ordinary meeting of council agenda master - 27 november 2013 · city of fremantle notice of an...
TRANSCRIPT
AGENDA
Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday, 27 November 2013, 6.00pm
CITY OF FREMANTLE
NOTICE OF AN ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL
Elected Members An Ordinary Meeting of Council of the City of Fremantle will be held on Wednesday, 27
November 2013 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street, Fremantle
(access via stairs, next to the playground in Kings Square) commencing at 6.00 pm.
Glen Dougall DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES 22 November 2013
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL
AGENDA
DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 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." ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated Wednesday 30 October 2013 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY MEMBERS TABLED DOCUMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE
COMMITTEE REPORTS 5
PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2013 5
PSC1311-158 TUCKFIELD STREET NO 34-36 (LOT 10 & 11) - TWO STOREY ADDITION TO EXISTING TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0506/13) 5
PSC1311-165 QUARRY STREET NO 77 (LOT 6) FREMANTLE - CARPORT - (CJ DA0414/13) 12
PSC1311-168 FINAL ADOPTION - SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 50 - ADDITIONAL DWELLINGS 17
PSC1311-169 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 42 - REQUIREMENT FOR REGISTERED ARCHITECT TO DESIGN LARGER DEVELOPMENTS - INITIATION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 23
PSC1311-170 PROPOSED ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW 29
PSC1311-171 PROPOSED LOCAL PLANNING POLICY - CONSTRUCTION SITES 41
PSC1311-172 PROPOSED ALCOHOL MANAGEMENT POLICY 57
PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 20 NOVEMBER 2013 64
PSC1311-178 HUGHES STREET NO 1 (LOT 17) HILTON - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO (2) REPLACEMENT THREE (3) STOREY MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS (SIX (6) DWELLINGS IN TOTAL) (AD DA0314/13) 64
PSC1311-182 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 60 - REZONE 7 (LOT 1) QUARRY ST FROM RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE - FINAL ADOPTION 75
PSC1311-183 REVIEW OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11 MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 87
PSC1311-184 PROPOSED PARTIAL CLOSURE AND AMALGAMATION OF A PORTION OF BEACH STREET, FREMANTLE ROAD RESERVE 101
PSC1311-185 CITY OF FREMANTLE SUBMISSION TO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING CONCERNING THE DISCUSSION PAPER - "PLANNING PROVISIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING" 108
PSC1311-186 PROPOSED SUBMISSION ON THE STATE PLANNING DOCUMENT.DOCX 121
LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 13 NOVEMBER 2013 133
LAC1311-113 PRESIDING OFFICER AND DEPUTY PRESIDING OFFICER ELECTION 133
LAC1311-114 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICE REPORT - JULY - SEPTEMBER 2013 136
LAC1311-115 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICE POLICY 148
LAC1311-116 TOY LIBRARY QUARTERLY REPORT - JULY - SEPTEMBER 2013 150
STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 13 NOVEMBER 2013 154
SGS1311-3 ACCEPTANCE OF GRANTS FROM AUSTRALIA COUNCIL AND STATE GOVERNMENT OF WA THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE AND THE ARTS 154
SGS1311-4 TO CONSIDER A REQUEST TO PERMIT ESPLANADE RESERVE TO BECOME A DOG OFF LEASH EXERCISE AREA FROM 5.00 AM TO 9.00 AM 157
SGS1311-5 DRAFT PARKLETS POLICY - COUNCIL CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION 162
SGS1311-6 COCKBURN SOUND COASTAL ALLIANCE 168
SGS1311-7 ALFRESCO DINING FRONTING THE ESPLANADE HOTEL 174
SGS1311-8 MARKET STREET STREETCAPE FEATURES 187
SGS1311-9 RATE CONCESSION SUBMISSION - 342 STOCK ROAD O'CONNOR - THE LANDSCAPE YARD 191
SGS1311-10 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MASTER LENDING AGREEMENT WITH WATC 194
SGS1311-12 KIDOGO ART HOUSE - PROPOSED PLAN FOR SMALL BAR AT SHIPSWRIGHT BUILDING - 49 MEWS ROAD BATHERS BEACH 197
MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 204
REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 204
STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 204
COUNCIL ITEMS 205
C1311-01 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - OCTOBER 2013 205
C1311-02 APPLICATION FOR LEASE - UNIT 1, J SHED - SUNSET EVENTS PTY LTD 211
C1311-03 RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY REPORT - PAKENHAM STREET NO 8 (LOTS 133, 134 & 135) FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE (5) STOREY (68 UNIT 122 BEDROOM) TOURIST ACCOMMODATION BUILDING (JL DAP80001/13) 224
CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 246
SGS1311-11 ADOPTION OF BUSINESS PLAN FOR PROPOSED PURCHASE OF 144 CARRINGTON STREET O'CONNOR 246
AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1
PSC1311-186 PROPOSED SUBMISSION ON THE STATE PLANNING 3
SGS 1311-05 DRAFT PARKLETS POLICY 11
C1311-01 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - OCTOBER 2013 15
C1311-02 APPLICATION FOR LEASE UNIT 1 - J SHED ATTACHMENT 1 22
C1311-03 RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY REPORT - PAKENHAM STREET NO 8 (LOTS 133, 134 & 135) FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE (5) STOREY (68 UNIT 122 BEDROOM) TOURIST ACCOMMODATION BUILDING (JL DAP80001/13) 25
City of Fremantle
PAGE 5
COMMITTEE REPORTS
PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 6 NOVEMBER 2013
PSC1311-158 TUCKFIELD STREET NO 34-36 (LOT 10 & 11) - TWO STOREY ADDITION TO EXISTING TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0506/13)
DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1310-149 (16 October 2013) Attachments: 1 – Development Plans
2 – Site Photos 3 – Previous Development Plans (DA0359/13) Date Received: 21 October 2013 Owner Name: W & G Routledge Submitted by: W & G Routledge Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Two Storey Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’
City of Fremantle
PAGE 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The application seeks planning approval for a Two Storey Addition to an existing Two Storey Single House at the subject site. The application proposes lesser setbacks to the primary street, for external wall heights of 4.0m or less, than required in the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy (‘LPP2.9’). The application follows a previous application refused by the City (DA0359/13) that depicted an external wall height to Tuckfield Street greater than 4m. The lesser setback to Tuckfield Street, based on the reduced overall wall height is considered to meet the discretionary criteria contained at clause 1.2 of LPP2.9 in that it is consistent with the setback of walls to the dwelling contained on-site as well as adjoining dwellings in the prevailing streetscape. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions. BACKGROUND
The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ and coded R25 pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’). The subject site exists on the western side of Tuckfield Street, south of Burt Street, Fremantle. The subject site contains an existing Two Storey Single House and hardstand vehicle parking area (see Attachment 2 – Site Photos for images of the subject site and surrounding area). A similar application for a Two Storey Addition was lodged with the City in July 2013 (DA0359/13). At its Ordinary Council Meeting of 16 October 2013, the Council resolved to refuse the application. The current application modifies the street presentation of the proposal to achieve greater conformity with the provisions of LPP2.9. DETAIL
The application seeks planning approval for a Two Storey Addition to an Existing Two Storey Single House including;
A lower floor garage for two vehicles access via an existing crossover to Tuckfield Street and storage area adjacent to the existing Single House; and,
An upper floor storage and balcony area. Modifications from the previous application considered by Council on 16 October 2013 include:
The external wall height of the building facing Tuckfield Street being reduced to 4.0m, from a previous maximum of 4.67m;
An upper floor dormer window facing Tuckfield Street has been removed and the length of the roof line increased to accommodate the change in wall height; and,
City of Fremantle
PAGE 7
The ‘limestone textured wall’ and main building wall, separated under the previous proposal, being combined to create one wall feature addressing Tuckfield Street.
Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1.
STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R Codes and planning policies. Discretionary and design principle decisions are sought against these requirements in relation to;
Primary street setback; and,
Lot Boundary Setbacks. The discretionary decisions are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION
Community
The application was not advertised to surrounding landowners as the proposal was considered to be alike to that considered as part of DA0359/13. That previous application was advertised to affected landowners and the comments raised are summarised as follows;
Streetscape character; The existing house is already significantly out of character with the street and contains an extensive blank wall on the footpath. The proposed addition adds further to the lack of keeping with the rest of the houses on the street. The proposal simply extends the already substantial impact of the blank wall of the house further detracting from the house hiding behind the current gardens;
Street wall; The proposal will create a continuous 21m long wall section extending across the whole frontage of the site;
Heritage; The proposed development does not consider the heritage values of the street. It is important for the Council to protect the heritage values of this section of Tuckfield Street and encourage sympathetic development.
Consideration of relevant matters raised is discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.
PLANNING COMMENT
Primary Street Setback
Element Required Provided Design Principle Assessment
4.0m external wall height or less
5.0m 2.0m 3.0m
City of Fremantle
PAGE 8
The proposed development does not meet the prescribed setback requirements of Table 1 of LPP2.9 in relation to the setback of the building to Tuckfield Street. DA0359/13 proposed a wall of lesser scale, but the same setback as currently proposed. In considering that element, officers in the report to the Ordinary Council Meeting of 16 October 2013 considered that;
‘The setback of the ground floor element, being the portion of building with an external wall height less than 4m is supported on the basis that the setback is clearly consistent with the setback of buildings in the prevailing streetscape and the rest of Tuckfield Street more generally.’
The previous proposal included a split wall arrangement with a forward wall to 3.06m with a second wall behind to a height of 4.67m. The elements have now been combined to a 4.0m height wall at the same setback as the originally lower 3.06m wall; but the overall wall height of the proposal has been reduced. Notwithstanding the increase in external wall height from 3.06m at the forward element to 4.0m, the proposed lesser setback is supported as it is considered consistent with the prevailing streetscape in the following ways;
The proposed setback will match the existing setback (2.0m) of the projecting room of the dwelling located near the north-east boundary of the subject site;
The proposed setback is at a comparable distance to the existing dwellings at No. 32 and 38 Tuckfield Street (see Attachment 2 – Site Photos); and,
The setback distance is comparable to those adjoining dwellings further removed within the prevailing streetscape at No. 28, 30, 32 and 40 Tuckfield Street which are setback from Tuckfield Street approximately 2.0m.
In addition to the above a dormer window facing Tuckfield Street included in the past application (DA0359/13) has been removed. This significantly reduces the visual impression, when viewed from Tuckfield Street, that the building contains two stories. The prevailing streetscape contains single storey dwellings (except for the two storey dwelling at the subject site) only and the impression of a single storey building when viewed from the street is considered complimentary to this character. Lot Boundary Setbacks
Boundary Required Provided Design Principles Assessment
South 1.2m 1.1m 0.1m
The discretionary decision is supported for the following reasons;
The proposal is not considered to result in adverse building bulk or scale when viewed from adjoining sites, notwithstanding the high visibility of the proposal from the street boundary;
The lesser setback does not impact on an adjoining outdoor living area or major opening to habitable rooms in respect to access to sunlight or ventilation; and,
The lesser setback does not contribute to any impact on visual privacy;
City of Fremantle
PAGE 9
Despite the above, the proposal will cast a shadow over existing solar panels at No. 32 Tuckfield Street. While the shadow cast by the development is compliant with the prescribed R-Code requirements, the lesser setback is nonetheless supported. The overshadowing caused by the proposal is considered to be no additional impact compared to a proposal that would otherwise meet the 1.2m setback requirement. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Addition to Existing Two Storey Single House at No. 34-36 (Lot 10 & 11) Tuckfield Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved
plans, dated 21 October 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.
2. Prior to occupation, the balcony on the western and southern elevation shall
be either:
a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.6 metres above floor level, or
b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.65 metres above the floor level, or
c) a minimum sill height of 1.65 metres as determined from the internal floor level, or
d) screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,
in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site.
MOVED: Cr R Pemberton
That the application be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting in order for public consultation to occur.
LOST: 3/4
For Against
City of Fremantle
PAGE 10
Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham
Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan
Cr R Fittock used his casting vote AGAINST the recommendation resulting in it being LOST. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Addition to Existing Two Storey Single House at No. 34-36 (Lot 10 & 11) Tuckfield Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 3. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved
plans, dated 21 October 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.
4. Prior to occupation, the balcony on the western and southern elevation shall
be either:
e) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.6 metres above floor level, or
f) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.65 metres above the floor level, or
g) a minimum sill height of 1.65 metres as determined from the internal floor level, or
h) screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,
in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site.
CARRIED: 4/3
For Against
Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan Cr Robert Fittock
Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham
City of Fremantle
PAGE 11
Cr R Fittock used his casting vote FOR the recommendation resulting in it being CARRIED. 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.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 12
PSC1311-165 QUARRY STREET NO 77 (LOT 6) FREMANTLE - CARPORT - (CJ DA0414/13)
DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1304-48 (3 April 2013) Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans
Attachment 2 – PSC1304-48 Report Date Received: 26 August 2013 Owner Name: Graeme Baumgarten Submitted by: SIA Architects Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Level 3 Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘D’
City of Fremantle
PAGE 13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City has received an application for the addition of a carport at No. 77 Quarry Street, Fremantle. The application seeks discretion against Local Planning Scheme No 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policies, and is therefore referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination. The carport design has been altered slightly from a previous design submitted by the applicant. The previous carport was deleted from conditional planning approval DA0424/12 which was determined by PSC in April 2013. As the amended design still does not comply with statutory planning requirements, is similar to that previously refused by Council and is not supported by the City’s Heritage Planner, the application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND
The subject site is zoned Residential under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is allocated with a density coding of R25.The site is adopted on the City’s Heritage List and the Municipal Heritage Inventory as Level 3. The site is not located within a designated Heritage Area under LPS4. The site is 679m2 and is located on the eastern side of Quarry Street in Fremantle. The site is currently occupied by four Grouped Dwellings. No. 77 is located on the western portion of the site. The street block is bound by Tuckfield Street to the east, Burt Street to the north, and James Street to the south. An application for Two Storey Additions and Alterations to Existing Grouped Dwelling (DA0424/12) was approved by PSC on 3 April 2013. The application included a three car carport in the front setback of the property. The carport was subsequently deleted from the approval as it was not supported by Heritage advice and did not comply with provisions of Local Planning Policy 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy. DETAIL
The application proposes the addition of a carport in the front setback of No. 77 Quarry Street, Fremantle. The carport measures approximately 9m in length 6.5m in width and 2.5m in height and is designed to accommodate three (3) cars. The following has been amended from the previous car port proposal:
Two (2) degree fall of the carport roof to the front (west) of the site rather than to the rear; and
Roof façade thickness as viewed from the street reduced in thickness (150mm v 500mm).
Development plans are included as attachment 1. This application is for the carport only. Other proposed works on the plans have previously been approved by Council.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 14
STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes and includes discretion against the requirements of LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy. Detailed assessment against the policy will be discussed below in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the report. CONSULTATION
Heritage In accordance with LPP 1.6 Heritage Assessment, as an assessment was completed for a similar proposal for the same property within five calendar years of this application, another assessment is not required. The following concerns were raised in relation to the carport in the assessment undertaken in January 2013:
Given the raised height of the original duplex the additions will not have a negative impact, although the carport which is to be sited in the front setback will have a negative impact on the visual qualities to the original duplex and streetscape.
The proposed carport will have a negative impact on the streetscape and the visual qualities of the overall form and in particular the northern wall of the duplex, and is therefore not supported.
Discussions with the City’s Heritage Planner, have confirmed that the previous comments also apply to the revised carport design that is presented as part of this application. Community
The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4, as it proposed variations to Local Planning Policy 2.9. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 19 September 2013, the City had received no submissions.
PLANNING COMMENT
Carport
Required Provided Discretion Sought
Open on all sides Open on all sides Complies
Timber or steel vertical supports no greater than
150mm in width.
100mm supports Complies
2.8m height. 2.9-3.2m above NGL (Quarry St elevation)
100-400mm
Maintain visibility of the dwelling and surveillance to
the street.
Dwelling visible, surveillance achieved
Complies
Maximum width – 6m 9.2m 3.2m
Setback 1m or greater from 2m Complies
City of Fremantle
PAGE 15
side boundary
A carport is able to be located in front of the dwelling where it meets the above criteria of LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy. Variations to these requirements can be considered by Council for the following reason listed in Clause 2.3 of LPP 2.9:
i. The proposed building is consistent with the character of buildings in the prevailing streetscape; or
There are no carports in the front setback of properties located within the prevailing streetscape of No. 77 Quarry Street.
ii. The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element
into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or topography of the land; or
The proposed carport will be forward of the existing dwellings verandah by approximately 2.5m, and is only proposed to be 429mm setback from the primary street. This will result in a projecting element into an established streetscape.
iii. The proposed setback of the building will facilitate the retention of a mature, significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthier of retention (Refer also to LPP 2.10 Landscaping of Development and Existing Vegetation on Development Sites); or
The proposed location of the carport is not required in order to retain a mature, significant tree on site. Existing trees in the front setback are all proposed to be removed to build the carport.
iv. The carport is lightweight in construction, appears simple in design and is visually subservient to the form and proportion of the dwelling. Additionally, the front setback area is designed in such a way so as to maintain visibility of the dwelling from the street and surveillance from the dwelling.
While it is acknowledged the carport “appears simple in its design”, it is significantly larger than the criteria set out in Clause 2.2 of LPP 2.9 (as listed in the table above). Additionally, heritage advice has determined the proposed carport to have a negative visual impact on the existing heritage listed grouped dwelling. Therefore, the proposed carport is not supported in accordance with the above criteria. CONCLUSION
In summary, the application seeks to vary the requirements of LPP 2.9 and is not supported by Heritage due to its visual dominance in the front setback. As such, the application is recommended for refusal.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 16
COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Carport at No. 77 (Lot 6) Quarry Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 26 August 2013, for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy.
2. The proposal is not supported by a Heritage Assessment as required by Clause
10.2.1 and 7.4 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4.
CARRIED: 4/2
For Against
Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jon Strachan
Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie
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.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 17
PSC1311-168 FINAL ADOPTION - SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 50 - ADDITIONAL DWELLINGS
DataWorks Reference: 218/056 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Policy & Projects Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1305-65 (PSC 19 June 2013) PSC1306-87 (OCM 26 June 2013) Attachments: 1 – Report to Ordinary Council Meeting PSC1306-87
2 – Scheme Amendment Report 3 – Schedule of Submissions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed Scheme Amendment 50 – Additional Dwellings was initiated by Council in June 2013 for public consultation. The purpose of this item is to report on the submissions received during the consultation period, and to recommend that Council adopt the amendment, with minor modifications. The purpose of Amendment 50 is to introduce new provisions into Part 5 (General Development Requirements) of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’). The proposed provisions will give the City the discretionary power, in certain circumstances, to grant planning approval for an additional dwelling to be developed on a Single House lot, despite the minimum site area requirements of the Residential Design Codes (‘R-Codes’). The provisions will apply to residential zoned land with separate, dedicated frontage to more than one public road, except for corner lots. The intent of the provisions is to facilitate the development of additional dwellings to activate inactive road frontages. In response to comments received during the community consultation period, it is recommended that the Council adopt the proposed amendment with minor modifications. BACKGROUND
The proposed scheme amendment would introduce new clauses into the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 that will allow Council to exercise a discretionary power to approve an additional dwelling on a Single House lot in certain circumstances. Each dwelling on the lot would be required to present to the street it is located on and provide pedestrian and/or vehicle access from that street. The provisions would only apply to development, not subdivision, however once the dwelling is built subdivision could be possible under the provisions of the R-Codes subject to WAPC approval. At its Ordinary Council meeting of 26 June 2013, the Committee adopted the draft provisions of amendment No. 50 for public consultation (see Attachment 1 - Report to Ordinary Council Meeting PSC1306-87).
City of Fremantle
PAGE 18
For further background information relating to the proposed amendment please refer to the scheme amendment report contained in this report at Attachment 2 – Scheme Amendment Report. CONSULTATION
The amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (‘EPA’) for confirmation that a formal environmental assessment was not required, in accordance with regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967. Community consultation was undertaken from 20 August 2013 to 4 October 2013 – 45 days in total. Advertising consisted of:
Public advertising notices in the Fremantle Gazette local newspaper – 20 & 27 August 2013;
Media releases outlining the amendment and advising of the associated public comment period to local newspapers;
City of Fremantle website notification for the duration of consultation period;
Notification of the amendment in the public area of City of Fremantle administration building;
Preparation of a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ information document, including sketches demonstrating the types of properties where the proposed amendment is likely to apply;
Letters of notification and inviting comment on the proposal to various service agencies and government organisations; and,
Letters of notification and inviting comment to all precinct groups with an offer for City officers to attend precinct meetings to discuss the proposal.
A total of 11 submissions were received at the close of the consultation period. 7 of the submissions were supportive, or raised a minor modification to the proposed amendment, while 4 submissions objected to the proposed amendment. The comments raised by the objections are summarised as follows;
The amendment will result in new development that impacts on access to light; visual privacy and noise;
The proposal will generate a lot of street parking;
The amendment will result in street parking being removed to provide for new dwellings;
The amendment will reduce the curtilage to existing heritage properties;
The proposal will generate increased local vehicle traffic; and,
There are already generous zoning concessions in place and density coding well defined and considered.
Attachment 3 – Schedule of Submissions provides a full list of the submissions with officer comments in response to any relevant concerns. In general, the concerns raised relate to future assessment of development applications. Future development assessment will be undertaken on its merits in accordance with the planning framework at the time of making the decision.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 19
Two submissions suggested modifications to the amendment which are summarised as follows:
The amendment provisions should not apply to properties with frontage to a primary regional road under the management of Main Roads Western Australia (‘MRWA’); and,
The amendment provisions should apply to corner lots and laneway lots subject to applications being advertised to affected landowners.
Consideration of the suggested modifications is made in the Planning Comment section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT
The City is supportive of providing opportunity for small housing within established areas as a direct response to declining household sizes and less affordable housing in the Perth metropolitan area. The proposed amendment aims to provide opportunities to develop new dwellings that address otherwise underutilised street frontage thereby making more efficient use of land and existing infrastructure. The small dwelling initiatives, of which this amendment forms a part, are in line with the City’s Strategic Plan 2010-2015. The proposed amendment will provide for a greater diversity of housing and help achieve infill goals established in the WAPC’s Directions 2013 and Beyond and Draft Central Metropolitan Sub Regional Strategy. There is a strong potential for the proposed amendment to facilitate development of new dwellings at varying sizes and accommodation types. The provisions of the proposed amendment are not considered to adversely affect the operation of the existing density code regime given the specific application of the proposed provisions. Modifications to Proposed Amendment Main Roads Western Australia MRWA raised the following comment in relation to the proposed amendment text;
‘1. It is advised that the City insert an additional sub-clause, 5.4.6.1(c), into its proposed amendment which states the following; ‘Where the proposed dedicated road is not an asset under the control of Main Roads Western Australia.’
MRWA has management control over primary regional roads in the City of Fremantle. The City is required to refer most development applications to MRWA where properties abut or are contained within the primary regional road reserve. Any development application and/or subdivision application arising from the proposed amendment would similarly be forwarded to MRWA for comment prior to determination. In these instances MRWA will have the opportunity to assess each application on its merits and make recommendations accordingly.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 20
Notwithstanding this the recommended change to limit application of the scheme amendment provisions in cases where a site abuts a primary regional road is considered to have merit. It would not affect the broad intent of the amendment and accords with the rationalisation of access to primary regional roads required under the WAPC’s Development Control Policy 5.1 – Regional Roads (Vehicle Access). It is therefore recommended that the amendment text be modified to include an additional criteria in proposed clause 5.4.6.1 as follows:
‘5.4.6.1(c) The road which the additional dwelling faces and obtains access from is not a primary regional road under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.’
Submission from private property owner/occupier - The amendment should apply to corner and laneway lots, subject to community consultation. A submission received from a property owner/occupier suggested that the amendment provisions should also apply to corner lots and to laneway lots. Inclusion of corner lots could result in design issues in established areas; especially in heritage areas. Allowing for an additional dwelling on a small corner lot, particularly if the existing house is orientated to a street corner splay, could then result in development that creates an undesirable streetscape pattern and design outcome within an established area. Moreover, one of the purposes of the amendment is to activate underutilised rear frontages. Properties located on street corners often address both street frontages and making the provisions applicable to corner lots could result in an inequity between additional dwellings being provided on street corner lots but not elsewhere in the same prevailing streetscape. The term ‘dedicated and constructed road’ is not intended to allow for additional dwellings on ‘undersized’ lots with a frontage to a private rear laneway or right of way, as unsatisfactory streetscape outcomes or servicing difficulties could result due to the more restricted width and design of laneways. Accordingly the inclusion of corner or laneway lots within the amendment provisions, as suggested in the submission, is not recommended. Should the amendment be approved by the Minister for Planning, officers intend to recommend to Council preparation of an accompanying local planning policy. This policy will address the matters to be considered by Council in exercising the discretionary power to approve the proposed additional dwelling, and the policy could also clarify the meaning of ‘dedicated road’ as referred to in the scheme amendment text. The term is intended to be used on the basis of the definition of ‘road’ in the Land Administration Act 1997. CONCLUSION Amendment No. 50 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 has been prepared to facilitate the development of additional dwellings on existing smaller residential lots. The intent of the amendment is to facilitate higher density development of land with frontage to more than one dedicated and constructed road frontage.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 21
The recommended modifications to the amendment, arising from the community consultation process, are considered relatively minor in nature. It is recommended that Council adopt scheme amendment No. 50 with these minor modifications. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council – 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and
Attachment 3; 2. Resolve pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and
Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, to adopt the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 with minor modifications as follows:
Inserting the following clauses into Part 5 after clause 5.4.5:
5.4.6 Additional Dwelling 5.4.6.1 Despite the site area requirements of the Residential Design Codes, Council
may grant consent to the development of one additional dwelling on a Residential zoned Single House lot where:
a) The lot is not a corner lot and has two or more separate frontages to a
dedicated and constructed road; and,
b) Both dwellings each face a separate dedicated and constructed road and shall obtain access from the respective road; and,
c) The road which the additional dwelling faces and obtains access from is not a primary regional road under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.
5.4.6.2 Any proposed development as referred to in clause 5.4.6.1 shall be assessed against all other applicable grouped dwelling development standards and requirements for the site as specified in the Scheme and state and/or local planning policies. This includes requirements linked to the density coding of the lot. In the case of a lot subject to a split density coding, the development standards and requirements associated with the lowest density coding will be applied in the assessment of the proposed development.
5.4.6.3 Clause 5.4.6.1 only applies to the development of grouped dwellings and does not apply to the subdivision of vacant land parcels.
3. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant
documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 22
Request the Minister for Planning to grant final consent to Scheme Amendment No. 50 as referred to in (2) above. CARRIED: 5/1
For Against
Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie
Cr Jon Strachan
City of Fremantle
PAGE 23
PSC1311-169 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 42 - REQUIREMENT FOR REGISTERED ARCHITECT TO DESIGN LARGER DEVELOPMENTS - INITIATION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING
DataWorks Reference: 218/046 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1305-73
Attachments: 1. Discussion Paper; Scheme amendment for a SEPP 65‐type planning policy trial
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On 22 May 2013 Council adopted a set of principles upon which to draft a Scheme amendment that would introduce into the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) the requirement for a registered architect to design large developments in the City of Fremantle. Subsequent to this, officers of the Office of the Government Architect and the City of Fremantle consulted with representatives from the Department of Planning regarding the preparation of a draft amendment to LPS4 based on these principles. The Department of Planning officers’ preliminary response to an amendment based on the principles was positive. Accordingly, officers have prepared a scheme amendment to LPS4 that incorporates these principles. It is considered the amendment will strengthen the City of Fremantle’s commitment to delivering quality design and urban form in large developments. It is therefore recommended Council resolve to initiate Scheme Amendment No. 42 to LPS4. BACKGROUND
At its Ordinary Meeting of Council meeting 22 May 2013, Council resolved to: 1. Endorse preparation of an amendment to LPS4 for further consideration by Council
based on the following principles:
a. A registered architect (in accordance with the Architects Act 2004) is required to design the same developments that require assessment by the City’s Design Advisory Committee under clause 11.8.6.2 of LPS4 e.g. development applications that propose a building with a building height of 11 metres or greater in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones.
b. The proposed amendment will include a sunset clause meaning the provisions cease after a specified trail period (proposed 5 years) and during this time the provisions will be monitored to ensure they are performing as proposed.
2. Authorise officers to consult with representatives of the Department of Planning
regarding the preparation of a draft amendment to LPS4 based on the principles in (1)
City of Fremantle
PAGE 24
above, prior to presenting a report on the matter to Council for further consideration and possible initiation of a Scheme amendment.
Officers from the City of Fremantle and the Office of the Government Architect Western Australia met with officers from the Department of Planning (DoP), including the Director General, and presented a briefing paper on the above (1) principles for an amendment to the City’s Scheme. The purpose of the meeting was to ascertain, from DoP, the level of support for the principles and a subsequent amendment. DoP indicated at the meeting preliminary support. Consequently, the City’s officers have progressed with the drafting of the amendment in consultation with the Office of the Government Architect Western Australia. The proposed amendment is discussed in planning comment section of this report. For more information on the background of this Scheme amendment please see the previous report in the 22 May 2013 Ordinary Meeting of Council minutes (PSC1305-73). PLANNING COMMENT
The City of Fremantle is committed to strengthening its planning framework to enhance the quality and amenity of new development and the built environment. The most recent initiatives the City of Fremantle has implemented are:
Scheme amendment No. 49 (gazetted 18 January 2013) introduced into LPS4 provisions that specifically allow for Council to establish and maintain a Design Advisory Committee (DAC). The DAC’s main mandate is to advise on matters associated with the design quality of any proposed building development 11 metres or greater in height in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones (refer to clause11.8 of LPS4). The amendment also introduced design principles into the Scheme which the DAC use when considering the design quality of a development (clause 11.8.6.3); and
Local Planning Policy 1.9 - Design Advisory Committee & Principles of Design (adopted by Council 11 June 2013). This policy provides further detail on the type and scale of development applications and planning proposal to be referred to the DAC, and details the design principles in LPS4 in more detail.
As a means to further strengthen the City’s approach and commitment to quality design and improve the level of building design provided in development applications viewed by the DAC, Council supported the following principles on which to base an amendment to LPS4 at its Ordinary Meeting 22 May 2013 (refer PSC1305-73): 1. Require a registered architect to design “large developments”;
2. “Large developments” are the same developments as those required to be assessed by the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) e.g.11 metres of height or greater in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones; and
3. The amendment is to include a sunset clause to ensure trial and monitoring of the provisions.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 25
As stated above (see Background), preliminary consultation on a draft amendment based on these principles was undertaken with DoP and their preliminary response was positive. Accordingly an amendment to LPS4 is proposed as discussed below. Proposed amendment Insert the following clauses after 9.2 ‘Accompanying Material’. 9.3 Additional material - Registered Architect Requirements. 9.3.1 Where a development application would require referral to the City’s Design
Advisory Committee under clause 11.8.6.2 the application must additionally be accompanied by:
a) a statutory declaration, made by a Registered Architect (as defined in the Architects Act 2004) that declares that he or she designed, or directed the design of the development; and
b) a design statement addressing the matters listed under clause 11.8.6.3.
9.3.2 The provisions of clause 9.3.1 shall cease to have effect on the date of the fifth anniversary after publication in the Gazette of the amendment introducing those provisions into the scheme.
Proposed Clause 9.3.1 The introduction of clause 9.3.1 into LPS4 will result in additional material being required to be submitted as part of a planning application when the proposal also requires referral to the City’s DAC as per clause 11.8.6.2 of LPS4 (i.e. any proposed development 11 metres in height or greater in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones). The additional material includes a statutory declaration that a Registered Architect designed or directed the design of the development and the requirement for a design statement. The proposed amendment provisions are based on the well regarded design requirements of New South Wales’ (NSW) Department of Planning and Infrastructure state planning design policy: State Environment Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65). This policy was adopted in 2002 and is widely renowned as an initiative that has improved the quality of residential flat (multiple dwelling) development in NSW. Along with other design initiatives, such as a design advisory committee and a design code, SEPP 65 contains the design requirement for a registered architect to submit, with the planning application, a design verification, which includes a statement that declares that he or she designed, or directed the design of the development and an assessment of the development against the design principles in SEPP65. There are, however, two slight differences between the City’s proposed amendment provisions and the design requirements provisions of SEPP65. The first difference is that while the wording of the registered architect’s statement is the same (i.e. the registered architect designed or directed the design of the development), the City’s amendment would additionally require the statement to be completed as a statutory declaration. The purpose of this is to strengthen the requirement as, unlike NSW, there is currently limited leadership from state government in this area. Additionally, making the
City of Fremantle
PAGE 26
statement a statutory declaration gives it more legal standing in the event that there are any issues with the wording on the statement at a later stage. The second difference is the design statement requirement. SEPP65 requires a design statement based on design principles that are used state wide. As there are currently no such design principles for Western Australia, the proposed amendment’s design statement requirement will instead be based on the matters already provided in LPS4 for the City’s Design Advisory Committee to have regard to when determining the design quality of a proposed development (clause 11.8.6.3). These include:
Character
Continuity and enclosure
Quality of the public realm
Ease of movement
Legibility
Adaptability
Diversity Proposed Clause 9.3.2 The amendment includes a ‘sunset clause’, which means the provisions, once gazetted, would cease after five years. The reason for this is that the Scheme amendment provisions are new for Western Australia and, while the provisions could make a significant contribution towards achieving better quality of design, there is uncertainty around how well the amendment will perform in achieving the objectives of good design. Accordingly, this clause would enable the impact and operation of the provisions to be assessed and modified or revoked, if necessary, after an appropriate length of time. It would also allow for the provisions to cease if similar provisions are provided by state government (see discussion on planning reform below). Planning reform The Minister for Planning recently launched the document Planning makes it happen: phase two – Planning reform discussion paper for public comment. This document is the second in a series of proposed planning reform initiatives by the state and primarily focuses on statutory decision making, and governance and administrative reforms. One part of the paper focuses on design initiatives and proposes the following to deliver better built form and place design outcomes: 1. the development of a State Planning Policy, design manual or scheme provisions
enshrining the importance of, and principles for, quality design, including architectural, urban, landscape and environmentally sensitive design;
2. for local governments to establish design advisory panels and/or ‘city architects’ positions (for larger/urban local governments);
3. for development applications over certain thresholds (e.g. multi storey office or apartment developments) to be assessed by a design review panel prior to determination by a Development Assessment Panel; and
4. to amend the Multi-Unit Housing R-Codes provisions to require multi-unit housing to be designed by a qualified, registered architect.
Officers are supportive of the design initiatives the reform paper proposes above as they are similar to what the City is trying to achieve with its own design initiatives. The City
City of Fremantle
PAGE 27
currently operates a combination of these initiatives, including a design advisory committee, and the proposed Scheme amendment would further align the City’s design initiatives with the state’s planning reform proposals. Accordingly this part of the reform paper is one of the main points the City will be supporting in the response back to the Minister. A report on the planning reform paper will be presented to Council in the near future as the public consultation period for the planning reform discussion paper closes on Friday 13 December 2013. CONCLUSION This proposed amendment is another of the City’s initiatives to increase the quality of building design within Fremantle. It seeks to strengthen the City of Fremantle’s commitment to delivering quality design and urban form and improving the level of building design provided in development applications viewed by the DAC. The amendment is supported by the Office of the Government Architect Western Australia and has received a positive response in preliminary discussions with the Department of Planning. It is therefore recommended Council resolve to initiate Scheme Amendment No. 42 to LPS4. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr R Fittock
1. That Council resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, to amend Local Planning Scheme No. 4 by:
A. Inserting the following clauses after 9.2 accompanying material. 9.3 Additional material - Registered Architect Requirements. 9.3.1 Where a development application would require referral to the City’s Design
Advisory Committee under clause 11.8.6.2 the application must additionally be accompanied by:
a) a statutory declaration, made by a Registered Architect (as defined in the Architects Act 2004) that declares that he or she designed, or directed the design of the development; and
b) a design statement addressing the matters listed under clause 11.8.6.3.
9.3.2 The provisions of clause 9.3.1 shall cease to have effect on the date of the fifth anniversary after publication in the Gazette of the amendment introducing those provisions into the scheme.
B. Renumbering the existing clauses 9.3 Additional Material for Heritage Matters
through to 9.5 Public Inspection of Applications accordingly.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 28
2. That the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute the relevant Scheme Amendment documentation.
3. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Environment Protection Authority requesting assessment prior to commencing public consultation.
4. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission for information.
5. That upon receipt of the environmental assessment from the Department for Environment and Conservation, the amendment be advertised for a period of not less than 42 days in a local circulating newspaper.
CARRIED: 4/2
For Against
Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan
Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson
City of Fremantle
PAGE 29
PSC1311-170 PROPOSED ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW
DataWorks Reference: 010/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Health, Building and Compliance Actioning Officer: Policy Officer Decision Making Authority: Planning Services Committee Agenda Attachments: City of Fremantle Alfresco Dining Local Law (draft) City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Outdoor
Eating Areas 1998 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under the Local Government Act 1995 (“The Act”), the City is required to undertake a review of its local laws every eight years. Recently the City reviewed its Local Laws relating to Outdoor Eating Areas 1998 and identified the need to amend the local laws to enable greater flexibility for food business and licensed premises operators. In considering the content of a revised local law, the City has sought to achieve the following objectives -
- Greater flexibility for proprietors with regard to responsible consumption of alcohol in alfresco
areas;
- A simplified fee structure and licensing process;
- Alignment of the terms and definitions of the local law with other relevant legislation (e.g. the
Food Act, the Local Government Act and the Liquor Control Act); and
- Modified infringement penalties for offences under the local laws.
The City’s proposed Alfresco Dining Local Law seeks to achieve the above mentioned objectives as well as improving the general format and useability of the local law. The purpose of this report is to present the City’s proposed Alfresco Dining Local Law for consideration by Council. BACKGROUND
In 1998 the City brought into effect its Local Laws relating to Outdoor Eating Areas to govern the use of the road reserve for public outdoor dining in connection with ‘eating houses’. Although the local law continues to provide a framework for the licensing and management of outdoor eating areas, changes in Fremantle’s strategic direction as well as changes to liquor, tobacco and food legislation have made parts of the local law either redundant or impractical to uphold. COMMENT
City of Fremantle
PAGE 30
In its 2013 review of the existing local laws, the City identified a number of shortfalls including the following - Use of the term eating house ‘Eating house’ is a redundant term that essentially refers to a cafe or restaurant. It was repealed in 2008 and replaced with the term ‘food business’ under the Food Act 2008. Licensed premises (other than licensed restaurants) are not considered eating houses and are technically prohibited from operating an outdoor eating area by the current local laws. This technicality prohibits premises such as Whisper Wine Bar and the National Hotel from conducting outdoor eating areas. The City has made exceptions and granted approvals to these businesses but it is essential to remove this restriction to meet current community expectations and provide a greater degree of flexibility for proprietors of licensed premises in accordance with the City's strategic vision. The City proposes in its revised local law that alfresco dining areas will be not be limited to restaurants. The Liquor Control Act and conditions of approval can ensure the responsible consumption of alcohol in alfresco dining areas when consumption is not ancillary to a meal. Fremantle licensees have demonstrated a history of responsible service of alcohol in alfresco dining areas. Outdated application requirements The current local laws application requirements are tedious, overly prescriptive and in many cases unnecessary. ‘Traditional’ (for one of a better word) application requirements, for example those appearing in the current local laws and older style legislation, have largely been replaced in modern examples by simplified and more flexible application wording. For example, rather than stating ‘an applicant shall submit a management plan' the local law would simply state that ‘an applicant shall provide any information reasonably required by the local government to determine the application’. This has the major benefit of permitting the local government to simplify application requirements for the customer without having to amend the local law. Smoking in outdoor eating areas The current local laws restrict smoking in outdoor eating areas. This is redundant as the state-wide Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 prohibits smoking in outdoor eating areas and contains enforcement provisions for non-compliance. Outdoor dining fees based on gross rental value of the premises Currently the local laws require outdoor eating area license fees to be determined according to the gross rental value (“GRV”) of the premises. Setting fees according to GRV figures, which are often inconsistent and out of date, has led to adjacent premises paying significantly different fees to the City in the past. This is particularly unfair to disadvantaged businesses. In the City's Fees and Charges Schedule for 2012/13 and 2013/14, Council endorsed a flat rate per square metre of outdoor eating area for the inner CBD, outer CBD and non-CBD areas. It is necessary to remove the antiquated GRV fee structure from the local laws. Absence of infringement provisions (prescribed offences)
City of Fremantle
PAGE 31
Under the current local laws, non compliances relating to the use of outdoor eating areas must be pursued by the City via the Court system. Under the proposed local law the City has developed a number of prescribed offences to enable officers to issue infringement notices for non compliances rather than having to resort to a prosecution. Infringement provisions are now commonplace in local laws and state regulations as they provide modified penalties and a simplified enforcement pathway for local governments and other enforcement authorities and generally result in more favourable outcomes. License and application form pro formas
The current local laws include both an application form pro forma and license pro forma. The City considers that removal of the license pro forma will enable the City to legally update the license format in accordance with future changes to the City’s branding and other changes that may arise. Removal of the application form pro forma will save the City having to amend the local law should it decide to vary application requirements in the future. In summary, the key changes proposed for the City’s revised local law are as
follows:
- Definition of ‘eating house’ replaced with ‘food business’. This now encompasses licensed premises
which were not previously captured under the previous Health Act 1911 definition;
- The complicated GRV fee structure has been removed from the local laws and replaced with a
simple fee structure in the City's annual fees and charges schedule calculated per m2 of alfresco
floor area;
- Infringement notice provisions for prescribed offences (rather than having to pursue non
compliances solely though the court process);
- Appeal provisions for applicants as per the Local Government Act; and
- Removal of unnecessarily onerous procedural content from the local laws such as application
requirements and licence pro forma.
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Financial Nil. Legal The City must follow the local law adoption procedure as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995. Operational The proposed local law will improve and simplify the current application, assessment and licensing process for outdoor eating areas as well as providing improved enforcement pathways for City officers. Organisational
City of Fremantle
PAGE 32
The proposed local laws will serve as a standalone law to manage the use of City land for alfresco dining. The City has a number of other policies and local laws that relate to activities in the road reserve and these will continue to be enforced by relevant business units. CONCLUSION
The City’s proposed Alfresco Dining Local Law is a significant improvement to the current local laws and will serve to support the City’s strategic vision and simplify management of alfresco dining areas. The City has prepared a modern and relevant local law that seeks to achieve greater flexibility for business proprietors as well as simplifying the approvals and compliance procedures for City officers. The City considers the proposed local law to represent best practice for the management of City owned/managed space for dining and other compatible uses. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
City of Fremantle Strategic Plan 2010 – 2015 Strategic Imperative 1 – Strengthen Fremantle’s economic capacity Strategic Imperative 2 - Provide a great place to live, work and play through growth and renewal. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The City shall advertise the draft local law and invite public submissions over a six week period. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Absolute majority required COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That Council agree to adopt the City of Fremantle Alfresco Dining Local Law and repeal the City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Outdoor Eating Areas 1998 and Interim Local Planning Policy DBU8: Outdoor Eating (tables and chairs), as shown below:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995
CITY OF FREMANTLE
ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW 2014 Under the powers conferred by the Local Government Act 1995 and under all other powers enabling it, the Council of the City of Fremantle resolved on (insert date) to make the following Local Law.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 33
PART 1 – PRELIMINARY 1.1 Citation This local law may be cited as the City of Fremantle Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014. 1.2 Commencement
(1) This local law comes into operation 14 days after the date of its publication in the Government Gazette.
1.3 Purpose and effect
(1) The purpose of the local law is to provide for the regulation, control and management of alfresco dining areas in any public place within the district.
(2) The effect of this local law is to control alfresco areas so that they do not interfere with the safe and reasonable movement of pedestrians and vehicles as well as to encourage high quality alfresco dining to enhance amenity, vitality and ambience of the city.
1.4 Repeal The following local laws are repealed on the day that this local law comes into operation –
(1) City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Outdoor Eating Areas as published in the Government Gazette on 6 May 1998.
1.5 Transitional A licence issued in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Outdoor Eating Areas -
(a) is to be taken to be a licence granted under this local law; (b) is to be valid for the period specified in the license; and (c) may be earlier cancelled or suspended under this local law.
1.6 Application This local law applies throughout the district 1.7 Interpretations In this local law, unless the context otherwise requires – “Act” means the Local Government Act 1995; “alfresco dining area” means an area in which tables, chairs and other structures are provided for the purpose of the supply of food or beverages or both to the public or the consumption of food or beverages or both by the public; “alfresco dining” means outdoor dining or drinking or both in a public place; “authorised person” means the CEO or any other person authorised by the City under section 9.10 of the Act to be an authorised person for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this local law; “CEO” means the Chief Executive Officer of the City; “City” means the City of Fremantle; “City property” means anything except a thoroughfare –
(a) which belongs to the City; (b) of which the City is the management body under the Land Administration Act
1997; or (c) which is an “otherwise unvested facility” within section 3.53 of the Act;
“Council” means the Council of the City of Fremantle;
City of Fremantle
PAGE 34
“district” means the district of the City of Fremantle; “food business” has the same meaning as the Food Act 2008; “fee” means a fee or charge imposed under sections 6.16 to 6.19 of the Act; “furniture” means chairs, tables, waiter’s stations, planter boxes, umbrellas, screens, barriers, awnings, portable gas heaters and any other structure set up in the alfresco dining area; “Health Act” means the Health Act 1911; “licence” means a licence issued by the City under this local law to set up and conduct an alfresco dining area; “licence period” means the period referred to in clause 2.9; “licence plan” means a plan attached to and forming part of a licence depicting the parts of a street or public place within which an alfresco dining area may be set up and conducted; “licensee” means a proprietor of a food business who holds a valid licence; “Liquor Control Act” means the Liquor Control Act 1988; “local public notice” has the meaning given to it in section 1.7 of the Act; “month” means calendar month; “public place” means any thoroughfare, pedestrian mall or City property; “proprietor” has the same meaning as the Food Act 2008; “Regulations” means the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996; “utility” means any public or private body which provides an essential service, such as electricity, gas, water, drainage, sewerage, telecommunications or traffic control, and has equipment on, in or under a public place for that purpose; “valid”, in relation to a licence issues under this local law, means current and for which all the associated fees have been paid in full; and “vehicle crossing” means a crossing used by vehicles to allow access from a thoroughfare to private land or a private thoroughfare. PART 2 - LICENCE 2.1 Licence required Unless exempt under clause 2.2, a person shall not set up of conduct an alfresco dining area in any public place –
(a) other than in a portion of a public place adjoining a food business; (b) unless the person is the proprietor of a food business or is acting on behalf
of the proprietor of a food business referred to in paragraph (a); (c) unless the person is the holder of a valid licence issued under this local law;
and (d) other than in accordance with the licence plan and any terms and conditions
set out in, or applying in respect of, the licence. 2.2 Exemptions
(1) The city may exempt a person or class of persons in writing from the requirement to have a licence.
(2) Any exemption in subclause (1) may be exercised- (a) on the application of a person; or (b) at the City’s discretion. (3) An exemption in subclause (1) may be given subject to any conditions the
City sees fit.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 35
(4) An exemption may apply to, or in respect of – (a) a particular event, street festival, carnival or activity approved by the City; (b) particular goods or services; (c) a period of time.
2.3 Application for a licence (1) A person who is required to obtain a licence under this local law shall apply for the licence in accordance with subclause (2). (2) An application for a licence under this local law shall-
(a) be in the form determined by the City; (b) be signed by the proprietor of a food business adjacent to the portion of the
public place to which the application relates; (c) provide the information required by the form; and (d) be forwarded to the CEO together with any fee imposed and determined by
the City. (3) The City may require an applicant to provide additional information reasonably related to an application before determining the application. (4) The City may require an applicant to give local public notice of the application for a licence. (5) The City may refuse to consider an application for a licence which is not in accordance with subclause (2) or where the applicant has not complied with subclauses (3) or (4). 2.4 Relevant considerations in determining application for licence In determining an application for a licence, the City is to have regard to –
(a) relevant policies of the City; and (b) any other matters that it considers to be relevant.
2.5 Decision on application for licence (1) The City may, in respect of an application for a licence-
(a) approve the application unconditionally or subject to any conditions; or (b) refuse to approve the application. (2) Without limiting the scope of the City’s discretion under subclause 1(b), the
City may refuse an application for a licence if, in its opinion- (a) the proposed alfresco dining does not conform with the requirements of the
Health Act or any other written law; (b) the proposed alfresco area is undesirable; (c) the proposed furniture is unsuitable, in any respect, to the location in which
the licence is to operate; (d) the proposed licensee has been convicted during the preceding five years of
an offence against – (i) this local law; (ii) the City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Outdoor Eating Areas; (iii) the Health Act; (iv) the Liquor Control Act; or (v) any other written law which affects alfresco dining; or
(e) the proposed licensee is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. (3) If the City approves an application for a licence, it is to issue to the applicant
a licence in the form determined by the City. (4) If the City refuses to approve an application for a licence, it is, as soon as
practicable after the decision is made –
City of Fremantle
PAGE 36
(a) to give the applicant written notice of, and written reasons for, the refusal; and
(b) inform the applicant of his or her rights, under Part 9, Division 1 of the Act, to object to, and apply for a review of, the decision.
(5) Where a clause of this local law refers to conditions which may be imposed on a licence of which are to be taken to be imposed on a licence, the clause does not limit the power of the City to impose other conditions on the licence under subclause (1)(a).
(6) Where a clause of this local law refers to the grounds on which an application for a licence may be of is to be refused, the clause does not limit the power of the City to refuse, the application for a licence on other grounds under subclause (1)(b).
2.6 Conditions which may be imposed on a licence The City may approve an application for a licence subject to conditions relating to –
(a) the area or location to which the licence applies; (b) the number, type, form and construction, as the case may be, of any furniture
which may be used in the alfresco dining area; (c) the care, maintenance and cleaning of any furniture used in the alfresco
dining area; (d) The removal and storage of furniture used in the alfresco dining area prior to
the closure of the adjacent food business; (e) The requirement to maintain pedestrian access between the alfresco dining
area and the adjacent food business; (f) The alfresco dining area not impeding or obstructing a public place used by
either pedestrians or vehicles; (g) The requirement to maintain clear sight lines for vehicles entering or leaving
a thoroughfare or a vehicle crossing; (h) The obtaining of public risk insurance in an amount and on the terms
reasonably required by the City; (i) The grant of another approval, permit, licence or authorisation which may be
required under any written law; (j) The duration and commencement of the licence; (k) The placement of advertising on furniture within the alfresco dining area; (l) The payment of all fees, charges, rates and taxes levied or incurred as a
result of the establishment and operation of the alfresco dining area; (m) The payment of costs associated with the City preparing the public
place for the use as an alfresco dining area including but not limited to the reshaping of footpaths and marking the boundaries of the alfresco dining area.
2.7 Compliance with conditions Where –
(a) an application for a licence has been approved subject to conditions; or (b) a licence is to be taken to be subject to conditions under this local law,
the licensee shall comply with each of those conditions. 2.8 Amendment of licence conditions (1) A licensee may apply in writing to the City to amend any of the terms of conditions of the licence. (2) The City may, in respect of an application under subclause (1) –
City of Fremantle
PAGE 37
(i) amend the licence, either in accordance with the application or otherwise as it sees fit; or
(ii) decline to amend the licence. (3) The City may, at any time, amend any of the terms and conditions of the
license. (4) If the City amends a licence under this clause, it is to notify the licensee in
writing of the amendment as soon as practicable after the amendment is made and , unless otherwise specified in the amendment, the amended term or condition, or both, of the licence apply from the date of the notification
(5) If the City amends a licence otherwise than in accordance with an application from the licensee, it is, as soon as practicable after the decision to amend is made –
(i) To give the licensee written notice of, and written reasons for, its decision to amend; and
(ii) Inform the licensee of his or her rights, under part 9, Division 1 of the Act, to object to, and apply for a review of, the decision.
2.9 Duration of licence A licence is valid for twelve months from the date on which it is issued, unless it is –
(a) otherwise stated in this local law or in the licence; or (b) cancelled under clause 2.12
2.10 Renewal of licence (1) A licensee may apply to the City in writing no later than two months before the expiry of a licence for the renewal of the licence. (2) The provisions of the local law relevant to the license which is to be renewed shall apply, with such modifications as are required, to an application for the renewal of a licence. 2.11 Transfer of licence (1) An application for the transfer of a valid licence is to –
(a) be in the form determined by the City; (b) provide the information required by the form or by any other clause of this
local law; (c) be signed by the licensee and the proposed transferee of the licence: and (d) be forwarded to the City together with any transfer fee imposed and
determined by the City. (2) The City may refuse to consider or determine an application for the transfer of
a licence, which is not in accordance with subclause (1). (3) The City may approve an application for the transfer of a licence, refuse to
approve it or approve it subject to such terms and conditions as it sees fit, and if it is approved, the proposed transferee shall become the licensee from the date of the approval.
2.12 Cancellation of suspension of licence (1) A licence may be cancelled by the City on any one or more of the following grounds –
(a) the licensee has not complied with – (i) a condition of the licence; or (ii) a provision of this local law or any other written law which may relate to
the activity regulated by the licence; (b) if it is relevant to the activity regulated by the licence –
City of Fremantle
PAGE 38
(i) the licensee is an undischarged bankrupt, or is in liquidation;
(ii) the licensee has entered into a composition arrangement with creditors; or
(iii) a manager, administrator, trustee, receiver, or receiver and manager, is appointed in relation to any part of the licensee’s undertakings or property;
(c) the proprietor of the food business changes; (d) the setting up or conduct of the alfresco dining area, or the behaviour of
customers within the alfresco dining area, is causing a nuisance. (2) The City may cancel or suspend a licence if the City or a utility requires access to or near the place to which a licence applies, for the purposes of the carrying out works in or near the vicinity of that place; (3) If the City cancels or suspends a license under this clause, it is, as soon as practicable after the decision is made –
(a) to give the licensee written notice of, and reasons for, the decision; and
(b) inform the licensee of his or her rights, under part 9, Division 1 of the Act, to object to, and apply for review of, the decision; and
(c) the cancellation or suspension takes effect from the date on which the licensee is served with the cancellation or suspension notice.
(4) On the cancellation of a licence, the licensee shall return the licence as soon as practicable to the City.
(5) On the cancellation or suspension of a licence, the licensee is, subject to subclause (6), to be taken to have forfeited any fees paid in respect of the licence.
(6) Where a licence is cancelled or suspended through no fault of the licensee, the City may refund to the licensee all or part of the license fee in respect of what would otherwise have been the balance of the terms of the licence.
2.13 Display and production of licence (1) A licensee shall produce to an authorised person his or her valid licence immediately on being required to do so by an authorised person. (2) A licensee shall display his or her valid licence in accordance with the conditions set out in the licence. PART 3 – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS 3.1 Application of Part 9 Division 1 of the Act (1) Where the City makes a decision as to whether it will –
(a) grant an application for a licence; (b) vary cancel or suspend a licence; or (c) impose or amend a condition to which a licence is subject,
the provisions of Division 1 of Part 9 of the Act and regulation 33 of the Regulations apply to that decision. (2) Under these provisions, an affected person may have the right to object to, or to appeal against, a decision of the City.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 39
PART 4 – ENFORCEMENT 4.1 Direction of authorised person to be obeyed (1) A licensee who is given a lawful direction by an authorised person or a member of the W.A. Police shall comply with that direction. (2) A licensee shall not obstruct or hinder an authorised person in the performance of that person’s duties. 4.2 Notice to repair damage to public place Where any portion of a public place has been damaged as a result of the use of that public place as an alfresco dining area, the City may, by notice to the licensee, order the licensee to repair or replace that portion of the public place to the satisfaction of the City. 4.3 City may undertake requirements of notice If a person fails to comply with a notice under clause 4.2, the City may do the thing specified in the notice and recover from that person, as a debt, the costs incurred in so doing. 4.4 Removal and impounding of goods Where an alfresco dining area is conducted without a licence or in contravention of a condition of a licence, any furniture may be removed and impounded by an authorised person under regulation 29 of the Regulations. 4.5 Offences (1) A person who fails to do anything required or directed to be done under this local law, or who does anything which under this local law that person is prohibited from doing, commits an offence. (2) An offence against a clause specified in the First schedule of this local law is a prescribed offence for the purposes of section 9.16(1) of the Act. (3) A person who commits an offence under this local law shall be liable, on conviction –
(a) to a penalty not exceeding $5,000 and if the offence is of a continuing nature, to an additional penalty not exceeding $500 for each day of part of a day during which the offence has continued.
4.6 Infringement and infringement withdrawal notice For the purposes of this local law –
(a) the form of the infringement notice referred to in section 9.17 of the Act is that of Form 2 in Schedule 1 of the Regulations; and
(b) the form of the infringement withdrawal notice referred to in section 9.20 of the Act is that of Form 3 in Schedule 1 of the Regulations.
4.7 Offence description and Modified Penalty The amount appearing in the final column of the First Schedule directly opposite an offence described in that schedule is the modified penalty for that offence. 4.8 Authorised persons
City of Fremantle
PAGE 40
Unless expressly state otherwise by the City, a person appointed by the City to be an authorised person for the purposes of this local law is taken to have also been appointed by the city to be an authorised person for the purposes of sections 9.13 and 9.16 of the Act in relation to offences against this local law. First Schedule City of Fremantle ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW 2014 OFFENCES AND MODIFIED PENALTIES
Item No.
Clause No.
Nature of Offence Modified Penalty $
1 2.1 Set up or conduct an alfresco dining area without a valid licence
300
2 2.7 Failure to comply with a condition of licence 100
3 2.13 (1)
Failure to produce to an authorised person a valid licence when requested to do so
100
4 Other offences not specified 100
CARRIED: 6/0
For Against
Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan
City of Fremantle
PAGE 41
PSC1311-171 PROPOSED LOCAL PLANNING POLICY - CONSTRUCTION SITES
DataWorks Reference: 117/010 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Health, Building and Compliance Actioning Officer: Policy Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Amendment 49 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 in November 2012 increased the height limits on a number of key sites which will pave the way for future multistorey development in the CBD area. The City proposes a local planning policy to enable the appropriate management of large construction sites and road reserve areas consistent with the City’s requirements. BACKGROUND On 28 March 2012, Council adopted amendments to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (Amendment 49) to enable the development of sufficient new floor space to accommodate higher density residential, retail and commercial development in the Fremantle CBD. On 16 November 2012 these amendments were approved by the Minister for Planning. The basis for Amendment 49 was to increase height limits on twelve non-heritage listed sites in the Fremantle CBD to encourage quality developments and increase Fremantle’s economic capacity. The twelve key sites are located in the eastern area of the city centre zone (sub area 1.3.2), focused around Queen Street between the Fremantle Railway Station and Kings Square. These sites were identified by the City as capable of supporting redevelopment of an intensity and scale that would make a significant contribution to achieving the strategic imperatives of the City’s Strategic Plan 2010-2015. Whilst development of these key sites forms a key feature of the City’s economic strategy, it is anticipated that construction on these sites and other significant sites is likely to impact upon the inner city environment in terms of traffic, visual amenity, noise, dust and the normal use of footpaths and roads. The City therefore considers it necessary to implement an appropriate strategy to minimise these impacts and ensure minimal disruption to business activities in the inner City area during the construction phase. Currently the City regulates construction activities within the road reserve via an application and permit system. This is fairly typical across local government and is derived from the requirements of the City’s Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law and the Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996. The City’s current process involves multiple application forms for similar uses and often requires referral of applications between business units (for example between planning and technical services) to communicate technical requirements and legislative requirements etc. The current process is considered resource intensive and somewhat convoluted.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 42
Under the City’s proposed inner city construction sites policy, the existing application-permit process will be replaced by a simpler arrangement whereby approval of construction activities in the road reserve is implicit subject to compliance with the requirements of the policy. Essentially this means that an applicant would be able to use the road reserve for an approved activity (for example, scaffolding and site deliveries) without having to enter into an application/approval dialogue with the City. The requirement to pay fees however still applies. The City believes that this will largely eliminate the need for internal referrals between business units; demystify the City’s technical requirements relating to use of the road reserve; and simplify the invoicing and payment activities for City staff. It is anticipated that compliance with the policy will form a condition of the development approval (i.e. planning condition) and thus will be enforceable under the Planning and Development Act 2005. However, since the majority of the policy requirements are already embodied by existing City local laws, enforcement of the policy can be pursued under the relevant local law. There are a number of significant changes to current requirements relating to construction sites and road reserves in the new policy including:
All parking bays within the street frontage of a development site will be allocated for construction related activities for the period of construction (fees apply); This has in principle support from parking and ranger services;
An emphasis on protection and replacement of street trees;
Public liability insurance requirements are more explicit;
The policy will apply to construction sites considered to impact upon public areas.
The requirements contained within the policy are considered to be best practice by the City and reflect the need to balance the interests of the public and the property development industry. STATUTORY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Clause 2.4 of LPS4 allows Council to formulate a local planning policy and outlines the procedure by which this must occur.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 43
CONSULTATION Should Council resolve to proceed with the new local planning policy, the draft policy will be advertised in accordance with the requirements of clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 which includes:
1. Advertisement in a local newspaper for 2 consecutive weeks detailing where the policy can be inspected, the subject and nature of the draft policy and closing date of the 28 day advertising period;
2. Listing on the City’s web site; and 3. Referral to precinct groups
CONCLUSION The City considers that its proposed construction sites policy will serve to improve the management of inner city and other significant construction sites and minimise the impacts of construction related activities on the public environment. From an operational point of view, the City believes that the proposed policy will serve to simplify the existing approvals process and provide a concise set of standards for developers and builders engaged in construction projects.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 44
COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council adopt the draft Local Planning Policy – Construction Sites for advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 2.4 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as shown below:
CITY OF FREMANTLE LOCAL PLANNING POLICY
CONSTRUCTION SITES
ADOPTION DATE: AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 INTRODUCTION Construction sites can impact upon the amenity of the surrounding locality and must be properly managed to preserve a safe and healthy environment for residents, workers and visitors to Fremantle. This policy recognises the need to balance the interests of the Fremantle public with that of the property development industry. SCOPE This policy applies to construction sites where there is limited capacity to contain construction related activities on site. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this policy are:-
To reduce the impacts of construction sites on the occupants of adjacent sites and nearby sensitive land uses;
To maintain and safe and pleasant inner City environment for the public;
To assist developers of large scale residential and commercial buildings understand the City's expectations with regard to construction site management;
To protect road reserve infrastructure that could be damaged as a result of construction related activities;
DEFINITIONS “AS” means Australian standard “Builder” means the builder whose name appears on a building permit issued by the City under the Building Act 2011.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 45
“Construction and demolition waste” means waste resulting from the construction, alteration, repair or demolition of a building and includes liquid wastes. “Construction related activities” means activities within the road reserve relating to the construction, demolition, alteration or repair of a building. “Construction site” means the lot or land on which construction or demolition works or earthworks are being carried out. “Construction work” has the same meaning given to it in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 “Gantry” means an overhead structure used in conjunction with scaffolds and elevated work platforms to provide over head and side protection to a walkway. “Hoarding” means a temporary structure erected around a construction site to separate the site from adjoining land. “Infrastructure” means all structures, kerbs, signs, furniture, surfaces, soil and vegetation within the road reserves and includes underground and overhead services. “Street tree” means a tree within the road reserve and includes shrubs exceeding one metre in height. “Waste receptacle” includes a skip bin, commercial bulk rubbish container, and household waste or recycling bin of capacity 240L or greater or other suitable receptacle designed to receive and contain wastes. POLICY 1.0 Legal implications 1.1 The requirements of this policy are the minimum standards for construction
sites (may also be referred to as “site or “sites”) captured within the scope of this policy. Permits traditionally issued by the City in relation to the use of the road reserve are not required for construction sites captured under this policy provided the requirements of this policy are met.
1.2 Where an applicant is able to demonstrate that a requirement of this policy cannot be reasonably met, i.e. due to special circumstances, the City may approve a variation to any requirement of this policy. Any departure from the requirements of this policy without express written permission from the City may result in prosecution against liable parties.
1.3 Compliance with this policy is not a substitute for compliance with other laws. A person carrying out building work is responsible for obtaining all necessary consents or permits.
2.0 Documentation required 2.1 All gantries and hoardings are to be structurally certified by a “Professional
Engineer” as defined by part A1 (INTERPRETATION) of volume one of the current National Construction Code with written certification being forwarded to the City prior to any overhead work being commenced on the site.
2.2 Any changes to gantries and hoardings during the construction period of the site are to be approved by a "Professional Engineer".
2.3 Before commencing work within or above the road reserve; including but not limited to excavations, erection of structures and signs, storage of materials and dewatering operations, the builder or responsible contractor must obtain a public liability insurance policy noting the City of Fremantle as an interested
City of Fremantle
PAGE 46
party, with cover of not less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) and indemnifying the City against any claim for damages.
General requirements for construction sites 3.0 Parking bays for construction related activities 3.1 The City will allocate all parking bays within the limits of the street frontage of
the site, for the term of construction for construction related activities including deliveries and storage of materials, skip bins, site offices and contractor parking.
3.2 Where there are no parking bays adjacent to a site, an application may be made to the City to use a part of the road or a loading zone for construction related activities.
3.3 The perimeter of the allocated area is to be fenced to height of minimum 1.8m with visually permeable fencing (e.g. temporary fencing) which should not encroach more than 500mm onto a footpath and in any case a minimum effective footpath width of 1.2m is to be maintained.
3.4 The fencing must not impede pedestrian/traffic sightlines and must be illuminated so as to be clearly visible from the hours between sunset and sunrise.
3.5 Parking bay hire fees will apply at commercial rates in accordance with the City's Fees and Charges Schedule in fee paying locations.
3.6 No storage of materials or equipment is permitted outside of the allocated area. 3.7 Use of the area must not impede the movement of pedestrians or road users. 4.0 Protection of infrastructure within the road reserve 4.1 All reasonable care must be taken during the term of construction to protect
infrastructure (see definition) within the road reserve. 4.2 A bond shall be paid to the City in accordance with the City's Fees and Charges
Schedule in respect to the protection of infrastructure within the road reserve prior to the commencement of works.
4.3 Where it is essential to relocate any infrastructure within the road reserve to enable access to a construction site or for any other reason deemed appropriate by the City, the City may remove or relocate any infrastructure within the road reserve at the builder’s cost to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site.
4.4 Any damage to infrastructure within the road reserve as a result of construction related activities shall be made good by the builder within a time specified by the City. In the event, that the builder fails make good any damage, the City may carry out such repairs as necessary and recover all appropriate costs from the builder.
5.0 Street trees 5.1 Street trees are considered assets to the City that contribute to the wellbeing of
the community and the natural environment. Street trees shall be protected during all phases of development in accordance with AS4970-2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 47
5.2 Where a tree or part of a tree is required to be removed to enable access to a construction site or for any other reason deemed appropriate by the City, the removal or pruning of trees shall not be undertaken except by the City’s staff or City contractor.
5.3 Street tree removal shall be assessed by the City in accordance with the City’s street tree policy.
5.4 If a tree is damaged during development works then any pruning, removal and/or replacement costs shall be at the expense of the land owner.
5.5 Where trees are authorised for removal as part of a development application, the land owner shall fund the full cost of the tree removal and pay for the cost of two replacement trees on the verge of the property the following planting season.
6.0 Security fencing around construction sites 6.1 All construction sites are required to be secured and fenced to a height of 2.1m -
2.4m. In some instances, the City may require a solid barrier such as a hoarding around a construction site in the interests of preserving the amenity of the surrounding area.
6.2 A fence or hoarding must not encroach more than 500mm onto the road reserve. 6.3 A fence or hoarding must not obstruct pedestrian and motorist sightlines and
must be clearly visible during the hours between sunset and sunrise. 6.4 All fencing and hoardings are to be maintained to a high standard at all times. 7.0 Gantries 7.1 Where scaffolding is erected upon or above a footpath, a suitably designed
overheard gantry and protective barrier (scaffold side) shall be provided along the length of the scaffold to protect pedestrians from falling objects.
7.2 A minimum width of 1.2 metres and a headroom clearance of at least 2.40 metres are required for pedestrian access.
7.3 Gantries shall be setback a minimum of 750mm from the kerb and designed so as not to collapse or cause injury to any person when subjected to vehicular impact.
7.4 Gantries shall incorporate a continuous guardrail fixed between columns 800mm above the footpath and incorporate adequate overhead lighting for pedestrians.
7.5 On narrow footpaths where a gantry setback and 1.2 metre footpath width cannot be achieved, the City may approve an alternative arrangement.
8.0 Access to site by construction vehicles 8.1 All vehicle crossings to a construction site are required to be separated from
any infrastructure within the road reserve by (a) a minimum of 2.0 metres in the case of street trees; (b) a minimum of 1.2 metres (in the case of bus shelters, traffic management
devices, parking embayments or street furniture), and (c) a minimum of 1.0 metre in the case of power poles, road name and
directional signs.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 48
8.2 Upon application, the City may consider approval to a lesser distance in cases where:
(a) no practical alternative location is available for the crossover, and (b) the infrastructure/tree is not damaged by the proposal, and (c) safe and adequate traffic sight distances are maintained.
9.0 Contact Details 9.1 In addition to the requirements of the Building Services (Registration)
Regulations 2011, the following details shall be displayed prominently on the site: (a) The name of the main contractor or builder; (b) Name of company responsible for structures over the street; (c) Contact telephone numbers; (d) Site address; and, (e) Expected completion date of construction
10.0 Site offices 10.1 Where it is not possible to situate a site office on a construction site, a site
office may be situated within the allocated parking area or on a suitably designed gantry structure.
10.2 Upon application, the City may approve a site office in an alternative location. Environmental Management 11.0 Noise - Construction Work and Deliveries 11.1 Construction work is limited to the following hours:
Monday to Saturday: 7:00am – 7:00pm; Sundays and Public Holidays: no work permitted.
11.2 Deliveries to the site shall occur without disruption to the surrounding locality. Any deliveries to the site outside of these hours shall comply with the neighbourhood noise limits imposed by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.
11.3 The City cannot permit construction work outside of permitted hours unless an application is made in writing to the CEO in accordance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Construction work outside of permitted hours shall not unreasonably impact upon the surrounding locality.
12.0 Sand drift and dust management 12.1 Any activities likely to generate sand drift or dust; including but not limited to
demolition, earthworks and the cutting or sawing of materials, shall be conducted in a manner that minimises the generation and movement of sand or dust off the site.
12.2 Sand and dust shall not be permitted to accumulate in excessive amounts on the road reserve adjoining the site.
13.0 Waste management
City of Fremantle
PAGE 49
13.1 Except for allocated parking bays (see 3.0), the road reserve adjoining construction sites is to be maintained free from rubbish and construction and demolition wastes including liquid wastes at all times.
13.2 All wastes generated on site are to be contained in waste receptacles which are to be emptied as required.
13.3 Suitable measures are required to prevent waste blowing out of receptacles during windy conditions, e.g. the use of lids or relocation of bins to protected areas of the site.
14.0 Dewatering 14.1 Dewatering of a site shall not occur without approval from the City. 15.0 Traffic management 15.1 Any disruption to traffic movement involving lane closures, deviation of
vehicles from their normal progress or path, or other complex traffic arrangements requires a traffic management plan to be prepared by a person accredited by Main Roads WA in accordance with Main Roads Western Australia’s Traffic Management for Events and or Works on Roads Code of Practice and AS1742.3.
15.2 A traffic management plan shall be submitted to the City's Technical Services section at least 21 days prior to the date of the traffic disruption to allow advertising to occur.
16.0 Works affecting pedestrian areas 16.1 Whether a footpath is present or not, portions of the road reserve adjacent to
construction sites are to be maintained in a safe condition at all times. 16.2 Temporary crossings to building sites shall be constructed in a manner that
enables the safe passage of pedestrians over the crossing. Where interference or obstruction to the normal use of a footpath occurs or is planned to occur, appropriate traffic control devices/signs complying with the requirements if AS 1742.3 are to be provided in appropriate locations to inform and guide users of the footpath safely through, around or past such works. CARRIED: 6/0
For Against
Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan
ADDITIONAL OFFICER COMMENT
City of Fremantle
PAGE 50
The Committee had a general discussion about traffic management and circumstances when officers may allow a variation to the policy. The Director Planning and Development advised that officers will consider minor administrative amendments to the policy based on the Committee discussion and shall present this as a revised recommendation to the Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 27 November 2013. Planning Services Committee resolved that officers make minor administrative amendments to the content of the policy in respect to traffic management and circumstances when officers may allow a variation to the policy. On this basis, the following minor administrative amendments (shown in italics) are recommended for consideration by Council:
· Legal implications 1.2 Where an applicant is able to demonstrate that a requirement of this policy
cannot be reasonably met, ie. due to special circumstances, the City may approve a variation to any requirement of this policy if the applicant can demonstrate that safety and neighbourhood amenity will be protected, and statutory compliance will be achieved, to the City’s satisfaction. Any departure from the requirements of this policy without express written permission from the City may result in prosecution against liable parties.
· Traffic management
15.1 Any disruption to traffic movement involving lane closures, deviation of vehicles from their normal progress or path, the creation of a work site in a road reserve or other complex traffic arrangements requires a traffic management plan to be prepared by a person accredited by Main Roads WA in accordance with Main Roads Western Australia’s Traffic Management for Events and or Works on Roads Code of Practice and AS1742.3.
Therefore it is recommended Council consider a modified recommendation as below; ALTERNATIVE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council adopt the draft Local Planning Policy – Construction Sites for advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 2.4 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as shown below:
CITY OF FREMANTLE
LOCAL PLANNING POLICY
CONSTRUCTION SITES
ADOPTION DATE: AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4
City of Fremantle
PAGE 51
NTRODUCTION Construction sites can impact upon the amenity of the surrounding locality and must be properly managed to preserve a safe and healthy environment for residents, workers and visitors to Fremantle. This policy recognises the need to balance the interests of the Fremantle public with that of the property development industry. SCOPE This policy applies to construction sites where there is limited capacity to contain construction related activities on site. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this policy are:-
· To reduce the impacts of construction sites on the occupants of adjacent sites and nearby sensitive land uses;
· To maintain and safe and pleasant inner City environment for the public; · To assist developers of large scale residential and commercial buildings
understand the City's expectations with regard to construction site management;
· To protect road reserve infrastructure that could be damaged as a result of construction related activities;
DEFINITIONS “AS” means Australian standard “Builder” means the builder whose name appears on a building permit issued by the City under the Building Act 2011. “Construction and demolition waste” means waste resulting from the construction, alteration, repair or demolition of a building and includes liquid wastes. “Construction related activities” means activities within the road reserve relating to the construction, demolition, alteration or repair of a building. “Construction site” means the lot or land on which construction or demolition works or earthworks are being carried out. “Construction work” has the same meaning given to it in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 “Gantry” means an overhead structure used in conjunction with scaffolds and elevated work platforms to provide over head and side protection to a walkway. “Hoarding” means a temporary structure erected around a construction site to separate the site from adjoining land. “Infrastructure” means all structures, kerbs, signs, furniture, surfaces, soil and vegetation within the road reserves and includes underground and overhead services. “Street tree” means a tree within the road reserve and includes shrubs exceeding one metre in height. “Waste receptacle” includes a skip bin, commercial bulk rubbish container, and household waste or recycling bin of capacity 240L or greater or other suitable receptacle designed to receive and contain wastes.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 52
POLICY 1.0 Legal implications 1.1 The requirements of this policy are the minimum standards for construction
sites (may also be referred to as “site or “sites”) captured within the scope of this policy. Permits traditionally issued by the City in relation to the use of the road reserve are not required for construction sites captured under this policy provided the requirements of this policy are met.
1.2 Where an applicant is able to demonstrate that a requirement of this policy cannot be reasonably met, i.e. due to special circumstances, the City may approve a variation to any requirement of this policy if the applicant can demonstrate that safety and neighbourhood amenity will be protected, and statutory compliance will be achieved, to the City’s satisfaction. Any departure from the requirements of this policy without express written permission from the City may result in prosecution against liable parties.
1.3 Compliance with this policy is not a substitute for compliance with other laws. A person carrying out building work is responsible for obtaining all necessary consents or permits.
2.0 Documentation required 2.1 All gantries and hoardings are to be structurally certified by a “Professional
Engineer” as defined by part A1 (INTERPRETATION) of volume one of the current National Construction Code with written certification being forwarded to the City prior to any overhead work being commenced on the site.
2.2 Any changes to gantries and hoardings during the construction period of the site are to be approved by a "Professional Engineer".
2.3 Before commencing work within or above the road reserve; including but not limited to excavations, erection of structures and signs, storage of materials and dewatering operations, the builder or responsible contractor must obtain a public liability insurance policy noting the City of Fremantle as an interested party, with cover of not less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) and indemnifying the City against any claim for damages.
General requirements for construction sites 3.0 Parking bays for construction related activities 3.1 The City will allocate all parking bays within the limits of the street frontage
of the site, for the term of construction for construction related activities including deliveries and storage of materials, skip bins, site offices and contractor parking.
3.2 Where there are no parking bays adjacent to a site, an application may be made to the City to use a part of the road or a loading zone for construction related activities.
3.3 The perimeter of the allocated area is to be fenced to height of minimum 1.8m with visually permeable fencing (e.g. temporary fencing) which should
City of Fremantle
PAGE 53
not encroach more than 500mm onto a footpath and in any case a minimum effective footpath width of 1.2m is to be maintained.
3.4 The fencing must not impede pedestrian/traffic sightlines and must be illuminated so as to be clearly visible from the hours between sunset and sunrise.
3.5 Parking bay hire fees will apply at commercial rates in accordance with the City's Fees and Charges Schedule in fee paying locations.
3.6 No storage of materials or equipment is permitted outside of the allocated area.
3.7 Use of the area must not impede the movement of pedestrians or road users. 4.0 Protection of infrastructure within the road reserve 4.1 All reasonable care must be taken during the term of construction to
protect infrastructure (see definition) within the road reserve. 4.2 A bond shall be paid to the City in accordance with the City's Fees and
Charges Schedule in respect to the protection of infrastructure within the road reserve prior to the commencement of works.
4.3 Where it is essential to relocate any infrastructure within the road reserve to enable access to a construction site or for any other reason deemed appropriate by the City, the City may remove or relocate any infrastructure within the road reserve at the builder’s cost to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site.
4.4 Any damage to infrastructure within the road reserve as a result of construction related activities shall be made good by the builder within a time specified by the City. In the event, that the builder fails make good any damage, the City may carry out such repairs as necessary and recover all appropriate costs from the builder.
5.0 Street trees 5.1 Street trees are considered assets to the City that contribute to the wellbeing
of the community and the natural environment. Street trees shall be protected during all phases of development in accordance with AS4970- 2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites.
5.2 Where a tree or part of a tree is required to be removed to enable access to a construction site or for any other reason deemed appropriate by the City, the removal or pruning of trees shall not be undertaken except by the City’s staff or City contractor.
5.3 Street tree removal shall be assessed by the City in accordance with the City’s street tree policy.
5.4 If a tree is damaged during development works then any pruning, removal and/or replacement costs shall be at the expense of the land owner.
5.5 Where trees are authorised for removal as part of a development application, the land owner shall fund the full cost of the tree removal and pay for the cost of two replacement trees on the verge of the property the following planting season.
6.0 Security fencing around construction sites
City of Fremantle
PAGE 54
6.1 All construction sites are required to be secured and fenced to a height of 2.1m -2.4m. In some instances, the City may require a solid barrier such as a hoarding around a construction site in the interests of preserving the amenity of the surrounding area.
6.2 A fence or hoarding must not encroach more than 500mm onto the road reserve.
6.3 A fence or hoarding must not obstruct pedestrian and motorist sightlines and must be clearly visible during the hours between sunset and sunrise.
6.4 All fencing and hoardings are to be maintained to a high standard at all times.
7.0 Gantries 7.1 Where scaffolding is erected upon or above a footpath, a suitably designed
overheard gantry and protective barrier (scaffold side) shall be provided along the length of the scaffold to protect pedestrians from falling objects.
7.2 A minimum width of 1.2 metres and a headroom clearance of at least 2.40 metres are required for pedestrian access.
7.3 Gantries shall be setback a minimum of 750mm from the kerb and designed so as not to collapse or cause injury to any person when subjected to vehicular impact.
7.4 Gantries shall incorporate a continuous guardrail fixed between columns 800mm above the footpath and incorporate adequate overhead lighting for pedestrians.
7.5 On narrow footpaths where a gantry setback and 1.2 metre footpath width cannot be achieved, the City may approve an alternative arrangement.
8.0 Access to site by construction vehicles 8.1 All vehicle crossings to a construction site are required to be separated
from any infrastructure within the road reserve by (a) a minimum of 2.0 metres in the case of street trees; (b) a minimum of 1.2 metres (in the case of bus shelters, traffic management
devices, parking embayments or street furniture), and (c) a minimum of 1.0 metre in the case of power poles, road name and
directional signs.
8.2 Upon application, the City may consider approval to a lesser distance in cases where:
(a) no practical alternative location is available for the crossover, and (b) the infrastructure/tree is not damaged by the proposal, and (c) safe and adequate traffic sight distances are maintained.
9.0 Contact Details 9.1 In addition to the requirements of the Building Services (Registration)
Regulations 2011, the following details shall be displayed prominently on the site: (a) The name of the main contractor or builder; (b) Name of company responsible for structures over the street;
City of Fremantle
PAGE 55
(c) Contact telephone numbers; (d) Site address; and, (e) Expected completion date of construction
10.0 Site offices 10.1 Where it is not possible to situate a site office on a construction site, a site
office may be situated within the allocated parking area or on a suitably designed gantry structure.
10.2 Upon application, the City may approve a site office in an alternative location.
Environmental Management 11.0 Noise - Construction Work and Deliveries 11.1 Construction work is limited to the following hours:
· Monday to Saturday: 7:00am – 7:00pm; · Sundays and Public Holidays: no work permitted.
11.2 Deliveries to the site shall occur without disruption to the surrounding locality. Any deliveries to the site outside of these hours shall comply with the neighbourhood noise limits imposed by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.
11.3 The City cannot permit construction work outside of permitted hours unless an application is made in writing to the CEO in accordance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Construction work outside of permitted hours shall not unreasonably impact upon the surrounding locality.
12.0 Sand drift and dust management 12.1 Any activities likely to generate sand drift or dust; including but not limited to
demolition, earthworks and the cutting or sawing of materials, shall be conducted in a manner that minimises the generation and movement of sand or dust off the site.
12.2 Sand and dust shall not be permitted to accumulate in excessive amounts on the road reserve adjoining the site.
13.0 Waste management 13.1 Except for allocated parking bays (see 3.0), the road reserve adjoining
construction sites is to be maintained free from rubbish and construction and demolition wastes including liquid wastes at all times.
13.2 All wastes generated on site are to be contained in waste receptacles which are to be emptied as required.
13.3 Suitable measures are required to prevent waste blowing out of receptacles during windy conditions, e.g. the use of lids or relocation of bins to protected areas of the site.
14.0 Dewatering
City of Fremantle
PAGE 56
14.1 Dewatering of a site shall not occur without approval from the City. 15.0 Traffic management 15.1 Any disruption to traffic movement involving lane closures, deviation of
vehicles from their normal progress or path, the creation of a work site in a road reserve or other complex traffic arrangements requires a traffic management plan to be prepared by a person accredited by Main Roads WA in accordance with Main Roads Western Australia’s Traffic Management for Events and or Works on Roads Code of Practice and AS1742.3.
15.2 A traffic management plan shall be submitted to the City's Technical Services section at least 21 days prior to the date of the traffic disruption to allow advertising to occur.
16.0 Works affecting pedestrian areas 16.1 Whether a footpath is present or not, portions of the road reserve adjacent to
construction sites are to be maintained in a safe condition at all times. 16.2 Temporary crossings to building sites shall be constructed in a manner
that enables the safe passage of pedestrians over the crossing. 16.3 Where interference or obstruction to the normal use of a footpath occurs or
is planned to occur, appropriate traffic control devices/signs complying with the requirements if AS 1742.3 are to be provided in appropriate locations to inform and guide users of the footpath safely through, around or past such works.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 57
PSC1311-172 PROPOSED ALCOHOL MANAGEMENT POLICY
DataWorks Reference: 030/018 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Health, Building and Compliance Actioning Officer: Policy Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Alcohol Management Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On 28 August 2013, Council resolved to adopt a number of principles to guide the development of future alcohol policy. The adopted alcohol principles consist of both planning and non-planning related principles. As its first action in relation to this resolution, the City has developed an overarching Alcohol Management Policy that embodies the principles agreed to by Council. The purpose of this report is to present the proposed Alcohol Management Policy for consideration by Council. The proposed policy is presented as a Council policy, as opposed to a local planning policy. The planning related principles adopted by Council on 28 August 2013 relating to small bars, liquor stores and ‘high risk’ licensed premises are dealt with in a separate report for consideration by PSC titled Licensed Premises - Proposed Amendments to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Local Planning Policy. BACKGROUND
Despite the important social and economic role of alcohol in society, the harms associated with excessive alcohol consumption are of increasing concern to the City and the community alike. Latest figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Federal Govt.) estimate that over twenty percent of Australians aged fourteen and above consume alcohol at levels that put them at risk of harm over their lifetime. The annual costs associated with alcohol related harm have been conservatively estimated at 15.6 billion dollars. The City believes that effective local government management of alcohol related issues can be delivered through:
effective local government leadership in promoting and modelling healthy
behaviours and attitudes;
The use of local government services and mechanisms to build the capacity
of individuals and communities to sustain positive lifestyle behaviours.
the establishment of cross agency relationships; and
an ongoing commitment to the development of a safe, diverse and vibrant
night time economy.
As its first action following Council’s resolution at its meeting on 28 August 2013 to adopt a number of guiding principles in relation to alcohol management, the City has prepared an
City of Fremantle
PAGE 58
alcohol management policy that seeks to embody the principles agreed upon by Council and reflect the contemporary issues facing Fremantle as a place of economic and cultural significance. The principles endorsed by Council on 28 August 2013 at its OCM are as follows:
The City of Fremantle is seeking to achieve a vibrant and sustainable night time
economy, promote small business, protect public health and enhance amenity
within its capacity as a local government authority;
The City is committed to encouraging a more responsible drinking culture and
will consider health promotion strategies to initiate behavioural change;
The City supports restaurant and small bar licence categories as the type of low
risk licensed venues that best compliment the City's desired character and
identity for Fremantle;
A general presumption in favour of alcohol-free events, attractions and other
cultural, arts and recreation activities; and consideration of incentives for
applicants;
Consideration of support for licensed premises where alcohol consumption is
not the primary activity and is ancillary to other compatible uses carried out on
site; and
Consideration of support for small, temporary, 'pop up' venues in the City centre
zone that serve to activate underutilised areas or spaces, compliment
surrounding land uses and display a commitment to responsible service of
alcohol and harm minimization principles;
A general presumption in favour of development of small bars;
The City providing assistance to small bar applicants in the preparation of a
public interest assessment report (PIAR) as part of their liquor licence
application;
A general presumption against large or high risk licensed premises in the City
centre trading past 1am and a general presumption against licensed premises
outside of the City centre trading past 12am;
A general presumption against large liquor stores;
A general presumption against liquor stores near schools and in areas
adequately serviced by existing liquor stores; and
The public interest assessment report forming a consideration of the City in the
assessment of licensed premises proposals.
The City has already implemented a number of strategic initiatives in relation to alcohol management including a submission to the Liquor Control Act Reform Committee in February 2013 advocating for greater flexibility in liquor licensing, Local Planning Scheme No. 4 amendment 52, the development of a draft public interest assessment template to assist small bar applicants as well as the development of a local alcohol profile in collaboration with the South Metropolitan Public Health Unit. The City is also in the
City of Fremantle
PAGE 59
process of developing an alcohol management ‘action plan’ to aid in the implementation of the City’s draft alcohol management policy across relevant business units. The City acknowledges that Local Government is not solely responsible for the management of alcohol related issues within the community, but it can positively support a responsible drinking culture through a range of holistic mechanisms such as land use planning and night time economy management and the delivery of ‘grass roots’ local government services such street lighting, graffiti removal and event planning. CONCLUSION
Reducing the harmful effects of alcohol use is a national health priority and requires a concerted approach from all levels of government to improve attitudes toward alcohol consumption. The City has sought input from Council to establish a set of guiding principles for future actions in relation to alcohol management. The City’s proposed alcohol management policy seeks to embody the principles adopted by Council and will serve to guide a range of community focused actions to achieve the policy objectives. OFFICER’S RECOMENDATION
MOVED: Cr R Fittock
1. That Council adopt the City’s proposed Alcohol Management Policy.
Policy
Alcohol Management
Type: Strategic
Legislation: Liquor Control Act 1988
Procedure: TBA
Delegation: 4.4 Liquor Act
Other related document: City of Fremantle Strategic Plan 2010-2015
Local Planning Policy - TBA
Objective
The objective of this policy is to provide for an integrated and holistic response to the
management of alcohol related issues within the City of Fremantle.
Policy
The City of Fremantle considers that an integrated and population wide approach is
necessary to improve attitudes toward alcohol consumption. The City also recognises its
capacity as a local government to foster a healthy and responsible drinking culture and to
implement a range of strategies to minimise the incidence of alcohol related harm in the
community. To achieve its objectives, the City of Fremantle will –
City of Fremantle
PAGE 60
1. Provide appropriate services and infrastructure to support the needs of the
community in relation to the management of alcohol related issues;
2. Develop, promote and support a variety of events and activities where alcohol
consumption is not the primary focus of activity including art and cultural programs,
retail trading and recreational infrastructure;
3. Encourage a responsible drinking culture through the use of health promotion
strategies to initiate behavioural change: :
4. Promote an appropriate mix of land use consistent with the objectives of the City’s
strategic plan and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and to minimise the impacts of the
operation of licensed venues on surrounding areas;
5. Ensure thorough and integrated determination of liquor licence applications through
the application of appropriate criteria having regard to the objectives of the City’s
Strategic Plan, Local Planning Scheme No. 4, other relevant City policies and
applicable statutory requirements;
6. Provide appropriate comment to the Director of Liquor Licensing in regard to liquor
licence applications as per the provisions of the Liquor Control Act 1988;
7. Promote a responsible approach to alcohol consumption at events supported and
organised by the City and at venues it owns or manages.
8. Establish and expand partnerships with relevant stakeholders including community
groups to improve attitudes toward alcohol consumption and reduce the prevalence
of alcohol related harm within the community;
9. Consult and engage with the community regarding alcohol related issues and
ensure an appropriate response to alcohol related concerns and complaints;
CARRIED: 6/0
For Against
Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan
Moved Cr Fittock to add the following additional wording to point 3:
and reduce the normalisation of alcohol consumption in the minds of children and
teenagers
City of Fremantle
PAGE 61
CARRIED: 6/0
For Against
Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan
City of Fremantle
PAGE 62
COMMITTEE AND OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION
1. That Council adopt the City’s proposed Alcohol Management Policy.
Policy
Alcohol Management
Type: Strategic
Legislation: Liquor Control Act 1988
Procedure: TBA
Delegation: 4.4 Liquor Act
Other related document: City of Fremantle Strategic Plan 2010-2015
Local Planning Policy - TBA
Objective
The objective of this policy is to provide for an integrated and holistic response to the management
of alcohol related issues within the City of Fremantle.
Policy
The City of Fremantle considers that an integrated and population wide approach is necessary to
improve attitudes toward alcohol consumption. The City also recognises its capacity as a local
government to foster a healthy and responsible drinking culture and to implement a range of
strategies to minimise the incidence of alcohol related harm in the community. To achieve its
objectives, the City of Fremantle will –
1. Provide appropriate services and infrastructure to support the needs of the community in
relation to the management of alcohol related issues;
2. Develop, promote and support a variety of events and activities where alcohol consumption
is not the primary focus of activity including art and cultural programs, retail trading and
recreational infrastructure:
3. Encourage a responsible drinking culture through the use of health promotion strategies to initiate
behavioural change and reduce the normalisation of alcohol consumption in the minds of children
and teenagers:
4. Promote an appropriate mix of land use consistent with the objectives of the City’s strategic
plan and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and to minimise the impacts of the operation of
licensed venues on surrounding areas;
5. Ensure thorough and integrated determination of liquor licence applications through the
application of appropriate criteria having regard to the objectives of the City’s Strategic
Plan, Local Planning Scheme No. 4, other relevant City policies and applicable statutory
requirements;
6. Provide appropriate comment to the Director of Liquor Licensing in regard to liquor licence
applications as per the provisions of the Liquor Control Act 1988;
7. Promote a responsible approach to alcohol consumption at events supported and
organised by the City and at venues it owns or manages.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 63
8. Establish and expand partnerships with relevant stakeholders including community groups
to improve attitudes toward alcohol consumption and reduce the prevalence of alcohol
related harm within the community;
9. Consult and engage with the community regarding alcohol related issues and ensure an
appropriate response to alcohol related concerns and complaints;
CARRIED: 6/0
For Against
Cr Rachel Pemberton
Cr Robert Fittock
Cr Josh Wilson
Cr Ingrid Waltham
Cr Bill Massie
Cr Jon Strachan
City of Fremantle
PAGE 64
PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 20 NOVEMBER 2013
PSC1311-178 HUGHES STREET NO 1 (LOT 17) HILTON - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO (2) REPLACEMENT THREE (3) STOREY MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS (SIX (6) DWELLINGS IN TOTAL) (AD DA0314/13)
DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Marked up sub area 7.3.1 map Date Received: 3 July 2013 Owner Name: Craig Stephen Houston & Siobhan Kelly Hushon-Brown Submitted by: Sean Gorman Scheme: Local Centre (R20) Heritage Listing: Not individually listed; Not within heritage area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Multiple Dwellings Use Permissibility: A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed variations and design principle assessments regarding the proposed development.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 65
The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two replacement three storey Multiple Dwelling buildings (six dwellings in total) at No. 1 (Lot 17) Hughes Street, Hilton. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies. The applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes ‘design principles’ in relation to:
Plot ratio;
Lot boundary setback;
Street walls and fences;
Sight lines;
Visual privacy. The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes. Where the proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’, it is considered that the proposal is supportable subject to the imposition of conditions requiring certain elements of the proposal being brought into compliance with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes. Accordingly, on balance the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND
The site is zoned ‘Local Centre’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a density coding of R25 and is located within the Hilton Local Planning Area 7 (LPA 7) –sub area 7.3.1 as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bound by Hughes Street to the north, South Street to the south, Victor Street to the east and Carrington Street to the west. The site is not individually listed City’s Heritage List; nor is it located within a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 809m2 and is located on the southern side of the Hughes Street, Hilton. The subject site is currently improved by a single storey Single House, outbuilding and associated structures. In terms of its topography, the subject site slopes downwards by approximately 1.00 metre from its southern boundary towards its northern boundary (Hughes Street). A review of the property file did not reveal any information relevant to planning and/or to this application. DETAIL
On 3 July 2013 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two replacement three storey Multiple Dwelling buildings (six dwellings in total) at No. 1 (Lot 17) Hughes Street, Hilton. On 10 July 2013 the City received amended plans which addressed issues of scaling.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 66
The proposed development plans (as amended) are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Policy discretions and assessment against the R Codes design principles sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION
Community
The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes ‘design principles’ and discretions to Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 23 September 2013, the City received three (3) submissions pertaining to the proposal, of which the following relevant planning concerns were raised:
Building height;
Overshadowing;
Visual privacy;
Solar access;
Proposed vehicle access arrangements;
In addition to the concerns raised above, the following concerns were raised in the submissions; however they are not considered relevant planning considerations:
Boundary (dividing) fence replacement.
Accordingly, the relevant planning concerns outlined above, where they do not meet the prescribed development standards of LPS4, or ‘deemed-to-comply’ provisions of the R-Codes will be discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.
Heritage Comment
In accordance with Clause 5.15 of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessments (LPP 1.6), a Heritage Assessment was required to be undertaken as the proposal includes the demolition of the existing building on site. The heritage assessment was finalised on 27 August 2013, of which found the place to be of ‘limited’ cultural heritage significance. This is discussed further in detail in the ‘Planning Comment: Demolition’ section of this report. Design Advisory Committee (DAC)
The proposal has been presented to the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC), prior to lodgement of this application. The DAC considered the proposal at its meeting of 22 April 2013 and provided the following summary recommendations:
“SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The general design is supported.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 67
2. Consideration of the following modifications is recommended:
a. Increasing floor to ceiling heights to the maximum 11.0m permitted by the scheme;
b. The design and location of the storage area is be more integral to the main building;
c. The shared vehicle access way to be treated as a future “Mews,” that is, designed as a visually attractive street shared with pedestrians rather than just an access to the car park;
d. The entry to each apartment needs to be more legible;
e. The small commercial tenancy may not be viable;
f. Improvement to the central shared space and the external stair;
g. Additional eastern windows;
h. Car parking numbers may be reduced to accommodate unit storage within the space currently designated for car bays;
i. The specific details of the window canopies;
j. Consideration of a roof terrace (within the scheme height limits).” It is considered that the applicant has addressed the summary recommendations of the DAC in general as part of the development plans submitted as part of this application.
PLANNING COMMENT
Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) Demolition Under the provisions of Clause 5.15.1 of LPS4, Council will only grant Planning Approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:
“(a) Has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and
(b) Does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality in which it is located.”
The Heritage Assessment concluded that:
“Aesthetically, the residence and streetscape are of no individual architectural merit, particularly is this street is not part of the Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct.
The building has been determined of ‘limited’ significance and therefore demolition can be supported on heritage grounds.”
In this regard, the proposed demolition of the existing building should be supported as the Heritage Assessment findings satisfy Clause 5.15.1 (a) and (b). Density and height
City of Fremantle
PAGE 68
The site is zoned ‘Local Centre’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a density coding of R25 and is located within the Hilton Local Planning Area 7 (LPA 7) –sub area 7.3.1 as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. Specifically, the subject site is located within ‘Area B’ of sub area 7.3.1 which provides for the following specific development controls:
Locations where specific controls may apply
Criteria to be met in order for specific controls to apply
Specific development controls
Properties in Area B as shown on the above plan
Where:
No vehicle access is obtained directly from Carrington Street; and
Vehicle parking is provided below ground level or at the rear of buildings and is coordinated with existing or future parking on adjoining lots.
Maximum building height of three storeys (maximum external wall height of 11 metres as measured from ground level with a maximum roof plane pitch of 33 degrees).
Residential development at a density of up to R60 may take place including residential uses at ground floor level.
Notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.
Note: Where the above criteria are not met, the general height requirements in 7.1 above apply.
The applicant is seeking access to the higher R60 density code and increased building heights outlined in the specific development controls in the table above. In this regard, the applicant is required to demonstrate, and the Council has to be satisfied that, the criteria to be met in order for those specific development controls to apply have been satisfied. As detailed in the table above, the following criteria must be met in order for the specific development controls to apply (i.e. R60 and increased building height):
“Where:
No vehicle access is obtained directly from Carrington Street; and
Vehicle parking is provided below ground level or at the rear of buildings and is coordinated with existing or future parking on adjoining lots.”
In relation to the first point, as the subject site is located on, and obtains vehicular access exclusively via Hughes Street, it is considered that this criterion has been met. Notwithstanding, it is important to understand the implications for other sites within sub area 7.3.1 ‘Area B’, particularly those sites fronting, and obtaining vehicular access exclusively from Carrington Street, being:
City of Fremantle
PAGE 69
No. 180 (Lot 1696) Carrington Street, Hilton;
No’s. 186A & 186B (Lots 1 & 2) Carrington Street, Hilton;
No. 188 (Lot 11) Carrington Street, Hilton. The above sites have been marked up on the sub area 7.3.1 map as contained within LPS4 and can be viewed as part of ‘Attachment 2’ of this report to assist Council in understanding these implications. Much like the subject site, these sites have the potential to develop in accordance with the R60 specific development controls. However, as one of the criteria that has to be met in order for those specific development controls to apply is that “no vehicle access is to be obtained directly from Carrington Street”, given these sites only have frontage to, and obtain their respective vehicular access from Carrington Street currently, there is potential for this application to eliminate the possibility of those properties from developing in accordance with the specific development controls in the future. Therefore, to ensure that this development does not occur at the expense of the maximum development potential that those sites may enjoy, it would be necessary for Council to ensure that those sites have legal rights of access to Hughes Street, which would in this case be over the subject site. This would entail the preparation of an easement burdening the subject site and benefitting the southern adjoining property, being No’s. 186A & 186B (Lots 1 & 2) Carrington Street, Hilton, allowing for vehicle and pedestrian access to be obtained over the subject site. It is noted that any such easement would have be agreed upon between both the owners of the subject site as well as the owners of the southern adjoining property, being No’s. 186A & 186B (Lots 1 & 2) Carrington Street, Hilton. Without such an agreement, then the current proposal could not be entertained in its current form and would be required to be assessed against the based coding of R20, and therefore could not be supported by the City. Residential Design Codes Plot ratio
Permitted Proposed Difference
Max plot ratio of 0.7 (566m2) 0.926 (749.49m2) 0.226 (183.49m2)
The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ of the R Codes for the following reasons:
It is considered that the proposed development is generally at a bulk and scale as indicated within the local planning framework, specifically that of sub area 7.3.1 of LPS4 which prescribes a maximum residential density of R60 with maximum external wall heights of up to 11 metres;
In this regard, whilst it may not be consistent with the existing building heights in the locality, it is considered that it is consistent with the future desired built form of the locality as outlined in the scheme which will see development in the locality, which may have external wall heights of up to 11 metres;
The proposal is for two stand alone three storey buildings, which are to be physically separated by a distance of approximately 8.40 metres which is considered to reduce the overall perception of building bulk upon adjoining properties.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 70
The proposed 2 building are significantly setback from side and rear boundaries which reduces the impact of building bulk on adjoining properties (3.0m from the western and southern boundaries and 6.0m from the eastern boundary).
Lot boundary setback
Required Proposed
1 Western boundary first floor (unit 2.1) 4.30m 3.00m
2 Western boundary first floor (unit 2.2) 4.30m 3.00m
3 Western boundary second floor (unit 3.1) 6.00m 3.00m
4 Western boundary second floor (unit 3.2) 6.00m 3.00m
The reduced boundary setbacks for 1-4 above are considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ of the R Codes for the following reasons:
The proposal ensure adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation to buildings and open space associated with them;
In terms of building bulk, it is not considered that the proposal presents a significant impact upon adjoining properties as the development comprises of two standalone three storey buildings, separated by a distance of approximately 8.40 metres which is considered to reduce the overall perception of building bulk upon adjoining properties. Further, the number of openings on the first and second floors of both proposed building are considered to serve to break up any perception of building bulk on the western adjoining property;
It is considered that the proposal ensure access to daylight and direct sun for adjoining properties, specifically the western adjoining property even though this property is currently used for commercial and not residential purposes;
It is considered that the proposal assists with the protection of visual privacy of the western adjoining property which is currently used for commercial purposes.
Street walls and fences
Required Proposed
Front fences within primary street setback area to be visually permeable above 1.2m above natural ground level
Front fence solid up to 1.3m (for 2.3m in length)
The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons:
It is considered that the proposed front fence enables surveillance of the street, due to the three levels of the building overlooking Hughes Street, which are unimpeded by the height of the proposed fencing;
It is not considered to be detrimental to the streetscape. Sight lines
Required Proposed
Fences truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of where fences adjoining vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street
Front fence not truncated and solid up to 1.3m within 1.5m of where fences adjoining vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street
City of Fremantle
PAGE 71
The proposal is not considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ of the R Codes for the following reasons:
It is not considered that the proposal provides unobstructed sight lines at vehicle access points to ensure safety and visibility between the driveway and adjoining footpath.
Accordingly, it is recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring that the front fence be amended so as to comply with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards pertaining to sight lines.
Visual privacy
Required Proposed
1 4.50m setback to southern adjoining property (unit 2.2 - first floor ‘bedroom’ as contained within southern elevation)
3.00m
2 6.00m setback to southern adjoining property (unit 2.2 - first floor ‘living’ as contained within southern elevation)
3.00m
3 4.50m setback to southern adjoining property (unit 3.2 - first floor ‘bedroom’ as contained within southern elevation)
3.00m
4 6.00m setback to southern adjoining property (unit 3.2 - first floor ‘living’ as contained within southern elevation)
3.00m
The proposal is not considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ of the R Codes for the following reasons:
In relation to (1-4) above, overlooking of major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living area of the dwelling as contained within the southern adjoining property, being No. 186B (Lot 2) Carrington Street may occur, and as such it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the development to comply with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes.
In relation to the western adjoining property, being No. 186 (Lot 16) Carrington Street, Hilton is currently used for commercial purposes (Rubra drive-thru coffee) and is not used for residential purposes. Notwithstanding, the visual privacy setback requirements are applicable as per the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards, of which the proposal is seeking assessment against the prescribed ‘design principles’. In this regard, the design principles explicitly refer to developments having (underlined for emphasis):
“Minimal direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of adjacent dwellings achieved through...”
Whilst the proposal does not satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards pertaining to visual privacy in relation to the western adjoining property, given that no ‘dwelling’ exists on that property, application of the design principles cannot be enforced in this instance. Whilst the western adjoining property has the potential for residential development in the future, the layout and design of any such development cannot be reasonably anticipated and it is possible that no such development may ever take place. In this regard, given that the ‘design principles’ pertaining to visual privacy are not enforceable in relation to the western adjoining property it is considered that the extent of overlooking is acceptable. CONCLUSION
The proposed demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two replacement three storey Multiple Dwelling buildings (six dwellings in total) at No. 1 (Lot 17) Hughes Street,
City of Fremantle
PAGE 72
Hilton has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes and on balance the proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes pertaining to; plot ratio, lot boundary setback, street walls and fences and sight lines. Furthermore, it is recommended that at condition of approval be imposed to bring the development into compliance with the visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two (2) replacement three (3) storey Multiple Dwelling buildings (six (6) dwellings in total) at No. 1 (Lot 17) Hughes Street, Hilton, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved
plans, dated 10 July 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the development the subject of this application, the owner of Lot 17 (1) Hughes Street, Hilton (Lot 17) shall enter into a deed of agreement with the City of Fremantle (City) to ensure the following:- a) the owner of Lot 17 shall grant to the owner of Strata Lots 1 and 2 on Strata
Plan 25975 (formerly Lot 10) Carrington Street, Hilton (Lot 10) an easement for vehicular access and pedestrian purposes over a portion of Lot 17 for the benefit of Lot 10 in the event a development application and Building Permit is issued in respect of Lot 10 which permits a residential development of Lot 10 at a density coding greater than R20 (Easement);
b) the Easement shall in all cases be in accordance with the specifications of
and to the satisfaction of the City and will join the City as a party to the Easement to ensure that the Easement is not subsequently surrendered or modified without the City’s consent;
c) the Easement shall include provisions detailing the requirement to maintain
and repair the accessway forming part of the Easment, the costs to modify or upgrade the existing driveway and crossover within Lot 17 and any reasonable consideration or compensation to be paid by the owner of Lot 10 to the owner of Lot 17 for the use of the Easement; and
City of Fremantle
PAGE 73
d) the Easement shall require that vehicular access is maintained over Lot 17 for
the benefit of Lot 10 and furthermore that no fence or other obstruction may be placed on the boundary of Lots 17 and 10 so as to obstruct the movement of vehicles between Lots 17 and 10.
The agreement shall be prepared by the City's solicitors to the satisfaction of the City and enable the City to lodge an absolute caveat over Lot 17 to secure the obligations set out in paragraphs (a)-(d).
3. Prior to occupation, visitors car parking spaces are to be:
i) marked and clearly signposted as dedicated for visitor use only, and located close to, or visible from the point of entry to the development and outside any security barrier; and
ii) provide an accessible path of travel for people with disabilities;
and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.
4. Prior to occupation, the front 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 6.2.3 C3 of the Residential Design Codes, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.
5. Prior to occupation, and in relation to ‘Unit 2.2’, the windows on the southern
elevation to ‘bedroom’ and ‘living’ as contained within the first floor (ie floor 2 of 3); and in relation to ‘Unit 3.2’, the windows on the southern elevation to ‘bedroom’ and ‘living’ as contained within the first floor (ie floor 3 of 3), shall be either:
a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor level, or
b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or
c) a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal floor level, or
d) screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,
in accordance with Clause 6.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.
All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 74
CARRIED: 6/0
For Against
Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan
Cr A Sullivan requested the item be referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council. Seconded by Cr R Fittock.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 75
PSC1311-182 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 60 - REZONE 7 (LOT 1) QUARRY ST FROM RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE - FINAL ADOPTION
DataWorks Reference: 218/067 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: 24 July 2013 PSC1307-106 Attachments: 1. Schedule of Submissions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to present the submissions received on amendment No. 60 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’ or ‘Scheme’) during the consultation period, and to recommend that Council adopt the amendment. The purpose of the Scheme amendment is to rezone 7 (lot 1) Quarry Street, Fremantle from Residential with a density coding of R25 to Mixed Use with a density coding of R-AC3 and modify Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 2 – Fremantle, 2.3.1 sub area 1 map to include 7 (Lot 1) Quarry Street, Fremantle into Area 6. Proposed Scheme amendment No. 60 was initiated by Council in July 2013 for public consultation and advertised for public comment from 17 September 2013 until 1 November 2013 (45 days). Two submissions were received during the public advertising period. No modifications are proposed in response to the submissions received. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council note the submissions received and resolve to adopt amendment No. 60 to LPS4 without modification. BACKGROUND
The purpose of the amendment is to rationalise the zoning of 7 (lot 1) Quarry Street, Fremantle, with the zoning of 7 (lot 2) Quarry Street, Fremantle. The two lots (lot 1 and lot 2) that make up 7 Quarry Street, Fremantle, have historically been used together for non residential uses, including the Y.C.M.A club constructed in 1963 and currently office uses. However each lot has a different zoning and density coding under LPS4:
Lot 1 - is zoned Residential and has a density coding R25.
Lot 2 - is zoned Mixed Use and has a density coding of R-AC3. The existing use (offices) of the subject site could continue to operate under the non-conforming land use provisions of LPS4, however, the existing Residential zoning is considered inappropriate for the current use and built form of the property as it potentially constrains future development and use of the site. Additionally, there does not appear to be any obvious rationale for the Residential and Mixed Use zonings to split No. 7 Quarry Street, Fremantle along the lot boundaries. On the contrary, the differing zonings appear to simply be a carryover from the zoning under the City’s former Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3). Under TPS3 Lot 1 was zoned Residence, whilst Lot 2 was zoned Inner Urban.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 76
Accordingly, amendment 60 to LPS4 was initiated by Council on 24 July 2013 for the purpose of public advertising. The amendment proposes rezoning Lot 1 of No. 7 Quarry Street, Fremantle to Mixed Use with a density coding of R-AC3 and to include the lot in the development standards applicable to Sub Area 1, area 6, of Local Planning Area 2 – Fremantle, i.e. the same zoning, density and development standards as already apply to Lot 2. For further background on the amendment, including an analysis of zoning and development provisions in the surrounding area, please refer to ordinary meeting of Council minutes 24 July 2013 (PSC1307-106). CONSULTATION
The amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (‘EPA’) for confirmation that a formal environmental assessment was not required, in accordance with regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967. Following confirmation from the EPA the proposed Scheme amendment was advertised in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals and Town Planning Regulations 1967 for public comment from 17 September 2013 until 1 November 2013 (45 days), with an advertisement placed in the Fremantle Gazette for two consecutive weeks. The City’s precinct groups, utility companies, owners and occupiers of properties within a 100m radius of the subject site and other interested parties and key agencies were also specifically notified and copies of the amendment documents were made available for viewing at the customer service counter at the Town Hall Centre and on the City’s website. A sign was also displayed on site. A total of two submissions were received at the close of the consultation period. Each submission is discussed below. Fremantle Ports submission Fremantle Ports notes the proposed amendment includes a property that is in area 1 of the Fremantle Port Buffer Area. Fremantle Ports requests that any development within the amendment area be assessed for compliance with these requirements. Owner/occupier submission Submitter will support the proposed Amendment No 60 provided strong guidelines/ restrictions are included with the proposal. Submitter states: “Property 7 Lot 1 and 2 both lie to the north of heritage listed house at 3 Quarry Street. The eastern side of Quarry Street is a predominantly residential area with the exception of parts of the southern end of the street near Parry Street. The building on lots 1 and 2 of property 7 was constructed with no consideration for its effects on the heritage residential house (3 Quarry Street) to the south ignoring the effects of overshadowing which blocks all the winter sun of the house at 3 Quarry Street. The building was poorly designed with the high rise portion constructed at the south end of property 7 and the low rise to the north, it should have been built with the high rise portion to the north stepping down to the south.”
City of Fremantle
PAGE 77
The submitter asks that the effect of future development of 7 (lots 1 and 2) Quarry Street upon 3 Quarry Street should be considered,to prevent overshadowing. Currently on site there is a continuous high wall for the complete length of the boundary between 7 (lot 2) Quarry Street and 3 Quarry Street, Fremantle. Submitter asks that any new building adjoining 3 Quarry Street, Fremantle has a height significantly less than the present height. Ideally, submitter suggests the building design should be tiered stepping up to the north and east and including significant low rise corridors that reduce its scale and provide north south conduits for light. Submitter additionally notes that the cumulative effect of more and larger developments in the area could effectively surround the heritage building at 3 Quarry Street, Fremantle, especially if walls of new buildings are built up to the boundary. Submitter suggests Queen Victoria Street and Beach Street are the best areas to construct higher density mixed use structures. Any potential development on the eastern, predominantly residential side of Quarry Street should be more modest in scale and density, and be compatible with the surrounding houses, for example 3 Quarry Street, Fremantle. Submitter advocates for creative design ideas and concentrating height to the north to satisfy the needs of achieving reasonable density but at the same time respecting the aesthetics of the surrounding buildings and preserving the quality of life of the adjacent residents The two submissions are individually addressed in the following ‘Planning Comment’ section. PLANNING COMMENT
The purpose of proposed amendment No. 60 to LPS4 is to: 1. Rezone lot 1 of No. 7 Quarry Street, Fremantle from Residential to Mixed Use; 2. Change the residential density coding applicable to the subject site from R25 to R-
AC3; and 3. Apply the development standards of Area 6 from Sub area 1 in Local Planning Area 2
- Fremantle to the subject site. This includes a permitted building height of 11 metres and a minimum façade height of 10 metres with an additional 4 metres permissible where it is setback from the street façade so as not to be visible from the street and where the design is integrated with the design of the overall building.
The proposed amendment is considered necessary and appropriate as it would align the zoning and development requirements of both lots that comprise No. 7 Quarry Street, Fremantle. The amendment will better reflect the historical and current land uses of the property and present coherent redevelopment options in a form that is consistent with the current and future built form of the area. Addressing the submissions Fremantle Ports submission Fremantle Ports note that 7 Quarry Street, Fremantle is located in area 1 of the Fremantle Port Buffer. This is incorrect. 7 Quarry Street, Fremantle (lot 1 and 2) is located in area 2 of the Fremantle Port Buffer. Regardless of the property being located in area 1 or 2, or of
City of Fremantle
PAGE 78
the amendment, any development proposed on the property would require assessment under the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines. This policy/guidelines was formulated in conjunction with Fremantle Ports and includes potential risk and amenity considerations and built form requirements required for development on properties in close proximity to Fremantle Port. This policy is considered sufficient in considering development applications in the Port Buffer area. Accordingly no modification to the amendment is recommended in light of this submission. Owner/occupier submission
Figure 1: Aerial view of the subject site in context (January 2013) The subject site of scheme amendment No. 60 is 7 (lot 1) Quarry Street, Fremantle (see figure 1 above). 3 (lot 3) Quarry Street, Fremantle contains a single storey single house and adjoins No. 7 (lot 2) Quarry Street, Fremantle, which is not the subject site of this Scheme amendment. Both 3 (lot 3) and 7 (lot 2) Quarry Street, Fremantle are zoned Mixed Use, have a density coding of R-AC3 and are included in the East End sub area 1 (2.3.1) area 6 in Local Planning Area 2 Fremantle in LPS4. The difference between the two properties is 7 (lot 2) Quarry Street, Fremantle is not heritage listed and is currently used for office use and 3 Quarry Street, Fremantle is currently used for residential purposes and is heritage listed (MHI level 2). The main concern of the owner/occupier submission is to ensure future development of 7 (lot 2) Quarry Street, Fremantle does not impact on 3 Quarry Street, Fremantle. As the proposed Scheme amendment does not propose any changes to the current zoning, density or development provisions of 7 (lot 2) Quarry Street, Fremantle, which directly adjoins 3 Quarry Street, Fremantle, the submission’s request is not upheld and no modifications to the scheme amendment are recommended.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 79
Nonetheless, the design of any proposed future development at 7 (lot 2) Quarry Street and, if gazetted, 7 (lot 1) Quarry Street will be assessed as part of the development application process. The design requirements for development in the area is as per the requirements of sub area 1 (2.3.1) of LPA Fremantle in LPS4, Local Planning Policy 3.1.3 – Precinct 3 and the part 6 provisions of the Residential Design Codes for multiple dwellings. Furthermore all large development proposals will be subject to consideration by the City’s Design Advisory Committee and heritage considerations, including the impact of proposed development on surrounding heritage buildings, will also be taken into account when considering a development application. The submission, additionally assumes that the property at 3 Quarry Street, Fremantle, partly due to its heritage listing, will never be developed or used for another purpose other than the current single residential house existing on site. The submission anticipates that the resulting built form would be the single storey house on the subject site being enclosed by high walls on most sides. This assumption however ignores the fact that the subject site could, similar to adjoining properties, be redeveloped at a higher density (R-AC3) and potentially to over 11 metres in height. Granted the heritage listing may constrain the full development potential of the site, however adaptive reuse of the house and additional development to the rear is entirely possible.
Figure 2: Current LPA Fremantle Sub Area 1 map in LPS4 included as part of Scheme
City of Fremantle
PAGE 80
amendment No. 38 – East End gazettal The intent of Scheme Amendment No. 38 – East End provisions, which now forms part of the City’s LPS4 (gazetted on 1 July 2011), is to provide for and encourage redevelopment of the Mixed Use area that directly abuts the city centre to the east (see figure 2 above). The vision for the area is to achieve a greater residential population and the creation of a vibrant, attractive and sustainable mixed use neighbourhood. Proposed Scheme Amendment No. 60 (the subject of this report) is considered to be consistent with the intent of the previous Amendment No. 38 and enhances the development potential, at an appropriate scale, of the East End area. CONCLUSION The purpose of the amendment is to rationalise the zoning of 7 (lot 1) Quarry Street, Fremantle, with the zoning of 7 (lot 2) Quarry Street as both properties are in the same ownership (currently the City of Fremantle) and have historically been used together. The submissions received on the amendment do not raise issues which in the view of officers warrant any modifications to the amendment. It is therefore recommended that Council resolve to adopt Scheme Amendment No. 60 to LPS4 without modification. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council: 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and
attachment 1;
2. Resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, to adopt without modification the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:
A. Amend the Scheme map to rezone 7 (Lot 1), Quarry Street, Fremantle from Residential with a density coding of R25 to Mixed Use with a density coding of R-AC3 as shown on the Scheme map below:
City of Fremantle
PAGE 81
B. Modify 12.12 Schedule 12 - Local Planning Areas (Height Requirements) Local Planning Area 2 - Fremantle 2.3.1 Sub Area 1 to include 7 (lot 1) Quarry Street into Area 6 as follows:
City of Fremantle
PAGE 82
3. Authorise the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.
4. Request the Minister for Planning to grant final consent to Scheme Amendment No. 60 as referred to in (2) above.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 83
Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to add a new point 5, as follows:
5. That Council review the Local Planning Policy for the east end area to include provisions to ensure that new development on Lots 1 and 2 number 7 Quarry Street is sympathetic to the existing building at 3 Quarry Street.
CARRIED: 5/2
For Against
Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Robert Fittock Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Andrew Sullivan
Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That Council: 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and
attachment 1; 2. Resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005
and Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, to adopt without modification the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:
A. Amend the Scheme map to rezone 7 (Lot 1), Quarry Street, Fremantle from Residential with a density coding of R25 to Mixed Use with a density coding of R-AC3 as shown on the Scheme map below:
City of Fremantle
PAGE 84
B. Modify 12.12 Schedule 12 - Local Planning Areas (Height Requirements) Local Planning Area 2 - Fremantle 2.3.1 Sub Area 1 to include 7 (lot 1) Quarry Street into Area 6 as follows:
City of Fremantle
PAGE 85
3. Authorise the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.
4. Request the Minister for Planning to grant final consent to Scheme Amendment No. 60 as referred to in (2) above.
5. That Council review the Local Planning Policy for the east end area to include provisions to ensure that new development on Lots 1 and 2 number 7 Quarry Street is sympathetic to the existing building at 3 Quarry Street.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 86
CARRIED: 7/0
For Against
Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan
City of Fremantle
PAGE 87
PSC1311-183 REVIEW OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11 MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING
DataWorks Reference: 117/034 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1304-58, PSC1307-107 Attachments: 1. Text track Changes Version: Local Planning Policy 3.11 –
McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is present and propose an amendment to the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle (LPP3.11) to Council. Officers recommend that Council adopt the modified local planning policy for public comment. In April 2013, the City was requested by H.L.M Holdings, the owner of the former Matilda Bay Brewery Site – 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (the applicant), to consider amending the City’s LPP3.11 to include additional height on the applicant’s site. The request was presented to Council in April and Council resolved to hold the request in abeyance until all landowners in the LPP3.11 area were contacted to
City of Fremantle
PAGE 88
establish whether they were willing to participate in a coordinated approach to reviewing LPP3.11. A further report went to Council in July advising that there was only limited landowner support for an extensive review of LPP3.11. In light of the limited support for a comprehensive review of LPP3.11 officers consider there is scope to consider the applicant’s request and to modify LPP3.11 in a limited way that does not impact on the intent of the policy, which is to maintain and safeguard view corridors in the area, and enhance the amenity of the area. Therefore officers propose limited changes to the policy that would allow for additional building height subject to Council’s discretion in one defined location of area H (to the rear of the Matilda Bay heritage building), subject to meeting specific design criteria. The other modifications to the policy are general updates to the wording and a reduction of height on part of the applicant’s site to the frontage to McCabe Street. BACKGROUND
In April 2013, the City was requested by Greg Rowe and Associates along with Mackay Urbandesign and Oldfield Knott Architects acting on behalf of H.L.M Holdings, the owner of the former Matilda Bay Brewery Site – 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (the applicant), to consider amending the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle (LPP3.11 or the policy).
LPP3.11 was adopted by Council in April 2009 (Refer to 22 April 2009 Council minutes PSC0904-72) and was based on the McCabe Street height study. This area includes a number of significant potential redevelopment sites such as the former One Steel site at 140 Stirling Highway, 9-11 McCabe Street (Tasker’s site) and 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle (the former Matilda Bay Brewery site). The heights prescribed by the policy, for the area, are as depicted in figure 1 below.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 89
The applicant originally requested LPP3.11 be modified to include an increase in the building height permissible under the policy to up to 40m in height in zone H of the policy behind the former Matilda Bay Brewery building as per figure 2 below.
The request was presented to Council at its ordinary meeting 24 April 2013 (PSC1304-58) and Council resolved to hold the request in abeyance until all landowners in the LPP3.11 area could be contacted to establish whether they were willing to participate in a coordinated approach to reviewing LPP3.11. Following Council resolution all landowners in the LPP3.11 area were contacted and a further report was presented to Council 24 July 2013 (PSC1307-107). This reported that there was only limited support for a comprehensive review of the policy from landowners in the area. Council resolved the following:
Defer the item to allow further discussion with land owners to clarify the scope of any potential review to building heights and locations under Local Planning Policy 3.11.
For further background please see previous ordinary meeting of Council reports (24 April 2013 PSC1304-58; 24 July 2013 PSC1307-107). CONSULTATION
The City has been in discussion with the landowners in the policy area and has held two landowner meetings following Council’s resolutions 24 April and 24 July 2013. The first landowner meeting was held on the 11 June 2013 with the landowners/ representatives from the following properties:
9 - 11 (Lot 315, 326 and 18) McCabe Street (Taskers), North Fremantle
130 (Lot 5, 12, 218, 219, 220, 221, 314 & 253) Stirling Highway (Matilda Bay), North Fremantle
140 (lot 2) Stirling Highway (One Steel), North Fremantle
21 (Lot 19) McCabe Street, North Fremantle
City of Fremantle
PAGE 90
The second landowner meeting was held 30 July 2013 and included representatives/landowners from:
9 - 11 (Lot 315, 326 and 18) McCabe Street (Taskers), North Fremantle
130 (Lot 5, 12, 218, 219, 220, 221, 314 & 253) Stirling Highway (Matilda Bay), North Fremantle
140 (lot 2) Stirling Highway (One Steel), North Fremantle The City’s officers have also individually met several times with the applicant and landowners and representatives from 9 - 11 McCabe Street and 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle. If Council resolves to adopt the draft modified local planning policy recommended in this report, the policy will be advertised for public comment for a period of not less than 28 days in accordance with the requirements set out in clause 2.4.1 of LPS4 and local planning policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals. An additional 14 days will be added to the notice period where any part of the notification period falls between 15 December and 15 January. PLANNING COMMENT
The purpose of LPP3.11 is to identify limitations on the maximum heights of new buildings that Council will apply in assessing structure plans and subsequent planning applications for the development of land zoned development zone (development area 18) in McCabe Street, North Fremantle. The policy is intended to help ensure that new buildings developed in the area do not adversely affect the visual amenity of the locality in general or the amenity of occupiers of nearby residential properties. In particular, the policy is intended to help safeguard important views from publicly accessible viewpoints towards and over the Indian Ocean and the Swan River and the setting of existing buildings and landscape features of cultural heritage significance. The City’s officers have undertaken considerable consultation with the applicant and other landowners in the LPP3.11 area on the applicant’s request to review LPP3.11 and the potential for a more comprehensive review of heights in the policy area. From this consultation it was indicated to the City that there is only limited support for a comprehensive review of the policy and no additional proposals were put forward from the other landowners. Accordingly officers reconsidered the applicant’s request only and consider there is scope to allow for additional building height on a limited portion of the former Matilda Bay brewery site, on a discretionary basis, where view corridors are taken into account and buildings are well designed and include environmentally sustainable design features. Therefore the proposed amendment to the policy recommends limited changes that would allow for this additional height in a specified location within area H subject to specific design criteria being fulfilled to Council’s satisfaction. The modifications to LPP3.11 are considered to be in keeping with the intent of the policy, which is to allow for development that safeguards and respects view corridors, whilst enhancing the area by providing well designed, environmentally sustainable development. The other modifications to the policy are general updates to the wording and a reduction of height on the applicant’s site to the front of 9-11 McCabe Street, North Fremantle (Tasker’s site). These proposed map and text modifications to LPP3.11 are discussed in detail below.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 91
Map modifications
Officers propose two modifications to the LPP3.11 map. These are numbered and circled above in figure 3 and explained below.
Modification 1. In a select portion of area H, named area H2, officers propose that future development can be considered up to a height of 33m above natural ground level. The base “as a right” permitted height would remain 17m as in the current policy. For development to be considered capable of approval with additional height up to 33m it would have to meet the criteria as set out in the text part of the policy (see text modification discussion below). This criteria includes the requirement for development to consider the State Planning Policy 2.6 – Coastal Planning Policy (where applicable), be 5 star Green Star rating in design, conserve the heritage significance of the heritage building, be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, and not encroach on view corridors as defined in the McCabe Street Height Study.
The additional height proposed in zone H2 (up to 33m) is substantially more than the current policy allows for (17m). Officers acknowledge this and consider the limited area of zone H2 and the supplementary text criteria in the policy, on which to consider developments proposed up to 33m in height, to be adequate measures to allow for the greater height. The premise on which the policy is based is that height of new development considers and maintains the view corridors in the area. Proposed zone H2 is outside of the key view corridors identified on the policy map and development of greater height can only be considered in a limited zone. Additionally, the supplementary text criteria proposed includes requirements that ensures that development in zone H2 respects the policy’s view corridors and is 5 star green star and exceptional in design. Accordingly, officers consider the text and map modifications to be an appropriate compromise of allowing for development of additional height on limited building footprints in exchange for exceptionally designed development that maintains the policy’s view corridors and enhances the amenity of the area.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 92
Modification 2. Officers propose that the western corner of zone E, currently 20m height limit, be reduced to a 14m height limit, by including this portion of zone E into zone F1. The reason for this is through consultation with landowners in the area it became clear that development in the current 20m height limit in zone E along the McCabe Street site frontage could result in an approximately six storey high building directly in front of the Taskers site (9 – 11 McCabe St) due to the sloping topography of the site. As this would potentially block river views from the Taskers site which already has planning approval for the first phase of a comprehensive redevelopment, and could result in development which is contrary to the aims of the policy, it was considered a modification to the map in this area would achieve greater consistency with the overall the intent of the policy. Text modifications In addition to the map modifications officers propose modifications to the policy text. The general updates to the wording are where the policy references the Residential Design Codes, the State Planning Policy 2.6 – Coastal Planning Policy and a provision in the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). All of these documents have been updated since the policy was adopted in 2009. The text updates are discussed below:
State Planning Policy 2.6 – Coastal Planning Policy (SPP2.6) SPP2.6 was modified in July 2013. The building height limits in the policy still apply to all development within 300 metres of the horizontal shoreline datum, however the policy no longer specifies a height limit (the previous SPP2.6 specified a height limit of 25 metres) and land uses. Instead the policy provides planning criteria to have regard to when specifying a height limit. LPP3.11 has been modified to reflect these changes.
Residential Design Codes 2013 The Residential Design Codes were updated in August 2013. The parts have been modified and changed around slightly for example, the single house and grouped dwelling requirements which were in part six are now in part five and the multiple dwelling requirements which made up part seven now form part six. Also the former “acceptable development” provisions are now named “deemed to comply”. The new wording and clause numbers have been updated as part of this review of LPP3.11.
LPS4 Scheme amendment No. 49 (gazetted January 2013) introduced into LPS4 variations to the height provisions for minor projections above the building. The provisions now in LPS4 are the same as those provided for in LPP3.11. Accordingly, to strengthen the policy provisions, and so as not to double up on similar requirements across the City’s planning framework, the policy has been modified to reference the new provision in LPS4.
Additional height criteria The more substantial text modification to the policy is the inclusion of capacity for Council to exercise discretion to grant approval for a building height up to 33m in zone H2 in circumstances where Council is satisfied that certain criteria are met. As such this height limit is not “as of right”; the base building height in area H2 is 17m as it is under the existing policy. Development between 17m and 33m in height would need to meet additional criteria. The criteria proposed are similar to, and modelled on, the current wording in the policy for discretionary additional height on a portion of 140 Stirling
City of Fremantle
PAGE 93
Highway, North Fremantle (One Steel site). The proposed criteria to be satisfied in considering whether to exercise discretion to approve the additional height are as follows:
(a) The development must achieve a ‘green design’ (Green Star system) rating equivalent to at least 5 star, incorporating low energy and water use, on-site energy generation, natural cross ventilation, recycling, etc;
(b) Where applicable, the development must satisfy the planning criteria in policy measure 5.4 of State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy;
(c) The development must incorporate works to conserve the heritage significance of the heritage building;
(d) The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4; and
(e) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle.
The purpose of the criteria to gain the additional height is to only have development at a greater height where that development is of exceptional design, respects the heritage of the adjacent building, is green in design and does not impact on view corridors in the policy area. The proposed requirements would therefore require any development proposed up to 33m in height to be of exceptional design and architecture, contain green building features (5 star green star), consider the State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy and additionally conserve the heritage building. Additionally, proposed criterion (e) further reinforces the intent of the policy by only allowing development that does not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study”. These criteria will overall ensure development of greater height in proposed zone H2 does not impact on the policy area and enhances the amenity of the development zone. For Council’s benefit a track changes version of the policy text is provided in attachment 1. Officers consider the recommended amendments represent a reasonable balance between maintaining the important urban design principles which underpin the current policy whilst also considering the differing views and interests of the landowner of No. 130 Stirling Highway and other landowners in the area regarding the planning merits of permitting higher development in limited locations. However it is acknowledged that there may be scope for further minor refinement of the policy amendments after consideration of submissions made during the public consultation period. In accordance with normal procedures, the further report to Council after the end of the consultation period will address issues raised in any submissions received. CONCLUSION
This report follows extensive consultation between the City’s officers and landowners in the LPP3.11 area since the City was first approached with a request to modify the heights on 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle in April 2013. In light of the lack of support from the majority of landowners in the area for a comprehensive review of LPP3.11 officers consider a limited amendment restricted to modification of the height limits in LPP3.11 relating to No. 130 Stirling Highway in a way that does not impact on the overall purpose and principles of the policy is appropriate.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 94
It is therefore recommended that Council resolve to adopt the recommended modifications to Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle described in this report for the purposes of public comment. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: CR R FITTOCK
That Council:
1. Adopt the following draft modified Local Planning Policy for the purpose of advertising for public submissions:
CITY OF FREMANTLE
LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11
MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE - HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS
ADOPTION DATE: 22 April 2009 AMENDED DATE: ??? AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4
1. PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of the policy is to identify limitations on the maximum heights of
new buildings that Council will apply in assessing planning proposals relating to land adjacent to McCabe Street, North Fremantle as defined by the shaded area on the plan below:
City of Fremantle
PAGE 95
1.2 The policy is intended to help ensure that new buildings developed in the area
defined on Plan No. 1 above do not adversely affect the visual amenity of the locality in general or the amenity of occupiers of nearby residential properties. In particular, the policy is intended to help safeguard important views from publicly accessible viewpoints towards and over the Indian Ocean and the Swan River and the setting of existing buildings and landscape features of cultural heritage significance.
2. APPLICATION OF POLICY 2.1 The policy applies to all land within the area defined on Plan No. 1 that is zoned
under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), unless any such land is subject to specific or general height controls under the provisions of Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Height Requirements) of LPS4, in which case the provisions of the Scheme shall prevail.
2.2 Council will apply the policy in determining applications for planning approval
to undertake development under Part 8 of LPS4, and in determining structure plans and detailed area plans under Part 6 of LPS4 in cases where such plans include information regarding proposed building heights. The policy applies to development proposals involving both residential and non-residential land uses.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 96
3. STATUTORY BACKGROUND 3.1 This policy has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of LPS4
relating to the preparation and adoption on local planning policies. 3.2 Clause 5.2.2 of LPS4 states that unless otherwise provided for in the Scheme,
the development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the Residential Design Codes is to conform to the provisions of the Codes.
3.3 Part 7.3 of the Residential Design Codes (R-codes) states that local planning
policies may contain provisions that amend or replace deemed to comply provisions set out in part 5 and 6 of the R-codes in relation to various design elements including building height. This local planning policy replaces the deemed to comply provisions relating to building height set out in design element 5.1.6 and 6.1.2 of the R-codes.
4. POLICY 4.1 General 4.1.1 Plan No. 2 defines a series of building height zones within the area covered
by this policy. The maximum height of any new building shall not exceed the height above ground level prescribed in the height zone applying to the location of the proposed new building, except for any variations as specified in 4.1.5 below.
4.1.2 Maximum building height will be measured as the vertical distance in metres
from ground level to the highest part of the main building structure, irrespective of whether that part of the structure is a wall, parapet or roof.
4.1.3 For the purpose of measuring building height above ground level, the
meaning of ground level is the level which existed prior to the proposed development. Any site works associated with the proposed development which involve alterations to existing ground level must be included within the same application for planning approval. If any such site works involve filling above existing ground level, the depth of proposed fill as well as the height of the proposed new building(s) must be accommodated within the maximum height of development specified in this policy. The contents of this policy do not preclude Council from exercising its discretionary ability under clause 5.8.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to increase the standard applicable height limit by up to 0.5 metres where there is a variation in ground level over a development footprint of greater than 1 metre.
4.1.4 Where the main structure of a building is located in more than one height zone as shown on Plan No. 2, the part of the building in each height zone must comply with the maximum height requirement for that zone.
4.1.5 Council may approve planning proposals involving variations to the
maximum building heights prescribed on Plan No. 2 in the following circumstances:
City of Fremantle
PAGE 97
Minor projections above the highest part of the main building structure may be permitted subject to the criteria in clause 5.8.1.3 of LPS4
Minor projections out from the side of a main building structure over land within an adjoining height zone where a lower maximum building height requirement applies, in cases where no part of the projection is more than 3m away from the main building structure and the total area of all projections is no more than 10% of the ground floor area of the building. Minor projections will be interpreted as including plant and equipment, canopies, awnings, verandahs and balconies, including balconies intended for regular human use.
In the part of Zone D that is within 60 metres of the eastern boundary of the Stirling Highway road reserve on the north side of McCabe Street, a building of a maximum height of 25 metres may be approved by Council at its discretion subject to the proposed development demonstrating that it complies with all of the following criteria:
(a) The development must achieve a ‘green design’ (Green Star system)
rating equivalent to at least 5 star, incorporating low energy and water use, on-site energy generation, natural cross ventilation, recycling, etc;
(b) The development must incorporate non-residential ground floor uses that contribute to the function of the locality as an activity and/or tourist node;
(c) The development must satisfy the planning criteria in policy measure 5.4 of State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy;
(d) The design of the development must perform the urban design function of an ‘entry statement’ into the City of Fremantle, including design qualities that convey a contemporary coastal aesthetic informed by the local context of North Fremantle and the Indian Ocean foreshore; and
(e) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle.
In the part designated zone H2 on the policy map behind the former Matilda Bay brewery building, a building of a maximum height of 33 metres may be approved by Council, at its discretion, subject to the proposed development demonstrating that it complies with all of the following criteria:
(a) The development must achieve a ‘green design’ (Green Star system)
rating equivalent to at least 5 star, incorporating low energy and water use, on-site energy generation, natural cross ventilation, recycling, etc;
(b) Where applicable, the development must satisfy the planning criteria in policy measure 5.4 of State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy;
(c) The development must incorporate works to conserve the heritage significance of the heritage building;
City of Fremantle
PAGE 98
(d) The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4; and
(e) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle.
4.2 Specific Requirements Additional to General Policy Provisions 4.2.1 Height Zone A – 133 -141 Stirling Highway. Notwithstanding the general
maximum building height of 11 metres permitted under this policy, the built form of any new development in this zone must incorporate at least two significant gaps between buildings down to ground level of sufficient width to provide views of the Indian Ocean from ground level on Stirling Highway. One of these gaps must approximately align with the axis of McCabe Street at its intersection with Stirling Highway.
4.2.2 Height Zones H and J – new development will be assessed in terms of its
impact upon the Matilda Bay Brewing Company building (former Ford Motor Company assembly plant) which is included on the Heritage List under the provisions of clause 7.1 of LPS4. Consideration will be given to the extent to which proposed new development helps to conserve and reveal the significance of the heritage place, including its identified significant attributes and features, through the siting and design of new buildings including their massing, bulk, relationship to street frontages and degree of separation from the heritage place in order to give prominence in the streetscape to the heritage place.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 99
City of Fremantle
PAGE 100
Cr J Wilson MOVED the following: That the application be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting to enable further consultation with the owners of 130 Stirling Highway and 9-11 McCabe Street. CARRIED: 7/0
For Against
Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan
City of Fremantle
PAGE 101
PSC1311-184 PROPOSED PARTIAL CLOSURE AND AMALGAMATION OF A PORTION OF BEACH STREET, FREMANTLE ROAD RESERVE
DataWorks Reference: 163/002, Beach Street Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PSC 20 November 2013 Previous Item: PSC 1011-241 Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Development Actioning Officer: Land Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil
Figure 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The opportunity to close a portion of the Beach St road reserve between James St and the link road to Queen Victoria St was identified during the East End Project and LPS4 Amendment No. 38. The current reserve is up to 44 metres wide and it is considered that retaining a road reserve width of 20 metres would be sufficient for anticipated future road uses in this area, particularly as the Beach St reserve is a maximum of 20 metres wide at all other locations.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 102
The proposed closure area is approximately 3800 square metres which, subject to the closure proceeding, would be sold to adjacent property owners and augment the potential of the east end residential quarter. This report therefore recommends that the Council resolve to commence the statutory process for the partial closure of the reserve, which includes a public advertising and comment period. After the advertising period a further report will be provided to Council addressing the comments received and considering whether to formally proceed with an application for closure. The report will also present a draft business case for presentation to the Minister for Lands and Cabinet that addresses the valuation of the land and how the proceeds from the disposal should be used, including the acquisition of land for a road widening along the adjacent section of Queen Victoria St.
BACKGROUND
At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 15 December 2010 (PSC1011-241) it was resolved to adopt Scheme Amendment No. 38 for the area known as the East End. The amendment included extending the boundary of the Mixed Use Zone over part of the current Beach Street road reserve between James Street and the link road to Queen Victoria Street. The Council also resolved that “...upon final consent to Amendment No. 38 further consideration and report to Council will be given to ….. implementation of the statutory process for part closure of the Beach Street Road Reserve, including a formal approach to the Minister for Planning to agree a process whereby proceeds from the road closure are made available for other reserve acquisitions and improvements throughout the East End area.” The Beach St road reserve north from James St to the new link connection to Queen Victoria Street is in part up to 44 metres wide. The current 2 lane roadway and cycle paths are a total of 10.5 metres wide and the remaining reserve area is used for parking associated with Officeworks, the Flying Angel Club and Shacks Car Sales. The road reserve in the remainder of Beach St south of James St is generally the more standard 20 metres wide, and is only 16.5 metres wide at some locations. The following cross section illustrates the current arrangement of lanes, footpaths, verges and car parking in the road reserve.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 103
Figure 2
Subsequent to the gazettal of Amendment No. 38 on 1 July 2011, discussions have been underway between the City, the adjacent landowners and the Department of Lands. This report recommends that the Council commence the statutory process for the part closure of the road reserve in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA), which includes a public advertising and comment period.
COMMENT
Throughout the Amendment No. 38 process there was general agreement that the excess area of the Beach Street road reserve should be closed and utilised more effectively as part of the east end residential quarter. The only aspect being questioned was what the width of the remaining road reserve should be. Incorporated into Amendment No. 38 was the rezoning of an area of the current road reserve to Mixed Use zone. The new zoning boundary was located in order to retain a 23 metre wide road reserve. At that stage it is considered that a 23 metre wide road reserve would be sufficient for likely future road requirements, however the location of the zoning boundary does not restrict the location of the eventual road reserve boundary that would be determined through a formal road closure process. Subsequent investigations, including consultation with Fremantle Ports, has identified that a 20 metre wide reserve would be sufficient for likely future road requirements along Beach St including access into Gate 2. An appropriate truncation would be required at the intersection with the link road to Queen Victoria Street. This width would make it similar to the remainder of Beach Street south of James Street that has a maximum width of 20 metres, which is a typical road reserve width in central Fremantle. The area of the proposed road closure is approximately 3800 square metres. A 20 metre wide reserve would enable the existing one vehicle lane and bicycle lane in each direction to be retained, together with the possible future addition of on-street parking and wider verges/footpaths with street tree planting. It would also enable a turning lane to
City of Fremantle
PAGE 104
be provided at the Gate 2 entry to Victoria Quay if required in the future, in place of on-street parking at that location. The following cross section illustrates conceptually how a 20 metre wide reserve could adequately accommodate all of these elements.
Figure 3
The need to improve the amenity, safety and streetscape appearance of the adjacent section of Queen Victoria Street was considered during the East End project and Amendment 38 to be important to improve this gateway to the city centre as well as the attraction of the potential residential neighbourhood. Accordingly, 3.3 metre wide setbacks are required to both sides of this section of Queen Victoria Street. The amendment also enables the area of the setback on the western side of Queen Victoria Street to be transferred at no cost to the Council for road widening purposes in return for discretionary additional building height on specified sites. There is also the opportunity that the setback area along Queen Victoria Street could be acquired by the City at no cost via a land swap with part of the Beach Street reserve that is proposed to be closed as the same property owners would be involved. Through this approach the road widening could be achieved without relying on adjacent development seeking discretionary additional height approvals. The Council has previously resolved that all land acquisition and disposal in this area should be at no cost to the City. It is proposed that a business case be prepared by the City and the involved landowners and used to support a request to the Minister for Lands and State Cabinet regarding the valuation of the land and how the proceeds from the sale of the land should be used, including the possibility of a land swap to enable the acquisition and widening of Queen Victoria Street. The business case will address:
City of Fremantle
PAGE 105
- The background to the proposal, including the broader context of the land in terms of its role within the Fremantle city centre and the consistency of that with regional planning objectives.
- The strategic significance of the site as the prime development within the east end area and entry statement to the city and the importance of securing its viable redevelopment and the catalytic impact of this development.
- Capital investment anticipated with the development of the sites. - Community benefits that may be accrued through the development of the sites. - Revenue generation capacity resulting from redevelopment. - Costs offsets; including the cost of the relocation of a major sewer and any other infrastructure to
enable development of the enlarged sites to proceed, and the value of land along the Queen Victoria Street frontage of these sites that would be given as road reserve at no cost to the City.
The results of the public advertising of the proposed partial closure would be reported back to Council for a decision to proceed with the closure and amalgamation of the subject portion of the road reserve with the adjacent properties. The proposed business case regarding the land valuation will also be presented for council consideration at that time. Subject to Council approval to proceed with the part closure following the advertising period, an application is made to State Land Services to close and amalgamate the Subject Land in accordance with Section 58 and Section 87 of the LAA.
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
There are no financial or budget implications related to a decision to proceed with advertising of the proposed part road closure. Legal
The process for the part closure of the road reserve needs to be undertaken in accordance with Section 58 and Section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997. Operational
Nil Organisational
Nil
CONCLUSION
It is concluded that the council should commence the statutory process for the partial closure of the Beach Street road reserve between James Street and the link road to Queen Victoria Street. The report also concludes that that retaining a road reserve width of 20 metres would be sufficient for anticipated future road uses in this area. The proposed road closure and amalgamation with the adjoining properties requires a 35 day public consultation and advertising period pursuant of Section 58 and 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 106
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Closure of the superfluous area of road reserve to enable its redevelopment for high density residential use would reinforce the Council’s strategic objectives for urban renewal and integration. Retention of Beach Street with one lane in each direction would reinforce the Council’s strategic imperative to increase reliance on public transport options rather than on private transport.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The recommendation is to seek community comment on the proposed part road closure. The results of the public advertising will be reported back to Council.
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Simple Majority Required
COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
That Council; 1. Undertake a public consultation and advertising process including a 35 day
public comment period for the proposed partial closure and amalgamation (with adjoining properties) of a portion of the Beach Street road reserve located between James Street and the link road to Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle (as shown in Figure 1) in accordance with Section 58 and Section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997.
2. Following the comment period:
a) Consider the results of the public advertising process and determine whether to proceed with an application for closure to the Department of Regional Development and Lands.
b) Consider a proposed business case to the Minister for Lands and State Cabinet regarding the valuation of the land and how the proceeds from the disposal of the land should be used, including for the acquisition of land for a road widening along the adjacent section of Queen Victoria Street.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 107
MOVED: Cr R Fittock CARRIED: 7/0
For Against
Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan
City of Fremantle
PAGE 108
PSC1311-185 CITY OF FREMANTLE SUBMISSION TO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING CONCERNING THE DISCUSSION PAPER - "PLANNING PROVISIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING"
DataWorks Reference: 118/001, 102/009 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PSC 20 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Attachments: Options for the introduction of affordable housing into the
WA planning system (excerpt from the Discussion Paper)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Planning is seeking public comment on a discussion paper titled “Planning provisions for affordable housing”. The period for public comment ends 9 December 2013. The discussion paper is in response to a specific action in the State Government’s “State Affordable Housing Strategy 2010-2020: Opening Doors to Affordable Housing”, to investigate the role that the planning system can play in the provision of affordable housing. In essence the discussion paper is seeking comment initially on whether planning should have a role to play in the provision of affordable housing, and then on a variety of measures that can be applied to the planning system to deliver housing affordability. These measures range from provisions to aimed at delivering greater diversity of housing stock to provisions that mandate components of affordable housing within new developments. This report presents an overview of the discussion paper for Council’s consideration and a recommended submission in the format provided in the discussion paper. BACKGROUND
The following information is relevant to this report. State Affordable Housing Strategy 2010-2020: Opening Doors to Affordable Housing In 2011, the State Government released the State Affordable Housing Strategy 2010-2020: Opening Doors to Affordable Housing (SAH Strategy). The SAH Strategy was prepared to respond to the issue of housing affordability and the supply of affordable housing in WA and outlines a multi-faceted and coordinated approach to improve the supply of affordable housing and the effectiveness of the housing system. Two key points from the SAH Strategy relevant to this report are:
City of Fremantle
PAGE 109
1. The SAH Strategy identified the planning system as having a crucial role to play in the provision of affordable housing by increasing density and providing for different forms of dwelling construction and dwelling configuration. Further the SAH Strategy encourages the use of incentivised planning provisions where greater development yield is available subject to the development including an affordable housing component.
2. The SAH Strategy introduced a definition for ‘Affordable Housing’, as well as
definitions for ‘low income households’ and ‘moderate income households’ which are referenced in the definition of ‘Affordable Housing’. This definition provides a clear and measurable statement by what is meant by affordable housing and one that is capable of adapting over time as income levels change. Affordable housing is defined as:
“Affordable housing refers to dwellings which households on low-to-moderate incomes can afford, while meeting other essential living costs. It includes public housing, not-for-profit housing, other subsidised housing under the National Rental Affordability Scheme together with private rental and home ownership options for those immediately outside the subsidised social housing system.” “Low Income Households refers to housings with incomes between 50% and 80% of the median household income (i.e. $36,000 - $57,000 p.a. for WA, as at August 2010).” “Moderate Income Households refers to households with incomes between 80% and 120% of the median household income (i.e. $57,000 - $86,000 p.a. for WA, as at August 2010).”
City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) currently seeks to address housing affordability in a number of ways, outlined as follows: 1. Offering residential density bonuses for development of ‘low income housing’ in
appropriately coded residential areas. 2. Mandating for a diverse range of dwelling sizes in developments of ten or more
multiple dwellings. This provision applies throughout the Scheme area. 3. Small secondary dwellings – allowing for small secondary dwellings to be built on
residential properties, occupied independently of the main dwelling, and in certain circumstances constructed without the need for planning approval.
4. Increased height for developments on select sites in the city centre where 15% of the residential component of the development is provided as affordable housing, amongst other discretionary criteria (Amendment 49). The definition of affordable housing in LPS4 is the same as that provided in the SAH Strategy.
5. Proposed Amendment 50 will introduce provisions to allow for the development, and subsequent subdivision, of an additional dwelling on certain lots with dual road frontage irrespective of the residential density coding applicable to the land.
OVERVIEW OF DISCUSSION PAPER: PLANNING PROVISIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
City of Fremantle
PAGE 110
The Department of Planning discussion paper, Planning Provisions for Affordable Housing, responds to the commitment made in the SAH Strategy that the State Government explores opportunities for the planning system to facilitate the development of affordable housing. The discussion paper has two broad objectives: ‘1. Outline a range of approaches that the planning system could use to engage with
affordable housing, including whether it should encourage, actively promote or mandate the provision of affordable housing; and
2. Drawing on these approaches, present a range of implementation options, seeking
feedback from key stakeholders on the implications of each, and determine which is most appropriate for Western Australia.’ (Page 7)
After gaining feedback on this discussion paper, the Department of Planning will consult with key stakeholders to inform the development of an implementation framework based on a preferred approach, including statutory and policy provisions. A final package of planning provisions will be developed for approval by the WAPC and State Government for implementation through the planning system. The discussion paper requests that submissions be made in response to specific questions that are structured under three main sections. The following comments summarise the discussion paper with relevance to these three sections that will form the recommended submission. 1. The role of planning in delivering affordable housing - overview of Western
Australian planning system and comparison with other states The head of power for planning in Western Australia is the Planning and Development Act 2005 (PD Act 2005). The discussion paper notes that there is no reference to either housing diversity or affordability in the PD Act 2005 nor is housing affordability referenced as a matter to be dealt with by a local planning scheme. The PD Act 2005 therefore does not provide a clear head of power for local planning schemes to require consideration or delivery of affordable housing as part of development. This situation differs from other states within Australia (SA, NSW, Qld, Vic) where housing affordability and diversity are specific objectives of the relevant legislation. In SA and NSW supporting planning policies explicitly or implicitly support the development and protection of affordable housing in local planning schemes. In South Australia, government policy requires that 15 percent of all new significant development is to be dedicated for affordable housing, whilst in NSW mandatory requirements and developer contributions are enabled in some locations. Even though there is considered a lack of a clear head of power in Western Australia for the planning system to consider housing affordability, high level strategic planning documents (eg. Directions 2031 and draft Central Metropolitan Perth Sub-Regional Strategy) include objectives relating to improving or providing affordable and diverse housing. However these documents tend to focus on planning’s ability to provide a diverse range of housing options through dwelling diversity and lot size controls that are intended to provide lower cost housing, and by reducing the regulatory barriers to land availability. These documents suggest that dedicated affordable housing should be delivered by
City of Fremantle
PAGE 111
affordable housing providers (through the purchase and management of market housing), rather than the planning system itself. Current planning measures to address housing diversity and affordability To date the planning system’s approach to addressing housing affordability has largely been focussed on improving the diversity of dwellings with the recent changes to the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) allowing for greater flexibility for Multi-Unit Housing in the medium to high residential density codings, removing the occupancy restrictions for ancillary dwellings (granny flats) and providing subdivisional incentives for smaller dwellings. Planning requirements that specifically target ‘affordable housing’ are applied inconsistently and in a generally ad hoc manner. There are differing definitions of ‘affordable housing’, and varying ways that local authorities are implementing measures to improve housing affordability that vary from mandatory components (or ‘inclusionary zoning’) to incentivised development requirements. 2. Planning mechanisms to deliver affordable housing The discussion paper considers that the different approaches to the provision of affordable housing through planning can be broadly summarised as: ‘Encouraging the development of affordable housing through measures that promote the
efficient supply of well-located diverse housing;
Promoting the development of affordable housing with specific incentives for affordable housing enabled through planning schemes and policies; or
Requiring the development of affordable housing with the use of mandatory provisions in appropriate locations.’ (page 23)
These approaches are not mutually exclusive, and can be most effective when used together. The discussion paper notes that the first approach is largely consistent with the ‘affordability through diversity’ approach outlined in Directions 2031, while the SAH Strategy and draft State Planning Strategy (2012) suggest an approach that incorporates all three. Depending on the preferred policy approach, there is a range of implementation mechanisms that can be used to facilitate affordable housing in planning schemes, policies or structure plans. Broadly speaking these mechanisms fit into the following five categories. Barrier reduction strategies: Seek to remove or reduce controls that may inhibit the development of affordable housing – eg. Restrictive covenants on new housing estates that require particular building design, finishes, materials etc. Protective mechanisms: Mechanisms or policies generally used to retain low cost accommodation in an area, or to mitigate its loss during periods of redevelopment - eg. Measures to prevent or mitigate the demolition, change of use or redevelopment of low cost housing. Planning incentives: Voluntary provisions that aim to make development projects more profitable in exchange for the provision of affordable housing - eg. Density or height bonuses, fast track approval processes.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 112
Voluntary negotiated agreements: Negotiated between a developer and the local (or redevelopment) authority before development commences and can result in the alteration of standard planning conditions in enhance for the provision of affordable housing across the whole development. Usually occur in redevelopments of large land parcels. Potentially could also occur during the development of a local structure plan. Mandatory provisions: Require that a certain percentage or floor area of the development is provided as affordable housing. Can also include cash payments in lieu of providing the land and/or dwellings as affordable housing. 3. Preferred implementation options for Western Australia. The discussion paper presents four potential options for the introduction of affordable housing into the Western Australian planning system, ranging from the ‘diversity as a proxy for affordability’ approach at one end of the spectrum through to the introduction of mandatory requirements at the other. Each approach is likely to require a different combination of legislative, statutory, policy and other supportive mechanisms.
The discussion paper provides a discussion on the key elements, pros and cons of each of the four options which has been attached to this report (refer Attachment 1). COMMENT The discussion paper requests that submissions be made in response to specific questions, whilst also providing space for expanded discussion. This format has been used to prepare the City’s submission on the discussion paper, as follows. 1. The role of planning in delivering affordable housing. Do you think the planning system should play a role in helping to deliver affordable housing? Yes, the City is of the strong view that the planning system has a role to play in the delivery of affordable housing. In this regard the City supports the recognition of housing affordability at the highest level of the planning framework to provide a clear and unchallengeable head of power.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 113
Traditionally the planning system did not consider issues such as housing affordability as it was considered that the market was the best mechanism to deliver housing to meet the demand at the ‘correct’ price. However the market changed due to factors largely outside of the planning realm (including deregulation of the financial sector, favourable tax incentives for property investment, superannuation investments, and general economic prosperity) all of which have resulted in the costs of housing increasing disproportionately to the increase in the average household income. The desire to purchase a dwelling is still firmly entrenched in Australian society with the vast majority of people preferring to own and occupy a property rather than rent (Department of Planning: The housing we’d choose: a study for Perth and Peel, 2013) however the recent dramatic decline in housing affordability in Perth since the early 2000s has resulted in this aspiration of home ownership being more and more difficult to achieve. As a result people, particularly those seeking to enter the property market for the first time and key workers (police, nurses, teachers etc), are being pushed to the fringes of the metropolitan area to more affordable areas. This, in turn, has broader impacts on society in terms of infrastructure delivery, provision of services, transport and congestion; all of which contribute to a less than optimal distribution of residents and capital. In recent times planning has sought to improve the supply side of the housing market by improving the diversity of housing stock, increasing land supply and introducing measures to improve the regulatory approval process. However these initiatives seem to have had little impact on the overall affordability of housing. It is highly unlikely that the changes to Australian society that have contributed to issues of housing affordability mentioned above will be reversed or changed to such a degree that house prices will decline and affordability will improve. Therefore there is the potential for planning to influence the provision of housing in a way that doesn’t fundamentally alter the prevailing market conditions (and thus housing prices) yet in a way that opens the opportunity for those on lower to medium incomes to purchase a home in a location suitable to their occupation and needs. However, whilst planning has a dominant role in housing development up to the development approval stage, after that planning has a far more limited role in regards to the sale and occupation of housing, as clearly stated in the discussion paper (page 7). Therefore any planning measures aimed at providing greater levels of affordable housing need to be supported by strong and clear implementation processes, particularly the role of governmental and/or not-for-profit organisations in administering and ensuring the longer term supply of affordable housing. This is will require a far broader governmental approach that can ensure the relevant government and not-for-profit organisations are adequately resourced to implement the affordable housing that may be created and required through the planning system. This point is further discussed in the City’s response to Part 5, “Other issues for consideration”. 2. Planning mechanisms to deliver affordable housing. Please indicate how effective you think each of the different Implementation Mechanisms outlined in Section 6 are likely to be. Please also provide comments on the effectiveness, benefits and drawbacks of each mechanism.
Mechanism Very Somewhat Not at all Unsure
Barrier reduction strategies (e.g. limits on X
City of Fremantle
PAGE 114
restrictive covenants)
Protective mechanisms (e.g. prevent or mitigate demolition or loss of affordable housing)
X
Planning incentives (e.g. density or height bonuses)
X
Voluntary negotiated agreements (e.g. as part of broader rezoning process)
X
Mandatory provisions (e.g. provide land, housing or cash for affordable housing in each development)
X
Comments on the effectiveness, benefits and drawbacks of each mechanism: a) Barrier reduction strategies (e.g. limits on restrictive covenants) Whilst it is acknowledged that some restrictive covenants may impact on the cost of providing housing, there is no clear evidence presented in the discussion paper that such cost impacts are major. It is also important to recognise the role such measures play in ensuring desired urban design and streetscapes within new developments and estates. If the use of such restrictive covenants was restricted, similar design focused requirements would likely be required by the local authority (potentially at the beckoning of the land developer) through a local planning policy or local development plans, which would therefore have a similar impact on housing costs (it is noted the Residential Design Codes allow for local planning policies to consider building materials, design etc). b) Protective mechanisms (e.g. prevent or mitigate demolition or loss of affordable
housing) Protective mechanisms could be effective in maintaining an existing level of affordable housing during redevelopment, however it would be important that such mechanisms are flexible so as to not unnecessarily restrict redevelopment opportunities that may provide new and updated affordable housing options. The main criticism of this option is that it doesn’t seem to provide for the delivery of any additional affordable housing. c) Planning incentives (e.g. density or height bonuses) The City supports the notion of providing greater development yield on appropriately located development sites subject to the provision of affordable housing. The City has adopted this approach in relation to key development sites in the city centre to encourage the provision of affordable housing (Scheme Amendment 49). However it is difficult to pick the tipping point where the additional development yield potentially available outweighs the additional costs involved in providing affordable housing and there becomes an incentive to provide the affordable housing component. There is a real risk with this approach that if the incentives aren’t attractive enough, then developers will simply build to the ‘as of right’ level without providing any affordable housing and thus the opportunity for new development to incorporate affordable housing will be lost. There are many variables that can influence the viability of a development and therefore it would likely to be problematic to try and apply a one size fits all approach. In
City of Fremantle
PAGE 115
this regard the City considers that an incentivised approach to affordable housing should be implemented at a local planning level however the City would welcome the support of the Department of Planning to assist in qualifying the development viability aspects of such an approach. d) Voluntary negotiated agreements (e.g. as part of broader rezoning process) Voluntary negotiated agreements appear to provide the greatest certainty for planning to deliver affordable housing as all the terms and conditions are negotiated up front to suit both parties. However there are considered limited opportunities where this approach may apply, particularly in urban renewal areas where the redevelopment opportunities are often in fragmented land ownership where multiple land owners may have varying expectations of redevelopment. e) Mandatory provisions (e.g. provide land, housing or cash for affordable housing in
each development) The City considers that mandatory provisions for affordable housing, including appropriate cash payments in lieu of on-site affordable housing in some circumstances, would be the most effective way to ensure the provision of affordable housing within Western Australia. Whilst it is likely that the development industry would resist such measures, the City’s experience with the development industry suggests that one of the greatest concerns with planning and development is regulatory uncertainty, rather than the content of planning measures that may impact on the viability of development. In this regard a universal approach at state level that clearly sets out the parameters of where and when affordable housing would be required would provide the development industry with the necessary certainty to make decisions on development viability. A mandated approach would further need to consider factors such as:
- The location of affordable housing – activity centres vs suburbs; - The concentration of affordable housing – affordable housing should be integrated into the
local housing stock rather than concentrated on individual developments; and - Ensuring the on-going provision of affordable housing in approved locations.
However, as has been discussed previously, the main consideration in regards to the effectiveness of mandating affordable housing through the planning system is the ability of housing providers to take up and administer affordable housing. It is the City’s experience that there is very little common knowledge about affordable housing and its providers throughout the development industry, with only a select number of developers actively engaged with affordable housing providers. The financial and legal aspects of affordable housing are complex and, in the City’s view, require clear and centralised standards that are administered either by government or approved not-for-profit providers. Furthermore, as affordable housing is essentially subsidised and non-profitable housing that can only be provided by government and/or not-for-profit organisations, it is critical that these organisations are adequately resourced to be able to take up the affordable housing that would be generated by the mandated approach. 3. Preferred implementation options for Western Australia. Four potential Implementation Options have been outlined in Section 8 and are summarised in the table below.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 116
Please identify any benefits, challenges or drawbacks associated with each Option. Option 1 – Focus on diversity, with no specific provisions for affordable housing The City considers that this approach would not adequately address the issues of housing affordability in Western Australia. Housing diversity measures are already in the planning system and whilst these measures could be adjusted, improved and expanded, it is not anticipated that improving housing diversity alone will sufficiently address the issue of housing affordability. The City’s response to point 5 “Other issues for consideration” elaborates further on housing diversity measures that could be pursued to address housing affordability. Also worth noting is the City’s feedback from developers that even with the introduction of the multi-unit residential design codes and therefore potential for greater dwelling yield, the most profitable and preferred form of land development within Fremantle’s suburbs is still single houses on lots of approximately 350-400sqm in area. Within the city centre area, recent multiple dwelling development approvals have included significant numbers of 1-2 bedroom units that go beyond the diversity requirements of the Residential Design Codes. Both of these situations demonstrate that, within Fremantle at least, the current diversity provisions of the R-Codes (including the plot ratio approach of the multi unit codes) aren’t necessarily the dominant factor in delivering housing diversity on the ground, rather that market conditions are still the determinant factor in determining the form of housing development. Option 2 – Allow incentives for affordable housing The City sees some merit in allowing incentives for affordable housing however, as mentioned previously in response to 1 c), it is difficult to calculate the amount of additional development potential that is required to create a financially attractive development environment where the developer would be prepared to provide an affordable housing component. In this regard, relying on an incentivised approach alone would not provide a predictable level of affordable housing as part of new development as the opportunity may be lost if the incentives are not sufficient. Whilst this option could be a step in the right direction, the City is of the view that it would not provide any certainty about the degree of affordable housing provided into the future.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 117
It is noted that the discussion paper proposes that a ‘toolbox’ would be prepared by the WAPC to assist with this incentivised approach – an initiative that would be supported by the City. Option 3 – Allow incentives for affordable housing, with requirements only allowed in selected strategic areas The comments regarding option 2 are repeated with regards to an incentivised approach to affordable housing. The City supports the idea of mandating affordable housing provisions on private land in selected strategic areas. However if this approach is only applicable once a particular need has been identified, there is concern that the delivery of affordable housing will be after housing affordability issues are already evident. Furthermore it is not clear how such a need would be determined, particularly at a localised level. However, as the provision of affordable housing within Western Australia is still a relatively new sector, this option may give the opportunity for the sector to strengthen and expand its capacity to take on greater amounts of affordable housing. Option 4 – Allow incentives and requirements for affordable housing The City is of the view that of the four options presented this approach would best address the issue of housing affordability in Western Australia, provide certainty for development and enable the growth of an affordable housing industry. However whilst this option is considered the best of the four presented, it is not without its shortcomings. The discussion paper makes a clear point that including mandatory provisions into local planning strategies and schemes would still require local governments to justify their inclusion and ultimately would still require the approval of the WAPC. Therefore whilst there may be state level support for the inclusion of mandatory affordable housing provisions in local planning schemes, the onus and responsibility would lie with the relevant local authority. This approach is considered problematic for three main reasons: 1. Local governments, reflecting local community concerns, may not see the need for
affordable housing in their community and therefore won’t include affordable housing provisions in their statutory framework;
2. The preparation of a housing strategy to support a local planning strategy is a complex, time and resource intensive undertaking that local governments may not be prepared to do within an optimal time frame (eg. local planning strategies are rarely reviewed in reality within 10 years); and
3. Given the above two points, this option does not provide certainty to the delivery of affordable housing.
In response to the next point 4, “Alternative implementation options for Western Australia”, the City proposes a revised version of this option, for consideration. With your previous answers in mind, which of the four Implementation Options do you think presents the most appropriate approach for the planning system to deliver affordable housing in Western Australia? If you have further comments explaining your choice, please provide them.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 118
Option 4. 4. Alternative implementation options for Western Australia. Are there other implementation options that are likely to be more effective than the four above? If yes, please explain what they are and why they would be more effective. Due to the 3 main concerns outlined in the response to Option 4 above, the City proposes a revised version of Option 4 for consideration. The City considers that, as a matter of principle, provisions for affordable housing should be mandated at the highest level in the planning framework, ideally through legislation and/or state planning policy, in a manner similar to the provisions pertaining to public open space provision. This would ensure that affordable housing is provided uniformly across local governments and would take away the need for local planning schemes to be individually amended to address this issue. Furthermore a mandatory approach at the highest level would provide consistency and clarity for landowners and developers as well as create market certainty for increased investment by affordable housing providers. An across the board approach would also benefit social integration of affordable housing, rather than affordable housing being concentrated and potentially isolated in select areas. The City would therefore advocate the setting of a benchmark level of affordable housing provision to be made as part of all new residential developments or subdivisions (possibly with a minimum threshold size of say 10 dwelling units/lots), probably best expressed as a minimum percentage of the total number of dwellings/lots in the overall development/subdivision. The City understands that the WAPC has previously commissioned research studies into affordable housing provision and needs in the Perth metro area that could form the basis of state level work to determine an appropriate benchmark level of affordable housing provision to be met in most developments. The City recognises however that there are genuine occasions where a set mandatory requirement for affordable housing may not be in the best interests of the locality and therefore there should also be criteria for circumstances where the requirement can be reduced, increased or waived to suit local needs. For instance, a mandated amount of affordable housing in a lower cost development targeted to the lower income housing market may have an overall negative impact on the affordability of the housing not deemed to be ‘affordable housing’, which would be an outcome not in the best interests of the development or locality (i.e. the profit margin expected from the standard housing lots would need to cover the ‘lost’ profit margin from the affordable housing component, thereby driving up the price of the standard housing lots). Also, in a locality where a higher than average proportion of the housing stock is already affordable or low cost housing, there may not be a need for more affordable housing. Another scenario to consider is where a major employment generator or activity centre may require a greater percentage of affordable housing in the locality than that specified in an overall target requirement (eg. housing for key workers near the Murdoch Specialised Centre). Exemptions or variations to the requirements could be subject to WAPC approval and could be administered by a state planning policy that sets out the relevant criteria for local planning schemes to vary the affordable housing provisions. It would be under this assessment process that housing research and/or strategies would be required at a local level to justify an exemption or variation from the mandatory, ‘across the board’ requirement.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 119
There are many details that would need careful consideration under such a proposal and the City is under no illusion that such an approach would be an easy proposition to present to the broader development and government community. However the City considers housing affordability to be a major issue in Western Australia and one that requires strong and clear direction and leadership at a state level. Pursuing a mandatory approach to affordable housing in Western Australia could have broad ranging positive implications to the future development and integration of the metropolitan area, including reducing urban sprawl pressures, reducing transport costs and congestion, which further reinforces housing affordability as a theme integral to Western Australian planning. 5. Other issues for consideration. Are there any implementation issues that the WAPC should consider when determining the best approach to using the planning system to facilitate the delivery of affordable housing? If so, what are they? The issues outlined in Section 9 (repeated overleaf) provide some examples to consider. The City strongly supports measures that can deliver greater amounts of affordable housing through the planning system. However the City’s main concern is related to the delivery, on-going management and retention of the affordable housing after the planning approval process. Introducing planning provisions to require components of affordable housing is considered the easier part of the issue – the real challenge is creating a process and environment that deals with affordable housing once the role of planning has effectively ended. The City’s experience with the development industry suggests that there is a real lack of awareness about what is ‘affordable housing’ and who can provide it and therefore how a developer can satisfy a condition of planning approval. In this regard the City sees that there is a real need for greater advocacy and education about this issue, particularly to the development industry. The Departments of Planning and Housing are considered best placed to jointly promote this issue, particularly if requirements for affordable housing become more prevalent throughout the planning system, and there needs to be a point of reference for local governments, developers and the community to gain information about the delivery of affordable housing. 6. Other comments or suggestions. Improving the diversity of housing stock is considered a significant factor in housing affordability and choice. The recent Multi Unit Housing provisions of the Residential Design Codes are a significant step in the right direction in this regard with the control focus shifted from dwelling numbers to built form outcomes. The building sector appears to have responded positively to these recent changes across many locations in the metropolitan area, with a number of new housing developments offering a greater range of housing stock commensurate with the intention of the Multi Unit Codes. However the City sees further opportunity for the R-Codes to encourage greater diversity in areas coded less than R30 in the metropolitan area with a similar emphasis on controlling built form as opposed to dwelling numbers. The current system for the lower density coded areas tends to encourage a low to modest dwelling yield of large houses without offering any real incentive for innovative built form approaches that could increase the dwelling yield whilst still respecting the existing amenity of the area. Therefore the City strongly encourages the Department of Planning to further review the lower density provisions of the R-Codes to identify opportunities to incentivise innovative built form outcomes that offer greater housing diversity.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 120
CONCLUSION
Consideration that the planning system has a role to play in the provision of affordable housing is enthusiastically welcomed as the City is of the strong view that the planning system is well positioned to assist in the delivery of affordable housing. Overall the City considers that a mandatory requirement for affordable housing embedded in the planning framework at the highest level is the optimal statutory approach required to really address the issue of housing affordability in Western Australia. However, the provision of affordable housing is a complex issue that demands the efforts of not just the planning sector of government. The implementation of affordable housing is the real challenge to this issue and is the area that needs the most attention to ensure that any planning controls can be effectively and efficiently implemented. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to present a submission to the Department of Planning regarding the discussion paper, “Planning Provisions for Affordable Housing”, in accordance with the officer comments contained in this report. CARRIED: 7/0
For Against
Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan
City of Fremantle
PAGE 121
PSC1311-186 PROPOSED SUBMISSION ON THE STATE PLANNING DOCUMENT.DOCX
DataWorks Reference: 102/009 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects and Policy Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officers Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: None Attachments: 1. Planning Reform Phase Two Discussion Paper – Specific
submission points
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In September 2013 the Minister for Planning launched the document Planning makes it happen: Phase two – Planning reform discussion paper for public comment. This discussion paper follows on from the first phase of planning reform in 2009, which was implemented in the document Planning Makes it Happen: a blueprint for planning reform. Phase Two is part of the same reform process but it has a primary focus on statutory decision making, governance and administrative reforms. The public consultation period for the phase two planning reform discussion paper closes Friday 13 December 2013. It is recommended that the City of Fremantle should make a submission on the ‘Phase Two’ discussion paper that expresses support for planning reform in general, and a mixture of support and concern in relation to the specific proposals and proposed approaches. The recommended submission is set out in two parts: the main points being the subject of this report and specific comments on each part of the reform paper provided in Attachment One. Both parts will form the City’s full submission, which Council is recommended to approve. BACKGROUND
Planning Makes it Happen: a blueprint for planning reform (phase one) In September 2009 the Minister for Planning launched Planning Makes it Happen: a blueprint for planning reform. This was considered the initiation of a comprehensive reform agenda for the Western Australian planning system, the largest since the establishment of the Metropolitan Region Scheme in 1963. In February 2013, the Government released a Report card for planning reform to report on the achievements against Planning makes it happen, which identified that the Phase One initiatives have largely been implemented. These initiatives included the following key outcomes:
Draft State Planning Strategy
Directions 2031 and Beyond Strategy
Economic and Employment Lands Strategy
Multi-unit Housing Code
City of Fremantle
PAGE 122
Development Assessment Panels
Review of key WAPC policies
Delivery of the Urban Development Program Online
Structure Plan Guidelines
Model Subdivision Conditions Planning makes it happen: Phase two – Planning reform discussion Paper Phase Two of this reform process, launched in September 2013 and the subject of this report, has identified more opportunities for improvements to the planning system, with a primary focus on statutory decision making, and governance and administrative reforms. The key aims of Phase Two of the reform process are:
• embed best practice in the Western Australian planning system at both the State and local government level
• ensure further streamlining of planning processes, aligning statutory outcomes with strategic frameworks
• enable more integrated land use and infrastructure planning and support the timely release of development land in accordance with Government policy objectives
• reinforce the State and regional strategic focus of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), supported by the Department of Planning (DoP).
A summary of the proposed planning reforms for each planning mechanism and at each phase is provided in figure one below.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 123
Figure 1 - Summary of State reforms to the statutory planning process
The Planning makes it happen: Phase two – Planning Reform Discussion Paper (‘the Discussion Paper’) is comprehensive in scope and attempts to improve statutory planning processes, by investigating reform initiatives at each stage of the land development process, from region scheme provisions through to development applications. This includes initiatives to streamline approval processes and to ensure that decision making occurs efficiently and by the most appropriate responsible authority, as well as legislative and procedural improvements to the overall planning system. The paper is divided into the following main parts: Statutory planning reform initiatives
1. Review of the Metropolitan Region Scheme 2. Improve amendment process for region planning schemes 3. Sub-regional structure plans to amend region planning schemes 4. Concurrent amendment of region planning schemes and local planning schemes 5. Improve local planning schemes review process 6. Improved local planning scheme amendment process 7. Streamline structure plan process 8. Develop a track based (risk assessment) development assessment model 9. Private certification of development applications 10. Standardise delegations of local government development decisions 11. Electronic application System 12. Refining the role of Development Assessment Panels
Governance and administrative reform
1. Design and reform 2. Role of the Western Australian Planning Commission 3. Improve the function of the infrastructure coordination committee 4. Local government planning accreditation 5. Funding of region planning schemes and initiatives 6. Administrative review of the Planning and Development Act 2005
The main points which officers consider should be addressed in the City’s submission are discussed below. Specific comments on the sections listed above are provided for in Attachment 1 of this report. Both the discussion below and the specific comments in Attachment 1 will form the City’s full submission. PLANNING COMMENT
The City of Fremantle is supportive of reform in the planning system and commends the WAPC for comprehensively examining opportunities to improve the current system. There are many opportunities to streamline areas of the strategic and statutory planning system and the City supports the objective of a simplified approval process, greater clarity and less ambiguity in terms of legislation, policy or conditions, reduction of dual approval processes and duplication, improved working relationships between planning agencies, and an examination of delegation arrangements, to ensure the most efficient and effective planning system possible. The City also considers this an opportunity to review the planning system overall in a broader context and to prioritise reform where it matters most.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 124
The main points that officers recommend the City should make on the Discussion Paper are provided below, followed by comments on other broader considerations of planning reform. Statutory planning reform initiatives Part 3.5 - Improve local planning scheme review process - permitted development The City is supportive of prescribed standardised permitted development provisions for minor development in the Model Scheme text (MST). It is considered there is general consensus throughout the industry that "we need to get out of the small and trivial planning issues," but there is no clear framework to achieve this effectively. The area of permitted (or exempted) development has huge potential to provide far greater clarity (and thus reduced operating costs) in development control, planning compliance, and in industries such as air conditioning, fencing, roller shutters, aerials and antenna, and of course, housing. The City is mindful however that Fremantle, along with a number of other local government areas, has a unique character and heritage is a large contributor to this character. Accordingly the City would not support standard permitted development provisions extending to include demolition of unlisted houses or the development of single dwellings. The City of Fremantle has undertaken several amendments to its Local Planning Scheme to provide far greater clarity in this regard, and has introduced a graduated level of permitted development whereby the requirement to obtain planning approval varies based on whether a property is heritage listed, located within a heritage area, or has no specific additional area based controls. There is no reason why such a system could not be embodied in the MST to deal with area specific limits on permitted development. The essential principle is embedding within the scheme a specific and objective ‘cut off’ point below which certain development simply falls outside of planning control. This standardised approach to exempt development could be supported in principle; however, local governments should have the power to determine exceptions to such a standardised list of permitted development based on specific local circumstances. These local variations should be proposed and justified through a local scheme amendment, which would give the WAPC and the Planning Minister final authority to determine whether to support particular variations. Moreover, Local Planning Schemes in WA cross reference back to the definition of ‘development’ in the Planning and Development Act 2005. The definition of development, when legally interpreted, covers a very broad range of land related activities with no clear cut off point at the bottom end of the development scale. Local governments have to take planning applications for anything considered ‘development’ unless there are provisions in their planning scheme to exempt certain development types. Part 3.6 - Improve local planning scheme amendment process The City supports the Discussion Paper proposal to relax the current requirement for all scheme amendments to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to determine whether an environmental assessment is required prior to public advertising of the amendment. The City agrees the EPA referral requirement should only apply to scheme amendments with significant environmental implications. In the City’s experience the slowest part of the Scheme amendment process is after Council approval and once the amendment is with WAPC determination. Simple text
City of Fremantle
PAGE 125
amendments have taken at least six months for WAPC to determine, others have taken over a year. The City understands there have been staffing and other resource issues at the WAPC, however this bottleneck in the process is unsatisfactory and is an area that should be improved. The City’s suggestion, other than additional funding to this area, would be to include deemed approval timeframes into the Planning and Development Act 2005 for at least minor Scheme amendments. The City considers a 90 day deemed approval period would be appropriate and reasonable for minor text and map scheme amendments, i.e. the amendment would be deemed to be automatically approved at the end of 90 days unless the WAPC and Minister has made an explicit determination on the amendment and notified the local government of the decision. Additionally, there is currently little transparency in this part of the process. Information on the WAPC’s assessment of scheme amendments is not easily accessible nor is the Department of Planning officer’s recommendation to WAPC made public as all Scheme amendment reports go to the WAPC Statutory Planning Committee as confidential items. The City considers more transparency should be introduced into this process, comparable to the manner in which local governments report planning proposals for Council determination. This could also assist early resolution of any concerns held by the WAPC prior to a report being presented to the Statutory Planning Committee through greater dialogue with the relevant local government, thereby speeding up the overall process. Part 3.7 - Streamline Structure Plan Process The Discussion Paper proposes that the MST includes provisions on structure plans and the WAPC becomes the single determining body for all structure plans. The City is supportive of standardised scheme provisions through the MST that cover structure plan preparation and determination processes. However City officers do not support the proposal to make the WAPC the sole approval body for all structure plans. As mentioned above, it appears that the Department of Planning and the WAPC lacks adequate capacity to process Scheme amendments in a timely manner, let alone adding all local government structure plans to this workload. This reform initiative will, therefore, not result in a more streamlined approach, nor is it considered necessary. The City’s current Planning Scheme allows for smaller scale structure plans which do not involve subdivision to be determined by Council. This existing approach is considered adequate. However, if the proposal to make the WAPC the sole determining body for all structure plans is carried through, the City additionally suggests that at the same time as structure plan approval Local Planning Scheme maps should be concurrently automatically amended to show the new land zoning and density coding contained in the approved structure plan. Currently there is often a time lag between approval and implementation of a structure plan and amendment of the local planning scheme to reflect the zonings and residential density codings in the approved structure plan. This can be confusing for the public and means that local governments have to undertake a time and resource consuming amendment to the Scheme maps to rezone these areas to correct this issue. Part 3.9 - Private certification of development applications As part of the reform process the WAPC proposes to investigate the possibility for private sector involvement in the development assessment process including approval of applications. The WAPC acknowledges that there would need to be a clear demonstration of need and articulation of benefits in the public interest including cost, processing times and maintaining quality design outcomes. The discussion paper refers to models of private
City of Fremantle
PAGE 126
certification used in the Queensland and New South Wales planning systems, and also the private certification of Building Code of Australia compliance introduced into WA in 2012. The City acknowledges that there is merit in exploring opportunities for simplifying local government regulation of every aspect of development control, particularly in relation to small scale, low impact development proposals. In essence, this has been the philosophy behind the City’s scheme amendments that have introduced a broad range of permitted development provisions – simplify and speed up the development process by removing the need to obtain planning approval altogether for minor types of development. Nonetheless, officers consider the City should not support the private certification proposals in their current form. A fundamental issue is that there is a public expectation that local government as a planning authority acts as an impartial decision-maker which balances the private interests of applicants against the interests of the broader local community. It is unclear how a private certifier acting on behalf of an applicant could similarly balance potentially conflicting interests. The NSW and Queensland planning systems have significant differences to the WA system and it is unclear how private certification systems used in those states could be made to work within the WA system, where there are greater variations within the provisions of individual local planning schemes and capacity for significant discretionary judgement in the application of key planning instruments such as the R Codes. Moreover, comparing private certification of planning approvals to private certification of BCA compliance is questionable, as building permits are a purely technical assessment of construction standard compliance against a national document. In the WA planning environment, a private planning certifier would be required to be fully conversant with all local governments’ scheme and specific planning policy provisions, which vary considerably across LGA’s and often involve discretionary assessments. If there were several private certifiers operating, it is quite conceivable that different certifiers would apply different interpretations to discretionary elements of the same local government’s planning scheme and policies, resulting in inconsistent outcomes to the assessment of very similar development proposals. Part 3.10 - Standardised delegations of local government development decisions The delegation of planning decision-making authority from Councils to local government planning staff varies considerably between local governments. The delegation of decision making powers comes from council through the Local Government Act, generally in the form of a delegation schedule which sets out what types of development applications the council will determine and what applications planning staff or the Chief Executive Officer may determine. The reform paper proposes standardising this approach throughout the state. The City does not support this. It is considered reasonable and appropriate for individual Councils to determine what level of delegation to officers they (acting on behalf of their community) feel comfortable granting. As an alternative the City suggests that a best practice document highlighting commonly-accepted levels of delegated authority and other guidance on when, and at what level, delegation to officers could and/or should be considered would allow local governments to tailor delegation to their own individual situation, but in the context of the general benefits of delegated authority in terms of timely decision-making. Part 3.12 - Refining the role of Development Assessment Panels While it is understood that one of the aims of the DAP process was to streamline the development assessment and determination process, on the whole processing times have
City of Fremantle
PAGE 127
not been significantly reduced. The Discussion Paper reveals that in the two full years that DAPs have been in operation, in 2011-12 only 56% of all applications determined by DAPs were determined within the statutory timeframe, and in 2012-13 only 57%. In some instances applications that could previously have been dealt with more quickly under local government delegated authority to officers have taken longer through the DAP process. One such impact is requests from applicants for multiple extensions of time. Overall, this defeats the purpose of DAP applications in reducing processing times. It is understood that while some developers may prefer the DAP process, the City has also been advised by several applicants that they would be satisfied going through the normal Council determination process rather than make a DAP application. There have also been instances where applicants have undervalued the proposed development to avoid the mandatory DAP application requirement which applies to development with a value of more than $7m, enabling the application to fall into the ‘optional’ DAP category whereby the applicant can then elect to have the application determined by the local government. In consideration of the above issues, the City therefore recommends that as part of the proposed DAP reforms, the mandatory DAP requirements be deleted altogether and that within the current use class and contract value limits, all applications be optional DAP applications. In other words, for any development over $3m in value (within the applicable use classes) the applicant can choose at point of submission whether the application is to be determined by the local government or the relevant DAP. Part 4 - Governance and administrative reform Part 4.1 - Design and development initiatives The reform paper proposes the following design initiatives to deliver better built form and place design outcomes: 1. the development of a State Planning Policy, design manual or scheme provisions
enshrining the importance of, and principles for, quality design, including architectural, urban, landscape and environmentally sensitive design;
2. for local governments to establish design advisory panels and/or ‘city architects’ positions (for larger/urban local governments);
3. for development applications over certain thresholds (e.g. multi storey office or apartment developments) to be assessed by a design review panel prior to determination by a Development Assessment Panel; and
4. to amend the Multi-Unit Housing R-Codes provisions to require multi-unit housing to be designed by a qualified, registered architect.
The City is in full support of reform initiatives aimed at enhancing the quality of the built environment. The City has already undertaken steps within its own planning framework, through both the local planning scheme and local planning policies, to implement a number of the initiatives listed above. These include a sustainable building design policy, discretionary development ‘bonuses’ linked to achievement of exceptional design quality in select areas, and the establishment of a Design Advisory Committee to provide the City with expert architectural and urban design advice on the most significant development proposals (as provided for within the City’s Local Planning Scheme). Additionally, the City is in the process of initiating a proposed amendment to the City’s Scheme that would require registered architects to design or direct the design of large developments. This proposed amendment (no. 42) is currently being considered by Council.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 128
The City considers the development of a State Planning Policy or similar on quality design as proposed at point 1 above, would further support the City’s own design initiatives and provide local government with clear guidance and support in pursuing quality design in local planning policy and the scheme. A State policy on quality design would also provide clarity in State Administrative Tribunal cases to local governments where a development application has been refused on design related grounds. ‘Greening’ of the planning system The City of Fremantle is committed to promoting sustainable building design initiatives and incorporating these initiatives into the planning system, however, there is minimal state level guidance or legislative support for local government in this area. The City has a number of planning policies that address sustainability in multi residential development, incentivised sustainable building design and energy efficiency in low density residential subdivision through a split density code, and guidelines on energy efficient building design. The City recommends sustainable building and energy efficient design is given consideration in part 4.1 as an opportunity to deliver a built form that encompasses within quality design the need to provide environmental, health and economic benefits to residents and the community. Part 4.4 - Local government planning accreditation The Discussion Paper proposes the concept of the establishment of a planning accreditation system for local governments to formalise induction, training and professional development. Accredited local governments may then receive an increase in the range and volume of planning decision-making powers and other functions delegated to them from the Department of Planning and the WAPC. The accreditation system would include options for training and development of local government councillors and officers and be based on the following factors:
alignment of local planning framework to State planning objectives and policies;
currency (age) of local planning scheme and policies;
adoption of best practice and planning reform initiatives;
qualifications and experience of planning staff;
training of all councillors on statutory planning decision making;
levels of delegation of planning decisions by council to planning staff;
public accessibility of information on local planning and development applications; and
annual audit results - such as meeting key performance indicators or development application timeframes and analysis of State Administrative Tribunal appeals.
The City considers the majority of the factors identified above are reflected in best practice systems of induction, training and professional development already functioning in local governments, and therefore the benefits of a formal accreditation system are debatable. However, if an accreditation system was linked to substantive and not merely token increases in delegation of functions to local government to support improved efficiencies in the planning process, for example determination powers for two or three lot residential subdivisions and power to self-approve very minor scheme amendments, then the City considers this proposal may have merit. Accordingly, the City reserves its comments on this point until further detail is provided. Part 4.6 - Administrative review of the Planning and Development Act 2005
City of Fremantle
PAGE 129
The submission points on the document ‘Review of the Planning and Development Act 2005’ are detailed in Attachment 1 of this report to form part of the City’s submission on planning reform. Overall, the City is supportive of the following reform revisions of the Act relating to the following:
elements of region and local planning schemes review;
cash in lieu of open space;
elements of proposed subdivision and development control;
enforcement and legal proceedings;
public works exemptions; and
interaction of the P&D Act with other legislation.
Other considerations - planning reform in a broader context Both the previous Phase One and the currently proposed Phase Two planning reforms are significant in attempting to improve efficiency and clarity of the WA planning system. However, this next phase of planning reform needs to clear on its intent – is it reform to increase efficiency in process and cost savings (streamline), or reform to produce higher quality outcomes (improve), or both? Whichever is the case is the scope and focus of the reform process correct? The shortcomings of the current planning framework, particularly with regard to timeframes, ambiguity and duplication, have a flow on affect impacting on not just LGA’s but the planning sector and related development and property industry as a whole. Therefore planning reform needs to consider what it is trying to achieve within a broader context, and in doing so, identify where reform is most needed and prioritise the reform approach accordingly. Much of the cost in time and money to all stakeholders in the planning system is the impact of discretionary decision making in lower level of planning matters. Discretionary assessment, while allowing a degree of flexibility in design, has increasingly created a greater sense of uncertainty and potential inconsistency in the assessment and outcomes of development applications. This can often lead to conflict between interested parties; most frequently an applicant and the adjoining property owner(s). These lower level complications are resource consuming, slow the decision making process and take focus and time away from high level strategic planning. The most common example of this issue is applications for dwellings which do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ standards but instead rely on a determination of whether or not the design principles in the R Codes are met. The relatively subjective nature of many of the design principles in the R Codes (e.g. open space, boundary setbacks) invite increased conflict at an applicant to neighbour level due to the capacity for different interpretations and expectations of the R Code requirements. Local governments are regularly caught in the middle of this conflict and spend a disproportionate amount of elected member and officer time and other resources in effectively acting as an arbitrator through the planning application process. Several reviews and amendments of the R Codes in recent years have failed to address this issue at a fundamental level, and it is considered that a more radical redesign of the R Codes, focused on reducing areas of discretionary judgement and requiring compliance with unambiguous standards, would deliver substantial benefits in terms of cost and time savings to applicants and local governments, improved community acceptance of development outcomes, and allow better balance within the planning system in the allocation of resources to both the development assessment process and broader strategic planning work.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 130
A second area for greater attention could be the interaction between the Planning and Development Act 2005 and other legislation, particularly the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 and the Land Administration Act 1997, and related regulations and policy documents. There are significant areas of duplication/ overlap and ambiguity at present which creates unnecessary costs in terms of time and efficiency within legal and administrative processes, and gives scope for misinterpretation and challenges to decision-making. Improvements in these areas could free up resources at state and local government level, and within the development and property industries, to be re-focused on other priorities. State planning assessment timeframes The City supports further streamlining of planning processes through phase two of planning reform however much of this focus is on local government practice and process. The symbiotic relationship between local government and State government agencies within the planning framework should also be given greater consideration, particularly State level planning assessment processes and timeframes, in order to deliver effective planning reform. Finalisation of State planning documents In recent years the DoP and the WAPC have produced a number of draft State planning documents, however few have been finalised or the period of finalisation has been extensive. This leads to uncertainty as to the statutory weight or consideration to be given to such documents, particularly when the document assumes an ‘official’ status with State agencies without having formally being adopted. Improved timeliness in the completion and formal adoption of such documents would reduce uncertainty and enable local governments to proceed with planning strategy and policy development at a local level in confidence that it is consistent with relevant state level documents. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the Council makes a submission on the Planning makes it happen: Phase two – Planning reform discussion Paper as outlined in the Planning Comment section above and Specific submission points in attachment 1. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr R Fittock
That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer, on behalf of the City of Fremantle, to make a submission on the Department of Planning’s ‘Planning makes it happen: Phase Two - Planning Reform Discussion Paper’ (September 2013) to be based on the matters contained within this report including Attachment 1 and the following comments:
1. The City supports reform relating to the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS), in particular: a. Eliminating the requirement for dual approval of development applications under both
the MRS and Local Planning Scheme.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 131
2. The City supports reform to the overall region planning scheme system (not just the MRS)
including: a. Simplifying the public advertising process for scheme amendments b. Removing the requirement for referral to the Environmental Protection Authority for
agreed categories of amendments c. Concurrent amendment of a region planning scheme with the relevant zonings and
reservations of an approved sub-regional structure plan subject to the sub-regional structure plan being required to accurately define the cadastral boundaries of the land to which it will apply
d. Increasing the scope of concurrent amendment of region planning schemes and local planning schemes to cut out duplication and delay caused by the current separation of these processes
3. The City supports the principle of reform to simplify and increase the efficiency of the local planning scheme review process, including:
a. Prescribing by regulations a standard set of scheme provisions covering administrative matters, standard procedures for dealing with structure plans, development applications and development contribution plans and additionally, steps and timeframes for the DoP/WAPC in the Scheme review process
b. The removal of the requirement for all local planning scheme amendments to be referred to EPA before advertising
c. Prescribing standardised permitted (exempt) development for minor development in the Model Scheme Text, however local governments should have the power to determine local variations (addition or removal of certain categories of development) to a standardised list where justified on grounds of local character or other special circumstances through a scheme amendment process and subject to Ministerial approval.
4. The City recognises that the principle of a track-based development assessment model as used in some other Australian states has merit. Nonetheless, without example of how this model might be applied within the Western Australia planning framework, it is difficult to evaluate what benefits this model would deliver in practice beyond what already can, and is, being achieved through existing mechanisms.
5. The City does not support the suggested introduction of private certification of planning approvals on the basis of the level of information presented in the Discussion Paper. A fundamental issue is that there is a public expectation that local government as a planning authority acts as an impartial decision-maker which balances the private interests of applicants against the interests of the broader local community. It is unclear how a private certifier acting on behalf of an applicant could similarly balance potentially conflicting interests. It is also unclear how private certification systems used in some other Australian states could be made to work within the WA system, where there are greater variations within the provisions of individual local planning schemes and capacity for significant discretionary judgement in the application of key planning instruments such as the R Codes.
6. The City does not support the proposal to standardise the scope of delegated authority to officers for determination of development applications across all local governments. It would however support preparation of a best practice document highlighting commonly-accepted levels of delegated authority and other guidance on delegation to officers, to allow local governments to tailor delegation to their own individual situation, but in the context of the general benefits of delegated authority in terms of timely decision-making.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 132
7. The City supports the proposal of a fully electronic application lodgement and approval system.
8. The City supports reform to refine the role of Development Assessment Panels (DAP), including: a. Excluding smaller scale development that generally complies with Scheme, Residential
Design Codes and policy requirements b. Excluding ‘P’ uses in industrial zones c. Clarification of the specific information required to be submitted with a DAP application d. Deletion of the mandatory DAP application category and replacement with arrangements
that within the current use class and $3m contract value limits, for all applications the applicant can opt for either the local government or a DAP to determine the application.
9. The City supports a number of the proposed governance and administrative reform initiatives, including:
a. Measures to enhance design quality in new development and deliver improved built environment and place design outcomes (e.g. widespread establishment of design advisory panels).
b. Revision of the Planning and Development Act 2005 provisions relatin to the following matters:
o elements of region and local planning schemes review o cash in lieu of open space o elements of proposed subdivision and development control
o enforcement and legal proceedings o public works exemptions
o interaction of the P&D Act with other legislation
10. The City has no objection to the following governance and administrative reform initiatives:
a. review of the role and function of the WAPC b. funding of region planning schemes and improvement schemes in areas of the State
outside the Perth metropolitan area
11. The City encourages the WAPC to give consideration as part of the Phase Two planning reform process to other measures specifically focused on reducing the amount of time and other resources that currently get drawn into dealing with relatively small scale planning proposals that involve discretionary decision-making. In particular, a more fundamental review of the Residential Design Codes focused on reducing areas of discretionary judgement and requiring compliance with unambiguous standards, would deliver substantial benefits in terms of cost and time savings to applicants and local governments, improved community acceptance of development outcomes, and allow better balance within the planning system in the allocation of resources to both the development assessment process and broader strategic planning work.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 133
LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 13 NOVEMBER 2013
LAC1311-113 PRESIDING OFFICER AND DEPUTY PRESIDING OFFICER ELECTION
DataWorks Reference: 039/007 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 November 2013 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Julie Caddy, Manager Library and Information Service Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Library Advisory Committee Local Law states that "The Chairperson shall be elected at the first meeting of the Committee after each local government ordinary election". An election must be held for a Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer for the following two years
BACKGROUND
The Library Advisory Committee comprises representatives of the City of Fremantle, the Town of East Fremantle and the library membership. As per the Local Law, the Committee is appointed "for the purpose of advising the Council regarding the management and control of the Library".
COMMENT
Election of a Chairperson is required at the first meeting of the Committee after each local government ordinary election.
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
Nil Legal
This recommendation is in accordance with the Local Law. Operational
Nil Organisational
City of Fremantle
PAGE 134
Nil
CONCLUSION
Election of a Presiding Officer and a Deputy Presiding Officer for the next two years must be completed
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Not applicable
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Nil
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Simple Majority Required.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Mrs Julie Caddy 1. a) That a Presiding Officer be appointed for the Library Advisory Committee
for the period though October 2016 b) That a Deputy Presiding Officer be appointed for the Library Advisory
Committee for the period through October 2016
COMMITTEE DECISION
MOVED: Mrs Julie Caddy 1. a) That Cr Andrew Sullivan be appointed Presiding Officer for the Library
Advisory Committee for the period though October 2016 b) That Cr Maria Rico be appointed Deputy Presiding Officer for the
Library Advisory Committee for the period through October 2016
City of Fremantle
PAGE 135
CARRIED: 7/0
For Against
Cr Andrew Sullivan Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr David Hume Mrs Marilyn Cacavas Mr Gerard MacGill Mr Michael Stack Cr Maria Rico
City of Fremantle
PAGE 136
LAC1311-114 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICE REPORT - JULY - SEPTEMBER 2013
DataWorks Reference: 039/007 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Julie Caddy, Manager Library and Information Service Decision Making Authority: Council Previous Item: Nil Agenda Attachments: Framework Agreement Faxback Response
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To provide information to the two Councils on the operation and performance of the Fremantle City Library during the previous quarter. This item reports on Library operations, issues and achievements for the quarter July - September 2013
STATISTICS (a) Membership - July - September 2013 Performance Indicators
Members per capita:
Fremantle 0.25%
East Fremantle 0.21%
% of total Membership:
New Members 5.6%
Expired Members 6.2%
City of Fremantle
PAGE 137
Statistics
Population
City of Fremantle 29,471
Town of East Fremantle 7,595
Membership
Fremantle (residents, workers, students)
7,483
East Fremantle (residents, workers, students)
1,611
Melville residents 941
Cockburn residents 1,451
Cottesloe residents 338
Kwinana residents 59
Rockingham residents 78
Other WA residents 724
Online members 0
Staff 27
Temporary members 384
Total 13,096
New members Expired members
737 815
(b) Library Access - July - September 2013 Performance Indicators
Per hour open Per staff FTE Per library member
Circulation transactions 152 8,460 8.2
Visitors 78 3,320 4.2
Active borrowers 43 2,405 2.3
Reference enquiries 10 575 0.5
Local History enquiries 1 374 0.05
Fre-info enquiries 3 1,955 0.14
Internet use within library 19 1,056 1
% of loans
Requests for items in stock
6.8%
Items borrowed from other libraries
1.8%
Overdue notices sent 2.5%
Statistics
City of Fremantle
PAGE 138
Library access
Hours open 707.5
Visitors 55,110
Active borrowers 30,551
Staff (FTE) 16.6
In House Internet Use 6,254
Wifi Use 7,156
Circulation transactions
Loans and renewals 59,995
Returns 47,451
Items on loan 13,083
Reservations 4,080
Requests sent to other libraries
1,246
Requests received from other libraries
1,525
(c) Access to Information and Resources - July - September 2013 Performance Indicators
% of total stock
Total loans and renewals 135%
Items on loan 29%
New stock received 6%
City of Fremantle
PAGE 139
Statistics
User assistance
Service desk reference enquiries
7,306
Fre-info enquiries 1,955
Local History enquiries 729
Online catalogue searches
17,058
Library web page hits 27,499
Use of Online Databases
Fre-info 30,216
Local History online photographs
13,297
Britannica Online 30,626
Health and Wellness 21
ANZ Reference Centre 103
Novelist 43
Popular Magazines 294
Ancestry.com 1,864
Carters Antiques 84
Freegal 933
Other
East Fremantle Parking permits issued
126
New stock items received 2,912
COMMENT
The winter months are always a busy time for the library, and this year was no exception, with the July to September quarter showing a 6% increase in loans on the same quarter in 2012. People continue to try the e-book and e-audio titles, with 127 new people starting to use the library’s e-book service. Fre-info Fre-info provides answers to around 40 queries per day at the desk. These can be loosely grouped into topics such as those relating to community services and groups, businesses or events in Fremantle as well as questions about general government services or information not specifically Fremantle based. The quarter was generally business as usual with a number of specific events impacting on the type and number of queries Fre-info received. These included the Federal elections, the AFL grand final and the tall ships visiting Fremantle.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 140
The most popular query was for the details of voting for the Federal elections; where to get a postal vote, early voting and polling places. Second most popular query was for details on where to watch the AFL Grand Final and what was happening in Fremantle for the event. One customer asked where the motorcar parade of players was being held in Fremantle. An interesting query, not about Fremantle, was an email from Liverpool requesting a list of all the newspapers and radio stations in Perth. There were over 5000 hits on the calendar of events for July. The most popular event was for the visit by Tibetan monks (1387) and over 900 for the July Fremantle school holiday guide. The Tall ships visit to Fremantle were a big attraction and Fre-info received many calls and hits on the website for details of the opening times, cost to view and location of the ships. The Indonesian ship KRI Dewaruci which held a colourful parade through Fremantle was particularly popular. The volunteer Justice of the Peace service opposite the library is very well used and appreciated in the community. At times when this service is unavailable, Fre-info receives many queries from unhappy customers seeking alternative access to a JP. The total number of recipients for the events e-newsletter at the end of September was 2674, with 87 new subscribers added during the quarter. Access statistics for the online Fremantle school holiday guide from July to September showed 5363 reads, averaging 4 minutes per read. The Fre-info noticeboards were promoted on a Business Help website under the banner “Fremantle noticeboards good for New Age, health market”. The article indicated that practitioners should place their advertisements on the boards as many people look at them. “There's one massive noticeboard at the Fremantle Library that would get a lot of people in your target demographic looking at your ads.” This is good feedback for the value and usage of the noticeboards which is often hard to measure except by word of mouth and demand. The Community Information Librarian commenced a project to assist another City business unit to assist the set up of a database on the same software as Fre-info uses, and train their staff in the usage and ongoing management of it. Local History The Local History librarians continue to maintain a high quality reference service, with assistance being provided to Notre Dame students completing a project about women in Fremantle during World War Two, using oral history interviews. The interviews provide a unique insight to that period. Oral history interview projects are continuing and the Still Me project in collaboration with the One Stop Shop is nearly complete. The next project will focus on the Fremantle Worker’s Club where several long term members will be interviewed as part of the club’s 100th anniversary this year. The Worker’s Club donated their historical minutes to the Library’s collection. Reorganisation of the collection is ongoing as digitisation continues. The first batch of oral history conversions for this financial was completed in August. The analogue collection is currently being assessed to determine what other interviews will be digitised. A backlog of
City of Fremantle
PAGE 141
donated photographs were also been scanned during the quarter, and are now ready to be added to a new online database currently being tested. The Town of East Fremantle forwarded a request for commercial use of some of the historic photos deposited with the collection in return for digital enhancement of the photos for library use. It was agreed that the offer would not be accepted, as the integrity of original prints is important to historic and archival purposes, and the copyright ownership of many of the prints is not clear. A request from the Oral History Records Rescue Group was agreed to for use of some of the collection’s photographs in a digital display supporting an exhibition on the Mills and Ware’s factory in South Fremantle. Oral history interviews on the factory were part of the recordings rescued in a Lotterywest funded project to convert content to digital format before the original cassette medium deteriorated beyond retrieval. The collection is well used and this is reflected in the statistics for the quarter which include visits to Local History, as well as email and telephone enquiries. Over 35 hours reference work on individual queries which were over an hour in duration was undertaken by the Librarians. Feedback from users of the collection for the high standard of service provision included:
“Thankyou ... You are a legend.’
‘Such a prompt response I am blown away.’
‘You are amazing! This is it..the first place I stayed after disembarking from UK in 1974. .... Thanks again the jigsaw is nearing completion!’
Library networks The provision of public library services in Western Australia is governed through formal agreements between State and Local Government, and formalised through the Framework Agreement between State and Local Government for the Provision of Public Library Services in Western Australia 2010-2014 (Framework Agreement). The current Framework Agreement expires on 30 June, 2014, and a formal review process has commenced. As part of that review, a faxback to local governments from the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) asked a series of questions:
How well have the objectives of the Agreement been met?
Are the principles of the Framework still valid
What are the strengths of the Agreement?
Is there anything missing from the Agreement that may have impeded its effectiveness?
What do you believe needs to be removed or added to current Agreement?
Do you support the development of an overarching Framework Agreement which sets out the principles, roles and responsibilities of the State and Local Government and the development of Individual Agreements between the State Library of WA and each public library that underpin this
A response to the review was submitted in September. Limitations of the current Agreement and service provision model are expressed in the response, which is attached to this agenda for information. A recent national report highlighted that Western Australian
City of Fremantle
PAGE 142
public libraries are 86% funded by local government with only 14% of the cost met by state government. It is believed this ratio should be reflected in the direction of a new agreement. Following a visit by the CEO to Sydney, which included a tour of a recently built library at Chatswood, contact was made with the manager of that library system. This contact resulted in very positive sharing of information, with both parties gaining new ideas towards service improvement. Changes to some processes at Fremantle are being developed as a result. A meeting of partners (Fremantle, Perth, Subiaco, Nedlands, South Perth, Victoria Park) in the library benchmarking process was held during the quarter to discuss improvements to the data collected, and resolve some misunderstandings regarding some data collection areas. The Library Manager is a member of a working group looking at the feasibility of SLWA adding RFID (radio frequency identification) tags to new stock. A number of the larger local government authorities in Western Australia have implemented RFID systems for the management on their library stock. RFID reduces manual handling and speeds routine stock management workflows. Library Operations A compliment to staff on the homebound delivery service was received from the sister of a deceased member. She expressed her gratitude for the wonderful service and the trouble taken to find suitable audio books for her blind sister, stating how much the stories had been enjoyed. Analysis of responses to the Library satisfaction survey earlier in the year determined that many people were asking for services or resources that already existed. A feedback mechanism was developed to communicate details of these to members to enable them to take advantage of a fuller range of library services. Two Librarians had to be replaced during the quarter following offers to the incumbents of temporary secondments to the State Library of Western Australia (SLWA). The benefit to the two permanent staff members is acknowledged in terms of the learning and skills development offered by such an opportunity; however the recruitment and induction processes for two temporary Librarians have impacted on service provision during the quarter. The assistance of one of the part time Local History Librarians in the Young People’s Services (YPS) area during the staff changeover was invaluable and thanks go to that officer. Three new casual staff were appointed following the loss of several casual library assistants through the year, as well as some gaining secondary employment and becoming less available. Practicum placements were accepted from two institutions. The first, from Curtin University completed two weeks full time. Her feedback on finishing was that she had never realised how interesting and varied public libraries were, and is now considering a career path in that direction. A Central Institute of Technology student, completed an eight week industry placement throughout August and September. The student worked two
City of Fremantle
PAGE 143
days per week, and as well as learning and gaining the necessary experience for her course, contributed well to library processes. Professional development for staff has included attendance at a Copyright Seminar conducted by the Australian Copyright Council, and at a SLWA Rhyme Time and Story Time training session. The Library Manager participated in an internal working group to develop a manual and procedures for the management of volunteers across the City. The library uses volunteers in a number of ways, and the assistance of those people contributes to quality service provision and is very much appreciated. eLibrary Public libraries in WA have begun to look at possibilities for a shared library management system (LMS). The spectre of local government amalgamations provides challenges to identification of future needs in isolation. The current Amlib system is no longer being developed, and is not providing the functionality of other modern LMS’s. Initial discussions at an organised forum for public librarians were useful to scope out possible consortia and examine criteria used by other libraries to evaluate systems. Since July, wifi usage has declined significantly, with many complaints received during the quarter regarding quality of service. The wifi is supplied by a commercial provider, and a number of scenarios were tested to resolve the complaints, involving action from the vendor, the IT business unit and the library. Possible causes were examined, including a Telstra line fault, router problems and errors with current Apple and Android operating systems. Library staff are keeping a log of reported problems as some customers are still unable to connect, and the cause has yet to be identified. Fremantle City Library has opted to join the eSmart Libraries program, which is a partnership between The Alannah and Madeline Foundation and the Telstra Foundation. It is “an online system that provides a roadmap for library staff to equip the library community with the knowledge they need for the smart, safe and responsible use of technology”. The E-Librarian and Librarian Young People’s Services attended E-Smart Libraries training in September, and will be able to help administer the framework that has been developed. A suggested timeline for completion of the framework is anywhere from six months to three years, after which the library will reach “eSmart” status. Outreach on Facebook has been particularly useful for the library. A post shared by the Fremantle Family Connect page about Toddler Tales led to people posting questions about library services, as well as increased awareness and bookings for the program. Increased usage of online resources, attendance at events and awareness of services indicates that Facebook has been an effective form of service promotion. Analysing social media effectiveness is difficult. For example, Facebook determines which posts appear in people’s feeds by using a news feed algorithm, the contents of which have not been revealed by the company. An available tool to measure Facebook effectiveness records interactions per thousand fans (IPM). The world’s top ten Facebook pages have an IPM range of 79-419. An analysis of the library page versus others in September showed a good relative result:
City of Fremantle
PAGE 144
Facebook Page IPM City of Fremantle 18.54 Fremantle City Library 15.54 Grove Library 5.01 SLWA 3.76 Collections Following customer feedback about noise from the children’s library when using the magazine area, it was decided to re-arrange the floor layout. The magazine collection was shifted to the corner near the front windows, adjacent to the daily newspapers. Addition of a small coffee table and chairs has created a comfortable and quiet reading area for people using the collection. A review of the magazine collection was undertaken concurrently. Based on usage data, subject range and title availability, subscriptions were amended, with some titles being cancelled and fourteen new titles begun for the collection. New titles cover topics such as craft, men’s fashion, travel, women’s health, young women’s fashion and travel. As a result of the move, the audio book and DVD collections were re-arranged to a larger space, making them more visible and accessible for customers. The addition of forward facing display shelves has enabled face out display and promotion of many titles in the collection. Further changes were made late in the quarter to the shelves closest to the library service desk. The large print collection was moved back one row, and the returned book and reservation pickup shelf were moved closer to the service desk. This relocation has improved accessibility to those shelves for customers, and made staff assistance more readily available when required. Quotes for supply of locally purchased stock were sought from four national distributors of library stock as per the WALGA preferred supplier panel. Analysis of the service proposals and quotations from these companies resulted in the selection of one vendor to supply most of the book purchases for the current year. As well as competitive discounts, distribution companies offer pre processing and cataloguing of purchased items, which will enable some staff efficiencies to be achieved by library staff, and will result in faster supply of items for customers. The Collections Librarian attended an event held by Fremantle Press to show the coming year’s new titles and authors. The information gained is valuable in determining forward stock selections. Events Library events were attended by over 350 people during the quarter with two major author events and regular book clubs occurring as well as a social blogging course run in conjunction with the Meeting Place. An evaluation form was developed to obtain some measurable feedback about events to assist future planning and an online bookings system was implemented to assist forward management of library events.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 145
Well known social researcher and author Hugh Mackay attracted some 250 people, much less than the bookings received due to the inclement weather that evening. Hugh discussed his latest book ‘The good life’ then engaged in conversation on that theme with emcee, Mayor Brad Pettit, discussing topics such as the values he upholds for happiness and his inspiration. His provocative conclusion was that the good life is not the sum of our security, wealth, status, postcode, career success and levels of happiness, rather is defined by our capacity for selflessness, the quality of our relationships and our willingness to connect with others in a useful way. Audience response was positive and many were keen to ask questions and engage with Hugh at the end of the evening. Best selling thriller author Michael Robotham also attracted a large crowd, once again, less than bookings received due to adverse weather. Rather than giving a presentation, Michael was interviewed by the West Australian books editor William Yeoman, a format that worked very successfully. He spoke about his latest book ‘Watching You’ and his writing process and questions led to comparisons with other thriller authors. Michael obviously has many fans around Fremantle, as audience questions at the end showed a good knowledge of all of his previous books and sought answers to some dilemmas around characters and plots. Young People’s Services
Program Number of sessions
Children attending
Total attendance
Baby Rhyme time 11 237 481
New parent's Groups
2 22 44
Toddler Tales 8 60 120
Story Time 27 351 633
School Holiday Activity
3 91 148
Class Visits to the library
17 603 665
Outreach sessions to schools, playgroups, day care centres etc
24 463 640
Total 92 1827 2731
July school holiday activities were fully booked and well attended. Animal Ark presented two sessions giving children hands-on experiences with creatures such as a bobtail lizard, snakes, frogs, fossils and a blue tongue lizard named Snowflake. Children’s entertainer Sparkles presented a lively magic show that featured interactive tricks with handkerchiefs, rope and balloons. Her assistant Hamish, a pet puppet rabbit, as well as Sparkles’ language play to cause comic confusion, were crowd winners and children, parents and grandparents who attended obviously enjoyed the show. Children’s Book Week programs encouraged 363 primary school students to visit the library. Guest presenters Rebecca Flanagan and Gabriel Evans presented sessions to children from Pre-Primary to Year Seven. Rebecca’s Nature Pixie featured singing, music
City of Fremantle
PAGE 146
and movement and storytelling, including a retelling of excerpts from May Gibbs’ “Snugglepot and Cuddlepie”. Gabriel’s drawing workshops saw the students produce some interesting sketches and provided insight into his path to becoming an illustrator and of the process of illustrating a children’s book. Gabriel gave students a taste of his life as an illustrator, playing the part of an editor and ordering sudden changes to their drawings mid-way through projects. In a shared program with the library, thirty children and thirteen adults visited The Meeting Place on Saturday, 24th August to celebrate Reading Hour, a national campaign to promote daily reading aloud to children. Author David Caddy entertained children and adults alike with his lively storytelling. Children also had lots of books to read, word-related games to play, badges to make and cupcakes to enjoy. The Meeting Place was transformed into a story cottage and proved an excellent venue for this type of event. State Library of Western Australia approached Fremantle City Library to be a venue for the filming of a “Meet the illustrator” session that will be part of an exhibition to be launched in November. Local illustrator Chris Nixon answered questions from Year Five students from St Patrick’s Primary School and the film made from the visit will be a part of the online component of the exhibition. Library staff presented outreach storytime and rhyme time sessions this quarter during Buster the Fun Bus visits to Fremantle Arts Centre and Hilton Park, at East Fremantle Playgroup meetings, The Meeting Place and at the Mother Nurture playgroup. Visits to Beaconsfield, Winterfold, St Patrick’s, East Fremantle, North Fremantle, Hilton and White Gum Valley Primary Schools, kindergarten and pre-primary students saw children presented with Better Beginnings packs to raise awareness of the importance of reading aloud at home to school aged children. Packs include a quality children’s book and information about library services.
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
Nil Legal
Nil Operational
Nil Organisational
Nil
City of Fremantle
PAGE 147
CONCLUSION
The July to September quarter has been a busy one for the library, with a number of changes to staff, processes and floor layout implemented. While the goal of change is to improve customer service provision, it does cause some issues in the short term. As familiarity of staff and customers grows, it is expected that the improvements will be appreciated.
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Nil
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Nil
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Information only no decision required.
COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr Andrew Sullivan That the information be received. CARRIED: 7/0
For Against
Cr Andrew Sullivan Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr David Hume Mrs Marilyn Cacavas Mr Gerard MacGill Mr Michael Stack Cr Maria Rico
City of Fremantle
PAGE 148
LAC1311-115 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICE POLICY
DataWorks Reference: 126/005 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 November 2013 Previous Item: LAC1308-111 Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Julie Caddy, Manager Library and Information Service Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Current Library and Information Service Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A revised Library and Information Service Policy is presented for Council endorsement. The Policy replaces the one adopted in November 2004, and meets new corporate style and format guidelines.
BACKGROUND
The Library and Information Service Policy was last reviewed in 2004, and was revised following the development of new corporate policy templates and guidelines. Lack of a quorum at the August Library Advisory Committee meant the item went straight to Council for decision. At the August 28 meeting of Council (LAC1308-11) the item was deferred with a request that the City’s Strategic Plan be more clearly referenced in the policy document.
COMMENT
The Library and Information Service Policy was substantially altered, to move procedural statements and direction into appropriate administrative documentation. The inclusion of relevant legislation and documents still protects the rights of the Fremantle and East Fremantle communities’ access to library materials and to information. The document list has been updated to include the City of Fremantle Strategic Plan as a governing document.
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
Nil Legal
City of Fremantle
PAGE 149
Nil Operational
The policy will direct the operations of the Library and Information Service however its intent is unchanged from the existing policy. Organisational
Nil
CONCLUSION
The Library and Information Service policy has been prepared in accordance with corporate direction and is presented for Council adoption.
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Replaces previous policy OP16 Library.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Nil
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Absolute Majority Required
COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr Andrew Sullivan That the Library and Information Service policy be endorsed. CARRIED: 7/0
For Against
Cr Andrew Sullivan Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr David Hume Mrs Marilyn Cacavas Mr Gerard MacGill Mr Michael Stack Cr Maria Rico
City of Fremantle
PAGE 150
LAC1311-116 TOY LIBRARY QUARTERLY REPORT - JULY - SEPTEMBER 2013
DataWorks Reference: 023/013 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 November 2013 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Julie Caddy, Manager Library and Information Service Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A summary of the operation and performance of the Fremantle Toy Library for the quarter is provided.
BACKGROUND
The Fremantle Toy Library is jointly funded by the City of Fremantle and Town of East Fremantle and a quarterly report is presented to the two Councils.
COMMENT
Membership
Fremantle Residents
East Fremantle Residents
Total
Individuals 47 288 335
Families 188 37 225
New Members
Fremantle Residents
East Fremantle Residents
Total
9 7 16
Deleted Members
East Fremantle Residents
Fremantle Residents
Total
9 8 17
Visitors
July 654
August 808
City of Fremantle
PAGE 151
September 622
Loans
East Fremantle residents
Fremantle residents
Total
Toys 225 2202 2427
Books 81 1860 1941
Audio visual items
17 269 286
Total 323 4331 4654
Income
6 month concession
12 month concession
6 month full fees
12 month full fees
Party hire Total
July 0 0 360.00 600.00 47.00 1007.00
August 47.00 158.00 306.00 1336.00 92.00 1939.00
September 94.00 82.00 538.00 936.00 73.00 1723.00
The beginning of the quarter marked the handover of administration of the Hilton Community Centre from the City of Fremantle to PCYC. The changeover had minimal impact on the Toy Library, and processes that needed to be managed such as new cleaning arrangements and separation of power meters went smoothly. The Toy Library Officer underwent first aid training. The Parking Services business unit has been very helpful, following regular breaches of the fifteen minute parking time limit on bays created for toy library users who need to unload or load large toys as well as minding small children. The Fremantle Toy Library received an additional $5000 funding from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations as a part of the Quality Improvement Initiatives for Budget Based Funding Program services. This funding has enabled the purchase of 97 extra new toys for the toy library service, including two new party hire toys. The new items were received in August and were made available for loan by the end of that month. Fundraiser catalogues were made available to toy library members from August. Sales from these will also provide extra resources for the collection. A toy sale was held in the foyer of the Hilton Community Centre during September. A large number of older toys were withdrawn from the collection in recent months, and sizeable donations of toys were also received, so the sale was necessary to clear space in the storeroom and workroom areas of the toy library. The Toy library volunteer and Library Assistant were rushed by parents eager to secure bargains and the stock was mostly sold out in the first hour of the sale. Obsolete toys have in the past been included in the Library booksale, but the success of this event indicates that Hilton may be a more suitable venue for future disposals.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 152
Usage figures show that loans of toys exceeded other library materials during the quarter, a change from a trend over the last year. This perhaps is a result of the rejuvenation of the collection through the additional funding and the weeding of the collection. The upgraded party hire collection is being regularly used with some items being hired each week. To celebrate Children’s Book Week, a Storytime was held at the Hilton Community Centre. Twelve children accepted the invitation to dress as their favourite book character and enjoyed stories, rhymes, songs and craft. The toy library’s costume collection was popular during Children’s Book Week, with many of the new, book related costumes in high demand. The Toy Library joined other parts of the city in pre grand final weeks, decorating in purple and highlighting purple toys. A badge machine has been purchased and will be made available for hire to community groups and members once administration procedures are in place.
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
Nil Legal
Nil Operational
Nil Organisational
Nil
CONCLUSION
The Toy Library continues to provide a much appreciated and valued service to Fremantle and East Fremantle families.
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Nil
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Nil
City of Fremantle
PAGE 153
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Information only no decision required.
COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr Andrew Sullivan That the information in this report be received. CARRIED: 7/0
For Against
Cr Andrew Sullivan Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr David Hume Mrs Marilyn Cacavas Mr Gerard MacGill Mr Michael Stack Cr Maria Rico
City of Fremantle
PAGE 154
STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 13 NOVEMBER 2013
SGS1311-3 ACCEPTANCE OF GRANTS FROM AUSTRALIA COUNCIL AND STATE GOVERNMENT OF WA THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE AND THE ARTS
DataWorks Reference: 102/008; 106/036 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 November 2013 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Services, Actioning Officer: Jim Cathcart, Fremantle Arts Centre, Director Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that Council accepts grant funding from the Australia Council ($230 000) and State Government of WA ($40 000) to tour, in partnership with Martumili Artists (Shire of East Pilbara), the exhibition, 'we don’t need a map: a Martu experience of the Western Desert' to six regional galleries in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Northern Territory. All projects costs will be met by external funding, including any additional Fremantle Arts Centre staff time. BACKGROUND 'We don’t need a map' originally presented at Fremantle Arts Centre (FAC) from November 2012 to January 2013 was a hugely successful exhibition, attracting critical acclaim in both state and national media and an extensive and diverse range of visitors. It drew a total of 23 000 visitors over a twelve week period, making it the most visited exhibition ever presented at FAC. Bringing together the traditional culture and knowledge of the Martu people of the East Pilbara, with cutting edge new media artists from across Australia 'we don’t need a map' featured paintings, digital animation, immersive videos installations, aerial desert photography, Martu objects, photographic portraits of the artists as well as a public program and publication. The project was a partnership between FAC, Martumili Artists (Shire of East Pilbara), Martu cultural organisation Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa, and was made possible with significant support from BHP Billiton Iron Ore. The general response was so positive that FAC and Matrumili Artists have developed a project to tour the exhibition to the Eastern States. The planned tour of 'we don’t need a map is':
City of Fremantle
PAGE 155
Funding for the tour has been secured with $220 000 + GST from the Australia Council’s prestigious and highly competitive Vision Australia touring program. The WA State Government has endorsed the tour with Special Initiative funding of $40 000 + GST. It is anticipated that BHP Billiton Iron Ore will extend their early support of the exhibition, and support the tour. The day-to-day logistics and management of the tour will be contracted to Art on the Move, a Government subsided WA organisation that specialises in touring WA visual projects across the state and Australia. COMMENT The tour of 'We don’t need a map' is a premiere opportunity for the City of Fremantle to strengthen Fremantle Arts Centre’s position as an arts centre of national relevance, re-enforce Fremantle’s reputation as a place for the arts and also contribute to the national indigenous cultural dialogue. RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Financial The costs of the tour will be met by the funding, including extra FAC staff time. Legal Nil - All stakeholders and partners will be contracted as required. Operational Nil Organisational Nil CONCLUSION There are no extraordinary risks or adverse implications to the project. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
City of Fremantle
PAGE 156
The project contributes to Fremantle’s core vision, “For Fremantle to be recognised as a unique city of cultural and economic significance” COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Nil VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority Required COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1. That Council accept the grants for $230 000 + GST from Australia Council and
$40 000 + GST from the State Government through Department of Culture and the Arts.
2. That the 2013/2014 budget be amended as summarised below-:
CARRIED: 6/0
For Against
Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson
City of Fremantle
PAGE 157
SGS1311-4 TO CONSIDER A REQUEST TO PERMIT ESPLANADE RESERVE TO BECOME A DOG OFF LEASH EXERCISE AREA FROM 5.00 AM TO 9.00 AM
DataWorks Reference: 096/002, 035/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 November 2013 Previous Item: SGS1305-2 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Cameron Bartkowski, Manager Community Safety and
Parking Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Map of Esplanade Reserve
Email from Ms Louise Ainsworth Dog off leash Esplanade Reserve submissions Petition from Friends of Stevens Street Reserve City of Fremantle Dog (Exercise Areas) Amendment Local Law 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To consider approval to amend the City of Fremantle Local Law Relating to Dogs (Exercise Areas) for the Esplanade Reserve to become a Dog Off Leash Exercise area from 5.00 am to 9.00 am each morning.
BACKGROUND
The current status for this reserve is that dogs must be on a leash at all times. The City has 19 dog exercise areas for the 8 363 City of Fremantle registered dogs and an unknown number of dogs from other areas. The City received a request seeking consideration to permit Esplanade Reserve to become a Dog Off Leash Exercise area from midnight to 9.00 am each day. The Strategic and General Services Committee considered this request in May 2013 and recommended Council support a public consultation period to receive community feedback but with an amendment to the hours being considered. The amendment was for a 5.00 am to 9.00 am daily provision. This recommendation was supported by Council at the May 2013 ordinary meeting. Council rates records reveal that there are 12 613 residential properties in the City of Fremantle. There are 8 363 dogs registered within the City of Fremantle, of which there are 2 539 dogs registered in the postcodes of 6160 and 6162.
COMMENT
Community consultation was sought through a letter drop capturing residents and business owners within the Fishing Boat Harbour Precinct, south to Arundel Street, north
City of Fremantle
PAGE 158
to Phillimore Street, and east to Queen Street. The amendment to the Local Law was also posted on the Community Engagement page on the City's website. Advertisements were also placed in the Local Paper (The Gazette) and the Weekend West, 8 weeks was given for submissions. The City received 64 submissions, 25 for and 39 against the proposed change to the Local Law. A petition of support with 19 signatures was also received during the public consultation period from the Friends of Stevens Street Reserve. There are a number of off leash exercise areas within walking distance of Esplanade Reserve;
The northern end of South Beach,
Wilson Park,
Parmelia Park, and
Fremantle Park. Esplanade Reserve is a regional park which caters for many different outdoor activities and uses. Between the hours of 5.00 am and 9.00 am the level of activity is generally low with early morning workers travelling mainly to the train station and Fishing Boat Harbour and local residents taking their morning walk, possibly with their dog. There may be some early activity on the playground which would be the greatest area of concern as uncontrolled dogs may make contact with young children in the play area. If the change is supported the City may be required to consider some fencing of this area in the future, but this would be determined on the need and based on incidents occurring. The City of Fremantle Ranger Services does not commence until 7.00 am in the morning so the level of monitoring will not be available, generally, before this time. However the City can target the park if it is felt dog owners were not showing courtesy when exercising their animal at the park.
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
The adoption of the proposed amendment will not have a direct immediate financial impact on the current budget other than alteration to signage if change is supported. Legal
The Dog Act 1976 enables the City a degree of flexibility in making effective Local Laws which can be amended at anytime by Council. Operational
There will be a requirement to add a number of signs advising of the special restrictions and change to the Local Law and for provision of dog excrement bags for public use.. Organisational
Nil
City of Fremantle
PAGE 159
CONCLUSION
The options for Council are to either to retain the existing restriction or agree to amend the Local Law to allow dogs off leash on this Reserve from 5.00 am to 9.00 am If Council resolves the process for amending the Local Law is outlined below:
Notice of the summary of the Purpose and Effect of the Local Law to be provided to the Council meeting.
Local Government gives Statewide notice of proposed Local Law.
Local Government gives Local Law and notice to Minister(s).
Local Government receives and considers public submissions.
If significant amendments are necessary, the procedure must be recommenced.
Local Government makes Local Law.
Local Government prepares Explanatory Memorandum for Committee.
Local Government publishes Local Law in Gazette and gives a copy of Local Law to Minister(s).
Local Government gives Statewide notice of Local Law and publicises Local Law in district.
Parliamentary Counsel tables Local Law in both Houses of Parliament within 6 signing days of Gazettal.
Local Government sends 10 copies of Local Law and Explanatory Memorandum to the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
The effect of the amendment will be to enable dogs to be exercised off leash at the Esplanade Reserve from 5.00 am to 9.00 am.
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Nil
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community consultation was sought via the use of a letter drop capturing residents and business owners within the Fishing Boat Harbour Precinct, south to Arundel Street, north to Phillimore Street, and east to Queen Street. The amendment to the Local Law was also posted on the Community Engagement page on the City's website. Advertisements were also placed in the Local Paper (The Gazette) and the Weekend West, 8 weeks was given for submissions.
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Absolute Majority Required
City of Fremantle
PAGE 160
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:
1. Approves to commence the process to amend the City of Fremantle Local Law Relating to Dogs (Exercise Areas) for the use of Esplanade Reserve as a dog off leash exercise area from 5.00 am to 9.00 am
2. Provide notice to the Minister for Local Government of the intention to amend the City of Fremantle Dogs Local Law Relating to Dogs (Exercise Areas), and
3. Advertise Council's intention to amend the City of Fremantle Local Law Relating to Dogs (Exercise Areas),as detailed in Attachment 5.
Cr S Naber MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to change the time dogs can be off leash to 5.00 am to 8.00 am in part 1, and add part 4 as follows:
4. A report on the impact of the area being a dog off leash area during the proposed times be brought back to council after a trial period of twelve months.
CARRIED: 6/0
For Against
Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:
1. Approves to commence the process to amend the City of Fremantle Local Law Relating to Dogs (Exercise Areas) for the use of Esplanade Reserve as a dog off leash exercise area from 5.00 am to 8.00 am
2. Provide notice to the Minister for Local Government of the intention to amend the City of Fremantle Dogs Local Law Relating to Dogs (Exercise Areas), and
3. Advertise Council's intention to amend the City of Fremantle Local Law Relating to Dogs (Exercise Areas), as detailed in Attachment 5.
4. A report on the impact of the area being a dog off leash area during the proposed times be brought back to council after a trial period of twelve months.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 161
CARRIED: 6/0
For Against
Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson
REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION The committee felt that a report should be provided on the impact dogs of leash would have on other park users, and to change the time to 8.00am to reduce any potential impact.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 162
SGS1311-5 DRAFT PARKLETS POLICY - COUNCIL CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION
DataWorks Reference: 117/051 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 November 2013 Previous Item: PSC1304-59 Responsible Officer: Peter Pikor, Director Technical Services Actioning Officer: Paul Garbett, Manager Planning Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Draft Parklet Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council adopt a policy on parklets. The policy includes the definition of a parklet, assessment criteria on which to assess parklet proposals, the information requirements for an application and the process for determining an application for a parklet. The policy is based on the set of principles adopted by Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 24 April 2013.
BACKGROUND
At its Ordinary Meeting on 24 April 2013, Council passed a resolution on a notice of motion that requested officers to prepare a draft policy on the location and installation of parklets for further consideration and adoption by Council. The resolution included the following 14 principles upon which to base the draft policy:
Streets which function as primary public transport routes or other key linkages between major activity nodes (for example Market Street/South Terrace) are not suitable locations for parklets.
In all other streets, parklets will be permitted subject to their location and design providing a demonstrable improvement in the quality of public space and maintaining or improving public safety in the street.
A parklet must be constructed in a manner that does not interfere with the functioning of infrastructure such as underground services and drainage, and makes it capable of easy removal at a later date without causing damage to existing public infrastructure including the kerb and road surface.
All costs associated with the construction, maintenance and removal of a parklet must be borne by its proponent, and proponents must lodge a bond with the City to cover the cost of any removal/reinstatement works which the City may have to carry out due to default on the part of the proponent.
Applicants for parklets must hold appropriate current public indemnity insurance.
There will be no fee associated with applying for construction of a parklet.
Any parklet must be available for public use regardless of whether or not they are customers of the business responsible for the parklet
City of Fremantle
PAGE 163
Normal outdoor eating area licences will apply where applicable
Following public notification to adjoining businesses and residents that a parklet proposal is to be considered by council/committee, it will be determined based on criteria relating to the following matters;
Amenity
Contribution to Urban Design
Diversity of use within the precinct
Specific localised detrimental effect on parking
Approval processes will allow for an initial installation period of 2 years, with a clear indication that the City retains absolute discretion in determining whether to approve any subsequent renewal application.
Criteria for approval for parklets will include;
The existing footpath is too narrow to accommodate vibrant street activities as well as pedestrian movements.
The existing kerbside lane is used for general street parking as opposed to requirements for public transport, taxis and service vehicles, and designated parking for people with disabilities, which should take priority over parklets.
Public street infrastructure and safety requirements are satisfied.
A parklet will only be permitted on a street with a maximum speed limit of 40kph or lower
Any loss of parking is not significantly detrimental to the parking requirement of the immediate area
There will be a presumption against covered structures being erected as part of parklets
For further information on this item (PSC1304-59) refer to the Council minutes at Attachment 1.
COMMENT
Following Council’s resolution as referred to above, City officers have drafted a parklets policy based on the principles adopted by Council. The City’s urban designer, planning officers, parks and landscape, and technical services offices were involved, and the draft policy recommended for adoption by Council in this report is the result of this internal consultation. The full policy is included in attachment 2 of this report. Each part of the proposed policy is discussed below. Parklets policy Objective and Parklet Definition
City of Fremantle
PAGE 164
The purpose of the objective and definition in the policy is to:
Clearly set out and provide examples of what the City would consider a parklet;
Emphasise that parklets are temporary, by nature, and therefore should be temporary in design and construction;
Affirm that parklets are to be publicly assessable to all; and
Ensure parklets are a creative and interesting option for providing additional public space within existing streetscapes.
Requirements and assessment criteria Officers will assess applications received for approval to install a parklet against the requirements and assessment criteria in the policy. Each application will be presented, with a recommendation, to the Strategic and General Services Committee for determination. The policy is divided into two parts relating to assessment of a parklet application:
Part 1 – Mandatory requirements.
Part 2 – Assessment criteria Part 1 The part 1 mandatory requirements include those elements of the adopted principles that provide clear circumstances where an application for a parklet would not be considered appropriate and therefore should be recommended for refusal. For example under the mandatory requirements officers will recommend refusal if the proposed parklet is located on a street which functions as a primary public transport route or on a road where the posted maximum vehicle speed limit is more than 40kph. Additionally this part of the policy reinforces the principle that parklets are intended to be a temporary use of the road reserve only. This is demonstrated in the following requirements:
The proposal demonstrating that the parklet will be constructed in such a manner that it is capable of being removed and the road reserve being reinstated, to the same condition as it was prior to the parklet installation, within a 24 hour period.
The constructed parklet will not interfere with the functioning, or result in the damage or permanent removal, of existing infrastructure such as hardstand infrastructure (kerbing, paving, crossovers or road drainage), verge trees, lighting, underground services or other services.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 165
Part 2 Part 2 of the policy consists of more subjective criteria, for example the location, design, safety, fixtures, signage and lighting of the installation of the parklet. These assessment criteria are more varied and span across the areas of responsibility and expertise of different departments of the City. The assessment of a parklet under part 2 would therefore require the assessing officer to refer the application for comment to other officers in various departments, including parks and landscape, planning and parking services. The comments received back from these referrals would then form part of the assessment and inform the recommendation back to Council. Part 3 - Administrative matters relating to parklet installations The draft policy also has a Part 3 dealing with the administrative matters relating to the installation of a parklet. The administrative matters are consistent with the principles adopted by Council, including an initial approval period of 2 years, the requirement for the applicant to reinstate the road reserve at the end of a parklet’s approval period and the requirement for the City to notify occupiers of business and residential premises adjoining and opposite the proposed parklet that a parklet proposal has been submitted and it is to be considered by Council. No fee will be payable for an application for approval to install a parklet, however the applicant must pay all costs associated with the construction, maintenance and removal of the parklet. The administrative matters also include the application requirements for a parklet which include application form, plans, management plan(s), appropriate public indemnity insurance and the payment of a bond. Officers will present a report on each parklet to the Committee with delegated authority from the Council to determine such applications. An application for a parklet can be approved by with or without conditions or refused with the reason for refusal given.
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
There are no specific budget implications arising from adoption of the proposed parklets policy. The policy includes provisions to make the person(s) proposing a parklet responsible for all costs associated with its construction, removal and subsequent reinstatement of the road reserve. Legal
The City can approve works in the road reserve in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995. Operational
Nil Organisational
It is recommended that the Strategic and General Services Committee would be the appropriate decision-making body to determine applications for parklets, as the Committee
City of Fremantle
PAGE 166
already has powers and duties delegated by Council which relate to the approval of other works within road reserves. It is anticipated that relatively few applications for parklets are likely to be received in any one year and consequently the resource implications of assessing and determining applications for officers and elected members would be limited.
CONCLUSION
The draft policy has been prepared based upon the principles adopted by Council in its previous resolution of 24 April 2013 and is presented for Council’s consideration for adoption. If Council resolves to adopt the policy, it is further recommended that Council resolves to amend the Delegated Authority Register as adopted on 23 May 2013 to delegate to the Strategic and General Services Committee the power to determine applications for parklets (as defined in the policy).
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Nil
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Nil
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Simple Majority Required
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
That Council: 1. Adopt the Parklets Policy as shown in Attachment 2 of this report.
2. Amends the Delegated Authority Register – Section 1 as previously adopted on 23
May 2013 to add a delegation to the Strategic and General Services Committee to determine applications for approval to install a parklet.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr A Sullivan
1. Adopt the Parklets Policy, with amendments as requested to be shown in an attachment to the Council agenda.
2. Amends the Delegated Authority Register – Section 1 as previously adopted
on 23 May 2013 to add a delegation to the Strategic and General Services Committee to determine applications for approval to install a parklet.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 167
CARRIED: 6/0
For Against
Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson
REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To amend some of the wording in part 2 of the policy to further clarify the intent of the policy in relation to whole or part bays. ADDTIONAL OFFICER'S COMMENT At the Strategic General Services Committee meeting held Wednesday 13 November 2013, the Committee requested changes to be made to Part 2 to further clarify the intent of the policy in relation to whole or part bays. Changes are as follows (italicised and strikethrough): And are now shown in the attached policy document A. Amend Part 2 policy heading to read:
2. Proposals for parklets that satisfy all of the above requirements will be considered for recommended approval having regard to the following criteria:
B. Amend clause 2.5 to read: 2.5 The maximum number of existing street parking spaces that may be replaced by the proposed parklet should not exceed two. Only the parking space(s) directly in front of the premises occupied by the person/business proposing the parklet may be proposed for replacement, and if the space(s) involved partly overlap the frontage of an adjoining property, the potential impact of the parklet on that property’s use and access from the street will be considered in assessing the proposal.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 168
SGS1311-6 COCKBURN SOUND COASTAL ALLIANCE
DataWorks Reference: 038/028 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 November 2013 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Peter Pikor, Director Technical Services Actioning Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Manager City Works Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1-Project Stages Diagram
Attachment 2- Project Study Area Map Attachment 3- Confidential under separate cover - Inundation Mapping Pertaining to Fremantle Attachment 4- Confidential under separate cover - Erosion Mapping Pertaining to Fremantle Attachment 5- Confidential under separate cover - Legal Advice Attachment 6- CSCA Information Sheet Attachment 7- Proposed Disclaimers for CSCA Website Attachment 8- Confidential under separate cover - Coastal Vulnerability Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fremantle in 2011 joined with the coastal Councils of Cockburn, Kwinana and Rockingham, together with the Department of Defence and the Cockburn Sound Management Council to form the Cockburn Sound Coastal Alliance (CSCA) . The key objective of the Alliance is to build and share knowledge concerning the vulnerability of the shared coastline of Cockburn Sound and Owen Anchorage to the effects of climate change including sea level rise and assist in the development of strategies to address those identified vulnerabilities. The first stage of the coastal vulnerability study has been completed to determine potential erosion and inundation of the coastal strip based on scenarios of storm events and projected sea level rise. The second stage of the study which is in progress will identify the natural and built assets at threat from erosion or inundation and develop “first pass” adaption plans to address those identified threats. The Cockburn Sound Coastal Alliance proposes to release information of its activities, the first stage study results with appropriate disclaimers and proposed future study stages. Prior to release of this information endorsement is being sought from Member Councils’ on the study report and to authorise public access to the information on a proposed website.
BACKGROUND
In 2011 the City of Fremantle joined with the coastal Councils of Cockburn, Kwinana and Rockingham, together with the Department of Defence and the Cockburn Sound Management Council to form the Cockburn Sound Coastal Alliance (CSCA). The key
City of Fremantle
PAGE 169
objective of the Alliance is to build and share knowledge concerning the vulnerability of the shared coastline of Cockburn Sound and Owen Anchorage to the effects of climate change including sea level rise and assist in the development of strategies to address those identified vulnerabilities. A formal Terms of Reference and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the CSCA was signed by the Chief Executive Officers' or Chairpersons of the Member Councils and agencies in October 2011. Subsequently in August 2013 Perth Regional NRM also became a member of the Alliance and signatory to the MOU. Additionally representatives of the Department of Transport (Coastal Infrastructure Branch) and DEC (Climate Change Unit) actively assist the Alliance in its initiatives. In June 2012 the City of Cockburn, on behalf of the CSCA, awarded a contract to a consortia of Consultants headed by Coastal Zone Management Pty Ltd to undertake a Cockburn Sound Coastal Vulnerability Study. This is the first stage of the Alliance’s Cockburn Sound Coastal Vulnerability and Flexible Adaptation Pathways Project which in full entails
preparatory stage;
coastal vulnerability study stage;
values and risk study with first pass adaptation plan stage;
flexible adaptation plan development and review report stage;
implementation and monitoring stage. The project stages are shown on Attachment 1. The scope of the Coastal Vulnerability Study stage was to assess and model the ocean and sediment transfer processes occurring in Cockburn Sound and Owen Anchorage and project the potential erosion and inundation of the coast from the Fremantle Fishing Boat Harbour to Point Peron in Rockingham and the east coast of Garden Island through to the Year 2110 based on various storm event and sea level rise scenarios. A map of the study area is shown on attachment 2. Encompassed in determining potential erosion and inundation of the coastal strip was the taking account of the existing landforms and coastal protection structures. The scenarios considered were various levels of storm intensity (measured in terms of Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) including a 500 year intensity storm and sea level rise (SLR) values of 0.0m (current day), 0.5m, 0.9m and 1.5m. The Consultants completed and presented their Cockburn Sound Coastal Vulnerability Report and associated appendices and inundation and erosion maps to the CSCA’s member representatives over the period February – March 2013. Subsequent to this informal briefings have been provided to the various Local Government councils and other CSCA member agencies by their respective member representatives, including one to the City of Fremantle. Following on from the Stage 1 Coastal Vulnerability Study the City of Cockburn (on behalf of the CSCA) awarded in July 2013 the next Stage (Stage 2) contract to a consortia of Consultants led by Oceanica BMT Pty Ltd. This contract is to:
i. Undertake a value and risk assessment of those identified assets at risk, in consultation with the principal Stakeholders; and
City of Fremantle
PAGE 170
ii. Develop “first pass” adaptation plans that would address those identified threats.
Such plans may include planned retreat, modification or protection actions as outlined in State Planning Policy 2.6.
In parallel to the commissioning of the Stage 2 contract, a CSCA representative working group led by the appointed Coastal Project Coordinator developed a communication package including a website that outlines the CSCA’s membership and activities to date and those proposed. Encompassed in the website is a proposed link to the Stage 1 Coastal Vulnerability Report and associated inundation and erosion hazard maps. The hazard maps have been integrated into each of the participating local authorities GIS Intramaps viewer for internal staff reference and it is proposed that the CSCA website and individual Council websites will enable the public to access the same hazard maps down to a reduced level of resolution and with embodied disclaimers. Prior to launching the website and releasing the Stage 1 report and maps detailing projected potential erosion or inundation of coastal areas including private property it was thought prudent to seek legal advice concerning this release. Advice was sought from legal advisers McLeods Pty Ltd in regard to the proposed content of the website, proposed wording of disclaimers and the proposed release of the Cockburn Sound Coastal Vulnerability Report and hazard maps to the public via the website or other means. The legal advice was received on the 7th October 2013.
COMMENT
The Cockburn Sound Coastal Vulnerability Report and its Appendices and associated hazard maps prepared by the Consultants under the Contract detail in respect to various scenarios of storm event and sea level rise up to the year 2110:
1. Potential projected recession of the coastline from erosion; and 2. Potential areas of inundation erosion related recession of the coastline.
The Coastal Vulnerability Study report and maps cover the full length of the coastline from the Fremantle fishing boat harbour to Point Peron in the City of Rockingham, and the east side coast of Garden Island. Modelling associated with the more severe scenarios indicate some potential significant widths of shoreline retreat caused by erosion and wide areas of projected inundation associated with sea level rise and storm surge. As would be expected, the extent of projected potential coastline recession arising from erosion varies down the coast depending on the geomorphology of the area, being minimal in sections of coastline predominately of a rock nature, such as at Naval Base, whereas much more extensive in areas predominately comprising sand formation, such as south of Catherine Point groyne in North Coogee. Similarly the extent of projected potential inundation from flooding from the sea varies down the coastline on account of the varying topography, being quite a bit more extensive in parts of the Cities of Fremantle and Rockingham as compared to within the City of Cockburn or Kwinana.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 171
For the most part the projected erosion related coastline recession will impact upon Council or State or Federal Government administered land and assets, the main exception to this being industrial lots fronting the coast in the City of Kwinana. Separately areas of projected inundation include both Council and other government administered land and assets and privately owned property areas. As stated in the various riders and disclaimers within the report, the projected erosion and inundation hazard lines and areas are general in nature for any section of coastline and are based on various assumptions concerning retention of existing protection structures and such, and are not meant in themselves to be used for planning of setbacks or to take the place of more site specific coastal vulnerability assessments for a particular development. The erosion and hazard maps relating to the City of Fremantle that are proposed to be made accessible to the public following all member Councils’ endorsement is shown confidentially at Attachments 3 and 4. The proposed CSCA website text is as appended at Attachment 6. The proposed disclaimers associated with the release of the Coastal Vulnerability Study Report and access to the erosion and inundation hazard maps is appended at Attachment 7. The CSCA Coastal Vulnerability Study Report is appended at Attachment 8.
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
The City’s contribution to the first stage study was $16,000 and to the second stage $20 000. The CSCA has been successful in attracting grant funding from the Department of Transport for both stages. Additional grant funding is being sought for the future stages of the study. Legal
Prior to releasing the Stage 1 report and maps detailing potential erosion or inundation of coastal area it was considered prudent to seek legal advice on the need for appropriate disclaimers and what potential legal implications would be on the release of the information. The legal advice from Mcleods on behalf of the CSCA is shown on attachment 5.
The report recommendations are in accordance with the legal advice received and provide the appropriate legal protection to the City and its officers acting in good faith in use and referral to the Coastal Vulnerability Study and its associated documents.
The recommendations are in accord with the legal advice received and provide the appropriate legal protection to the City and its officers acting in good faith in use and referral to the Coastal Vulnerability Study and its associated documents. Operational
Nil
City of Fremantle
PAGE 172
Organisational
Nil
CONCLUSION
It is evident from the legal advice sought that for the CSCA to launch its website and for the CSCA or any of the participating local governments or other agencies to release the stage 1 Coastal Vulnerability Report and associated erosion and inundation hazard maps to the public, as recommended by McLeods, that each local authority passes a resolution to endorse release of the report and hazard mapping subject to the limitations placed on the information through the various disclaimers that have been prepared. Accordingly each of the participating local authorities (Fremantle, Cockburn, Kwinana and Rockingham) are being asked to present an item to their Council for this purpose.
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Climate Change and Environmental Protection Lead in the provision of environmentally sustainable solutions for the benefit of current and future generations.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
There has been no consultation with the community at this stage. It is also to be noted that Community consultation is proposed to occur in the CSCA’s third stage of its Cockburn Sound Coastal Vulnerability & Flexible Adaptation Pathways Project, which is anticipated to occur mid 2014.
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Simple Majority Required
COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:
1. Endorses the Cockburn Sound Coastal Alliance’s Coastal Vulnerability Study Report and associated erosion and inundation hazard mapping;
2. Endorses the Cockburn Sound Coastal Alliance launching a website to inform the public of the CSCA’s activities;
3. Endorses the Cockburn Sound Coastal Alliance providing a link on its website and by whatever other means enable the public to access the Coastal Vulnerability Study Report and associated inundation and erosion hazard maps, on the basis that suitable disclaimers accompany the report and maps.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 173
CARRIED: 6/0
For Against
Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson
City of Fremantle
PAGE 174
SGS1311-7 ALFRESCO DINING FRONTING THE ESPLANADE HOTEL
DataWorks Reference: 067/009, 117/051 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 November 2013 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Peter Pikor, Director Technical Services Actioning Officer: Phillip Adams, Manager Infrastructure Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Alfresco dining concept plans for Esplanade Hotel
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The management of the Esplanade Hotel has proposed to construct and maintain an alfresco dining space in the service road adjacent to the hotel and running parallel to Marine Terrace (which is currently accessible on a one way basis from Collie Street). This service road is located within the public road reserve and is used as a taxi rank and also to allow for extra vehicular access to the main hotel entrance. The nature of the proposed development infers that the proposal be viewed and treated as an alfresco dining parklet, due to the intrusion of the proposed dining structure beyond the footpath into the existing road pavement (although this section of road has limited vehicular use). This places the assessment of the proposal under the guidelines which have previously been indicated to be applied to parklets in general (and which is currently being drafted as a proposed policy for council adoption). As a consequence the guidelines and proposed policy should be applied to the proposal, and in particular, any proposed structure should be given only temporary approval, with any further approval being subject to further council review. The applicant is indicating that the proposal should be viewed as a normal alfresco space, and that any structures be given approval to remain on a permanent basis. This is based on the argument that the parklet concept defines them to be more of a public space that is currently an underused area – in order to make them more habitable. It is argued that this does not apply here. Regardless of whether the proposal is assessed under the guidelines and draft policy as a parklet or not, council approval for structures is required as the area is within the public space, being part of the road reserve, and especially part of the road pavement. It is noted that an Outdoor Eating Area licence has been approved by Environmental Health Services until 31 December 2013. Approval to use the space for alfresco dining was granted in accordance with the City's Local Laws Relating to Outdoor Eating Areas. Therefore, given that the concept of alfresco dining has been accepted through the Environmental Health Department, council has been presented with two options for consideration and endorsement with regard to the structure proposed to be built.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 175
BACKGROUND
The management of the Esplanade Hotel is seeking approval for the use of the existing road pavement area beyond the footpath to allow for alfresco dining. It is a relatively common occurrence within Fremantle to have footpath alfresco dining, and a number of restaurants have alfresco licences, with the issue of licences falling under the control of the Environmental Health Department. However, unlike a number of other alfresco licences, the applicant at this location is seeking an extension into the existing road pavement (albeit a service road). It is noted that the service road also serves as a taxi rank stand. The use of the existing road pavement in this manner has been identified as one of the ways in which a parklet may be introduced into the streetscape. The use and origin of the term 'parklet' was introduced and expanded upon in council item PSC1304-59 of 24 April 2013. The intention of having parklets is to allow businesses to apply for approval for temporary (initially up to two years) use of the road or parking space directly in front of the business for alfresco dining, bicycle parking or public green space and seating. The April 2013 council item recommended that council adopt a policy on the installation of parklets, using guidelines nominated in the item. This report included items such as the length of initial installation period, construction costs and bond lodgement for removal/reinstatement works in the event of defaults by applicants, the limit and extent of parklet coverage into adjoining property street frontages, non interference of structures with public infrastructure etc.
COMMENT
Marine Terrace vehicular movement Marine Terrace currently operates as a two way street and the service road effectively operates independently of main vehicular movement. The effective closure of the service road will require that vehicles accessing the hotel entrance for drop off and pick up only access this through the separate entrance off Marine Terrace. This is not expected to cause any undue difficulties with traffic flow as this entrance is also commonly used for hotel entrance purposes. Basis for assessment of proposal Assessment and recommendations relating to the proposal may be viewed under the guidelines and draft policy relevant to parklets, or be viewed simply as an alfresco dining space as preferred by the applicant. The recommended approach is to assess the proposed works as if it is an alfresco dining parklet:
The proposed structure will go into the existing road pavement, distinct from the footpath, which delineates the normal alfresco dining operation approvals
It provides a consistency of approach for future proposals where the proposals involve encroachment into the road pavement, and therefore does not advantage or disadvantage future applications
However, it is acknowledged that the road pavement in this instance is only effectively being used as a service road and taxi rank, essentially for hotel operations. Consequently,
City of Fremantle
PAGE 176
there may be sufficient cause to treat this particular application as a normal application for a future alfresco dining structure. Regardless of which approach is taken, there are a number of common issues that need to be addressed, and these are detailed below. However, the main differences that will exist between the two approaches revolve around:
The time given for approval of the structure (notwithstanding utility infrastructure access issues). In the case of treatment of the proposal as a parklet installation, then approval is only given on a temporary basis, initially for a maximum period of two years (with absolute council discretion for future extensions). If treated as a normal alfresco dining structure, the structure would be given approval under an annual Outdoor Eating Area licence.
The time for removal of the structure. In the case of treatment as a parklet, the applicant should provide a proposal that demonstrates the structure be made in such a manner that removal can be easily achieved (the current draft policy (clause 1.5) refers to a period of removal within 24 hours). If it is treated as a normal alfresco dining structure, this requirement does not apply, unless the structure became unsafe through lack of maintenance etc.
The use of the area. In the case of treatment as a parklet, members of the public may use the area whether or not they are customers of the business responsible for the parklet under the draft policy (clause 1.7). The existing local law allows members of the public to use alfresco dining areas without being customers of the business. However the City is currently in the process of amending the local law to remove this ability.
The common issues that need to be addressed include:
Taxi rank relocation. The service road also serves as a taxi rank at the Esplanade Hotel location. The proposal therefore requires the movement of the existing taxi rank , and the preferred location nominated is along Collie St (using existing loading bays dedicated for the hotel). This is seen to be an acceptable location within Corporate Services, which liaises with the Taxi Council on taxi rank locations. Technical Services have reviewed this potential location and do not see a particular problem with this proposed relocation, assuming that the hotel can work around any loading bay issues
Underground infrastructure services. It is noted that it is apparent that some underground utility services exist under the service road, being located in the public road reserve. The applicant will need to complete any underground service location work to establish services and at the least will need to formally acknowledge that any access issues for construction and built structures will need to be addressed between itself and the relevant services utilities, with no involvement from the City.
The works being constructed in accordance with the City’s standards, specifications and policies, with all costs associated with the construction, maintenance and removal (if required) of the alfresco dining structure to be borne by the applicant. The applicant must also lodge a bond or bank guarantee with the City to cover the cost of any removal/reinstatement works which the City may have to carry out due to default on the part of the applicant
Protective measures for the alfresco dining area, be implemented and finalised to the satisfaction of the Director Technical Services
All required works to be completed to the satisfaction of the Director Technical Services prior to alfresco dining becoming operational at this location
City of Fremantle
PAGE 177
The applicant is to hold and provide evidence of appropriate current public indemnity insurance for the approved installation period. The City’s Heritage Officers have assessed the proposed works and have indicated they do not have issues with the proposal.
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
There are no specific budget implications for approval of the proposed works as all costs will be met by the Esplanade Hotel. Legal
The City can approve works in the road reserve in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 Operational
Nil Organisational
Nil
CONCLUSION
An application has been made to install a structure into the service road pavement fronting the Esplanade Hotel, adjacent to Marine Terrace, to allow for alfresco dining. The proposal for alfresco dining at this location has merit and has already been approved for alfresco dining operations through Environmental Health. Therefore the structure to be constructed into the road pavement can be supported in principle, provided that all works are completed to the City’s satisfaction and other conditions for installation are met. Council is given two options for endorsement, based on whether the assessment of the proposal should be viewed as an alfresco dining parklet, or as a normal alfresco dining structure. With an alfresco dining structure it is proposed that the City issues a licence to the applicant for a period of five years to use the road reserve with no change of use being permitted.
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
It is noted that a formal policy on parklet installation is being separately submitted for council’s consideration with the recommended approach in this item expected to conform to future policy.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
There has been no community engagement regarding this proposal. There are no immediate adjacent property owners.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 178
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Simple Majority Required
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council approves the proposed parklet into the existing (service) road pavement fronting the Esplanade Hotel, adjacent to Marine Terrace, to allow for alfresco dining as shown on the concept in Attachment 1, subject to:
1. The initial installation period being approved up to 2 years, with any future extension to be granted only with council approval at the end of that period.
2. The structure be capable of being easily removed, capable of removal within a 24 hour period or such period as deemed acceptable by the Director Technical Services
3. The applicant shall at all times possess a valid Outdoor Eating Area (alfresco) licence from the City of Fremantle.
4. The works being constructed in accordance with the City’s standards, specifications and policies, with all costs associated with the construction, maintenance and removal of the parklet to be borne by the applicant. The applicant must also lodge a bond or bank guarantee with the City to cover the cost of any removal/reinstatement works which the City may have to carry out due to default on the part of the applicant
5. Protective measures for the alfresco dining area be implemented and finalised to the satisfaction of the Director Technical Services.
6. All required works to be completed to the satisfaction of the Director Technical Services prior to alfresco dining becoming operational at this location.
7. The applicant to hold and provide evidence of appropriate current public indemnity insurance for the approved installation period.
8. The applicant to arrange for any underground service location, and to formally acknowledge that any access issues in relation to these services for the construction and future structure remain only between the applicant and the relevant service utility
9. The applicant to formally acknowledge that future loading bay issues relating to the relocation of the taxi rank to Collie Street be resolved by the Esplanade Hotel.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 179
Lost: 0/6
For Against
Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson
ADDITIONAL OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
Please note the following additional comments in the Executive Summary and the Additional Note (shown in italics).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The management of the Esplanade Hotel has proposed to construct and maintain an alfresco dining space in the service road adjacent to the hotel and running parallel to Marine Terrace (which is currently accessible on a one way basis from Collie Street). This service road is located within the public road reserve and is used as a taxi rank and also to allow for extra vehicular access to the main hotel entrance. The nature of the proposed development infers that the proposal be viewed and treated as an alfresco dining parklet, due to the intrusion of the proposed dining structure beyond the footpath into the existing road pavement (although this section of road has limited vehicular use). This places the assessment of the proposal under the guidelines which have previously been indicated to be applied to parklets in general (and which is currently being drafted as a proposed policy for council adoption). As a consequence the guidelines and proposed policy should be applied to the proposal, and in particular, any proposed structure should be given only temporary approval, with any further approval being subject to further council review. The applicant is indicating that the proposal should be viewed as a normal alfresco space, and that any structures be given approval to remain on a permanent basis. This is based on the argument that the parklet concept defines them to be more of a public space that is currently an underused area – in order to make them more habitable. It is argued that this does not apply here. Regardless of whether the proposal is assessed under the guidelines and draft policy as a parklet or not, council approval for structures is required as the area is within the public space, being part of the road reserve, and especially part of the road pavement. It is noted that an Outdoor Eating Area licence has been approved by Environmental Health Services until 31 December 2013. Approval to use the space for alfresco dining was granted in accordance with the City's Local Laws Relating to Outdoor Eating Areas. Therefore, given that the concept of alfresco dining has been accepted through the Environmental Health Department, council has been presented with two options for consideration and endorsement with regard to the structure proposed to be built.
City of Fremantle
PAGE 180
In addition, as part of the committee review process, the issue of the need for tourist bus parking was canvassed. The current item being put forward for council to consider has been amended to cover this issue.
BACKGROUND
The management of the Esplanade Hotel is seeking approval for the use of the existing road pavement area beyond the footpath to allow for alfresco dining. It is a relatively common occurrence within Fremantle to have footpath alfresco dining, and a number of restaurants have alfresco licences, with the issue of licences falling under the control of the Environmental Health Department. However, unlike a number of other alfresco licences, the applicant at this location is seeking an extension into the existing road pavement (albeit a service road). It is noted that the service road also serves as a taxi rank stand. The use of the existing road pavement in this manner has been identified as one of the ways in which a parklet may be introduced into the streetscape. The use and origin of the term 'parklet' was introduced and expanded upon in council item PSC1304-59 of 24 April 2013. The intention of having parklets is to allow businesses to apply for approval for temporary (initially up to two years) use of the road or parking space directly in front of the business for alfresco dining, bicycle parking or public green space and seating. The April 2013 council item recommended that council adopt a policy on the installation of parklets, using guidelines nominated in the item. This report included items such as the length of initial installation period, construction costs and bond lodgement for removal/reinstatement works in the event of defaults by applicants, the limit and extent of parklet coverage into adjoining property street frontages, non interference of structures with public infrastructure etc.
COMMENT
Marine Terrace vehicular movement Marine Terrace currently operates as a two way street and the service road effectively operates independently of main vehicular movement. The effective closure of the service road will require that vehicles accessing the hotel entrance for drop off and pick up only access this through the separate entrance off Marine Terrace. This is not expected to cause any undue difficulties with traffic flow as this entrance is also commonly used for hotel entrance purposes. Basis for assessment of proposal Assessment and recommendations relating to the proposal may be viewed under the guidelines and draft policy relevant to parklets, or be viewed simply as an alfresco dining space as preferred by the applicant. The recommended approach is to assess the proposed works as if it is an alfresco dining parklet:
The proposed structure will go into the existing road pavement, distinct from the footpath, which delineates the normal alfresco dining operation approvals
City of Fremantle
PAGE 181
It provides a consistency of approach for future proposals where the proposals involve encroachment into the road pavement, and therefore does not advantage or disadvantage future applications
However, it is acknowledged that the road pavement in this instance is only effectively being used as a service road and taxi rank, essentially for hotel operations. Consequently, there may be sufficient cause to treat this particular application as a normal application for a future alfresco dining structure. Regardless of which approach is taken, there are a number of common issues that need to be addressed, and these are detailed below. However, the main differences that will exist between the two approaches revolve around:
The time given for approval of the structure (notwithstanding utility infrastructure access issues). In the case of treatment of the proposal as a parklet installation, then approval is only given on a temporary basis, initially for a maximum period of two years (with absolute council discretion for future extensions). If treated as a normal alfresco dining structure, the structure would be given approval under an annual Outdoor Eating Area licence.
The time for removal of the structure. In the case of treatment as a parklet, the applicant should provide a proposal that demonstrates the structure be made in such a manner that removal can be easily achieved (the current draft policy (clause 1.5) refers to a period of removal within 24 hours). If it is treated as a normal alfresco dining structure, this requirement does not apply, unless the structure became unsafe through lack of maintenance etc.
The use of the area. In the case of treatment as a parklet, members of the public may use the area whether or not they are customers of the business responsible for the parklet under the draft policy (clause 1.7). The existing local law allows members of the public to use alfresco dining areas without being customers of the business. However the City is currently in the process of amending the local law to remove this ability.
The common issues that need to be addressed include:
Taxi rank relocation. The service road also serves as a taxi rank at the Esplanade Hotel location. The proposal therefore requires the movement of the existing taxi rank , and the preferred location nominated is along Collie St (using existing loading bays dedicated for the hotel). This is seen to be an acceptable location within Corporate Services, which liaises with the Taxi Council on taxi rank locations. Technical Services have reviewed this potential location and do not see a particular problem with this proposed relocation, assuming that the hotel can work around any loading bay issues
Underground infrastructure services. It is noted that it is apparent that some underground utility services exist under the service road, being located in the public road reserve. The applicant will need to complete any underground service location work to establish services and at the least will need to formally acknowledge that any access issues for construction and built structures will need to be addressed between itself and the relevant services utilities, with no involvement from the City.
The works being constructed in accordance with the City’s standards, specifications and policies, with all costs associated with the construction, maintenance and removal (if required) of the alfresco dining structure to be borne by the applicant. The applicant must also lodge a bond or bank guarantee with the City to cover the
City of Fremantle
PAGE 182
cost of any removal/reinstatement works which the City may have to carry out due to default on the part of the applicant
Protective measures for the alfresco dining area, be implemented and finalised to the satisfaction of the Director Technical Services
All required works to be completed to the satisfaction of the Director Technical Services prior to alfresco dining becoming operational at this location
The applicant is to hold and provide evidence of appropriate current public indemnity insurance for the approved installation period. The City’s Heritage Officers have assessed the proposed works and have indicated they do not have issues with the proposal. Additional note: Tourist bus operations. At the committee meeting of 13 November 2013, it was noted that an issue existed for the requirement to provide a parking area for tourist bus operations for the hotel. Currently, it is understood that there may be occasions when tourist buses use the service road as a parking area for their operations noting that the main use of the area for tourist buses at this location is a drop off/pick up operation. There is an occasional requirement that tourist buses have an available parking space to properly serve visitor and hotel patrons as this would no longer be available with the proposed al fresco dining area. The use of the adjacent Essex St as a potential parking area for buses is not supported as the current parking bays have only been designed to accommodate normal cars, and the inclusion of a dedicated bus parking bay would result in the loss of a significant number of bays with the existing angle parking configuration. It is also not considered appropriate from a safety aspect to have buses parking in the street pavement close to the intersection. The recommended approach is to provide temporary parking for a short period of time when buses are scheduled in the existing car parking bays along Marine Terrace, immediately adjacent to the hotel. This would require about 4 car parking bays to be restricted to vehicle parking during these nominated periods. This management operation will minimise the loss of income from parking revenue as the bays will be available all other times. This approach has been discussed with the Manger of the Hotel who has indicated support for this operation.
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
There are no specific budget implications for approval of the proposed works as all costs will be met by the Esplanade Hotel. However, as additionally noted for tourist bus operations, there will be some budgetary implications to allow temporary use of the parking bays along Marine Terrace adjacent to the hotel to accommodate bus parking. Legal
The City can approve works in the road reserve in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995
City of Fremantle
PAGE 183
Operational
Nil Organisational
Nil
CONCLUSION
An application has been made to install a structure into the service road pavement fronting the Esplanade Hotel, adjacent to Marine Terrace, to allow for alfresco dining. The proposal for alfresco dining at this location has merit and has already been approved for alfresco dining operations through Environmental Health. Therefore the structure to be constructed into the road pavement can be supported in principle, provided that all works are completed to the City’s satisfaction and other conditions for installation are met. Council is given two options for endorsement, based on whether the assessment of the proposal should be viewed as an alfresco dining parklet, or as a normal alfresco dining structure. With an alfresco dining structure it is proposed that the City issues a licence to the applicant for a period of five years to use the road reserve with no change of use being permitted. .
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
It is noted that a formal policy on parklet installation is being separately submitted for council’s consideration with the recommended approach in this item expected to conform to future policy.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
There has been no community engagement regarding this proposal. There are no immediate adjacent property owners.
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Simple Majority Required
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
That Council approves the proposed parklet into the existing (service) road pavement fronting the Esplanade Hotel, adjacent to Marine Terrace, to allow for alfresco dining as shown on the concept in Attachment 1, subject to:
City of Fremantle
PAGE 184
1. The initial installation period being approved up to 2 years, with any future extension to be granted only with council approval at the end of that period.
2. The structure be capable of being easily removed, capable of removal within a 24 hour period or such period as deemed acceptable by the Director Technical Services
3. The applicant shall at all times possess a valid Outdoor Eating Area (alfresco) licence from the City of Fremantle.
4. The works being constructed in accordance with the City’s standards, specifications and policies, with all costs associated with the construction, maintenance and removal of the parklet to be borne by the applicant. The applicant must also lodge a bond or bank guarantee with the City to cover the cost of any removal/reinstatement works which the City may have to carry out due to default on the part of the applicant
5. Protective measures for the alfresco dining area be implemented and finalised to the satisfaction of the Director Technical Services.
6. All required works to be completed to the satisfaction of the Director Technical Services prior to alfresco dining becoming operational at this location.
7. The applicant to hold and provide evidence of appropriate current public indemnity insurance for the approved installation period.
8. The applicant to arrange for any underground service location, and to formally acknowledge that any access issues in relation to these services for the construction and future structure remain only between the applicant and the relevant service utility
9. The applicant to formally acknowledge that future loading bay issues relating to the relocation of the taxi rank to Collie Street be resolved by the Esplanade Hotel.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION That Council approves the proposed alfresco dining structure into the existing (service) road pavement fronting the Esplanade Hotel, adjacent to Marine Terrace, to allow for alfresco dining as shown on the concept in Attachment 1, subject to:
1. The works being constructed in accordance with the City’s standards, specifications and policies, with all costs associated with the construction, maintenance and removal (if required) of the alfresco dining structure to be borne by the applicant. The applicant must also lodge a bond or bank guarantee with the City to cover the cost of any removal/reinstatement works which the City may have to carry out due to default on the part of the applicant
2. Protective measures for the alfresco dining area be implemented and finalised to the satisfaction of the Director Technical Services.
3. All required works to be completed to the satisfaction of the Director Technical Services prior to alfresco dining becoming operational at this location.
4. The applicant to hold and provide evidence of appropriate current public indemnity insurance for the approved installation period
City of Fremantle
PAGE 185
5. The applicant to arrange for any underground service location, and to formally acknowledge that any access issues in relation to these services for the construction and future structure remain only between the applicant and the relevant service utility
6. The applicant to formally acknowledge that future loading bay issues relating to the relocation of the taxi rank to Collie Street be resolved by the Esplanade Hotel.
7. The applicant shall at all times possess a valid Outdoor Eating Area (alfresco) licence from the City of Fremantle.
8. A licence being issued to the applicant for a period of five years to use the road reserve with no change of use being permitted.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 186
ALTERNATIVE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council approves the proposed alfresco dining structure into the existing (service) road pavement fronting the Esplanade Hotel, adjacent to Marine Terrace, to allow for alfresco dining as shown on the concept in Attachment 1, subject to:
1. The works being constructed in accordance with the City’s standards, specifications and policies, with all costs associated with the construction, maintenance and removal (if required) of the alfresco dining structure to be borne by the applicant. The applicant must also lodge a bond or bank guarantee with the City to cover the cost of any removal/reinstatement works which the City may have to carry out due to default on the part of the applicant
2. Protective measures for the alfresco dining area be implemented and finalised to the satisfaction of the Director Technical Services.
3. All required works to be completed to the satisfaction of the Director Technical Services prior to alfresco dining becoming operational at this location.
4. The applicant to hold and provide evidence of appropriate current public indemnity insurance for the approved installation period
5. The applicant to arrange for any underground service location, and to formally acknowledge that any access issues in relation to these services for the construction and future structure remain only between the applicant and the relevant service utility
6. The applicant to formally acknowledge that future loading bay issues relating to the relocation of the taxi rank to Collie Street be resolved by the Esplanade Hotel
7. The applicant shall at all times possess a valid Outdoor Eating Area (alfresco) licence from the City of Fremantle.
8. A licence being issued to the applicant for a period of five years to use the road reserve with no change of use being permitted.
CARRIED: 6/0
For Against
Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr David Hume Cr Simon Naber Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 187
SGS1311-8 MARKET STREET STREETCAPE FEATURES
DataWorks Reference: 161/005 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 November 2013 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Peter Pikor, Director Technical Services Actioning Officer: Phillip Adams, Manager Infrastructure Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Proposed Market Street concept options
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Market Street between Nairn and South Terrace was reconstructed in October 2012 as a local access street with flush paving incorporating the footpaths and pavement to provide the effect of a piazza. This streetscape enhancement was constructed following consultation with local businesses as part of the Market Street and South Terrace raised paved intersection enhancement. To add to the Market Street streetscape it has been requested through the local businesses and the Fremantle Business Improvement District (BID) for additional features to be incorporated on the eastern paved section. These features include fixed illuminated couch seats around an additional mature olive tree, in ground pedestrian activated lights and three retractable bollards at the Nairn Street intersection. It is proposed that the BID will cover the costs for the supply of the illuminated seats and in ground lights with the City providing for the electrical power, installation costs and also funds for the other requested works. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of the installation of the proposed features in Market Street and to allocate funds to enable the works to be programmed.
BACKGROUND
In 2012 and following consultation with business traders from the local area a streetscape upgrade in Market Street between Nairn Street and South Terrace was developed. The proposal put forward was to repave this section of road and to raise the surface to provide a streetscape that exhibits a common space for pedestrians and cars. The works included renewing all the kerbs in this section of road and reshaping the road to allow for adequate drainage. Also, the existing brick paved interface at the corner of Bannister Street, Market Street and South Terrace was extended in size and redesigned to provide a new raised plateau to assists to slow vehicles entering South Terrace and allow free at grade pedestrian access across the intersection in all directions. Street lighting improvements were also proposed along this section of Market Street. This plan received Council’s formal endorsement in August 2012. The works were completed in October 2012.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 188
The Fremantle Business Improvement District (BID) has indicated that it will cover the supply costs for illuminated couch seats which is estimated to cost $20 000 and in ground lights which is estimated to cost $5 000. The City is requested to provide the electrical power for the seats and in ground lighting together with installation works. The estimated cost for the electrical power and installation works is estimated to be $20 000. The City is also being requested to fund three retractable bollards. The estimated cost to installed two manually operated retractable bollards is $6 000. The proposed concepts are shown on Attachments 1 and 2.
COMMENT
The proposal for including lighting features in the existing Market Street will add to the streetscape. The BID is prepared to cover the supply costs of the lighting features. The City has installed new street lights in this section of Market Street and it is feasible to provide electrical power to the proposed lighting features. With regards to allow for temporary closure of this section of Market Street for various activities three manually operated retractable bollards can be installed in the pavement at the Nairn Street intersection. Whilst automatic bollards can be considered their costs are approximately ten times that of a manually operated bollard. The installation of a mature olive tree can be planted through the City’s tree planting program.
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
The 2013/14 Budget has funds of $270 000 allocated to complete the Market Street and South Terrace stage two street lighting upgrade works. Whilst there is no specific budget allocation for the electrical power works for the proposed lighting features a recent review of the stage two street lighting indicates that the costs for the power works can be allocated to this account. The installation of the manually retractable bollards and mature tree can be charged to the road maintenance and tree planting accounts respectively. Legal
Nil Operational
These works will require providing recurrent funding for the maintenance and upkeep of the plant and lights. Organisational
Nil
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 189
CONCLUSION
The proposal to include illuminated seats and lighting features in the existing Market Street will add to the streetscape. These types of treatments are found in other piazza locations. The BID is prepared to cover the supply costs of the seats and lighting features which is estimated to be in the order of $25 000. It is feasible to provide electrical power to the proposed lighting features and this work can be funded from the street lighting project in the current Budget. On this basis it is recommended to support the installation of the seats and lighting features together with a mature tree and three retractable bollards.
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Urban renewal and integration Transport Character
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Recently engagement has been undertaken with the local businesses and BID with the feedback about the concepts being generally positive. There will be further consultation with the businesses during the construction phase and programming of the works to minimise impacts on their activities and customers.
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Absolute Majority Required
COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:
1. Accepts the offer from the Fremantle Business Improvement District to supply at its cost illuminated couch seats and in ground lights for Market Street.
2. Authorises the installation of illuminated seats, in ground lights, a mature tree and three retractable bollards in Market Street as shown on Attachments 1 and 2.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 190
CARRIED: 7/0
For Against
Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 191
SGS1311-9 RATE CONCESSION SUBMISSION - 342 STOCK ROAD O'CONNOR - THE LANDSCAPE YARD
DataWorks Reference: 152/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 November 2013 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Alan Carmichael, Manager Finance and Administration Actioning Officer: David Nicholson, Rates Coordinator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Request rating concession by applying 'General'
differential rate in the dollar to 342 Stock Road O’Connor
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Rates levied on 342 Stock Road O’Connor have increased from $2 666.84 in 2012/2013 to $5 581.06 in 2013/2014 (109.27%) following the application of the new 'Undeveloped Commercial' differential rate. The owners are seeking a concession in the form of re-application of the 'General' differential rate due to the property being owned Main Roads WA and therefore unable to be developed.
BACKGROUND
Properties located at 27 Peel Road and 342 Stock Road O’Connor have been rated since 1 July 2009 following their leasing from Main Roads WA by a landscape business. Both properties are necessary for the landscape business to operate with 27 Peel Road, which is developed, being used as the retail outlet/offices and 342 Stock Road, which is undeveloped, being used to store landscaping materials. Effective on 1 July 2013, 342 Stock Road was rated using the new 'Unimproved Commercial/Industrial' differential rate category. This effectively increased the annual rates for the property by $2 914.22 or 109.27% from that of the 2012/2013 financial period. As the Main Roads WA ownership of 342 Stock Road prohibits its development, the lessees have requested that the City reconsider the application of the higher 'Unimproved Commercial/Industrial' differential rate.
COMMENT
The property at 342 Stock Road O’Connor cannot be developed due to its Main Roads WA ownership and is an integral part of the landscaping business as it not only provides additional area in which the business may operate within, but also enables customers to be safely loaded with landscaping materials whilst exiting via Peel Road instead of the very busy Stock Road. It is considered that in view of the development limitations on 342 Stock Road and that if the property was returned to Main Roads WA after expiry of the lease that it would not be rateable; that in this case the “General” differential rate instead of the 'Undeveloped Commercial/Industrial' differential rate should be applied to the property.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 192
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
Application of the 'General' differential rate to the property would result in a $2 790.34 reduction to the 2013/2014 rating income. Legal
Nil Operational
Nil Organisational
Nil
CONCLUSION
That the property at 342 Stock Road O’Connor receives a rating concession by being rated, effective from 1 July 2013, utilising the 'General' instead of 'Undeveloped Commercial/Industrial' differential rate.
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Nil as this rating concession would be provided owing to the unique development inability circumstances of the property.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Nil
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Absolute majority required.
COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council approves the rating of 342 Stock Road, O’Connor utilising the 'General' differential rate, effective from 1 July 2013, as a rating concession under section 6.47 of the Local Government Act 1995.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 193
CARRIED: 6/0
For Against
Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 194
SGS1311-10 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MASTER LENDING AGREEMENT WITH WATC
DataWorks Reference: 090/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 November 2013 Previous Item: Not applicable. Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Alan Carmichael, Manager Finance and Administration Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Master Lending Agreement between WATC and City of
Fremantle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Western Australian Treasury Corporation (WATC) is implementing a Master Lending Agreement for local governments (LGMLA). The new LGMLA has been developed to incorporate the recently introduced Commonwealth Government's Personal Property Security Act 2009.
BACKGROUND
A local government is only permitted to provide security in the way of a charge over its General Funds pursuant to section 6.21 of the Local Government Act 1995. WATC received advice of the requirement to register such charge under the Personal Property Security Act 2009 and include reference to that requirement within the new LGMLA. It has been advised that the LGMLA has been reviewed by the State Solicitor's Office and the Department of Local Government and Communities.
COMMENT
Currently all the city's loan debentures are with WATC. Though quotations are requested from other financial institutions when new loans are raised, it is envisaged WATC will remain the city's major source of loan funding in the immediate future. The LGMLA incorporates all future and existing loans together under the one agreement therefore removing the need for individual loan agreements to be executed under seal each time loan funds are advanced by WATC. WATC have provided the wording of the resolution they require and that is reproduced as recommendation 1. Recommendation 1.3 provides delegation to the CEO therefore a second recommendation has been made to approve delegated authority for officers to effectively operate under the new LGMLA
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
Nil.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 195
Legal
The new agreement is addressing the implications of section 6.21 of the Local Government Act 1995 and the recently introduced Commonwealth Government's Personal Property Security Act 2009. Operational
The master lending agreement will streamline the current arrangements by eliminating the need for the Mayor and CEO to sign loan debenture agreements for every loan raised. Organisational
A new delegated authority is recommended to facilitate ongoing management of the LGMLA.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the Fremantle Local Government Master Lending Agreement be endorsed for signing in the manner required by Western Australian Treasury Corporation.
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Good governance structures, supporting council focus on strategic areas.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Nil
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Simple Majority Required
COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1. The City of Fremantle hereby RESOLVES:
a) That the City of Fremantle enters into a Master Lending agreement with Western Australian Treasury Corporation as per the document tabled at this meeting.
b) To approve the affixation of the Common Seal of the City of Fremantle to the said Master Lending Agreement in the presence of the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer each of whom shall sign the document to attest the affixation of the Common Seal thereto; and
c) That the Chief Executive Officer, or any one of the Senior Employees of the City of Fremantle authorised by the Chief Executive Officer from time to time is authorised to sign schedule documents under the
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 196
Master Lending Agreement and or to give instructions thereunder on behalf of the City of Fremantle
2. That authority is delegated to the CEO as follows:-
3.## Local Government Master Lending Agreement Delegated Function: Authority to sign schedule documents under the Local Government Master Lending Agreement and or to give instructions thereunder on behalf of the City of Fremantle. Conditions: That the power to borrow funds can only be exercised in accordance with the council's adopted budget or council's revised budget once statutory requirements have been satisfied. Delegated by the Council to: Chief Executive Officer (11101) Delegated by the Chief Executive Officer to: Director Corporate Services (11601) Manager Finance and Administration (51401) Reference: Local Government Act 1995, Sections 6.20 and 6.21. Adopted: Council
CARRIED: 6/0
For Against
Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 197
SGS1311-12 KIDOGO ART HOUSE - PROPOSED PLAN FOR SMALL BAR AT SHIPSWRIGHT BUILDING - 49 MEWS ROAD BATHERS BEACH
DataWorks Reference: LO30, 049/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 November 2013 Previous Item: SGS1308-2 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Nadine Hume, Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Kidogo's proposed plans
Location Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The tenant of 49 Mews Road, Bathers Beach Fremantle put forward preliminary plans to include a bar in the leased premises known as the 'Shipwrights Building' at Mews Road, Bathers Beach, Fremantle. The following resolution was made by Council 14 August 2013; “That the Strategic and General Services Committee acting under delegation:
1. Supports the extension for the lease for the Shipswright Building to Joanna Robertson for a period of two years ending on 31 December 2015, to enable the development of a proposal for a new lease, and
2. Provides in-principle support for the tenant’s proposal for a small bar liquor
licence in the proposal for a new lease.” The tenant has since provided the City with the necessary Development Application and Section 49. The purpose of this item is to gain approval for the CEO to sign and accept the DA and Section 49 to allow the application to proceed through formal process.
BACKGROUND
The City entered into a lease with Joanna Robertson for a term of five years effective 1 July 2013 with a further term of five years, effective 30 June 2013 for the 'Shipwrights Building' located at 49 Mews Road at Bathers Beach, Fremantle. Due to negotiations regarding the implementation of a bar at these premises, Council resolved to extend her last term to 31 December 2015. The City manages this Reserve under a vesting order from the Minister of Lands giving the City the power to lease / licence any portion of the Reserve for a period not exceeding 21 years and subject to Ministerial Approval. The vesting order states that a building or portion of the land can be leased subject to the condition that the income
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 198
derived from all leases shall be used solely for the purpose of the care maintenance and development of the Reserve. Ultimately it is the City’s decision on how best to use the land and buildings to the greatest interest of the Reserve. The property is currently being utilised for the purposes of a teaching studio and gallery, however the tenant is proposing that the western addition to the building be turned into a bar. There is one existing toilet onsite in this area which will be removed. The proposed plan allows an addition of a toilet block to the southern side of the building which will house eight toilet facilities including one disabled toilet. Two of these toilets will be outside the proposed licensed area to allow minors to continue to attend workshops and courses at Kidogo. The tenant will be providing the financial outlay into the needed infrastructure for the bar to be successful; however the tenant is seeking the City to fund the sewer connection to the new and existing toilet facilities. During the upgrade of the Bathers Beach area, a sewer connection pipe was laid under the new cement area for possible future expansion in the area. The existing toilet was connected to an alternative treatment tank that was installed on the northern side of the building. This tank currently does not have the capacity to handle the added plumbing infrastructure and will need to be decommissioned if the tenants' plans are approved. This final proposed plan submitted by the tenant has been based on the recommendations of the National Trust Heritage Architect Kelly Rippingale who has submitted a Heritage Impact Statement along with the tenants Development Application documents. A contractor quote has estimated that the cost of sewer connection to the Fishermans Co-Op building and the possible addition of a pump station will be in the vicinity of $50 000. This cost does not include the decommissioning of the septic tank and other factors such as the electrical work on the pump station.
COMMENT
The land is reserved for Parks and Recreation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. This means that the responsible planning authority is for the land is the WA Planning Commission (reservations shown below). The statutory planning role of the Council is to provide a recommendation to the Commission.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 199
The Donaldson Warn drawing A1.01-E – Old Port of Arthur Head, Fremantle upgrade: Location Plan dated 13 August 2010 shows the proposed landscaping concept for the area surrounding the Old Kerosene Store (Kidogo). The aim of this plan is to create a new public space connecting the West End to the Indian Ocean. The scheme has been partly implemented. Central to this proposal is the creation of the view corridor between the Old Kerosene Store and the Fishermans’ Co-op Building that will provide views from Cliff Street to the ocean. The proposed extension to the south of the Old Kerosene Store will project into the space making it a prominent element within the view corridor and will impinge on the ocean view/ connection, and in doing so will undermine the design intention of the landscaping scheme. These heritage comments are confined to issues related to the implementation of the Arthur Head landscaping plan, and does not deal with heritage impacts associated with the additions / modifications which may be rewired to the Kerosene Store building. These will be assessed as part of the Planning Application for the site. Health regulations also require spaces between built-in furniture to be sealed for pest control purposes where as for conservation it is necessary to allow gaps for air movement. The installation of floor waste and associated plumbing for a bar is also concerning from a heritage perspective, however with the installation of the bar now proposed in the lean to portion of the building these parameters could be met without any major impact to the limestone area of the building. The vesting order of this Reserve is for the purpose of “Historical Buildings, Recreations and Community Services” giving the City authority to lease any portion of the Reserve for a term no longer than twenty one (21) years subject to Minister of Lands approval. The Department of Regional Development and Lands have advised the City that whilst they have no issue with the change of usage on the property nor the term of the lease, they’re concerned that some of the proposed works on the building would work against the preservation of heritage buildings on the Reserve, which is a key factor of the vesting
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 200
order. They did however indicate that they would rely on the Heritage Council of Western Australia to make the final recommendation. The tenant has spoken with all stakeholders regarding the Heritage building (being National Trust, Heritage Council and City of Fremantle Heritage Officers) and has based her plans on their advice to create the lowest impact possible to the premises while still contributing the necessary infrastructure to run a bar. Discussions with the Department of Liquor and Gaming (DLG) have determined that a tavern liquor licence capacity is calculated by the number of toilets available within the licensed area (25 persons per toilet). Based on the plan submitted by the tenant, there are 6 new toilets within the licensed area. This equates to a capacity allowance of 150 persons only. DLG will not take the toilets outside the licensed area into account when determining the capacity allowance. It is worth noting that Kidogo currently advertises the Shipwright building as available for hire for weddings and events which is outside the permitted use of the current Lease. Any use of the land outside of the building for these events needs to be booked through the City’s Events Team. The approval of the large area of public space to the north of the building that has been proposed as a”licensed area” would support this aspect of Kidogo’s business to act as a venue. Council also needs to consider whether it is appropriate to allow an extension of the lease into the outside area, as it would impact on the public access to the beach area.
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
The estimated cost to the City for sewer connection and decommission of septic tank is approximately $70 000. Legal
This proposal has implications under the Local Government Act 1995 and Commercial Tenancies Act. Operational
The City would need to accept the applicants lodged development application and section 49 for the proposed works so they can be formally assessed. Organisational
Nil
CONCLUSION
The tenant has exhausted investigations as to the best plans to proceed with the Development Application that will allow the implementation of a bar and necessary toilet facilities with minimal impact to a Heritage Building and approval from Environmental Health.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 201
Should the Development Application be approved the permitted use of this building would be changed in the new Lease from teaching studio and gallery to allow for a small bar and venue hire and if this is the best utilisation of this building.
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Nil
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Nil
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Simple Majority Required ADDITIONAL OFFICER COMMENT As the property owner, council needs to be certain that any proposal for development of its property is acceptable. The permission being sought is not one of planning approval but as to whether the owner is comfortable with a tenant making modifications to its building. In making this assessment the City as the owner needs to take into consideration some previous resolutions in relation to Arthurs Head and the conservation plan it adopted for the area from 1999. The conservation plan considers the sight lines from the city centre over the water. There are very few places that the water can be viewed from the city centre and the conservation plan is mindful of this. Whilst the plan is a guide only, the application before council does seek to impinge on this aspect of the plan. Consideration could be given to placement of the ablutions within the current structure to remove this conflict, or could be placed in another location, and the tenant could be asked to reconsider this aspect of their proposal before council will consider it. At the August 2013 round of meetings the Strategic and General services committee, acting under delegation, resolved in-principle support for the tenant to make a proposal for a small bar. The City Planning Scheme number 4 defines a small bar as a “premises licensed as a small bar under the Liquor Control Act 1988 and used to sell liquor for consumption on the premises, but not including the sale of packaged liquor and with the number of persons who may be on the licensed premises limited to a maximum of 120.” The proposed ablutions would provide for a license of up to 150 people. This is in excess of the in-principle support provided by committee in August. Whilst the licensing requirements are a minimum, council needs to be mindful that it is clear with the tenant of its intention. The tenant also needs to be aware that the city may or may not change the use of the property in a new lease. The current lease use is as a studio and art gallery and only for the building, there lease does not extend beyond the building line. Whilst the tenant advertises the property for functions such as weddings, this is outside the current allowable uses. This issue has not been fully addressed with the tenant as part of the considerations for a new lease. The proposal by the tenant will allow the property to be used as a function centre with greater ease, currently the tenant is required to seek permission to use the open space outside of the building. The implication with the proposal provided by the tenant is that the leased area will now extend beyond the
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 202
building. This is currently open space available for the general community to access at anytime. An extension of this area will privatise the space. This matter has not been considered as part of the consideration for a new lease. If the proposal before council is supported, the implication of this will be that the extension of the leased space is also supported. In November 2012 Council considered a resolution in SGS1211-8 which was adopted as below; 1. The City undertake the management of uses, activities and strategic priorities of the buildings and urban environment of Arthur Head in line with the vision and principles set by Council and in line with the attached implementation plan. 2. The management of uses, activities and strategic priorities of the buildings and urban environment of Arthur Head reserve to include the following:
Established practicing arts businesses which can demonstrate strong activation of
the area consistent with the plan can be offered longer performance- based
tenancy agreements. The new tenancy agreements will be subject to a
performance-based approach based on mentoring, active use and on-going
improved activation of designated areas.
The front glass-walled studio of J Shed to be put out for lease through a
competitive process as a bar/café /gallery as a major attractor for the whole area.
This should include space for artists in the Arthur Head precinct to be able to
exhibit their work on a priority basis. At other times the gallery space would be for
rent like the Moore’s Building.
The area around J-shed and Kidogo to be considered as part of a sculpture
gallery.
Heritage uses can be considered for the shared community use of a space within
the Arthur Head precinct.
City to identify a possible site for an indigenous cultural centre with in Arthurs
Head reserve and to work with the Indigenous Action Group to explore the
feasibility of this including how it might be funded, staffed and managed.
The rest of spaces in the Arthur Head precinct to be used for arts purposes
consistent with cultural development strategy.
Whilst not actually noted, the Shipwrights building may be considered in the final dot point of part two of the above resolution. It may not have been the intention of council to include this building as part of the management of uses of the area and when a lease is brought before council for consideration a position will be sought on this issue. Approval of this proposal would imply that this property is excluded from the November resolution. The application by the tenant also includes commentary that the City will be asked to support the capital infrastructure, in particular the toilets, with a financial contribution of approximately $50,000. This has not been included in any forward financial planning of council and has not been agreed to or considered in any future lease proposal.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 203
Whilst many of the abovementioned matters can be discussed in lease negotiations, council should be mindful of any implied considerations it may be making when considering this proposal, and the expectation that the tenant may have from theses implications when the future lease negotiations are in place. Any future lease negotiations would centre around the uses of the buildings so the proposal from the tenant is a legitimate starting place in understanding whether this type of use would or would not be supported in a new lease.
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr A Sullivan To authorise / not authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign the Section 49 as submitted by Joanna Robertson to proceed with formal process of the Development Application for the Shipswright Building, 49 Mews Road, Bathers Beach, Arthur Head.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr A Sullivan To not authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign the Section 49 as submitted by Joanna Robertson to proceed with formal process of the Development Application for the Shipswright Building, 49 Mews Road, Bathers Beach, Arthur Head. CARRIED: 6/0
For Against
Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 204
MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN
Nil.
REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL
STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS
Nil.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 205
COUNCIL ITEMS
C1311-01 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - OCTOBER 2013
DataWorks Reference: 087/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Council 27 November 2013 Previous Item: C1310-8 of 30 October 2013 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Alan Carmichael, Manager Finance and Administration Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Statement of Financial Activity by Nature to 31 October
2013 Statement of Financial Position to 31 October 2013 Determination of Closing Funds (Net Current Assets) to 31 October 2013 Schedule of Accounts Paid October 2013 Investment Report to 31 October 2013 Debtors Outstanding as at 31 October 2013 Payment Report (EFT & Cheque) for October 2013 (available electronically) Payment Report (Purchase Cards) for October 2013 (available electronically)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City adopted its Annual Budget on 24 July 2013 with an estimated municipal surplus of $100,000. This report highlights any issues that may impact on the financial position to 30 June 2014 and the opening funds for the 2013/2014 Budget.
BACKGROUND
The 2013/14 budget was adopted on 24 July 2013 with an estimated municipal cash surplus of $100 000. At its meeting on 28 August 2013 (Item SGS1308-7 refers), Council adopted nature and type as the preferred reporting format with 2.5% and a threshold of $250 000 as the level for explanation of variances.
COMMENT
When adopting the budget, the City also committed to find a further $1 000,000 in operational savings during the year and those savings were reflected in the employee costs budget adopted. At this stage of the financial year, the City is on target to achieve these operational savings, although there are unforseen costs impacting this achievement as outlined below.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 206
Organisational Comment Depreciation: Depreciation cannot be run for 2013/14 until the asset system has been rolled over from fiscal year 2013 and that is not likely to occur until November, after revaluations and fair value adjustments have been finalised. Capital Expenditure: With 33% of the financial year elapsed and excluding the proposed depot land purchase, we have spent 20% of the capital budget and the gap between the actual and year to date budget is likely to narrow in the following months. City Management Chief Executive Office Costs to finalise proposal for the Local Government Reform requirements have seen this part of the budget track more than expected. These costs will level out over the remaining months. Costs associated with the move of the tourist wheel on Esplanade Reserve will impact directly on this area of the budget in the next month. Marketing Expenditure is above the anticipated levels for this time of the year. The advertising budget spend is up by $136,000 ($323,000) on year to date figures and will be monitored to ensure it is only a timing issue rather than a budget problem. Visitors Centre The Visitor Centre budget has a net $35,000 deficit to the budget at the end of October. Revenue from commissions is down by $33,000 ($39,000) which is all of that deficit. Events Management Events is also running at deficit to the budget for the end of October by $110,000. Costs associated with the public events for the Fremantle Football Club finals appearance was not anticipated in the budget and runs at $124,319 at the end of October. This accounts for the current deficit position in this area and will need to be addressed at the mid-year budget review. Human Resources Expenditure is above the year to date estimate by $85,000. This is due to the costs associated with the cultural analysis program of $45,000, a change management program needed in corporate services $5,500 and staff issues requiring support programs of $10,000 along with a cost for changes to the payroll software which was unforseen for $20,000. The software costs may be managed through other areas and this will be taken into consideration at the mid year review.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 207
The City has received a large workers compensation adjustment charge of $200,000 that was not planned for and is impacting on the $1,000,000 in operational savings being implemented across the budget. Operational savings are being achieved but will need to be further reviewed to ensure it is achieved in light of some additional costs. Corporate Services Financial Services Interest on investment revenue has improved over the past month. Whilst still below year to date estimates by $60,000 ($424,500) the trend is moving back in the right direction. The sale of Point Street was estimated to occur in September and add to investment interest revenue from October. This will be offset by continued revenue from parking in Point Street carpark. Commercial Property Lease revenue is below year to date estimates by $150,000 ($1,536,000) at the end of October. The major contributor to this is the Queensgate building which is $81,000 ($480,000) below target. This is attributed to the tenancies starting the vacate due to the proposed redevelopment plans. Other contributors will be rent reviews which will kick in during the course of the year. Commercial Parking Parking revenue is currently $200,000 ($3,778,500) above year to date estimates. Point Street parking revenue of $153,000 makes up approximately $125,000 of this surplus to date. On-street revenue is also contributing a surplus year to date amount of $80,000 ($1,232,000) and all other carparks are showing slightly better figures than estimated, except for Queensgate which is showing a deficit of $55,000 ($535,000). The real time parking sign project is nearing completion with a final project payment still to be made. The project has been delayed with software compatibility issues and the City has implemented contract provisions to seek rectification of this issue. Parking Services Revenue from parking infringements is below estimates for year to date by $220,000 ($677,000). This is somewhat off-set by reduced legal costs follow-up action by $35,000 ($115,000). The commercial parking surplus is also assisting in off-setting this deficit and the city will continue to monitor this position.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 208
Community Development Cultural Development Fremantle Festival costs are starting to make their way into the budget. This is a significant part of the budget program for this area and will give an indication of total costs over the next two months. Fremantle Arts Centre This is the time of the year where the Arts Centre ramps up it concert program and bazaar. Expenditure is tracking well to budget at the end of October and will be monitored through the summer months when the majority of expenditure occurs. Leisure Centre The upgrade of the Fremantle Leisure Centre will be coming to an end early in the new calendar year. Most of the water based revenue streams are estimated to kick in at that time and the city will monitor this to ensure we are aware of how that tracks. The upgrade project itself has 30% of the funds ($1,593,000) committed and from project reports is tracking to be delivered on budget. Planning and Development Statutory Planning Revenue from planning fees is above estimates by $60,000 ($228,000) at the end of October. This is a pleasing sign considering fees have generally been below estimates for the past couple of years. Building Services Revenue from fees for building applications are also up on estimates for the year by $20,000 ($115,000). Not normally a surplus that would warrant a comment but again is a good sign when reflecting on the past couple of years. Technical Services Infrastructure Projects The annual program of works is well underway. Budget is tracking over the year to date estimates but still well within budgets and is more likely a reflection of timing of projects against budget estimates. The program will be monitored though to ensure there are no surprises. Parks
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 209
Parks operations are running surplus to budget fro the end of October by $300,000 ($3,265,000) although this is also likely a reflection of timing of projects against budget estimates. Waste Domestic and commercial waste is tracking with budget to the end of October.
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
This report is provided to enable Council to keep track of how the allocation of costs is tracking against the budget. It is also provided to identify any issues against budget which Council should be informed of. Legal
Regulation 13 (Financial Management) under section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 (Listing of Accounts Paid). Regulation 34 (Financial Management) under section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 (Financial Report by Nature and Explanation of Variances). Operational
This report is provided to Council to keep track of the operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities provided for under the 2013/14 adopted budget by reporting actual revenue and expenditure against budget. Organisational
No direct impact but results year to date may highlight matters that have arisen or may need to be addressed in the future.
CONCLUSION
There are several matters impacting the budget that will need to be reviewed at mid-year. The Fremantle Football Club finals events, the workers compensation adjustments and the cultural awareness organisational review are the significant areas impacting on the current bottom line. Other areas such as property leases and parking will remain under review. At this time of the year it is difficult to attain good information on any significant areas of savings or surplus as the organisation is weary in making a call too early. The financial statements as attached for further review of payments made during October and cash deposits at the end of October. Also attached is the year to date statement of financial activity and balance sheet for information.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 210
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Nil
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Nil
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Simple Majority Required
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
1. The City of Fremantle Financial Report including the Statement of Financial Activity, Statement of Closing Position and Statement of Financial Position for the period ended 31 October 2013 is received,
2. Council receives the payments authorised under delegated authority and detailed in the list of invoices for October, 2013, presented as per the summaries set out in the attached schedules and include creditors that have been paid in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 211
C1311-02 APPLICATION FOR LEASE - UNIT 1, J SHED - SUNSET EVENTS PTY LTD
DataWorks Reference: 048/002, Unit 1 J Shed Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 27 November 2013 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Nadine Hume, Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Site Plan of Proposed Lease Interpretive drawing of concept development
Hours of Operation and Use Table
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of the implementation of the Arthur Head Reserve Art and Culture Precinct it was determined by resolution that Unit 1, J Shed, Arthur Head would be put out to Lease through a competitive process for a bar/café/gallery as a major attraction for the whole area. It was also stipulated that there be a space within the Leased premises whereby the precinct artists could exhibit their work. After an expression of interest process in May 2013 Sunset Events was shortlisted to enter negotiations for this lease. Delegated authority is now being sought for the Chief Executive Officer to finalise a 21 year lease based on approved essential terms with Sunset Events so they may begin to seek the required planning and liquor licensing approvals.
BACKGROUND
The City advertised for Expressions of Interest for the use of Unit 1 J Shed, Arthur Head as a bar/café/gallery in November 2012. The submission accepted was received from Sunset Events Pty Ltd. Sunset Events started as an outdoor cinema in Kings Park but moved into live music and large music festivals. Their aim is to focus on both a cultural and educational experience with a key strategy being the consideration of the impact events have on the environment with particular attention to minimising their carbon emissions. Currently Sunset events manage the West Coast Blues ‘n’ Roots Festival, Stereosonic, Southbound Festival, Groovin The Moo, Creamfields, St Jerome’s Laneway Festival and North West Festival. They are a full service company managing all stages of the events they organise showing a diverse background in business management.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 212
COMMENT
The site is essentially in a raw state with limited services and the Unit being a warehouse space. Sunset understand that the premises is offered on an “as is” condition and that the implementation of required services such as power, water and sewer connection will be the responsibility and cost of the lessee. Sunset will need to provide all infrastructure required to develop the site including commercial kitchen, power and water upgrades, building improvements and land improvements. It is estimated that this will cost in the vicinity of $2.0 million. Sunset’s expression is for a lease on J Shed and a portion of the grassed area on the western side of J Shed. They have presented an artist’s interpretation of the possible multiple uses for the area to ensure the property is usable and inviting all year round. Ideas include weekend craft and art (flea) markets with a focus on Fremantle artists, Art exhibitions, dedicated space for rotating artists in residence, free wifi to attract students and public for lunch and during the daytime, laid back live music, ticketed events for profile musicians from across Australia and overseas as well as free performances by local artists. Clothes hoists and dog lead rail will be provided so beach goers can hang their towel or secure their pet to the rail and purchase a meal and/or refreshment. Inexpensive and laid back food and beverage options will be unique and offered from the main café and pop up stalls during including artisan food vendors during main events and busier periods. The intention is to operate a craft brewery operation where Sunset will brew their own beers off-site and transfer the beer into vats on-site. Sunset is proposing to apply for a tavern licence to the capacity of 1500 persons. The aim of the proposal is to attract a mixed patron from the age of mid twenties and above. The usual business operation will allow up to 1,000 patrons to attend during busy periods and will seek opportunity to operate 10 to 15 ticketed events during the warmer months for up to 1,500 people. During the ticketed events fencing will be placed around the venue to restrict access to ticket sales only and a temporary stage will be erected on the unleased portion of the grassed area to allow numbers into the venue. Sunset will commence seeking liquor and planning approvals once a lease is negotiated. The time needed to arrange liquor and planning approvals will take up to twelve months and Sunset do not intend to commence any physical works until these items have been achieved, therefore the commencement time for operation of the facility is not expected until approximately 2 years after the signing of a lease. Lease negotiations have included a step in process over a period of 2 years to allow this to occur. Up until the period where Sunset would take possession of the property, if the lease is supported, the City and Sunset have agreed that temporary tenants may be placed in Unit 1. Based on negotiations with Sunset Events the following essential terms and conditions are recommended to provide the commercial agreement to allow Sunset to progress the next steps in seeking planning and liquor license applications;
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 213
Land Unit 1, J Shed, Fleet Street, Fremantle – Portion of Lot 2051 on Deposited Plan 217075 and being the whole of the land in Qualified Certificate of Crown Land Title Volume 3037 Folio 511 Term Ten (11) years commencing on 1 March 2015 and expiring on 28 February 2026 Further terms First Further Term: Ten (10) years commencing on 1 March 2026 and expiring on 28 February 2036 Commencement Date 1 March 2015 (unless otherwise agreed by both parties in writing) Rent (a) Subject to paragraphs (b) to (d), to be advised. (b) 25% of the Rent shall be payable for the first 12 months of the Term; (c) 50% of the Rent shall be payable for the months 13 to 18 of the Term; (d) 75% of the Rent shall be payable for months 18 to 24 of the Term; and (e) Rent payable on and from month 25 shall be in accordance with paragraph (a) with
no discount. Payment of Rent shall commence on the Commencement Date, in accordance with the above provisions. Rent Review Dates Each anniversary of the Commencement Date to CPI other than the following rent review dates, which shall be market based reviews: (a) 5th Anniversary of the Commencement Date; (b) 10th Anniversary of the Commencement Date; and (c) 15th Anniversary of the Commencement Date. Use Bar, café and performance venue and artist studios
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 214
Public liability insurance $20,000,000 (Twenty Million Dollars) Additional terms and conditions 1. Works to be undertaken by Lessee Complete scope of works to be provided. 2. Public access through Premises Subject to the requirements imposed on the Lessee under the Liquor Control Act 1988, the Lessee shall maintain a public pedestrian access way through the Premises to be depicted on attached plan to Lease. 3. Conditions Precedent (1) The grant of Lease is conditional on:
a) the lessor’s compliance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995, including but not limited to the requirements pertaining to disposal of property set out in section 3.58 of that Act;
b) The approval of the Minister for Lands being obtained under section 18 of the
Land Administration Act 1997;
c) The lessee obtaining planning consent from the City in respect of the development by a prescribed time.
The lessee complying with its obligations under Item 9; and
The lessee to obtain an appropriate liquor licence for the premises and the permitted use.
(2) In the event that the conditions precedent are not satisfied by 31 December 2014,
the lease shall be of no further force or effect subject to any further written agreement of the parties to extend the time period for satisfaction of the conditions precedent.
(3) The lessor agrees that it will consider any application for planning approval or
approval required for the grant of a liquor licence if submitted by the lessee prior to the commencement date
4. Further obligations of the Lessee (1) The Lessee shall at its own cost:
a) prepare a surveyed plan of the premises for the purposes of the lease and submit a copy of such plan to the City by a prescribed time.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 215
b) submit a full scope of works in respect of the development for inclusion in the lease.
c) submit an application for planning approval to the City in respect of the
development by no later than a prescribed time.
d) submit an application for a building permit in respect of the development to the City by no later than 14 February 2014;
e) subject to grant of the lease in accordance with clause 1 of the lease, commence
the development by no later than 1 March 2015. (2) In relation to each of the further obligations, the lessee shall use its best endeavours to meet the relevant deadlines identified. (3) The parties acknowledge and agree that the development will be undertaken by the lessee during the first year of the term, during which time only 25% of the rent is payable in accordance with item 5(b). 5. Alcohol The Lessee COVENANTS AND AGREES that if a licence or permit is granted under the Liquor Control Act 1988 for the premises it must:
a) comply with any requirements attaching to the licence or permit at its cost and where any alteration is required to the Premises shall apply;
b) comply with the requirements of the Harm Minimisation Policy (as amended from
time to time) of the Department of Racing, Gaming & Liquor, which will require, without limitation the following –
(i) the development and implementation of a House Management Policy and Code
of Conduct (as defined by the Harm Minimisation Policy) for the Premises, and such policies must be displayed in a prominent position on the Premises at all times; and
(ii) the development and implementation of a Management Plan (as defined by the
Harm Minimisation Policy) for the Premises;
a) provide a copy of the licence or permit (as well as a copy of any document referred to in the licence or permit, including without limitation a copy of the House Management Policy, Code of Conduct and Management Plan (as defined by the Harm Minimisation Policy)) to the lessor as soon as practicable after the date of grant; and
b) indemnify and keep indemnified the lessor from and against any breach of the
Liquor Control Act 1988, Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations 1993, Liquor Control Regulations 1989 or the licence or permit or any conditions imposed thereupon for which it may be liable as the owner of the Premises.
6. Early Access to Premises
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 216
The lessor shall permit the lessee to access the premises prior to commencement of the lease as may be reasonably required for the Lessee to inspect or survey the premises, subject to such access not unreasonably interfering with the use of the premises by any third party. 7. No fetter on discretion of Lessor The Lessee acknowledges that:
a) no provision of this lease constitutes a fetter on the discretion of the lessor in the exercise by the lessor of any of its powers under any law including those relating to planning, building or health;
b) in the event the development proceeds it shall be carried out at the risk of the
lessee and the lessor has not given any warranty or made any representations either as to the suitability of the premises or otherwise for the development; and
c) it accepts the premises in its present condition relying upon its own enquiries and
investigations. 8. Use of Premises by third parties For the sake of clarity, the parties acknowledge that entry into this agreement shall not restrict the right and entitlement of the City to permit use of the premises by any third party, whether by way of lease or licence agreement, prior to commencement of the lease to Sunset Events. 9. Lessor’s Acknowledgement
1. The lessor acknowledges that the lessee may conduct live performances from the premises which will be heard from outside the premises and for which an approval under regulation 18 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 may be required.
2. The lessor acknowledges that:
a) the lessee proposes to sell alcoholic beverages from the Premises and
will apply to the relevant liquor licensing authority for a liquor licence which permits the sale of liquor from the premises
b) the lessee may apply to the relevant liquor licensing authority for a producer’s licence to permit the micro-brewing of liquor on the Premises, such application to be subject at all times to the further approval of the City, which may be withheld at its absolute discretion; and
c) any liquor licence attaching to the Premises and obtained by the lessee
will remain the property of the Lessee and may be removed by the lessee on Termination of this Lease.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 217
10. Exhibition of artist’s work 1. The lessee acknowledges that the premise is situated within the Arthur Heads Arts
and Heritage Precinct, as designated by resolution of the Council of the lessor. 2. The Lessee agrees to provide a space within the Premises:
a) for artists working in Arthur Head Precinct to be able to exhibit their work on a
priority basis; and
b) at other times to be available to external artists for hire. 11. Advertised, ticketed events Without detracting from any separate statutory requirement for approval, the lessee shall not hold more than 15 advertised, ticketed events on the premises in any calendar year during the term of the lease. The proposed rental remains in negotiation with Sunset Events with the City taking into account the level of infrastructure the company will need to finance.
RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Financial
The City would receive rental income from not only Unit 1, J Shed but also the reserve area Sunset Events have proposed to Lease. No impact on City finances for the added infrastructure whilst creating a pedestrian traffic for the surrounding artists in the Arthur Head Precinct. Legal
Local Government Act 1995. Commercial Tenancies Act 2011. Operational
The City will continue to finalise the lease based on the essential terms approved by council. The lease will not be formally executed until this time. Once the lease is executed and approved by Minister for lands the lessee will commence to seek development and liquor licensing approvals. If these approvals are granted, the lessee will commence construction works to the premises. It is not anticipated this business will commence operations for approximately 2 years after the lease is signed. Organisational Nil
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 218
CONCLUSION
The lease provides the commercial terms from which Sunset Events will take hold of the property and the use which will occur. This is the first step in a three step approval process where the lessee will also be required to seek formal planning approval for the development of the premises and apply for a liquor license for the sale of alcohol. The lessee will be seeking a tavern license. The proposal provides for a creative industries environment and seeks to be an attractor for people to the location, which satisfies the expression of interest sought. Through discussions with Sunset Events the area of lease has been negotiated to ensure minimal interference with other J Shed tenants. The artists located at Arthur Head may also reap the benefits from the added patronage to the area through Sunset Events planned gallery space and general visitation to their studios.
STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Nil
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Advertisement of the Lease terms and conditions allowing 14days for public comment as per the Local Government Act will be required. The City held an invitation only workshop for local stakeholders on Monday 4 November, 2013 in which the City and Sunset Events presented the concept.
VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Simple Majority Required
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
1. To approve the essential terms and conditions for the lease between City of
Fremantle and Sunset Events for Unit 1 J Shed, Fleet Street, Fremantle as below;
Land Unit 1, J Shed, Fleet Street, Fremantle – Portion of Lot 2051 on Deposited Plan 217075 and being the whole of the land in Qualified Certificate of Crown Land Title Volume 3037 Folio 511
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 219
Term Ten (11) years commencing on 1 March 2015 and expiring on 28 February 2026 Further terms First Further Term: Ten (10) years commencing on 1 March 2026 and expiring on 28 February 2036 Commencement Date 1 March 2015 (unless otherwise agreed by both parties in writing) Rent a) Subject to paragraphs (b) to (d), to be advised b) 25% of the Rent shall be payable for the first 12 months of the Term; c) 50% of the Rent shall be payable for the months 13 to 18 of the Term; d) 75% of the Rent shall be payable for months 18 to 24 of the Term; and e) Rent payable on and from month 25 shall be in accordance with paragraph (a) with
no discount. Payment of Rent shall commence on the Commencement Date, in accordance with the above provisions. Rent Review Dates Each anniversary of the Commencement Date to CPI other than the following rent review dates, which shall be market based reviews: a) 5th Anniversary of the Commencement Date; b) 10th Anniversary of the Commencement Date; and c) 15th Anniversary of the Commencement Date. Use Bar, café and performance venue and artist studios Public liability insurance $20,000,000 (Twenty Million Dollars)
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 220
Additional terms and conditions 1. Works to be undertaken by Lessee Complete scope of works to be provided. 2. Public access through Premises Subject to the requirements imposed on the Lessee under the Liquor Control Act 1988, the Lessee shall maintain a public pedestrian access way through the Premises to be depicted on attached plan to Lease. 3. Conditions Precedent (1) The grant of Lease is conditional on:
a) the lessor’s compliance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995, including but not limited to the requirements pertaining to disposal of property set out in section 3.58 of that Act;
b) The approval of the Minister for Lands being obtained under section 18 of the
Land Administration Act 1997;
c) The lessee obtaining planning consent from the City in respect of the development by a prescribed time.
d) The lessee complying with its obligations under Item 9; and
e) The lessee to obtain an appropriate liquor licence for the premises and the permitted use.
2) In the event that the conditions precedent are not satisfied by 31 December 2014,
the lease shall be of no further force or effect subject to any further written agreement of the parties to extend the time period for satisfaction of the conditions precedent.
3) The lessor agrees that it will consider any application for planning approval or
approval required for the grant of a liquor licence if submitted by the lessee prior to the commencement date
4. Further obligations of the Lessee (1) The Lessee shall at its own cost:
a) prepare a surveyed plan of the premises for the purposes of the lease and submit a copy of such plan to the City by a prescribed time.
b) submit a full scope of works in respect of the development for inclusion in the
lease.
c) submit an application for planning approval to the City in respect of the development by no later than a prescribed time.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 221
d) submit an application for a building permit in respect of the development to the
City by no later than 14 February 2014;
e) subject to grant of the lease in accordance with clause 1 of the lease, commence the development by no later than 1 March 2015.
(2) In relation to each of the further obligations, the lessee shall use its best endeavours to meet the relevant deadlines identified. (3) The parties acknowledge and agree that the development will be undertaken by the lessee during the first year of the term, during which time only 25% of the rent is payable in accordance with item 5(b). 5. Alcohol The Lessee COVENANTS AND AGREES that if a licence or permit is granted under the Liquor Control Act 1988 for the premises it must:
a) comply with any requirements attaching to the licence or permit at its cost and where any alteration is required to the Premises shall apply;
b) comply with the requirements of the Harm Minimisation Policy (as amended from
time to time) of the Department of Racing, Gaming & Liquor, which will require, without limitation the following –
i. the development and implementation of a House Management Policy and
Code of Conduct (as defined by the Harm Minimisation Policy) for the Premises, and such policies must be displayed in a prominent position on the Premises at all times; and
ii. the development and implementation of a Management Plan (as defined by
the Harm Minimisation Policy) for the Premises;
c) provide a copy of the licence or permit (as well as a copy of any document referred to in the licence or permit, including without limitation a copy of the House Management Policy, Code of Conduct and Management Plan (as defined by the Harm Minimisation Policy)) to the lessor as soon as practicable after the date of grant; and
d) indemnify and keep indemnified the lessor from and against any breach of the
Liquor Control Act 1988, Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations 1993, Liquor Control Regulations 1989 or the licence or permit or any conditions imposed thereupon for which it may be liable as the owner of the Premises.
6. Early Access to Premises The lessor shall permit the lessee to access the premises prior to commencement of the lease as may be reasonably required for the Lessee to inspect or survey the premises, subject to such access not unreasonably interfering with the use of the premises by any third party.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 222
7. No fetter on discretion of Lessor The Lessee acknowledges that:
a) no provision of this lease constitutes a fetter on the discretion of the lessor in the exercise by the lessor of any of its powers under any law including those relating to planning, building or health;
b) in the event the development proceeds it shall be carried out at the risk of the
lessee and the lessor has not given any warranty or made any representations either as to the suitability of the premises or otherwise for the development; and
c) it accepts the premises in its present condition relying upon its own enquiries and
investigations. 8. Use of Premises by third parties For the sake of clarity, the parties acknowledge that entry into this agreement shall not restrict the right and entitlement of the City to permit use of the premises by any third party, whether by way of lease or licence agreement, prior to commencement of the lease to Sunset Events. 9. Lessor’s Acknowledgement
3. The lessor acknowledges that the lessee may conduct live performances from the premises which will be heard from outside the premises and for which an approval under regulation 18 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 may be required.
4. The lessor acknowledges that:
a) the lessee proposes to sell alcoholic beverages from the Premises and
will apply to the relevant liquor licensing authority for a liquor licence which permits the sale of liquor from the premises
b) the lessee may apply to the relevant liquor licensing authority for a producer’s licence to permit the micro-brewing of liquor on the Premises, such application to be subject at all times to the further approval of the City, which may be withheld at its absolute discretion; and
c) any liquor licence attaching to the Premises and obtained by the lessee
will remain the property of the Lessee and may be removed by the lessee on Termination of this Lease.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 223
10. Exhibition of artist’s work (1) The lessee acknowledges that the premise is situated within the Arthur Heads Arts
and Heritage Precinct, as designated by resolution of the Council of the lessor. (2) The Lessee agrees to provide a space within the Premises:
i. for artists working in Arthur Head Precinct to be able to exhibit their work on a
priority basis; and
ii. at other times to be available to external artists for hire. 11. Advertised, ticketed events Without detracting from any separate statutory requirement for approval, the lessee shall not hold more than 15 advertised, ticketed events on the premises in any calendar year during the term of the lease. The proposed rental remains in negotiation with Sunset Events with the City taking into account the level of infrastructure the company will need to finance. 2. To authorise delegated authority for the Chief Executive Officer to finalise the
Lease between the City of Fremantle and Sunset Events Pty Ltd for Unit 1 J Shed, Fleet Street, Fremantle.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 224
C1311-03 RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY REPORT - PAKENHAM STREET NO 8 (LOTS 133, 134 & 135) FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE (5) STOREY (68 UNIT 122 BEDROOM) TOURIST ACCOMMODATION BUILDING (JL DAP80001/13)
(Regulation 12)
Property Location: No.8 (Lots 133, 134 & 135) Pakenham Street, Fremantle
Application Details: Partial Demolition of existing Warehouse and Construction of a Five (5) Storey (68 Room – 122 Bed) Tourist Accommodation building
DAP Name: Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel
Applicant: TPG - Peter Simpson Owner: Fairgreen Pty Ltd LG Reference: DAP80001/13 Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle Authorising Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Department of Planning File No: DP/13/00463 Report Date: 18 November 2013 Application Receipt Date: 21 May 2013 Application Process Days: 90 Days, (1st Extension of time granted
extending RAR report due date to 30/08/2013, 2nd Extension of time granted extending RAR report due date to 19/09/2013, 3rd Extension of time granted extending RAR report due date to 21/11/2013 and 4th Extension of time granted extending RAR report due date to 28/11/2013).
Attachment 1: Amended Plans date stamped having been received by the City on the 15 November 2013 – reference Basement Plan (SK02), Ground Floor Plan (SK03), First Floor Plan (SK04), Level 2 Floor Plan (SK05), Level 3 Floor Plan (SK06), Level 4 Floor Plan (SK07), Roof Plan (SK08), Elevations (Short Street Elevations) (SK09), Elevations Pakenham Street Elevation (SK10), Elevations South & East (SK11), Section AA (SK12), Survey Plan (SK13), Pakenham Street Cross Street Section (SK14), Artist impression Pakenham Street view (Image 03) & Artist impression Atrium view (Image 04).
Attachment 2: City of Fremantle Heritage Assessment, Additional Heritage Comments on Amended plans dated 24 August 2013 and Additional Heritage Comments relating to Amended Plans Dated 15 November 2013
Attachment 3: Schedule of Public Submissions. Attachment 4: Applicant’s response to heritage
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 225
Assessment, Public Submissions and the City’s Development Assessment Committees Comments from previous meetings and Locality Survey (Aerial Photo) indicating various Buildings AHD Level.
Attachment 5: Site and Immediate locality Photo’s Recommendation: That Council:
A) Advice the applicant that Council is not prepared to support the current proposal and plans dated 15 November 2013.
B) Invite the applicant to attend another workshop and submit an amendment to the current application, incorporating the following changes and additional information:
i. That the planning modules of the new additions be set out to conform to the
structural grid of the existing building. ii. Remove the gap between the old and the new by attaching the new additions
to the conserved external walls. iii. Retain the intactness of the external walls of the heritage building by
only forming new window openings to match the precedent set by the existing windows at the corner of the building.
iv. Design the new additions so that the windows in the external wall serve as the windows of the new accommodation units.
v. Behind the retained facades the floor levels of the new additions should match the existing floor levels at the corner of the heritage building.
vi. Design the new additions so their siting, bulk, and height do not overwhelm the façade of the heritage building.
vii. Set out the level of the second floor so the existing parapet can serve as the balustrade for the terrace formed at this level.
C) Upon receipt of the amended application and these plans addressing the issues outlined in Part
‘B’ above to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, Council will refer the a recommendation to the South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel to approve the development, subject to appropriate conditions.
D) In the event that amended plans addressing the issues outlined in part B) above, are not
submitted to the City of Fremantle, and the amended plans not being to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, Council will refer the following recommendation to the South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel:
Refuse DAP Application reference DP/13/00463 (City of Fremantle reference DAP80001/13) and accompanying plans dated 15 November 2013, having been received by the City of Fremantle on the 15 November 2013 Basement Plan (SK02), Ground Floor Plan (SK03), First Floor Plan (SK04), Level 2 Floor Plan (SK05), Level 3 Floor Plan (SK06), Level 4 Floor Plan (SK07), Roof Plan (SK08), Elevations (Short Street Elevations) (SK09), Elevations Pakenham Street Elevation (SK10), Elevations South & East (SK11), Section AA (SK12), Survey Plan (SK13), Pakenham Street Cross Street Section (SK14), Artist Impression Pakenham Street View (Image 03) & Artist Impression Atrium View (Image 04)in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, for the following reasons:
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 226
1. The building height of the proposed development does not comply with the height
requirements contained within Schedule 12 of City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4.
2. The proposed development does not satisfy all of the criteria listed under Clause 5.8.1 and 7.5 of City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4.
3. The proposed development is considered to have a detrimental impact on the
amenity of the locality and is not in the interests of orderly and proper planning having regard to the advice of the Design Advisory Committee and Clauses 11.8.5, 11.8.6.2 and 11.8.6.3 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4.
Background:
Property Address: No. 8 (Lots 133, 134 & 135) Pakenham Street, Fremantle
Zoning MRS: Central City Zone LPS: City Centre Zone Use Class: A – Tourist Accommodation Strategy Policy: N/A Development Scheme: City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Lot Size: Lot 133 - 769m2, Lot 134 – 483m2 and Lot 135
– 549m2 = total 1801m2 Existing Land Use: Warehouse Value of Development: $15 million The City of Fremantle records show that the subject site has been utilised as a warehouse (known as the John Lysaught Warehouse) for the past 70 years. The subject site is located on the corner of Pakenham Street and Short Street, Fremantle. The site incorporates three lots which that equate to approximately 1801m2 in area.. Currently on site there is a warehouse currently occupied by Halco Tackle and used for warehouse and Industry general purposes. The existing building incorporates an approximate wall height of 8.5 – 9.5m and has a saw tooth roof. The development site is located within and subject to Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas of LPS4. Specifically, the site is within Local Planning Area Sub Area 1.3.1 – West End of Schedule 12. The subject site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as having a management category Level 1B and therefore is recommended to be included on the State Heritage Register. Additionally, the subject site is located within the West End Conservation Heritage Area which is prescribed Heritage Area under clause 7.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4). Details: Outline of development application At its meeting held 18 September 2013, the planning Service Committee resolved to
1. The matter be deferred until 20 November 2013 Planning Services Committee in order for a workshop to be held including the Mayor, chair of the Design Advisory Committee, relevant planning staff and the applicant for the purposes of attempting to reach a mutually agreeable design for 8 Pakenham Street.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 227
2. A request for an extension of time to 21 November 2013 (the day after PSC) be submitted to The Development Assessment Panel for this application.
On 24 October 2013 a workshop meeting was held between all parties outlined in PSC resolution (1) above and as a result amended plans were submitted by the applicant on 15 November 2013. The agreed outcomes from the workshop meeting included design review of the following elements of the development:
1. Better integrate the relationship between the retained structural columns and the openings of the units facing into the internal courtyard.
2. Glaze each end of the southern corridors to increased natural light. 3. Increase the height of the Short St facing units to better link new openings to the existing
Short St façade by approx 1.0m. 4. Increase setback (perhaps only architecturally) of the upper floor from Short Street. 5. Reorientate the ground floor lobby and reception area to Pakenham Street to obtain a more
direct line of sight to the internal courtyard. 6. Add additional openings to the Short Street façade (rendered portion). 7. Look at using the fire escape fire located close to Pakenham Street as a light well. 8. Keep all floors except the ground floor on short street to a minimum height of 2.4 – 2.55 to
minimise any height discretions. 9. Incorporate nil setbacks of the new units fronting Short Street to the existing façade. 10. Carry through the façade geometry to the new units above the existing façade.
Additionally, in relation to part 2 of PSC’s above resolution an extension of time request was submitted and granted by the South – West Joint Design Assessment Panel (J-DAP) presiding member with the new Responsible Authority Report due date being 28 November 2013 (1 day after the Ordinary Council meeting of 27 November 2013). The applicants are seeking to partially demolish the existing Warehouse Building and replace it with a new five storey, 122 bedrooms (68 unit) with basement Tourist Accommodation building. The applicant is proposing to retain the Pakenham and Short Street façade walls of the existing heritage listed warehouse building, but is proposing to incorporate several new openings to the ground and third floor levels on both Pakenham and Short Street facades. It’s also intended to incorporate a section of the existing saw tooth roof trusses into the internal courtyard area of the new development. The proposed Tourist Accommodation building will incorporate a total of 68 self contained apartments (54 two bedroom and 14 Single bedroom units), a Café and Conference/Meeting room. The most recent submitted amended plans dated 15 November 2013 include the following works:
Basement Floor;
o Including Staff Room, Gym, Storerooms, Linen Storage, Transformer and Fire
Equipment tank rooms;
Ground Floor:
o 12 Apartments (1 Single bedroom [25m2] and 10 Two bedroom [ranging from
67-74m2]),
o Central Courtyard
o 49m2 Café (Restaurant) incorporating 18 person seated area,
o Loading/ Service Area off Short Street,
o 53m2 Conference Room & Tourist Accommodations Office and reception
room, incidental lift, stairways and storage facilities;
Level 1 Floor:
o 16 Apartments (5 Single bedroom [ranging from 25 – 44m2] and 11 Two
bedroom [ranging from 67-70m2]),
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 228
o Office, Office store & incidental lift, stairways, corridors and storage facilities;
Level 2 Floor:
o 15 Apartments (4 Single bedroom [ranging from 25 – 30m2] and 11 Two
bedroom [ranging from 67-71m2]),
o Incidental lift, stairways, corridors and storage facilities;
Level 3 Floor:
o 14 Apartments (3 Single bedroom [ranging from 25 – 30m2] and 11 Two
bedroom [ranging from 67-72m2]),
o Incidental lift, stairways, corridors and storage facilities;
Level 4 Floor:
o 12 Apartments (1 Single bedroom [25m2] and 11 Two bedroom [ranging from
68-73m2]),
o Incidental lift, stairways, corridors and storage facilities;
Summary of changes between original and amended development plans
21 May 2013 (Original Plans)
24 August 2013 Plans 15 November 2013 Amended Plans
5 Storey – (15.8m external wall height)
5 Storey – (14.25m external wall height)
5 Storey – (15m external wall height)
77 Apartments - 34 Single bedroom apartments and 43 Two bedroom self contained apartments = 120 bedrooms
70 Apartments - 20 Single bedroom apartments and 50 Two bedroom self contained apartments = 120 bedrooms
68 Apartments - 14 Single bedroom apartments and 54 Two bedroom self contained apartments = 122 bedrooms
Basement – Gym, Staff room general Amenity & Service/
plant Equip rooms
Basement – Gym, Staff room general Amenity & Service/ plant Equip rooms
Basement – Gym, Staff room general Amenity & Service/ plant Equip rooms
58m2 Restaurant (Café) fronting Pakenham Street,
58m2 Restaurant (Café) fronting Pakenham Street,
49m2 Restaurant (Café)
94m2 Meeting/ Conference Room,
94m2 Meeting/ Conference Room,
53m2 Conference room
4 car bay (2 x 2 Car stackers) basement area, 1 Loading Bays & 12 Bicycle
racks
1 onsite car bay, 1 Loading Bays & 8 Bicycle racks
1 loading bay
Legislation & policy: The legislative framework and policy base providing for the assessment and determination of the subject application is as follows: 1) City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) – application for development on
the site is to be determined in accordance with provisions of Part 10 of LPS4. City of Fremantle LPS4 Provisions: The following Scheme provisions are considered the most relevant in the consideration of the planning application:
Table 2 - Zoning;
Table 3 – Vehicle Parking requirements;
Clause 4.2.1(b) - Objectives for the City Centre Zone;
Clause 5.8.1 – discretionary clause to allow consideration of a height variation(s);
Clause 5.8.4 – Additional criteria that must be taken into consideration by Council in excising its powers under clause 5.8.1.1;
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 229
Clause 5.15 - Demolition of Buildings and Structures;
Clause 7.5 – Variations to Scheme provisions for a heritage place or heritage area;
Clause 11.8 – Design Advisory Committee;
Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words and Expressions; and
Schedule 12 – Local Planning Area 1 City Centre – Sub Area 1.3.1 West End
State Government Policies:
Nil Local Planning Policies The site is subject to the following relevant Local Planning Policies:
Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3)
Local Planning Policy 1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessment (LPP 1.6)
Local Planning Policy 1.9 – Design Advisory Committee & Principles Of Design
Local Planning Policy 2.3 Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines (LPP2.3)
Local Planning Policy 2.5 – External Requirements (LPP2.5)
Local Planning Policy 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements (LPP2.13);
Local Planning Policy 2.19 Contribution for Public Art/and or Heritage Works (LPP2.19), and
D.G.F14 West End Conservation Policy (DGF14) Consultation: Public Consultation The planning application was identified as a “Significant Application” as set out in Local Planning Policy LPP1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3). The application was advertised for a period of 28 days. The advertising within this period included:
Sign on site was erected to the frontage of the existing building;
Letter to owners and occupiers within 100m of the site;
Advertising of the application occurred on the City’s website;
the Fremantle Inner City Residents Association were informed of the proposal;
Two notices relating to the proposal were placed in the Fremantle Gazette on the 4 and 11 June 2013.
A Community Information session was held on the 25 June 2013 for a one hour period. Land owners/occupiers within a 100m radius of the site and elected members were invited to attend the Community Information Session. The session was attended by 3 members of the public, the applicant and a City of Fremantle Councillor. A total of 18 submissions were received. Specific comments about each submission are included in ‘Attachment 3’. The amended plans received 15 November 2013 have not been advertised due to the limited processing timeframe associated with DAP applications. Consultation with Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) The site is located within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port buffer area. In accordance with LPP2.3, the Fremantle Port Authority was advised of the development proposal. The authority advised the City in a letter dated 5 June 2013 that it had no objections to the development provided the development was designed and constructed in accordance with the built form requirements for Area 2, as detailed in the City of Fremantle’s “Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 230
Guidelines”. The guidelines contain specific conditions of approval that are to be applied to developments within Area 2. These would be included as conditions of approval if the application was being recommended for approval. Again the amended plans dated 15 November 2013 were note referred to FPA due to limited statutory processing timeframe associated with this DAP application. Consultation with State Heritage Office (SHO) The application relates to a place which is recommended to be included on the State Heritage Office (SHO) Register of Heritage Places and is located within the West End Conservation Area which is included on the SHO Register of Heritage Places. Accordingly the application was referred to the SHO for assessment. SHO responded on 19 June 2013, stating:
The Heritage Council’s Register Committee previously identified it as a place warranting assessment for possible entry in the State Register of Heritage Places; however, a full assessment to its cultural heritage significance has not yet been undertaken.
Again the amended plans dated 15 November 2013 were note referred to SHO due to limited statutory processing timeframe associated with this DAP application. Design Advisory Committee (DAC) The proposal has been presented to the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) on 3 occasions:
18 March 2013 - Concept Designs only
14 June 2013 – Original DAP Application Plans; and
12 August 2013 - Amended DAP Application Plans
9 September 2013 - DAP submitted amended plans (plans dated 24 August 2013)
15 November 2013 - DAP submitted amended plans (15 November 2013) A summary of the comments from those DAC meetings are reproduced below: 18 March 2013 DAC Meeting SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Consideration need to be given to where the air conditioning units are to be located such that they are not highly visible from the street or other apartments.
2. Further investigation is needed relating to the location of the transformers in the basement. Western Power generally require transformers to be located with easy street access which in this instance would not be desirable streetscape outcome.
3. Additional retention of the original internal heritage fabric and an appreciation of the volume should be provided.
4. Increased height may be acceptable to the north to achieve passive surveillance of the park opposite.
5. The internal amenity of the units needs to be significantly improved. Amenity issues to address include (but are not limited to):
a. Number of units; b. Size of units; c. Ensuring a usable balcony to each unit; d. More than 2.4m ceiling height e. Increased courtyard width between units
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 231
f. Reconsideration of corridor dimensions and visual connections from the corridor to light and views
g. Access to natural light and ventilation 6. The proposed height and treatment of the development abutting the adjoining southern
heritage property (18 Pakenham) is not appropriate 7. The lack of car parking on site needs to be addressed and any parking agreements with
nearby landowners needs to formalised. 8. Light well is difficult to grow vegetation in 9. Shell not being used in a distinctive way i.e. warehouse qualities have been lost. It was
suggested that a visual connection between the entry on Pakenham Street and the courtyard could assist.
10. The Committee encourages the submission of design alternatives that address the above mentioned issues.
14 June 2013 DAC Meeting SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS The differences in the current proposal from that last considered by the committee are almost invisible. Significant changes still need to be made as concerns haven’t been addressed and the DAC can’t support the application in its current form. The Committee therefore reiterates its previous comments as below. (From Minutes 18 March 2013)
1. Consideration need to be given to where the air conditioning units are to be located such that they are not highly visible from the street or other apartments.
2. Further investigation is needed relating to the location of the transformers in the basement. Western Power generally require transformers to be located with easy street access which in this instance would not be desirable streetscape outcome.
3. Additional retention of the original internal heritage fabric and an appreciation of the volume should be provided.
4. Increased height may be acceptable to the north to achieve passive surveillance of the park opposite.
5. The internal amenity of the units needs to be significantly improved. Amenity issues to address include (but are not limited to):
a. Number of units; b. Size of units; c. Ensuring a usable balcony to each unit; d. More than 2.4m ceiling height e. Increased courtyard width between units f. Reconsideration of corridor dimensions and visual connections from the corridor to light
and views g. Access to natural light and ventilation
6. The proposed height and treatment of the development abutting the adjoining southern heritage property (18 Pakenham) is not appropriate
7. The lack of car parking on site needs to be addressed and any parking agreements with nearby landowners needs to formalised.
8. Light well is difficult to grow vegetation in 9. Shell not being used in a distinctive way i.e. warehouse qualities have been lost. It was suggested
that a visual connection between the entry on Pakenham Street and the courtyard could assist. 10. The Committee encourages the submission of design alternatives that address the above
mentioned issues.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 232
12 August 2013 DAC Meeting SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION 1. While it is acknowledged that some positive changes have been made to the design, the
proposed yield being sought on the site has resulted in a number of negative outcomes – the overall height, the height relationship between the old and the new, the amenity of units that face into the shaded internal courtyard, the internalised access corridors, and unit ceiling height all remain a concern.
2. The removal of the top floor could enable better resolution of the above concerns and a more appropriate interface between the floor to floor heights of the existing Short Street façade and the proposed units behind.
The interrelationship between the existing heritage building and the proposed additions has not yet been resolved adequately. 9 September 2013 DAC Meeting SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS Although is acknowledged that the applicant has made several amendments to the plans in an attempt to satisfy the DAC’s previous concerns, these changes have been minor and many of the previous DAC concerns have not been addressed. On this basis the plans cannot be supported as submitted. The main concerns relate to the proposals character and overall design quality and functionality and have been consistently reiterated since the proposal was first proposal was considered by the Committee in March 2013. These issues are reiterated again as follows:
1. The proposed yield being sought on the site has resulted in a number of negative outcomes
including the overall height, the height relationship between the old and the new, the amenity of units that face into the shaded internal courtyard, the width of the internalised access corridors, and unit ceiling height all remain a concern.
2. The removal of the top floor could enable better resolution of the above concerns and a more
appropriate interface between the floor to floor heights of the existing Short Street façade and the proposed units behind.
3. The interrelationship between the existing heritage building and the proposed additions has not yet
been resolved
4. Additional retention of the original internal heritage fabric and an appreciation of the high internal
volumes should be provided.
5. The internal amenity of the units needs to be significantly improved. Amenity issues include: a. Number of units; b. Size of units; c. Ensuring a usable balcony to each unit; d. More than 2.4m ceiling height; e. Increased courtyard width between units; f. Reconsideration of corridor dimensions and visual connections from the corridor to light and
views; and
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 233
g. Access to natural light and ventilation;
6. The existing heritage shell is not being used in a distinctive way i.e. the warehouse qualities have
been lost including the original internal structural grid. It was suggested that a visual connection between the entry on Pakenham Street and the courtyard could assist.
15 November 2013 DAC Meeting Note that the following recommendation are in draft form only as at the time of finalising this report, the DAC minutes for the 15 November 2013 meeting has not been finalised. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS
While it is acknowledged that several of the agreed outcomes of the workshop held on 24 October 2013 have been achieved i.e. items 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 listed below, several of the agreed outcomes and in particular item 1 which requires a better integration between the retained structural columns and the openings of the units facing into the internal courtyard, have not been achieved. On this basis the revised design does not achieve an appropriate heritage outcome which is needed to support the height discretion. The Committee also reiterates its previous concerns that were outlined in the August 2013 meeting which are repeated below. 1. While it is acknowledged that some positive changes have been made to the design, the proposed
yield being sought on the site has resulted in a number of negative outcomes – the overall height, the height relationship between the old and the new, the amenity of units that face into the shaded internal courtyard, the internalised access corridors, and unit ceiling height all remain a concern.
2. The removal of the top floor could enable better resolution of the above concerns and a more appropriate interface between the floor to floor heights of the existing Short Street façade and the proposed units behind.
3. The interrelationship between the existing heritage building and the proposed additions has not yet been resolved adequately.
Agreed outcomes of 24 October 2013 workshop
1. Better integrate the relationship between the retained structural columns and the openings of the
units facing into the internal courtyard.
2. Glaze each end of the southern corridors to increased natural light.
3. Increase the height of the Short St facing units to better link new openings to the existing Short St
façade by approx 1.0m.
4. Increase setback (perhaps only architecturally) of the upper floor from Short Street.
5. Reorientate the ground floor lobby and reception area to Pakenham Street to obtain a more direct
line of sight to the internal courtyard.
6. Add additional openings to the Short Street façade (rendered portion).
7. Look at using the fire escape fire located close to Pakenham Street as a light well.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 234
8. Keep all floors except the ground floor on short street to a minimum height of 2.4 – 2.55 to
minimise any height discretions.
9. Incorporate nil setbacks of the new units fronting Short Street to the existing façade.
10. Carry through the façade geometry to the new units above the existing façade.
Internal Heritage Assessment An internal heritage assessment based on the original plans was undertaken in accordance with the provisions of LPP1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessments (LPP1.6), as the development proposal involves the partial demolition and façade adaption works of the building onsite which is included on the City’s Heritage List. A copy of this heritage assessment can be viewed in ‘Attachment 2’ of this report. A summary of the internal heritage assessment regarding the original submitted plans dated 21 May 2013 is detailed as follows:
Generally the proposed development does not have any positive impact on the heritage significance of the place and is therefore not acceptable on heritage grounds.
This internal heritage assessment was circulated to the applicant on 2 July 2013, who has opted to submit amended plans to address heritage departments concerns. With regards to the recently submitted plans dated 15 November 2013 the City Heritage Department reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:
In summary the proposed development is considered unacceptable due mainly to the decision to impose a required number of standard modular units into the partly retained shell of the heritage building while paying little regard to its heritage significance, notably the warehouse character of the building which is embodied in the clearly expressed grids of its façade divisions and its internal structure. In many ways the proposed design can be described as an attempt to disguise this fundamental flaw. With the proposed design there is minimal connection between the retained façade and the new structure. This separation is intended to downplay both the horizontal and the vertical misalignments between the two parts. Similarly new openings are made in the heritage façade, effectively turning it into a freestanding perforated wall, the purpose of which it would seem is to partly screen the lack of a coherent relationship between the retained heritage façade and the additions that would stand around 800mm behind it. This narrow gap will not achieve the desired outcome. Through the process some improvements have been achieved, particularly with the retention of an internal structural bay and by increasing the height of the ground floor. However the fundamental problems remain unresolved and need to be confronted. This means re-designing the new additions to conform to the discipline imposed by the structural grid of the warehouse. In other words, the design of the proposed new additions needs to be changed to suit the place, not the place changed to suit the proposed additions.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 235
Recommendations
1. It is recommended that the proposal be redesigned by means of an integrated design process where heritage considerations are an integral part of the design process.
2. Heritage advice should not be limited to explaining/justifying the impacts or consequences of proposed changes to a heritage place but should be used as a tool for achieving high quality designs that respond sensitively to the heritage values of the place.
3. Heritage advice should be applied at the conceptual stage of the design process, and refined at each successive step towards developing the design.
4. The City considers the building at 8 Pakenham Street to be significant in its own right. Fundamentally the significance of 8 Pakenham Street derives from it being a largely intact warehouse building in the West End of Fremantle. The proposed works should therefore aim to conserve the intactness of the ‘warehouse attributes’ of the building
5. The design of the new work should conserve the ‘warehouse attributes’ of the building by creating a strong coherent relationship between the existing and the proposed addition. The following points are suggested for the re-design of the new works so that they engage more positively with the heritage fabric of the warehouse building.
That the planning modules of the new additions be set out to conform to the structural grid of the existing building.
Improve the legibility of the structural grid.
Remove the gap between old and new by attaching the new additions to the conserved external walls.
Retain the intactness of the external walls of the heritage building by only forming new window openings to match the precedent set by the existing windows at the corner of the building.
Design the new additions so that the windows in the external wall serve as the windows of the new accommodation units.
Behind the retained facades the floor levels of the new additions should match the existing floor levels at the corner of the heritage building.
6. The design of the new work should retain the contribution of the building’s ‘warehouse attributes’ to the significant character of the streetscape. The following points are suggested for the re-design of the new works so that they do not overwhelm the streetscape value of the heritage fabric of the warehouse building.
Design the new additions so their siting, bulk, and height do not overwhelm the façade of the heritage building.
Set out the level of the second floor so the existing parapet can serve as the balustrade for the terrace formed at this level.
As mentioned above on 24 October 2013 a workshop meeting was held between all parties outlined in PSC resolution (1) above and as a result amended plans were submitted by the
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 236
applicant on 15 November 2013. The agreed outcomes from the workshop meeting included design review of the following elements of the development:
1. Better integrate the relationship between the retained structural columns and the openings of the units facing into the internal courtyard.
2. Glaze each end of the southern corridors to increased natural light. 3. Increase the height of the Short St facing units to better link new openings to the existing
Short St façade by approx 1.0m. 4. Increase setback (perhaps only architecturally) of the upper floor from Short Street. 5. Reorientate the ground floor lobby and reception area to Pakenham Street to obtain a more
direct line of sight to the internal courtyard. 6. Add an additional openings to the Short Street façade (rendered portion). 7. Look at using the fire escape fire located close to Pakenham Street as a light well. 8. Keep all floors except the ground floor on short street to a minimum height of 2.4 – 2.55 to
minimise any height discretions. 9. Incorporate nil setbacks of the new units fronting Short Street to the existing façade. 10. Carry through the façade geometry to the new units above the existing façade.
In response to the above workshop matters, the applicant outlines that the plans for the proposed development have been amended in response to the issues raised and additional suggestions, wherever possible. A summary of the changes as provided by the applicant is as follows:
The openings from the rooms to the internal courtyards have been arranged so that they have a better relationship with the retained columns.
The first and second levels have been raised to align with the heritage façade.
The setback of the top floor to Short Street has been increased to 2.6m and has been designed with a lightweight architectural treatment to reduce its visual impact.
Natural light is provided to the eastern corridor on all levels, lobby (ground floor) and western corridor (levels 1 to 4) form the internal courtyard,
Along Pakenham Street, internal walls joining the façade are existing at the corner office/ conference portion, and new walls at the southern end of this frontage are aligned with the brickwork of the façade.
Along Short Street, the internal configuration of the rooms combined with the irregular organisation of openings to the existing building has resulted in an ability to align the new internal walls with the fabric. Consequently a terrace / balcony has been provided so that internal walls do not directly abut the openings in the existing façade. This is considered to achieve the best outcome with regards to the relationship between the new build and the heritage fabric.
The reception area has been relocated to provide a continuous visual link between the entrance from Pakenham Street right the way through the internal courtyard.
The vertical expressed columns of the base building have been selectively continued through the new building above.
Natural light will permeate into the fire escape corridor through the western opening.
For a complete copy of the additional heritage comments for the newly submitted plans dated 15 November 2013 see ‘Attachment 2’ below.
In summary, the proposed changes which form part of the amended plans dated 15 November 2013 are still not considered to adequately address the City’s DAC and Heritage concerns associated with the current proposal and the height discretion being sought. To again emphasis the City’s concerns associated with the current proposal and in effort of achieving an acceptable heritage conservation outcome for the site and the West End Conservation Area, appropriate advice has been included as part of the City’s recommendation above which ultimately invites the applicant to attend another workshop
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 237
and submit amended plans addressing several specific design changes to the current proposal. Internal Environmental Health Department Review The Environmental Health section have reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:
The proponent must make application to establish the food business so that the premises comply with the Food Act, Regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises.
Submit detailed architectural plans and elevations to the City’s Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction.
The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. Internal Technical Service’s Department Review The City’s Technical Service Department reviewed the application and supporting documentation and provided the following comments on the original proposal:
The surrounding on street bays would need to be demonstrated to be able to
accommodate the demands of the development based on the tourist car bay requirements stated in the DA (Table 3, Page 21). Such factors as time limits and the viability of long term parking at metered facilities would be a suggestion also.
Similar off street public parking, as mentioned in the DA, should be explained in more detail.
Cycling has been stated as a promotional feature of the DA, yet there is only 12 bike
parking spots shown on the ground floor. Some extra detail on this would be preferable to allow further comment.
The exact number of car bays on site with the car stacker system seems to be 4. Can this be clarified.
These matters are not discussed further as the application is recommended for refusal. Planning Assessment:
Zone Objectives and Land Use The objectives for this zone are set out in Clause 4.2.1(b), which are reproduced below:
(i) provide for a full range of shopping, office, administrative, social, recreation, entertainment and community services, consistent with the region-serving role of the centre and including residential uses, and
(ii) comply with the objectives of local planning area 1 of schedule 12, (iii) conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by
development.
Whilst the proposed Tourist Accommodation use for the site is considered be an appropriate land use in accordance with sub clause (i) above, the development currently isn’t considered to comply with the objectives of Local Planning Area 1 – Sub Area 1.3 of Schedule 12 (Development requirements), nor is the proposal considered to conserve the heritage significant building onsite or the West end Conservation Area. These matters are discussed in more detail later in the report. Design
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 238
Numerous concepts and development plans have been presented before the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) of which these individual presentations and DAC’s recommendations to these presentations have been included above. In summary, whist DAC note that although several amendments to the plans have occurred since the original submission in an attempt to satisfy previous concerns, the overall changes are considered minor and many of the DAC original concerns associated with the proposal have not been addressed. Therefore, DAC does not support the development as DAC’s main concern which relates to the proposals character and overall design quality and functionality haven’t been addressed. Clause 11.8.5 and 11.8.6.2 of the Scheme states that Council is to have regard to the comments of the DAC when dealing with a matter involving an application for planning approval. Clause 11.8.6.3 outlines the matters which the DAC shall have due regard to assist in determining the design quality of the development. Such matters include character, continuity, quality of the public realm, ease of movement, legibility, adaptability and diversity. Such matters directly relate to whether the proposal has an impact on the amenity of the locality and is in the interests of orderly and proper planning. In the instance where the DAC indicates that the design quality of a proposal is of a high standard having regard to the matters outlined in clause 11.8.6.3, there may be an argument to support the development. In summary, DAC does not support the revised design of the proposed development as its still does not achieve an appropriate heritage outcome which is needed to support the height discretion. Building Height The development site is located within Local Planning Area 1 – City Centre (Schedule 12 of LPS4) and is subject to the specific building height controls set out in Sub Area 1.3 West End of that local planning area. Application of the height controls is shown below in the Building Height Table: Building Height Table:
Required Provided Discretion
Permitted Sub Area 1.3 permitted building height Three Storey’s and 11m external wall height Discretionary Height Additional Storey (4th Storey subject to;
the upper floor being sufficiently setback from the street so as to not be visible from the street(s) adjoining the subject site,
max external wall height of 14m, and
Compliance with clause 1.2 of Schedule 1 – Area 1.
5 Storeys and max external wall height of 15m.
1 Storey, and
the portion of the building above 11m external wall height, being 4m, and
Upper 5th floor not being sufficiently setback from the street so as to not be visible from the street(s) adjoining the subject site.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 239
Clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4 – Variations to height controls This clause specifically allows Council to consider the height variations provided certain conditions are met. The clause is reproduced below: 5.8.1.1 Variation to height requirements
Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following—
(a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally,
(b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality,
(c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and (d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies. Clause 5.8.1.1 contains a pre-condition that must be met before access to this clause can occur. The pre-condition requires there to be sites that “...contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12...”. The applicant argues that the existing building located at No.13 Market Street (Australian Post Office Building) depicts a height greater than that specified in Schedule 12 for this area and as such the pre condition of Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 is met and can be used to seek building height discretion. The City doesn’t agree with the applicant’s justification and believe that No.13 Market Street is too far removed and is not a building that would typically be read in the same context of the subject site in terms of streetscape presence. No.13 Market Street presents to Market Street and not Short Street or more fundamentally Pakenham Street. It also noted that the applicant provided a survey of the immediate locality which can be viewed in ‘Attachment 4’ of this report, in order to inform Council the ability to trigger a discretionary building height assessment under the provision of Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4. This survey indicates existing heights of various elements of existing buildings within the immediate locality of the subject site. The applicant contends that the survey clearly demonstrates that several buildings within the locality of the subject site depict heights greater than that also specified in Schedule 12 of LPS4 and as such discretion for the height being proposed can be sought under clause 5.8.1 of LPS4. Upon review of this survey, City Officers identified that numerous depicted spot AHD heights indicated on the survey were not in fact wall heights of buildings but rather roof top plant equipment or architectural features, all of which are considered to be ‘Minor Projections’ and do not form part of a buildings wall height as outlined in clause 5.8.1.3 of LPS4. However, it is also acknowledged that this matter is a subjective argument, and as such the City will provide a complete assessment under the criteria of clause 5.8.1 as if the pre condition was to be adequately addressed. The applicant acknowledges that discretion is sought in relation to the additional 5th storey and the setting back of the upper floor of the development from both Pakenham Street and Pioneer reserve. The applicant contends that the proposed height discretion should be supported under the discretionary criteria of clause 5.8.1 of LPS4, for the following reasons:
The variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties as the wall height is 14 metres, the building to the north is not heritage listed and there will be no overshadowing or amenity impacts. There are existing parapet walls to all boundaries and the upper levels to the proposed building to the west along Pakenham Street has been setback 3 metres, thereby not impacting the streetscape or amenity of the property.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 240
In terms of the graduation of height, the clause refers to the locality, which is noted as being a larger area than the adjacent buildings. As discussed above, the height on the corner of Market and Short Street exceeds the proposed height and the height on the corner of Phillimore Street and Henry Street exceeds the height, so in terms of locality there is a graduation of height. Similarly with Pakenham Street, the height reduces from the buildings on the corner of High Street and Pakenham Street to the proposed height. Therefore the development achieves the graduation of height.
As indicated above, the proposal has been amended in consultation with the City’s Heritage Officer to protect the conservation of the cultural heritage values of the subject site. Additionally the amendment to setback the upper levels along Pakenham Street protects the cultural heritage values of the adjoining site. As indicated above, the proposal will not be visible from either the Round House or Monument Hill, and has been sensitively designed to respond to the heritage fabric, and therefore will not impact the heritage of the West End Precinct.
With respect to other Council policies, the most relevant policy to built form is the West End Conservation Area Policy which we consider the proposed development meets.
Prior to undertaking an assessment under clause 5.8.1 of LPS4, a synopsis of the existing built form on the adjoining and immediate adjacent properties is provided.
o Adjoining southern property - No.18 Pakenham Street consists of two storey level 1B heritage listed commercial building, formerly known as the Terminus Hotel. (approximate maximum external wall height of 9.9m),
o Adjoining eastern property – No. 6 Short Street building consists of two storey 1970’s to 1980’s construction commercial building. (Approximate external wall height of 8.5m),
o Adjoining south eastern property – 2 Leake Street property includes a bitumen hardstand car park,
o Adjacent western properties No.1 & 3 Pakenham and No.49 Phillimore Street properties are all improved by two storey heritage listed commercial buildings (approx. external wall height of 10.6m)
See ‘Attachment 5’ for streetscape photos of these buildings outlined above.
The following assessment under the requirements of Clause 5.8.1 and 5.8.4 are provided below.
Part (a) of Clause 5.8.1.1 – the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally
Officer’s key concern with the amended proposal mainly relate to the reduced upper floor setback from Short Street and reduced upper floor setback from Pakenham Street. Whilst its acknowledged that the recent 2.6m increase as part of amended plans dated 15 November 2013, is a positive inclusion, these proposed reduced setbacks to both Short and Pakenham Street for the upper floor of the development still have the potential for the overall development to significantly dominate and overwhelm adjoining and adjacent buildings which typically consist of two storey built form as identified above and photos shown in ‘Attachment 5’ of this report.
As a result the proposed bulk and scale of the development it is considered in its current form to detrimentally erode adjoining heritage listed buildings presence within the Pakenham and Short Street Streetscapes and fundamentally negatively impact the cultural heritage significance of the West End Conservation Area.
Accordingly, in its present form the development is not considered to adequately meet the criterion of sub clause (a) of clause 5.8.1 of LPS4.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 241
Part (b) of Clause 5.8.1.1 - degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality,
Building scale for the purposes of assessing Clause 5.8.1.1(b) includes consideration of matters such as external wall height, bulk, built form, architectural design and setback of buildings.
The existing form of development that abuts and adjoins the development site consists of mainly of two storey heritage listed Gold Rush period buildings, apart from the eastern adjoining 1970-1980’s commercial building. The external wall heights of the majority of these developments sit around 8.5 to 11m.
The proposed development incorporates a 15m external wall height to Short Street with a 1.3m to 2.6m setback to the street and a nil setback to the eastern adjoining property. Again, in respect to Pakenham Street the development proposes a 15m external wall height which is to be setback 3.15m setback to the upper floor balconies with the majority of the building’s upper floor façade wall being setback between 4.5m to 7m. Furthermore this elevation of the building incorporates a 2.9m setback for a portion of the upper floor from the neighbouring southern property.
It is considered that the overall height proposed in conjunction with the current designs reduced setbacks to both streets and Pioneer Park reserve, doesn’t allow the proposed development to effectively graduate the wall height of adjoining and immediately adjacent properties within the West End Locality.
As such, it is considered that the proposed development does not satisfy the requirements of Clause 5.8.1.1(b). Part (c) of Clause 5.8.1.1 - conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, The City’s heritage assessment identified John Lysaght Warehouse, 8 Pakenham Street, to be of considerable significance as it is a good, intact and authentic example of an Inter-War Chicagoesque style warehouse that displays characteristics of scale, composition and materials that contribute to the townscape qualities of the historic West End and to an understanding of the history of development of the West End and Fremantle. It is acknowledged that the amended plans dated 15 November again include some positive changes to the original proposal in respect to conservation, including but not limited to:
the increased 2.6m Short Street upper floor facade setback,
the raising of the ground floor to effectively integrate the existing ground floor openings of the warehouse façade into the new development, and
the retention of an internal structural bay of the building onsite into the proposed courtyard area of the development.
However, as mentioned previously the proposed development as a whole is considered unacceptable on heritage grounds because of the extent of the irreversible damage that it would cause to the cultural significance of the place and its setting within the West End Conservation Area if it were to be constructed. The proposal isn’t considered to adequately address these sub criteria for the following reason(s):
The design does not demonstratively derive from an understanding of the cultural
significance of the place and its setting.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 242
The proposal includes demolition of approximately 90% of the heritage significant building which is currently considered to be a good, intact and authentic example of a Inter-War Chicagoesque style warehouse, and
The façades of the building proposed to be retained as part for the redevelopment are to undergo further adaptive works, multiple window inclusions to upper section of these walls to accommodate an additional fifth storey, which consequently involves removal of additional heritage fabric and therefore significance of the original building onsite.
Whilst its acknowledged that in assessing if the proposed development may or may not have an impact on the heritage values of the immediate locality is a subjective argument, it is the opinion of City Officers that the proposed variation to building height does not necessary facilitate any conservation objectives of cultural heritage values to the building on site, for adjoining or adjacent properties, or the West End Conservation Area locality as a whole, and therefore does not satisfy the criterion outlined above. Part (d) of Clause 5.8.1.1
any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.
The subject site falls within Area 2 as prescribed in Councils D.G.14 – West End Conservation Area policy (DGF14). With regards to development control, DGF14 states that:
To conserve this valuable asset it is essential that existing buildings be protected through the promotion of evenly spread development consistent with what already exists; through preventing the pre-emption of potential by the over-development of single sites; and through ensuring that new development is sympathetic to (and subordinate to) the present townscape and traditional uses of the area.
The fundamental townscape planning parameters are DENSITY, HEIGHT and SETBACKS.
The appropriate density is that which confers development potential on site and allows intensification, without undermining an efficient distribution of activities or putting existing buildings at risk. The appropriate height is one which respects the scale and reinforces the integrity of the existing streetscape. The Council’s officers and advisers believe that in principle this is to be a maximum height of three storeys, on the street frontage. The height will be assessed by appropriately considering its relation to and effect on the existing landmarks, on recognised vistas, skyline and in particular on the heights of the adjacent buildings.
The appropriate setback is that which is the dominant in the area or the street and in particular that of adjacent buildings. In this respect most properties in the West End have nil front and side setbacks.
DGF14 also state that in considering any application within the West End, Council will have regard to the existing cultural environmental, historical, scenic and, scientific interest as defined by this policy and in particular to this application :
Elements of townscape such as the relationships of buildings along a street in terms of horizontal and vertical alignments, skyline, siting of buildings; the relationships of new to existing buildings and roof shapes, refinement of details, material, colours and finishes of proposed building work, advertising and other signs, location and protrusion of plant rooms, external furniture displays and hoardings, landscaping and public space provisions within the development.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 243
The Council will ensure that heritage values of the entire West End Conservation Area be conserved.
As stated above the current proposal isn’t considered to adhere to these specific provisions of DGF14 as the proposed development and particularly the upper floor additions dominates the existing heritage significant building onsite and as such negatively impacts the heritage values of the building onsite and this portion of the West End Conservation Area. Although the proposed development is not considered to adequately address the entire relevant criterion of Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4, Pursuant to clause 7.5, Council may also vary LPS4 provisions for a heritage place or heritage area where it is considered desirable to: (a) facilitate the conservation of a heritage place entered in the Register of Places under the
Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or listed in the Heritage List under clause 7.1.1; or (b) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area designated under clause 7.2.1, the
Council may vary any site or development requirement specified in the Scheme or the Residential Design Codes by following the procedures set out in clause 5.5.2.
In assessing the proposal against the provisions of Clause 7.5, Council must be of the opinion that the development does ‘facilitate conservation’, particularly with respect to the proposed development’s height. The meaning of the expression ‘facilitate the conservation of a heritage place’ is significantly influenced by the definition of ‘conservation’ in Schedule 1 of the City’s LPS4 which picks up the definition from the Heritage of Western Australia Act. Therefore ‘conservation’ is defined as follows: “conservation” means, in relation to any place, the management of that place in a manner that will — (a) enable the cultural heritage significance of that place to be retained; and (b) yield the greatest sustainable benefit for the present community without diminishing the
cultural heritage significance of that place, and may include the preservation, stabilization, protection, restoration, reconstruction, adaptation, and maintenance of that place in accordance with relevant professional standards, and the provision of an appropriate visual setting;
In considering the decision of the height of the development, Council must be satisfied that the additions directly give rise to and promote the conservation of heritage values on the site. The applicant contends that the proposed building height discretion can also be granted under Clause 7.5 for the following reasons:
The subject property is listed under Clause 7.1.1 and therefore it is desirable to facilitate the conservation of the place (otherwise it would not be listed). The Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter defines conservation as "all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural heritage significance" (Article 1.4). Article 14 of the Burra Charter describes the specific processes relating to conservation, stating the following:
Conservation may, according to circumstance, include the processes of: retention or reintroduction of a use; retention of associations and meanings; maintenance,
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 244
preservation, restoration, reconstruction, adaption and interpretation; and will commonly include a combination of more than one of these.
The proposed development includes a range of processes which comprise conservation as defined above, including the preservation and restoration of significant portions of the fabric of the place, including the streetscape presentation, majority of the corner office building and a portion of the internal steel structure; reconstruction of elements formally a part of the place including the corner entrance and an awning; adaption of the place to suit a new use; and interpretation of the history of the site.
Given the above, we consider that the proposed development will result in a good conservation outcome, and therefore satisfies the requirements of Clause 7.5 for the exercise of height discretion.
In terms of the proposed development enhancing or preserving heritage values within a Heritage Area, which in this case is the West End Conservation Area, as outlined above in the ‘Building Height’ section, City Officers consider the proposal in its current form, to neither enhance or conserve the Heritage Areas values, as it would introduce a dominating building bulk and scaled development to the West End Conservation Area whilst significantly detrimentally alternating an intact and well conserved heritage significant warehouse building of the West End. For these reasons, the proposed building height variation is not supported under Clause 7.5 of LPS4. Car parking
Required Provided Discretion Sought
Car Parking bays 1:1 unit or 1: bedroom 68 Units = 68 bays or 122 bedrooms = 122 bays
Nil
68 Bays
Delivery bay 1: Administration centre
1 bay
Complies
Bicycle Racks N/A N/A
Although this is a significant discretion, it is not considered the primary reason for refusal. Additional Planning Matters raised during the Consultation Process ‘Attachment 3’ contains a Schedule of Submissions (18 submissions received) and a response to the issues raised in those submissions. The applicant has taken opportunity to provide additional response to these 18 submissions received regarding the proposal and the applicant response can be viewed in ‘Attachment 4’.The issues raised in the submission are either addressed in the report or are not relevant planning considerations as identified in the Schedule. Local Planning Policies Requirements The majority of the provisions of the L.P.P’s would be relevant to the assessment of this application, and if the application was to be supported by Officers several relevant planning conditions would be imposed to ensure compliance particularly with the following policies:
Local Planning Policy 2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines (LPP2.3)
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 245
Local Planning Policy 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements (LPP2.13); and
Local Planning Policy 2.19 - Contribution for Public Art/and or Heritage Works (LPP2.19). Conclusion: Planning Approval is sought for the partial demolition of the existing Warehouse building and construction of a Five (5) storey Tourist Accommodation building onsite. The City has serious heritage and design concerns regarding to the proposed redevelopment not only for the direct impact it will have on the existing heritage listed building onsite but also for its potential impact to the cultural heritage significance of the West End Conservation Area. In summary it’s considered that the proposed development should not materially harm the heritage values of the West End and where appropriate, the intention should be to reinforce or further reveal these values.
New development in heritage areas, such as the West End, whose significance stems essentially from the coherent expression of their particular cultural heritage values, needs to be a clear, coherent and sympathetic response to the significant components of the place, including its setting.
Furthermore, Council must ensure that LPS4 is applied rigorously, and unless Council is satisfied that all four of the criteria of Clause 5.8.1 or the relevant criteria of Clause 7.5 discussed above are satisfied, the proposed building height is not considered capable of approval under the provisions of LPS4. Given that the proposal does not satisfy the height requirements of Schedule 12 and Clause 5.8.1, and the development is not considered to adequately address the criteria of Clause 7.5, it is recommended that Council recommend refusal of the planning application in its current form to the South-West Joint Development Assessment Committee.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 246
CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS
SGS1311-11 ADOPTION OF BUSINESS PLAN FOR PROPOSED PURCHASE OF 144 CARRINGTON STREET O'CONNOR
DataWorks Reference: 094/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 13 November 2013 Previous Item: C1308-3 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Business Plan for Proposed Purchase of 144 Carrington
Street Valuation dated 13 September, 2013 Public Comment (email)
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 247
SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION
The Council adopted a Community Engagement Policy in December 2010 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.
How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle
The City’s decision makers 1.
The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.
Various participation opportunities 2.
The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.
Objective processes also used 3.
The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.
All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4.
These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).
Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide
5.
The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.
All input is of equal value 6.
No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.
Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received
7.
Local Government in WA is a representative democracy. Elected Members and the CEO are charged under the Local Government Act with the responsibility to make decisions based on fact and the merits of the issue without fear or favour and are accountable for their actions and decisions under law. Elected Members are accountable to the people via periodic elections. As it is a representative democracy, decisions may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 248
How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle
limitations associated with the issue.
Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle
8.
The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.
Diversity of view on most issues 9.
The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.
City officers must be impartial 10.
City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.
City officers must follow policy and procedures
11.
The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 249
How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle
Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.
12.
As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.
Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made
13.
The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.
Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed
14.
In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.
Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15.
Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.
Decisions posted on the City’s website 16.
Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 250
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.
Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Page 251
AGENDA ATTACHMENTS
Ordinary Meeting of Council
Wednesday, 27 November 2013, 6.00 pm
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 2
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 3
PSC1311-186 PROPOSED SUBMISSION ON THE STATE PLANNING
ATTACHMENT 1 - Planning Reform Phase Two Discussion Paper – Specific submission points Submission points – Part 3.0 Statutory planning reform initiatives
3.1 Review of the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS)
Comment:
The City supports the principle to consolidate the MRS and update the Scheme in line with other regional schemes to provide a more succinct Scheme and simplify and streamline the development approval process.
Development approval under the current requirements of the MRS is unnecessarily complicated and is often confusing to the both the applicant and general public.
High level support for reform to eliminate requirement for dual approval of development applications under both the MRS and Local Planning Scheme (LPS) through increased delegation to local government. Only development of major regional significance should require dual approval under the MRS and LPS.
The City considers this reform could be broadened and a more fundamental review of the MRS and its role, function and necessity with local planning schemes explored.
3.2 Improve amendment process for region planning schemes
Comment:
The City supports the proposal that a shorter process for ‘minor’ amendments should become the default process used for all amendments to region planning schemes unless they are a significantly ‘major’ amendment to the region scheme.
As part of this process it is important to specify criteria for a ‘minor’ or ‘major’ amendment and who is the determining body for each.
Consider delegation to the Department of Planning (DoP) or Western Australia Planning Commission (WAPC) for determination of nominated ‘minor’ and/or ‘major’ amendments rather than requiring a Ministerial decision for all amendments to a region planning scheme.
The City supports the proposal that agreed categories of amendments, with no environmental implications, should no longer require to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).
The City additionally supports the proposal to reduce the public advertising period to 42 days for ‘minor’ amendments (consistent with local planning scheme amendments) and 60 days for ‘major’ amendments - 90 days is considered an excessive timeframe for advertising.
The City considers this reform could be broadened and a more fundamental review of region planning schemes and their necessity, role and function with local planning scheme explored.
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 4
3.3 Sub-regional structure plans to amend region planning schemes
Comment:
The City questions the proposal to allow “automatic or concurrent amendment to a region planning scheme to reflect the relevant zonings and reservations of a sub-regional structure plan once the structure plan is given final approval by the WAPC and/or the Minister for Planning.”
Sub-regional structure plan’s are by their nature fairly broad documents and therefore unlikely to accurately define boundaries of roads or lots for rezoning purposes with the same accuracy as the region planning scheme.
The City would support this proposal in principle subject to the sub-regional structure plan being required to accurately define the cadastral boundaries of the land to which it is proposed to apply.
3.4 Concurrent amendment of region planning schemes and local planning schemes
Comment:
The City fully supports the proposal to extend the scope of concurrent processing of rezoning amendments to all types of rezoning (not just Reserves and Urban zone as at present) to cut out duplication and delay caused by the current separation of process to amend a LPS following the completion of a region planning scheme amendment.
3.5 Improve local planning scheme review process
Comment:
The City supports the principle of reform to simplify and increase the efficiency of the local planning scheme review process.
The City also supports the principle of prescribing by regulations a standard set of scheme provisions covering administrative matters, standard procedures for dealing with structure plans, development applications and development contribution plans and additionally, steps and timeframes for the DoP/WAPC in the Scheme review process.
The local planning scheme review reform proposes to require ‘major’ review of local planning schemes reviews every ten years, with ‘minor’ review every five years or less. Further clarification is necessary as to what is required as part of a ‘minor’ or ‘major’ Scheme review process. For example, a ‘minor’ review could effectively be considered the ongoing programme of amendments, particularly omnibus amendments, which may already have occurred within a defined timeframe. A ‘major’ review could be considered a scheme consolidation.
The current consolidation provisions of section 88 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 are unclear and do not seem to provide a tangible outcome. Clarification of these provisions is recommended.
The City is supportive of the proposal to prescribe permitted development for minor development in the Model Scheme text (MST). Please see the Council report for further
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 5
comment on this reform proposal.
3.6 Improve local planning scheme amendment process
Comment:
The City supports the proposal to remove the requirement for all amendments to be referred to EPA before advertising.
An alternative approach to reform of the Scheme amendment process could be made through enabling legislation to reflect a process similar to that of Local Laws. This would allow Scheme amendments to be determined by local government without the need for Ministerial approval. This process would include a clear statutory disallowance power for the Commission or Minister should the Council attempt to amend the Scheme in a manner contrary to other legislation, any applicable region planning scheme, or State planning policy. This would significantly reduce amendment processing times and increase the capacity of State and local government resources.
Other reform considerations:
As part of the reform process, the City requests clarification and streamlining of the readvertising of scheme amendment provisions whereby significant modification to the amendment has been adopted by Council in response to submissions. Presently, section 20(1) and 17(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 requires the Minister to determine whether modification to a scheme amendment is substantial enough to warrant re-advertising. This process can take a number of months. The City proposes a suite of criteria setting out what is a ‘significant modification’ to a scheme amendment and the ability for the LG to readvertise the amendment for public comment whereby its meets this criteria - therefore eliminating the need to await DoP assessment and Ministerial direction of the major modification.
Please refer to the report comment for additional recommendations on reform of WAPC processing timeframes and transparency of the WAPC assessment and decision-making process with regard to Scheme amendments.
3.7 Streamline structure plan process
Comment:
The City supports standardised Scheme text for Structure Plan preparation and processes as part of review of the Model Scheme Text.
The proposal for the WAPC to be the sole approval body for all Structure Plans will add to contribute further to the current workload of the WAPC and may impact the time efficiency of the assessment and determination process.
The City considers it appropriate for Local Government to determine small scale structure plans that do not propose subdivision.
3.8 Develop a track-based (risk assessment) development assessment model
Comment:
The City supports the principle of a track-based (risk assessment) development
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 6
assessment model. The City has applied this principle through the exemption of minor, low impact development, from requiring planning approval based on a schedule of criteria with Local Planning Scheme No.4.
Nonetheless, without example of how this model might apply within the Western Australia planning framework, it is difficult to evaluate what benefits this model would deliver in practice on a broader scale beyond what already can, and is, being achieved through existing mechanisms.
Does the Department of Planning have available data or research on what tangible benefits have been achieved through application of this model in other jurisdictions?
3.9 Private certification of development applications
Comment:
The City does not support the suggested introduction of private certification of planning approvals on the basis of the level of information presented in the Discussion Paper. A fundamental issue is that there is a public expectation that local government as a planning authority acts as an impartial decision-maker which balances the private interests of applicants against the interests of the broader local community. It is unclear how a private certifier acting on behalf of an applicant could similarly balance potentially conflicting interests.
It is also unclear how private certification systems used in some other Australian states could be made to work within the WA system, where there are greater variations within the provisions of individual local planning schemes and capacity for significant discretionary judgement in the application of key planning instruments such as the R Codes.
Comparing this process to the private certification for building code compliance is unsound, as building permits are solely a technical assessment of construction standard compliance and are not subject to discretionary considerations.
Consistency through this process may invariably be difficult to achieve in a highly discretionary planning environment.
It is assumed the primary purpose of this reform is to provide more efficient timeframes in the processing and determination of generally fully compliant, low impact development applications. However the level of information presented in the Discussion Paper does not provide a clear rationale for how private certification might achieve this more effectively than other measures such as more extensive permitted development provisions and high levels of officer delegation which can already be implemented with the WA planning regime.
3.10 Standardise delegations of local government development decisions
Comment:
The City does not support the proposed reform to prescribe standardised levels of delegation to officers in relation to local government development decisions.
While the City considers it appropriate to encourage broad delegation to officers through best practice guidance, it does not consider that a uniform approach should be mandated.
The City considers it reasonable and appropriate for individual Councils, acting on behalf
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 7
of their community, to determine the level of delegation to officers they feel comfortable granting.
3.11 Electronic application system
Comment: The City fully supports this reform proposal.
3.12 Refining the role of Development Assessment Panels
Comment:
While it is understood that one of the aims of the DAP process was to streamline the development assessment and determination process, on the whole processing times have not been significantly reduced. In some instances applications that could have been dealt with more quickly under delegation have taken longer through the DAP process.
In some instances applicants have requested up to four extensions of time in order to satisfy approval authority requirements. This defeats the purpose of DAP applications reducing processing times.
It is understood that while some developers may prefer the DAP process, the City has also been advised by several applicants that they are happy go through the normal council process rather than make a DAP application.
There has also been instances where applicants have undertaken the following in order to avoid the mandatory DAP application requirements: a) Indicating contract values as $6.9 million (a $7.0m contract value and above is a
mandatory DAP application); and b) Staging a development on one lot into several individual projects each having a
contract value of $6.9 million
Based on the above evidence, it is recommended that the mandatory DAP requirements be deleted and that within the current use class and contract value limits all DAP applications be optional. In other words for any development over $3.0 (within the applicable use classes) the applicant can choose whether to have the application determined by the local government or the DAP. This is likely to address the methods employed by some applicants as mentioned in items a) and b) raise above to avoid mandatory DAP applications.
The following refinements of the DAP process suggested by the discussion paper are supported:
o Excluding small scale development that generally comply with scheme, R Codes and policy requirements ;
o Excluding “P” uses in industrial zones (e.g. warehouses);
o Clarification of the specific information required to be submitted with a DAP application.
It is also recommended that a time limited process for local government to assess whether a DAP application includes all the relevant information be introduced. It is
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 8
essential in order for the strict DAP timeframes to be met that all the relevant information is provided in the application up front. If additional information is required after the application is submitted, this significantly reduces the local government’s ability to meet the DAP timeframes. Local governments need adequate time to assess whether a particular development requires a traffic impact assessment, independent heritage assessment, landscaping plan, 3D perspective, overshadowing plan or signage strategy. A time limit of approximately 1 week should be permitted for this assessment to occur.
Submission points – Part 4.0 Governance and administrative reform
4.1 Design and development
Comment: The City broadly supports the potential planning reform opportunities to deliver better built form and place design outcomes as listed under part 4.1 of the Planning Reform discussion paper. Please refer to the submission discussion of the report.
4.2 Role of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC)
Comment: The City has no objection to the proposed review of the role and function of the WAPC.
4.4 Local government planning accreditation
Comment: The City reserves it comment on this point until further detail is provided. Please refer to the submission comment in the report.
4.5 Funding of region planning schemes and initiatives
Comment: The City has no objection to proposed reform to funding of region planning schemes and improvement schemes in areas of the State outside the Perth metropolitan area.
4.6 Administrative review of the Planning and Development Act 2005
Comment on document “Review of the Planning and Development Act 2005” : Section 2 – Region Planning Schemes
The City supports the proposed streamlining of the scheme amendment process, including concurrent amendment of the RPS and LPS. Please see previous submission comments above as relevant to sections 2.1 and 2.3 of this document.
It is recognised inconsistencies between the MRS and LPS currently exist. It is recommended and that these inconsistencies should be addressed by the WAPC through an update of the MRS prior to the proposed amendment of the Act.
The City supports section 2.5 and the proposal for the electronic version of the MRS to be the official version with statutory effect, and the provision of additional layers of
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 9
data. This will increase the accessibility of the MRS to all interested parties and consistency in interpretation of the MRS.
Section 3 – Local Planning Schemes
The City supports the reform to the EPA referral requirements - please see previous submission comments above.
The City supports proposal for LPS’s to be more succinct by specifying in the Act the appropriate content of Schemes and also of Local Planning Strategies, and the proposal to transfer the procedural content of Schemes into Regulations.
The City supports reform proposed at section 3.3 – Restrictive Covenants and section 3.4 – Meaning of the term ‘adopt’ of this document.
Section 4 - Cash in lieu of public open space
The City supports the proposed reform and additionally recommends provision to facilitate an ‘up front’ condition specifying cash in lieu for small subdivisions to allow increased efficiency in the processing of smaller scale subdivision.
Section 5 – Subdivision and development control
The City supports section 5.1and the proposed clarification of section 138(3) of the Act of circumstances when subdivision approval can be granted contrary to provisions of LPS.
The City supports section 5.5 and the proposed amendment to definition of ‘development’ in section 4 of Act. Please see the report for further comment on this.
Section 8 – Enforcement and legal proceedings
The City supports section 8.1 – Increase in penalty and section 8.2 – Enforcement of local planning schemes and the scope of section 211, to prevent the inappropriate use as a third party appeal right.
The City additionally supports: o 8.4 Powers of responsible authority – section 214
o 8.5 Unauthorised subdivision works – section 219
o 8.6 Planning infringement notices – section 228
Section 9 – Public works exemptions
The City supports the proposed reform as currently there is ambiguity in the interaction of the MRS/LPS/Public Works Act and P&D Act which creates uncertainty. Planning reform should address the interaction between these documents to provide clear, legible, certain and robust process and interpretation of these statutory documents.
Section 11 – State planning policies
The City does not object to the WAPC having an express power to prepare guidelines, however, the City does not support the proposal to give statutory weight to these guidelines in the decision making process. This will essentially introduce another layer to planning assessment and complicate, rather than simply, the planning framework.
State planning policy provisions should be the only statutory consideration. The City acknowledges guidelines as a useful tool in providing examples and further explanation
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 10
behind a State planning policy but the distinction between policy and guidelines should be retained.
Further consideration should be given to the format and content of State Planning Policy documents to negate the need for additional guidelines.
Section 12 – Interaction of the Planning Act with other legislation
The City supports this reform, particularly the review of the interaction between P&D Act and Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 to achieve greater integration between the two.
Currently, development proposed on a State heritage listed site effectively requires dual approval - one from the State Heritage Council under the Heritage Act, and one from local government under the P&D Act. This process can be problematic and add to processing timeframes.
CARRIED: 7/0
For Against
Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 11
SGS 1311-05 DRAFT PARKLETS POLICY
Policy
Parklets
Type: Strategic
Legislation: NA
Procedure:
Delegation:
Other related document: NA
The purpose of this policy is to provide a framework for assessing proposals for the installation of parklets within the road reserve in the City of Fremantle.
Objective
The objective of this policy is to enhance the interest, amenity and vitality of parts of the City by encouraging temporary, well designed, safe and functional parklets in compatible public spaces.
Definition
For the purpose of this policy the term Parklet means - The temporary use of a portion of the road reserve, usually vehicle parking spaces and excluding footpath areas, for the purpose of providing a space that enhances public amenity in the street and is accessible to all. This includes space that may or may not be associated with nearby cafés and restaurants and could include such amenities as bicycle racks, planter boxes, benches and other seating, landscaping and other amenities.
Policy
1. Proposals for parklets must satisfy all of the following mandatory requirements. Where the proposal does not meet the following requirements the application will be recommended for refusal.
1.1 The parklet will be located on a road where the posted maximum vehicle speed limit is 40kph or lower.
1.2 The parklet will not be located on a street which functions as a primary public transport route or other key linkages between major activity nodes. These streets are depicted in the map below and include the entire length of the following streets unless otherwise indicated: Market Street, High Street (between Little High St and Parry St), Queen Victoria Street, Adelaide Street, Queen Street, Newman Court,
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 12
High Street Mall, Collie Street, South Terrace (between Market St and Parry St) and William Street.
1.3 The installation of the parklet will not result in the loss of a space that serves a valuable public purpose such as space for the purpose of public transport, taxis, service vehicles, or people with disabilities. Council may consider a variation to this requirement where the applicant demonstrates that suitable alternative arrangements can be made to compensate for the loss in space.
1.4 The location and design of the parklet will not impede or negatively impact upon pedestrian or vehicular movement or sightlines at road junctions and vehicle access crossovers, or impede emergency vehicle movements.
1.5 The parklet proposal demonstrates that it will be constructed in such a manner that it is capable of being removed and the road reserve being reinstated, to the same condition as it was previously to the parklet installation, within a 24 hour period.
1.6 The constructed parklet will not interfere with the functioning, or result in the damage or permanent removal, of existing infrastructure such as hardstand infrastructure (kerbing, paving, crossovers or road drainage), verge trees, lighting, underground services or other services.
1.7 The parklet will be made available for use by any member of the public regardless of whether or not they are customers of the business responsible for the parklet.
2. Proposals for parklets that satisfy all of the above requirements will be
considered for approval having regard to the following criteria: 2.1. The design of the proposed parklet is interesting and creative, demonstrates an
improvement in the quality of public space, is compatible with the established streetscape character, encourages interaction, provides adequate disability and universal access and maintains or improves public safety in the street.
2.2. The location and design of the parklet is not likely to negatively impact upon the amenity of occupiers in buildings in close proximity to the parklet.
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 13
2.3. The proposed parklet would contribute to a diversity of uses in the locality.
2.4. The loss of public parking space(s) caused by the parklet installation would not be significantly detrimental to the parking needs of the immediate locality.
2.5. The maximum number of existing street parking spaces that may be replaced by the proposed parklet should not exceed two. Only the parking space(s) in front of the premises occupied by the person/business proposing the parklet may be proposed for replacement, and if the space(s) involved partly overlap the frontage of an adjoining property, the potential impact of the parklet on that property’s use and access from the street will be considered in assessing the proposal.
2.6. The location of the proposed parklet is in an area where the existing footpath width is too narrow to adequately accommodate vibrant street activities, such as alfresco dining, as well as pedestrian movements.
2.7. The parklet proposal includes easily removable fixed structures and adequate lighting.
2.8. The parklet may be required to display signage, to the satisfaction of the City, on or near the parklet indicating that the parklet is for public use.
3. Administrative matters relating to parklet installations
3.1. Any approval granted for a parklet installation will initially be for a maximum period of 2 years. Notification of an approval will include a statement that the City retains absolute discretion in determining whether to approve any subsequent application to renew the approval, and if an approval is renewed it may be for a shorter period than the original approval.
3.2. Unless otherwise specified, at the end of a parklet’s approval period the parklet must be removed and the road reserve reinstated to the same condition as existed prior to the parklet’s installation.
3.3. All costs associated with the construction, maintenance and removal of a parklet must be borne by its proponent.
3.4. No fee is payable for an application for approval to install a parklet, however any fee associated with other approvals that may be required, as referred to in 3.5 below, will be payable at the normal rate as specified in the City of Fremantle Schedule of Fees and Charges.
3.5. Additional permits and approvals may be applicable and required under relevant City of Fremantle local laws or other legislation where a parklet is proposed to be used for a certain purpose, for example an outdoor eating area licence will be used for a certain purpose, for example an outdoor eating area licence will be required if a parklet is intended to be used for outdoor dining associated with an eating house as defined in the City’s Outdoor Eating Areas Local Law.
3.6. Parklet proposals will be determined having regard to the requirements of this policy as well as any other relevant City policies or other matters that may apply. Officers will report on parklet applications and provide a recommendation to a Standing Committee of the Council for their determination.
3.7. The City will notify occupiers of business and residential premises adjoining and opposite the parklet that a parklet proposal has been submitted and that it is to be
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 14
considered by a Standing Committee of the Council once the agenda has been confirmed.
3.8. An application for a parklet must include:
a) A completed and signed application form including a description of the proposal. b) Two copies of site and elevation plans (A4 or A3 to scale 1:100) showing all
dimensions, north point, location and street context, existing and proposed infrastructure, including safety measures, proposed means of access for pedestrians, including those with disabilities, existing ground levels and proposed finished floor levels.
c) A management plan for the parklet that details the applicant’s responsibility for the day-to-day management, upkeep and maintenance of the parklet.
d) Any additional information that would help with the assessment of the parklet, such as colour photographs, brochures or other details on the materials and finishes of proposed furniture, fixtures and/or signage.
e) A certificate of currency for public indemnity insurance to a minimum value of $10 million.
f) A bond payment or unconditional bank guarantee to cover the cost of any removal, maintenance or reinstatement works which the City may have to carry out due to default on the part of the applicant.
Responsible directorate: Technical Services
Reviewing officer: Director Technical Services
Decision making authority: Council
Council item number:
Policy adopted: Click here to enter a date. "<Council number>"
Policy amended: Click here to enter a date.. "<Council number>"
Next review date: 2017
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 15
C1311-01 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - OCTOBER 2013
ATTACHMENT 1
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 16
ATTACHMENT 2
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 17
ATTACHMENT 3
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 18
ATTACHMENT 4
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 19
ATTACHMENT 5
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 20
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 21
ATTACHMENT 6
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 22
C1311-02 APPLICATION FOR LEASE UNIT 1 - J SHED ATTACHMENT 1
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 23
ATTACHMENT 2
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 24
ATTACHMENT 3
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 25
C1311-03 RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY REPORT - PAKENHAM STREET NO 8 (LOTS 133, 134 & 135) FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE (5) STOREY (68 UNIT 122 BEDROOM) TOURIST ACCOMMODATION BUILDING (JL DAP80001/13)
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 26
ATTACHMENT 1
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 27
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 28
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 29
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 30
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 31
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 32
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 33
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 34
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 35
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 36
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 37
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 38
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 39
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 40
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 41
ATTACHMENT 2:
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 42
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 43
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 44
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 45
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 46
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 47
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 48
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 49
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 50
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 51
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 52
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 53
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 54
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 55
Additional Heritage Comments relating to Amended Plans Dated 24 August 2013
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 56
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 57
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 58
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 59
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 60
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 61
Additional Heritage Comments relating to Amended Plans Dated 15 November 2013 Heritage comments Address: 8 Pakenham Street Application number: DAP80001-13 Proposal: Partial demolition of existing warehouse building to construct a five-storey 68 unit, tourist accommodation building Requesting officer: Justin Lawrence Date: 12 November 2013 Management of change The Burra Charter provides guidance for the conservation and management of places of cultural significance. The Charter sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, or undertake works to places of cultural significance. The Charter states that places of cultural significance must be conserved for present and future generations. With heritage listed places, therefore, there is a presumption in favour of their conservation which means that change needs to be managed in ways that sustain the cultural significance of the place. The Charter recognizes that places evolve and that keeping a significant place in use is likely to require continual adaptation and change, including the need to respond to social, economic and technological change. It also recognizes that, provided such interventions respect the values of the place, they will tend to benefit public as well as private interests in it. Therefore owners and managers of significant places are not discouraged from adding further layers of potential future interest and value as long as its heritage values are not compromised in the process. The Articles of the Burra Charter provide guidance on how to manage change. The Burra Charter advocates a cautious approach to change: do as much as necessary to care for the place and to make it useable, but otherwise change it as little as possible so that its cultural heritage significance is retained. Consequently the cultural heritage significance of a place needs to be assessed before making any decisions to change it. Heritage assessment The proposed works to the building should aim to conserve the attributes that express the values which help to explain the cultural significance of the building. This requires the conservation considerations of the heritage assessment to be a fundamental part of the design process instead of being be limited to simply explaining/justifying the impact the proposed change could have on a heritage place. The scope of the assessment should be determined by what is needed for it to be an effective tool for sustaining the heritage significance of the place as well as achieving a high quality design outcome. The Statement of Significance prepared for the entry of places in the Municipal Heritage Inventories rarely provide sufficiently detailed information to measure the impact or consequences of proposed changes to a heritage place. Heritage assessment should seek to complement the intent of the statement of significance by including specific detailed, targeted investigation and evaluation, particularly when deciding which of the values attributed to a place should prevail if all cannot be fully sustained. By its nature an analytical integrated design approach does not assume that only one outcome is possible but it does acknowledge that standard or conventional design
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 62
solutions will rarely suit heritage listed buildings or the particular urban character of Fremantle. Understanding the urban character If is to be a useful design tool on projects such as this, the heritage assessment should extend beyond the boundaries of the site to provide an understanding of the urban character and identity of its context and how it evolved. Fremantle’s urban structure can be read as an amalgamation of precincts where each precinct has its own distinct character deriving from its location and the influence of the changing patterns of use and activity. The heritage assessment should acknowledge this by including an analysis of the character of the precinct in which the development will stand. Importantly, the precincts are not (and never were) fully self-sustaining; they are instead contributory parts of an interdependent yet diverse integrated urban structure, where each contributes to the vitality of the others. Amendment 49 of the Town Planning Scheme promotes the regeneration of deteriorated or downgraded precincts. Amendment 49 allows higher density for sites in the centre of Fremantle. Among other things, this is intended to provide the critical mass needed to stimulate the regeneration of the centre and of heritage precincts such as the West End and the former Convict Establishment that are slightly away from the centre. Importantly, these changes provide a way for the heritage precincts to sustain a conservation-based economic and social revitalisation without pressure to change their established scale. Outline Heritage assessment The warehouse building at 8 Pakenham Street is included on the City of Fremantle’s Municipal Heritage Inventory at Heritage Management Category Level 1B, which means the place is identified as being of exceptional cultural heritage significance to the City of Fremantle. It is recommended for entry on the Heritage Council of Western Australia’s Register of Heritage Places. A heritage assessment or conservation policy must be prepared for any proposed development of this place and the works then carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the heritage assessment. The purpose of the heritage assessment is to provide guidance on how to conserve the place in accordance with the articles of the ICOMOS Burra Charter. In summary, the significance of the building at 8 Pakenham Street derives from it being a highly intact warehouse building in the West End of Fremantle. As well as describing the heritage values of the building and explaining how they are embodied in the ‘warehouse attributes’ of its built fabric and internal spaces, the heritage assessment should extend beyond the site boundaries to acknowledge of the significance of the West End and include an analysis of the contribution that 8 Pakenham Street makes to that significance. Importantly, the document should provide guidance on how to conserve the assessed significance of the place, including its contribution to the streetscape. For the purposes of the assessment the West End of Fremantle is that part of the City bounded by Market Street in the east, Marine Terrace in the south, Little High Street, which runs at the base of Arthur Head, and Phillimore Street, which runs roughly parallel to the railway beside the harbour. To a large extent, the cultural heritage significance of the West End derives from it being a largely intact precinct of mainly gold-rush period buildings which had strong associations with the activities of the port up to about the 1970s. Some buildings are significant in their own right for demonstrating particular aesthetic and historic values, but on the whole all are significant for the contribution they make to the historically significant and cohesive physical form of the public realm of the precinct.
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 63
The West End was designated as a distinct part of the original town plan. The area was planned to have narrower streets and smaller lots and blocks than the adjoining areas beyond Market and Collie Streets. The resulting denser urban grain was, and remains, one of the distinguishing urban characteristics of the West End. It influenced the way the area developed, as did the fact that the development of the West End spans a number of significant periods with each having a defining impact on the character of the area. All the warehouses in the West End were constructed during an extended period when the processing, storage and distribution of export and import commodities took place in the vicinity of the harbour. The characteristic warehouse building type was developed in response to its urban context and functional requirements. These warehouse buildings were simply designed, acknowledging their two-fold purpose: the front part provided the commercial office space required for administering the distribution of the goods and the rear part was used to store the goods. 8 Pakenham Street Comments on the submitted proposal This document should be read as an addendum to the City’s heritage assessment and the heritage comments dated 4 September 2013. These documents should be read as a whole. Many sections are interdependent. The reasoning and justification for the comments and recommendations regarding the design proposal are further developed in the explanatory sections of the other documents. In summary the proposed development is considered unacceptable due mainly to the decision to impose a required number of standard modular units into the partly retained shell of the heritage building while paying little regard to its heritage significance, notably the warehouse character of the building which is embodied in the clearly expressed grids of its façade divisions and its internal structure. In many ways the proposed design can be described as an attempt to disguise this fundamental flaw. With the proposed design there is minimal connection between the retained façade and the new structure. This separation is intended to downplay both the horizontal and the vertical misalignments between the two parts. Similarly new openings are made in the heritage façade, effectively turning it into a freestanding perforated wall, the purpose of which it would seem is to partly screen the lack of a coherent relationship between the retained heritage façade and the additions that would stand around 800mm behind it. This narrow gap will not achieve the desired outcome. Through the process some improvements have been achieved, particularly with the retention of an internal structural bay and by increasing the height of the ground floor. However the fundamental problems remain unresolved and need to be confronted. This means re-designing the new additions to conform to the discipline imposed by the structural grid of the warehouse. In other words, the design of the proposed new additions needs to be changed to suit the place, not the place changed to suit the proposed additions. 8 Pakenham Street Recommendations
7. It is recommended that the proposal be redesigned by means of an integrated design process where heritage considerations are an integral part of the design process.
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 64
8. Heritage advice should not be limited to explaining/justifying the impacts or
consequences of proposed changes to a heritage place but should be used as a tool for achieving high quality designs that respond sensitively to the heritage values of the place.
9. Heritage advice should be applied at the conceptual stage of the design process,
and refined at each successive step towards developing the design.
10. The City considers the building at 8 Pakenham Street to be significant in its own right. Fundamentally the significance of 8 Pakenham Street derives from it being a largely intact warehouse building in the West End of Fremantle. The proposed works should therefore aim to conserve the intactness of the ‘warehouse attributes’ of the building
11. The design of the new work should conserve the ‘warehouse attributes’ of the
building by creating a strong coherent relationship between the existing and the proposed addition. The following points are suggested for the re-design of the new works so that they engage more positively with the heritage fabric of the warehouse building.
That the planning modules of the new additions be set out to conform to the structural grid of the existing building.
Improve the legibility of the structural grid.
Remove the gap between old and new by attaching the new additions to the conserved external walls.
Retain the intactness of the external walls of the heritage building by only forming new window openings to match the precedent set by the existing windows at the corner of the building.
Design the new additions so that the windows in the external wall serve as the windows of the new accommodation units.
Behind the retained facades the floor levels of the new additions should match the existing floor levels at the corner of the heritage building.
12. The design of the new work should retain the contribution of the building’s
‘warehouse attributes’ to the significant character of the streetscape. The following points are suggested for the re-design of the new works so that they do not overwhelm the streetscape value of the heritage fabric of the warehouse building.
Design the new additions so their siting, bulk, and height do not overwhelm the façade of the heritage building.
Set out the level of the second floor so the existing parapet can serve as the balustrade for the terrace formed at this level.
Alan Kelsall Heritage Coordinator
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 65
ATTACHMENT 3:
SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS – NO. 8 Pakenham Street, FREMANTLE No. COMMENT ISSUES RAISED (summarised) CITY’S RESPONSE 1 Objection based
on the height, cultural heritage significance and general design of the proposed development
‘Why non-complying and over developments like this are even accepted by Council sends the wrong message and wastes Council and community resources.’
Noted
The height proposed is 1.8m above the maximum allowable.
Noted. Applicant has submitted amended plans reducing the overall building height to be 14m, but still proposes a 5 Storey Building. See Council report for discussion relating to building height.
The site is a great one for development but is especially sensitive as it sits on the edge of the West End area and faces across an open park space.
Noted. A Heritage Assessment was undertaken for the proposal. See Heritage comments in report.
The proposal is gross overdevelopment of its site.
Noted. Applicant has amended the plans several times in order to reduce the overall height of the proposal and no. of proposed units reducing the original 77 apartments to 70 apartments.
The development is so high and has so much blank space on end walls that the developer wants to turn these large blank spaces into ‘public art’ to get around compulsory %1 public art contributions.
Noted
2 Support based on use and heritage elements of the proposed development & general Tourism growth within WA
Submitter supports the proposal due to a critical shortage of hotel rooms within Perth and its surrounds. Such a development. A new quality short term apartment facility combined with the adaptive reuse of the 1930’s warehouse will aid in reactivation of Fremantle and is supported from at tourism perspective.
Noted.
3 Support of the proposal generally
Submitter supports this proposal in its current form. Good for the West End
Noted.
4 Support of the proposal generally
Submitter approves of the development subject to car parking being provided onsite.
Noted
5 Support In Principle for the
In principle support for the development however the design
Noted. See DAC recommendations in terms of
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 66
SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS – NO. 8 Pakenham Street, FREMANTLE No. COMMENT ISSUES RAISED (summarised) CITY’S RESPONSE
development could be improved. Activation of 77 apartments in the west end is good outcome.
design outcomes.
6 Objection based on the height and traffic and visual privacy.
The building is to high and will have a huge impact on buildings in the immediate vicinity.
Noted. See Council Report for discussion relating to building height.
The impact of traffic increase will be a future issue
Noted. See Council Report for discussion on car parking.
Not enough parking provided onsite.
Noted. See Council Report for discussion on car parking.
Visual privacy concerns of hotel rooms looking into neighbouring properties.
Noted. None of the neighbouring properties incorporate residential land uses and as such visual privacy is not considered to be a concern.
7 Objection based on the intensity and built form.
77 Short Stay dwellings is excessive.
Noted. Applicant has amended the plans several times in order to reduce the overall height of the proposal and no. of proposed units reducing the original 77 apartments to 70 apartments.
Such a large building will not be in keeping with the ‘look’ of Pakenham Street.
Noted. Applicant has submitted amended plans reducing the overall building height to be 14m, but still proposes a 5 Storey Building. See Council report for discussion relating to building height.
Such a large business will take a disproportionate market share and close down many existing small operations who are struggling.
Noted. However this is not considered to be a legitimate planning concern.
8 Objections to Scale & bulk, land use intensity, parking, design and cultural heritage impacts.
Submitter recognises the need for a quality hotel development; however this proposal does not offer the creation of an appealing or desirable hotel.
Noted. See Council Report for discussion on Building Height.
The proposal presents a gross overdevelopment of this site and appears to be more like a group of very densely stacked units.
Noted. See Report for discussion on Design Advisory Committee’s recommendations & Building height.
Parking is an important issue. The car stacking and bicycle solutions proposed are unusual and do not clearly present a solution.
Noted. See Council Report for discussion on car parking.
Very little architectural design effort has been made to enhance or match the quality of the existing building in this
Noted. See Report for discussion on Design Advisory Committee’s recommendations & Building height.
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 67
SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS – NO. 8 Pakenham Street, FREMANTLE No. COMMENT ISSUES RAISED (summarised) CITY’S RESPONSE
proposal. The proposal includes built form above the allowable height limits for the West End.
Noted. See Council Report for discussion on Building Height.
9 Objection based on the height, scale and streetscape elements of the proposed development
Submitter concerned the proposed development will materially impact the aspect, heritage value of the west end.
Noted. See Report for discussion on Design Advisory Committee’s recommendations, Building height and streetscape matters.
The proposed structure is too high to blend smoothly with the surrounding built form and streetscape.
Noted. See Report for discussion on Building Height and streetscape matters.
The development would remove the sunlight and throw shadow impacts on surrounding properties.
Noted. See section of report on Building Height.
10 Objection with comments on Parking, Noise, & Building height
Parking & Traffic Congestion Increase in car parking demand in the west end is already an issue and increased traffic congestion in the area will also be a resultant if approved.
Noted. See Council Report for discussion on car parking.
NOISE Noise is a major issue within this immediate vicinity and an increase of 77/154 people will only exacerbate this issue. Council need to consult and consider residents when new businesses are approved.
Noted.
HEIGHT The building is too high and will have a huge impact on buildings in the immediate vicinity. Also the architectural style should be in harmony with the exiting building.
Noted. See Report for discussion on Design Advisory Committee’s recommendations & Building height.
11 Objection based on the building height and heritage impacts to the subject building itself and the West End
The design is brutal, the height is excessive in terms of the West End Conservation area and the impact on the surrounding area will be dominating. The West End of Fremantle is the State’s most valuable heritage precinct.
Noted. Applicant has submitted amended plans reducing the overall building height to be 14m, but still proposes a 5 Storey Building and also proposes to retain significant saw tooth roof structural beams within the amended proposal. Additionally, the newly amended plans propose new opening to the existing heritage significant buildings Short Street and Pakenham Street façades.
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 68
SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS – NO. 8 Pakenham Street, FREMANTLE No. COMMENT ISSUES RAISED (summarised) CITY’S RESPONSE
See Report for discussion on Design Advisory Committee’s recommendations, Building height, heritage assessment and streetscape matters.
The building height exceeds the limits set down in the long established West End policy.
Noted. See Report for discussion on Design Advisory Committee’s recommendations & Building height.
The size and form of the upper floor openings is inconsistent with the scale and nature of the area and would bring an alien form to this intact general area.
Noted A Heritage Assessment was undertaken for the proposal. See Heritage comments in report.
The activation of the area and adaptive reuse of the building are very welcomed, particularly with the additional benefits to inner city living in this location being easy access to public transport and the open space that is Pioneer Park.
Noted.
The current proposal is excessive in height, inconsistent with predominate height patterns in the locality and if constructed as per the current plans, would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the locality.
Noted. See Report for discussion on Design Advisory Committee’s recommendations & Building height.
12 Objection based on the height, scale and streetscape elements of the proposed development
The proposal is ugly and characterless not adding any heritage value to the West End. Another bland development to maximise Short term Developers profits
Noted. See Report for discussion on Design Advisory Committee’s recommendations, Building height, heritage assessment and streetscape matters.
13,14 & 15
Objection based on intensity and Building height of the development
The Building height, bulk, scale of the building in the West End heritage Area is unacceptable.
Noted. See Report for discussion on Design Advisory Committee’s recommendations & Heritage Assessment.
The proposal presents a gross overdevelopment of this site
Noted.
Parking is an important issue and the car stacker and bicycle solutions are unusual and do not clearly present a solution to parking for a 77 short stay apartments
Noted. See Council Report for discussion on car parking.
Very little architectural design effort has been made to enhance or match the quality of the existing building.
Noted. See Report for discussion on Design Advisory Committee’s recommendations & Building height.
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 69
SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS – NO. 8 Pakenham Street, FREMANTLE No. COMMENT ISSUES RAISED (summarised) CITY’S RESPONSE
Building height way above the allowable heights for the West End.
Noted. See Report for discussion on Building height.
The development does not take heed of the nature of historic West end buildings. The additions on top of the old building detract form the character of the existing building and surrounding buildings.
Noted. See Report for discussion on Design Advisory Committee’s recommendations & Building height.
The compulsory 1% public art work is poorly developed and inadequate.
Noted.
The setback of the 4th and 5th floors is inadequate.
Noted. See Report for discussion on Building Height.
The interface with the adjoining heritage building on Pakenham Street has a negative impact on the heritage values of the streetscape.
Noted. See Report for discussion on Design Advisory Committee’s recommendations & Heritage Assessment.
16 Objection to loss of Views of Significance and Parking
The proposed development will remove or significantly impact existing views of significance captured from properties within the immediate vicinity.
Noted.
Parking is a big issue within the west end.
Noted. See Council Report for discussion on car parking.
17 Objection based on the height, design and parking.
Building Height proposed exceeds permitted heights of the west end.
Noted. See Report for discussion on Design Advisory Committee’s Recommendations & Building height.
Not enough parking provided onsite.
Noted. See Council Report for discussion on car parking.
The design is not considered appropriate and the style of the building is ‘ugly’ and not in keeping with other west end redevelopments.
Noted. See Report for discussion on Design Advisory Committee’s Recommendations & Building height. It should also be noted that the applicant has submitted amended plans altering the building materials, reducing the buildings overall height from 15.8m to 14m.
18 Objection to loss of street Parking
Limited street parking provided for this area already and a short term stay accommodation will only add to this issue
Noted. See Council Report for discussion on car parking.
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 70
ATTACHMENT 4:
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 71
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 72
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 73
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 74
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 75
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 76
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 77
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 78
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 79
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 80
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 81
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 82
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 83
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 84
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 85
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 86
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 87
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 88
ATTACHMENT 5: No.18 Pakenham Street, Building – Adjoining Southern site – View looking north with No.8 Pakenham (Red Brick building) in the distant
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 89
No.2 Leake Street, Car park Area - Adjoining South Eastern site – View looking East with No.18 Pakenham (Cream Coloured building) to the left of the picture
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 90
No.8 Pakenham Street, Existing Building on site -– View looking South with No.18 Pakenham (Cream Coloured building) in the distance of picture starting with awning protrusion into Pakenham Street
No.6 Short Street, Existing Building on site (Brown Brick building)-– View looking West on Short Street with No.8 Pakenham (Red Coloured building) in the distance of picture
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 91
No.8 Pakenham Street, Existing Building on site -– View looking West on Short Street with No.1 & 3 Pakenham (Pink and Yellow Coloured building) in the background of picture
The Subject Building the applicant contends triggering pre condition of Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 (Short Street Elevation of No.13 Market Street) & Picture Below of same building Market Street Elevation
Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council
27 November 2013
Page 92