be impacted and influenced by the ability to upgrade Hampton Road when planning for the future needs of residents. It is essential that any new development still enables enough flexibility to achieve these increasing demands. Along with ensuring flexibility for potential public transport, the area has significant traffic management challenges that are likely to need upgrading with increased development. A setback area also provides flexibility for necessary upgrades such as the turn pockets suggested for vehicle entries. It is recommended that the setback is reduced to 10m and allowance for this area to be used for visitor parking. This will ensure the area is undeveloped and able to be flexibly used if it is necessary in the future. The following changes have been recommended for the Hampton Road setbacks:

reduce the setback from 15m to 10m

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

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

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


Page 62

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Council:

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

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

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

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

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

R80


Page 63

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

Sub Area 4.3.7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Page 64

Vehicle Access –

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hampton Road. Other Development Standards -

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

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

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

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

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 65

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 PC1706 - 6 and PC1706-7. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against


The following item number PC1706-6 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

PC1706 -6 ATTFIELD STREET, NO. 108 (LOT 2), SOUTH FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE ALTERATIONS TO ANCILLARY DWELLING - (CJ DA0141/17)

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

2: Site photographs SUMMARY Retrospective approval is sought for alterations to an Ancillary dwelling at No. 108 Attfield Street, South Fremantle. The Ancillary dwelling has been constructed 0.561m from the northern boundary, rather than the approved 1m setback. The application is presented to the Planning Committee for determination, as the 1m setback was originally imposed by the Planning Committee to reduce the amenity impacts on the adjoining neighbour. The application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL Detail Retrospective approval is sought for alterations to an Ancillary dwelling at No. 108 Attfield Street, South Fremantle. Approval has previously been given for the dwelling with a 1m northern setback; however, the dwelling has been constructed with a northern setback of 0.561m. As the site is on the City’s Heritage List and the setback does not meet the Deemed-to-comply setback requirement of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), the alteration requires retrospective approval.


Page 66

Site/application information Date received: 22 March 2017 Owner name: Joseph and Lorraine Frost Submitted by: Joseph and Lorraine Frost Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage listing: Level 3 Existing land use: Single house Use class: Single house Use permissibility: P

CONSULTATION External referrals Nil required. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as the proposal seeks a Design principle assessment under the R-Codes for the northern lot boundary setback. The advertising period concluded on 28 April 2017 with no submissions were received. OFFICER COMMENT Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant Council local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the Deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant Design principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the Deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the area outlined below does not meet the Deemed-to-comply or policy provisions and needs to be assessed under the Design principles:

Lot boundary setback (northern boundary wall).


Page 67

The above matter is discussed below. Background The Ancillary dwelling at No. 108 Attfield Street has the following planning history:

DA0226/15 (9 September 2015): Ancillary dwelling addition approved with conditions by the Planning Committee. A condition was imposed by the Planning Committee to increase the northern setback from nil to 1m.

Figure 1: Original approval

VA0006/16 (28 April 2016):Variations to the previous approval which reduced the floor area (48.5m² to 33m²) of the Ancillary dwelling and provided a 1m setback to the northern boundary was approved under delegation. The 1m setback condition was removed as condition 1 requires that development is as per the approved plans, meaning the 1m setback must still be adhered to.

Figure 2: Approved variation

Following an unrelated complaint, an inspection by the City’s compliance officers identified that the northern setback was not provided in accordance with the above approvals. This retrospective application for approval is the result of the compliance

N


Page 68

investigation. Site photographs are included in attachment 2, that show the Ancillary dwelling under construction.

Lot boundary setback (boundary wall) The following section of the report, details the changing discretion sought by the applicant in the various approvals. Original approval (DA0226/15) – Planning Committee


1m 0m (see figure 1 above) 1m

In the application originally presented to Planning Committee, a 7.75m long, 3.4m high wall was proposed to be built up to the northern boundary. An objection was submitted that raised concerns that the wall would result in unnecessary bulk and a feeling of enclosure in their rear yard. The wall was supported on balance by officers, noting that while the wall would not be significantly higher than the existing boundary fence and that no major openings would be impacted there could be a bulk impact on the outdoor living area of the northern property. An alternate recommendation was included in the report that included a condition to setback the wall to the Deemed-to-comply requirement of 1m. Planning Committee imposed this condition on the approval. Variation to original approval (VA0006/16)


1m 1m (see figure 2) Nil

The plans lodged reduced the length of the northern wall to 3.4m and increased the setback to 1m. This change made the condition to setback the northern wall to 1m redundant so it was removed from the determination. Current proposal


1m 0.561m 0.439m

As the wall has been built to within less than 600mm of the boundary, it is a boundary wall for the purposes of the R-Codes. Assessment is therefore required against LPP 2.4 Boundary Walls and the Design principles of the R-Codes. The boundary wall is not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, and is supported for the following reasons:

The wall will not impact on access to winter sunlight as it is to the south of the affected property.

The wall is setback 0.561m, allowing for some ventilation to the northern property.


Page 69

The wall is the same length as that approved in VA0006/16 (3.5m), which is less than the 7.75m wall originally proposed in DA0226/15 which is considered to minimise any potential impacts on the northern neighbour.

There are no major openings on the adjoining property that abut the wall, with the proposed setback being sufficient to minimise impacts on the rear yard (an area used for outdoor living) of the northern property.

The wall will not be visible from the street, given the existing house occupies the width of the lot.

Conclusion A number of alterations have been made to the plans originally approved. It is considered that while the wall is not setback to the Deemed-to-comply requirement of 1m, the constructed 0.561m setback combined with the reduced length of the wall approved in VA0006/16, the original concerns of the adjoining landowner have been reduced and the minor variation should be supported. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, retrospective alterations to Ancillary dwelling at No. 108 (Lot 2) Attfield Street, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 22 March 2017. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

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

wall located on the northern boundary shall be of a clean finish in any of the following materials;

coloured sand render

face brick

painted surface

other approved finish


Page 70

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

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 71

The following item number PC1706-7 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

PC1706 -7 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

Acting under authority delegated by the Council the Manager Development Approvals determined, in some cases subject to conditions, each of the applications listed in the Attachments and relating to the places and proposal listed.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the information is noted. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 72

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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


Page 73

The major themes that emerged out of discussions with the community were: community, trees, car parking, walkability/quality transport options, open space, character and design, sustainability and affordability. These themes have been further refined and provided in figure 1 below. These themes form the basis of the project going forward. For further information on the Freo Alternative engagement refer to the Ordinary Meeting of Council minutes 25 January 2017 PC1701-9.

Figure 1. Themes from the Freo Alternative

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


Page 74

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

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

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

CONSULTATION

Subject to Council resolving to proceed to advertise the proposed scheme amendment and local planning policy, these documents will be advertised concurrently in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations as they apply to complex scheme amendments and local planning policies and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals.


Page 75

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

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

The proposed scheme and policy requirements:

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

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

were influenced by the community engagement feedback on the Freo Alternative

will provide smaller housing for small households.

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

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

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


Page 76

Accordingly officers previously recommended that the amendment provisions should initially apply only to specific areas identified in a special control area map in LPS4, similar to the Port buffer special control area. Factors suggested when considering the allocation of these areas were: Exclude: Consider: Heritage areas or/and areas with a large number of individually listed heritage places Heritage areas and/or areas with a large number of individually heritage listed properties would be more likely to have streetscapes of significance. Excluding these areas would therefore minimise the risk of this development type adversely affecting areas with significant streetscape character.

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

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

Figure 3. Areas where the Scheme amendment would apply

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

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

Has a minimum lot area of 600 sq m; and


Page 77

The proposed development –

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dwelling size Council previously resolved that the project should go forward with a maximum floor area of 120 sq m per new dwelling. This size was based on market research at the time and would provide a generous two bedroom house or modest three bedroom house. The 120 sq m maximum floor area requirement does not mean that every dwelling would have to be this size as no minimum floor area size is proposed. This requirement has been included in the scheme amendment.


Page 78

Officers suggest this requirement is highlighted for discussion in the engagement material on the amendment and policy to seek community feedback on appropriate dwelling size. Maximum number of dwellings A key purpose of the project is to increase the diversity of housing in existing suburbs. The results of previous modelling however show that sites not capable of subdivision under conventional planning scheme and R-Codes controls could potentially yield up to six small dwellings for a 750 sq m lot (average lot size in R20-R25 areas). While this would meet one main aim of the amendment, the potential for the development of six dwellings on an otherwise non-subdividable single house residential lot could be perceived as a negative outcome by the local community, regardless of design quality. Accordingly in the principles on diverse housing council resolved to include a cap on the number of dwellings per site area – refer to table 2. This requirement has been included in the scheme amendment. Table 2. Proposed Scheme amendment requirement

Lot area No. of Dwellings

<750 sq m 3

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

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

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

rear setback – 5m with some variation criteria

private outdoor space – 30 sq m with some variation criteria All other planning requirements such as building height, boundary setbacks, visual privacy are as per the Residential Design Codes.


Page 79

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

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

The provision of a minimum 1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel system


Page 80

Design Principles In cases where the deemed-to-comply photovoltaic requirements cannot reasonably be met, Council may consider the achievement of an additional half (0.5) star as an alternative means of complying with this policy. Alternative building methods that cannot meet the requirements above will be considered on their own merits and deemed acceptable where they demonstrate higher than standard sustainability outcomes through the submitted sustainability report. THEME: OPEN SPACE Maintain the traditional open feel of private lots in suburban areas, whilst also allowing for viable development of smaller housing typologies. Overall, the value of open space and connection to nature and green spaces, both on private and public land, was rated highly by the community in the Freo Alternative engagement when thinking about their suburban areas. Limiting the maximum floor area of new dwellings (see above under housing choice) provides a range of smaller house sizes not currently provided by new development in suburban areas. Increasing the open space requirement further ensures development is kept to a limited footprint, thereby reducing building bulk and impact on surrounding neighbours and established suburbs. In general, the open space on a ‘typical’ non-subdividable lot with an original house in older areas of Fremantle can be 70-80% of the lot area. However the minimum open space requirement under the R Codes for new single houses or grouped dwellings in areas with a density code of R35 or lower is 45-50%. Therefore in the principles for diverse housing Council considered a requirement of 70% open space, with the option to consider a reduction to 60% where the existing open aspects, mature vegetation and permeability on a site are retained and/or an existing building is retained. Accordingly the proposed scheme amendment proposes a minimum of 70% open space, as defined by the R-Codes, shall be provided over the entire development site. The draft local planning policy allows for open space to be reduced to 60% where specific requirements are meet. The factors on which to consider the reduction of open space include requirements contained in an earlier council resolution quoted under the ‘location’ theme above. These matters are considered more appropriate as means to consider a reduction in open space rather than as a mandatory locational requirement. The recommended local planning policy open space requirements are: Council may consider a reduction in open space to a minimum of 60% open space where -

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

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

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

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


Page 81

Members of the White Gum Valley Precinct group and the innovative housing working group additionally suggested using the verge areas for alternative and or community spaces. Verges in some parts of Fremantle are large spaces. Binding private planning provisions to requirements on public land is outside of the scope of the planning provisions, however, as part of the community engagement the City could additionally gather feedback on what the community want to see on their verges e.g. parking, garden, other spaces etc. The City could use this information for other initiatives. THEME: TREES AND LANDSCAPING Provide for existing, new trees and garden space on development sites, proportionate to achieving viable development of smaller housing typologies.

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


Page 82

Additionally the scheme amendment includes introduction of the following definition: Deep planting zone: means an area of the lot for the exclusive use of supporting plant life. The deep planting zone shall:

Be water permeable, unpaved and uncovered

Be a minimum length and width dimension of 4.0 metres

Not be used for vehicle parking or access

Contain no buildings, pergolas, swimming pools or external fixtures. A condition of planning approval will be placed on any development approved under these provisions to retain/plant and maintain a tree and retain the deep planting zone. THEME: COMMUNITY Promote private land development outcomes that would help foster social interactions between new smaller dwellings, adjoining development & the street. Bringing a sense of community back into the way housing is provided came through strongly in the engagement on the Freo Alternative. The interaction of a private development internally between residents and externally between the existing neighbourhood and street is important to improve safety and enhances social interactions of residents and the wider community. Council did not previously consider principles under this theme. The following provisions to promote social interactions are proposed in the draft planning policy as a response to the community feedback received during the Freo Alternative. Communal space The policy proposes effective and usable communal space at a minimum dimension of 3m is to be provided where there are three or more dwellings on a site. Council may consider a reduction in the communal space requirement where the development demonstrates good access to quality green open space within five minutes (400m) walking distance. Design guidance on communal space in the policy provides:

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

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

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

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


Page 83

The requirements for development to front the street in the policy are:

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

Habitable room windows and porches overlooking the street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The local planning policy proposes the following: Driveways

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

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

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

Car bays

Max 2 car bays provided to the front of the development

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

Water permeable surfaces for vehicle parking areas Garages/carports

Double garages not permitted fronting the street (unless existing)

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


Page 84

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

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION


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

amend formatting of list

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

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

5.7 Special control area provisions for small infill development

5.7.1 Notwithstanding the minimum and average site area and plot ratio

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

metres.

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

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

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

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

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


Page 85

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

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

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

under clause 4.8.2.1.

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

5.7.4 Notwithstanding the permitted development requirements under

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

5.7.5 Other buildings including outbuildings are only permitted on the

development site where requirements of 5.7.1 are met.

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

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

supporting plant life. The deep planting zone shall:




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

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

Areas

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


Page 86

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

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

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

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

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

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

for determination of whether an environmental review is required.

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

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

provisions for small infill development for the purposes of advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions in


Page 87

Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals:

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

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

Policy Key

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

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

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

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


Page 88

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

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


Page 89

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Page 90

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

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

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

DEEMED-TO-COMPLY

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

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

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

4. SUSTAINABILITY


Page 91

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEEMED-TO-COMPLY

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

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

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


Page 92

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DESIGN GUIDANCE

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

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

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

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

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


Page 93

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

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

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

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

DESIGN GUIDANCE

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


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

Communal space in larger developments should consider greater dimensions.


Page 94

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

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

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

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

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

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

The efficient use of land on a development site

Tree retention

Amenity of the streetscape

Limiting the impact on ecological factors such as water permeability

Safety of residents and pedestrians.

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

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

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

The minimum width of a driveway shall be 2.75m.

The maximum width of a driveway shall be 3m.

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

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


Page 95

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Car share facilities are strongly encouraged.

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

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

For Against



Page 96

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED an amendment to part 6 of the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording in section 5.1 Open space requirement, design principles :

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

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against


COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

amend formatting of list

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

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

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

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

metres.

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


Page 97

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

under clause 4.8.2.1.

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

5.7.4 Notwithstanding the permitted development requirements under clause

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

5.7.5 Other buildings including outbuildings are only permitted on the

development site where requirements of 5.7.1 are met.

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

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




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

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

Areas

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


Page 98

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

provisions for small infill development for the purposes of advertising in


Page 99

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

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

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

Policy Key

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

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

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

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


Page 100

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

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

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


Page 101

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Page 102

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

boundary or

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

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

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

DEEMED-TO-COMPLY

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

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

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

4. SUSTAINABILITY


Page 103

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEEMED-TO-COMPLY

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

DESIGN PRINCIPLES


Page 104

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DESIGN GUIDANCE

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

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

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


Page 105

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Page 106

DESIGN GUIDANCE

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


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

Communal space in larger developments should consider greater dimensions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The efficient use of land on a development site

Tree retention

Amenity of the streetscape

Limiting the impact on ecological factors such as water permeability

Safety of residents and pedestrians.

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

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


Page 107

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

The minimum width of a driveway shall be 2.75m.

The maximum width of a driveway shall be 3m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DESIGN GUIDANCE

Car share facilities are strongly encouraged.

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

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

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


Page 108

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

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

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

Assessment: This planning and scheme assessment has been carried out against the provisions of Local Planning Scheme 4 (LPS4) of the City of Fremantle. For reasons of transparency the full assessment is included at Attachment A (normally only matters requiring the exercise of discretion are included in a report).


Page 109

The following table shows the result of the evaluation against relevant scheme and policy provisions: Part A: Local Planning Scheme 4 A. Objectives of the City centre zone Compliant B. Parking Compliant C. Height requirements Compliant D. Demolition of buildings and structures Compliant E. End of trip facilities N/a F. Schedule 8 Compliant

(with two exercises of discretion)

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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


Page 110

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

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

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

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

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

d. A dilapidation survey of the Fremantle Town Hall.

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

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

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

Other matters:

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

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

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

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

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

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

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

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

economic development

environmental responsibility

character, culture and heritage

places for people.


Page 111

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


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

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 112

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.16 PM.


Page 113

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION

The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1. The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2. The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3. The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO

4. These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5. The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.

All input is of equal value 6. No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7. Local Government in WA is a representative democracy. Elected Members and the CEO are charged under the Local Government Act with the responsibility to make decisions based on fact and the merits of the issue without fear or favour and are accountable for their actions and decisions under law. Elected Members are accountable to the people via periodic elections. As it is a representative democracy, decisions may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.


Page 114


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 115


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 116

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.

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 7 June 2017, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Planning Committee

7 June 2017

Page 2

minutes - home | city of fremantle 7 june 2… · ross mcdonald the following ... recommendation...

Documents