AGENDA - City of Fremantle · AGENDA DECLARATION OF ... ROASTING) AND WAREHOUSE AND ADDITIONS AND...

AGENDA

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 16 July 2014, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING

Elected Members A Planning Services Committee meeting of the City of Fremantle will be held on

Wednesday, 16 July 2014 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.

Matthew Piggott ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 10 July 2014

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

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 DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS LATE ITEMS NOTED CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 2 July 2014 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PSC1407-115 DEFERRED ITEM - BURT STREET, NO. 2 (LOT 600), FREMANTLE - ADDITION OF SIX (6) GROUPED DWELLINGS AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO TEN (10) EXISTING GROUPED DWELLINGS - (CJ DA0056/14) 1

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 7

PSC1407-116 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, NO. 59-61 (LOTS 141, 142 & 143), FREMANTLE – PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP TO RESTAURANT (CAFE), LIGHT INDUSTRY (COFFEE ROASTING) AND WAREHOUSE AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING – (KS DA0226/14) 7

PSC1407-117 PAKENHAM STREET, NO. 50 (LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 55), FREMANTLE - FOUR STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE, RESTAURANT AND 19 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) – (AD/KS DA0202/14) 17

PSC1407-118 HIGH STREET NO.223 (LOT 100), FREMANTLE – RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR BOUNDARY FENCE & COMPLIANCE MATTER (JL DA0257/14) 37

PSC1407-119 MATHIESON AVENUE, NO. 47 (LOT 28), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (JL DA0234/14) 46

PSC1407-120 KEELING WAY, NO. 12 (LOT 243), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH ROOFTOP VIEWING PLATFORM - (AA DA0245/14) 54

PSC1407-121 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 11 (LOT 31), NORTH FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0280/14) 63

PSC1407-122 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 71

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 72

PSC1407-123 PROPOSED PARTIAL CLOSURE AND AMALGAMATION OF A PORTION OF BEACH STREET, FREMANTLE ROAD RESERVE (KW/IJ) 72

PSC1407-124 REVIEW OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11 MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS - FINAL ADOPTION 81

PSC1407-125 DRAFT SWANBOURNE STREET LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAN - DEVELOPMENT AREA 4 - INITIATION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 107

PSC1407-126 STAN REILLY REDEVELOPMENT 113

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 118

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PSC1407-115 DEFERRED ITEM - BURT STREET, NO. 2 (LOT 600), FREMANTLE - ADDITION OF SIX (6) GROUPED DWELLINGS AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO TEN (10) EXISTING GROUPED DWELLINGS - (CJ DA0056/14) 3

PSC1407-116 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, NO. 59-61 (LOTS 141, 142 & 143), FREMANTLE – PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP TO RESTAURANT (CAFE), LIGHT INDUSTRY (COFFEE ROASTING) AND WAREHOUSE AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING – (KS DA0226/14) 23

PSC1407-117 PAKENHAM STREET, NO. 50 (LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 55), FREMANTLE - FOUR STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE, RESTAURANT AND 19 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) – (AD/KS DA0202/14) 41

PSC1407-118 HIGH STREET NO.223 (LOT 100), FREMANTLE – RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR BOUNDARY FENCE & COMPLIANCE MATTER (JL DA0257/14) 63

PSC1407-119 MATHIESON AVENUE, NO. 47 (LOT 28), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (JL DA0234/14) 69

PSC1407-120 KEELING WAY, NO. 12 (LOT 243), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH ROOFTOP VIEWING PLATFORM - (AA DA0245/14) 77

PSC1407-121 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 11 (LOT 31), NORTH FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0280/14) 87

PSC1407-122 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 103

PSC1407-123 PROPOSED PARTIAL CLOSURE AND AMALGAMATION OF A PORTION OF BEACH STREET, FREMANTLE ROAD RESERVE (KW/IJ) 105

PSC1407-124 REVIEW OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11 MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS - FINAL ADOPTION 117

PSC1407-126 STAN REILLY REDEVELOPMENT 205

Agenda - Planning Services Committee 16 July 2014

Page 1

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register

PSC1407-115 DEFERRED ITEM - BURT STREET, NO. 2 (LOT 600), FREMANTLE - ADDITION OF SIX (6) GROUPED DWELLINGS AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO TEN (10) EXISTING GROUPED DWELLINGS - (CJ DA0056/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 July 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1404-79 – 7 May 2014 Attachments: Attachment 1 – Revised Plans

Attachment 2 – Previous Item (PSC1404-79 – 7 May 2014)

Date Received: 5 February 2014 Owner Name: Defence Housing Australia Submitted by: Griffiths Architects Scheme: Residential R20 Heritage Listing: Level 1a Existing Landuse: Ten (10) Grouped Dwellings Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for an additional six (6) Grouped Dwellings and additions and alterations to the existing ten (10) Grouped Dwellings on site at No. 2 Burt Street, Fremantle. The application was previously presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) on 7 May 2014 with a recommendation for approval, with Council moving to defer the item to the next appropriate PSC to enable the applicant to amend plans to address the development’s relationship with the vehicle access to the adjoining Cantonment Hill open space. The applicant has amended plans as a result of discussions with City Officers and an elected member, to create a more interactive streetscape for the access lane on the east of the site and an entry statement on Burt Street. The changes has resulted in a slight increase in the Visual Privacy Design Principle assessment, however no additional discretions being sought. The proposed changes are considered to address the previous reasons for deferral and are recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is location on the North Eastern corner of the intersection of Burt Street and Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle and is located within the Fremantle Local Planning Area. The street block is bound by Canning Highway to the North, Queen Victoria Street to the West, Tuckfield Street to the East and Burt Street to the South. The development site has a total land area of 6037m2 and is currently occupied by ten (10) cottages (Grouped Dwellings). It is located within the Residential zone and is allocated a density coding of R20. The site is also known as the Former Married Officers Quarters (Artillery Barracks). The subject site has benefit of a right of carriageway over adjoining Lot 602 (to the north), which is an Open Space Reserve under LPS4. This is the site’s current and proposed form of access. The site is listed on the State Register of Heritage Places, as well as the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (level 1a) and Heritage List. It is located within the Cantonment Heritage Area. The application was presented to PSC on the 7 May 2014, who resolved: Cr J Wilson MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting in order for the interface between the new dwellings and the vehicle access from the open space reserve to be further resolved. The applicant met with a City Planning Officer, Manager of Statutory Planning and Cr Sullivan on 20 May 2014 to discuss the reasons for deferral. The following was discussed at the meeting:

Confirmation that the access lane is owned by the City (LPS4 Open Space and reserve), however is subject to a Right of Carriageway easement for the adjoining lot requiring unobstructed access for the development;


Page 3

Possibility of future discussions between Defence Housing Australia, Department of Defence and the City of Fremantle regarding the maintenance of this lane.

Main issue relates to the interface of the proposed development with the access lane of the open space leading to Cantonment Hill;

Suggestions for improving the “streetscape” of the rear elevation:

o Removing the Norfolk Pines to allow for greater layout flexibility, and

provide better pedestrian access for visitors to the site;

o Internal layout redesign- for example, putting living areas on the eastern

portion of the new Grouped Dwellings to increase passive surveillance;

o Increasing the floor level or redesigning the rear entrance to be more

visible from the laneway;

o Opportunity to increase heights/redesign floor levels without impacting on

site lines over existing cottages from Queen Victoria Street;

o Providing a streetscape elevation demonstrating how landscaping/changes

will integrate with the adjoining Open Space access leg.

An additional meeting was held on 4 June 2014 with the applicant, Manager of Statutory Planning and Cr Sullivan to subsequently discuss the applicants proposed changes. It was agreed that with a few minor changes, the amended plans were generally supportable. Final revised plans were provided by the applicant 25 June 2014. These are attached to this report as Attachment 1. DETAIL

On 25 June 2014, revised plans were submitted to the City for assessment. Amendments to original plans are as follows:

Alterations to southern boundary fence line to be 1.7m setback from the boundary to allow for the addition of a footpath;

To accommodate the footpath, Dual Key residence 15-16 has been setback further from the southern boundary and closer to the existing units;

Bin storage is now located at each unit;

The floor levels of the dual key units have been raised to be a similar level to the adjoining right of way;

Revision of materials and design of southern boundary elevations of the Dual Key units;

Bringing forward the entrance lobbies of the dual key residences toward the rear access way to improve the manner in which the units address the rear “street”;

Increase in size and relocation of outdoor living area of Unit 16 to on the western side of the building; and

Addition of site amenities building, including visitor entry and letterboxes on Burt Street to create an entry statement.

No changes have been made to the previous plans for the existing Grouped Dwellings.


Page 4

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed against the provisions of relevant statutory planning instruments. Discretions or merit based assessment are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section below. CONSULTATION

External Agencies

The State Heritage Office have advised that the revised plans are supported.

Internal Heritage

The revised plans did not raise any further concerns or conditions from the City’s Heritage department, as confirmed with the Heritage Project Officer on 1 July 2014. The original Heritage Assessment is included as attachment 3 of PSC1404-79 which is attached to this report.

Community

The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as no additional planning discretions were raised as part of the amendments.

PLANNING COMMENT

Visual Privacy

Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

7.5m (unit 15- 16) 5m 2.5m

As per the previous application, the verandah of Dual Key unit 16 overlooks the Outdoor Living Area of Cottage 6. While the Dual Key unit has been relocated to accommodate the pedestrian path, which has increased the l level of Design Principle Assessment required, it is considered that the verandah can be supported without screening for the following reasons;

The outdoor living areas of the cottages will be screened by fencing, limiting the amount of overlooking by the Dual Key residence.

The verandah is partially screened reducing the potential impact;

The majority of the outdoor living area remains unaffected, as measured by the R-Codes, by overlooking;

The alteration of the location of the Dual Key residence has resulted in clearer pedestrian access and distinction between private and public land.


Page 5

In accordance with the above, and matters discussed in the previous report, the proposed development is supported with conditions, and recommended for conditional planning approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the addition of six (6) Grouped Dwellings and additions and alterations to existing ten (10) Grouped Dwellings at No. 2 (Lot 600) Burt Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 25 June 2014, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 25 June, 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

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

3. Prior to occupation, the design and materials of the development shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy LPP 2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

a. Glazing to windows and other openings shall be laminated safety

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

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

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

4. Prior to occupation, a Notification pursuant to Section 70a of the Transfer

of Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land that the subject site is located in close proximity to the Fremantle Port and may be subject to noise, odour and activity not normally associated with residential use. The notification is to be prepared by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties prior to occupation.

5. The works herby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does

not irreparably damage any original or significant fabric of the building. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 6

6. Prior to occupation the 1996 Conservation plan (revised 2001) shall be

updated to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of the State Heritage Office. It should indicate differing levels of significance, review the development zone, and note the current condition of the fabric and recommend works.

7. Prior to works commencing a photographic archival record of the

structure that are proposed to be demolished shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of the State Heritage Office.

8. Further details of the following of shall be provided to the satisfaction of

the Executive Director of the State Heritage Office prior to the building permit application being submitted;

a. A detailed schedule of conservation works b. A materials and colours schedule for the dual key residences and for

areas of new construction to existing cottages c. A finalised Landscape Plan.

9. Prior to the issue of a building permit, specification for lime mortars and

renders to be used to in the works should be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

10. Prior to the issue of a building permit, further detail as to how the timber

bathroom floors in Cottages 1-9 are to be treated and how tiling is to be applied to original masonry walls is to be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Advice Notes:

i. The applicant is advised to contact Western Power’s Land Management Group on 9326 4814 or www.westernpower.com.au for advice in regards to working in the vicinity of overhead and underground power lines.

ii. In regards to Condition 6, the Conservation plan should indicate differing levels of significance, review the development zone, and note the current condition of the fabric and recommended works

http://www.westernpower.com.au/


Page 7

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register

PSC1407-116 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, NO. 59-61 (LOTS 141, 142 & 143), FREMANTLE – PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP TO RESTAURANT (CAFE), LIGHT INDUSTRY (COFFEE ROASTING) AND WAREHOUSE AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING – (KS DA0226/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 July 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Attachment 1: Development plans Attachment 2: Site photos Date Received: 15 May 2014 Owner Name: Camley Nominees Pty Ltd & Seamont Holdings Pty Ltd Submitted by: Lanpa Pty Ltd Scheme: Mixed Use Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Shop Use Class: Restaurant, Light Industry & Warehouse Use Permissibility: ‘A’, ‘A’ & ‘P’.


Page 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee as objections were received during the advertising period which are unable to be addressed through conditions of Planning Approval. The applicant is seeking planning approval for a partial change of use from Shop to Restaurant (Cafe), Light Industry (coffee roasting) and Warehouse and additions and alterations to the existing building at No. 59-61 (Lots 141, 142 & 142) Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle (subject site). Council’s discretion is sought in relation to the discretionary use of the site for purposes of Light Industry (coffee roasting) and Restaurant and an onsite car parking shortfall. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the objectives of the Mixed use zone and it is considered that the relaxation of parking requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) can be supported. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

No. 59-61 Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle is comprised of three lots as follows:

Lot 141: 615m2;

Lot 142: 25m2; and

Lot 143: 370m2 The subject site is zoned Mixed Use with a density code of R25 and is located within the Fremantle Local Planning Area – Sub Area 2.3.1 (Sub Area 1). The subject site is not identified as having any cultural heritage significance on the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and is not located within a heritage area designated by LPS4. The subject site is located within the street block bound by Queen Victoria Street, Quarry Street, James Street and Parry Street. The subject site is used for purposes of Shop (Bindoon boots) and Motor Vehicle Repair (Tyrepower). The application pertains to the partial change of use of the area currently dedicated as use of Shop. On 23 March 2013 the City granted conditional planning approval for the partial change of use to Restaurant with incidental Light Industry (coffee roasting) use at No. 312 (Lot 344) South Terrace, South Fremantle (refer DA0623/12). In determining the application Council considered a Light Industry use for the purpose of wholesale coffee roasting appropriate within the Mixed use zone on the basis of its production being restricted to onsite consumption or retail sale from the premises but not wholesale or internet sale. Coffee roasting for purposes of wholesale from the site was considered to result in excessive odour which may be of detriment to adjoining properties.


Page 9

DETAIL

The applicant is seeking planning approval for the partial change of use of No. 59-61 Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle from Shop to Restaurant (cafe), Light Industry (coffee roasting) and Warehouse. Coffee is to be roasted onsite and served in the Restaurant and stored and sold wholesale from the premises. The applicant provided revised plans detailing revised internal alterations and providing additional information on 16 June 2014 in response to issues raised in the public submissions. Additional detail indicates the use of an afterburner and cyclonic chamber separators to mitigate the impact of odour associated with coffee roasting. The hours of operation for the proposed Restaurant use is to be between 7am and 5pm 7 days a week with food preparation beginning at 6.30am and store clean up finalised by 5.30pm. The Light Industry use is to operate between 9am and 4pm from Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays. A total of 6 employees will be required for the business. Additions and alterations are proposed as follows:

Bi-fold doors to north eastern elevation of the existing building;

Floor to ceiling window additions along north western elevation of existing building; and

Covered alfresco addition to the north east of the existing building. For further details refer to ‘Attachment 1’ for development plans and additional details provided by the applicant. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 6 June 2014, the City had received 5 submissions. The following issues were raised:

Odour/fumes associated with coffee roasting;

Noise;

Hours of opening; and

Traffic management. Fremantle Ports The subject site is located within Port Buffer Area 2 and was referred to the Fremantle Ports on 20 May 2014. No comment has since been received and standard Port Buffer Area 2 requirements have been recommended as a condition of approval.


Page 10

Environmental Health The application was referred to the City’s Environmental Health department with comment received on 26 June 2014 as follows:

The incidental use (Coffee Roasting) associated with the site could potentially have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood by way of odour if not managed appropriately onsite;

Coffee roasting may result in complaints from neighbours due to the potential for rancid odour generation. The following measures are recommended:

o The coffee roasting equipment is to be fitted with an afterburner and

cyclonic separators designed to control emissions;

o The applicant shall submit detailed plans of the kitchen fit out including the

mechanical ventilation and location of plumbing fixtures;

o The applicant shall liaise with the Water Corporation regarding the

requirement for the property to have a grease trap; and

o The applicant shall apply for a licence to operate a food business in the

City of Fremantle.

It may be appropriate to apply a restrictive condition on the planning approval to limit coffee roasting activities on the premises for consumption onsite or retail sale, and not wholesale. While this is a subtle difference it is important in terms of the volume of coffee roasting that may be performed onsite and it is likely to reduce the potential for odour nuisance impacts on local properties;

The City’s Environmental Health Department have reviewed the proposal and have indicated that, with the addition of an afterburner and cyclonic separators and a commitment to responsible management practices, the proposal can achieve compliance with the relevant environmental health standards. A condition of approval is recommended limiting coffee roasting on the premises for either consumption on site or retail sale (and not wholesale); and

Additional information from the applicant indicates that an after burner and cyclonic separators will be installed.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, and Council’s Local Planning Policies. The discretion sought in relation to the proposed land use and car parking requirements are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Land use In exercising its discretion, Council should be satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Mixed Use zone (Clause 4.2.1(e)), which are as follows: Development within the mixed use zone shall— (i) provide for a limited range of light, service and cottage industry, wholesaling, trade

and professional services, small scale retailing of goods and services (ie.


Page 11

showrooms, cafes, restaurants, consulting rooms), small scale offices and administration, entertainment, residential at upper levels and recreation,

(ii) ensure future development within each of the mixed used zones is sympathetic with the desired future character of each area,

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

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

Note: Objective (iv) derived from Part 4.2 B1.1 of Fremantle Planning Strategy. Warehouse The Warehouse component of the application which pertains to the storage and wholesale of the roasted coffee beans from the premises is classified as a ‘P’ use within the Mixed use zone and does not require Council’s discretion. The wholesale intensity of coffee roasting and its potential amenity impact, however, is discussed below in the Light Industry assessment of this application below. Restaurant The proposed Restaurant use is considered to be in accordance with the objectives of the Mixed use zone for the following reasons:

The use pertains to a cafe which supports the small scale retailing of goods and services in the area;

The use is considered to contribute to the locality by means of increased retail amenity and street activation (especially in the provision of the deck/alfresco area) appropriate to higher density development sought for the locality in sub area 2.3.1 of LPS4;

Residential uses in the locality are outweighed by a predominance of commercial and industrial use classes. The bulk of residential uses in the area pertain to single dwellings on Quarry Street (whilst No. 45 Quarry Street is in close proximity to the subject site dwellings on Quarry Street are mostly comprised north east of the intersection of Quarry and James Street) and the multiple dwellings on the western side of the Motor Vehicle Sales use adjoining the subject site on the opposite side of Queen Victoria Street (No. 1-15 James Street, Fremantle). Given the context of the site and the proposed hours of operation between 7am and 5pm the Restaurant is not considered to pose any significant impact upon residential uses in the locality; and

The applicant has advised that music will be kept at a suitable level inside the cafe and alfresco area to allow for conversation. Given the context of the subject site and its proximity to residential development, the impact of noise associated with the use is not considered to be significant. Should any issues arise they are anticipated to be dealt with by the Environmental health regulations.

Light industry The partial change of use to coffee roasting is for purposes of consumption within the Restaurant and wholesale from the site. The City’s Environmental Health Services have advised that the process of coffee roasting at the subject site is considered supportable on the grounds that an afterburner and cyclonic chambers are provided in the roasting process to mitigate fumes and odours and that coffee roasting production be limited to an amount that suits onsite consumption and retail sale from the subject site (i.e. not


Page 12

wholesale). On this basis, the Light Industry use which pertains to the intensity of coffee roasting onsite for wholesale purposes is, on balance, is not supported against the objectives of the Mixed use zone as the use may result in excessive fumes and odours which may be detrimental to the amenity of properties in the locality. It is considered, given the predominance of south westerly winds in the locality that odours and fumes will most commonly drift toward the north east of the subject site, of which in this direction the closest adjoining property (Single House) is 60m. It is recommended that Council support the Light Industry use class on the basis of it being incidental to the predominant use of the site as Restaurant and restrict its use through a condition of approval to all coffee roasted on the premises for onsite consumption or retail sale. Further, a condition of approval has been recommended to ensure that an afterburner and cyclonic chambers are utilised in the coffee roasting process. Alternatively, on balance, given the predominance of commercial and industrial use classes in the immediate surrounds of the subject site and its close proximity to the Fremantle Port (approx 300m) and propensity to be subject to port odours, Council may support the wholesale intensity of coffee roasting onsite on the basis of it not being of significant detriment to adjoining properties and residential uses in the locality. Further, the provision of a mix of uses, including light industry, is in accordance with objectives of the Mixed use zone. Car parking

Required Provided Discretion

Total required car parking bays: 30.

Warehouse: 1.23 bays.

7 car parking bays (including car parking bay 8 as discussed below).

23 car parking bays.

Light Industry: 0.54 bays.

Restaurant: 27.78 bays.

Total required delivery bays: 3.

Warehouse: 1 delivery bay.

2 (loading bays 8 and area accessible within Warehouse entry off Queen Victoria Street).

1.

Light Industry: 1 delivery bay.

Restaurant: 1 delivery bay.

Total required bicycle racks: 3.

Warehouse: N/A 4 racks. N/A

Light Industry: 0.171 racks.

2.528 racks.

Delivery bays When the requirement for delivery bays is assessed against the proposed Warehouse, Light industry and Restaurant uses three bays are required. In addition to loading bay 8 an additional delivery bay is capable of being provided within the area marked ‘storage area’ on the site plan which is accessible from Queen Victoria Street. It is considered that the provision of two delivery bays is sufficient to meet the needs of the operation with the proposed uses anticipating early morning deliveries and sporadic deliveries throughout the week.


Page 13

Car parking The car parking shortfall is supported for the following reasons:

The subject site is located along Queen Victoria Street which is a high frequency bus route and James Street which is serviced by the Fremantle CAT bus route;

The subject site is approximately 30m from the Fremantle Leisure complex car parking area which has in excess of 100 public car parking bays. Further, there is an availability of on street car parking located along Quarry Street; and

The applicant has made provision for an additional bicycle rack to the number required in the LPS4 parking table.

CONCLUSION The application has been assessed against the requirements of LPS4 and relevant Council policies. On balance, the coffee roasting use is supported subject to it being limited for purposes of onsite consumption and retail sale associated with the predominant use of the site as Restaurant. Further, the applicant has indicated that an afterburner and cyclonic chambers are to form part of the coffee roasting process which the City’s Environmental Health department has suggested as being necessary in mitigating odours for adjoining properties. These factors have been recommended as conditions of approval. The car parking shortfall associated with the proposal is supported given the location of the subject site in proximity to public car parking and public transport. Accordingly, the application is recommend for conditional approval. However, given the context of the subject site and its predominant commercial and industrial surrounds and proximity to the port, should Council consider coffee roasting at the intensity of Light Industry (wholesale) to not be of significant detriment to the adjoining properties or residential uses in the locality, the following alternative recommendation is provided: That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial change of use from Shop to Restaurant (cafe), Light Industry (coffee roasting) and Warehouse and additions and alterations to existing building at No. 59-61 (Lots 141, 142 & 143) Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 16 June 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

3. Prior to commencement, the Coffee Roasting equipment is to be fitted with an afterburner and additional cyclonic chambers designed to control emissions, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 14

4. Prior to occupation, the design and materials of the development shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements set out in the City of Fremantle policy L.P.P.2.3 Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall include the following:

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

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

b. Air conditioners if provided, shall incorporate internal centrally located ‘shut

down’ points and associated procedures for emergency use. c. Roof insulation shall be provided in accordance with the Building Code of

Australia.

5. The legal agreement/amalgamation is to be executed/finalized prior to the commencement of the development to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Fremantle and in the event the owner elects to enter into the legal agreement the legal agreement shall permit the City to lodge an absolute caveat over the certificates of title to lots 141, 142 and 143 to secure the obligation to remove the covered alfresco area in the event of the separate sale of lots 141, 142 and/or 143. The legal agreement is to be prepared by the City’s solicitors and the owner shall be responsible to pay all costs associated with the preparation of (including all drafts) of the legal agreement and the lodgment of the absolute caveat over the title to the lots.

6. Prior to commencement, detailed plans of the kitchen fit out including the

mechanical ventilation and location of plumbing fixtures will need to be submitted to the City’s Environmental Health Department to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. That the Light Industry (coffee roasting) use hours of operation be limited to 9am

to 4pm on Monday to Fridays to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial change of use from Shop to Restaurant with incidental Light Industry (coffee roasting) and Warehouse and additions and additions and alterations to existing building at No. 59-61 (Lots 141, 142 & 143) Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 16 June 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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


Page 15

3. Coffee roasted on the premises is limited to either consumption on site or retail sale (not wholesale or internet sales).

4. Prior to commencement, the Coffee Roasting equipment is to be fitted with

an after burner designed to control emissions, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation, the design and materials of the development shall be

constructed in accordance with the requirements set out in the City of Fremantle policy L.P.P.2.3 Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall include the following:

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

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

b. Air conditioners if provided, shall incorporate internal centrally located

‘shut down’ points and associated procedures for emergency use. c. Roof insulation shall be provided in accordance with the Building Code

of Australia.

6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved the subject lots (lots 141, 142 & 143) are to be either amalgamated or a legal agreement is to be prepared to ensure that in the event that the lots are sold separately the covered alfresco area over existing lot boundaries is removed. The legal agreement/amalgamation is to be executed/finalized prior to the commencement of the development to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Fremantle and in the event the owner elects to enter into the legal agreement the legal agreement shall permit the City to lodge an absolute caveat over the certificates of title to lots 141, 142 and 143 to secure the obligation to remove the covered alfresco area in the event of the separate sale of lots 141, 142 and/or 143. The legal agreement is to be prepared by the City’s solicitors and the owner shall be responsible to pay all costs associated with the preparation of (including all drafts) of the legal agreement and the lodgment of the absolute caveat over the title to the lots.

7. Prior to commencement, detailed plans of the kitchen fit out including the

mechanical ventilation and location of plumbing fixtures will need to be submitted to the City’s Environmental Health Department.

8. That the Light Industry (coffee roasting) use hours of operation be limited to

9am to 4pm on Monday to Fridays to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Advice Notes:

i. The proponent must make application to establish the food business so that the premises comply with the Food Act, Regulations and the Food Safety


Page 16

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. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

mailto:[email protected]


Page 17

PSC1407-117 PAKENHAM STREET, NO. 50 (LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 55), FREMANTLE - FOUR STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE, RESTAURANT AND 19 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) – (AD/KS DA0202/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 July 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer / Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: DAC meeting minutes of 3 February 2014 Attachment 3: DAC meeting minutes of 13 March 2014 Attachment 4: Site Photos Attachment 5: Heritage Comments (3 June 2014) Date Received: 30 April 2014 Owner Name: City of Fremantle Submitted by: Dorado Yolk No. 3 Pty Ltd Scheme: City Centre (R-AC3) Heritage Listing: Not individually listed;

West End Conservation Heritage Area (WECA) Existing Landuse: Public Car Park Use Class: Office, Restaurant & Multiple Dwellings Use Permissibility: P, A & D


Page 18

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a four storey mixed use development (Office, Restaurant and 19 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 50 (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 55) Pakenham Street, Fremantle. 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, with exception of the following:

LPP2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines

LPP2.13 – Sustainable Building Design Requirements

LPP2.18 - New Residential Developments in the City Centre Zone - Noise from an existing source

LPP2.19 – Contributions for Public Art and/or Heritage Works Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is supportable subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions bringing the development into compliance in relation to all of the aforementioned Council Local Planning Policies. The applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes ‘design principles’ in relation to:

Car parking

Street setback

Lot boundary setback

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, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘City Centre’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a density coding of R-AC3 and is located within the City Centre Local Planning Area 1 (LPA 1) – 1.3 West End sub area 1 as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bound by Nairn Street to the south, Pakenham Street to the west, Bannister Street to the north and Market Street to the east. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List; however it is located within the West End Conservation Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4.


Page 19

The subject site is 729m2 and is located on the south-eastern side of the intersection of Bannister Street and Pakenham Street, Fremantle. The subject site is currently used for purposes of a public car park (car park 7) and is relatively flat in terms of its topography. A review of the property file revealed the following relevant information:

At its meeting held on 12 June 2013, Council’s Strategic & General Services Committee (SGS) considered an item for the ‘sale of car park 7 – 50 Pakenham Street, Fremantle’ (the subject site) (refer SGS1306-17), resolving as follows:

“Council apply the following conditions on the sale of 50 Pakenham Street, Fremantle;

a) 1% of successful purchase bid paid on successful bid,

b) 10% deposit (inclusive of purchase bid payment) of purchase price paid within 30 days of successful bid,

c) Lodgement of Development Application within 180 days of successful bid,

d) Settlement of Property within 30 days of Development Approval,

e) Commencement of Development within 2 years of Development Approval.

f) Completion of Development within 4 years of Development Approval and

g) That the development of the site include a residential component within which a minimum of four of the dwellings will be reserved for social/low-income housing.”

On the 30 October 2013 Council resolved that: The development requirements of part (g) of resolution SGS1306-17 for the sale of 50 Pakenham Street, Fremantle include:

i. a residential component within which a minimum of four dwellings will be reserved for 'low incoming’ housing' as defined under Local Planning Scheme No 4; or

ii. demonstrates innovations in diverse and affordable housing to the satisfaction of a CEO Working Group comprising of Mayor, CEO, Director of Planning, and Chair of Planning, and

iii. An offer under part (ii) above has 30 days to submit a proposal to the satisfaction of a CEO Working Group comprising of Mayor, CEO, Director of Planning, and Chair of Planning. If a proposal is not received within this time, or the proposal is not to the satisfaction of the working group, then sale will revert to next highest proposal/bid.

The working group met with the proposed purchaser on four occasions and agreed to an outcome under part (ii) of the resolution. This agreed proposal provides for four units to be owned and managed by the Department of Housing in perpetuity to allow for the purchase of the units under a joint ownership arrangement with the Department. The purchase price of the units will remain at 75% of current market price in perpetuity. Department of Housing will purchase the units at a discounted price and then manage the future sales of the properties.


Page 20

DETAIL

On 30 April 2014 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a four storey mixed use development (Office, Restaurant and 19 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 50 (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 55) Pakenham Street, Fremantle. The proposed development plans are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community

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 site;

Letter to owners and occupiers within 100 metres 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 13 and 20 May 2014.

A Community Information session was held on the 27 May 2014. Land owners/occupiers within a 100 metre radius of the site and elected members of the City’s Council were invited to attend the Community Information session. The session was attended by five (5) members of the public and three (3) City of Fremantle Councillors. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 6 June 2014, the City received eight (8) submissions pertaining to the proposal, one (1) of which raised no objection to the proposal. The other seven (7) submissions raised the following relevant planning concerns:

Street setback;

Height;

Visual privacy;

Car parking;

Overshadowing;

Building bulk and scale; On 25 June 2014, after the advertising period had concluded, the City received a late submission, raising the following relevant planning concern:

Visual privacy Accordingly, the relevant planning concerns outlined above will be discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. Design Advisory Committee (DAC)

The proposal has been presented to the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) on 3 occasions:

3 February 2014 – Concept designs only; and

13 March 2014 – Amended concept design (; and


Page 21

7 April 2014 – Amended concept design; Copies of the minutes of the DAC meeting from 3 February 2014 and 13 March 2014 relating to 50 Pakenham Street are contained as ‘Attachment 2’ and ‘Attachment 3’ respectively. A summary of the comments and recommendation from the latest DAC meeting (7 April 2014) is reproduced below:

“GENERAL COMMENTS

Significant improvements have been made to the design and previous comments of the Committee from 13 March 2014 have been satisfactorily addressed specifically relating to the façade design responding more appropriately to that of nearby classically influenced, gold rush period commercial warehouse buildings and improving the amenity of the middle apartment facing Bannister Street on the 3rd floor (specifically bedroom 2 which did not have access to natural light or ventilation).

The only matters to be resolved include the following which can be included as conditions of planning approval:

1. Providing an awning over the residential entry; and

2. Air-conditioning units are not to be located on balconies.

RECOMMENDATION

The application is supported subject to the following condition:

Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, plans hereby approved being modified and the supporting details being to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer- City of Fremantle, having regard to advice from the Design Advisory Panel:

1. Additional detail relating to colour, texture and material arrangement for final facade finishes.

2. An awning is to be provided to the residential entry.

3. Air-conditioning units are not to be located on balconies and details of AC condenser location to be provided”

It is recommended that DAC’s comments above be addressed via a condition of planning approval. City’s Heritage Department

Whilst the subject site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List, the City’s Heritage Department has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments:

“50 Pakenham Street is currently a carpark and is not included on the City of Fremantle’s Municipal Heritage Inventory.

The subject site has historical/archaeological significance and has the potential to provide further information. Therefore it is considered that the City can require a archaeological investigation to be undertaken as a condition of approval. This investigation shall be in accordance with the City’s policy: L.P.P2.7: Archaeological Investigation as a Condition of Planning Approval.


Page 22

RECOMMENDATION

The proposed development application is supported on heritage grounds with following condition:

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

City’s Environmental Health Department

The City’s Environmental Health Department provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:

EH.DA.AN6 - Food Premises

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. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

EH.DA.AN11 – Noise affecting residential amenity

The applicant is advised that the subject site is located in close proximity to commercial and/or industrial development and maybe subject to noise and activity not normally associated with purely a residential use.

EH.DA.AN12 – Construction Site

All noisy work on a construction site shall be limited to between 7am and 7pm on any day which is not a Sunday or Public Holiday. If work is to be done outside these hours a noise management plan must be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle at least 30 days prior to the noisy work commencing.”

Accordingly, it is recommended that the above be placed as advice notes on any planning approval granted for this development. City’s Technical Services Department The City’s Technical Services Department provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:

“Due to records of flooding in Pakenham Street please include the stormwater advice note for the West End. The applicant has not provided dimensions for the proposed awning treatments in the Pakenham Street and Bannister Street road reserves. The department requests a 600mm setback of the outside edge of the awnings from the kerb edge.”



Page 23

Accordingly, appropriate conditions and advice notes are recommended to be included on any planning approval granted for this development. Fremantle Port Authority (FPA)

The City referred the application to the Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) as the proposal relates to a land that is contained within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port Buffer. The FPA did not provide any referral comments to the City in relation to this application. Notwithstanding, in accordance with Clause 4.2 of Council’s LPP2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines policy, it will be recommended that a condition of planning approval be imposed requiring the development to comply with the built form requirements within Area 2. 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. PLANNING COMMENT

Objectives of the City Centre zone

Clause 4.2.1 of LPS4 provides objectives for each zone, with Clause 4.2.1(b) stating that the objectives of the ‘City Centre’ zone are:

“Development within the city centre zone shall—

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

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

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

As will be discussed throughout the remaining ‘Planning Comment’ section, the proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the City Centre zone, specifically in relation to (i), (ii) and (iii) above. Building height

Permitted Proposed Discretion

Maximum external wall height of 11.00m (max roof plain pitch of 33 degrees)

13.90m 2.90m

Notwithstanding the maximum external wall heights referred to above, sub area 1.3.1 West End of Schedule 12 of LPS4 also states that:

“Council may consent to an additional storey subject to —


Page 24

(a) the upper level being sufficiently setback from the street so as to not be visible from the street(s) adjoining the subject site,

(b) maximum external wall height of 14* metres, and

(c) compliance with clause 1.2 above.” In relation to (a), the upper level (ie fourth storey) is not sufficiently setback so as to not be visible from the street, from either Pakenham and/or Bannister Streets and therefore seeks a height discretion. Therefore, the proposal is required to be assessed against the provisions of Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 which states:

“Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 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.” The subject site is currently comprises a public car park and is improved by a bituminised surface and structures ancillary to its use (ie ticket machine, lighting etc). Therefore, the only way the provisions of Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 can be triggered, is if the site is adjacent to a building(s) that depict a height greater than that specified in schedule 12 (ie maximum external wall height greater than 11.00 metres). In this regard, the:

eastern adjoining property, being No. 5 Bannister Street, Fremantle is improved by a four storey development which has a maximum external wall height of approximately 14.00 metres; and

western adjacent property (other side of Pakenham Street), being No. 33 Pakenham Street (otherwise known as the D & J Fowler Bag Store Building) has a maximum external wall height of 14.20 metres.

Therefore, as the subject site is adjacent to buildings that depict a greater height than the 11.00m prescribed in Schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements if they are satisfied in relation to the above criterion (a), (b), (c) and (d). With regards to (a) above, the height variation is not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties by way of building bulk, overshadowing and/or visual privacy for the reasons discussed below relating to graduation of height of surrounding buildings.


Page 25

With regard to (b) above, the existing building on the eastern adjoining property, being No. 5 Bannister Street, Fremantle is approximately 14.20m in height. Further, the western adjoining property (other side of Pakenham Street), being No. 33 Pakenham Street (otherwise known as the D & J Fowler Bag Store Building) has a maximum external wall height of 14.20 metres. When viewed from its northern elevation, the proposal, which sits between the two aforementioned properties, represents a continuation of height between those properties and therefore is considered to effectively graduate its scale. Furthermore, the southern adjoining property, being No. 56 Pakenham Street is improved by a three storey building which has a maximum external wall height of 9.35m (to gable end facing subject site). The fourth storey of the southern elevation of the proposal includes portions that are not boundary walls, which are located on the western (Pakenham Street) and eastern ends of the site. This is considered to assist in the graduation of height with the three storey development on the southern adjoining property. In this regard, it is considered in relation to (b), the height of the proposal effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality. In relation to (c) above, and as detailed in the ‘Consultation: City’s Heritage Department’ section of this report, whilst the subject site is not individually heritage listed, it does adjoin a number of heritage listed properties and is located within the WECA. The City’s Heritage Department was supportive of the proposal, stating:

“The new development is designed in response to the urban character of the area and its warehouse buildings. It is considered that the design of the proposed building complements the exterior characteristics of the typical heritage buildings in terms of siting, bulk, form, scale, character, colour, texture and materials.”

With regards to (d) above, the Local Planning Policies applicable to this application will be discussed later in the Planning Comment section of this report. Car parking

Required Provided Design principle assessment

Visitors bays - 5 0 5

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

It is considered that there is sufficient on-site car parking having regard to the type, number and size of dwellings;

There is a significant provision of on-street parking available in the immediate vicinity and surrounding locality of the subject site;

There are bus stops located in close proximity to the site, with stops located approximately 200m away on both Marine and South Terraces. It is approximately 380m away from both the Fremantle Train and Bus Stations providing rail services to Perth CBD and beyond, and bus services for the 98, 99, 103, 106, 107, 111, 148, 158, 160, 381, 501, 502, 511, 513, 520, 530, 531, 532, 533, 825 and 920 bus routes in addition to those services provided by the Fremantle Central Area Transit (CAT). In this regard, it is considered that public transport is readily available.

In addition to the above, it is noted that there are sixteen (16) on-site bicycle racks, which is seven (7) more than what is required by the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes. Furthermore, there is provision of four (4) motorcycle parking bays on-


Page 26

site, which is not a requirement of the R-Codes. Both of these additional measures are considered to assist in facilitating for a broader range of transportation modes for future residents of the development and their visitors.

Street setback

Required 8. Propos

ed

9. Design principle assessment

Primary street setback (Pakenham Street) = 2.00m

0.00m 2.00m

Secondary street setback (Bannister Street) = 2.00m

0.00m 2.00m


Historical development patterns within the West End of Fremantle have reduced and often nil setbacks to the streets, both primary and secondary where applicable. This is the case along both Pakenham and Bannister Streets within the immediate vicinity of the subject site;

The southern adjoining property, being No. 1-15/56 (Lot 441) Pakenham Street has a nil setback to the street;

The eastern adjoining property, being No. 5 Bannister Street has a nil setback to the street;

As the proposed nil setbacks to the street are consistent with adjoining properties and the West End locality in general, it is considered that the proposal contributes to, and is consistent with, an established streetscape;

It is considered that the reduced street setbacks provide for adequate privacy and open space for the proposed dwellings and that it accommodates site planning requirements such as car parking and utilities;

Furthermore, it is considered that it will allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors;

In relation to its mass and form, it is considered that the proposal uses design features to ameliorate the size and scale of the building, through its incorporation of upper level balconies fronting both Pakenham and Bannister Streets which, along with other design features such as windows and ground level awning serve to break up the solid mass of the building itself;

The design itself has been endorsed by Council’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC). In accordance with Clause 2 (1)(v) of Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.9 – Design Advisory Committee and Principles of Design (LPP1.9), one of the principles DAC has due regard to when determining the design quality of the development is its “scale, massing and height of new development [and that it] should respond positively to that of adjoining buildings...”. In this regard, it is considered that the proposal should be supported;

In relation to the ground floor frontage to Pakenham Street, the proposal is activated by three (3) studio offices and a commercial tenancy (restaurant) which fronts Bannister Street also The remainder of the developments’ ground floor frontage is used for vehicle access/egress to the parking area, as well as a bin store area. As approximately half the developments’ ground floor frontage to Bannister Street is taken up by the commercial tenancy (restaurant), it is considered that the proposal minimises the proportion of the facade taken up by building services, vehicle entries


Page 27

and parking supply, blank walls, servicing infrastructure access and metres and the like;

The proposed awnings over portions of both Pakenham and Bannister Streets shall provide weather protection;

Lot boundary setbacks

Required Proposed Design principle assessment

4.00m setback

Southern boundary wall setback = nil (0.00m)

4.00m


It is considered that the proposed southern boundary wall ensures adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation to the proposed dwellings and open spaces appurtenant to them;

The proposed southern boundary wall is to abut an existing boundary wall of similar or greater dimensions of the development contained within the southern adjoining property for the majority of its first three storeys;

The proposed fourth storey southern boundary wall does not extend for the full width of that boundary, and is broken up by open spaces to the west (Pakenham Street) and at the rear. This is considered to assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk upon the southern adjoining property;

Overshadowing is discussed later in this report;

Visual privacy is discussed later in this report. Sight lines

Required Proposed

Walls and fences and other structures truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.50m where they adjoin vehicle access points where a driveway meets a street

Not truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.50m where it meets the street

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ as it does not allow for unobstructed sight lines between the vehicle access way (to the ground level parking area) and the street. Accordingly, it is recommended that a condition of planning approval be imposed requiring the applicant, prior to applying for a building permit, submit and have endorsed methods by which to slow vehicles and improve sightlines for vehicles entering and exiting the site, of which once endorsed, is to be installed prior to occupation and maintained thereafter. Examples of such methods may include, but are not limited to:

flashing warning lights; and

convex mirrors. Overshadowing


Page 28

The ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of Clause 6.4.2 of the R-Codes apply only to adjoining properties when those properties are coded up to R60. The explanatory guidelines of the R-Codes state that the reason for this is that:

“Specific deemed-to-comply requirements for solar access has been provided for application in transition zones, that is when the adjoining property is coded up to R60. In higher-density codings, it is anticipated that some overshadowing will occur however, the building design can ensure that solar access on adjoining sites and within the development are not adversely affected.”

As the southern adjoining property is coded R-AC3 (above R60), whilst there is no specific ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards for overshadowing in this instance, it is considered that the proposed building design ensures that solar access to the southern adjoining property is not significantly adversely affected having regard to the inner city location. Visual privacy

Required Proposed Design Principles Assessment

6.00m setback to southern adjoining property (southern elevation of the third floor terrace (balcony) of the southern-most dwelling)

0.00m 6.00m

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons:

Overlooking of major openings/outdoor living area of the north-western most dwelling as contained within the southern adjoining property, being No. 56 Pakenham Street, Fremantle 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 6.4.1 of the R-Codes.

LPP2.13 – Sustainable Building Design Requirements

The applicant has advised that in relation to sustainable building design: “We are committed to delivering best practice environmental performance and have involved a suitably qualified consultant in the design to date. We propose providing the confirmation you seek regarding this commitment, however worded in such a way as to acknowledge that green star is not the only acceptable measure of performance.” This is consistent with the wording of the standard planning approval conditions that allows a 4 star green star equivalent. On this basis it is recommended that a condition of Planning Approval be imposed requiring the development to adhere to the requirements of Clause 3.1 of Council’s LPP2.13.


Page 29

LPP2.18 - New Residential Developments in the City Centre Zone - Noise from an existing source

The applicant has advised that they acknowledge the requirements of LPP 2.18 and that: “.. design features and materials required to achieve the required level of acoustic attenuation during the preparation of construction documents and building specification” will be provided in the development. On this basis it is recommended that a condition of Planning Approval be imposed requiring the development to adhere to the requirements of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 of Council’s LPP2.18. LPP2.19 – Contributions for Public Art and/or Heritage Works

The applicant has advised that: “The applicant acknowledges that the requirements of LPP 2.19 and it is considered appropriate that a condition is applied to the development approval requiring that the requirements of LPP 2.19 are addressed to the satisfaction of the City. The applicant is in the process of considering whether or not they wish to make a cash contribution in accordance with cl2 of LPP 2.19 or provide public art or heritage works in accordance with cl 6 of LPP 2.19. Should a condition be applied to the development approval, it is considered appropriate that it be worded in a manner that allows it to be satisfied through either cl 2 or cl 6 of LPP 2.19.” This is consistent with the wording of the standard planning approval condition and on this basis it is recommended that a condition of Planning Approval be imposed requiring the development to adhere to the requirements of Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of Council’s LPP2.19. DGF14 - Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy

The subject site is located within zone 2 – West End as prescribed by Council’s DGF14 policy. Clause 4.2.2 of Council’s DGF14 policy provides for development controls within the West End Conservation Area (WECA). Clause 4.2.2(a) relates to townscape and amenity and provides that:

“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.


Page 30

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.”

In relation to density, the proposal complies in terms ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes and is therefore supported. In relation to height, this has already been discussed earlier in this report. Furthermore, the proposal has been supported on heritage grounds by the City’s Heritage Department as well as on architectural grounds by Council’s DAC – both of whom consider the impact of the proposal as a standalone development, as well as its relationship to, and with, existing development upon adjoining properties. In relation to setbacks, this has been addressed earlier in the ‘Planning Comment: street setback’ section of this report and is supported. LPP2.7 - Archaeological Investigation as a Condition of Planning Approval As stated previously the heritage assessment states that “The subject site has historical/archaeological significance and has the potential to provide further information. Therefore it is considered that the City can require a archaeological investigation to be undertaken as a condition of approval. This investigation shall be in accordance with the City’s policy: L.P.P2.7: Archaeological Investigation as a Condition of Planning Approval. On this basis it is recommended that a condition of Planning Approval be imposed requiring that an archaeological investigation be conducted in accordance with the requirement of LPP 2.7. CONCLUSION

The proposed four storey mixed use development (Office, Restaurant and 19 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 50 (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 55) Pakenham Street, Fremantle has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes and the proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes pertaining to; car parking, street setback and lot boundary setbacks. Furthermore, it is recommended that at condition of approval be imposed to bring the development into compliance with sight lines and visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes. In relation to building height, it is considered to satisfy the provisions of clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 and is therefore supported. The proposal is also considered to be generally consistent with the provisions of Council’s Local Planning Policy DGF14 and is therefore supported. In addition, it is recommended that conditions of approval be imposed to bring the development into compliance with bicycle parking under LPS4 as well as Council’s Local Planning Policies; LPP2.3, LPP2.13, LPP2.18 and LPP2.19. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions.


Page 31


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the four storey mixed use development (Office, Restaurant and 19 Multiple Dwellings) at No. 50 (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 55) Pakenham Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 30 April 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, plans hereby approved being modified and the supporting details being to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, having regard to advice from the Design Advisory Panel:

(a) Additional detail relating to colour, texture and material arrangement for final facade finishes.

(b) An awning is to be provided to the residential entry.

(c) Air-conditioning units are not to be located on balconies and details of AC condenser location to be provided.

3. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern and eastern

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

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

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

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

5. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit the owner shall contribute a monetary

amount equal in value to one percent of the estimated development cost, as indicated on the Form of Application for Planning Approval, to the City of Fremantle for development of public art works and/or heritage works to enhance the public realm. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $5,000,000.00 the contribution to be made is $50,000.00.


Page 32

6. Prior to the commencement of the works hereby permitted, No. 50 (Lots 1, 2, 3,

4, 5, 6, 7 & 55 on Diagram 6298) Pakenham Street, Fremantle are to be legally amalgamated or alternatively the owner may enter into a legal agreement with the City of Fremantle, drafted by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties concerned prior to the commencement of the works. The legal agreement will specify measures to allow the development approval to operate having regard to the subject site consisting of eight separate lots, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to occupation, a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land:

i. of the potentiality of the enclosure of the balconies located along the southern and eastern boundaries by future development on the adjacent site; and

ii. that the subject site is located in close proximity to the City Centre and may be subject to noise, odour and activity not normally associated with typical residential zoned land; and

iii. that the subject site is located in close proximity to the Fremantle Port and may be subject to noise, odour and activity not normally associated with residential use.

The notification is to be prepared by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties prior to occupation.

8. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the design and materials of the development shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

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

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

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

9. Prior to occupation, the design and materials of the development shall adhere

to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 2.18 – New Residential Developments in the City Centre Zone – Noise from an Existing Source. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

a) to all external openings (windows and doors):

i) airtight rubber seals to provide acoustic protection; and


Page 33

ii) sliding windows shall be substituted with awning windows as they are able to achieve a positive compression seal; and

iii) standard 6mm glass shall be substituted with sealed thickened laminated glass (no less than 10mm); or

iv) standard 6mm glass shall be substituted with acoustic double glazing incorporating a 12mm thick pane of laminated glass set in a sealed metal frame with a 100mm air gap to the other pane of glass;

b) to all external walls:

i) shall achieve a sound rating of Rw 45 dB or greater;

c) to all floors and ceilings:

i) A 150mm thick concrete slab with either carpet or acoustically installed timber flooring or tiles; or

ii) Installing high density insulation batts into the cavity of a lightweight, suspended and floating ceilings or floors to absorb sound; or

iii) Building components are isolated using resilient compounds such as rubber, neoprene or silicone for the purpose of reducing the transfer of noise.

10. Prior to occupation, the southern elevation of the third floor terrace (balcony) of

the southern-most dwelling 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.

11. Prior to the issue of building permit, the bin storage area be modified so it is capable of being accessed internally from the ground level of the building to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

12. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant is to submit and have

endorsed the methods by which to slow vehicles and improve sightlines for vehicles entering and exiting the site, of which once endorsed, is to be installed prior to occupation and maintained thereafter, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 34

13. Prior to occupation of the development, the car parking and loading area(s),

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

14. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit a Demolition and Construction

Management Plan shall be submitted to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City to Fremantle addressing the following matters:

a) Use of City car parking bays for construction related activities;

b) Protection of infrastructure within the road reserve;

c) Protection of street trees;

d) Security fencing around construction sites;

e) Gantries;

f) Access to site by construction vehicles;

g) Contact Details;

h) Site offices;

i) Noise - Construction Work and Deliveries;

j) Sand drift and dust management;

k) Waste management;

l) Dewatering;

m)Traffic management; and

n) Works affecting pedestrian areas.

The approved Demolition and Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the demolition of the existing building on site and construction of the new development.

15. Prior to occupation the outside edge of the awnings proposed within the

Pakenham Street and Bannister Street road reserve be setback at a distance of

600mm from the kerb edge to the satisfaction of the Chief executive Officer,

City of Fremantle.


Page 35

16. Prior to commencement of the development an archaeological investigation of

the subject site shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified person at the

applicant’s expense in accordance with Clause 7.7.3 of Local Planning Scheme

No. 4. And LPP 2.7 The findings of this investigation including a report shall be

submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer of the City of

Fremantle.

Advice Notes:

i) In relation to Condition 5 relating to the public art contribution, the applicant is advised that Council may waive the requirement for the public art/heritage work contribution in accordance with clause 6 of LPP 2.19 where the development incorporates public art in the development to the same value as that specified in Condition 5 that is located in a position clearly visible to the general public on the site of the development. In determining the appropriateness and artistic merit of the public art, council shall seek relevant professional advice.

ii) With regards to condition 16, the applicant is advised to contact the City’s

Planning Services Department for a current copy of the Council’s panel of heritage consultants, to contact the Heritage Council of Western Australia (www.heritage.wa.gov.au) for a current copy of its directory of consultants, and to contact the Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists (www.aacai.com.au) for a current copy of its register of consultants.

iii) Whereby the Applicant seeks to dispose of storm water off-site, the Applicant is

advised to contact the City of Fremantle’s Technical Services department for further advice on a suitable drainage solution, whether by maintaining the current/existing connection or through surface flow into the drainage system.

iv) The applicant is advised that the City’s Environmental Health Department has provided the following comments in relation to the development:

EH.DA.AN6 - Food Premises

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. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

EH.DA.AN11 – Noise affecting residential amenity

The applicant is advised that the subject site is located in close proximity to commercial and/or industrial development and maybe subject to noise and activity not normally associated with purely a residential use.



Page 36

EH.DA.AN12 – Construction Site

All noisy work on a construction site shall be limited to between 7am and 7pm on any day which is not a Sunday or Public Holiday. If work is to be done outside these hours a noise management plan must be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle at least 30 days prior to the noisy work commencing.”


Page 37

PSC1407-118 HIGH STREET NO.223 (LOT 100), FREMANTLE – RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR BOUNDARY FENCE & COMPLIANCE MATTER (JL DA0257/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 July 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning and Coordinator Planning Mediation Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plan Attachment 2: Site Photos Date Received: 28 May 2014 Owner Name: Baldrick Pty Ltd Submitted by: As above Scheme: Mixed Use Heritage Listing/ Area: Nil/ West End Conservation Area Existing Landuse: Office Use Class: Office Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 38

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Retrospective planning approval is sought for a boundary fence constructed at the rear of No. 223 High Street, Fremantle (the Site), which fronts onto Holdsworth Street. Council discretion is sought for the 1.96m - 2.33m height of the fence against the provisions of Council’s LPP2.8 – Fences policy. Conditional approval is recommended. In accordance with part 4.2 of Local Planning Policy 1.5 – Planning Compliance (LPP1.5), the following occurred: a) A $500 infringement was issued; and b) A notice was issued requiring the compliance matter to be resolved within 4

months (this may include obtaining retrospective development approval, stopping an unapproved use, removing an unapproved structure or undertaking the prescribed work).

To date, the $500 Planning Infringement Notice for undertaking works without the planning approval of the City has not been paid. In relation to the matter of the non-payment of the $500 Planning Infringement Notice, it is recommended that the matter be referred to the Fines Enforcement Registry for recovery. In relation to the Direction Notice, if after 4 months the matter is not resolved, then LPP1.5 requires the matter to proceed to legal action. If the Planning Services Committee (PCS) accepts the City’s recommendation, then no further action is required in relation to the Direction Notice. Should the PSC adopt a different position to the City’s recommendation on the retrospective planning application, then the City’s response to the Direction Notice will need to be reviewed. BACKGROUND

A fence was constructed to the rear of both No. 223 and 225 High Street (Holdsworth Street frontage) without planning approval. This report relates to the property at No. 223 High Street. The section of the fence on No. 225 High Street is the subject of separate legal action as the owner of that site did not comply with the Direction Notice nor paid the PIN by the due date. The following is background information in relation to the retrospective planning application and compliance action in relation to No. 223 High Street: Date Matter

9/01/14 City receives complaint regarding construction of fence at the rear of No.

223 and 225 High Street, being the Holdsworth Street frontage.

10/01/14 Further complaint regarding workmen advising that gates are to be erected on the fence.


Page 39

10/01/14 Morning site inspection revealed that fence posts had been installed along the Holdsworth Street frontage to both No. 223 and 225 High Street. E-mail sent to Metway Real Estate (managing agents) advising of:

complaint concerning unauthorised fences;

No record of planning approval for development on the land;

Planning approval likely required for development on site,

would unlikely comply with minor development provisions of LPS4.

Representatives invited to meet City to discuss the proposed works so that direction can be provided on appropriate process. Requested that fence not be completed until matter is discussed and if necessary, all approvals are obtained. Afternoon site inspection revealed that two further fence posts had been partly erected along the common boundary with No 38 Holdsworth Street and two fencing panels had been installed on No. 225 High Street.

13/01/14 Response from managing agents that fence is substantially complete. If City issues 'stop work' order, then they will comply, otherwise for safety reasons they will complete the fence. Requested more detail on breach of planning scheme.

13/01/14 Response from managing agents - informed by workers that they were threatened with fines if they continued to work. Council would put it in writing and felt it was over-vigilant neighbour and had contractors to continue the work to make the site safe. Managing agent advised that they believed fence did not require planning approval, otherwise issue a stop work order. Was happy to meet on-site and discuss. Significant cost if contractors stop work and will not proceed until Stop Order issued.

14/01/14 Response sent to managing agent advising that City officer had been on-site. Re-iterated request to not complete the fence. Explained difference between Stop Work and planning compliance. Advised the fence was not considered to be unsafe or a danger to the public. Re-iterated not to complete the fence and lodge retrospective planning application. If work continued, Council would consider it options. Photographs taken of works showing that fencing panels had been installed to the north-eastern side of the Holdsworth Street crossover to No. 223 High Street.

21/01/14 Copy of covering letter, Direction Notice and $500 Planning Infringement Notice (PIN) was issued to Doctor Hannes Gebauer for No 223 High Street, based on the City’s Rates records. PIN required to be paid by the 20 February 2014 – see further comments on 7 March 2014.


Page 40

26/02/14 E-mail sent to managing agent providing a copy of a letter sent 21 January 2014 to the property owners of No 223 High Street that the time period for the payment of the PIN had lapsed. Time period for payment of PIN extended to 7 March 2014. Managing agent advised of implications for non-payment of PIN.

27/02/14 City advised by managing agent that they have issues with some of the parts of the Direction Notice and requested a meeting.

7/03/14 Meeting at City offices with managing agent and City officer in relation to Nos 223 and 225 High Street. City was advised that PIN and Direction Notice had been sent to the incorrect owners for No 223 High Street. The PIN and Direction Notice had been sent to an individual as listed in the City’s rates records, whereas the owner was subsequently identified as Baldrick Pty Ltd. The address for serving of documents for No. 223 High Street remained unchanged.

10/03/14 Site inspection with photographs of No 223 High Street – fence panels added to south-western side of Holdsworth Street frontage and two panels along the common boundary with No. 38 Holdsworth Street.

13/03/14 Revised PIN and Direction Notice issued to owner of No. 223 High Street - PIN to be paid by the 10 April 2014 and the Direction Notice required:

Fence to be removed within 60 days (12 May 2014); or

retrospective planning application to be resolved and complied with, within 4 months of Direction Notice (13 July 2014).

2/05/14 & 22/05/14

Incomplete retrospective planning application returned on two occasions

29/05/14 Retrospective planning application submitted with photograph – photograph shows that sliding gate had been installed between 10 March and 29 May 2014.

25/06/14 Site inspection- confirmed that the gate to No. 223 High Street had been installed.

DETAIL

The City is receipt of an application seeking Council’s retrospective approval for a boundary fence that has been constructed at the rear of the property known as No. 223 High Street, Fremantle (the site). The fence is located along the entire rear cadastral boundary of the subject property, which fronts Holdsworth Street, and partly along the common boundary with No. 38 Holdsworth Street. The fence is constructed of black powder coated Garrison fencing and ranges in height from 1.96m to 2.33m in height, with a vehicle access gate located centrally to site.


Page 41

See development plans and site photos in ‘Attachment 1 and 2’ of this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The development has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and relevant planning policies. Discretions are sought against these requirements in relation to:

Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) – Clause 8.4 – Unauthorised Existing development and 10.2 – Matters to be considered by the Council, and

Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy (LPP2.8),

Local Planning Policy 1.5 – Planning Compliance (LPP1.5) These decisions are discussed further in the Planning Comment section below. CONSULTATION

Community

The proposed development was required to be advertised in accordance with the City’s LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals policy. At the conclusion of the original advertising period, being 26 June 2014, the City had received nine submissions of which seven submitters support the application. A summary of the concerns raised are as follows:

Height of fence

Aesthetics of fence type not sympathetic to the residential character of the area,

Noise nuisance of opening gates. PLANNING COMMENT

Boundary Fence (LPP 2.8)

Permitted Proposed Discretion

1.8m 1.96m - 2.33m 0.16 – 0.523m

The boundary fence addition consists of the following:

ranges in height from 1.96m to 2.33m,

is stepped in design to counter existing sloping topography of approximately 1m from east to west,

is positioned along the entire southern (Holdsworth Street) boundary and a 4.5m portion of the rear south western boundary (common boundary with No. 38 Holdsworth Street) of the property, and

is open style ‘Garrison’ metal powder coated security fencing. The applicant states that the fence is provided for security purposes to the rear car parking area which consists of approximately 38 car bays of the existing commercial ‘Office’ building located fronting High Street. The fence fronts Holdsworth Street which is also directly adjacent to residential properties located on the southern side of Holdsworth Street.


Page 42

The applicant argues that the sloping topography of the land and necessity to provide greater level of security is the key reasons to needing the additional fence height. The applicant also states, ‘that security of the building and staff has been an issue in the past and the increased height of the fence will assist in both personal and property security’. The constructed fence is required to be assessed against the following criteria of Council’s L.P.P2.8 fences policy Clause 5 of L.P.P2.8 states as follows:

5.1 Council will not approve side and/or rear boundary fences greater than 1.80 metres in height, or screening material that projects more than 500mm above the top of an approved fence unless the following criteria are satisfied:

a) The proposed fence/screening will not have any significant impact

on adjoining properties by way of overshadowing, solar access, or loss of views; and

b) Affected neighbours are consulted in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4.

5.2 Council will have particular regard to comments made by neighbouring

owners /occupiers of adjoining properties, and will only consider the criteria in 5.1(a) to be met where it is satisfied that no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring property will occur.

Given the open nature of the fencing material and the southern abutting road reserve providing a natural separation between commercial and residential built form, no adverse impact by way of overshadowing and loss of solar access to any adjoining or adjacent properties is the resultant. In terms of loss of views of significance, whilst it’s acknowledged that the southern adjacent properties may currently captures some port views to the north west, it’s considered that these views would not be significantly restricted by the additional 160 - 530mm of fence height given the high visual permeability nature that Garrison fencing provides. In accordance with Council LPP1.3 policy and clause 5.1 (b) of LPP2.8, adjoining and adjacent property owners have been consulted and two submissions raised three main concerns to the application. The three concerns raised are as follows: Height Submitters generally don’t support the fence height as it’s not considered necessary in their opinion, as a 1.8m high fence is believed to result with the same level of security to the site and tenants of the building onsite. Again, given the open nature and high level of permeability associated with this fence construction, the additional height is considered to have a negligible impact to the adjacent residential properties particularly by way of shadow, loss of solar access and views of significance.


Page 43

Notwithstanding the above, should Council be of a differing opinion to the City regarding the amenity impacts created by the additional fence height, Council could impose a condition requiring the height of the fence to be reduced to not exceed 1.8m above ground level in accordance with clause 5.1 of Council’s LPP2.8 policy. Should this be required, the following condition would be recommended:

Within 60 days of the date of the approval to commence development letter, the boundary fence the subject of the planning application shall be modified to not exceed 1.80m above ground level to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Aesthetics It is acknowledged that the style of fencing used is different to that commonly associated with predominate residential characters of Fremantle. However, it must also be noted that such fencing isn’t uncommon for commercial properties that abut residential zoned properties within Fremantle. In this particular instance, this particular portion of Holdsworth Street has two distinguishable characters with the northern side, being mixed use/ rear car parking area of commercial properties fronting High Street, and the southern side being single storey residential with low front fences in character. Ultimately, the style of fencing isn’t considered to dominate or overwhelm the streetscape character. Noise Noise is not a legitimate planning consideration and is a matter that is monitored against the Environmental Noise Regulations by the City’s Environmental Health Department should the issue arise in the future. COMPLIANCE COMMENT The unauthorised works resulted in the City undertaking compliance action in accordance with the Part 4.2 of Local Planning Policy 1.5 – Planning Compliance as follows: 4.2 In all other cases (e.g. unapproved development or non-compliance with other

development approval conditions): a) A $500 infringement will be issued; and b) A notice will be issued requiring the compliance matter to be resolved within

4 months (this may include obtaining retrospective development approval, stopping an unapproved use, removing an unapproved structure or undertaking the prescribed work). If after 4 months the matter is not resolved, then the matter will proceed to legal action.

Planning Infringement Notice In spite of being advised that representatives should meet with the City to discuss the unauthorised works and a request not to complete the works, works continued on with the construction of the fence on the property. This action triggered the compliance action under LPP1.5.


Page 44

To date, the $500 PIN has not been paid by the owners for breaching LPS4 by undertaking works that required the prior Planning Approval of the City. Payment of the PIN was due on the 10 April 2014. The PIN is a modified penalty for breaching the provisions of a planning scheme so that the matter does not have to be taken before the Local Courts. It is recommended that the matter of the non-payment of the PIN be referred to the Fines Enforcement Registry for recovery. Direction Notice The Direction Notice requires the compliance matter to be resolved (as set out in 4.2 b) of LPP1.5, as shown above) by the 13 July 2014 failing which, the matter will proceed to legal action. The matter first came to the attention of the owner’s representative on the 10 January 2014. Works continued, including the erection of the gates following the issue of the revised Direction Notice, and it was not until the 29 May 2014 that a competent retrospective planning application was lodged with the City. As the retrospective planning application will be dealt with by the PSC after the time period set out in the Written Notice for having this matter resolved, direction on the next appropriate step is sought from the PSC. If the PSC accepts the City’s recommendation, then no further action is required in relation to the Direction Notice. Should the PSC adopt a different position to the City’s recommendation on the retrospective planning application, then action in relation to the Direction Notice and the requirements of Clause 4.2 b) of LPP1.5 will need to be considered further by the PSC. CONCLUSION Overall, whilst the fencing is slightly higher than that of typical boundary fence (1.8m) along a street boundary, the addition is considered supportable as it’s considered to not have any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring southern properties. The application has been assessed against the relevant criteria of LPS4 and Council’s L.P.P2.8 Fences policy and is considered to address these provisions. Accordingly the retrospective planning application is recommended for approval. As stated above, if the PSC accepts the City’s recommendation, then no further action is required in relation to the Direction Notice. Should the PSC adopt a different position to the City’s recommendation on the retrospective planning application, then the content of the Direction Notice will need to be reviewed. It is recommended that the matter of the non-payment of the $500 Planning Infringement Notice for undertaking works without the planning approval of the City be referred to the Fines Enforcement Registry for recovery.


Page 45


1) That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Retrospective Approval for Boundary Fence at No. 223 (Lot 100) High Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

a) This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the

approved plans, dated 28 May 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2) That the matter of the non-payment of the $500 Planning Infringement Notice

for undertaking unauthorised works without the Planning Approval of the City be referred to the Fines Enforcement Registry.


Page 46

PSC1407-119 MATHIESON AVENUE, NO. 47 (LOT 28), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (JL DA0234/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 July 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development Plans

2 – Site Photos Date Received: 19 May 2014 Owner Name: S Bahejab & B Bijani Submitted by: Webb & Brown- Neaves Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 47

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a Two Storey Single House at No. 47 Mathieson Avenue, North Fremantle. The proposal meets the relevant deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes and the requirements of the adopted local planning policy ‘Local Planning Policy 3.13 – Minim Cove’ (‘LPP3.13’) with the exception of that relating to;


Visual Privacy

Open space The application proposes an upper floor balcony and dining room with openings over adjoining eastern and southern properties; most particularly, the southern adjoining property. During the community consultation period for this application the City received an objection regrading visual privacy of the southern adjoining properties being significantly impacted by the upper floor balcony and dining room windows of the development. The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in relation to boundary setbacks and open space. The proposal is, on-balance, not considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in relation to visual privacy given its proximity to the eastern adjoining property and elevated position above the adjoining southern lots. It is noted that the eastern and southern adjoining sites are currently vacant with no development approval or proposal currently in place. Notwithstanding this, the provision of screening material to the entire eastern elevation of the balcony addition is recommended to be imposed. Furthermore, screening material is also required to erected, so as to substantially restrict the southern downward view captured from the upper floor balcony and southern elevation dining room window of the adjoining southern sites. On the basis of the above, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site measures 433m2 and exists on the southern side of Mathieson Avenue, in the portion of the street bound by Westmeath Street to the south, west and the east. The subject site is zoned Residential and coded R25 while also being subject to specific planning requirements contained in LPP3.13 and ‘DGN9 – Rocky Bay Estate (formally State Engineering Works Site). The subject site is currently vacant of improvements. The subject site was created out of the subdivision of the former No. 24 (Lot 9503) McCabe Street, North Fremantle (WAPC133796); which resulted in the creation of 24 freehold lots identified as the ‘Minim Cove’ estate.


Page 48

The subject site has a comparable topography to the properties to the east and west but has a substantially elevated topography by approximately 3.1m compared to the properties to the immediate south. It must also be acknowledged that PSC recently determined a similar application at No.41 Mathieson Avenue, North Fremantle which also incorporated similar R-Code Design Principle assessments and screening conditions to this proposal. DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a Two Storey Single House including;

A ground floor double garage, study/ bedroom 2, Bedroom 1, Home Theatre, Alfresco, Family room and services areas as well as an external pool area;

An upper floor living, bar, two bedrooms, bathroom, water closet, dining and kitchen areas as well as a south facing balcony.

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. Merit based assessments are sought against the relevant requirements in relation to;

Lot boundary setbacks (ground floor west boundary and first floor east boundary)

Visual Privacy

Open space These merit based assessments are discussed further 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. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 27 February 2014, the City had received 1 submission. The following issues were raised;

The proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes in relation to visual privacy;

The location of major openings and raised outdoor spaces are likely to impact on the future outdoor living area of No. 9 Westmeath Street, North Fremantle;

Design changes that restrict views from the upper floor balcony and living room could satisfactorily address issues of privacy;

The level of shadow cast by the proposal is likely to have a detrimental impact on the enjoyment of outdoor living areas.


Page 49

In relation to the forth point above, it is noted that the proposal meets the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes in relation to solar access and also a 3m setback requirement of LPP3.13. PLANNING COMMENT


Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

West – Ground floor

1.5m 1.1m – 2.9m Nil - 0.4m

East - Upper floor 2.5m 1.5m – 2.3m 0.2m – 1.0m

The lesser setbacks are considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

The setbacks are not considered to result in a perception of excessive building bulk when viewed from the adjoining property’s, as both the western ground floor and upper eastern floor incorporate numerous articulated components and building material which assists in minimising such impacts;

The setbacks of the proposal are also not considered to contribute adversely to a loss of direct sun, light generally or ventilation to the existing major openings of the western dwelling or the future development potential of the adjoining eastern vacant lot; and,

With the imposition of a screening condition for the upper floor eastern balcony addition, the setback will not result in any new merit based decision relating to visual privacy to either adjoining properties.

Visual Privacy


South – Upper floor balcony and dining

room window

7.5m (balcony), 6.0m (dining room)

4.0m (balcony & dining room)

3.5m (balcony), 2.0m (dining room)

East – Upper floor balcony (east facing)

7.5 m 2.3m 5.2m (east)

The land adjoining the subject site (No. 15 & 17 Westmeath Street and No. 49 Mathieson Avenue) are currently vacant of improvements. Moreover a search of the property files of surrounding these properties found that no other adjoining lots have, or are currently seeking, development approval. The adjoining western property (No.45 Mathieson Avenue) is improved with a two storey with loft Single House and the adjoining south western property (No.13 Westmeath Street) is improved by two storey Single House. The proposal results in views over large portions of the southern adjoining properties from the upper floor areas of the dwelling and the eastern adjoining property from the balcony addition. This is due to the subject site’s elevated portion and two storey design.


Page 50

The proposal in that respect is not considered to meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes as these areas could look into the future rear yard of either the eastern or southern adjoining properties. However, approximately 3.0m of the adjoining southern sites are already obscured based on a direct line-of-sight from these proposed upper floor additions, as a result of level difference and retaining wall between the two sites. On the basis of the figure below, with the addition of screening material to a height of 1.8m, a total length of 6.8m (as measured from the adjoining sites rear boundary) will be obscured from view. This is considered to be a sufficient area to accommodate a adequate rear outdoor living area.

Note: Figure not to scale

Alternatively, other suitable screening methods could include a screening element to the southern elevation of the proposed balcony and dining room addition in the form of a planter box or horizontal fin preventing the downward direct view form these proposed major openings for example see diagram below.


Page 51

Note: Figure not to scale

A condition of approval requiring screening of the rear fence line of the subject site is therefore recommended. Open space

Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

50% (216.5m2) 48.7 % (211m2) 1.3% (5.6m2)

The lesser amount of open space provided is considered to be consistent with the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

The subject site is provided with a large excess of outdoor living area (greater than 64m2). This is considered satisfactory in providing for the needs of residents of the proposed dwelling;

The lesser open space is not considered to contribute to a sense that the subject site is over-built. Merit based assessments sought in relation to lot boundary setbacks are supported and the building otherwise meets other ‘deemed-to-comply’ criteria; and,

The lesser open space does not the impression of excess building scale when viewed from the public street.


Page 52


That the application be APPROVED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Metropolitan Region Scheme for the Two Storey Single House at No. 47 (Lot 28) Mathieson Avenue, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 19 May 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to occupation, the rear boundary (fence line or equivalent) on the southern elevation shall be either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.80 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 1.80 metres above the floor level, or

c) screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,


3. Prior to occupation, the upper floor balcony on the eastern elevation shall be either:




c) screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,


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

5. Prior to the occupation of the development, vehicle crossovers shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 53

Advice Note(s)

i. The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on the plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;

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

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

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

ii. This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the

removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences. Please refer to the City’s Tree Planting and Vehicle Crossings Policies (SG28 and MD0015) for further information.

iii. In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the relevant

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


Page 54

PSC1407-120 KEELING WAY, NO. 12 (LOT 243), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH ROOFTOP VIEWING PLATFORM - (AA DA0245/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 July 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Amended Development Plans (1 July 2014)

2 – Site photos 3 – Originally submitted elevations

Date Received: 23 May 2014 Owner Name: R & U Hosgood Submitted by: Econstruct Scheme: Residential (R20)

Development Plan (DP14) Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Vacant – N/A Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 55

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for the development of a two storey Single House at No. 12 Keeling Way, South Fremantle. The proposal is subject to an adopted Development Plan for the area consisting of the South Beach Estate (‘DP14’). The proposal seeks the exercise of discretion in relation to a number of built form requirements, most notably the external wall height of the proposal. DP14 specifies a 5.5m external wall height and a ridge height of 8.5m. During the public consultation period for the application, concern was raised in relation to the external wall height and solar access. The application originally included and external wall height of 7.6m (to the southern elevation). The proposal includes a roof top viewing platform with a solid balustrade to a height of 7.65m. The applicant submitted amended plans which made the following modifications;

The external wall height being reduced to 6.8m (800mm reduction). It is noted that the viewing deck balustrade remains at a height of 7.65m;

The extent of shadow cast by the proposal is reduced from 220m2 (22%) to 190m2 (19%) of the southern adjoining properties at No. 8 Keeling Way.

The proposal is considered to satisfy the merit based criteria contained at clause 5.8.2 of LPS4 which provide for the variation of scheme requirements. The proposal is considered consistent with the surrounding streetscape character in that it proposes a clear two storey proposal. Moreover, the additional height sought results predominately from the fact that a skillion roof is proposed. This is contemplated in the planning framework but not recognised by the wall height requirements of DP14. The proposal is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Keeling Way, South Fremantle, in the portion of Keeling Way directly adjoining Dorre Lane. Keeling Way forms part of the area identified as the South Beach Estate. The subject land measures 478m2 and has frontage to Keeling Way only.

On 8 October 2010 the City granted planning approval for a Two Storey Single House (DA0347/10). This application sought variation to the external wall and maximum roof ridge requirements applicable to the subject site. On 11 May 2011 the City granted a variation to DA0347/10 (VA0023/11). DA347/10 included an external wall height of up to 8.5m with a maximum roof height of 9.0m. On 3 July 2012 the City granted planning approval to a Two Storey Single House (DA0241/12). On 27 May 2014 the City received the current application. Following objections raised during the community consultation period, the applicant submitted amended plans on 1 July 2014.


Page 56

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a Two Storey Single House. The proposed dwelling contains 4 bedrooms, rooftop viewing platform and a double garage under the main roof. A skillion roof is proposed to all elevations. Following objections raised through the community consultation period, the applicant submitted amended plans which made the following changes to the proposal;

The external wall height being reduced to 6.8m (800mm reduction). It is noted that the architectural fin wall remains at a height of 7.65m;

The extent of shadow cast by the proposal is reduced from 220m2 (22%) to 190m2 (19%) of the southern adjoining properties at No. 8 Keeling Way.

The amended 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. Merit based decisions are sought against these requirements in relation to;

Building height (external wall)

Lot boundary setbacks;

Garage width

Visual privacy

Local area policy (DGS6 – South Beach) These merit based decisions are discussed further 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. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 23 June 2014, the City had received two submissions, including 1 objection. The following issues were raised;

The proposal will restrict access to natural light to adjoining properties;

The roof design of the proposal and resulting height has an impact on adjoining properties in terms of scale and reduced light access;

The proposal exceeds the maximum allowable heights;

The privacy of bedrooms on the southern adjoining site will be compromised by openings from the proposed dwelling;

The boundary wall proposed to the southern boundary will impact on existing driveway landscaping.

The issues are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.


Page 57

PLANNING COMMENT

DSGS6 – South Beach

Element Policy requirement Provided Merit based assessment

External wall 5.5m 6.8m 1.3m

The applicant is proposing a greater external wall height than prescribed in DGS6 for all elevations. As stipulated in provision 3.1.1 of Development Plan 14, LPS4 states the following in respect to building heights:

‘The maximum external height of single residential development shall be 5.5 metres to eaves as determined from the adjoining ground level. Roof Pitch shall not exceed 33 degrees with the overall roof ridge shall not exceed 8.5 metres above ground level.’

The applicant has proposed a wall height of 6.8m at its highest point (due to skillion design and rooftop viewing platform) and an overall maximum height of 7.65m to the balustrade wall section. In respect to the design of the roof, Development Plan 14 states the following:

‘Flat and curved roofs are permitted subject to compliance with insulation requirements and providing they fall within the building envelope as set out in Tables A and B’.

The proposal satisfies building envelope requirement set out in Tables A and B, however the external wall height discretion requires further assessment. Clause 5.8.2 of LPS4 discusses the circumstances in which the requirements of LPS4 may be varied. In order to vary the design requirements of Development Plan 14 the following criteria are required to be satisfied;

‘(a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally, (b) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and (c) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.’

The proposal is considered to satisfy the merit based criteria of clause 5.8.2 of LPS in the following ways;

The proposal is consistent with the external wall height of adjoining development (approved or existing) which are as follows;

o No. 8 Keeling Way (4 Grouped Dwellings) – (2 storey – pitched roof);

o No. 11 Keeling Way (2 storey – skillion roof) - 6.8m external wall height;

o No. 13 Keeling Way (2 storey – pitched roof) - 5.8m external wall height;

o No. 14 Keeling Way (2 storey – flat roof) - 6.2m external wall height;

o No. 16 Keeling Way (2 storey – flat roof) - 5.5m external wall height; and,


Page 58

o No. 18 Keeling Way (2 storey – pitched roof) - 6.3m external wall height.

The proposal is consistent with the character of surrounding development in that it proposes two storey dwelling. Wall heights on adjoining properties do vary, but the consistent pattern of development in the surrounding locality is two storey Single and Grouped Dwellings; and,

The proposal will not impact adjoining dwellings in term of solar access or ventilation. The higher side of the proposal adjoins No. 8 Keeling Way, which consists of 4 Grouped Dwellings. These dwellings are separated from the subject site by a 6.0m vehicle driveway. This is considered sufficient in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk, scale and light and ventilation access.

Policy requirement Provided Discretion sought

Elevations must address the primary street and any adjacent public open space by way of design, fenestration and clearly identifiable

vertically articulated entry.

Entry does not have direct presentation to

primary street.

See comments.

The proposal is considered to meet this design requirement of the DGS6 in the following ways;

The main entry to the dwelling is located and position, while not visible from the street, in a way that does not allow for unreasonable concealment or entrapment;

The approach to the dwelling will be provided with passive surveillance from the guest bedroom and upper floor habitable rooms and balcony;

Pedestrian access to the opening is considered legible from the street as a boundary wall is proposed to the northern side of the lot and pedestrian access is therefore restricted.

Moreover, subject to further conditions (discussed below in reference to building materials) the proposed street elevation is considered to be well articulated between the garage, ground floor and upper floor wall forms. The facade also contains a range of major openings and an upper floor balcony.


A mix of building materials, colours and textures shall be provided to create

architectural interest.

Rendered brickwork and small area of ‘selected

cladding’.

See comments

The provision of ‘rendered brickwork’ detail and a small portion of ‘select cladding’ is not considered to satisfy this requirement. A condition of approval requiring a greater diversity of materials being provided prior to the issue of a building permit is recommended.


Page 59


The garage door must be a panel lift door of timber or steel with a horizontal timber panel door look.

‘Selected garage door’

See comments

A condition of approval requiring the garage door to be panel lift, in horizontal timber or steel is recommended.


All northern windows shall contain glazing equivalent

to 50% of the total wall area. Windows should be

provided with 75% exposure in winter and 100% shade in

summer.

Northern windows <50% total wall area with minimal

shading.

See comments.

All dwellings provided with R2.5 ceiling insulation.

No details

The intent of the above requirements is to ensure an adequate level of passive solar access, energy regulation and insulation to the dwelling. DGS6 was adopted by the City in July 2006 and it is considered that since this time requirements under the BCA have progressed to more holistically assess a dwellings energy performance. A condition of approval requiring the minimum insulation is recommended however the extent of northern glazing and orientation of internal rooms is considered satisfactory. Performance of these openings is to be assessed pursuant to the energy efficiency requirements of the BCA. 5.1.3 Lot boundary setbacks


Upper Floor - South

2.4m 1.5m 0.9m

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

The lesser setback does not result in a perception of adverse building bulk when viewed from the adjoining property. The proposed wall abuts an area of the adjoining site consisting of a vehicle right-of-way;

The lesser setback does not contribute adversely to a loss of direct sun, light generally or ventilation to major openings and otherwise meets the deemed-to-comply requirements relating to solar access; and,

The lesser setback of the buildings wall does not result in any new merit based decision relating to visual privacy as there are no major openings proposed.


Page 60

5.2.2 Garage width


Where a garage is located in front of a dwelling, the

door and supporting structures facing the

primary street is not to occupy more than 50% of the frontage at the setback line as view from the street.

57.7% (7.8m) 7.7% (1.05m)

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

There is a character of large, double garage structures along this side of Keeling Way. Despite the greater width, the garage structure maintains this character;

The visual connectivity between the street and the dwelling is maintained. Views from major openings to the street remain unaffected;

The upper floor of the dwelling contains a balcony and major openings with views to Keeling Way with articulated wall alignments. This assists in reducing the visual impact of the larger garage structure.

5.4.1 Visual Privacy


Rooftop viewing deck

7.5m North – 7.36m; South – 1.5m

0.14-6.0m

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the design principles of the R-Codes in respect to the southern elevation owing to its proximity to the boundary and extent to which it is provided with direct views to upper floor bedrooms openings at No. 8 Keeling Way. These openings face north towards the subject site. Accordingly the southern elevation is recommended to be provided with screening material. Screening material is also recommended to the eastern elevation to prevent rearward viewing to the same openings. The proposal is considered to satisfy the design principles of the R-Codes in respect to its northern elevation. The cone-of-vision affects almost entirely an area consisting of roof area and a forward outdoor living space at No. 14 Keeling Way. This outdoor space is already visible from the public street and the loss of privacy caused by the proposal will be not greater impact than that currently experienced.


Balcony – Upper Floor – Affecting

the southern boundary

7.5m 1.5m 6.0m


Page 61


The cone-of-vision does not impact on any primary outdoor living areas of the adjoining site;

The predominant outlook from the opening is towards Keeling Way, not towards the affected boundary; and,

The cone-of-vision does not unreasonably impact on the privacy to major openings on the adjoining site given the adjoining dwellings are separated by a vehicle right of way.


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Single House at No. 12 (Lot 243) Keeling Way, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 23 May 2014. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Notwithstanding condition 1, prior to the issue of a building permit, the plans

hereby approved being modified;

i. To provide a greater diversity of materials and external treatments to the street elevation; and,

ii. The garage door being of horizontal timber or steel construction;

in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy DGS6 – South Beach Estate to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

Prior to occupation, the dwelling shall be provided with ceiling insulation with a minimum rating of R2.5 in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy DGS6 – South Beach Estate.

3. Prior to occupation, the roof top viewing deck, on the southern and eastern elevations shall be either:




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,


Page 62


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

5. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the northern and southern

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

6. All new vehicle driveways are required to be separated a minimum of 2.0

metres from verge trees. 7. The new/ modified vehicle crossover shall be separated from any verge

infrastructure by: i. a minimum of 2.0 metres in the case of verge trees ii. a minimum of 1.2 metres (in the case of bus shelters, traffic management

devices, parking embayment’s or street furniture), and iii. a minimum of 1.0 metre in the case of power poles, road name and

directional signs.


Page 63

PSC1407-121 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NO. 11 (LOT 31), NORTH FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0280/14)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 July 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development Plans

2 – Applicants justification and photos 3 – Modified manoeuvring proposal

Date Received: 6 June 2014 Owner Name: BF & JM De Aguiar Submitted by: Ceder Homes Scheme: Mixed Use (R25) Heritage Listing: North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 64

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for the demolition of an existing single storey dwelling at the subject site and construction of a Two Storey Single House. The proposal has been assessed against the City’s Planning framework and seeks merit based assessments relating to the following;

Street setback;

Boundary walls (north & south);

Open space;

Building height (external wall);

Garage width;

Outdoor living areas (roof cover); and,

Solar access to adjoining sites. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the merit based criteria of LPP2.9 – Residential Streetscapes. The policy prescribes a 7.0m setback for upper floor elements while a 6.0m setback is provided. The prevailing streetscape consists of single storey dwellings (albeit with high external wall heights). Some dwellings contain two storey elements but these are located to the rear of these sites, well beyond the 7.0m setback requirement. Given the character of the prevailing streetscape is clearly single storey, the lesser setback is considered to represent a projecting element into this established streetscape pattern. On this basis the application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the western side of Stirling Highway, south of Queen Victoria Street and north of Tydeman Road and measures approximately 291m2. The subject site currently contains an existing single storey single house with vehicle access to Stirling Highway. On 6 June 2014 the City received the current application (see Attachment 1). Shortly after this time, the City contacted the applicants to advise that the proposal did not meet the City’s LPP2.9 and in officer’s opinion, did not satisfy the merit based criteria of the policy. The applicants were advised the application was unlikely to be supported on this basis unless it could be justified under the merit based criteria of LPP2.9 – or an alternative proposal with a 7.0m setback provided. The applicants advised that they did not wish to modify the proposal and on 17 June 2014 the applicant submitted additional information to the City justifying the proposal under LPP2.9 (see Attachment 2).


Page 65

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for the demolition of an existing single storey dwelling at the subject site and construction of a Two Storey Single House including;

Demolition of an existing single storey dwelling on the subject site;

Construction of a two storey dwelling containing 4 bedrooms and a double garage accessed via Stirling Highway; and,

A rear ground level alfresco area and forward facing upper floor balcony. 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. Merit based decisions are sought against these requirements in relation to;

Street setback;

Boundary walls (north & south);

Open space;

Building height (external wall);

Garage width;

Outdoor living areas (roof cover); and,

Solar access to adjoining sites.

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

Heritage The application was referred to the City’s Heritage Coordinator for advice as it involved the complete demolition of an existing building. The advice of the Heritage Coordinator is summarised as follows;

The existing dwelling contained on-site is of limited or no cultural heritage significance;

The proposal generally is supported;

That an archival record of the building be prepared and submitted to the City prior to commencement of any works.

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 4 July 2014, the City had received 1 submission, including 1 objection. The following issues were raised;


Page 66

The proposed upper storey is not supported at it will impact on adjoining outdoor living areas;

The proposed upper floor will result in a loss of privacy and light access to adjoining major openings.

These issues are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. Main Roads WA The application proposes new vehicle access to Stirling Highway, being a primary regional road. As a result, the application was referred to MRWA for comment. The issues raised by MRWA are summarised as follows;

The proposal shall be designed so that vehicles are capable of egress from the site in a forward gear. The City should require a re-design of the proposal if this is not provided;

No earthworks shall encroach the Stirling Highway road reservation and all stormwater should be disposed of on-site;

Redundant driveways shall be removed and the verge and its vegetation reinstated;

The development shall incorporate ‘Quiet House Design Principles’ as specified in State Planning Policy 5.4.

In response to the issue above, the applicant submitted an additional diagram (see Attachment 3) demonstrating that the subject site is capable of addressing MRWA’s concerns specified above. The diagram includes the removal of one of the balcony pillars and ground floor verandah balustrade. The application is recommended for refusal however should Council seek to approve the proposal, an appropriate condition requiring removal of the obstructing elements would be necessary. If no such condition is applied, then vehicles cannot exit the site in a forward gear. In accordance with the City’s delegation to approve the proposal under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, if the City is to make a decision contrary to the MRWA advice, the City forgoes its delegation; the WAPC is then to determine the application. PLANNING COMMENT

5.1.2 Street setback

Element Policy requirement

Provided Discretion

Upper floor 7.0m 6.0m 1.0m

In relation to the upper floor elements, Table 1 of LPP2.9 establishes the prescribed setbacks for buildings within each local planning area. Clause 1.2(i) & (ii) states (as relevant) that the City has discretion to vary these requirements when;

‘(i) The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of buildings of comparable height within the prevailing streetscape; or


Page 67

(ii)The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land; or; (iv) Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or,’

The lesser setbacks to upper floor is not considered to meet the merit based criteria in the following ways;

The proposal is considered inconsistent with the prevailing streetscape in so far as;

o The adjoining dwellings at No. 5, 7, 13 & 17 Stirling Highway all contain

single storey elements only. It is recognised at some points, the external wall heights of these structures may exceed the 4m threshold between upper and ground floor setbacks. Nonetheless all of these dwellings clearly present as single storey buildings;

o No. 9 Stirling Highway, directly adjoining to the south, contains a rear two

storey element with an external wall height of approximately 5.0m. The element exists behind an existing single storey element and is mostly concealed from Stirling Highway;

o A two storey element exists at the rear of No. 15 Stirling Highway. Again,

this element is located behind an existing single storey element.

The proposal represents a projection element into the established streetscape which contains single storey elements at the street front only; and where upper floors exists, these elements are located towards the rear of properties;

There is sufficient space to move the upper floor back to comply with the upper floor setback requirements of LPP 2.9.

DGN9 – Stirling Highway, Tydeman Road, Jackson and Pearse Streets Local Area policy The proposal is also subject to the requirements of DGN9 – Stirling Highway, Tydeman Road, Jackson and Pearse Streets Local Area policy (‘DGN9’). Clause 4.5.2 of DGN9 specifies that;

‘New residential development should complement the existing streetscape, residential character and building form, therefore remaining predominantly single storey with additional dwelling space in the roof area if required. Two storey development will only be permitted in instances where it can be demonstrated that no loss of streetscape continuity or amenity will result.’

For the reasons stated above, the proposal is considered inconsistent with these policy objectives. The proposal will interrupt the immediate streetscape continuity, which contains a pattern of single storey elements to Stirling Highway.


Page 68

5.1.3 Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)


North Walls built up to or within 600mm of a boundary behind the front setback line within

the following limits; (b) where the wall is proposed to abut an

existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of similar or greater

dimensions.

7.0m long x 2.9m high

See comments.

South 4.7m long x 3.0m high

The proposed boundary walls on the northern and southern boundaries are considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways;

The proposed northern boundary wall does not result in a loss of access to daylight or direct sunlight owing to its orientation and its setback to the existing dwelling contained on the adjoining site;

The southern boundary wall adjoins the site at No. 9 Stirling Highway which is used as an Office, rather than a residential premise;

Both walls, the southern boundary wall in particular, are considered to be of limited scale;

Both walls are not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or building bulk at it affects only a small portion of each boundary and the rest of the development is sufficiently setback to meet the deemed-to-comply; and,

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

5.1.4 Open Space


50% (149m2) 46.3% (135.38m2) 3.7% (13.62m2)


The locality surrounding the subject site consists of density development with a character of development with minimal open space;

The lesser open space provided will not be apparent from the primary street and the proposal has walls to both side boundaries. This is broadly consistent with development in the prevailing streetscape; and,

The merit based assessment is considered minor and indistinguishable to a proposal that otherwise meets the deemed-to-comply criteria.


Page 69

5.1.6 Building Height


External wall 6.0m 6.5m 0.5m


The proposal is not considered to impact on adjoining properties in terms of light access or ventilation, particularly considering the southern adjoining property (which is most affected by the additional wall height) is used as an Office;

The proposal does not impact on views of significance which may be apparent in the locality;

The proposal presents as a two storey building, which is the clear intent of this design element of the R-Codes.

5.2.2 Garage width


Where a garage is located in front of a dwelling, the door and supporting structures facing the primary street is not to occupy more than 50% of the frontage at the setback

line as view from the street.

50.8% (6.2m)

0.8% (0.1m)

The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in so far as the width of the garage structure is only marginally above the deemed-to-comply requirement and is not considered to contribute to sense that the street is dominated by garage doors. 5.3.1 Outdoor living areas


30m2 with 66% without roof cover.

25.5m2 with 41.8% without roof cover

4.5m2 in total area and 24.2% (7.25m2) of

additional roof cover.

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the design principles of the R-Codes as, while orientated to the northern boundary, the roofed alfresco area is not sufficiently open to winter sun and also results in a loss of winter sun to the main ground floor living areas of the dwelling. Should Council form the view that the proposal should be supported, it is recommended appropriate conditions requiring less roof cover to the outdoor area be applied.


Page 70

5.4.2 Solar access for adjoining sites


25% (74.5m2) ~38.75% (~115m2) ~13.75% (~40.5%)

The southern adjoining property at No. 9 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle is currently used as an Office premise. On the basis of this use, the proposal does not affect any outdoor living areas or major openings as these terms apply to residential properties only. The proposal is therefore considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two storey Single House at No. 11 (Lot 31) Stirling Highway, North Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 23 April 2014, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of Local Planning Policy 2.9

– Residential Streetscapes in regards the setback of the upper floor. The proposal is inconsistent with the established prevailing streetscape.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of DGN9 – Stirling Highway, Tydeman Road, Jackson and Pearse Streets Local Area policy in so far as it proposes a development form incompatible with the established streetscape pattern.


Page 71

PSC1407-122 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21)

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


That the information is noted.


Page 72

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

PSC1407-123 PROPOSED PARTIAL CLOSURE AND AMALGAMATION OF A PORTION OF BEACH STREET, FREMANTLE ROAD RESERVE (KW/IJ)

DataWorks Reference: 163/002, Beach Street Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 July 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Land Administrator Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1011-241 (15 December 2010), PSC1311-184 (27

November 2013) Attachment 1: TPG submission dated 30 January 2014 Attachment 2: Business Case Proposal

Figure 1


Page 73

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to submit to Council the results of a 35 day advertising and public comment period (extended by an additional 16 days over the holiday season) in relation to the proposed partial closure and amalgamation of a portion of Beach Street, Fremantle. Public advertising ended on 05 February 2014. The proposal relates to the portion of Beach Street road reserve located between James Street and the link road to Queen Victoria Street as shown above in Figure 1 and identified during the East End Project and Local Planning Scheme 4 (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 Street reserve is a maximum of 20 metres wide at all other locations. The proposed closure area is approximately 3826 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. The City received one (1) submission (see attachment 1) during the public advertising period from TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage (TPG) in support of the proposal and on behalf of the owners ('Applicants') of all of the land bounded by Beach Street to the west, James Street to the south and Queen Victoria Street to the east as shown in Figure 1. No objections were received from the public utilities with comments noted under the Community Engagement heading of this report. A Business Case Proposal (BCP) has been prepared by TPG on behalf of the City of Fremantle and the Applicants for presentation to the Minister for Lands and Cabinet (see attachment 2). The BCP, completed in June 2014, hinges the valuation of the proposed disposal of the subject road reserve with the acquisition of land required for road widening along the adjacent section of Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle and proposes that the land acquisition funds, that would normally go to state consolidated revenue, be used instead for relocating a major sewer from the subject site and for upgrading street infrastructure in Queen Victoria Street. The submission of the BCP is subject to Council approval to the overall proposal. This report therefore requests Council to consider;

The results of public advertising and public engagement of 35 days extended by an additional 16 days over the holiday season and ending on 05 February 2014.

The approval of the proposed partial closure and amalgamation of a portion of Beach Street road reserve located between James Street, Fremantle and the link road to Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle (as shown in Figure 1) with the adjoining properties in accordance with Section 58 and Section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997.


Page 74

An application to the Minister for Lands requesting the proposed partial closure and amalgamation of a portion of Beach Street road reserve (as described above in item 2) together with the Business Case Proposal in relation to the proposed Beach Street road closure and amalgamation including the Queen Victoria Street proposed road widening.

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 the partial 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.

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 (formerly known as the Department of Regional Development and Lands). Subsequently the City commenced the statutory process for the partial closure of the Beach Street, Fremantle road reserve in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA), which includes a public advertising and comment period.


Page 75

Council resolved the following at its Ordinary Meeting held on 27 November 2013 (PSC1311-184): 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.

The City received one submission at the end of an extended public comment period in support of the proposal from TPG representing the participating land owners adjoining the subject portion of Beach Street. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The proposed partial closure of a portion of the Beach Street road reserve is pursuant of Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA) which requires that the application be advertised for a period of not less than 35 days. An extension of the 35 days advertising period by an additional 16 days was implemented in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 1.3 (clause 10) where it states: "An additional 14 days will be added to any notice period prescribed under this Policy where any part of the notification period falls within the following dates: (a) Between 15 December and 15 January (b) Between one week before and one week after Easter Sunday" Section 87 of the LAA provides the Minister with the means for disposal of the land in a closed road by lodgement of a Conveyance and Amalgamation Order by the Department of Land (DoL) that allows for the amalgamation of land into an adjoining land holders land. COMMENTS 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.


Page 76

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 was 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 3826 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 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


Page 77

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. While LPS4 also provides the potential for the City to acquire the setback area at no cost as one of the criteria for discretionary additional height for development of the properties between Queen Victoria St and Beach St, acquiring the road widening via a land swap would be preferable as it does not rely on redevelopment of all of the adjacent properties. The Council has previously resolved that all land acquisition and disposal in this area should be at no cost to the City. The BCP prepared by TPG on behalf of the City and the participating landowners, will 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 - subject to Council approval. The business case addresses the following:

- 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.

At the close of public advertising the City has received one (1) submission in support of the proposal. No objections were received from public utilities, however infrastructure currently located within the subject road reserve, such as a sewer line will require re-location. Subject to Council approval, an application will be submitted to the Department of Lands to close and amalgamate the subject land in accordance with Section 58 and Section 87 of the LAA together with Business Case Proposal.


Page 78

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS FINANCIAL The Council has previously resolved that all land acquisition and disposal in this area should be at no cost to the City. Operational Nil Organisational Nil 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. EXTERNAL SUBMISSIONS

Community

The proposed closure of a portion of Beach Street road reserve between James Street and the link road to Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle (as shown in figure 1) was advertised for a period 35 days extended by an additional 16 days over the holiday season and ending on 05 February 2014. Public advertising included:

Advertisement place in the Fremantle Gazette on 17 December 2013 with a 35 day public comment period extended by an additional 16 days.

Proposal advertised on the City of Fremantle Public Engagement website.

Letters sent to the adjoining property owners/occupiers.

Letters sent to public utilities requesting their comments.

At the conclusion of an extended 51 day advertising period, the City had received one (1) written submission in support of the proposal.

No objections were received from public utility services with comments noted below.

ATCO Gas noted high pressure gas mains on the north western side of Beach Streetwhich do not appear to be affected by this proposal.

Western Power asked to be kept informed of development as there are overhead powerlines and/or underground cables adjacent to or traversing the subject area.

Telstra had no objections to the proposal and noted that no assets existed within the subject area with Telstra assets in the near vicinity.


Page 79

The Water Corporation (WC) has critical pipelines within the subject area where relocation is likely. The WC conducted a site visit and investigation by their Services and Delivery section and as a result the WC Asset Manager advised the City on 01 May 2014, that the WC has no objection to the City's proposal.

CONCLUSION

As a result of the City's extended public consultation The City received one (1) written submission from TPG in support of the proposal and representing the adjacent land owners. The Business Case Proposal supports the land acquisition funds resulting from the part closure of the Beach Street road reserve should, instead of going to state government revenue, be made available for:

1. Acquisition of the land for road widening in Queen Victoria Street; 2. Costs for the relocation of the sewer from the subject site and the closed area of

road reserve to Queen Victoria Street; 3. Costs for the reinstatement of the roadway and other streetscape improvements

in Queen Victoria Street adjacent to the subject site. Council is therefore requested to consider the Business Case Proposal 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. Upon Council's acceptance of the BCP, it would then be appropriate to request that Council approve the continuation of the statutory process for the partial closure of the Beach Street road reserve between James Street and the link road to Queen Victoria Street pursuant of Section 58 and 87 of the LAA 1997. The report also concludes that retaining a road reserve width of 20 metres would be sufficient for anticipated future road uses in this area. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority Required


Page 80


That Council;

1. NOTE the results of public advertising and public engagement of 35 days extended by an additional 16 days over the holiday season and ending on 05 February 2014.

2. APPROVE the proposed partial closure and amalgamation of a portion of Beach Street road reserve located between James Street, Fremantle and the and the link road to Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle (as shown in Figure 1) with the adjoining properties in accordance with Section 58 and Section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997.

3. APPLY to the Minister for Lands requesting the proposed partial closure and amalgamation of a portion of Beach Street road reserve (as described above in item 2) together with the Business Case Proposal in relation to the proposed Beach Street road closure and amalgamation including the Queen Victoria Street proposed road widening and sewer relocation and street infrastructure upgrading


Page 81

PSC1407-124 REVIEW OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.11 MCCABE STREET AREA, NORTH FREMANTLE HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS - FINAL ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 117/034 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PSC 16 July 2014; Council 30 July 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: 24 April 2013 PSC1304-58; 24 July 2013 PSC1307-107;

27 November 2013 PSC1311-183; 26 February 2014 PSC1402-32; 26 March 2014 PSC1403-51

Attachments: 1. Schedule of Submissions 2. LPP3.11 with modifications shown in track changes


Page 82

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the submissions received on the reviewed Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle - Height of New Buildings (LPP3.11) and to recommend that Council adopt the policy with modifications to address issues raised during the public comment period. LPP3.11 was adopted by Council in April 2009. 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. After extensive consultation with landowners in the policy area and several reports to Council, Council adopted a modified LPP3.11 for public comment. The modified LPP3.11 proposed limited changes to the policy that would allow for additional building height, at Council’s discretion, in the newly defined locations of zone H2 (to the rear of the former Matilda Bay Brewery/Ford factory heritage building) and zone D2 (the south west portion of 9-11 McCabe Street fronting McCabe Street), subject to meeting specific design criteria. The other modifications proposed were general updates to the wording and an additional control over height on the eastern part of the former Matilda Bay brewery site adjacent to McCabe Street. The modified LPP3.11 was advertised for public comment for 43 days with an additional 10 days given. 148 submissions were received during this public comment period. The main issues raised in submissions were concerns over the impact of future development including traffic, overshadowing, overlooking, density and public open space and the additional discretionary height proposed in the review of up to 33m building height in zone H2 on the former Matilda Bay site and of up to 29m building height in zone D2 on the Taskers site. In light of submissions received officers recommend the following three further modifications to the reviewed LPP3.11:

1. Reduce the proposed discretionary building height in a portion of zone H2 from 33m to 25m;

2. Reduce the proposed discretionary building height in zone D2 from 29m to 25m; and

3. Amend the wording of the discretionary height building criteria relating to environmentally sustainable design.

It is therefore recommended that Council note the submissions received and adopt the modified local planning policy, with the further modifications, in accordance with clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4.


Page 83

BACKGROUND

Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle (LPP3.11 or the policy) 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. The policy area includes a number of significant 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 building heights for the area prescribed by the policy are as depicted in figure 1 below.

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 LPP3.11. The applicant originally requested LPP3.11 be modified to include an increase in the building height permissible under the policy to up to 40m in height in zone H behind the former Matilda Bay Brewery building as per figure 2 below.


Page 84

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 the Council resolution all landowners in the LPP3.11 area were contacted and a further report was presented to Council on 24 July 2013 (PSC1307-107). This report conveyed that there was only limited support for a comprehensive review of the policy from landowners in the area and the item was deferred to allow further discussion with landowners.

Following further consultation between the City and the landowners of 130 Stirling Highway and 9-11 McCabe Street, North Fremantle, Council resolved to adopt for the purpose of public advertising amendments to the policy at its Ordinary Meeting on 26 March 2014. For further background please see reports in previous ordinary meeting of Council minutes (24 April 2013 PSC1304-58; 24 July 2013 PSC1307-107; 27 November 2013 PSC1311-183; 26 February 2014 PSC1402-32; 26 March 2014 PSC1403-51). STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 The LPP3.11 area is zoned Development Zone and is development area 18 (DA18) McCabe – Coventry Street, North Fremantle and 130 -138 Stirling Highway and 2-4 McCabe Street, North Fremantle, under the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 4 (LPS4). Clause 4.2 of LPS4 outlines the objective of each zone. The objective of the development zone is: The purpose of the Development Zone is to provide for future residential, industrial, commercial or other uses in accordance with a comprehensive structure plan or detailed area plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme.


Page 85

Clause 6.2.4 of LPS4 requires a structure plan to come into effect prior to subdivision or development of land within a Development Area. Schedule 11 development areas of LPS4 further details the requirements for each development area. Schedule 11 includes the following requirements for DA18:

1. Structure plan is to be adopted to guide subdivision, land use and development prior to approval of development applications.

2. Investigation of potential site contamination to the satisfaction of the DEC.

3. No development shall be permitted within the proposed road widening on Stirling Highway and McCabe Street as indicated in the proposed Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment 1210/41 or as in a finalised MRS Amendment.

4. Any structure plan for the land of No. 130 Stirling Highway (including Lot 5, 12, 218, 219, 220, 221, 314 and 253) and No. 2 – 4 McCabe Street (including Lot 9, 10 and 11), North Fremantle, is to include an internal link road connecting McCabe Street/McCabe Place to Coventry Parade/Thompson Road.

5. Development applications received prior to adoption of a structure plan, shall be assessed via Mixed Use provisions of the Scheme. Applications for any form of residential development and subdivision should be deferred until the structure plan is adopted in order that servicing, open space provision, environmental remediation and other issues are resolved.

Directions 2031 and Beyond (August 2010) Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Directions 2031 and Beyond (Directions 2031) came into effect the year after LPP3.11 was adopted by Council. Directions 2031 provides a high level spatial framework and strategic plan for Perth’s future population growth. The City of Fremantle is located within the Central Metropolitan sub regional area and is not considered to have Greenfield development areas. Alternatively, the City of Fremantle is considered to have large urban infill sites, such as DA18. Directions 2031 sets a target of accommodating 47 percent of the total additional future dwelling requirement of the metro Perth region as infill development, and states planning will need to:

Focus on target locations for future growth such as in and around retail and employment centres, transit orientated developments and high frequency public transport corridors; and

Apply higher R-codes in strategies and schemes within areas that have close proximity to educational institutions, community facilities and services such as hospitals, medical centres and libraries.

This should not be interpreted as a requirement for across-the-board increase in density throughout established suburbs.

Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines. Future structure plan(s) in the area will have to be in accordance with the requirements of clause 6.2.6 of LPS4 and the WAPC’s Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines. CONSULTATION

The draft amended policy was advertised in accordance with clause 2.4 of LPS4 and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals. The draft amended policy was advertised for comment from 8 April 2014 to 20 May 2014 (43 days). An additional ten days, up to the 30 May, were added to the advertising period to


Page 86

allow additional time for submissions after the information session held on Monday 12 May 2014. A notice of the advertising period was published in the Fremantle Gazette on the 8 and 15 April 2014 and owners and occupiers within a radius of at least 100m of the policy area in the City of Fremantle and Town of Mosman Park were notified by post. The following documents were also made available on the City’s website and at the customer service counter at the Town Hall Centre:

Information sheet outlining the proposed changes to the policy;

Track changes policy document – showed the existing local planning policy document and the proposed changes to the policy text and map;

Council Minutes 26 March 2014 – Adoption and initiation of the reviewed policy for public advertising;

Submission forms (PDF and Word); and

Topography map of the area (added after community information session). The contact officer’s direct contact number was provided on letters and the City’s website to answer any enquiries. A total of 148 submissions were received. The following table provides an overview of the number of submissions in support, objection or no comment to the advertised policy. Table 1. Summary of submitter type and location, and the number of submissions in support, objection or no comment to the advertised reviewed policy.

Suburb Support Object No comment TOTAL

Private Citizen

North Fremantle 10 60 70

Mosman Park 9 41 50

Other (Including eight Taskers

apartment purchasers) 14 14

Not specified 1 6 7

Business/ company/

organisation

North Fremantle 1 1 2

Mosman Park 1 1

Other 2 1 1 4

TOTAL 23 124 1 148

Also, during the advertising period the City received a petition from the Buckland Hill Estate Residents Association containing 70 signatures from 36 households in the suburb of Mosman Park. Summary of Submission Comments Support Submissions in support of the proposed changes to LPP3.11 generally supported the review of the policy as they felt the changes would encourage redevelopment of the policy area, including the transition from industrial to residential use and creating an aesthetically pleasing welcome and landmark response in North Fremantle.


Page 87

Object The submission points in objection to the policy review can be divided into two types:

1. The potential impact of future development in the area and as a result of the height policy review; and

2. Comments on the specific LPP3.11 clauses proposed or modified as part of the review

The specific submission points under each submission type are discussed below. 1. The potential impact of future development in the area and as a result of the height policy review The majority of submissions in objection to the height policy review objected to the impact of future development in the McCabe Street area. The major points in these submissions were:

The negative impact of development on the character, heritage and amenity of North Fremantle/the surrounding area;

The potential overshadowing and visual privacy (overlooking) issues from buildings built to the heights proposed in the policy;

The need for new buildings to be setback;

The impact of new buildings on views and subsequently property value;

The provision of adequate public open space, infrastructure and services to support higher density development; and

The increase of traffic and parking demand in the area as a result of new development.

Discussion Heritage and character Numerous submissions in objection to the amendment expressed concern that high density development in the policy area will change, or not be in character with, the existing area and/or impact on the heritage character of the area. Some submissions mentioned the area would, once developed, look like Scarborough or the Gold Coast. There was also concern in submissions that allowing high buildings in this area will set a precedent to develop a wider area of North Fremantle at greater height and density than currently allowed. Views Eight submitters, who have purchased apartments in the new Takers apartment building, question the impact of development on their views and property values. Other submissions generally questioned the impact of tall buildings on views in and around the area. Overshadowing, Overlooking and Setbacks The impact of future development on the surrounding area was also raised including concern that:

existing properties in the area would be overshadowed by large buildings on the Matilda Bay and Taskers site; and

new buildings would look into existing dwellings (overlooking).


Page 88

Several submissions consider the current Taskers building is too close to the road and one submission suggests building setbacks be the same as the maximum allowable building heights to limit overshadowing of surrounding neighbours and road. Public Open Space and Public Facilities A couple of submissions question the public open space requirement for new developments in the policy area. Infrastructure and services to support higher density development including schools and other community facilities is also questioned in these and other submissions. Traffic and Infrastructure The potential traffic increase in the area was also a concern in many submissions. McCabe Street is considered by these submitters to have an already high level of traffic and Thompson Road is considered congested due to its narrow width and allowance for vehicle parking along both sides. Some submissions explained that for North Fremantle residents to drive north on Stirling Highway they need to use the traffic lights at Alfred Road to enter the Highway, creating increased road traffic to these areas. As a solution one submitter suggests the traffic in Thompson Road could be reduced by building a new single-lane, one-way (south-to-north) road from the north end of Thompson Road to McCabe Place, through the Matilda Bay Brewery Site. There is also concern that development in the LPP3.11 area will increase traffic in Vlamingh Parade and Edwards Parade, above McCabe Street, in Mosman Park. Similarly, a few submissions also questioned the quality of the infrastructure at the McCabe Street and Stirling Highway intersection. These respondents feel accessibility and safely of vehicular, cyclist and pedestrian traffic at this intersection are inadequate for the current daily use by local residents and through traffic. One submission suggests the intersection should be upgraded to accommodate local traffic entering Stirling Highway and a slip road turning left into McCabe Street from Stirling Highway. Another submission suggests the community should be provided a tangible benefit from development in the area such as upgrade work on roads, footpaths, lighting, buildings, parks and community facilities. A couple of submissions also suggested reopening the Leighton railway station and including pedestrian access over or under Stirling Highway to the beach. 2. Submissions in objection to specific points of the policy review Submissions in objection to the reviewed policy also commented on specific points of the policy review. The major submission points in these submissions were:

The proposed new discretionary building heights; and

The proposed discretionary building height criteria. Discussion Building height The majority of the submissions in objection to the policy review objected to the proposed increased discretionary building heights being 33m for the former Matilda Bay Brewery site (zone H2) and 29m for a portion of the Taskers (zone D2). The reasons presented for the objections were, for the majority, those reasons discussed above (see ‘potential impact of future development as a result of the height policy review’). Specific


Page 89

alternatives suggested in submissions for the proposed discretionary height are outlined below. Some submissions suggested the building heights stay as they currently are in the policy e.g. 17m on the former Matilda Bay site and others suggested the heights in the current policy be reduced e.g. not higher than three storeys. One submission suggested a graduation of building heights between the height zones. For example the transition of heights between 14 and 17m and the adjoining single residential area. Two submissions suggested zones F2 and G2 (the 10m wide strip with a 7m height requirement along the back of Rocky Bay) be no development zones or single house lot development, to provide a ‘buffer’ between new development and existing houses in Rocky Bay. One submission suggested zone F1 (11m) and G1 (14m) also be reduced in height. The Town of Mosman Park considered the maximum building height (29m) proposed for Zone D2 (Taskers site) to be excessive, and suggested that this height be consistent with the adopted structure plan with a maximum building height of 22-23m. Another submission, while supportive of redevelopment of the site, objected to the proposed 33m discretionary building height on the former Matilda Bay Brewery site and instead suggested a 20m building height limit as this height limit was considered in the submission to be more in keeping with the proportion and scale of the brewery. The submission also considered this height would have less impact on the surrounding area if the development were not well designed. In the submission presented on behalf of the owners of the Taskers site it was suggested that the westernmost building element should be permitted to a height of 33m in height [as proposed] and the two easternmost elements that directly affects the current building under construction, should be limited to 25m in height. In the submission presented on behalf of the owners of the One Steel site two options were presented:

Option 1. Building A [on the corner of McCabe Street and Stirling Highway] be a height of 33m [the same as the proposed height limit on the Matilda Bay Brewery site] and building B [along the front of the One Steel site between building A and the Taskers site] be a height limit of 29m [the same as the proposed height limit on the Taskers site]. In practice, the submitter states that this would equate to an additional 2 floors on the 25m building height currently allowed for building A (taking it to 9 storeys) and an additional 3 floors for building B (taking it to 8 storeys). The submission also presented a variation of option 1, which would be to increase the height of building A only from 25m to 33m.

Option 2. Increase the height of building A to 60m above ground level. In practice, this would equate to an additional 8 floors on building A taking it to 16 storeys.

Discretionary building height criteria Green Star In reference to the proposed discretionary height criteria one submission questioned the 5 star green star requirement and suggests this should be 6 star green star and/or include the requirement to obtain a NABERS rating for the building when the appropriate rating tool becomes available


Page 90

Exceptional Design The same submission questioned how will exceptional architecture be determined and expressed concern that there is a risk that the council will be unable to impose any form of real control over the quality of the building, or its architecture, should a developer prioritise maximising margin over quality. For full schedule of submissions please see attachment 1.

PLANNING COMMENT

The purpose of LPP3.11 is to identify limitations on the maximum height 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 policy was established in 2009. Since this time the state government has provided strategic direction for Perth’s future population growth in the document Directions 2031 and beyond. The intent of the height policy review is therefore to increase the capacity for comprehensive development in the development area in line with state government’s strategic direction whilst at the same time limiting the impact of new built form on the established view corridors in the area. The modified LPP3.11 as advertised for comment proposed limited changes to the policy that would allow for additional building height, at Council’s discretion, of up to 33m in the newly defined location of zone H2 (to the rear of the former Matilda Bay Brewery/Ford factory heritage building) and up to 29m in zone D2 (the south west portion of 9-11 McCabe Street fronting McCabe Street) (see figure 3 below), subject to meeting specific design criteria. This criteria includes the requirement for development to consider the State Planning Policy 2.6 – Coastal Planning Policy (where applicable), be 5 star Green Star rating in design, conserve the heritage significance of the heritage building, be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, not encroach on view corridors as defined in the McCabe Street Height Study and be limited in building footprint (in zone H2). The other modifications proposed were general updates to the wording and an additional control over height on the eastern part of the former Matilda Bay brewery site adjacent to McCabe Street.


Page 91

Figure 3. Proposed modification to the building heights in LPP3.11 on the former Matilda Bay Brewery and Tasker’s site – as advertised for public comment

Response to submissions The key issues raised in submissions are addressed below. Officers consider that further modifications to the Local Planning Policy would be appropriate in response to certain matters raised in submissions. These recommended modifications are discussed, where applicable, below. For further detail on the modifications recommended please see the policy with track changes in Attachment 2. 1. The potential impact of future development in the area and as a result of the height policy review The purpose of the policy is to provide a building height limit framework for the future development of the McCabe Street development area (DA18). As discussed in the statutory and policy assessment section of this report a structure plan is required prior to development in the development area. Structure plans provide the detail for comprehensive development including the density, public open space and road infrastructure requirements. Subsequent to the adoption of a structure plan development applications for each building are required. At this stage specific development requirements such as boundary setbacks, overshadowing and visual privacy are assessed and addressed. Only height is being considered as part of this review and many of the points raised in submissions are outside of the scope of what can appropriately be included in a local planning policy. Many of the issues raised would be better addressed at the structure plan or development application stage. Nonetheless it is prudent to be aware of these matters when reviewing the policy and valuable to keep in mind the capacity of the site to assist the City in meeting its future dwelling obligations under Directions 2031 and Beyond. Accordingly these matters raised in submissions are discussed below.


Page 92

Heritage and character Submissions on the policy expressed concern that high density development in the policy area will change, or not be in character with, the existing area. Officers acknowledge that the existing industrial character of the subject area will change as the site is developed, however this is considered the purpose of the zone and the height policy. The LPP3.11 area consists of approximately 8.8 hectares of land zoned development zone. The sites in the policy area are no longer zoned Industrial and are therefore no longer considered appropriate for industrial use. Alternatively, the purpose of the development zone is to provide for comprehensive redevelopment of key strategic sites in the City of Fremantle. The character and amenity of the sites will be investigated at the structure plan stage. At the development application stage the City’s Design Advisory Committee will assess each proposed development’s design and any proposed building seeking additional discretionary height will have to demonstrate exceptional architecture, green star building design, consideration of view corridors etc as per the discretionary height criteria proposed in the policy. The impact on the heritage of the area was also a concern expressed in submissions. However, officers consider the provisions proposed as part of the policy review will enhance the heritage aspects of the development area. The main former Matilda Bay Brewery building is the only LPS4 Heritage Listed property in the development area. The building is also under assessment for consideration of inclusion on the Heritage Council of WA’s Register of Heritage Places. This heritage building must be retained as part of any development of the site and through the additional discretionary height criteria proposed as part of the LPP3.11 review the heritage building must also specifically be conserved where discretionary height is sought on site (proposed discretionary height criteria c). Officers consider the conservation of the heritage building an appropriate compromise to allowing for additional discretionary building height on the former Matilda Bay Brewery site. This provision achieves more than the current policy by ensuring the heritage building is not just retained, but also enhanced. The submissions also expressed concern that in allowing buildings of height in this area a precedent will be set to develop a wider area of North Fremantle at greater height and density than currently allowed. This is simply not the case. The policy area is made up of large lots which are either vacant or containing underutilised large industrial buildings. The area is zoned ‘development zone’ the purpose of which is to provide for comprehensive redevelopment of the area. The height policy review therefore is to help facilitate this type of development. Conversely, the majority of North Fremantle is zoned ‘Residential’ or ‘Mixed Use’ with a density coding range of R25 to R60, and much more restricted maximum building height limits. All Residential zoned areas in North Fremantle are well established with predominantly single houses on much smaller lots. These residential areas provide no opportunity for comprehensive development and the City has no plans to up code or rezone any Residential zones in North Fremantle. Views The impact of tall buildings on views in the area, including from the currently under construction apartments on the Takers site, was questioned in several submissions received. 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 was considered in the original drafting of the policy in 2009 and has been considered as part of the review of LPP3.11. For example, the findings of


Page 93

the height study are incorporated into the height corridors on the policy map and when applying for additional discretionary height proposed in the review applicants will need to demonstrate that the development does not encroach on the view corridors through the following discretionary criteria: 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. Overshadowing Overshadowing was one of the main concerns expressed in submissions. The Residential Design Codes (R-codes) assesses the overshadowing impact of proposed development on adjoining sites by calculating the shadow that would be cast by a proposed development at midday on the 21st of June (the winter solstice). The “deemed to comply” requirement of how much shadow a proposed development can cast on adjoining properties depends on the adjoining properties’ density coding. For example, under the R-codes where a multiple dwelling adjoins R25 coded properties (e.g. the Rocky Bay area to the south of the LPP3.11 policy area) the development would satisfy the “deemed to comply” criteria if the shadow cast by the proposed development on any adjoining property does not exceed 25 per cent. The ‘deemed to comply’ provisions for Solar access for adjoining sites (clauses 5.1.2 C2.1 and C2.2, 6.4.2 C2.1) under the R-codes are not clauses that can be amended or replaced by a local planning policy. Accordingly, overshadowing will be assessed as part of any development application received in the area, once structure plans have been established. Nonetheless, to help with decision-making officers have provided the maps below (figure 4 and 5) to assist Council in visualising where the shadow from buildings of maximum height in this area would be cast. A realistic portrayal of overshadowing of future development on adjoining properties, and whether development meets the R-code requirements, is impossible to assess without development plans. Officers therefore caution Council that the maps are not a true representation of future shadowing of buildings. The maps show the shadowing from each zone as if the whole zone was built on to each boundary and up to the maximum height. In reality this is not how development would occur as other planning requirements such as the setback, open space, site coverage and plot ratio under the R-codes would also have to be met, creating less shadow on adjoining properties. Figure 4 below depicts the shadowing to the south of buildings at maximum site coverage and the maximum discretionary building height proposed in the advertised reviewed height policy. These heights being: 29m in zone D2, 14m in zone F1, 11m in zone G1 and 33m in zone H2.


Page 94

Figure 4. Shadowing of maximum discretionary building heights proposed in the review of the policy for zones D2 (29m), F1 (14m), G1 (11m) and H2 (33m)

Figure 5, the same as figure 4, depicts the shadowing to the south of buildings at maximum site coverage and the maximum proposed discretionary height. Figure 5 below presents the same zones as shown in figure 4 with an additional new zone (zone H3) and amended building heights for zones of 25m in H3 and D2 as proposed further in this report (see discussion on heights further on in this report). The building heights for each zone are: 25m in zone D2, 14m in zone F1, 11m in zone G1, 33m in zone H2 and 25m in new proposed zone H3.


Page 95

Figure 5. Shadowing of maximum discretionary building heights proposed in this report for zones D2 (25m), F1 (14m), G1 (11m) H2 (33m) and H3 (25m)

Overlooking and Setbacks The impact of future development on the surrounding area, including overlooking from new development(s) and the setbacks of new buildings was raised in several submissions. The R- codes provides the requirements for these elements including street, lot boundary and visual privacy (overlooking) setback requirements. The requirements under the R-codes depend on various factors making it difficult to include such requirements into this policy. For example the primary and secondary street setbacks for multiple dwellings under the R-codes are a fixed number depending on the density coding of the site, the lot boundary setback is based on the width of the lot and visual privacy setbacks depend on what type of opening (major or minor) and room (e.g. bedroom, living areas, balcony etc) is proposed. Additionally, the ‘deemed to comply’ boundary setbacks (5.1.3 C3.1, 6.1.4 C4.1 and C4.3) and visual privacy (5.4.1 C1.1 and C4.2, 6.4.1 C1.1 and C1.2) requirements of the R-codes cannot be amended or replaced by local planning policy. Consequently officers do not support including these requirements into the policy as these factors will more appropriately and thoroughly be assessed at the development application stage. Public Open Space A couple of submissions question the public open space requirement for new developments in the policy area. State planning policies require 10 per cent of the gross subdivisible area of a residential area to be given up free of cost to the Crown as public open space (POS). As the policy only pertains to height the layout of the POS is not a consideration at this stage. The POS requirement will be allocated at the structure plan stage.


Page 96

Traffic and Infrastructure The potential traffic increase as a result of future development in the area was a key concern of many submissions. The issue of increased traffic to the area as a result of future development is not, however, appropriate to address at this stage. Nonetheless, traffic and associated issues will be addressed in subsequent stages of development in this area including the structure plan stage. The gazettal of Scheme amendment No. 12 in June 2013 introduced into LPS4 the following requirements imposed by the WAPC for development area 18:

“No development shall be permitted within the proposed road widening on Stirling Highway and McCabe Street” and

“Any structure plan for the land of No. 130 Stirling Highway (including Lot 5, 12, 218, 219, 220, 221, 314 and 253) and No. 2 – 4 McCabe Street (including Lot 9, 10 and 11), North Fremantle, is to include an internal link road connecting McCabe Street/McCabe Place to Coventry Parade/Thompson Road.”

Accordingly, future development in the policy area will need to incorporate the Stirling Highway and McCabe Street road widening requirements and a through road from Coventry Parade/Thompson Road to McCabe Street. The road widening requirements include widening McCabe Street on both sides at the Stirling Highway intersection to potentially allow for a slip road or turning bays. The road widening area will need to be shown on future structure plans and will be incorporated into the road reserve under the management of Main Roads once ownership of this portion of the land has been given over. How the through road from McCabe Street to Coventry is configured and other traffic options for the area will be considered as part of any structure plan on the former Matilda Bay Brewery site. Further consideration of traffic yield and subsequent management will be assessed at the structure plan stage also. As sites are developed in the area developers will be responsible for coordinating the upgrade of the existing facilities (power, water, gas) to service their individual developments. These factors will be assessed first at the structure plan stage e.g. the viability of existing services and works required. Following this, further work and detail will be provided in the subsequent subdivision and development stages. The reopening the Leighton railway station and a pedestrian access over or under Stirling Highway to the beach are not considerations of this policy review and are outside the scope of the City’s control. In the future, if there is a critical mass of population in this area state government may be able to consider such proposals. 2. Submissions in objection to specific points of review to the policy Building height The submissions proposed various alternative options to the discretionary building heights proposed in the policy review including not changing the heights in the current policy or reducing the current policy heights. These suggestions are not supported by officers. Alternatively, Officers propose two modifications to the advertised reviewed policy, which are in line with some changes proposed in certain submissions:

1. Zone H2: Reduce the proposed discretionary building height in a portion of zone H2 from 33m to 25m; and


Page 97

2. Zone D2: Reduce the proposed discretionary building height in zone D2 from 29m to 25m.

Zone H2 (former Matilda Bay site) The majority of the submissions objected to the 33m discretionary building height limit proposed on zone H2 of the former Matilda Bay site. One submission suggested a 20m building height limit to keep in proportion and scale of the brewery. As the heritage building on 130 Stirling Highway, North Fremantle, is approximately 15-16m in height a 20m height limit would allow for one additional storey above and behind the heritage building. Officers do not support this submission point as it is considered the area directly behind the former Matilda Bay Brewery heritage building provides an opportunity for greater building height as it is located well away from existing residential properties, has a limited impact on view corridors from surrounding sites and public places and, being behind the heritage building is setback from Stirling Highway, limiting its impact on the streetscape of Stirling highway and Coventry Parade and overshadowing to Rocky Bay (see discussion on overshadowing above). Alternatively, officers support the suggestion put forward in the Taskers site submission. The Taskers submission suggested the westernmost building element on the former Matilda Bay brewery site be a discretionary building height of up to 33m [as proposed] and the easternmost elements be limited to 25m in height. This would result in buildings of up to 33m height being contained to a central area of the former Matilda Bay site. The reduced discretionary building height of 25m on the remainder of zone H2 would further limit any future overshadowing concerns to be assessed as part of future development on the site. The policy map has been modified to show this through the creation of zone H3 and the policy text specifies a height limit of 25m for zone H3, subject to discretionary criteria. See figure 6 below for proposed new policy map and attachment 2 for the proposed track changes to the policy.


Page 98

Figure 6. Proposed LPP3.11 heights and zones

The discretionary criteria on which to consider additional building height in zone H2 includes a criterion (below) that limits the footprint of buildings in the zone. Officers propose this criterion be retained and applied to both zone H2 and H3. The following shows the criterion including proposed modifications in track changes. See attachment 2 for the full policy with track changes. (f) The aggregate footprint of the portions of the development exceeding 17 metres in height in zones H2 and H3 must not occupy more than 60% of the total combined land area in of zone H2 and H3, and any individual portion of the development over 17 metres in height must not have a footprint greater than 20% of the total land area in of zone H2 and H3. Zone D2 (Taskers Site) A large number of submissions also objected to the discretionary height of 29m proposed for a portion of the Taskers (zone D2) site. While the policy currently has a maximum height limit of 17m for this site, the current structure plan approved by the State Administrative Tribunal following the adoption of LPP3.11 includes a building height of up to approximately 22m in height from natural ground level (AHD height of 52) in this area. The Town of Mosman Park, in their submission, suggested that the height for zone D2 be made consistent with the adopted structure plan. Officers consider a reduction to a discretionary building height of 25m would be more in keeping with the adopted structure plan and be consistent with the 25m building height currently allowed on the One Steel site on the corner of Stirling Highway and McCabe Street. Accordingly the discretionary height limit for proposed zone D2 has been reduced from 29m to 25m in the policy text (see attachment 2 for track changes).


Page 99

Zone D (One Steel site) LPP3.11 currently allows development on the corner of 140 Stirling Highway (One Steel site) and McCabe Street to be considered up to a discretionary height of 25m. A building height over the 25m height limit currently allowed under LPP3.11 is not supported. The former Matilda Bay Brewery site is approximately 5m lower than the One Steel Site and is therefore considered to be able to support increased height in a central portion of the site where it would have limited impact on surrounding properties, and not affect the key view corridors upon which the shape and orientation of the policy height zones are based. The maximum building height on the remainder of the former Matilda Bay Brewery site is proposed to be 25m. Additionally officers propose zone D2 on the Taskers site be reduced to a discretionary building height of 25m to be more in keeping with the structure plan for the site. Accordingly it is appropriate to maintain the building height on the One Steel Site at a maximum discretionary height of 25m on the corner of Stirling Highway and McCabe Street as this would be in keeping with the general proposed maximum 25m discretionary building height in other areas of the policy area. Zone F1 and G2 The current policy includes a 10m wide area with a height limit of 7m (two storeys) between the former Matilda Bay Brewery site and the houses in Rocky Bay (zones G2 and F2). Two submissions suggested that the policy not any allow development in this area. Officers do not support this submission point. The 7m height limit is the same height limit as the houses in Rocky Bay though the land in zones G2 and F2 is approximately 2m lower than the ground level of dwellings in the Rocky Bay area as a result of building up of previous ground levels to facilitate the Rocky Bay development. As mentioned above in this report setbacks, visual privacy and overshadowing are to be assessed as part of any development application on the site. Officers consider development of this scale, abutting development of the same scale would provide a more appropriate “buffer” and height graduation between the existing 7m height area and heights of 11m and 14m in zone G1 and F1 respectively. Discretionary building height criteria Green star One of the proposed discretionary criteria required to achieve the discretionary heights proposed in the policy is a requirement for the proposed development to achieve a 5 star green star rating: “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;” One submission suggested the 5 star green star requirement should be 6 star green star and/or include the requirement to obtain a NABERS rating for the building when the appropriate rating tool becomes available. Officers partially support this submission point. Green Star rates the design of the building both at the conceptual and the 'as built' stages. NABERS rates the effectiveness of the operation of the building after it is built and is operational. Green Star can be used for multiple dwellings; NABERS however does not currently offer a multiple residential rating tool.


Page 100

Green Star ratings are determined by comparing a project's overall score with the following rating scale:

Point Score Green Star Rating Outcome

45 - 59 4 Star Best Practice

60 - 74 5 Star Australian Excellence

75+ 6 Star World Leader

Accordingly 5 star green star is one star better than best practice and requiring 6 star green star development is the equivalent to the developer providing a world leader building. Currently 6 star is less common than 5 star and predominantly achieved by large companies or government agencies through office and civic developments in city centre locations. It appears there are currently no multiple dwellings that have obtained 6 star green star. Increasing the requirement to 6 star green star is considered by officers to be too onerous to development in this area. Instead the currently proposed 5 star rating which provides “Australian Excellence” is considered sufficient and more appropriate to the type of development the area will have in the future. Officers propose clarifying the criteria and supporting the submission point made in regards to allowing for other tools to be used to rate a building when the appropriate rating tool becomes available. Accordingly the following modified wording is proposed to replace the current criterion in the policy (as shown above): “The development shall be designed and constructed in such a manner so as to achieve a rating of not less than 5 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia Green Star rating tool or equivalent.” Exceptional Design Another of the proposed discretionary criteria required to achieve the discretionary heights proposed in the policy is the requirement for exceptional design: “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 [see below] of LPS4” One submission questioned how this would be achieved considering it is a subjective concept. The City has a Design Advisory Committee (DAC), made up of well experienced and respected architects. The DAC determine the design quality of large development applications. The City’s LPS4 contains the criteria the DAC have regard to when commenting on 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 Officers have found the input from the DAC on large development applications to be invaluable. Through this process designers and the City can be more adaptable and a development application can be assessed on its own individual merits. This criterion for


Page 101

exceptional design requires the applicant to show how they meet the criteria above and is considered to work better than prescriptive criteria. Accordingly no modification to this discretionary height criterion is proposed. CONCLUSION The purpose of the LPP3.11 McCabe Street Height Policy review is to facilitate the capacity for comprehensive redevelopment in the development area in line with the State government’s strategic direction whilst at the same time limiting the impact of new built form on the established view corridors in the area. Officers have undergone extensive consultation with landowners in the area and public consultation with surrounding properties and interested parties. In light of submissions received officers consider there is scope to modify the policy to allow for additional height in the area in a limited way and subject to discretionary height criteria. Officers therefore recommend the following three modifications to the reviewed LPP3.11:

1. Reduce the proposed discretionary building height in a portion of zone H2 from 33m to 25m;

2. Reduce the proposed discretionary building height in zone D2 from 29m to 25m; and

3. Amend the wording of the discretionary building height criteria relating to environmentally sustainable design.

Accordingly, officers recommended that Council resolve to adopt the Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle with the recommended modifications described in this report. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Notes the submission received as detailed in the Officer’s report and

Attachment 1; 2. Adopts amended local planning policy Local Planning Policy 3. 11 – McCabe

Street Area, North Fremantle - Height of New Buildings, 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 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


Page 102

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:

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


Page 103

structure plans and detailed area plans under Part 6 of LPS4 in cases where such plans include information regarding proposed building heights. The policy applies to development proposals involving both residential and non-residential land uses.

3. STATUTORY BACKGROUND 3.1 This policy has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of LPS4

relating to the preparation and adoption on local planning policies. 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.


Page 104

4.1.5 Council may approve planning proposals involving variations to the

maximum building heights prescribed on Plan No. 2 in the following circumstances:

Minor projections above the highest part of the main building structure may be permitted subject to the criteria in clause 5.8.1.3 of LPS4

Minor projections out from the side of a main building structure over land within an adjoining height zone where a lower maximum building height requirement applies, in cases where no part of the projection is more than 3m away from the main building structure and the total area of all 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 shall be designed and constructed in such a manner so as to achieve a rating of not less than 5 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia Green Star rating tool or equivalent. (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 areas designated zone H2 and zone H3 on the policy map behind the former Matilda Bay brewery building a development with a maximum height of 33 metres in zone H2 and 25m in zone H3 may be approved by Council, at its discretion, subject to the proposed development demonstrating that it complies with all of the following criteria:


Page 105

(a) The development shall be designed and constructed in such a manner so as to achieve a rating of not less than 5 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia Green Star rating tool or equivalent. (b) Where applicable, the development must satisfy the planning criteria in policy measure 5.4 of State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy; (c) The development must incorporate works to conserve the heritage significance of the heritage building; (d)The development must be of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of LPS4; and (e) The development must not encroach upon view corridors as defined in the “McCabe Street Height Study” dated May 2008, prepared by Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd on behalf of the City of Fremantle. (f) The aggregate footprint of the portions of the development exceeding 17 metres in height in zones H2 and H3 must not occupy more than 60% of the total combined land area of zone H2 and H3, and any individual portion of the development over 17 metres in height must not have a footprint greater than 20% of the total land area of zone H2 and H3.

In the part designated zone D2 on the policy map fronting McCabe Street at 9 McCabe Street, North Fremantle, a development with 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 shall be designed and constructed in such a manner so as to achieve a rating of not less than 5 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia Green Star rating tool or equivalent. (b) 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 (c) 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.


Page 106

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.

4.2.3 Height Zone E – Notwithstanding the general maximum building height of 20

metres in zone E from ground level permitted under this policy, no part of any new development in this zone may exceed an Australian Height Datum (AHD) of 37 metres irrespective of the ground level from which the building height is measured under paragraph 4.1.2.

4.2.4 Height Zone F1 – Notwithstanding the general maximum building height of

14 metres in zone F1 from ground level permitted under this policy, no part of any new development in this zone may exceed an Australian Height Datum (AHD) of 34 metres irrespective of the ground level from which the building height is measured under paragraph 4.1.2.


Page 107

PSC1407-125 DRAFT SWANBOURNE STREET LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAN - DEVELOPMENT AREA 4 - INITIATION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING

DataWorks Reference: 115/049 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PSC 16 July 2014; Council 23 July 2014 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Previous proposed LSP Council 20 May 2009 PSC0905-

89 Attachments: None


Page 108

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report seeks Council’s authority to advertise for public comment a new structure plan for Development Area 4, Swanbourne Street Local Structure Plan (LSP), which has been developed by planning consultants Taylor Burrell Barnett on behalf of Landcorp. Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals (LPP1.3) include the requirements for advertising a structure plan for public comment that has been submitted to the City. These requirements include notices in a local newspaper, a sign on site, an information session and written notification to owners and occupiers of land likely to be affected by the plan and other interested parties. Council is not being requested to form a view on the planning merits of the structure plan at this stage, but merely to authorise advertising in accordance with the requirements of LPS4 and policy LPP 1.3. BACKGROUND

The draft Swanbourne Street Local Structure Plan (LSP) applies to the approximately 8.9 hectare area of land bounded by Swanbourne Street to the west, Knutsford Street to the north, Amherst Street to the east and Stevens Reserve and Western Power switch station to the south. The site is surrounded by existing low density (R25) residential development, the new R35 – R60 development at 20 Knutsford Street, low grade industrial uses in the Knutsford Street east area and Stevens Reserve. The site is vacant of all structures and contains predominantly low quality regrowth vegetation. The site is located approximately one kilometre from the Fremantle city centre. The site is made up of 19 lots owned by either the Western Australian Land Authority or the Public Education Endowment Trust (PEET). The site is zoned Development Zone (Development Area 4) under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4 or the Scheme). The LSP has been prepared to guide and facilitate subdivision and development of the site in accordance with the requirements of the zoning, clause 6.2 – Development Areas and Schedule 11 of the Scheme and the WAPC’s Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines. History of the site The site has historically been used for industrial purposes in association with the storage and distribution of fuel to Fremantle harbour. BP Australia previously leased the site from PEET for fuel bunkering facilities and was in operation on the site for approximately 60 years. Since moving from the site BP Australia have undertaken remediation works including the dismantling of the former bunkering facilities and tanks on the site. Planning history:

Council approved the Swanbourne Street Structure Plan on 15 December 2003 under Town Planning Scheme No. 3.

Town Planning Scheme No. 3 was superseded by the gazettal of LPS4 in March 2007. The Structure Plan area was designated as Development Area 4 under LPS4, and Schedule 11 of LPS4 states that land use and development in the area is to be in accordance with the Structure Plan.


Page 109

Landcorp lodged a revised structure plan for the area on 31 October 2008. The revised plan was advertised 7 February – 31 March 2009. On 27 May 2009 Council requested amendments and additional information prior to Council’s consideration of the plan for adoption. This information was not provided and LandCorp decided not to pursue determination of this plan.

A new LSP was lodged for the site in July 2014 and forms the subject of this report.

DETAIL

As shown on the proposed LSP map above, the LSP proposes that Development Area 4 would predominantly provide for medium to high density residential development with one portion of Mixed Use development provided to the front of Knutsford and Amherst Street. The LSP area is divided into five development precincts each proposing a range of different densities:

a density range of R40-R80 is proposed in DP1 and DP2;

a density range of R60-R100 is proposed in DP3; and

a density range of R80-R160 is proposed in DP4 and DP5. The LSP sets a minimum dwelling yield for the site at 308 dwellings and a target yield of 470 dwellings.


Page 110

Public open space (POS) is provided at the western end of the development area fronting Swanbourne Street and in a “green spine” along the west to east road proposed in the LSP. Both of these POS elements have been provided on the LSP map above. The area of proposed open space is 1.0416ha and includes the requirement from Lot 1354 Knutsford Street representing 12.34 percent of the gross subdividable area in development area 4.

The building heights for the site are proposed to be between 17 and 20 metres maximum (indicatively 4 and 5 storey) with one portion of the site proposed to have the capacity for a 47m high building (indicative 13 storey building). Due to the sloping topography of the site the building heights have been provided as a measurement in metres from the street boundary and an indicative corresponding height in storeys. The explanation provided in part two of the LSP for the proposed 47m high building (indicative 13 storey building) in Development Precinct 4 is provided below: The LSP makes provision for a potential landmark building site within Development Precinct 4. This site provides the opportunity for residential apartment development up to 13 storeys, providing a key contributor to meeting dwelling targets for the LSP area.


Page 111

The landmark building is to be located on the southern boundary adjacent Stevens Reserve (on the former oil tank site) and provides a good fit for preserving the tank's original foundation cutting. This location allows for a reduced building footprint and less disruption to the topography at this critical point on the site, thus reducing civil and site works.

The inclusion of a mid-rise landmark building adds to the diversity of housing and built form types accommodated within the LSP area, whilst providing articulation and counterpoint to the overall scale and mass of the built form.

The tower is set back from Swanbourne Street, therefore mitigating its impact on the existing streetscape of Swanbourne Street. The siting of the mid-rise site to the south of the LSP area adjacent Stevens Street Reserve also ensures the building will not adversely cast shadows over new or existing residences.

The landmark building has been sited to ensure it does not impact on the existing Police antenna ray lines, whilst the tower form also provides the opportunity to relocate telecommunication infrastructure away from the ground plane and public view by placing it on top of the building structure.

Part one and two of the Structure Plan report, and the accompanying appendices, will be available on the City’s website and at the Customer Service counter for viewing during the advertising period. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The site is zoned Development Zone (Development Area 4) under LPS4. Clause 6.2.4 and Schedule 11 of the Scheme requires a structure plan to come into effect prior to subdivision or development of land within a Development Area. Clause 6.2.8 of the Scheme requires that within 60 days of submission of a structure plan the City is to arrange for the advertising of the plan by means of a notice in a local newspaper, site notices, written notification to owners and occupiers of land likely to be affected by the plan, and notification to relevant public authorities. A period of not less than 21 days shall be allowed for submissions. The City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals also provides procedures the City must follow when consulting on a structure plan. Under the policy the specified period allowed for submissions is 42 days, and in addition to the methods of notification specified in LPS4 the policy requires notification to Precinct groups and a community information session to be held during the advertising period. CONSULTATION

The required consultation arrangements are described under ‘Statutory and Policy Assessment’ above.


Page 112

PLANNING COMMENT

Officers consider the proposed Swanbourne Street LSP and accompanying report satisfy the requirements of the Scheme and the WAPC’s ‘Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines’ for preparation of a Structure Plan. As such, officers recommend Council should support the advertising of the Structure Plan in accordance with the provisions of clause 6.2.8 of the Scheme and Local Planning Policy 1.3. Advertising of the Structure Plan does not commit the Council to a particular position at this stage with regard to the planning merits of the plan. The plan will be reported back to Council after the end of the advertising period for full consideration in light of submissions received and after assessment of all other material planning considerations including relevant State and City of Fremantle planning policies. CONCLUSION The submitted Structure Plan satisfies the requirements in LPS4 and WAPC guidelines for the preparation and content of a local structure plan, and therefore it is appropriate to advertise the plan for public comment in accordance with the community engagement processes specified in LPS4 and Local Planning Policy 1.3. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the structure plan titled ‘Swanbourne Street Local Structure Plan’ as developed by Landcorp and prepared and submitted by TBB on 7 July 2014, be advertised in accordance with the requirements of clause 6.2.8 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the requirements of Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals.


Page 113

PSC1407-126 STAN REILLY REDEVELOPMENT

DataWorks Reference: 023/026; 94 South Terrace Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 July 2014 Previous Item: SGS1302-3 Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Development Actioning Officer: Strategic Urban Designer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Working Group site development requirements.

2. Foundation Housing initial feedback.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Stan Reilly site working group has analysed alternative uses for the site without the Fremantle Football Club as a major tenant and recommends that the primary uses should be a combination of affordable housing, particularly for key workers, seniors and students, and public parking for 350 to 400 vehicles. Secondary uses could include limited commercial, retail and other community uses to help activate the site’s street frontage and pedestrian routes across the site. The working group consulted a number of potential partners who could develop the site to accommodate the preferred land uses, principally affordable housing, however all parties consulted considered that development would be difficult to finance without access to land ownership. Financing options to develop the site are constrained as the land is a reserve and therefore occupancy is limited to a long term lease. Foundation Housing were the one potential development partner that considered there may be opportunities for external funding to overcome the land tenure constraint, however they would need three months to investigate these options and develop a business plan based on this approach. The report consequently recommends that Foundation Housing be offered a three month period to develop a business case based on the working group’s preferred uses and development requirements for the site.

BACKGROUND

The City and the Fremantle Football Club investigated potential redevelopment of the site as a mixed use development incorporating indoor training facilities before the club concluded that it would relocate its headquarters and training ground from Fremantle Oval in the longer term. Consequently at the Ordinary meeting of Council held on 27 February 2013 it was resolved that:


Page 114

A Chief Executive Officer working group be convened for a period of 6 months to consider the strategic development of the Stan Reilly site with the objectives being:

Consider alternative uses for the development of the site and environs without Fremantle Football Club as a major tenant.

Consider the site in relation to the City’s strategic parking needs.

Consider the mix of uses, commercial and community.

Liaise with major stakeholders in relation to the development of the site. The working group has subsequently met a number of times to progressively address these issues. The group has also had discussions with stakeholders in the areas of affordable housing, education and health. As the site is a crown reserve, occupancy is limited to a long term lease and therefore the working group confined its deliberations to groups who didn’t require ownership of the property.

COMMENT

The working group has prepared a set of development requirements for the site as a basis for examination of the site’s development feasibility. It is important to note that the purpose of these development requirements is only to enable the preferred development partner to ascertain whether they are able to put together a viable business plan for development of the site. If the project proceeds beyond this stage, the details of any redevelopment would be prepared in consultation with the Design Advisory Committee and Council and would also be based on the situation at the time with regard to access to and use of Fremantle Oval, including the intentions of the South Fremantle and East Fremantle Football Clubs. The working group’s development requirements for a feasibility analysis are attached to this report and can be summarised as follows: Uses Primary use of the site would be a combination of affordable housing and public parking. The affordable housing would be focussed on accommodation for key workers and seniors, although it could also provide for students, universal access accommodation and medial short stay accommodation related to the adjacent Fremantle Hospital. A key aspect of a feasibility study for the site would be to examine the most appropriate mix of the types of affordable housing. The site is also considered appropriate for public parking as it is ideally located on the periphery of the city centre commercial and entertainment districts, as well as being immediately adjacent to Fremantle Hospital and Fremantle Oval. Initial development concepts for the 6120sqm site indicate that a car park of 350 and 400 bays could be accommodated on the site and integrated with a residential development, particularly if the parking is partly or wholly below ground. A feasibility study would examine the design implications and costs of different approaches to combining these 2 major uses. Commercial, retail, community and other secondary uses would be incorporated to provide activation at street level and along pedestrian routes across the site. These secondary uses could be related to the adjacent Fremantle Hospital and Fremantle Oval.


Page 115

Built form The context of the site is significant in that it is has major frontages to South Terrace (as a major pedestrian and vehicle route in and out of the city centre) and Fremantle Oval (a major recreational facility), is adjacent to Fremantle Hospital (a major employment centre and landmark building), and is located on the edge of the original convict grant and buffer zone of the world heritage listed Fremantle Prison as the site of the former pensioners barracks. The proposed development requirements aim to balance the various elements of the site’s context by:

Retaining the remaining sections of convict built walls on the western and southern boundaries of the site that originally indicated the extent of the convict grant. The new building will be set back from the walls to retain the legibility of the original boundary to the convict establishment. The setback area behind the South Terrace wall could be developed as a raised pedestrian concourse that is activated by uses from the adjacent ground floor frontage.

Providing an activated urban frontage to South Terrace as well as addressing its relationship to Fremantle Oval and its buildings.

Providing a built form that breaks the mass of building into a series of structures along the length of the site to reflect the typical grain of South Terrace. This would also enable opportunities for new views and pedestrian links across the site to the oval beyond.

Incorporating heights and scale that graduates between the scales of the former synagogue and the hospital. Heights to graduate from 2-3 storeys at the northern end of the site to 6-8 storeys at the southern end.

Minimising the visual impact of on-site parking. Design benefits and cost effectiveness of integration of all or part of the parking component with the other uses to be investigated.

Access Development should consider potential east-west pedestrian links across the site between South Terrace and Fremantle Oval. Vehicle access to the public car park would be from the southern end of the site’s frontage to South Terrace. Development Partner The working group consulted a number of potential partners who could develop the site to accommodate the preferred land uses, principally affordable housing, however all parties consulted considered that development would be difficult to finance without access to land ownership. Occupancy is limited to a long term lease as the site is currently a crown reserve. Foundation Housing did indicate that there may be options that could bridge the funding gap with external funding but they would need a three month period to investigate and develop a business plan based on this approach. Otherwise Foundation Housing’s development objectives broadly meet the Council’s strategic intent for the site. Initial feedback from Foundation Housing is attached to this report.


Page 116

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

There are no funding implications or financial risks related to undertaking the feasibility study. Legal

The management order for the reserve may need to be reconsidered subject to the outcome of the feasibility study. Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that inviting Foundation Housing to undertake a business case analysis of the site’s potential development based on the working group’s recommended preferred uses and development requirements is the logical next step to determine the most appropriate and viable future use of the site.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The 2010-15 Strategic Plan identified development of the Stan Reilly site as one of the projects to help achieve the target of an increased inner city residential population.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required


Page 117


That Council: 1. Agree that the preferred uses and built form as recommended by the Stan

Reilly site working group be used on an interim basis to enable assessment of whether a business case exists for the lease and development of the former Stan Reilly site at 94 South Terrace.

2. Offer the opportunity to Foundation Housing Ltd for a period of three months

to develop a business case to develop the land in accordance with the preferred uses and built form, without a commitment to a long term lease at this stage.

3. That following the expiration of the three month period the preferred site

development requirements be reviewed by the working group based on the business plan investigations, and reported to Council.


Page 118

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.


Page 119

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


Page 120


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.


Page 121


Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12.

As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.

Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13.

The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14. In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15. Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16.

Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


Page 122

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has

been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government

and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing,

detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.


Page 123

AGENDA - City of Fremantle · AGENDA DECLARATION OF ... ROASTING) AND WAREHOUSE AND ADDITIONS AND...

Documents

Transcript of AGENDA - City of Fremantle · AGENDA DECLARATION OF ... ROASTING) AND WAREHOUSE AND ADDITIONS AND...