MINUTES - City of Fremantle PC Mi… · 1 June 2016 Page 3 LATE ITEMS NOTED Nil CONFIRMATION OF...

MINUTES

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 1 June 2016, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 1

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 1

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 2

LATE ITEMS NOTED 3

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

TABLED DOCUMENTS 3

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 3

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 4

PC1606 -1 FLEET STREET, J-SHED UNIT 1 (LOT 2051), FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO TAVERN (INCLUDING LIVE MUSIC), ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING - (AD DA0370/15) 4

PC1606 -2 MARINE TERRACE, NO. 120A (LOT 330), SOUTH FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE TO BED AND BREAKFAST - (BP DA0108/16) 42

PC1606 -3 LONGFORD ROAD, NO. 7 (LOT 2), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (NB DA0103/16) 48

PC1606 -4 KNUTSFORD STREET, NO. 16 (LOT 2), FREMANTLE - ENSUITE BALCONY ADDITION TO EXISTING TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING (AMENDMENT TO PLANNING CONDITION OF DA0144/15) AND WAIVER OF PLANNING FEE - (NB DA0185/16) 57

PC1606 -5 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - OFFICE 2007 66

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 67

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 67

PC1606 -6 APPOINTMENT OF DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR 2 YEAR TERM 67

CLOSURE OF MEETING 68

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Planning Committee 1 June 2016

Page 1

PLANNING COMMITTEE

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

on 1 June 2016 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 6.00 pm.

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT

"We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today."

IN ATTENDANCE

Cr Jon Strachan Presiding Member / South Ward Cr Bryn Jones North Ward Cr Simon Naber City Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham Deputy Presiding Member / East Ward Cr Sam Wainwright Hilton Ward Cr David Hume Beaconsfield Ward Mr Paul Trotman Director Strategic Planning & Projects Mr Glen Dougall Director City Business Ms Natalie Martin Goode Manager Development Approvals Mr Joseph Zappavigna Senior Environmental Health Officer Ms Nadine Weller Property Services Administrator Mrs Kayla Beall Minute Secretary There were approximately 25 members of the public in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jeff McDonald

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil


Page 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1606-1: Kieran Wong James Legge The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1606-1: David Hawk Cheryl Greaves Nicholas Gurr Greg James Suzanne John Mary Rose Baker Shirley Burbidge Bill Burbidge Mandy Warrick Elizabeth Megroz The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1606-2: Bill Samson The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1606-3: Brent - Depledge Design The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1606-4: Christine Grey The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1606-4: Leo Visser

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Cr S Wainwright declared an impartiality interest in item number PC1606-1. His brother in-law owns a property on the western end of Phillimore Street.


Page 3

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Nil

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the minutes of the Planning Committee dated 4 May 2016 as listed in the Council agenda dated 25 May 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Nil

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

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


Page 4

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 At 6.06 pm Cr S Wainwright declared an impartiality interest in item number PC1606-1 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item.

PC1606 -1 FLEET STREET, J-SHED UNIT 1 (LOT 2051), FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO TAVERN (INCLUDING LIVE MUSIC), ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING - (AD DA0370/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 June 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee (recommendation/referral only to WAPC) Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans (DA0370/15) – (as amended) Attachment 2: Accompanying information from original lodgement Attachment 3: Schedule of Submissions (2016) Attachment 4: City’s Heritage Comments Attachment 5: Site photos Date Received: 5 August 2015

1 April 2016 (amended plans) Owner Name: City of Fremantle Submitted by: Sunset Events, CODA Metropolitan Region Scheme: Parks and Recreation Reserve Local Planning Scheme: Not zoned under City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Heritage Listing: Yes, MHI management category level 1A;

Inner Harbour Heritage Area, Arthur Head Precinct Heritage Area, WECA Heritage Area, Victoria Quay Heritage Area

Existing Landuse: Special Events Venue (temporary approval) Use Class: Tavern Use Permissibility: N/A


Page 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council due to the nature of the development and the number of submissions received that cannot be addressed through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of objectors.. The applicant is seeking planning approval for a partial change of use to tavern (including live music) , additions and alterations to existing building at J-Shed Unit 1 (Lot 2051) Fleet Street, Fremantle. As the proposal is contained within land reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) as ‘Parks and Recreation’, the City acts only in the capacity as a referral body providing a recommendation to the determining authority, being the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). As the proposal relates to reserved land under the MRS, the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies (LPP’s) do not apply, but have been used as a guide in assisting Council in formulating its position for its recommendation to the WAPC. The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the provisions of Council’s LPP’s, however it is probable that some amenity impacts may result to the immediate locality, including car parking and noise. The proposal is considered to warrant a recommendation for conditional approval to the WAPC for their determination. BACKGROUND

In November 2012 Council resolved to seek “the front glass-walled studio of J-Shed to be put out for lease through a competitive process as a bar/café/gallery as a major attractor for the whole area. This should include space for artists in Arthur Head precinct to be able to exhibit their work on a priority basis. At other time the gallery space would be for rent like the Moores building.” An expression of interest process was undertaken in early 2013 in which Sunset Events was selected as the preferred interest. The City has since undertaken negotiations for a lease with Sunset Events for a term of 21 years for Unit 1 and a portion of the surrounds to J Shed. At the ordinary meeting in November 2013 Council considered a report providing the essential terms of the negotiations and resolved the following; “The proposed lease for Unit 1 J-Shed between the City of Fremantle and Sunset Events be deferred to the December, 2013, Strategic and General Services Committee to consider the advertising of a business plan in accordance with section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995 outlining the commercial terms of the lease so that the community has greater opportunity to make comment prior to the lease being finalised.”


Page 6

An item to Strategic and General Services Committee sought approval for a consultation plan for the proposed lease between the City of Fremantle and Sunset Events. The following resolution adopted; “The Strategic and General Services Committee, acting under delegation item 1.1, approve the Consultation Plan for the proposed lease to Sunset Events for Unit 1 JShed, Fleet Street, Fremantle, to be advertised for a period of six weeks.” The City advertised the consultation plan regarding the proposal to enter into a land transaction through disposal of Unit 1 J Shed Fleet Street, Fremantle in the form of a Lease. The plan outlined the proposal from Sunset Events and the essential terms and conditions of the lease negotiations. Prior to Strategic and General Services Committees resolution the City invited stakeholders to an information session in November 2013. Further to this a public information session was also held on Tuesday 14 January 2014 outlining the proposal to interested persons. An outline of the proposal was advertised in the West Australian, Fremantle Herald, Fremantle Gazette and social media directing those wanting to comment to the City’s website which enabled them to view the detailed consultation plan. At its meeting of 26 February 2014, the Strategic and General Services Committee resolved to conditionally grant the lease to Sunset Events for Unit 1 of J-Shed. On the 15 May 2015, the Minister for Lands granted approval for the lease. The site is reserved for the purposes of Parks and Recreation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The site is not zoned or reserved under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a management category level 1A (State Heritage Register) as well as for precinct management. Furthermore, the site is located within the Inner Harbour Heritage Area, Arthur Head Precinct Heritage Area, WECA Heritage Area, Victoria Quay Heritage Area, which are prescribed Heritage Areas under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 37,463m2 and is located on southern side of Fleet Street and to the west of the freight rail. The site has a predominantly north-south orientation. The City of Fremantle considered an application for planning approval for Temporary Approval - Special event venue (live music venue) at J Shed Unit 1/Fleet Street (Lot 2051), Fremantle (refer DA0373/15). This represented what was effectively a ‘trial’ period for the permanent tavern use that is being considered by this proposal. At its Ordinary Council Meeting (OCM) held on 14 October 2015 the application was considered, whereby it was resolved:

“That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for APPROVAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme for the proposed Temporary Approval - Special event venue (live


Page 7

music venue) at J Shed Unit 1/Fleet Street (Lot 2051), Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

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

plans, dated 31 July 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. This approval permits the use of the site as a special event venue (live

music venue), and is valid until 31 May 2017 (inclusive). 3. The special event venue shall be limited to the following types of activities:

Weddings;

Art exhibitions and functions;

Gala Dinners;

Awards Nights;

Music Events;

Conferences;

Brand Activations;

Fashion Events;

Product Launches;

Corporate Functions;

Corporate Christmas parties;

Social & Celebratory events - Birthday and anniversaries; and any other type of similar activity to those prescribed above, as deemed appropriate by, and to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission, upon the advice from the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Events are to be held between 1 November and 30 May (inclusive) of each

year, up until 31 May 2017 and are to consist of: i. Up to 12 music concerts per year, to be held on any day of the week,

which are to commence at no earlier than 12:00pm (midday) and conclude no later than 10:00pm that same day with a maximum number of 1000 patrons at any one time; and

ii. All other uses are limited to weekends and public holidays and are to commence at no earlier than 12:00pm (midday) and conclude no later than 10:00pm that same day with a maximum number of 400 patrons at any one time;

5. Prior to commencement of the use of the site, the applicant is to submit and

have approved by, the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, an access management plan which addresses how event patrons, goods and materials, as required for events, will be transported to and from the site, in the event that access cannot be obtained via Fleet Street.

6. A watching brief is to be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist during all

works south of the line of the 1830's cliff, to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission, upon advice from the State Heritage Office.


Page 8

7. Patron access shall be limited to the Southern portion of the license area via Bather Beach or the Whalers Tunnel and there shall be no patron access fronting the land known as Fleet Street

8. Any alcohol advertising or promotion is not to include naming rights or

prominent alcohol name brand sponsorship 9. Brand or corporate advertising or promotion, including banners, flags, and

umbrellas etc. is not permitted to be overtly visible from the Bathers Beach and Arthur Head reserve area

Advice Notes: i. The proponent must make application to establish the food business –

tavern – so that the premises comply with the Food Act, Rood 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.

ii. The proponent must make application during the Building License

application stage to the City’s Environmental Health Services via Form 1 - Application to construct, alter or extend a public building as a requirement of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. If the proponent is granted approval to commence development the proponent must immediately make application to the City for a Regulation 18 noise notice under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1992. For enquiries and a copy of the application forms contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

iii. The applicant is advised to contact the Department of Aboriginal Affairs

(DAA) on (08) 6551 8092 to discuss any statutory requirements that may be required to be undertaken and/or fulfilled by them under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. This may include advising the South West Land and Sea Council of the proposed works, of which should be confirmed with the DAA.

iv. The DAA has advised the City to advise the applicant that they have

released the Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Guidelines to assist developers with planning and considering Aboriginal heritage during proposed works. A copy of the guidelines can be found on the DAA website as:

v. http://www.daa.wa.gov.au/globalassets/pdf-files/ddg vi. The applicant is advised that the Department of Environment Regulation

(DER) has recommended that management of ground disturbing works at

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.daa.wa.gov.au/globalassets/pdf-files/ddg


Page 9

the site include contingency measures for unexpected unearthing of asbestos or contamination, to eliminate any potential health risks to workers or the public. In the event that the development activities detect or unearth asbestos-containing-material or contamination at the site, any potential exposure risks should be immediately mitigated and the site should be investigated without delay in accordance with Department of Environment Regulation’s Contaminated Sites Guidelines.

vii. The applicant is advised that there are pre-existing art-based land uses

within the J-shed complex which may at times, be associated with, and accompanied by noise and odour emissions typical of semi-industrial type land uses.

viii. Council does not support creating new vehicle access via Mrs Trivett

Place.” On 27 November 2015, the WAPC granted conditional planning approval for Temporary Approval - Special event venue (live music venue) at J Shed Unit 1/Fleet Street (Lot 2051), Fremantle (refer DA0373/15). This approval was subject to the following conditions and advice notes:

“The application for approval to commence development in accordance with the plans submitted thereto is granted subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, date-stamped 10 August 2015 by the Department of Planning, on behalf of the Western Australian Planning Commission. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. This approval is valid until 31 May 2017 (inclusive). 3. The special event venue shall be limited to an activity deemed appropriate ’Jy,

and to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission. 4. Events are to be held between 1 November and 30 May (inclusive) of each

year, up until 31 May 2017 and are to consist of: (i) Up to 12 music concerts per year, to be held on any day of the week

which are to commence at no earlier than 12:00 and conclude no later than 22:00 with a maximum number of 1000 patrons at anyone time; and

(ii) All other uses are limited to weekends and public holidays and are to commence at no earlier than 12:00 and conclude no later than 22:00 with a maximum number of 400 patrons at anyone time.

5. Prior to commencement of the use of the site, the applicant is to submit and

have approved to the specification of the local government and the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission an Access Management Plan which addresses how event patrons, goods and materials, as required for events, will be transported to and from the site.


Page 10

6 Patron access shall be limited to the Southern portion of the licence area via Bathers Beach or the Whalers Tunnel and there shall be no patron access from Lot 51 including the land known as Fleet Street.

Advice to applicant 1. Any development which is not in accordance with the original application or

conditions of approval will require further approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission.

2. The applicant is advised to contact the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA)

on (08) 6551 8092 to discuss any statutory requirements that may be required to be undertaken and/or fulfilled by them under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. This may include advising the South West Land and Sea Council of the proposed works, of which should be confirmed with the DAA.

3. The DAA advise the applicant that they have released the Aboriginal Heritage

Due Diligence Guidelines to assist developers with planning and considering Aboriginal heritage during proposed works. A copy of the guidelines can be found on the DAA website as: http://www.daa.wa.gov.au/globalassets/pdf-files/ddg

4. The applicant is advised that the Department of Environment Regulation (DER) has recommended that management of ground disturbing works at the site include contingency measures for unexpected unearthing of asbestos or contamination, to eliminate any potential health risks to workers or the public. In the event that the development activities detect or unearth asbestos-containing-material or contamination at the site, any potential exposure risks should be immediately mitigated and the site should be investigated without delay in accordance with the DER’s Contaminated Sites Guidelines.

5. In relation to Condition 3, activities deemed appropriate for the special events

venue include

Weddings

Art exhibitions and functions

Gala Dinners

Awards Nights

Music Events

Conferences

Brand Activations

Fashion Events

Product Launches

Corporate Functions

Corporate Christmas parties

Social & Celebratory events - birthday and anniversaries

6. Any alcohol advertising or promotion shall not include naming rights or prominent alcohol name brand sponsorship.



Page 11

7. Brand or corporate advertising or promotion, including banners, flags, and umbrellas shall not be visible from the Bathers Beach and Arthur Head reserve area.”

DETAIL

On 5 August 2015, the City received an application for planning approval for a Partial change of use to Tavern (including live music), additions and alterations to existing building at J-Shed Unit 1 (Lot 2051) Fleet Street, Fremantle (refer DA0370/15). In late 2015, after approval was issued for the temporary activation of the site, the applicant made a request to the WAPC to put the processing of DA0370/15 for the tavern on-hold to allow the concerts to be ‘trialled’. In a letter addressed to the WAPC dated 31 March 2016, being after a number of music concert events had been held at the site, the applicant requested the WAPC ‘re-activate’ the processing of the tavern application for DA0370/15. The applicant has indicated that the proposal will comprise of:

Partial change of use to tavern, which includes a micro-brewery component;

Additions and alterations to existing J-shed building to accommodate the proposed tavern land use;

12 concerts over the summer months (held on any day of the week);

850 patron capacity for regular ‘tavern’ trade and 1500 capacity for ticket music concert events.

Hours of operation:

o Monday to Saturday – 11:00am to 12:00am (midnight);

o Sunday - 11:00am – 10:00pm;

Number of employees: Approximately 10 staff at any given time, during standard operations

There may be incidental temporary events which would be subordinate to the predominant tavern land use which they are seeking planning approval. Such events would likely include those that were considered previously by Council for the Temporary Approval - Special event venue (live music venue) (refer DA0373/15), which covered:

1. Weddings 2. Art exhibitions and functions 3. Gala Dinners 4. Awards Nights 5. Music Events 6. Conferences 7. Brand Activations 8. Fashion Events 9. Product Launches 10. Corporate Functions 11. Corporate Christmas parties 12. Social & Celebratory events - Birthday and anniversaries

A copy of the development plans are contained as Attachment 1 of this report, which also includes additional information from the applicant based on events that have occurred on-site as a result of the temporary activation approval for live music events.


Page 12

A copy of the accompanying information and applicant’s heritage assessment is contained as Attachment 2 of the report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of Council’s Local Planning Scheme and planning policies. CONSULTATION

Community

First advertising period (2015)

The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3) as the provisions of LPS4 and affiliate LPP’s are not applicable. Notwithstanding, the City did advertise the proposal, given that it considered that there may be some impact to adjoining landowners and that it was in the public interest to advertise the proposal:

given that the land use is typically discretionary within most zones under LPS4; and

the car parking requirement for such a land use under LPS4 would also mean that there may be some impact.

Advertising of the applications comprised of the following:

Letter to owners and occupiers within 100 metres of the site;

Advertising of the application occurred on the City’s website; and

One notice relating to the proposal was placed in the Fremantle Gazette on the 22 August 2015

At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 28 August 2015, the City received 78 submissions pertaining to the proposals. Of the 78 submissions, 76 were against the proposals, with the remaining 2 in support. In general terms, the common concerns that were identified by the City which were raised related to:

Land use

Noise

Anti-social behaviour

Car parking

Approval of lease

Access issues in and around the premises

Heritage

Property devaluation It is noted that a number of submissions also made reference to the lease agreement between the City and Sunset Events. The lease agreement does not form part of this planning assessment. Relevant planning related issues raised in the submissions are addressed in the “Planning Comment” section below.


Page 13

Second advertising period (2016)

In addition to the advertising period conducted in 2015, the City also re-advertised additional information and plans submitted by the applicant, received on 1 April 2016. The City therefore sought any additional input nearby residents may have had based on the events that have occurred on site since November 2015 as part of the temporary approval and the additional information provided, prior to the City making its recommendation to the WAPC. Letters were sent to residents and occupiers within a 100m radius of the subject site, providing them with 14 days to provide comment. At the conclusion of this period, being 3 May 2016, the City received 19 submissions and an additional 1 late submission after the closing date. Of these 20 submissions, 18 raised concerns, 1 provided comment only and another was indecisive. In general terms, the common concerns that were identified by the City which were raised related to:

Land use

Noise (from the concerts held at the site)

Anti-social behaviour (from the concerts held at the site)

Rubbish (from the concerts held at the site) It is clear from the submissions, that there are fundamental concerns that the community has had with operation of the site since the WAPC granted approval for the temporary activation in November 2015 (DA0373/15). A copy of the schedule of submissions is contained as Attachment 3 of this report. As the schedule of submissions summarise the general concerns raised in dot points, should Council wish to peruse the submissions in full, this can be done upon their request. Internal Referrals

City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Directorate

The City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Directorate has reviewed the proposal and has advised that they do not have any concerns with the proposal. Their comment will be sought as part of any future proposed access arrangements to the site, in the event that access cannot be obtained via Fleet Street. City’s Environmental Health Department

The City’s Environmental Health Department has reviewed the proposal and has recommended a number of advice notes pertaining to need for further approval under separate legislation, as well as requirements of operating such a land use, including:

“1/. EH.DA.AN6 - Food Premises The proponent must apply to register and license 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


Page 14

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. 2/. EH.DA.AN2 - Public Building The proponent must make application during the Building License application stage to the City’s Environmental Health Services via Form 1 - Application to construct, alter or extend a public building as a requirement of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856. 3/. The J Shed building must be connected to sewer to remove all liquid waste – i.e. from bars, kitchens, grease traps, toilets – from the building. 4/. All rubbish and recycling receptacles to be stored in a secure location to temorarily store all waste materials prior to collection. 5/. The applicant must apply and pay for Liquor Control Act s.39 Health Certificate prior to operation of the building. 6/. The applicant must apply and pay for an “entertainment event/venue” approval under Environmetal Protection (Noise) Regulations at least 60 days prior to the first event date and/or venue use. 7/. The performance stage should face in a direction that will significantly disperse sound energy emitted by amplified music first to the ocean and second not towards on-shore residents (NSRs). 8/. The applicant should voluntarily reduce the sound level of amplified music should to a level that is not unreasonable at the closest noise sensitive receivers (NSRs) – see table 4.4 in noise monitoring report attached. 9/. The applicant must investigate and report on the suitability of other sound attenuating materials inside the event venue and the J Shed building’s other tenancies that will deflect unreasonable noise away from noise sensitive receivers (NSRs) at J Shed tenancies and the residences of the west end. 10/. The applicant must investigate and report on the predicted modelling of sound levels at noise sensitive receivers (NSRs) where the mixing desk level is agreed to be set at lower sound emission levels that are below or similar to those reported in Table 4.4 of “EcoAcoustics J Shed Concerts Sunset Events Event Noise Control Report” dated 10 May 2016. This EH advice is based on the sound levels in Reg 18(8) that would attract a noise monitoring fee in the attached flow chart. 11/. Should agreement not be reached between the applicant and the CEO then the CEO should inform the applicant of a proposed ‘ancilliary condition’ stating the measures the applicant will do to remove NSRs from areas of high noise during preformance of amplified music, i.e. the ameriloration package previously conditioned in typical CoF Reg 18 noise notices.”


Page 15

It is recommended that conditions and advice notes outlining the above be included. City’s Heritage Department

The City’s heritage department has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments:

“The proposed works are supported, subject to the following conditions:

The low limestone wall should be replaced with a landscaping structure that more obviously communicates the impression of a cliff and accurately follows the line of the turn of the century cliff line.

All works in the area of the archaeological sites are to be monitored by a qualified archaeologist to ensure that no damage is caused to them by the proposed works.

The proposed fencing to the boundary of the lease area is not supported. There should be no permanent fencing that would prevent the establishment of strong visual links between the site and Bathers Beach (and the reverse).

Ground levels should remain unaltered.

There should be no grass to the south of the new limestone interpretive wall. The area should be a natural beach landscape.

The new shade structure proposed for the west side of J Shed should not be fixed to the building, but instead should be supported on a complete freestanding structure.”

Whilst the heritage department is largely supportive of the proposal, there are certain elements which require modification to ensure that the development is sympathetic to the heritage significance of the property. Accordingly, it will be recommended that these aspects of the proposal are passed onto the WAPC as conditions of planning approval. A copy of the heritage comments is contained as Attachment 4 of this report. City’s Arts and Culture Department The latest plans and additional information was referred to the City’s Arts and Culture Department, whom provided the following comments:

“The key comments from an events perspective are:

External ticketed concerts not to exceed 5 hours with a hard curfew of 10pm for live performance, piped music and service of alcohol.

Sound checks only permitted on show day and not to exceed 90 minutes in length.

All other conditions we would like to see I believe would relate to the lease document (eg notification of residents about concerts) and are not relevant to the DA.”

It is recommended that the above be imposed as conditions of planning approval. City’s Economic Development and Marketing Department


Page 16

The latest plans and additional information was referred to the City’s Economic Development and Marketing Department, whom provided the following comments:

“The Lease enables the City to reduce the number of patrons however for the full capacity (approved under the Lease) to be possible the applicant is required to apply for that capacity during the DA process. The approval of these numbers under the DA does not alter the City’s capacity as Landlord to reduce the numbers, as required, in line with Lease terms. Should the application for (maximum) patron numbers be reduced during the DA process from the numbers applied for, the Lease will require alteration so that Lease terms are consistent with the DA approved. This can occur via a Variation of Lease document which simply varies the required conditions within a Lease. The document will require Council and Minister for Lands approval. In relation to your waste management question I’ve also attached the reflective lease clause. They should be including a location for waste management as part of their DA.”

External Referrals

Whilst the City is not the determining authority for this application, it referred the proposal to external agencies where relevant, as if it were. Advice from these agencies was sought by the City to assist Council in preparing its recommendation to the WAPC.

State Heritage Office (SHO) (2015)

The application was referred to the SHO as the site is on the State Heritage Register. The SHO provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:

“Findings

The referral is for a partial change of use of J-Shed into a tavern with associated additions and alterations, and the temporary approval for it to be used as a special event venue. J-Shed is within the registered curtilage of the Round House & Arthur Head Reserve.

The 2011 Conservation Management Plan by Griffiths Architects classifies J-Shed as having ’secondary/some significance’ for its association with the adjacent early port activities at Victoria Quay, and because it marks the site of the last period of extensive quarrying. The limestone interpretative wall is of little significance, although the original cliff line it interprets is significant.

J-Shed is a relocated structure, adapted for its current location, and has lost some original detailing through the replacement of elements and the south glass facade is not original.

We note that much of the site, including the area to the south west of J-Shed is of exceptional archaeological significance.

The built alterations and additions to J-Shed and the surrounding area are simple in design and sympathetic in nature. The new structures are reversible and readily removable.

The proposed changes to J-Shed will provide an ongoing use of the place and maintains its economic viability.


Page 17

The demolition of the limestone wall will remove an interpretative element of the site. However, we note that the original cliff line is being reinterpreted through a new ground marker.

Advice

The proposed development, in accordance with the plans submitted, is supported subject to the following condition: 1. A watching brief is to be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist during all works.”

State Heritage Office (SHO) (2016)

The additional information and plans were sent to the SHO again for them to provide comment. The advice was largely the same as in 2015; however there was a change to the recommended condition to what was previously advised.

“Advice The proposed development, in accordance with the plans submitted, is supported subject to the following condition: 1. An Archaeological Management Strategy that meets the satisfaction of the

Executive Director of the State Heritage Office is to be developed and applied to the works”

Accordingly, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the above be implemented as per SHO advice. The SHO was contacted for further clarification on the differences between a ‘watching brief’ which they had previously recommended, and an ‘Archaeological Management Strategy (AMS)’ as they are not proposing to be required, outlined as follows:

“An Archaeological Management Strategy (AMS) is a short document that guides works at a specific place, or even for a specific set of works. A watching brief is when an archaeologist is hired to monitor works and deal with archaeological material as it occurs.

A watching brief is a generally-accepted response for archaeological material, but it has a couple of disadvantages. It is expensive to hire an archaeologist to stand and watch all day. It also might not be the best response for the site.

The State Heritage Office is therefore recommending an AMS instead. It’s less expensive to get one written, and the archaeo[ligist] might analyse the site vs the proposed works and recommend a different response, such as test-pitting or having an archaeo[ligist] on stand-by to be called in as needed. The advantage is that you get a tailored response and might not need the presence of an archaeo[ligist] on site at all times. It also lets everyone know what is expected at the site and what to do in terms of unexpected finds, so decisions aren’t being made in the face of a bulldozer.”

Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) (2015)

The application was referred to the FPA as the site is located within Fremantle Port Buffer Area 2, and given that they are adjoining landowners. The FPA provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:


Page 18

“Fremantle Ports has concerns about the proposed redevelopment of J Shed (Lot 2051, Fleet Street Fremantle) to allow the operation of a tavern and special events venue, these being raised in my letter of 13 March 2014. In summary, our Concerns arise due to the proposed redevelopments seeking to introduce a range of intensive. Urban type land uses within close proximity to port operational lands (South Mole and Victoria Quay). These intensive land uses have the potential to negatively impact the operations of tenants (such as Challenger Institute) and Fremantle Port through noise, vehicle access and car parking availability and increases in anti social behaviour. The J Shed proposal is highly dependant on the use of Fremantle Ports’ freehold land for vehicle access, car parking and pedestrian movements. This is highlighted in the Applicant’s supporting submission, whereby reference is made to the use of the Victoria Quay and South Mole car parks and Fleet Street access way. It is our view that the reliance on Fremantle Ports’ land, casts doubt on the validity of the application for development. Fremantle Ports is not a party to the application. Has not signed the MRS Form 1, and has not been consulted during the progression of the development proposal Fremantle Ports therefore requests that the two development applications are deferred. The applications should not progress until Fremantle Ports has consented by way of signing the MRS Form 1 as an owner of the land being used for the purposes of the development.”

The City understands that Fleet Street to the north-west and north of the site may have been transferred from the Crown to the FPA freehold as of 15 July 2014. There is existing vehicle access infrastructure off Fleet Street, servicing the existing tenancies of J-Shed. The City understands that no legal mechanisms were put in place on the Certificate of Title of the sale of this land in Freehold to the FPA which would ensure that these pre-existing vehicle arrangements could continue in the future. With no such arrangement in place, and the absence of any written legal consent of the FPA for access to the site via the Fleet Street (being private property), alternative pedestrian and vehicle access arrangements should be put in place for deliveries and the like. It is noted that when the lease was being considered by Council in early 2014, the Fremantle Ports did raise serval matters of concern with the City however the specific matter relating to the dependency of vehicle access to J Shed being entirely dependent on the use of Fremantle Ports’ freehold land was not raised. City of Fremantle planning staff met with Port planning staff on 29 September 2015 who advised that they would not sign the MRS Form 1 as they have issues with various components of the development. They also advised that there were no issues with the artists that currently occupy the northern portions of J Shed using the Fleet Street vehicle access as those uses were of a significantly less intensity than that proposed by the current application. The City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Directorate has provided comment on the possibility of vehicle access being gained to the site via the recently constructed footpath along Bathers Beach. They have advised that the footpath is not suitable for vehicular traffic and that it would likely suffer significant damage as a result. Any proposal to use this as an alternative vehicle access solution to the site is unlikely to be supported by the


Page 19

City, so other options would need to be explored further. Some alternative access options may include (but not limited to):

1. Utilising the road immediately adjacent to the rail line and transporting materials underneath the Whalers tunnel;

2. Using a scissor lift located adjacent to Mrs Trivett Place to lower materials down to J Shed;

3. Construction of a new vehicle access immediately north of Mrs Trivett Place as outlined in Figure 1 below;

Figure 1 - Possible alternative vehicle access point via Mrs Trivett Place

There are inherent issues with this however, given the significant change in topography, proximity to the adjoining FPA-owned Freehold lot inclusive of Fleet Street. The changes in topography levels between Fleet Street and Mrs Trivett Place can be viewed in the site photos as contained within Attachment 6. Notwithstanding this, should such arrangements be able to be formalised, it would be impossible to avoid traversing the FPA privately owned land to leave any new vehicle access point via Mrs Trivett Place, and on Phillimore Street, as detailed in Figure 2 below.


Page 20

Figure 2 - One-way road system necessitates crossing over FPA owned land

Relocation of the existing round about above further east to avoid access being required over Port land would solve this issue.

As legal vehicle access potentially cannot be obtained via Fleet Street, a condition of planning approval is recommended requiring the submission and approval of an access management plan, which would detail how the applicant would transport goods and materials to and from the premises that would be required for events. The City endorsed an alternative access management plan on 23 October 2015, which is shown in part, in Figure 3 below. The alternative access plan ensured no vehicle or pedestrian access to the site via Fleet Street, achieved by:

Hand trolley access for furniture, tools and theming items via the Whalers Tunnel (orange line);

Light vehicles and catering (under 2 tonnes) to use existing path west of the train line (yellow line);

Truck access for forklift, fencing, toilets, flybridge, bar stock and bin along existing path west of train line to ‘truck unloading point’ (red), which will then be ferried along yellow line.

This plan was endorsed and approved by the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Directorate, subject to satisfying payment of an appropriate bond. The City advised the WAPC that it was satisfied with this alternative access arrangement, which would ultimately form part of the requirement stipulated in condition 5 of the WAPC’s planning approval dated 27 November 2015 for DA0373/15.


Page 21

Figure 3 - Approved alternative access management plan

It is noted that the FPA did not provide any comments in relation to the proposal in the context of Local Planning Policy 2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines (LPP2.3). Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) (2016)

The additional information and latest plans were re-referred to the FPA for comment, whereby the following response was received:

“From a land use compatibility perspective the proposed permanent tavern is of concern to Fremantle Ports. The Inner Harbour is the only dedicated container port in Western Australia – its protection and ability to grow to serve the State and National economies is a fundamental objective for Fremantle Ports. Attached is our previous submission relating to the initial development application for temporary use. Fremantle Ports has been in close liaison with the proponents and the City since the site was initially approved in late 2015 for events on a temporary basis. Initially concerns were raised in regards to potential externalities including vehicle and pedestrian movements, parking and anti social behaviour. The process that was put in place to address our concerns in relation to the initial temporary approval, which included regular meetings with the proponents before and after each event has proven to be a very useful mechanism to manage use of the site and to develop a good working relationship; it has been beneficial and effective in dealing with any matters as they have arisen.


Page 22

In light of our experience to date we believe, that if approval is granted for a permanent tavern, the current practice of regular pre and post event meetings should be continued for the first 12 months of operation of operation. This is considered an adequate period to ensure that any potential issues associated with permanent use of the site can be identified and addressed. It is also requested that the proponent, in liaison with the City and Fremantle Ports, be required to document and commit to the manner in which externalities will be managed.”

It is not considered appropriate to recommend the above requirement as a condition of planning approval, rather that it be recommended as an advice note that encourages this to occur. Despite comments from the FPA in their 2015 submission noting concerns about the use of Fleet Street to access the site, since temporary approval was granted by the WAPC in November 2015, the applicant has used Fleet Street to obtain vehicle access to the site with the full knowledge of the FPA. In the event that the FPA was to withdraw their consent for the applicant to use Fleet Street to access the site, which they are entitled to do, the City considers that vehicle and pedestrian access to the site is still tenable in the form of the endorsed alternative access management plan. It will be recommended as a condition of approval that an alternative access management plan be provided, which is likely to be the same one that the City has already endorsed as part of the temporary approval for DA0373/15. Department of Environment Regulation (DER)

The application was referred to the DER as the site is listed as ‘possibly contaminated – investigation required’. The DER advised that they have “no objection to the proposed development … provided that the following advice is appended to any approval for this development”:

“It is recommended that management of ground disturbing works at the site include contingency measures for unexpected unearthing of asbestos or contamination, to eliminate any potential health risks to workers or the public. In the event that the development activities detect or unearth asbestos-containing-material or contamination at the site, any potential exposure risks should be immediately mitigated and the site should be investigated without delay in accordance with Department of Environment Regulation’s Contaminated Sites Guidelines.”

Accordingly, it is recommended that an appropriate advice note be placed on the recommendations to the WAPC for inclusion on any approval that may be forthcoming. Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA)

The City is not aware of any statutory requirement that may necessitate formal referral of an application for planning approval to the DAA in the case of this proposal. Notwithstanding this, the application was referred to the DAA for their comment as the site is located within the boundaries of two known Aboriginal heritage places: DAA 3421 (Fremantle: Manjaree) and DAA 3774 (Fremantle: Arthur Head).


Page 23

The DAA has recommended that the applicant be advised of their obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. Accordingly, it is recommended that appropriate advice note be placed on the recommendations to the WAPC for inclusion on any approval that may be forthcoming. PLANNING COMMENT

Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS)

The subject site is reserved as ‘Parks and Recreation’ under the MRS. Land is reserved for community purposes. It may be reserved to protect a resource or to provide areas for infrastructure. The following descriptions are a guide. Its reservation under the MRS means that it is:

“Land of regional significance for ecological, recreation or landscape purposes.” It is considered that the proposal is generally consistent with the intent of the reservation, specifically in relation to recreation as music events. Ultimately, it will be up to the WAPC to determine whether it considers these proposals to be consistent with the nature of the reservation. Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) As the site is reserved under the MRS, the provisions of LPS4, including development standards such as car parking, do not apply and are only used as a guide. Car parking

Required Proposed Shortfall

Tavern/Hotel 1: 2.5m2 of public bar area

155m2 public bar area = 62 bays

0 62

1: 5m2 of lounge/garden area

950m2 garden area = 190 bays

0 190

Total 0 252

Clause 5.7.3 of LPS4 outlines circumstances where Council may waive or reduce the standard parking requirement specified in Table 3, and states:

“Council may—

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

(i) the availability of car parking in the locality including street parking,

(ii) the availability of public transport in the locality,

(iii) any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces,


Page 24

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

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

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

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

(viii) any other relevant considerations.

Note: *In some sub areas identified in Schedule 12 reduction of parking bays is not permitted. The requirements of Schedule 12 prevail over this clause.

(b) Council may require an applicant to submit a report completed by a suitably qualified person or persons justifying any of the points cited above.

Note: Provides greater flexibility to vary car-parking requirements based upon alternative transport opportunities.”

In relation to the above criteria of Clause 5.7.3 (i), it is noted that there is a significant provision of on-street parking available in the immediate vicinity and surrounding locality of the subject site. It is noted that this does not include any car parking on private property, including parking contained within the land owned by Fremantle Port Authority (FPA), particularly their land in and around the Fleet Street locality. It is further noted that should the application be supported, it does not preclude rights for parking to be used within privately owned land, such as parking within the FPA area. There are a number of parking areas within the FPA that are clearly identified as paid parking, and others which have been fenced off, restricting access to those areas. Ongoing compliance with parking on private property is typically a matter between the landowner, and the alleged offender and ultimately it is up to the landowner to manage this issue. A recent parking study of the City Centre undertaken on behalf of the City revealed that there is currently significantly underutilised public car parking capacity in the centre and this spare capacity will likely remain available for a number of years notwithstanding new development activity including development of existing car park sites. Evidence of underutilised public parking capacity was obtained through a comprehensive study of city centre car parking supply and demand patterns carried out by specialist consultants Luxmoore on behalf of the City in late 2012. The Luxmoore study indicated that in the precinct of the city centre there are approximately 1,500 off street public car bays plus approximately 250 on-street parking bays. The average vacancy rate of parking spaces in the precinct identified from surveys undertaken for the study was 48%. Significantly, the Queensgate multi-storey car park which is located 700 metres away from the subject site has 850 bays, with an average vacancy rate of 47% (400 bays) and a vacancy rate at peak occupancy times of 16% (136 bays).


Page 25

The findings of the Luxmoore study are informing the City’s development of a longer term strategic approach to public parking provision as part of the preparation of the Fremantle Activity Centre Structure Plan, which is currently in progress. In relation to (ii), the site is located approximately 600m from the Fremantle Train Station which provides rail services to and from the Perth Central Business District (CBD) and connecting rail network. Further, it is also located within 600m of the Fremantle Bus Station, which provides bus services on routes 98, 99, 103, 106, 107, 111, 148, 158, 160, 381, 501, 502, 511, 513, 520, 530, 531, 532, 825 and 920. In this regard, the site is considered to be very well serviced by public transport within walking distance. It would be reasonable to expect that by the very nature of the proposed use, and any liquor license that is subsequently granted, that patrons may plan their day and/or night ahead, whether that be car-pooling, catching public transport, catching a taxi or alternative means of transport other than driving. In this regard, it is considered that this may reduce the overall impact of car parking shortfall associated with this change of use application.


Page 26

The City’s Arts and Culture – Events Department has provided the following patronage numbers, for events held throughout the City:

Beerfest 4,000 (patrons per day)

St Jeromes Laneway Festival 10,000

Blues and Roots 12,000

Chilli Fest 23,000 (over two days) Given that this proposal seeks a maximum number of 850 patrons in standard ‘tavern’ mode, and 1,500 in ‘event’ mode which occurs 12 times per year, which is significantly lower than the above events, demonstrates that the City’s transport infrastructure (ie car parking, public transport) has the capability to absorb the number of patrons proposed. It is also noted that there is an existing tavern (restricted) 250m to the south, being ‘Bathers Beach House’ which also does not provide for any on-site car parking. It is acknowledged that this is within a different reservation under the MRS; however that does not extinguish the fact that it is capable of operation without the provision of on-site car parking. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of Clause 5.7.3 of the City’s LPS4. Local Planning Policies (LPP’s)

LPS4 acts as the head of power in creating LPP’s. As detailed above, given that it’s an MRS reservation, application of the provisions of LPS4 and therefore LPP’s in the context of these applications are only as a guide and are not binding, the following policies and their provisions should be viewed as such. DGF5 – Arthur Head Reserve Strategy Plan

The subject site is located within Precinct 3 – J-shed as prescribed by DGF5. DGF5 prescribes that the goal of this precinct is to:

“Develop this area as a transition zone that links the Arthur Head Reserve with port uses and other maritime themes of the foreshore”

There are three specified objectives for this precinct, which are detailed and discussed below: Objective 3.1 of DGF5 states:

“Provide a northern access to the Reserve”

The proposal still maintains northern access to the Reserve around the western and eastern sides of the lease area. Furthermore, the proposed fencing around the lease area has not been supported on heritage grounds, so this will ensure that visually that there are no physical restrictions on traversing the lease area north-to-south and vice versa. The City understands that the Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor (DRGL) will require a form of barrier physically defining the licensed area, to assist in management of patrons accessing and egressing the premises and other reasons. This application will likely necessitate the erection of a temporary form of fencing, typically


Page 27

associated with music events. Given the temporary nature of such fencing, which will likely only be erected for a few days either side of any such event, its lack of permanency ensures that any long term impacts are mitigated. Notwithstanding this, in the in event that the WAPC does approve the fence in its current form, which would be against the City’s recommendation on heritage grounds, pedestrians would still have freedom of movement on existing footpaths heading west towards the south mole to footpaths along Fleet Street, permitting pedestrian movement north-to-south, albeit not directly through the site. This would require pedestrians moving into FPA owned land, however this would be the case in any event based on current circumstances. Objective 3.2 of DGF5 states:

“Encourage low profile commercial uses of J-Shed reflective of and compatible with the history and maritime themes of Arthur Head and the foreshore.”

There is no definition of what distinguishes a ‘low profile’ commercial use against a ‘high profile’ commercial use within DGF5. In this regard, and despite the lack of definition of this term, Council could form the view that allowing either up to 850 patrons in standard tavern mode and/or up to 1,500 patrons for ticketed events up to 12 times a year may present too many detrimental amenity concerns and as such not be considered to be ‘low profile’. If that is the case, Council may consider not supporting the proposal. It is noted that in relation to the tavern land use, even though they are seeking up to 850 patrons as a maximum, it is highly uncommon for any tavern within Fremantle, and the broader Perth Metropolitan Region (PMR) to be at capacity at any given point during all trading hours, except for weekends and public holidays. So it is reasonable to suggest that during the majority of hours which it is proposed to be open that it will be consistent with a low key land use. It is acknowledged that the weekends, notably Friday afternoon/night through to Sunday night will likely see the venue close to, or at capacity. Furthermore, given that the 1,500 patron live music event is only 12 days over the summer months and therefore constitutes a small percentage of the overall use of site this could be considered to be i “low profile”. It is noted that the proposal is for commercial use; however, both the SHO and the City’s Heritage Department have supported the proposal and the proposed works, subject to conditions to make some alterations to ensure compatibility with heritage significance. Objective 3.3 of DGF5 states:

“Extend the coastal landscape of Bathers Beach in a way that expresses the original landform and defines the northern edge of the reserve.”

As detailed above in the report, both the SHO and the City’s Heritage Department have supported the proposal and the proposed works, subject to conditions to make some alterations to ensure compatibility with heritage significance. One of the recommended conditions includes the deletion of the permanent fencing around the lease area boundary on heritage grounds by the City’s heritage department. In addition to heritage


Page 28

concerns, it is considered that should the fencing be approved, it would push the northern edge of the reserve from its current location abutting Fleet Street, significantly further south to the southern side of the J-Shed itself. DGF6 – Arthur Head – (West End of High Street, Fremantle)

It is noted that this policy is from 1983 and many of its provisions are outdated given the many physical and material changes to the broader area since that time. Notwithstanding this, clause 2 of DGF6 relates to access within the Arthur Head area and states:

“Arthur Head is quite small so planning for access is important as well as not overloading the vicinity with proposed developments.

In general terms, visitors should be able to walk easily (from a nearby car park) into the pedestrian-only area of Arthur Head, and enjoy the combination of beach, ocean, vegetation, landforms and historic building as a Local Area which offers physical pleasure, relaxation, information, creature comforts and - importantly - an emotional experience.”

In terms of the physical development itself as is currently proposed, it could be argued that the proposed building form is relatively minor compared to the J-shed building as a whole, however the proposed patron numbers that are proposed to be facilitated, being 850 for the tavern and 1,500 for the ticketed music events could be considered to represent an ‘overloading of the vicinity’ given that such numbers have typically not been seen within this area on a more permanent basis. The proposal still maintains northern access to the Reserve around the western and eastern sides of the lease area. See Objection 3.1 above for further discussion. Clause 3 of DGF6 relates to new structures within the Arthur Head area and states:

“The only new structures which may be considered for introduction into the Arthur Head area are:

a public amenities building above Bathers Beach to the north of the pottery workshop, incorporating changing rooms,

showers, toilets, and kiosk; and

historic boat shelters, located parallel to the railway line in the vicinity of the Western Australian Maritime Museum.”

The proposal is not considered to be consistent with above clause, specifically in relation to the types of new structures which may be considered for introduction into the Arthur Head area. In saying this, the overarching planning concern in relation to the above provision is the preservation of heritage. As detailed throughout this report, the City’s heritage department is largely supportive of it, provided that certain aspects of the proposal are modified to ensure that there is an acceptable degree of impact upon the heritage significance of the site. These matters are recommended as conditions of approval, and will ensure that a positive heritage outcome is achieved. Further, the State Heritage Office is supportive of the proposal. DGF26 – Planning Policy for the West End of Victoria Quay

The subject site is located within ‘Area D – Workshops’ character area as prescribed by this policy. Clause 3.4 of DGF26 sets out conservation objectives, land use and development principles.


Page 29

The policy prescribes the following uses as ‘primary uses’:

maritime and port functions;

maritime education;

maritime industry, research and exhibition;

maritime related administration, trade, service and professional offices Further, the policy prescribes the following uses as ‘ancillary uses’ (maximum 50% total gross floor area per building):

maritime arts and craft workshops, display, retail (produced on site)

cultural heritage exhibition and interpretation relevant to the site

marine related commercial offices e.g. shipping agents,

marine related trade outlets e.g. boating materials and supplies

car parking The proposal is not considered to be consistent with the prescribed primary or ancillary uses as set out for this character area however the area of the building appears to be less than 50% of the total floor area of the building (ie 25% of the existing J-Shed floor area is included in the proposed development). The City’s Heritage Department has requested several changes to the proposal to ensure its compatibility with the heritage significance of the site, of which will be recommended to be addressed via conditions of planning approval, prior to issue of any building permit that may be required. Furthermore, the SHO has supported the proposal. DBU6 – Late Night Entertainment Venues Serving Alcohol

Clause 1.1 of Council’s DBU6 relates to the location of late night venues which propose to serve alcohol and states:

“Due to access and safety issues, any proposal for a late night entertainment venue (serving alcohol), including hotels, nightclubs, jazz and piano bars and performing arts centres, should be located on land adjacent to well-lit through streets to enable adequate safety and access for taxi cabs. Ideally a loading zone or similar shall be located near the entrance to the building to allow for private vehicle drop off and pick up as well as pre-ordered taxi travel. Amenity and safety considerations may preclude narrow or quiet streets from this type of development.

A provision for a queuing area at the entry of the venue is required on site if admission fees or other line up situations are proposed for the venue.

If this is not possible Council may consider a site adjacent to a footpath of 3 metres minimum width (from the kerb to the entrance of the property).

Proximity of proposed late night entertainment facilities (serving alcohol) to residential development shall form a significant part of the assessment of the applications as, in general, Council does not support proposals which may encourage conflict between land uses.”

It is considered that the intent of the policy provisions is based on a late night venue being located either in the city centre itself or in similarly well established and served


Page 30

urban areas. The J-shed has a unique location, and its historic setting combined with it abutting Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) land means that vehicle and pedestrian access is not easily achievable, and therefore the provisions of this policy should be viewed with this context in mind. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that recent improvements which included lime-crete footpath and solar lighting and was completed in 2013 in and around the Bathers Beach area enhance safety at night time. The proposal is located more than 100m from the closest adjoining residential development to the east, separated by a limestone cliff. Clause 1.3 of Council’s DBU6 specifies matters pertaining to conditions of approval relating to: noise management; management plans; hours of operation; and floor area for the use. Matters relating to noise management are typically an ongoing management issue, governed by environmental health legislation. The management plan typically is assessed and forms part of the applicants Section 39 application for their liquor license application. It will be recommended that the hours of operations as proposed, are imposed as a condition of approval. Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that the issue of a Liquor License is a separate approvals process, issued under separate legislation by the State Government’s Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor. DGF14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy

Clause 4.1.2(b) of DGF14 provides for development controls within the Arthur Head Reserve as contained within ‘The Foreshore’ area specifies:

“A low key use of the J-Shed, compatible with the ethos of the area, is acceptable.” There are a number of artists based industries and businesses in an around the J-Shed area. The live music component of the proposal of the site, which includes live music, is also a form of art and that this should be considered appropriately. The scale of event mode (1,500 patrons) could be viewed as not being low key based on numbers and capacity alone, so Council would have to be satisfied that the use is compatible with the ethos of the area, having regard to its potential to provide additional means of art, albeit through a different medium than what is currently existent in the immediate locality. The 1,500 maximum would occur only 12 times per year. It is noted that in relation to the tavern land use, even though they are seeking up to 850 patrons as a maximum, it is highly uncommon for any tavern within Fremantle, and the broader Perth Metropolitan Region (PMR) to be at capacity at any given point during all trading hours, except for weekends and public holidays. So it could be suggested that during the majority of hours which it is proposed to be open that it will be consistent with a low key land use. It is acknowledged that the weekends, notably Friday afternoon/night through to Sunday night will likely see the venue close to, or at capacity. Regarding as assessment of whether the “ethos” of the proposal is acceptable, the “ethos” of the area could be defined by the relevant policies for the area. As stated in the discussion of each policy objective/requirement above, as it is considered that the proposal generally meets the policy requirements, it can be argued that the proposal therefore meets the ethos of the area.


Page 31

Public Submissions As detailed in the schedule of submissions as contained as Attachment 3 of this report, the City received a considerable amount of submissions, most of which objected to the proposal. Key themes in the issues raised in the submissions, which haven’t already been addressed or discussed above already included, but was not limited to, the following matters:

Anti-social behaviour;

Property devaluation;

Access impacts upon other J-Shed tenants;

Noise;

Rubbish;

Lease Anti-social behaviour

A number of submissions raised concerns pertaining to this matter. Such matters are addressed through separate legislation other than planning legislation, and are typically a responsibility for the management of the licensed premises, and for the Police. The City did receive submissions in relation to this proposal, and has received complaints regarding events held on the site since November 2015, about numerous examples of anti-social behaviour including but not limited to urination in public, general disturbances and damage to property. It is noted that whilst these are tangible issues of public interest, the planning system (and its legislation) is not designed or geared to control the behaviour of individuals. In saying this, planning does have the power to control and put limitations on a number of ‘control components’ in order to manage such land uses, such as hours of operation and number of patrons. Property devaluation

This is not a valid planning consideration. Access impacts upon other J-Shed tenants

The City is satisfied that the location of the northern entry to the proposed Tavern will not restrict access to, nor significantly impact the operations of other J-Shed tenants. FPA has verbally advised that they have no in-principle issue with allowing on-going access to existing tenants of the J-Shed via Fleet Street, as the intensity of their land uses (car parking and pedestrian) is significantly less than what is proposed. Noise

The City has received a number of complaints from residents and nearby business operators, including other tenants of the J-shed pertaining to noise since the site has begun operation as a live music venue. It is acknowledged that noise is an important amenity indicator and factor to be considered when assessing and determining applications for planning approval. The applicant has submitted an Acoustic Report, which monitored noise emissions for J Shed Concerts held since the temporary planning approval was issued by the WAPC in November 2015:


Page 32

26 February 2016 – ‘Missy Higgins’

19 March 2016 – ‘San Cisco’

2 April 2016 – ‘Koi Child’

9 April 2016 – ‘Pineapple Club’ The Acoustic Report details noise measurement since temporary approval was granted in November 2015. These measurements indicate the ability to comply with the relevant legislation. On this basis, it is shown that noise can indeed comply on this site. This is different to circumstances where there may be a restaurant or similar land use that abuts a residential dwelling where it is almost impossible to comply without noise attenuation measures being implemented physically into the development emitting the noise (ie the source). In this regard, it is considered that there are appropriate mechanisms to ensure that noise complies through the noise regulations. Noise is an amenity issue that is governed by separate legislation, other than planning legislation. Further, the site is located between an active sea port and active freight rail, which can emit substantial noise in their own right. The City of Fremantle undertook noise measurements outside a nearby residential property which met the requirements of the noise regulations. Rubbish

This is not a valid planning consideration. It has been recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring the submission and approval of a waste management plan which would detail the storage and management of the waste generated by the proposed tavern. Lease

The City’s Economic Development and Marketing Department, who is in charge of administering lease of City owned and/or managed properties has provided the following advice in relation to the relationship between the lease and this application:

“The Lease enables the City to reduce the number of patrons however for the full capacity (approved under the Lease) to be possible the applicant is required to apply for that capacity during the DA process. The approval of these numbers under the DA does not alter the City’s capacity as Landlord to reduce the numbers, as required, in line with Lease terms. Should the application for (maximum) patron numbers be reduced during the DA process from the numbers applied for, the Lease will require alteration so that Lease terms are consistent with the DA approved. This can occur via a Variation of Lease document which simply varies the required conditions within a Lease. The document will require Council and Minister for Lands approval.”


Page 33

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Economic Development Strategy 2011 -15:

New commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing employment opportunities.

Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

New commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing employment opportunities.

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

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

Comment from City Business Directorate Clauses 5 and 7 of Council’s resolution to enter into the lease agreement, as detailed in the Strategic and General Services Committee meeting held on 12 February 2014 (item SGS1402-2) state:

“5. The lessor and lessee mutually agree that the lease boundaries are established for the purpose of executing the lease so as to enable the lessee to investigate the planning, heritage, urban design, and landscaping matters relevant to the proposed development of the lease area through the design development process and the determination of any required applications by the appropriate authorities.

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

masterplan and/or detail design for the lease area, the overall reserve and adjoining areas, that seek to include, but are not limited to, the following: a) Develop a place where visitors feel welcome and the design gives

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

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

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

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


Page 34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Page 35

The following comment was provided by the City Business Directorate in relation to the lease and its relationship to the applications for planning approval:

“The resolution for approval of the lease with Sunset Venues also sought the City to undertake the development of a concept plan for the landscaping of the surrounds to the J Shed precinct and to better define linkages between Bathers Beach and Victoria Quay. The City engaged CODA Architects to develop these concept landscape plans to provide consistency with the proposed development of Unit 1 J Shed by Sunset Venues. The development plans submitted by CODA for Sunset Venues includes elements of the concept landscape plans developed as part of that process. The intention of developing a landscape concept is for the City to consider these plans once the development of J Shed is confirmed. The City will then need to consult with Council and stakeholders in the area to finalise and cost this concept plan with the intention to allocate funding in the forward budget to align with any approved development for unit 1. If Sunset Venues does not undertake development of unit 1 by the cut off period required under the lease, the City will refine the concept landscape plan to take this into account.”

CONCLUSION

The proposed partial change of use to Tavern (including live music), additions and alterations to existing building at J Shed Unit 1/Fleet Street (Lot 2051), Fremantle, has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policies. As the proposal is contained within land reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) as ‘Parks and Recreation’, the City acts only in the capacity as a referral body providing a recommendation to the determining authority, being the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). As the proposal relates to reserved land under the MRS, the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies (LPP’s) do not apply, but can and have been used as a guide in assisting Council in formulating its position for its recommendation to the WAPC. The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the provisions of Council’s LPP’s, however it is probable that some amenity impacts may result to the immediate locality, including car parking and noise. It is recommended that a number of conditions be imposed, to ensure compliance with a number of development aspects, including heritage. The proposal is considered to warrant a recommendation for conditional approval to the WAPC for their determination.


Page 36

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for APPROVAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme for the proposed partial change of use to Tavern (including live music), additions and alterations to existing building at J Shed Unit 1/Fleet Street (Lot 2051), Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans

dated 1 April 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. Prior to the issue of a building permit, amended plans and information are to be submitted and approved that address the following heritage concerns:

a) The low limestone wall should be replaced with a landscaping structure that more obviously communicates the impression of a cliff and accurately follows the line of the turn of the century cliff line.

b) The proposed fencing to the boundary of the lease area is deleted and does not form part of the approval. There should be no permanent fencing that would prevent the establishment of strong visual links between the site and Bathers Beach (and the reverse).

c) Ground levels should remain unaltered.

d) There should be no grass to the south of the new limestone interpretive wall. The area should be a natural beach landscape.

e) The new shade structure proposed for the west side of J Shed should not be fixed to the building, but instead should be supported on a complete freestanding structure.

The changes required above as part of amended plans are to be to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission, upon advice from the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. The Tavern hours of operation are limited between the following hours: a. Monday to Saturday – 11:00am to 12:00am (midnight) b. Sunday - 11:00am – 10:00pm

4. Up to twelve (12) ticketed music concert events per year, to be held on any day of the week, which are to commence at no earlier than 12:00pm (midday) and conclude no later than 10:00pm that same day, of which is to not exceed 5 hours in length with a maximum number of 1,500 patrons at any one time, with any sound checks only permitted on show day and are not exceed 90 minutes in length.

5. All other uses incidental to the Tavern hereby approved, but not being a ticketed

music concert, are limited to weekends and public holidays and are to commence at no earlier than 12:00pm (midday) and conclude no later than 10:00pm that same day with a maximum number of 850 patrons at any one time.


Page 37

6. Prior to commencement of the use of the site, the applicant is to submit and have approved by, the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, an access management plan which addresses how event patrons, goods and materials, as required for events, will be transported to and from the site, in the event that access cannot be obtained via Fleet Street.

7. An Archaeological Management Strategy that meets the satisfaction of the Executive

Director of the State Heritage Office is to be developed and applied to the works, to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission, upon advice from the State Heritage Office.

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

9. Prior to occupation, the development hereby permitted shall be connected to an approved effluent disposal system.

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

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

Advice Notes:

i. The applicant is strongly encouraged to continue ongoing meetings with both the City

and the Fremantle Port Authority before and after planned live music events to ensure that they are appropriately managed and all factors are duly considered, largely as they relate to any associated impact upon the operation of the Fremantle Port Authority and its land holdings. Any issues that may be identified should be addressed by the applicant, as far as practicable to ensure the safe, efficient and effective operation of the port itself is maintained.

ii. The proponent must make application to establish the food business – tavern – so that the premises comply with the Food Act, Rood 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.

iii. The proponent must make application during the Building License application stage to the City’s Environmental Health Services via Form 1 - Application to construct, alter or extend a public building as a requirement of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. If the proponent is granted approval to commence development the proponent must immediately make application to the City for a Regulation 18



Page 38

noise notice under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1992. For enquiries and a copy of the application forms contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

iv. The applicant is advised to contact the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) on (08) 6551 8092 to discuss any statutory requirements that may be required to be undertaken and/or fulfilled by them under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. This may include advising the South West Land and Sea Council of the proposed works, of which should be confirmed with the DAA.

v. The DAA has advised the City to advise the applicant that they have released the Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Guidelines to assist developers with planning and considering Aboriginal heritage during proposed works. A copy of the guidelines can be found on the DAA website as: http://www.daa.wa.gov.au/globalassets/pdf-files/ddg

vi. The applicant is advised that the Department of Environment Regulation (DER) has recommended that management of ground disturbing works at the site include contingency measures for unexpected unearthing of asbestos or contamination, to eliminate any potential health risks to workers or the public. In the event that the development activities detect or unearth asbestos-containing-material or contamination at the site, any potential exposure risks should be immediately mitigated and the site should be investigated without delay in accordance with Department of Environment Regulation’s Contaminated Sites Guidelines.

vii. J Shed building must be connected to sewer to remove all liquid waste – i.e. from

bars, kitchens, grease traps, toilets – from the building. For enquiries contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

viii. All rubbish and recycling receptacles to be stored in a secure location to temporarily store all waste materials prior to collection. For enquiries contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

ix. The applicant must apply and pay for Liquor Control Act s.39 Health Certificate prior to operation of the building. For enquiries contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

x. The applicant must apply and pay for an “entertainment event/venue” approval under Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations at least 60 days prior to the first event date and/or venue use. For enquiries contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

xi. The performance stage should face in a direction that will significantly disperse sound energy emitted by amplified music first to the ocean and second not towards on-shore residents (NSRs). For enquiries contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

xii. The applicant should voluntarily reduce the sound level of amplified music should to a level that is not unreasonable at the closest noise sensitive receivers (NSRs) – see









Page 39

table 4.4 in noise monitoring report attached. For enquiries contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

xiii. The applicant must investigate and report on the suitability of other sound attenuating materials inside the event venue and the J Shed building’s other tenancies that will deflect unreasonable noise away from noise sensitive receivers (NSRs) at J Shed tenancies and the residences of the west end. For enquiries contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

xiv. The applicant must investigate and report on the predicted modelling of sound levels at noise sensitive receivers (NSRs) where the mixing desk level is agreed to be set at lower sound emission levels that are below or similar to those reported in Table 4.4 of “EcoAcoustics J Shed Concerts Sunset Events Event Noise Control Report” dated 10 May 2016. This Environmental Health advice is based on the sound levels in Reg 18(8) that would attract a noise monitoring fee in the attached flow chart. For enquiries contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

xv. Should agreement not be reached between the applicant and the Chief Executive

Officer, City of Fremantle then the CEO should inform the applicant of a proposed ‘ancillary condition’ stating the measures the applicant will do to remove NSRs from areas of high noise during performance of amplified music, i.e. the amelioration package previously conditioned in typical City of Fremantle Reg 18 noise notices. For enquiries contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

Lost: 1/4

For Against

Cr David Hume

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr J Strachan MOVED the following alternative recommendation: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for REFUSAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme for the proposed partial change of use to Tavern (including live music), additions and alterations to existing building at J Shed Unit 1/Fleet Street (Lot 2051), Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 1 April 2016, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inappropriate having regard to the purposes for which the

land is reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.






Page 40

2. The proposal is inconsistent with clauses 67 (b), (n) and (y) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as the development: a) Is not consistent with orderly and proper planning; b) Will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the locality; and c) Has not adequately addressed submissions received.

3. The proposal does not provide sufficient on-site car parking. 4. The proposal is inconsistent with objectives 3.1 and 3.2 of the City of

Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy DGF5 – Arthur Head Reserve Strategy Plan.

5. The proposal is inconsistent with Policy 3 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy DGF6 – Arthur Head – (West End of High Street, Fremantle).

6. The proposal is inconsistent with clause 3.4 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy DGF26 – Planning Policy for the West End of Victoria Quay.

7. The proposal is inconsistent with clause 1.1 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy DBU6 – Late Night Entertainment Venues Serving Alcohol.

8. The proposal is inconsistent with clause 4.1.2(b) of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy DGF14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy.

Advice Note:

i. The WAPC is advised that the City of Fremantle is not satisfied that the

applicant, in the period since they obtained approval for the temporary activation from the WAPC on 27 November 2015 (WAPC05-3715-9 ; DA0373/15), have demonstrated that they have adequately managed the activities for the following reasons, including but not limited to:

Client behaviour;

Drunkenness;

Rubbish;

Management of site;

Risks to people on top of the cliff face adjacent to the roundhouse;

Provision of promised community events;

Provision of food at events, alcohol was the major sales push.

CARRIED: 4/1

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bryn Jones Cr Simon Naber

Cr David Hume


Page 41

REASON FOR ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION

The above matters have not been adequately addressed by the applicant and will result in significantly detrimental amenity impacts. The above item is referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council for determination in accordance with 1.1 or 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register which requires that at least 5 members of the committee vote in favour of the Committee Recommendation in order to exercise its delegation.


Page 42

Cr S Wainwright returned to the meeting at 7.12 pm.

PC1606 -2 MARINE TERRACE, NO. 120A (LOT 330), SOUTH FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE TO BED AND BREAKFAST - (BP DA0108/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 June 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1: Development Plans Date Received: 8 March 2016 Owner Name: M. Samson Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R35 Heritage Listing: Listed (demolished) Existing Landuse: Two storey Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 43

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a change of use to Bed and Breakfast. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to a submission that is unable to be addressed through the imposition of relevant planning conditions. The applicant seeks discretionary assessments against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and discretionary assessments against relevant Local Planning Policies (LPPs). These discretionary assessments include the following:

Vehicle Parking; Discretionary land use

The above discretionary assessment is considered to be supportable, subject to conditions. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND The subject site is located at the corner of Marine Terrace and Yuna Lane. The site has a land area of approximately 339m² and contains a two storey Single House. The site is zoned Residential under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R35. The subject site is listed as adopted (demolished) under the City’s Heritage List and is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. A search of the property file revealed the following relevant planning history for the site:

On 19 December 2002, the City resolved to support the subdivision of No. 122 Marine Parade, South Fremantle, identified as the former ‘Wills Transport Site’. On 6 February 2003, the Western Australian Planning Commission (‘WAPC’) granted conditional approval to WAPC120031. On 18 August 2003, a revised subdivision was further supported by the City and subsequently subdivided.

On 10 October 2014, the City granted planning approval for a two storey Single House.

On 9 December 2015, the City granted planning approval for primary and secondary street fencing additions to the existing Single House (ref. DA0510/15).

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a change of use to Bed and Breakfast and involves the following: The number of guests will to the Bed and Breakfast will be limited to two (2)

individuals; The Bed and Breakfast business will use the front sitting room, 1bedroom and

ensuite; There are two (2) car parking bays accessible on site; No additional employees will be required, with the current residents of the site

proposing to operate the business (and reside on site as required by the scheme definition of a bed and breakfast).


Page 44

Refer to Attachment 1 for the development plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and relevant local planning policies. The proposal seeks the following discretion from the provisions of LPS4;

Vehicle parking;

Discretionary land use The above matter will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the report below. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Council’s LPP1.3 – Public notification of planning proposals as scheme discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 20 April 2016, the City had received 1 submission. A summary of the following planning issues were raised:

Further accommodation of this nature will only add to the constant coming and going with the additional problem of unidentified people walking through our alleyways;

The frontage of South Street is awash with cigarette butts etc which are primarily left by clients waiting for lifts.

The area is already busy, we accept that, but do we really need the additional congestion and clutter which will follow on from changes of use such as these.

The above concerns are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) The definition of Bed and Breakfast in LPS4 is as follows:

means a dwelling, used by a resident of the dwelling, to provide accommodation for persons away from their normal place of residence on a short-term commercial basis and includes the provision of breakfast.

The proposed application meets this above definition, based on the information provided in the application.


Page 45

The proposed change of use to ‘bed and breakfast’ is considered meet the objectives of the Residential zone pursuant to clause 4.2.1 of LPS4 for the following reasons:

The anticipated number of clientele to the site is limited by the small floor area proposed (being 1 bedroom and 1 siting room) and hence the traffic impacts emanating from this land use are not considered to be significant to the extent that there would be a negative impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.

There is considered to be sufficient off street parking available (when required for clientele), as well as access to public transport, in close proximity to the subject site, as elaborated upon in more detail below;

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

Vehicle Parking

Element Required Provided Discretion

Vehicle Parking 3 2 1

The discretion to vehicle parking is considered to be supportable under clause 5.7.3.1 of LPS4 for the following reasons:

The subject site is in close proximity to the City for essential services as well as the tourism precinct of the Fremantle Harbour.

There is on street car parking accessible along Marine Terrace.

The CAT bus service runs along Marine Terrace and South Terrace further to the east at a frequency of 15 minutes from 7am – 6pm.

Typically guests to Bed and Breakfast businesses are tourists and may travel without a car, thereby reducing the demand for an additional bay to the subject site.

D.G.S5 – Wills Transport Site -122 Marine Terrace & 3 South Street, South Fremantle D.G.S5 outlines the following development requirement that is of pertinence to this application:

Land uses In accordance with the stated intent of the subdivision application for the site; the Fremantle Planning Strategy and draft CPS4, Residential uses are permitted. All other uses should be compatible with the Residence zone including home business as defined in Draft CPS4.

The partial change of use to Bed and Breakfast is of a residential land use class as prescribed in Table 1 of LPS4 and therefore the application can be entertained within this area. Discretionary Land Use A bed and breakfast land use is an “A” use in a residential zone which means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after advertising the proposal. The scheme objectives of the Residential zone state:


Page 46

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on the comments in the preceding sections it is considered that the proposed bed and breakfast is consistent with the objectives of the residential zone and not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the locality. On that basis the application is recommended for conditional approval. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

Maintain and grow tourist and visitor servicing. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial change of use to Bed and Breakfast at No. 120A (Lot 328) Marine Terrace, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the

approved plans, dated 8 March 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. The number of guests for the Bed and Breakfast land use hereby approved

is limited to a maximum of two (2) guests at any given time.


Page 47

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 48

PC1606 -3 LONGFORD ROAD, NO. 7 (LOT 2), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (NB DA0103/16)

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

Attachment 2: Applicant’s Justification Attachment 3: Site Photos

Date Received: 4 March 2016 Owner Name: D. Rice Submitted by: D. Rice Scheme: Urban Heritage Listing: Archaeological Site Existing Landuse: Vacant lot Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 49

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Single House at No. 7 (Lot 2) Longford Road, Beaconsfield. The application is presented to the Planning Committee (PC) on the basis of objections received during the community consultation period that cannot be resolved through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbours and discretionary assessments against the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). The application has been assessed against the R-Codes, local planning policies and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), and is seeking the following Design Principle Assessments-

Lot boundary setback (south)

Overshadowing The above discretions are considered to not meet the applicable design principles and as such, the application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

No. 7 Longford Road, Beaconsfield is a 259m2 lot located on the east side of Longford Road directly across the road from the Waterford Street intersection. The site is zoned ‘Residential – R35’ and is within the South Fremantle Heritage Area and the Beaconsfield Local Planning Area. The site is heritage listed as a ‘Historic/Archaeological Site’ due to its previous use as a quarry, however, the City’s heritage officers believe the site itself has no special significance and have not made any comments regarding heritage conditions. The site is also listed as contaminated land and the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) has placed a number of conditions on any approval. The subject site has a 10 metre wide frontage but the whole front boundary is truncated at a 45 degree angle due to the road reserve layout. The site itself is relatively flat. A search of the property files revealed the following relevant history for the site:

On 7 October 2015 the City approved a single storey single house with a similar layout as the ground floor of the subject application including a garage with a nil setback to the northern boundary and two sections of wall with nil setbacks to the southern boundary. This approval has not been acted upon but is still valid.

Of note is that the overshadowing from the above proposal fell within the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. The adjoining owners submitted no objections to the previous plans but have indicated that the addition of the second storey in the current proposal and the overshadowing caused by it will exacerbate the bulk and scale of the development.


Page 50

DETAIL

On 4 March 2016 the City received an application for a two storey single house. The proposal includes a garage on the northern boundary and two sections of wall totalling 15.88 metres on the southern boundary. The applicant has provided justification for the setback and overshadowing variations stating that the impacts of the shading were considered and it does not affect the alfresco of the southern lot. Further, the boundary walls are a consequence of the unusual shape and limited frontage of the block. Refer to Attachment 1 for development plans. Refer to Attachment 2 for the applicant justification letter. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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

Lot boundary setback (south)

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

Department of Environmental Regulation (DER)

Like the remainder of the lots on the east side of Longford Road, the subject site is listed as contaminated and, as such, the DER has advised a number of conditions and advice notes be added to any approval. These conditions and advice notes are included in the Alternative Officer’s Recommendation.

Technical Services

The proposal was referred to the City’s Technical Services for an assessment relating to the proposed crossover and removal of the street tree. The City supports the crossover provided an identical street tree is planted south of the crossover at the applicant’s expense and maintained for at least two years. An advice note has been included informing the applicant that this will be a requirement when a crossover application is submitted.


Page 51

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as design principle assessments and policy discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 14 April 2016, the City received one submission objecting to the proposal due to the following:-

Excessive overshadowing to living areas

Inadequate setbacks and building bulk

PLANNING COMMENT

Lot Boundary Setbacks The relevant section of Local Planning Policy 2.4: Boundary Walls in Residential Development allows walls to be built up to a boundary in accordance with the following:

i) Where the wall is proposed on a lot, not including a battleaxe lot, with a frontage

(as defined by the Residential Design Codes) of less than 10 metres and complies with the following:

ii) In areas coded R30 and higher, walls not higher than 3.5m with an average of

3m for two-thirds the length of the balance of the lot boundary behind the front setback, to one side boundary only.

The proposal includes single storey boundary walls on both the north and south boundaries. Separately, the total length of wall on each boundary complies with LPP 2.4, however, the policy limits boundary walls to one side only. A generous assessment would class the longer southern walls as compliant with the variation occurring on the northern side as follows:-

Element Wall Policy Requirements

Provided Design Principle

assessment

LPP 2.4 Garage (north)

1m Nil 1m

LPP 2.4 South walls Nil Nil N/A – Complies

Walls that do not meet the requirements above must meet the design principles of the R-Codes, which state:- ‘P3.2 Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this:

Makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living areas;

Does not compromise the design principle contained in clause 5.1.3 P3.1;

Does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property;

Ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for adjoining properties is not restricted; and

Positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.’


Page 52

In considering a proposed boundary wall against the design principle of the R-Codes, Council will be satisfied that the boundary wall meets the criteria of the third point above where, after considering the proposal against the criteria of points 2, 4 and 5, Council considers that the proposed boundary wall presents no significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. In relation to point 2 above, clause 5.1.3 P3.1 of the R-Codes states:- 'P3.1 Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to:

Reduce the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties;

Provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and adjoining properties; and

Minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.'

Planning Response (northern boundary wall)

1. Building to the boundaries makes more effective use of space, especially considering the reduction in available lot area due to the truncation of the front boundary.

2. As per cl 5.1.3 P3.1, the garage wall is approximately 2.6 metres high and located on the northern boundary. Therefore, the proposal will not impact winter sun to the northern property and will have minimal impact on building bulk to the adjoining property. The room is non-habitable so there will be no impact on privacy.

3. The proposal will not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining lot as per points 2, 4 and 5.

4. The proposal is low enough in height and located on the northern boundary so as not to restrict sun to major openings and outdoor living areas of adjoining properties.

5. The proposal is in keeping with the locality, which includes numerous examples of garages with a nil boundary setback to adjoining lots due to the 10 metre frontage of said lots.

The variation to the northern lot boundary setback is therefore supported. A more conservative assessment would state that the northern garage is compliant and the variation occurs on the southern walls, being set back nil metres in lieu of 1.5 metres. The most notable aspect of this interpretation is the impact on building bulk and overshadowing. In regards to building bulk, the proposal would result in 3 metre high boundary walls being built on the southern boundary for a total length of 15.9 metres. Although these walls would be single storey they would be 1.2 metres higher than a traditional dividing fence for a large portion of the lot and create unsupportable building bulk to the adjoining property. Based on excessive building bulk and overshadowing impacts the southern boundary wall is not supported. Overshadowing is discussed further below.


Page 53

Overshadowing

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle assessment

R-Codes 35% 39.1% 4.1%

It is noted that the existing lot layout (particularly the angle of the front boundary) makes a compliant design challenging as the 10 metre frontage and the truncated front boundary limit the possible size of the building envelope. Further, the east-west orientation of the lot means overshadowing onto adjoining lots will likely be an issue for any two storey house. As per the Design Principles of the R-Codes, the assessment must therefore take into account the potential to overshadow existing outdoor living areas and north facing major openings to habitable rooms. The southern lot is currently vacant, however, on 11 August 2015 a single storey single house was approved by the City. The subject proposal will overshadow the alfresco and major openings to the meals and bedroom 2 rooms of the future adjoining house (family room windows are highlight windows, not major openings). This is contrary to the design principles of the R-Codes and therefore the application is recommended for refusal. There is scope to reduce the amount of overshadowing to the adjoining southern lot to the required level or at least limit the overshadowing to the major openings and alfresco of the adjoining lot, however, the applicant has chosen not to amend the plans. Discussions with the adjoining southern neighbours have indicated they plan to submit an application for a two storey house including a modified ground floor footprint. Preliminary plans indicate major openings to habitable rooms will still be overshadowed. However, no application has yet been received by the City and therefore those future plans are not considered as part of this report as they are subject to change. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS No street trees exist on the lot. The olive tree on the verge must be replaced ‘like for like’ in accordance with requirements for the future crossover application. ALTERNATIVE OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION Should Council approve the application, an alternative recommendation is as follows: That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single house at No. 7 (Lot 2) Longford Road, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 4 March 2016, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 4 March 2016. 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.


Page 54

3. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the north AND south shall be of a clean finish in either;

coloured sand render;

face brick;

painted surface; or,

other approved finish

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

4. Due to the presence of asbestos in soil underlying the capping layer at the site,

prior to the commencement of works, a site specific health and safety plan must be developed to address the risks to the health of any workers undertaking intrusive works below 1.25m in depth, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on advice from the Department of Environment Regulation.

5. No less than 14 days prior to the commencement of construction, plans detailing

the proposed construction and layout of the gas mitigation systems, in accordance with the ‘Environmental Site Management Plan for Proposed Dwellings at Lot 9002 Longford Road, Beaconsfield WA Version 8 (MDWES, 27 July 2015)’, must be approved by an appropriately qualified and experience civil or structural engineer, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on advice from the Department of Environment Regulation.

6. Construction of subsurface voids, including but not limited to the installation of

soakwells, is restricted to a maximum depth of 1 metre below the surface. No less than 14 days prior to the commencement of construction, plumbing plans detailing any proposed excavations must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on advice from the Department of Environment Regulation.

7. Buildings constructed on the site are required to comply with the engineering

specifications outlined in the document ‘Environmental Site Management Plan for Proposed Dwellings at Lot 9002 Longford Road, Beaconsfield WA Version 8 (MDWES, 27 July 2015)’, in order to manage and mitigate potential risks associated with landfill gases. Prior to post slab construction, engineered gas mitigation systems, including a passive ventilation system inclusive of a graded layer containing a system of ventilation ducting with direct connection to the external atmosphere and a sealed sub-slab gas membrane system, must be inspected, tested and certified by an appropriately qualified and experienced civil or structural engineer and confirmed to comply with the relevant engineering specifications. Appropriate certification report, prepared by the engineer must be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, on advice from the Department of Environment Regulation, no more than 14 days after the date on which the inspection and testing was undertaken.


Page 55

ADVISORY NOTES:

i. With regards to clarity on planning conditions Nos. 4 - 7 the applicant is advised to liaise with the Department of Environment Regulation (DER) for DER matter MD07618. DER contact details area follows:

Department of Environmental Regulation Phone 1300 762 982 Email – www.der.wa.gov.au

ii. Due to the nature and extent of groundwater contamination identified to

date, the abstraction of groundwater for any purpose other than analytical testing or remediation is not permitted.

iii. The site is to be managed in accordance with ‘Environmental Site

Management Plan for Proposed Dwellings at Lot 9002 Longford Road, Beaconsfield WA Version 8 (MDWES, 27 July 2015)’ and any subsequent amendments to that plan. The Environmental Site Management Plan can be obtained from the City of Fremantle, or downloaded from the Department of Environment Regulations website.

iv. To ensure adequate passive venting of potential ground gasses, DER

recommend that landscaping features comprised of paving, garden or lawn areas are preferable to concrete or bitumen hardstand.

v. 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.

vi. 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.

vii. The City’s Parks and Landscaping Services have advised that Council will support the removal of the olive tree for the proposed new crossover at 7 Longford Road Beaconsfield on the condition that the tree is professionally removed and replanted by a qualified tree transplanting company at the owners expense. New location to be central on the remaining verge in the same alignment as existing olive trees (Location can be confirmed by contacting Council officer in Parks) The tree is to be watered for a 2 year period by the owner. Should the olive tree die in that 2 year period it will be the owners responsibility to replace it “like for like” at their expense.

http://www.der.wa.gov.au/


Page 56

viii. 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.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single house at No. 7 (Lot 2) Longford Road, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 4 March 2016, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the design principles of clauses 5.1.3 and 5.4.2 of the R-Codes due to the building bulk associated with the southern boundary walls, overshadowing of outdoor living areas and north facing major openings to habitable rooms of the adjoining southern property.

Cr D Hume MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting to allow for the applicant to submit amended plans to reduce the overshadowing on the adjoining southern neighbour. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 57

PC1606 -4 KNUTSFORD STREET, NO. 16 (LOT 2), FREMANTLE - ENSUITE BALCONY ADDITION TO EXISTING TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING (AMENDMENT TO PLANNING CONDITION OF DA0144/15) AND WAIVER OF PLANNING FEE - (NB DA0185/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 June 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1508-8 Attachments: Attachment 1: Development Plans

Attachment 2: Previous PC and Council Minutes (5 August 2015 and 26 August 2015) Attachment 3: Applicant’s Justification

Date Received: 18 April 2016 Owner Name: C. Gray Submitted by: C. Gray Scheme: Residential Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Residential R25 Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 58

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks a repeal of a planning condition imposed by Council as well as a refund of the current planning fee. The application was previously presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) on 5 August 2015 followed by the full Council on 26 August 2015 as part of a larger development that included front and rear balconies and a side boundary ensuite and balcony with a recommendation for on balance approval. The application was approved with a condition added by the PSC requiring the deletion of the ensuite balcony. The proposed balcony is identical to the previously deleted one and includes further justification from the applicant. The applicant also seeks a refund of current planning fees due to an alleged administrative error. The proposed development is identical to the previously approved development and is considered supportable subject to the same conditions, specifically, the balcony being screened and the proposed boundary wall being setback an appropriate distance from the western boundary in accordance with the previously approved plans. A 50% refund of planning fees is supported in accordance with Local Planning Policy 1.2 - Refunding and Waiving / Reducing of Planning and Building Fees. The application is therefore recommended for conditional approval subject to the balcony being appropriately screened and set back 700mm from the boundary. BACKGROUND

The proposed balcony was part of a broader application for additions and alterations to an existing Grouped Dwelling approved by the full Council on 26 August 2015 as follows: That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations to the existing two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 16 (Lot 2), Knutsford Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 13 July 2015, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans,

dated 13 July 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit amended plans being submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer that delete the ensuite balcony.

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

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 59

4. Prior to occupation of the additions the boundary wall on the western elevation shall be of a clean finish in either; • coloured sand render; • face brick; • painted surface; or, • other approved finish and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation, a segment of the northern elevation of the rear balcony, as

indicated in red on the plans, the western elevation of the ensuite balcony, as well as the balconies that have indicated screening to the west, shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either: a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor level, or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or c) a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal floor level, or d) an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The required screening shall be provided and maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Notwithstanding condition 1, the proposed western boundary wall of the ensuite addition is to be setback 0.7m from the western boundary.

For full background please see the 5 August 2015 minutes of the PC Committee and the minutes of the 26 August 2015 Council meeting (Attachment 2). In regards to the refund of planning fees, the applicant has provided a timeline setting out administrative errors she claims prevented her from appealing condition 2 to the State Administrative Tribunal (attachment 3). This is further discussed in the Planning Comment section of this report. DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a balcony addition to the previously approved ensuite on the western boundary of the existing grouped dwelling and a refund of the planning fees for the subject application. Refer to Attachment 1 for development plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies.


Page 60

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

Visual privacy setback (west); Some of the City’s policies replace or augment the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. In this application Council has the ability, through its policy provisions, to apply discretion in the following areas when determining the application:

Boundary wall (west). Section 2 of Local Planning Policy 1.2: Refunding and Waiving/Reducing of Planning and Building Fees states that planning fees will not be waived under any circumstances except by a resolution of the Council. Section 6 states that no fee will be charged for applications to vary a planning approval which has already been granted unless the need for such an application is solely attributable to a previous administrative error. Section 3(a) allows for a 50% reduction in fees when, in the opinion of the Manager Development Services, an application is similar to a previous application determined during the preceding year to the point where previous assessment work can significantly contribute to the assessment of the new application. The above matters will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section below. CONSULTATION

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as design principle assessments and policy discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 12 May 2016, the City had received 1 submission. The submitter confirmed their concerns were identical to the previous application as follows:

The proposed western boundary wall has a significant building bulk impact; The proposed balcony has a detrimental impact on privacy;

PLANNING COMMENT

Visual Privacy

Element Deemed-to-comply Proposed Design Principle Assessment

West 7.5m 0.4m 7.1m

A condition requiring screening along the western elevation of the balcony is recommended to prevent direct overlooking to the outdoor living areas and habitable rooms of the adjoining property. An enclosed carport sits on the boundary of the adjoining lot and, with the screening condition, overlooking from the balcony will be limited to the roof of this structure and the front setback. No outdoor living areas or habitable rooms will be impacted. The balcony is therefore considered to meet the


Page 61

design principles of the R-Codes with the imposition of screening on the western side of the balcony. The applicant alleges Council was misled by the previous report, which stated the structure contained windows. The carport has been enclosed but does in fact contain openings facing the subject site (see pictures below). Notwithstanding this, the previous report did note that impact on visual privacy would be limited and acceptable as the carport is not a habitable room.

Internal and external photos of the carport In speaking with the adjoining neighbour it seems the confusion may be as a result of the neighbour’s allegations that the balcony would look into their living room window, something the conditional screening would be designed to prevent. Boundary Wall

Element Deemed-to-comply Proposed Discretion

West 1.2m 0m 1.2m

The previous approval includes a condition that the western wall have a minimum setback of 0.7 metres from the western boundary, as the proposed wall abuts the adjoining neighbour’s outdoor living area. This was to balance the impact of the building bulk against the possibility of making the proposed ensuite and balcony too small to be of any practical use. The balcony is therefore supported subject to the same condition.


Page 62

Planning Fee LPP 1.2: Refunding and Waiving/Reducing of Planning and Building Fees provides guidelines for waiving or reducing planning fees. The Policy states that “planning fees will not be waived under any circumstances except by a resolution of Council” and, further, “a reduction in fees shall not apply to applications to vary a planning approval which has already been granted unless the need for such an application is solely attributable to a previous administrative error in which case no fee will be charged.” In claiming administrative error for purposes of a fee refund the applicant includes a covering letter (attachment 3) laying out a timeline of alleged mistakes by the City’s administration that resulted in a loss of ability to appeal condition 2 to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). Various planning staff have met with the applicant on numerous occasions and had numerous telephone discussions explaining the meaning of the conditions of approval and appeal rights. It is acknowledged that one piece of correspondence in November 2015 was mistakenly not responded to as a result of an oversight. However, the applicant was advised that this particular correspondence was received well after the 28 day appeal period, notwithstanding the fact that SAT has authority to extend this period. Further, due to the fact that a new development application costs $147 whereas a SAT appeal would cost $500, it was suggested that the cheaper option would be to submit a new application. Not responding to the November 2016 did not impact appeal rights a full refund is not supported, however, there is scope for a partial refund. Under LPP: 1.2 an application for a reduction in planning fees by 50% may be approved where “the development is of less than $50,000 in value and the application is, in the opinion of the Manager Development Services, similar to a previous application determined during the preceding year to the point where previous assessment work can significantly contribute to the assessment of the new application.” In this instance the subject proposal is identical to the previous proposal and a fee reduction of 50% is supported in lieu of a full refund. The application therefore requires two resolutions: A) balcony proposal and B) 50% fee refund. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS No trees will be impacted as a result of this application. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan A) That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the ensuite balcony addition to the existing two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 16 (Lot 2), Knutsford Street, Fremantle subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the front balcony as indicated in red on the approved

plans, dated 18 April 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot


Page 63

and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Notwithstanding condition 1, the proposed western boundary wall of the balcony addition is to be setback 0.7m from the western boundary.

3. All stormwater discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to occupation of the additions the boundary wall on the western elevation shall

be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;


other approved finish

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

5. Prior to occupation, the western elevation of the ensuite balcony shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor level, or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a

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

c) a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal floor level, or d) an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City

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

B) That a 50% fee refund ($73.50) be APPROVED.

Cr J Strachan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include a change to condition 5 to state the following:

5. Prior to occupation, the western elevation of the ensuite balcony shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

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

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

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


Page 64

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against


COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr J Strachan A) That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme

and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the ensuite balcony addition to the existing two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 16 (Lot 2), Knutsford Street, Fremantle subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the front balcony as indicated in red on the

approved plans, dated 18 April 2016. 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, the proposed western boundary wall of the

balcony addition is to be setback 0.7m from the western boundary. 3. All stormwater discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site, to the

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 4. Prior to occupation of the additions the boundary wall on the western

elevation shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;


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

5. Prior to occupation, the western elevation of the ensuite balcony shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either: a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.80 metres above

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

floor level,


Page 65

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

B) That a 50% fee refund ($73.50) be APPROVED. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 66

PC1606 -5 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - OFFICE 2007

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

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

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

For Against



Page 67

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

Nil

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

At 7.35pm Cr J Strachan MOVED that item number PC1606-6 be closed to members of the public in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act. RESOLUTION FOR CONFIDENTIALITY MOVED: Cr J Strachan That item PC1606-6 be closed to members of the public in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

At 7.36pm Cr J Strachan requested the public to vacate the chamber to allow discussion on item PC1606-6, which was deemed to be confidential.

PC1606 -6 APPOINTMENT OF DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR 2 YEAR TERM

ECM Reference: 059/002 and 039/062 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 June 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC 1002-45 (17 and 24 February 2010), C1006-3 (June

2010) and PSC1201-9 (18 January 2012 PSC), PSC1205-69 (2 May 2012), C1205-3 (23 May 2012), PSC1403-60 (19 and 26 March 2014), C1405-2 (28 May 2014), PC1604-12 (6 and 27 April 2016)

Attachments: Nil

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business due to the personal names of recommended DAC members being included in the report.


Page 68

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 7.45 PM.


Page 69

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 70


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 71


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 72

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

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

been delegated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

protecting public safety.

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

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

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

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 1 June 2016, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Planning Committee 1 June 2016

Page 2

MINUTES - City of Fremantle PC Mi… · 1 June 2016 Page 3 LATE ITEMS NOTED Nil CONFIRMATION OF...

Documents

Transcript of MINUTES - City of Fremantle PC Mi… · 1 June 2016 Page 3 LATE ITEMS NOTED Nil CONFIRMATION OF...