MINUTES - City of Fremantle PSC... · table of contents . item no subject page . declaration of...

MINUTES

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 15 June 2011,6.00 pm

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 3

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 3

LATE ITEMS NOTED 3

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4

TABLED DOCUMENTS 4

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 4

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 5

PSC1106-105 PAKENHAM STREET NO.43 (LOT 200), FREMANTLE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE BUILDING AND CHANGE OF USE TO RESTAURANT AND OFFICE (MS DA0175/11) 5

PSC1106-106 MALCOLM STREET NO. 13 (LOT 906) FREMANTLE RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (ES DA0210/11) 15

PSC1106-107 HULBERT STREET NO. 12 (LOT 106) SOUTH FREMANTLE TWO STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (ES DA0146/11) 20

PSC1106-110 AMELING RISE, NO. 8 (LOT 2) FREMANTLE - RECONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUS RESOLUTION RELATING TO LEGAL ACTION FOR RETROSPECTIVE ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING (JWJ DA0505/09) 27

PSC1106-111 JOSLIN STREET, NO. 23A (LOT 3) HILTON - SINGLE STOREY GROUPED DWELLING WITH LOFT (JWJ DA0164/11) 31

PSC1106-113 HAMPTON ROAD NO. 1/18 & 3/18 (LOT 1), FREMANTLE DECK ENCLOSURE AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLINGS AT UNITS 1 & 3 (LP DA0115/11 & DA0114/11) 40

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 48

PSC1106-117 KNUTSFORD STREET EAST STRUCTURE PLAN AREA - INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADING ARRANGEMENTS AND DETAILED AREA PLANNING 48

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 60

PSC1106-114 THOMPSON ROAD NO.3/84 (LOT 209), NORTH FREMANTLE TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (MS DA0354/10) 60

PSC1106-109 WOOD STREET NO.6/55 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (MS DA0131/11) 70

PSC1106-108 DOURO ROAD NO. 25 (LOT 95) SOUTH FREMANTLE - PROPOSED CHANGE IN DAYS AND HOURS OF OPERATION FOR EXISTING APPROVED RESTARUANT USE (SS DA0143/11) 78

PSC1106-112 JAMES STREET NO. 12-14 (LOT 106) SOUTH FREMANTLE TEMPORARY CHANGE OF USE TO OFFICE (ES DA0203/11) 84

PSC1106-115 JOSLIN STREET NO. 11A (LOT 1108) HILTON SINGLE STOREY GROUPED DWELLING (ES DA0125/11) 89

PSC1106-116 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 94

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (council decision) 95

PSC1106-118 RE-NAME PROPOSED PUBLIC ROAD NAME (BOAT LANE) - PROPOSED ROAD LINKING MEWS ROAD RAIL CROSSING WITH MARINE TERRACE, FREMANTLE - (KSW) 95

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 100

CLOSURE OF MEETING 100

Summary Guide to Citizen Participation and Consultation 101

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

CLOSURE OF MEETING

Minutes - Planning Services Committee 15 June 2011

Page 1

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

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

on 15 June 2011 at 6.01 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 Brad Pettitt Mayor Cr Robert Fittock North Ward Cr Donna Haney City Ward Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward Cr Dave Coggin East Ward Cr Bill Massie Hilton Ward Cr Josh Wilson Beaconsfield Ward Mr Philip St John Director Planning and Development Services Ms Natalie Martin Goode Manager Development Services Mr Paul Garbett Manager Planning Projects and Policy Mrs Kayla Beall Minute Secretary There were approximately 37 members of the public and 1 member/s of the press in attendance. APOLOGIES Nil LEAVE OF ABSENCE Cr John Dowson Cr Tim Grey-Smith


Page 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE Response to questions asked by John Kirkness at the meeting held on the 1 June 2011. The question related to the general process relating to the weight that given to heritage assessments as part of the development application process and whether applicants are able to provide input into the heritage assessment. In terms of the Council’s decision making process, there is no statutory obligation on the Council to accept the recommendations on a Heritage Assessment, although clearly it will give any such assessment due regard. In terms of the preparation of officer reports and recommendations, the planning staff will have regard to any heritage assessment undertaken and the findings of such an assessment clearly influence the officers in the preparation of recommendations to the Council. This is particularly the case where the exercise of discretion in the Scheme requires that the Council form an opinion on the heritage significance of a place or on the degree of heritage impact of a development. Although in most instances planning recommendations are consistent with heritage assessments there are cases from time to time where planning recommendations can offer an alternative view to a heritage assessment. Such instances are referred to Council and not determined under delegation. The content and scope of heritage assessments is standardised under Local Planning Policy 1.6. It is intended that these be independent assessments and as such no opportunity is normally provided to applicants to provide input into the preparation of these reports. Furthermore, given the number of assessments undertaken, it would simply not be practical in most cases to allow applicants or other interested parties the capacity to negotiate directly with heritage consultants. In cases where an applicant may disagree with the findings of a heritage assessment then this, in the first instance, should be reported to the responsible Planning Officer. That officer (and ultimately the Manager Development Services) will determine whether further negotiations with the heritage consultant are necessary. In some cases the applicant may participate in these discussions, and this would be determined by the Manager Development Services on a case by case basis, rather than as a matter of course. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Nil


Page 3

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1106-105: Kim Gamble Simon Naber Ken Musto Michael Patroni Kate Pearson The following member/s of the public spoke against item PSC1106-105: Margo Pinkerton The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1106-106: Alan Boynton The following member/s of the public spoke against item 1106-107: Simon Oughtibridge Peter Broad The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1106-111: Tara Depaolo The following member/s of the public spoke against item PSC1106-111: Justin Bajada Ahron Page The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1106-113: Assunta Difrancesco Lena Trajkovska The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1106-117: Michael Brocx Tony Young Mark Perser Adrian Welke Axel Kayser Roby Lang Les Lauder DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS Nil LATE ITEMS NOTED Nil


Page 4

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the Minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 1 June 2011 as listed in the Council Agenda dated 22 June 2011 be confirmed. CARRIED: 7/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Dave Coggin Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

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 5

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 PSC1106-105 PAKENHAM STREET NO.43 (LOT 200), FREMANTLE

ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE BUILDING AND CHANGE OF USE TO RESTAURANT AND OFFICE (MS DA0175/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 15 June 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Expert Heritage Advice Date Received: 18 April 2011 Owner Name: Western Condor Pty Ltd Submitted by: Spaceagency Scheme: City Centre Zone Heritage Listing: Management Category Level 3 Existing Landuse: Warehouse Use Class: Restaurant, Office Use Permissibility: ‘A’, ‘P’


Page 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented before Planning Services Committee as a number of submissions have been received throughout the consultation period in regard to potential impacts of the proposed use on adjoining properties that are unable to be addressed through conditions of Planning Approval. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for Alterations and Additions to an existing Warehouse Building and Change of Use to Restaurant and Office at No.43 Pakenham Street, Fremantle. The Ground Floor is to be used for the purposes of a restaurant and bakery with the inclusion of a mezzanine level and first floor to be used for the purposes of an Office. The application has been referred to an external heritage expert for comment. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the western side of Pakenham Street, Fremantle. The site is comprised of a single storey heritage listed Warehouse which is currently used as a workshop. The site is zoned City Centre under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), and is located within the City Centre Local Planning Area. The site listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Management Category Level 3, and is further located within West End Conservation Area, which a designated Heritage Area in accordance with Clause 7.2 of LPS4. An application was previously approved for the removal of the cement render on the façade of the warehouse and the reinstatement of the original windows and doors of the warehouse (refer DA0138/11). DETAIL The applicant is proposing additions and alterations to the existing Warehouse located at No.43 Pakenham Street, Fremantle, along with a change of use to restaurant and office. The applicant is proposing to utilise the ground floor of the existing warehouse for the purpose of a restaurant and bakery. The restaurant will have the capacity to accommodate 170 patrons and is to utilise approximately 170m² of floor space. The operation hours of the restaurant are to be 9am to 12pm, for six days a week. The ground floor of the existing warehouse will also contain the kitchen area, along with the proposed bakery. The bakery is not proposed to carry out activity outside the aforementioned opening times. The proposal is also comprised of the construction of a mezzanine and first floor level to accommodate office space. For the most part the proposed works are internal to the existing Warehouse with the exception of the first floor that involves the alteration of the roof form in order to accommodate the proposed first floor. The proposed development plans are enclosed as an attachment to this report (Attachment 1).


Page 7

CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4, and the City’s L.P.P1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising period being the 19 May 2011, there were a total of 60 submissions received. The content of the submissions is summarised below:

Submissions in support of the proposal A total of 42 submissions were received in support of the proposal. A summary of the comments are provided below:

• Venue considered a good outcome given the focus on quality rather than mass turnover;

• Contribute to passive surveillance on Pakenham Street; • Appropriate location in the city centre; • West End lacks vitality, more development of this nature needed in the West End,

need for more activity after Notre Dame University hours; • Catalyst for overdue restoration of the area; • Pakenham Street seen as dull due to the lack of development of this nature; • Preference for the adaptive reuse of the building as opposed to demolition; • Diversification of exiting restaurant market in locality; • Sympathetic with the streetscape; • Seen to discourage anti social behaviour; • Balance day/night activity and encourage student retention after university hours; • Adequate parking to facilitate such a venue; • Positive for the whole of city; • Bakery a great amenity for local residents; • Avoid complacence with notoriety of café strip. Submissions opposed to the proposal

A total of 18 submissions were received raising concern to the proposal. A summary of the comments are provided below:

• Pakenham Street, having one of the higher residential concentrations in the West End is not suitable for development of this nature;

• The proposal has the potential to impact on amenity and property values within the area;

• Concerns regarding anti social behavior (Drug dealers, Vomiting, Smoking, Cigarette Butts, Urination);

• The proposal may contribute to the detriment to the heritage significance of the building located on site;

• Concerns regarding the exhaust fumes from bakery and kitchen;


Page 8

• Concerns regarding the waste management for the 170 patron restaurant, specifically noise associated with cleaning up, introduction of vermin population, noise from increased rubbish collection, unsightly;

• Impact of operation on the functionality of the adjoining balconies and terraces; • Concerns associated with amplified music, and increased noise from patrons as a

result; • Residential presence encouraged in the City thus the right to a peaceful high quality of

life should be protected; • Additional traffic and parking issues; • Nuisance; • Concerns with early start time for bakery; • Future change of ownership to further unsuitable venues; • Number of patrons too high. The content of the comments provided throughout the consultation period will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report. Heritage

The proposal was referred to an external heritage expert in order to determine the degree of impact the proposal would have on the heritage significance of the subject site. In regard to the degree of change in relation to the heritage significance of the site, the external heritage expert provided the following comment:

Overall the proposal will have a positive degree of change in terms of the heritage significance of the place. The single storey form will remain the dominant form when viewed from pedestrian level at Pakenham Street, with the first floor addition set back behind the existing roof hip. Almost all intrusive accretions, including ad-hoc additions and nonoriginal external and internal applied rendered finishes, will be removed. The façade will be returned to its original appearance through the repair of the fair face brickwork and reconstruction of original openings. Original timber roof lantern will be retained and conserved and the trusses will remain exposed to view throughout the full height volume of the warehouse space and also within the mezzanine and first floor level extensions.

The external heritage expert also included a number of recommendations in relation to the proposal which are as follows: • That Council impose a condition requiring the retention and conservation of the

original timber roof lantern, with the request for detailed drawings in regard to the interface between the first floor addition and the lantern;

• Within the kitchen area, any new services should be expressed as opposed to concealed it, and further retain original fabric to keep the proposal architecturally un-sanitised; and

• The T &G Oregon ceiling being retained in-situ, with any alterations to the ceiling made for services should be kept to a minimum.

Accordingly the above will be included as conditions of planning approval as per the heritage advice provided.


Page 9

Several other recommendations were made in the heritage assessment including: • If site investigations in relation to the façade not reveal sufficient information to return

the façade to a known earlier state, a condition be imposed requiring new openings be symmetrically configured with vertical emphasis consistent with the West End Conservation area; and

• The results of the exploratory work are made available for the City through its public records.

These matters are not applicable to this application, and have been dealt with through DA0138/11. The content of the expert heritage is discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Use The proposal is comprised of a change of use from a ‘Warehouse’ to a Restaurant and Office. Within the city centre zone the use of an Office is a ‘P’ pr permitted use, the use of a Restaurant is an ‘A’ use which means that the use is not permitted unless council has exercised its discretion after advertising in accordance with clause 9.4 of LPS4. In determining whether the council should exercise its discretion in granting approval for the use of the restaurant, the proposal is required to be assessed against the objectives of the City Centre zone. The assessment against these objectives will be assessed further in the planning comment section of this report. Parking The use of a Restaurant requires the provision of 1 parking bay per 5m² of dining area, 1 delivery bay per service or storage area and 1 bicycle rack per 100m² of gross lettable area. The use of an Office requires the provision of 1 bay per 30m², 1 delivery bay per 500m² and 1 Bicycle rack 200m² of gross lettable area. Use Required Provided Shortfall Restaurant 34 Car Bays

1 Delivery Bay 2 Bicycle Racks

Nil Nil 1 Bicycle Rack

34 Car Bays 1 Delivery Bay 1 Bicycle Racks

Office 5 Car Bays 1 Delivery Bay 1 Bicycle Rack

Nil Nil Nil

5 Car Bays 1 Delivery Bay 1 Bicycle Rack

Total

39 Car Bays 2 Delivery Bays 3 Bicycle Racks

Nil Nil 1 Bicycle Rack

39 Car Bays 2 Delivery Bays 2 Bicycle Racks


Page 10

Accordingly, this parking shortfall requires an assessment against clause 5.7.3 of the City’s LPS4. This assessment will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report. Council Policy D.G.F14 Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy Given that the proposed development has been supported on heritage grounds, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant requirements of the City’s D.G.F14. PLANNING COMMENT

Use The objectives of the City Centre zone are outlined below: Development within the city centre zone shall – (i) provide for a full range of shopping, office, administrative, social, recreation,

entertainment, and community services, consistent with the region serving role of the centre and including residential uses, and

(ii) comply with the objectives of local planning area 1 of Schedule 12, (iii) conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by development. The objective of the zone specifically identifies the need for office, social and entertainment uses within the city centre to contribute to its region serving role. The scheme further serves to ensure that a proposal contribute to the diversity of uses within the city centre. It is considered that the proposal will offer greater diversity to the existing entertainment venues on offer within the City Centre and is overall anticipated to make a significant contribution to the regional serving role of the City. The proposal is further consistent with the height requirements outlined within planning area 1 of Schedule 12 and has been supported on heritage ground (see above). On this basis, the proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of the City Centre Zone.


Page 11

Parking As discussed previously, the applicant is proposing a shortfall of 39 parking bays and 2 delivery bays. As a result, the parking shortfall is required to be assessed in accordance with clause 5.7.3 of the City’s LPS4. Clause 5.7.3 states that Council may waive or reduce the standard parking requirements outlined in Table 3 on the basis of the proposal satisfying one or more of the criteria outlined within clause 5.7.3(a). Of the criteria listed within clause 5.7.3, the proposal is considered to satisfy a number of criteria, particularly sub-clause (ii) which states as follows: “the availability of parking within the locality, including street parking” Within close proximity to the subject site are two parking areas located on Pakenham Street, there are also a number of street bays along Pakenham Street and the subject site is within close proximity to the parking complex located on Collie Street. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is also located within close proximity to Fremantle Train Station (approximately 600m walking distance) and is also located within close proximity to stop 21 of the Fremantle CAT service. Furthermore, given that the applicant is conducting restoration works to a heritage listed building, the applicant has further grounds to pursue reduced parking in this instance. In regard to the provision of Cash in lieu of car parking, DBM7 Cash-in-lieu of car parking policy (DBM 7) contains provisions where a portion or the entire car parking requirement is: • not proposed to be provided on site; or • is deemed by Council to be inappropriate (having regard to clause 60 of the

rescinded Town Planning Scheme 3 (TPS3));

‘the developer shall be required to provide cash-in-lieu of car parking for the number of parking bays not provided on the development site.’

Clause 60 of TPS3 states:

‘Before deciding to vary the car parking requirements the Council shall take into consideration: (a) the effect of the proposed development on parking demand in the locality,

having due regard to the availability of alternative parking space and possible future developments;

(b) any unusual or irregular condition relating to the shape or size of the subject lot or any adjoining lot; and

(c) the effect on buildings and objects worthy of conservation, and on the streetscape.’

As mentioned previously, the effect of the proposed change of use is not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality


Page 12

in relation to car parking. There is a significant amount of alternative parking available within the direct proximity to the site. Furthermore, given that the warehouse located on the property has complete site coverage, it is unpractical to expect parking be provided without some form of alterations being carried out at detriment to the heritage significance of the site. Given the proposal satisfies a number of alternative criteria outlined within clause 5.7.3, cash in lieu for car parking contribution is not recommended to be included as a condition of Planning Approval in this instance. Accordingly the proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of clause 5.7.3 of the City’s LPS4. Consultation Whilst a number of concerns have been raised in regard to the proposal, it is important that a distinction is made between matters that are dealt with through planning, and those that are dealt with through other regulatory practice. The concerns raised in respect to the proposal are addressed below: Environmental Health Issues (noise, odours, waste management and patron numbers) Concerns were received regarding the potential issues with noise from the operation of the premise, further noise and fumes associated with the exhaust fan located on site, patron numbers and the waste management of the premise. With concerns of this nature should it be noted that there are inherent environmental health regulations that the premise is required to adhere to, thereby should issues arise the operation will be monitored to ensure compliance with the relevant regulations. Anti Social Behaviour A number of concerns have been received in regard to anti social behaviour that may be associated with the premise. The applicant, should the change of use be approved, will apply for a Liquor License for a restaurant. Through the Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor (DRGL), there are a number of conditions that will be imposed on the service of alcohol that are more onerous than those associated with a venue like a tavern or nightclub (such as the service of alcohol with a substantial meal). Likewise there are inherent regulations that a licensee is to observe, should issues arise associated with the service of alcohol they will be dealt with under the Liquor Licensing Act by the Department of Liquor Racing and Gaming. To ensure the premises is not used as a small bar or tavern however it is recommended to include a condition of approval confirming that the approval is for a restaurant and office only. This means that any application to DRGL for anything other than a restaurant liquor licence (liquor only permitted if ancillary to a meal) would not be supported.


Page 13

Other issues Some issues raised in submissions are not matters relevant to the consideration of a development application. These include: • effect on property values • functionality of adjoining properties balconies and terraces • future change of ownership CONCLUSION Whilst a number of concerns have been conveyed in relation potential for issues arising as a result of the proposed change of use, it is important to note that there is an existing regulatory framework external to planning control to deal issues such as noise, antisocial behaviour waste management and patron numbers. As previously discussed, concerns raised in respect to issues that are not matters that relate to planning are dealt with through other statutory frameworks. To this end, it is fundamental that the Council is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the city centre zone and that the proposal is not likely to have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the area. The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the planning requirements encompassed within the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4. It is considered proposal will act to strengthen the region serving role of the city centre in providing for a type of use that is largely underrepresented within the West End, facilitating a more comprehensive array of uses which will in turn contribute to the vitality of the City Centre as a whole. Notwithstanding, a condition of approval will be included to ensure that the applicant adheres to the hours of operation outlined within the proposal to ensure that the operation will not disturb adjoining properties after the hours indicated on the proposal. Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.


Page 14

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations to an existing Warehouse and change of use to a Restaurant and Office at No.43 (Lot 200) Pakenham Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with

development plans dated 18 April 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. This approval is limited to a restaurant and office use only. 3. The restaurant’s hours of operation are limited between 9:00 am to 12:00

midnight six days of the week. 4. The timber roof lantern is to remain in situ, with plans to be submitted prior to

commencement detailing the architectural resolution of the first floor addition at its interface with the lantern to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. The tongue and groove oregon ceiling shall be retained in situ to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Any new services such as but not limited to exhaust extraction, plumbing and drainage, air conditioning, fire services and waste disposal should be expressed as opposed to being concealed to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. ADVICE In relation to the bakery component of the development, the sale of bread to the public is considered to be incidental to the predominant approved use of restaurant.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Dave Coggin Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 15

PSC1106-106 MALCOLM STREET NO. 13 (LOT 906) FREMANTLE

RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (ES DA0210/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 15 June 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Accompanying Submission Date Received: 23 April 2011 Owner Name: Alan Boynton Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: MHI Level 3 Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination as the City is in receipt of two submissions received during the community consultation period that cannot be dealt with a condition of planning Approval. The application involves retrospective works to the Existing Single House at the subject site undertaken during the construction stage of the original development application for DA0193/10, approved on 6 July 2010. The application is recommended for Approval subject to conditions including infringing the landowner for undertaking the works without the City’s Approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the provisions of the City of Fremantle’s (the City) Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) and has a density coding of R25. The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as Management Category Level 3. The site is also located within the Fremantle Local planning Area under the provisions of LPS4. The site is approximately 610m2 and is located on the southern side of Malcolm Street, Fremantle (the site). DETAILS In April 2011, it was brought to the attention of the City’s Compliance Department the approved development for DA0193/10 was not being constructed in accordance with the approved plans. On 29 April 2011, the City received a retrospective development application seeking the City’s Planning Approval for the unauthorised works at the site. The unauthorised works include the following:

• Amended building heights resulting from the need to raise the foundation to avoid excessive undermining and subsequent support of the ground in the adjoining property.

A justification of the proposed unauthorised works is contained within Attachment 2 of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with the City’s L.P.P 1.3 policy. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 26 May 2011 the City had received two submissions. A detailed outline of the submissions is contained within Attachment 3 of this report. In summary, the objections received relate to building height and visual privacy. These are addressed in the Planning Comment section below.


Page 17

PLANNING COMMENT

Building Height The building height requirement for the subject site is 6 metres in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Design Codes. The original development plans contained within DA0193/10 were compliant with the building height requirement as mentioned above. The following table summarises the amendments between the approved plans and the plans being considered as part of this application. Building height Approved (DA0193/10) 5.829 metres (3.086 metres ground floor,

2.743 metres upper floor) Proposed (DA0210/11) 6.35 metres (2.97 metres ground floor,

3.38 metres upper floor) Design Element 6.7.1 of the R Codes relates to Building Height. The Performance Criteria of this requirement is as follows: Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality and to recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:

• Adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • Adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and • Access to views of significance.

The proposed 0.35 metre variation to the permitted maximum building height requirement is considered to comply with a performance based assessment based on the above criteria. The proposal complies with the overshadowing requirement for the R25 density coding. Given the orientation of the lots the shadow created by the second storey of the additions will fall onto an area of the adjoining southern property that does not contain major openings to habitable rooms or direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces. In regard to views of significance, the minor variation to the height will not have any undue impact on access to views of significance given the nature of the existing streetscape and the topography across the site. The building height is considered to comply with the Performance Criteria of the R Codes and is supported on this basis.


Page 18

Visual Privacy Condition 2 of the original planning Approval for DA0193/10 stated,

2. The windows indicated as coloured/frosted on the approved plans are to be fixed and unopenable.

The major openings to habitable spaces on the upper floor on the eastern, southern and northern elevation to the sitting room, as required by the previous approval will be maintained as part of this Approval in order to ensure there is undue impacts on the adjoining properties in regard to visual privacy. L.P.P1.5 - Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance The application has been assessed against and complies with the relevant provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4), Residential Design Codes, including the performance criteria in regard to building height. Notwithstanding the above, as the application is retrospective in nature an assessment is required to undertaken against the provisions of Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.5 – Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance Policy. The policy states that where the property has been brought into compliance within the specified time period, in most cases, the Council will not prosecute. However, where in the opinion of the Manager Development Services there is a broader public interest in undertaking legal action, a report will be prepared for the Council to consider further prosecution action. LPP 1.5 states:

In addition to the procedure set out in Part 4.2, an infringement notice under the provisions of the Planning and Development Regulations 2009 will be issued in the following circumstances: (a) where an offence has occurred and the property has been brought into

compliance within the specified period through the removal of the unauthorised development, or the cessation of the unauthorised use; or

(b) where an offence has occurred, and a retrospective application for planning

approval has been submitted within the required timeframe and subsequently approved.

An infringement notice shall be issued as soon as possible after the offence has been committed, but, in any event, must be given within 6 months after the alleged offence is believed to have been committed.

The unauthorised works occurred and were brought to the City’s attention during construction in April 2011. On this basis, Part B of the Officer’s Recommendation includes infringement of the application for the unauthorised amendments to the Approved plans for DA0193/10.


Page 19


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council: A. APPROVE the application for Retrospective Approval for Alterations to Existing

Single House at No. 13 (Lot 906) Malcolm Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with the

approved plans 29 April 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

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

3. Within 90 days:

i. the windows to the Sitting room on the upper floor on the eastern,

northern and southern elevations shall be fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.6 metres above the upper floor level or alternatively a minimum sill height of 1.6 metres as determined from the internal floor level.

B. AUTHORISE the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle to issue an

infringement notice to the alleged offender in accordance with Councils L.P.P1.5 - Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance.

CARRIED: 7/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Dave Coggin Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr A Sullivan Requested the item be referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council. Seconded by Mayor, Brad Pettitt.


Page 20

PSC1106-107 HULBERT STREET NO. 12 (LOT 106) SOUTH FREMANTLE TWO

STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (ES DA0146/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 15 June 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Attachment 1: Development Plans (30 May 2011) Attachment 2: Heritage Assessment Date Received: 29 March 2011 Owner Name: Simon Oughtibridge Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: MHI Level 3 Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 21

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination as the heritage advice sought by the City in accordance with Local Planning Policy 1.6 does not support the proposed works at the site. The application proposes Two Storey Alterations and Additions to the existing dwelling at the subject site. The dwelling is listed as Management Category 3 on the City’s Heritage List. The proposal has been considered with due regard to the relevant Statutory provisions however as the heritage advice does not support the proposal, the application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

The site of the subject application is located at No. 12 Hulbert Street, South Fremantle (the site). The 455m2 site is located on the eastern side of Hulbert Street, orientated in an east-west direction. The site contains an existing timber framed and iron cottage, listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Level 3 Management Category. The site is zoned Residential R25 under the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area 3 (LPA) as described in Schedule 12 of the City’s LPS4. DETAILS On the 29 March 2011 the City received an application involving Two Storey Alterations and Additions to the Existing Single House at the site. The existing house is 30.65 square metres with a 12.95 square metre verandah facing Hulbert Street. The proposed additions include 197.21 square metres of additional floor area with two verandahs being 19.48 square metres and 5.39 square metres respectively. The application proposes kitchen, living, dining, master bedroom and ensuite and laundry additions on the ground floor and two bedrooms, bathroom and retreat on the upper floor. The applicant was advised of the variations to the Acceptable Development provisions of the R Codes and the heritage advice and submitted revised plans on 30 May 2011 that included the following amendments:

• Reduction in existing cottage floor level by 150mm; • Reduction in ground floor level to new kitchen, laundry, living and dining to 7.250

(was 7.400); • Reduction in floor to ceiling height (wall plate) to first floor level of 200mm (now

2200 in lieu of 2400); • Addition of a toilet to the laundry; • Substitution of above ground water tanks for underground water tanks (located in

courtyard).


Page 22

The application requires an assessment against the City’s L.P.P 2.4 policy relating to boundary walls. Also contained below is a discussion in regard to the heritage advice obtained in relation to the subject development application. CONSULTATION - COMMUNITY The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and the City’s L.P.P1.3 Public Notification of Planning Approvals Policy. After the advertising period concluded on 18 April 2011, the City received one (1) submission. Comments were made in relation to:

• Visual Privacy (Floor levels) • Car parking

These comments are addressed in the Planning Comment section below. PLANNING COMMENT

Residential Design Codes Design Element 6.3.1 – Buildings setback from the boundary Required Provided Variation North (GF): 1.5 metres 1.3 metres 0.2 metres North (UF): 2.5 metres 1.3 metres 1.2 metres The proposed variation to the northern ground floor and upper floor boundary setbacks is supported as the setbacks are considered to comply with the Performance Criteria of the R Codes in relation to this Design Element. The boundary setbacks are not considered to have any significant undue impact on the amenity of the northern adjoining property or the streetscape by way of overshadowing or loss of direct sunlight or ventilation to the major openings or outdoor living areas of the northern adjoining property. The impact on the privacy is addressed in ‘Visual Privacy’ section below. Overall, the minor variation to the northern boundary setbacks is not considered to have any significant undue impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. Design Element 6.3.2 – Buildings on boundary (L.P.P 2.4) Provided South: 8.799 metres length, 2.5 metres height (max) The proposed southern boundary wall is located adjacent to the garage and front portion of the dwelling at No. 14 Hulbert Street. The boundary wall makes effective use of the lot area and enhances the amenity of the development. Schedule 12 of the City’s LPS4 indicates 1.8 metre boundary fence and 500mm screening material are ‘permitted development’, meaning the proposed southern boundary wall exceeds this maximum permitted height allowance by 0.2 metres. The impact of this additional height is not considered to have a significant impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. The proposed boundary wall is compliant with the Performance Criteria of the R Codes in relation to boundary walls and also the replacement Acceptable Development provisions contained within the City’s L.P.P 2.4 policy.


Page 23

Design Element 6.5.1 – On-site parking provision Required Provided Variation 2 bays 1 bay 1 bay The Performance Criteria of the R Codes requires development to consider the projected car parking need in relation to the type, number and size of dwellings, the availability of on-street and other off-street parking and the location of the proposed development to public transport and other facilities. It is evident from a site inspection a large proportion of the properties along Hulbert Street utilise both the east and west side of the street for vehicular parking given the nature of the streetscape and existing housing stock. The proposed variation to the car parking requirement is supported as the site is well positioned in relation to public transport and the existing streetscape character dictates an existing pattern of on-street parking with minimal on-site parking provided. Design Element 6.8.1 - Visual privacy Required Provided Variation Bed (East): 4.5 metres to northern boundary

4 metres to northern boundary

0.5 metres

Bed (North): 4.5 metres to northern boundary

1.3 metres to northern boundary

3.2 metres

Balcony (North): 7.5 metres to northern boundary

7 metres to northern boundary

0.5 metres

The abovementioned variation is not supported as the overlooking is considered to have an undue impact on the amenity of the occupants on the adjoining northern property. In the event the application is to be approved, a condition of approval is recommended to be included to ensure the balcony and windows to the habitable rooms along the subject portion of the northern walls were screened in accordance with the visual privacy requirements of the R Codes. Design Element 6.9.1 – Solar access for adjoining sites Required Proposed Variation R25 – 25 per cent of the adjoining site area (113.75sqm of 455sqm lot)

26.42 per cent of adjoining site area (120.35 sqm)

1.42% (6.59 sqm)

The overshadowing generated by the proposed development onto the adjoining northern property at No. 14 Hulbert Street is supported as it is not considered to have any significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. The shadow will fall predominantly onto the northern portion of this lot which includes the front setback area, garage, ground floor, colourbond patio and brick and galvanised shed as seen in the aerial photograph below.


Page 24

The minor variation proposed of 1.42% is not considered to have any significant greater impact on the amenity of the adjoining southern property than if the proposal met the 25% permitted overshadowing requirement. Furthermore, the proposal complies with the Acceptable Development provisions of the R Codes in relation to height and southern boundary setbacks. The City did not receive any submission from the adjoining landowner in relation to the proposal during the community consultation period. Local Planning Policy 1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessments As the property is listed on the City’s Heritage List, a heritage assessment was required to be undertaken in accordance with the City’s L.P.P 1.6 policy relating to Heritage Assessments. The summary of the comments made within this assessment are found below and the full assessment is contained within Attachment 2 of this report.

The degree of change to the place in terms of its mass and bulk, relationship to the form and scale of the original building, and impact on the immediate streetscape of Hulbert Street is incompatible with the scale of both the existing building and the significant buildings in the neighbourhood, and would therefore constitute a negative change to the heritage significance of the place and the streetscape.

The scale of the proposed extensions overwhelms the existing building and represents a negative and permanent impact on the significance of the place The proposed alterations and additions are incompatible with the streetscape in terms of local architectural patterns, and are inharmonious with the generally modest scale of other original dwellings in the street that typically retain their single-storey street-facing presentation. The alterations and additions are of random rubble limestone with the exception of the weatherboard cladding to the existing building. Other buildings in Hulbert Street, including both original turn of the century and mid-twentieth century houses are typically timber-framed or of masonry construction. A limestone building in the context of Hulbert Street represents an incongruous addition to the built fabric of the existing building and the local streetscape.


Page 25

The preceding heritage advice is generally not supportive of the proposed alterations and additions as while it is considered to, in principle, comply with the City’s D.B.H1 policy (Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines), the extent of the change to the existing dwelling in terms of mass and bulk is considered to have a significant impact on the place in addition to being incompatible with the Hulbert Street streetscape. Accordingly, the City’s Officers are not in a position to support the proposal. CONCLUSION The foregoing report presents an on balance assessment of the proposed Alterations and Additions to the Existing Single House at the subject site. While the application is generally compliant with the Acceptable Development provisions of the R Codes and the Performance Criteria of several design elements, the heritage advice sought by the City in accordance with L.P.P 1.6 does not support the proposed works. On this basis, the application is recommended for refusal based on the potential undue impact the proposed works will have on the heritage value of the existing dwelling and streetscape character of Hulbert Street. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Alterations and Additions to Existing Single House at No. 12 (Lot 106) Hulbert Street, South Fremantle, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy D.B.H1 relating to Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the heritage advice sought in accordance with

the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy 1.6 relating to Heritage Assessments.

LOST: 3/4

For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Donna Haney Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr Bill Massie Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Dave Coggin


Page 26

Cr D Coggin MOVED the following alternative recommendation: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Alterations and Additions to Existing Single House at No. 12 (Lot 106) Hulbert Street, South Fremantle, for the following reasons: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 30 May 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. Prior to occupation, the eastern facing window of the northern most upstairs

bedroom and balcony shall be fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.65 metres above the upper floor level or alternatively a minimum sill height of 1.65 metres as determined from the internal floor level to prevent overlooking in accordance with Clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

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

CARRIED: 4/3 For Against Cr Dave Coggin Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie

Cr Donna Haney Cr Andrew Sullivan Mayor, Brad Pettitt

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 27

Cr D Coggin vacated the chamber at 7.23 pm. Mayor, Brad Pettitt left the meeting at 7.23 pm prior to consideration of the following item and did not return. Cr D Coggin returned to the meeting at 7.24 pm. PSC1106-110 AMELING RISE, NO. 8 (LOT 2) FREMANTLE - RECONSIDERATION

OF PREVIOUS RESOLUTION RELATING TO LEGAL ACTION FOR RETROSPECTIVE ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING (JWJ DA0505/09)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 15 June 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1010-183, PSC 1005-83 & PSC1007-127 Attachment 1: PSC1010-183 (October 2010) Date Received: 29 September 2009;

26 May 2010 (Revised) 24 August 2010 (Revised)

Owner Name: A & A Fleet Submitted by: As Above Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: Not Listed Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 28

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The item is presented before the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for reconsideration as a previous determination requiring that legal action be taken regarding the construction of the upper floor balconies without planning consent cannot be acted upon, due to the expiration of the 12 month timeframe to prosecute the applicant under section 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004. It is recommended for Council to continue to pursue legal action against the applicant. This is considered consistent with the previous determination of 27 October 2010 however the legal action will be initiated under separate legislation. BACKGROUND

The applicant submitted a retrospective application to the City on 29 September 2009, for unauthorised construction of upper floor balconies at No. 8 Ameling Rise, Fremantle. Revised plans were submitted to the City on 24 August 2010 removing the unauthorised balcony and remodifying associated living areas. At its meeting held 6 October 2010, PSC resolved:

‘That Council:

A. APPROVES the application for Planning Approval under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Retrospective Alterations to the Existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 8 (Lot 2) Ameling Rise, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

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

approved plans dated 24 August 2010. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. Within 90 days:

i. The glass balustrading associated with the unauthorised upper

level western balconies is to be removed in accordance with approved plans dated 24 August 2010;

ii. The unauthorised decking associated with the upper level

western balconies is to be removed in accordance with approved plans dated 24 August 2010;

iii. An internal 1.05m stainless steel balustrade is to be erected, in

accordance with the approved plans dated 24 August 2010.

B. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle to initiate legal action against the owner of the land at No. 8 (Lot 2) Ameling Rise,


Page 29

Fremantle for the construction of the upper floor balconies without planning consent.’

Please refer to previous item PSC 1010-183 for detailed discussion regarding the application. It should be noted that the City had issued a separate Notice under section 214 (3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005, requiring the applicant to alter the northern boundary wall to be in compliance with either DA128/06 or DA0388/09. This was a separate matter being dealt with under a separate process. The decision regarding this matter was handed down in the Fremantle Magistrate’s Court on 23 May 2011. In this instance, Magistrate Jones found that Mr and Mrs Fleet were ‘not guilty’ and ordered the City of Fremantle to pay the applicant legal costs. Magistrate Jones relied on the following reasons for the not guilty verdict: 1. Delivery of notice by post considered insufficient and personal service with proof

of service by affidavit required in order for prosecution to proceed; 2. The City had made no attempt to ascertain during the period in which the Direction

Notice was seeking compliance, why the applicant was not complying with the Direction Notice;

3. The number of days for which the offence had continued was not adequately particularised;

4. Magistrate Jones made a finding that access to the neighbouring property to carry out the rendering was refused. It therefore followed that to comply with the Direction Notice would have required the applicant to commit a criminal offence (trespass) and that therefore section 23 of the Criminal Code provided a defence to the charge.

Legal advice provided to the City indicated there would be no material benefit to the City in appealing to the Supreme Court as it was considered that due to the finding of fact by Magistrate Jones that access was denied was enough to find the applicant ‘not guilty’. DETAILS The item is referred to the Planning Services Committee to determine whether to initiate legal action against the applicant under the section 375 (5) Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1960 regarding unauthorised works. PLANNING COMMENT Legal advice provided to the City in February 2011 in the course of complying with Part B of the October 2010 resolution, advised that the timeframe to prosecute the applicant under section 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 had expired. In order to prosecute under s21 of the Act, a prosecution would have had to have commenced within 12 months of the City becoming aware of the breach. The decision made at the PSC meeting held on 27 October 2010 was therefore outside the timeframe for prosecution. If the ‘as constructed’ balconies did not conform to the building approval issued, there is the ability to commence prosecution under section 374 (5) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960. As 374 (5) prosecution would still be able to be commenced because the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government


Page 30

(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 allows prosecutions to be commenced within two years (for most offences) rather than one year allowed under the Criminal Procedure Act. There are two options for the Planning Services Committee: 1. Not proceed with legal action; 2. Proceed in initiating legal action against the owner under s 374 (5) of the Local

Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 for the construction of the works not conforming to the building approval issued.

If Council determines to proceed with option 2 above it is unclear what likely fines would be imposed as there is no similar legal precedent in the City. It is noted that the 27 October 2010 decision was one of the first under the revised compliance policy. Since this decision the standard wording of the condition has been amended and does not refer to specific legislation (ie not planning or building). CONCLUSION It is recommended for Council to continue to pursue legal action against the applicant. This is considered consistent with the previous determination of 27 October 2010 however the legal action will be initiated under separate legislation. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council AUTHORISE the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle to initiate legal action against the owner of the land at No. 8 (Lot 2) Ameling Rise, Fremantle for the construction of the upper floor balconies without approval. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Dave Coggin Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 31

PSC1106-111 JOSLIN STREET, NO. 23A (LOT 3) HILTON - SINGLE STOREY

GROUPED DWELLING WITH LOFT (JWJ DA0164/11) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 15 June 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: None Attachments: Development Plans (April 2011) Date Received: 9 April 2011 Owner Name: T DePaolo Submitted by: Matthew Wallwork Scheme: Residential R20/R25 Heritage Listing: Hilton Garden Heritage Precinct Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 32

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination as the proposed development has received comments from adjoining neighbours that cannot be resolved via conditions of planning approval. Planning Approval is sought for the construction of a single storey Grouped Dwelling with Loft at No. 23A Joslin Street, Hilton. The applicant is also requesting performance based assessments for the following variations to the ‘Acceptable Development’ criteria of the Residential Design Codes 2010 (R-Codes): • Eastern, southern and western boundary setbacks; • Eastern boundary wall; • Fill; • External wall height - north; • Overlooking – east and west. Three submissions were received during the advertising process, which raised the following issues (summarised): • Objection to proposed FFL level and impact on:

o Retaining of existing western boundary fence; o Visual privacy to western adjoining property; o Overshadowing to western adjoining property; o Excessive building bulk to western adjoining property.

• Objection to discrepancies indicated on licensed land survey re eastern boundary;

• Objection to zincalume roofing material; • Objection to zincalume gable fascia (north and south); • Objection to western boundary setback; • Proposed loft supported; • Concerns raised regarding proposed development of driveway and potential

removal of existing fence. The variations have been assessed against the ‘Performance Criteria’ of the R-Codes. Where they were not considered to satisfy the ‘Performance Criteria’ of the R-Codes, appropriate conditions are recommended to be imposed. It is recommended that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions.


Page 33

BACKGROUND

The site is zoned Residential in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a split density coding of R20/R25. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List but is located within the Hilton Garden Heritage Precinct, which is a designated Heritage Area in accordance with clause 7.2 of LPS4. The site is 343m² and located in the south eastern corner of a three lot corner survey strata subdivision. The site is currently vacant. Vehicle access is provided to the site from Joslin Street via common property accessway shared with the northern adjoining lot. The eastern adjoining lot has vehicle access from Collick Street. The topography on site consists of a gentle to moderate downwards slope from south to north of approximately 1.45m. A review of the property file found the following relevant planning information: • On 1 October 2009, the Western Australian Planning Commission endorsed a three

lot survey strata subdivision at No. 23 Joslin Street, Hilton (refer DA659/07). DETAILS

On 9 April 2011, the City received an application for planning approval for a single storey Grouped Dwelling with Loft at No. 23A Joslin Street, Hilton. The proposed development was assessed against and is considered to satisfy the provisions of LPS4, the Residential Design Codes 2010 (R-Codes) and relevant Council Local Planning Policies, except in relation to: • Eastern, southern and western boundary setbacks; • Eastern boundary wall; • Fill; • External wall height - north; • Overlooking – east and west. The following Council Local Planning Policies are relevant to this application: • DBH 1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines (DBH 1); • LPP 2.2 Split Density Codes and Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule

(LPP 2.2); • LPP 2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development (LPP 2.4); • LPP 3.7 Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct Heritage Area (LPP 3.7).


Page 34

CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 19 May 2011, the City had received three submissions. The following issues were raised: • Objection to proposed FFL level and impact on:

o Retaining of existing western boundary fence; o Visual privacy to western adjoining property; o Overshadowing to western adjoining property; o Excessive building bulk to western adjoining property.

• Objection to discrepancies indicated on licensed land survey re eastern boundary; • Objection to zincalume roofing material; • Objection to zincalume gable fascia (north and south); • Objection to western boundary setback; • Proposed loft supported; • Concerns raised regarding proposed development of driveway and potential removal

of existing fence. Health The application was referred to the City’s Environmental Health department in relation to the proposed grey water reuse system. The Environmental Health department indicated that not enough irrigation area is provided to install a domestic grey water reuse system as part of the development. PLANNING COMMENT

Eastern Boundary Wall The proposed eastern boundary wall has been assessed against and does not satisfy the ‘Acceptable Development’ criteria contained in LPP 2.4. The eastern adjoining property at No. 27 Collick Street is currently vacant. Proposed dimensions: • 4.7m in length; • 3m in height. No submission was received from the eastern adjoining neighbour. The eastern boundary wall is supported as it is considered that it will not significantly restrict direct sun access or ventilation to the eastern adjoining property. Furthermore, the boundary wall is to be limited height and length and therefore is not considered to create a sense of confinement by way of excessive building bulk for potential development on the eastern adjoining property.


Page 35

Boundary Setbacks Required Provided Variation East – 1.5m 1m 0.5m South – 1.5m 0.9m-3.5m 0-0.6m West – 1.5m 1m-2.5m 0-0.5m The southern elevation of the proposed development will abut the rear backyard area of the southern adjoining property. The southern setback variation is triggered by the south eastern corner of the dwelling. The southern boundary tapers away from the dwelling, increasing the setback to a maximum distance of 3.6m at the south western corner of the dwelling therefore the majority of the wall is setback in excess of the 1.5m minimum requirements. The site abuts an existing two lot battleaxe subdivision at No. 21 and 21A Joslin Street to the west. The western elevation of the proposed dwelling will abut the front and rear garden areas and eastern elevation of the rear dwelling. The eastern boundary setback variation is triggered by the north western corner of the dwelling. The western boundary also tapers away from the dwelling, increasing the setback to a maximum of 2.5m at the south western corner of the dwelling therefore the majority of the wall is setback in excess of the 1.5m requirements. The boundary setback variations are not considered to significantly restrict direct sun access or ventilation to the adjoining properties. Visual privacy is addressed below. The boundary setback variations are supported as they are not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on the adjoining properties in relation to excessive building bulk or restriction of direction sun access or ventilation. Fill Permitted Provided Variation Fill within 1m of a common boundary not more than 0.5m above NGL at boundary

Fill approximately 0.6m above NGL at western boundary (north and western corner of dwelling)

0.1m at eastern boundary

A submission was received objecting to the proposed amount of fill, specifically on the western boundary of site. The variation to Design Element 6.6.1 of the R-Codes is supported as it considered that the development retains the visual impression of the natural ground level of site as seen from the street and adjoining properties. Furthermore, the minor variation is not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on adjoining properties in relation to excessive bulk and scale of the development.


Page 36

External Wall Height Required Provided Variation 3.5m 4m 0.5m The external wall height variation is triggered by the single storey skillion roof design to Bed 2. The wall is 3.5m in length. The variation is supported as there will be no impact on the presentation to the street as the lot is a rear survey strata lot with minimal presence to the streetscape of Joslin Street. Visual Privacy Required Provided Variation Habitable rooms other than bedrooms or studies with a floor level greater than 0.5m above NGL to be setback 6m or screened

Eastern facing loft window setback 4.5m Ground floor kitchen door – glazed setback 1.4m

1.5m / not screened in accordance with R-Codes 4.6m / not screened

It is recommended a condition be imposed requiring the eastern facing loft window and western kitchen door to be screened appropriately in accordance with clause 6.8.1 of the R-Codes. A standard 1.8m high boundary fence installed on the boundary line would be considered to satisfy the screening requirements contained in Design Element 6.8.1 in relation to the kitchen door. Energy Efficiency Schedule Required Provided Alternative Northern elevation setback 4m from northern boundary

Small portion of Bed 2 setback 2.4m

External door seals

500mm eaves Not provided to northern elevation of Bed 2 and southern elevation of Bed 1

None proposed – condition to be imposed

Grey water reuse system Yes however 30m² irrigation area provided

None - supported

The proposed alternative to the northern boundary setback requirements contained in Part B of LPP 2.2 is supported. It is noted that the City is currently reviewing Council policy LPP 2.2 Split Density Codes and Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Policy, specifically in regards to the requirement to install grey water reuse system as part of the development. Due to the current review of the policy being undertaken by the City, the grey water reuse system or an appropriate alternative is not considered to be required to be provided in this instance.


Page 37

Submitter Concerns Impact of Retaining on Western Adjoining Property The development is required to be undertaken in accordance with planning approval and in a manner which does not irreparably damage existing structures on adjoining properties. However costs incurred through damage to existing structures on neighbouring properties during construction are not a planning matter and shall be dealt with as a civil matter between parties. Discrepancies on Licensed Land Survey The land survey has been undertaken by a certified land surveyor. Any potential discrepancies on the plan cannot be mitigated through the planning process. Concerns raised regarding discrepancies on the submitted licensed land survey are therefore a private matter. Zincalume Roofing and Cladding Council policy LPP 3.7 does not contain specific requirements relating to building materials for infill development within the Hilton Garden Heritage Precinct. In accordance with Council Local Planning Policy DBH 1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines building materials such as zincalume and sheet metal for roofing and cladding are considered traditional building materials which are compatible with the current existing built environment of the suburbs of Fremantle. The City of Fremantle does not have a current local planning policy restricting roofing or cladding materials for non-heritage listed buildings. Therefore the chosen roofing materials are considered to be appropriate. Development of Driveway Clause 8.2 of LPS4 permits excavation or fill up to 500mm above natural ground level without planning approval. Schedule 15 of LPS4 permits the installation of ‘outdoor hard surfaces’ (ie driveways) no more than 500mm above NGL without planning approval. Schedule 15 of LPS4 also permits demolition of existing walls and fences that are not of limestone or masonry construction. The potential removal of the existing fence on the western boundary of the common property is considered a civil matter. CONCLUSION

The proposed development has been assessed against and is considered to satisfy the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. The proposed single storey Grouped Dwelling with loft is recommended for approval subject to conditions.


Page 38


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Single Storey Grouped Dwelling with Loft at No. 23A (Lot 3) Joslin Street, Hilton, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 9 April 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot. 2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. Prior to occupation, the eastern boundary wall shall be of a clean finish in sand

render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to the occupation of the development, the existing vehicle crossover shall

be remodified and constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation any redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be removed and

the verge reinstated to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle and at the expense of the applicant.

6. Prior to occupation, the upper level loft window on the eastern elevation shall

be fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.65 metres above the upper floor level or alternatively a minimum sill height of 1.65 metres as determined from the internal floor level to prevent overlooking in accordance with Clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to occupation, 80% solid surface area / obscured balustrading to a

minimum height of 1.65 metres above the floor level shall be provided to the western elevation of the ground floor of the development in accordance with clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. Prior to occupation landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the

approved plans dated 9 April 2011 and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. Prior to occupation, insulation (minimum R4 roof insulation and minimum R2.5

wall insulation) shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

10. Prior to occupation, a gas boosted solar hot water system shall be installed and

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


Page 39

11. Prior to occupation, ventilators in the roof void (above the insulation layer)

shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Ventilators shall be capable of being closed during winter conditions.

12. The grey water use system indicated on the approved plans dated 9 April 2011,

does not form part of this approval. 13. Prior to occupation the installation of water-efficient fixtures, including 3A-5A

rated taps, toilets and showerheads shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

14. Prior to occupation, door seals shall be installed to all external doors and

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

15. Prior to occupation, shade awnings or eaves a minimum width of 500mm shall

be provided to the openings of Bed 1 and Bed 2. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Dave Coggin Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 40

PSC1106-113 HAMPTON ROAD NO. 1/18 & 3/18 (LOT 1), FREMANTLE DECK

ENCLOSURE AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLINGS AT UNITS 1 & 3 (LP DA0115/11 & DA0114/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 15 June 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: None Attachment 1: Development Plans Unit 1/18 Hampton Road (1 June

2011) Attachment 2: Development Plans Unit 3/18 Hampton Road (1 June

2011) Attachment 3: External Heritage Assessment (28 March 2011) Date Received: 11 March 2011 Owner Name: L. Trajkovska & A.M. Di Francesco Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: West End Conservation Area Existing Landuse: Residential Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 41

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The two development applications (DA0114/11 & DA0115/11) have been referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination as the proposed developments have received comments from adjoining neighbours that cannot be resolved via conditions of planning approval. Specifically, Planning Approval is sought for the construction of single storey deck additions to the front of the existing Grouped Dwellings at No. 1/18 Hampton Road, Fremantle and No. 3/18 Hampton Road, Fremantle. The applicants of both development applications are requesting a performance based assessment for the following variations to the ‘Acceptable Development’ provisions of the Residential Design Codes 2010 (R-Codes): • Setback of Buildings Generally (i.e. from the primary street (Hampton Road));

and • Location of Outdoor Living Areas Two submissions were received by the City during the advertising process, which raised the following comments (summarised): • Bulk and scale of additions; • Incongruous style of development to established streetscape; and • Precedent for future development within streetscape. On 1 June 2011 the applicants submitted amended plans and drawings illustrating an increased development setback from the primary street (from 2.4m to 4.5m from Hampton Road) and a reduced variation to the aforementioned provision of the R-Codes (i.e. 1.5m primary street setback variation in lieu of 3.6m primary street setback variation). The proposed variations have been assessed against, and are considered to satisfy the relevant ‘Performance Criteria’ of the R-Codes. Further, the proposed works were externally reviewed by the City’s heritage consultant and the Heritage Council of Western Australia. Upon review of the proposed works it was determined that the developments would have limited impact on the heritage area and the existing heritage stock within the streetscape. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be conditionally approved.


Page 42

BACKGROUND

The existing Grouped Dwelling development at No. 18 (Lot 1) Hampton Road, Fremantle is zoned ‘Residential’ in accordance with the City of Fremantle’s (the City’s) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and has a density coding of R25. The subject site is not identified by the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) however the property is located within the West End Conservation Area which is a designated Heritage Area in accordance with clause 7.2 of LPS4. Further, the site is located adjacent to the Fremantle Prison (No. 1 The Terrace, Fremantle), which is adopted under the State Register of Heritage Places, the World Heritage List and the City’s Heritage List. The subject site encompasses a total lot area of approximately 1398m² and of east-west orientation. The site is improved by an existing two storey, eight unit Grouped Dwelling development built c1980, with vehicular access provided from two crossovers off the primary street (Hampton Road). The topography on the site consists of a downward slope from the east (rear) of site to the west (front) of approximately 4m. The existing residential streetscape of Hampton Road comprises of both single and two storey dwellings, the majority of which identified by the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory and Heritage List as being of cultural heritage significance. Further, the Grouped Dwelling development at No. 18 Hampton Road, Fremantle is inconsistent with the existing development on the eastern side of Hampton Road as the established pattern of immediate development within this streetscape predominantly comprises of ‘Single House’ development of freehold tenure subdivision. DETAILS On 11 March 2011, the City received two development applications (DA0114/11 and DA0115/11) for the construction of an enclosed decking area to the front of the existing Grouped Dwelling units at No. 1/18 Hampton Road, Fremantle and No. 3/18 Hampton Road, Fremantle. These proposed works comprise of the following elements:

• The construction of 1.8m high timber panel screening at the western, northern and southern elevations of the existing brick terrace area forward of the existing two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 1/18 & No. 3/18 Hampton Road, Fremantle, as to provide for a secure outdoor living space to be used in conjunction with the ground floor living spaces of the unit;

• The construction of removable shad sails over the proposed outdoor living areas of units 1 and 3; and

• Revegetation of the open space area forward of the proposed outdoor decking additions by the body corporate.

The City’s records indicate that the City granted planning approval in April 1978 for the construction of the eight unit Grouped Dwelling development, including “a front and back courtyard” for each unit and 14m2 of fully enclosed courtyard space (minimum width of 2.5m) to the rear of units 1 and 3. A site inspection undertaken by the City’s planning officers as part of the assessment of the subject applications confirmed that the rear ‘courtyard’ space to unit 3 has since been removed and the ‘courtyard’ space to unit 1 is in poor condition.


Page 43

Approval is now sought for the construction of the aforementioned additions to the front of the two dwellings as inadequate space is available to the rear of units 1 and 3, to accommodate appropriate ‘outdoor living areas’ in accordance with the Residential Design Codes. That’s is, subject to the current ‘Acceptable Development Provisions’ of the Residential Design Codes for Grouped Dwelling development, at least 30m2 of outdoor living area is to be made available for each Grouped Dwelling and with a minimum dimension of 4m. Upon the completion of a detailed assessment of the proposals, and following discussions with the applicant with respect to the proposed variations to the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), amended plans were submitted to the City on 1 June 2011. The amended plans dated 1 June 2011 confirmed an increased development setback from the primary street (Hampton Road), from 2.4m to 4.5m, as to demonstrate a reduced variation to Design Element 6.2.1 – Setback of Buildings Generally of the R-Codes. The amended plans dated 1 June 2011 were assessed against and satisfy the ‘Acceptable Development’ provisions of the Residential Design Codes (the R-Codes), the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and the relevant planning policies of the City, with the exception of the following:

• Buildings Setback Generally (i.e. from Hampton Road); and • Outdoor Living Area

The following Council Local Planning Policies are also relevant in the discussion of the two applications: • L.P.P. 1.6 - Preparing Heritage Assessments; • D.B. H1 - Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines; and • D.G.F.14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy. CONSULTATION Community The original development plans dated 11 March 2011 were required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the City’s LPS4 and the provisions of Council Policy L.P.P 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Approvals (L.P.P. 1.3). At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 4 April 2011, the City had received 2 submissions in relation to the proposed works. The following matters (summarised) were raised: • Bulk and scale of additions; • Incongruous style of development to established streetscape; and • Precedent for future development within streetscape. Following the conclusion of the advertising period and discussions with the City’s planning officers, the applicants submitted amended plans and drawings dated 1 June 2011 illustrating a reduced variation to Design Element 6.2.1 of the R-Codes with respect to buildings setback from the primary street (Hampton Road). This matter of non-compliance is discussed further in the body of the report below.


Page 44

Heritage A heritage assessment of the proposed development was required to be undertaken in accordance with L.P.P. 1.6 Preparing Heritage Assessments as the property is located within the West End Conservation Area and adjacent to the Fremantle Prison. The external heritage assessment undertaken (refer Attachment 3) expresses support of the proposed works as illustrated under Attachment 3 and provided the following comments (summarised):

• The subject site has no significance and the deck additions would result in little impact on the heritage area and the heritage stock of the existing streetscape.

Further to the above assessment made, the applications were required to be referred to the Heritage Council of Western Australia for comment as the subject site is located adjacent to the Fremantle Prison which is adopted under the State Register of Heritage Places and the World Heritage List. Following a detailed assessment of the proposed additions, it was confirmed that the Heritage Council has no objection to the proposed works. PLANNING COMMENT

Setback of Buildings Generally, Design Element 6.2.1 (R-Codes) The Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) defines ‘Street Setback’ as follows: “The horizontal distance between the street alignment and a building, measured at right angles (90 degrees) to the street alignment”. Further, a ‘Building’ is defined by the R-Codes as follows: “Any structure whether fixed or moveable, temporary or permanent, places or erected on land, and the term includes dwellings and structures appurtenant to dwelling such as carports, garages, verandahs, patios, outbuildings and retaining walls, but excludes boundary fences, pergolas and swimming pools”. In this case, existing 1.3m high retaining wall development is setback 4.5m from the primary street (Hampton Road) and forms a ‘brick terrace’ area built forward of the existing Grouped Dwellings which front Hampton Road. The ‘brick terrace’ space extends for the entire width of the ground floor levels of all four dwellings fronting Hampton Road. As this existing retaining wall development is considered ‘appurtenant’ to, and used in conjunction with these dwellings, the existing ‘street setback’ is measured at 4.5m from the street alignment. On this basis, the proposed additions to the ‘brick terrace’ area of units 1 and 3, as illustrated under Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 respectively, would not encroach within the existing street setback area (i.e. setback 4.5m). Notwithstanding the above, the City’s records make it unclear as to whether approval has been granted for the retaining wall works altogether. However, it is noted that the existing retaining wall has been built with the same materials used in the construction of the Grouped Dwelling development. Further, the retaining wall development also appears to be of a similar age to these Grouped Dwellings and the City’s records indicate that approval was granted (April 1978) for each unit to “have a front and rear courtyard”.


Page 45

Although it is unclear whether the retaining wall development was approved, the proposed additions have nonetheless been assessed against the provisions of Design Element 6.2.1 of the Residential Design Codes as to discuss whether these works would detrimentally impact upon the amenity of the existing residential streetscape. The below assessment has been based on the assumption that the retaining wall development was approved as part of the Grouped Dwelling development.

Element Required Provision Proposed Variation Unit 1/18 Hampton Road, Fremantle

Buildings setback at least 6m from the primary street (Hampton Road)

4.5m 1.5m

Unit 3/18 Hampton Road, Fremantle

Buildings setback at least 6m from the primary street (Hampton Road)

4.5m 1.5m

The above variations to ‘Acceptable Development’ provision A1 of Design Element 6.2.1 of the R-Codes are capable of approval as the proposed developments (DA0114/11 and DA0115/11) satisfy Performance Criteria P1 of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

• The proposed works would enclose the existing ‘brick terrace’ built forward of the Grouped Dwelling development and allow the private use of a sufficient space of ‘outdoor living area’ for the occupants of units 1 and 3;

• The proposed development would have minimal impact or intrusion into the established residential streetscape as the ‘light-weight’ design of the additions (i.e. 1.8m high timber screening) are considered unimposing and works would be confined within the space of the existing brick terrace area built forward of subject sites; and

• The proposals have been externally assessed by the City’s heritage consultants who have determined that the nature of the works would have no detrimental impact on the Heritage Area or housing stock within the streetscape.

As discussed above, it is considered that the proposed variations to ‘Acceptable Development Provision’ A1 of Design Element 6.2.1 of the R-Codes are capable of approval as the works demonstrate compliance with the relevant Performance Criteria of the Codes. Accordingly, it is considered that these works would not detrimentally impact upon the amenity of the Hampton Road streetscape. Outdoor Living Areas, Design Element 6.4.2 (R-Codes) Element Required Provision Proposed Variation Unit 1/18 Hampton Road, Fremantle

Outdoor living areas provided behind the street setback area (i.e. 6m)

Outdoor living area setback 4.5m from primary street

Outdoor living area located forward of dwelling

Unit 3/18 Hampton Road, Fremantle

Outdoor living area setback 4.5m from primary street

Outdoor living area located forward of dwelling


Page 46

The above variations to ‘Acceptable Development’ provision A2 of Design Element 6.4.1 of the R-Codes are capable of approval as the proposed developments (DA0114/11 and DA0115/11) satisfy Performance Criteria P2.1 of the R-Codes for the following reason: • The proposed additions would allow for an appropriate and secure ‘outdoor living

area’ to be used in conjunction with the Grouped Dwelling units (units 1 and 3) which are otherwise unable to accommodate at least 30m2 of such space to the rear of the site.

CONCLUSION

The proposed developments (DA0114/11 and DA0115/11) have been assessed against the provisions of LPS4 and relevant Council Local Planning Policies as discussed above. Further, the proposals satisfies the requirements of the R-Codes having regard to the above performance based assessments with respect to Design Element 6.2.1 – Setback of Buildings Generally and Design Element 6.4.2 – Outdoor Living Areas. It is considered that the proposed development would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of adjoining neighbours, the existing streetscape or the immediate locality. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan A) That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme

and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the construction of single storey additions to the existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 1/18 (Lot 1) Hampton Road, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

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

plans, dated 1 June 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.


B) That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme

and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the construction of single storey additions to the existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 3/18 (Lot 1) Hampton Road, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

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

plans, dated 1 June 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.



Page 47

CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Dave Coggin Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 48

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) PSC1106-117 KNUTSFORD STREET EAST STRUCTURE PLAN AREA -

INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADING ARRANGEMENTS AND DETAILED AREA PLANNING

DataWorks Reference: 115/084 and 218/040 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Manager Planning Projects Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC0802-52, PSC0811-317, PSC0909-170 and

PSC1008-149 Attachments: 1. Previous item PSC1008-149

2. Schedule of submissions on draft development contribution plan and cost apportionment schedule 3. Plan of major land holdings in DA1 4. Plan of revised extent of infrastructure upgrade area


Page 49

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s determination of how it intends to proceed with the preparation and implementation of arrangements to fund improvements to services and other infrastructure in the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan Area (Development Area 1) to facilitate redevelopment in accordance with the structure plan. In August 2010 the Planning Services Committee gave preliminary consideration to a draft amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to designate Development Area 1 (DA1) as a Development Contribution Area where landowners undertaking redevelopment would be obliged to contribute to the overall cost of improvements to infrastructure. The Committee resolved that preliminary consultation should be undertaken with affected landowners regarding the proposed scope of works and cost contribution mechanism prior to Council formally considering whether to proceed with such a scheme amendment. Consultation in the form of meetings with landowners and invitation to owners to submit written comments was subsequently undertaken. The consultation feedback indicates a significant level of opposition to a contribution plan along the lines of the draft plan previously presented to the Planning Services Committee, particularly from smaller landowners, some of whom have stated they have no plans to redevelop and already have adequate services to support existing uses of their premises. In the light of these responses the value of attempting to proceed with a contribution plan as originally envisaged is questionable, and this report outlines a potential alternative approach of a cost sharing agreement between the four owners (including the City) of the largest land parcels in DA1 who are most likely to promote redevelopment of their land and have indicated support in principle for a cost sharing agreement to fund necessary infrastructure. The report also addresses the implications that this alternative approach to infrastructure cost sharing would have for the requirements of detailed area plans for each of the precincts in the structure plan area, and recommends a course of action to modify a previously approved detailed area plan for one of the precincts in the event that Council supports the revised approach to infrastructure upgrading and funding. BACKGROUND

The area bounded by Amherst Street, Blinco Street (east of Amherst St), Montreal street and Stack Street is zoned Development zone and designated as Development Area 1 under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). On 27 February 2008 Council resolved to adopt the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan (the structure plan) as a ‘guiding document to facilitate redevelopment within the designated area’ (PSC0802-52).


Page 50

The structure plan does not contain a high level of detail, but broadly identifies overall development intentions for the area in terms of general built form including building heights, density and land uses, and identifies five precincts based on existing street blocks within the area. The structure plan also sets out requirements for Detailed Area Plans (DAPs) to be prepared for each precinct. The purpose of the DAPs is to set out more detailed development controls such as general building locations, access points and setbacks. The structure plan also identifies in general terms the services and other infrastructure requiring upgrading in order to support the more intensive forms of development in the area provided for under the structure plan, and requires a mechanism to be put in place prior to subdivision and development for sharing infrastructure costs between landowners in the area. Infrastructure Upgrading On 23 September 2009 Council considered a report on the general principles and scope of infrastructure works to be included in a development contribution plan for the structure plan area (DA1) by means of an amendment to LPS4 to create a Development Contribution Area under clause 6.3 of LPS4 (see previous item PSC0909-170). Following the above mentioned resolution of Council, City officers and engineering consultants prepared a more detailed scope of infrastructure works with cost estimates, and presented this to the Planning Services Committee on 4 August 2010 together with the draft wording for a Scheme amendment to create a Development Contribution Area (see Attachment 1 – previous item PSC1008-149). Part of the Committee’s resolution on this item was that preliminary consultation should be undertaken with landowners in DA1 on the draft scope of infrastructure works and cost apportionment arrangements, and that the results of the consultation should be reported back to the Planning Services Committee for further consideration and formulation of a recommendation to Council on initiation of a scheme amendment. Consultation with landowners was undertaken in September and October 2010 and is detailed in the ‘Consultation’ section of this report. Detailed Area Planning A DAP for Precinct 5 of the structure plan area (the street block bounded by Amherst Street, Knutsford Street, Wood Street and Stack Street) prepared on behalf of one of the landowners in the area (West Cape Property Group) was approved by the City in early 2009 following the incorporation of amendments in accordance with a resolution of Council dated 26 November 2008 (PSC0811-317). An alternative DAP for the same precinct, lodged on behalf of a different landowner (the owner of a lot in Stack Street) in December 2008, has been advertised but not yet reported to Council for determination. The main points of difference between the two DAP’s concern access and staging/coordinated development requirements applicable to lots fronting Stack Street, and the treatment of the interface between these lots and land to the north.


Page 51

Officers held discussions in early 2010 with both applicants to try to secure mutual agreement to replace the approved and proposed DAPs with a single amended plan containing a consolidated set of provisions acceptable to all parties that could be presented back to Council for approval. However, subsequently priority has been given by officers to progressing arrangements for the funding and implementation of infrastructure improvements, because the outcome of this issue will affect owners’ capability to carry out development if they wish to irrespective of the content of detailed area plans. Furthermore the City has recently been advised that West Cape Property Group has been wound up as a company, and control of the relevant land in the DAP area now rests with other parties who at this time are not able to indicate their future intentions for the land. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

All of the land subject to the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan is zoned ‘Development’ and forms Development Area 1 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). Clause 6.2.3.2 requires the subdivision and development of land within a Development Area to be generally in accordance with any structure plan that applies to the land. Clause 6.2.15.1 of LPS4 makes provision for the preparation of a detailed area plan (by either the local government or an owner) where it is considered desirable ‘to enhance, elaborate or expand the details or provisions contained in a structure plan for a particular lot or lots’. Clause 6.3 of LPS4 makes provision for the City to designate Development Contribution Areas under the Scheme, with the following purpose:

(a) provide for the equitable sharing of the costs of infrastructure and administrative costs between owners;

(b) ensure that cost contributions are reasonably required as a result of the subdivision and development of land in the Development Contribution Area; and

(c) coordinate the timely provision of infrastructure.


Page 52

CONSULTATION As referred to earlier in this report, following the Planning Services Committee’s resolution of 4 August 2010 all landowners in DA1 were consulted on the draft development contribution plan and cost apportionment schedule considered by the Committee. A series of meetings were held with landowners, and owners were invited to submit written comments. A total of 20 written submissions were received, and these are summarised in the schedule in Attachment 2 of this report. In general terms, the consultation responses may be divided into two categories as follows:

(a) Two owners of large parcels of land within DA1 (the northern part of the Precinct 5 street block, and Precinct 2 – bounded by Blinco, Montreal, Wood and Knutsford Streets) support the principle of a development contribution scheme, however they oppose the proposal to include a cash-in-lieu payment for Public Open Space improvements as part of the overall contribution scheme and also consider that some of the cost of road and storm drainage improvements should be met by the City as a normal local government responsibility instead of being shared by all owners. In addition to these submissions, the developer consortium in contractual negotiations with LandCorp for the development of Lot 1354 Knutsford Street which is adjacent to DA1 also made a submission because some infrastructure required to service DA1 is also required to service Lot 1354. The submission opposes any future consideration of including Lot 1354 in a Development Contribution Area, but acknowledges that some costs associated with providing services to both Lot 1354 and DA1 may be shared; however ‘basic’ road and drainage maintenance costs should be met by the City and not be included in any cost sharing arrangement.

(b) 17 submissions from owners of smaller land parcels in DA1 (mostly in Blinco and Stack Streets) oppose the inclusion of their land in a development contribution scheme for one or more of the following reasons:

• their land already has adequate services for current needs and owners have no plans to redevelop;

• proposing that all owners share all infrastructure costs on a $ per sq m basis is inequitable as it is generally the largest land parcels with most development potential which are unserviced, and smaller lots on the peripheries of DA1 could not be developed at the same density and in any event already have services;

• public open space and road improvement costs should not be included in a contribution scheme as existing owners have already contributed to these matters through paying rates;

• all objecting owners should be excised from the proposed development contribution area;

• future contribution liabilities and uncertainty could adversely affect land values and small business’ ability to borrow and re-invest.


Page 53

PLANNING COMMENT

Infrastructure upgrading The feedback from the consultation undertaken with landowners, as outlined above and in Attachment 2, clearly indicates that there is a lack of general support from the majority of landowners for a development contribution plan along the lines of the draft plan previously presented to the Planning Services Committee in August 2010. Some degree of disagreement over the details of the draft contribution plan would not be unexpected. However, the extent of opposition to even some of the basic principles of a Planning Scheme-based contribution plan over the land in DA1, especially from owners of smaller lots in the area who state they have no plans to redevelop and therefore perceive no benefit to themselves from improved services, calls into question the value of proceeding with preparation of a Scheme Amendment to introduce a contribution plan of this type. Council could still resolve to proceed to initiate a Scheme Amendment to introduce a development contribution plan, either with the scope of infrastructure works and cost apportionment methodology previously considered by the Planning Services Committee (see Attachment 2) or with a reduced scope of infrastructure works to reduce the costs borne by landowners and/or a different approach to the apportionment of costs. If Council was minded to pursue this course of action, the main opportunity to reduce the scale of cost contributions would be by reducing or removing entirely contributions to Public Open Space improvements, and the cost of loans and administration associated with the City pre-funding and project managing infrastructure improvements. This could reduce contributions apportioned to landowners by up to 50% of the estimated total amount referred to in the August 2010 report (see Appendix 2). Nevertheless, a considerable number of the submissions received expressed objections to the principle of a contribution scheme on the grounds that it would represent a liability hanging over owners even if they have no plans to redevelop (redevelopment being the ‘trigger’ for payment of contributions). It seems reasonable to assume that similar objections would be made during the formal public consultation process that would occur if the Council did resolve to initiate an amendment to LPS4 to introduce a development contribution plan. A potential alternative course of action has consequently been identified by officers. There are four large parcels of land, each with a single owner, which represent the most likely major redevelopment opportunities in the structure plan area. These land parcels are indentified in Attachment 3 – two adjoin one another in Precinct 5 of the structure plan area, and together represent nearly 75% of the total area of this precinct. These sites are in private ownership. A third parcel is the whole street block bounded by Blinco, Wood, Knutsford and Montreal Streets (Precinct 2 of the structure plan). This land is controlled by LandCorp and has already been cleared of previous buildings and is currently being remediated in preparation for redevelopment. The fourth parcel is the City’s Depot site on the south side of Knutsford Street, which forms Precinct 3 of the structure plan area. Feedback from the consultation exercise indicated that the two private owners and LandCorp, whilst having concerns about some aspects of the draft contribution plan, were supportive in principle of paying contributions to the cost of necessary service upgrades to enable redevelopment of their land.


Page 54

Feasibility work carried out by the City’s consulting engineers has confirmed that it would be possible to implement an amended package of infrastructure works to provide upgraded services to these four land parcels only, without having to significantly alter existing services to other, smaller, lots in the area which are mostly located on the edges of the structure plan area in Stack Street and Blinco Street. This presents the opportunity to secure a co-funding arrangement for service upgrades between the City and the other three major landowners only, excluding owners of smaller lots from the cost contribution arrangement (as at least some of them have requested) on the basis that they have no plans to redevelop and therefore do not require the higher specification services necessary to support more intensive new development. Attachment 4 shows the extent of the area within which service upgrades and other infrastructure works would be likely to be carried out in association with servicing the four large land parcels as referred to above. The nature of the amended infrastructure upgrading works would be similar to the works previously proposed, however the physical extent of the works would be reduced to reflect the fact that existing services to the smaller lots would be left unchanged. The detailed scope of works would require further consideration, but in summary is likely to include:

• Road and storm water drainage upgrading works. • New sewer pipes in parts of Amherst, Knutsford, Montreal and Wood Streets with

no existing sewers. • New larger diameter water mains in parts of Amherst, Knutsford, Montreal and

Wood Streets (existing mains pipes not affected) with common trenching to accommodate upgraded gas services funded by gas service provider.

• Upgraded underground low voltage power lines, switchgear and street lights in parts of Amherst, Knutsford, Montreal and Wood Streets.

• Contribution towards public open space improvements. Under this option the funding of the infrastructure upgrades might be secured, if all four owners (including the City) agree, through a legally binding infrastructure contribution agreement entered into voluntarily rather than through statutory contribution plan provisions incorporated into the Local Planning Scheme. A potential benefit of a voluntary agreement would be that it could be completed more quickly than a Scheme Amendment as it would not require public advertising or final approval by the WAPC and the Minister for Planning. The implementation section of the adopted Structure Plan states that a voluntary legal agreement between the City and landowners would be a suitable mechanism for dealing with infrastructure cost contributions as an alternative to provisions enforced through a Planning Scheme.


Page 55

The City’s consulting engineers have confirmed that implementation of infrastructure upgrades to service the four large land parcels in question (see Attachment 3) would not prejudice the opportunity for upgraded services (e.g. larger diameter sewer and water pipes, and underground power) to be extended at some future date to service the smaller lots in the area if the owners of those lots were willing to make their own arrangements to fund such works in order to undertake major redevelopment. On this basis the smaller lot owners could maintain their potential ability to undertake the form of more intensive redevelopment provided for in the structure plan, subject to satisfying servicing requirements at their own expense. Small scale development associated with existing uses on the smaller lots, capable of functioning using existing services, may also be able to occur. Recent informal discussions with some landowners in the area has indicated some support in principle for the approach to infrastructure upgrading and funding outlined above. It is therefore recommended that Council endorse this approach as the preferred mechanism to deal with funding of infrastructure upgrades in the area, instead of proceeding with an amendment to LPS4 to introduce a development contribution plan as previously envisaged. Subject to such endorsement officers could then undertake further discussions with landowners to confirm which owners are willing to participate in a voluntary cost sharing arrangement, and to clarify the scope of works and payment arrangements to be included in such an agreement. Subject to general agreement on these matters with owners, a further report would then be presented to Council to authorise the drafting of a formal legal agreement between the City and relevant landowners to deal with these matters. Detailed Area Plans Should Council endorse the revised approach to infrastructure upgrades outlined above, it would be appropriate to also reconsider how the Detailed Area Plan provisions in LPS4 and in the adopted Structure Plan should be applied in this area. As stated in the Background section of this report, the applicant responsible for the DAP previously approved by Council in relation to Precinct 5 has been wound up as a company, and the parties now in control of the land in question (which makes up approximately 32% of Precinct 5) are at this time unable to indicate their future intentions for the land. Even if owners of the large land parcels in the northern part of Precinct 5 do eventually plan to undertake redevelopment in accordance with the structure plan, officers consider it would be appropriate to review the functionality of the previously approved DAP. This DAP was prepared, and adopted by Council, based on expectations that redevelopment across the whole precinct, including the smaller lots in the southern part of the precinct fronting Stack Street, would be undertaken in a coordinated manner. This did not mean that simultaneous redevelopment of all properties throughout the precinct was anticipated, but that redevelopment outcomes in terms of built form, consolidated access and parking arrangements, and servicing requirements, would be broadly similar. The DAP identifies a series of development stages or ‘cells’, each comprising several existing lots, which it assumes would be redeveloped in the above coordinated manner.


Page 56

However, on the basis of the feedback from landowners regarding infrastructure upgrading arrangements, such outcomes now seem very unlikely, particularly in relation to the smaller lots fronting Stack Street. Consequently the value of maintaining the approved DAP in its current form, especially in terms of how the plan deals with the relationship between the smaller lots and larger land parcels to the north and how it applies coordinated access and servicing requirements to the smaller lots, is questionable. Officers therefore consider it would be appropriate to replace or modify the existing approved DAP to reflect the likely situation of the smaller lots remaining in their current use, at least for the short to medium term future, with possibly only incremental changes of use and/or small scale development occurring which could be supported by existing services. Similarly, the alternative proposed DAP for the same precinct submitted in December 2008 which has not yet been determined contains some provisions which do not reflect the likely situation described above. The plan refers to coordinated development requirements, and the staging provisions of the plan refer to subdivision and building construction not being supported until developer contributions towards infrastructure have been secured through a contribution scheme. Given the consultation responses from owners of lots in the area there would appear to be no reasonable prospect of these requirements being satisfied, at least for the foreseeable future. In these circumstances, the practical benefits of approving this DAP as a planning instrument to guide development in the area would be questionable. Given these circumstances, it is recommended that the applicant of the undetermined DAP be invited to withdraw the plan, with the submission fee being refunded, and with regard to the previously approved DAP (submitted by a different applicant) the City should seek the modification of the plan to remove the smaller lots fronting Stack Street from the coordinated development and service upgrading requirements of the previously approved plan. This would reflect the likely scenario of the smaller lots remaining in current uses and only being developed on a more incremental basis consistent with available services. In the future, if one or more of the smaller lot owners decided to propose major higher intensity redevelopment, they would be required to submit a separate DAP covering the land in question to demonstrate an integrated approach to redevelopment and demonstrate that they have made satisfactory arrangements at their own expense for the provision of required service infrastructure. Clause 6.2.15.8 of LPS4 contains provisions enabling the City to vary a detailed area plan, subject to following procedures relating to advertising set out in LPS4. The City’s legal advisors have confirmed that this power of variation is not confined to DAP’s prepared by the City in the first instance – the City can also vary DAP’s previously prepared by landowners. A further report could be presented to Council dealing with modifications to the previous DAP if Council supports the recommended course of action at this stage.


Page 57

Precincts 1 and 4 of the structure plan area also comprise a number of smaller lots in separate ownerships, which would not be connected to upgraded services if the revised approach to upgrading services to the large land parcels only as recommended earlier in this report was to be implemented. However, if in the future a number of owners in either or both precincts wished to undertake major development they would also have the option of preparing a DAP covering the land in question to demonstrate an integrated approach to redevelopment and satisfactory arrangements at the owners’ own expense for the provision of required service infrastructure. CONCLUSION The large number of separate landowners in Development Area 1, the variable level of existing services across the area and the diverse attitudes and intentions of different owners as reflected in consultation responses has made it clear that implementation of a uniform development contribution scheme across the whole area as originally contemplated will be extremely difficult to achieve. Consequently Council is recommended to endorse the alternative approach of seeking to secure a voluntary agreement between the four owners of the largest land parcels in the area (including the City itself) to co-fund the infrastructure improvements necessary to enable the redevelopment of their land. Related modifications to detailed area plan requirements could be made as described in this report to reflect this revised approach to servicing and enable individual owners of smaller lots to maintain existing land uses which are already serviced, but requiring them to satisfy service upgrading and detailed area planning requirements at their own expense if, at a future date, they were to propose major redevelopment as allowed for under the structure plan.


Page 58

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

1. Note the submissions received in response to preliminary consultation with landowners in Development Area 1 (DA1) regarding a draft Local Planning Scheme amendment to introduce development contribution area provisions into Local Planning Scheme No. 4;

2. Resolve to not proceed with initiation of a Local Planning Scheme

amendment to apply development contribution area provisions to the whole of Development Area 1 as referred to in (1) above; and instead proceed with an alternative approach of providing upgraded infrastructure to service only the land parcels numbered 1 to 4 and shaded on the plan below, by means of a voluntary legal agreement between the owners of the identified land.

3. Authorise officers to undertake further discussions with the owners of the land referred to in (2) above regarding their participation in a voluntary infrastructure cost sharing arrangement and the scope of works and payment arrangements to be included in such an agreement, and report back to Council on the outcome of these discussions.


Page 59

4. Invite the applicant of the currently undetermined proposed Detailed Area Plan (DAP) (submitted December 2008) relating to land bounded by Knutsford Street, Wood Street, Stack Street and Amherst Street (Precinct 5 of the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan area) to withdraw the proposed DAP, with the application fee to be refunded if the applicant does withdraw the plan. In the event that the applicant declines to withdraw the proposed DAP a further report will be presented to the next available Planning Services Committee and Council meeting to enable the DAP to be determined.

5. Authorise officers to prepare a further report to Council regarding

modifications required to be made to the Detailed Area Plan for Precinct 5 of the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan area previously approved on 23 February 2009 as a consequence of the revised approach to infrastructure upgrading referred to in (2) and (3) above; with the modifications to address the following matters:

• Recognise parts of the existing Precinct 5 DAP area which are

unlikely to be comprehensively redeveloped or have existing service infrastructure upgraded in the foreseeable future.

• Make provision for dealing with the transitional area between the parts of Precinct 5 which are likely to undergo major redevelopment at a higher density, and the parts which are unlikely to be redeveloped.

• Revised development staging requirements to reflect other changes to the DAP.



Page 60

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 PSC1106-114 THOMPSON ROAD NO.3/84 (LOT 209), NORTH FREMANTLE TWO

STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (MS DA0354/10) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 15 June 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Development Plans Date Received: 1 March 2011 Owner Name: E. Deluca Submitted by: Daniel Loma Design Scheme: Mixed Use R25 Heritage Listing: Nil Existing Landuse: Nil Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 61

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a two storey Single House at No.3/84 Thompson Road, North Fremantle. The application is presented before Planning Services Committee as a submission has been received throughout the consultation period regarding potential impacts associated with the proposed departures from the Acceptable Development criteria of Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LSP4) the R-Codes and relevant Local Planning Policy. The proposal and incorporates variations to the Acceptable Development criteria pertaining to Overshadowing, Boundary Setbacks and Boundary Walls. The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Mixed Use’ R25 under the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme 4 (LPS4), and is located in the city block bounded by Christina Parade, Lime Street, and Thompson Road. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List but is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Precinct, a designated Heritage Area in accordance with clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is located on the western side of Thompson Road, North Fremantle with an east-west orientation. The topography on site is relatively flat as the site has been graded and levelled through subdivision. The subject site is currently vacant. The subject site forms part of the subdivision of No.86 Thompson Road, approved on the 12 May 2005. The applicant was awarded a density bonus for the removal of a non conforming use. As a result the subdivision of No.86 Thompson Road was approved with undersized lots inconsistent with R-Coding of the Site. The subject site has an area of approximately 271m², which is 49m² less than the required 320m² minimum area requirements for a subdivision at an R25 density. Accordingly the subject site is more consistent with an R30 density. DETAIL The applicant is seeking planning approval for the construction of a two storey single house to be constructed at No.3/84 Thompson Road, North Fremantle. The development is to be of a concealed roof construction built predominantly to the northern and southern side boundaries on the ground floor and is to be constructed of rendered brickwork and matrix cladding. The proposed development plans are enclosed as an attachment to this report (Attachment 1).


Page 62

CONSULTATION

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and the City’s L.P.P1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the closure of the advertising period, being the 28 March 2011, one submission was received raising the concerns in regard to the extent of the overshadowing provided. The content of these concerns will be discussed further in the planning comment section below. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Residential Design Codes The development has been assessed against and complies with the relevant ‘Acceptable Development’ criteria of the R-Codes with the exception of Design Element 6.3.1 Buildings setback from boundary, 6.3.2 Buildings on boundary, and 6.9.1 Solar access for adjoining sites. Council Policy The following Council Policies are of relevance to the assessment of this application: • L.P.P2.4 Boundary Walls in residential development; • D.G.N3 Stirling Highway, Thompson Road, Coventry Parade and Craig Street Local

Area; • L.P.P3.10 Thompson Road. The assessment against L.P.P2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development and L.P.P3.10 Thompson Road is discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section below. The application has been assessed against and is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of D.G.N3 Stirling Highway, Thompson Road, Coventry Parade and Craig Street Local Area.

PLANNING COMMENT

The applicant is seeking discretionary decisions in relation to Design Element 6.3.1 Buildings on Boundary and 6.9.1 Solar Access for Adjoining Sites. As a result, these components require an assessment against the respective Performance Criteria of the R-Codes. The discretionary decisions sought are discussed further below:


Page 63

Overshadowing As discussed previously, during the consultation period, a submission was received in relation to the extent of the proposed overshadowing. Initially, the applicant was proposing an overshadowing figure of 53%; accordingly after the submission was received these concerns were conveyed to the applicant who resultantly provided amended plans on the 23 May 2011. The amended plans depicted a projected overshadowing as follows: Maximum Permitted Provided Variation Shadow Cast (as per R25)

25% (67.75m²) 39% (105.9m²) 14% (38.15m²)

The proposed dwelling located on the subject site will overshadow the southern adjoining property is in excess of the maximum requirements stipulated in Design Element 6.9.1 of the R-Codes. As a result, this component requires an assessment against the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.9.1, which state: “Development designed to protect solar access for neighbouring properties taking into account the potential to overshadow: • outdoor living area; • major opening to habitable rooms; • solar collectors; or • balconies or verandahs”. As previously mentioned, the subject site is of a site area less than that normally associated with a R25 density coding (i.e. less than the minimum lot size of 320sqm). The site area of the subject site and adjoining sites at 271m² are consistent with the prescribed site areas of a R30 density coding. The R-Codes permit overshadowing of adjoining properties with a density coding of R30 up to 35%. Therefore the level of overshadowing proposed would be a variation of 0.6% to the density coding consistent with the site area. The City’s L.P.P3.10 has recognised this inconsistency between the site area and zoning thus provides more relaxed requirements in respect to the Acceptable Development requirements of the R-Codes. The requirements of L.P.P3.10 are more in line with the density of the subdivision as opposed to the applied coding, however the Council is unable to amend the overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes thus this element remains unchanged. In addition to the reduced density requirements, the subject site also has a Western Power easement that burdens the front of the site. Accordingly the easements restrict the developable area of the subject site so development is concentrated closer to the rear of the site.


Page 64

Overall, the aforementioned constraints on the site can be attributed as much to the proposed overshadowing the proposed development itself, however this does not remove the need for consideration to be given to possible northern sunlight access for the southern adjoining site. In this regard, it is worth noting that the overshadowing projections are taken from the midday on the 21 of June, therefore calculations are based on worst case scenario. The outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property is located to the western side of the site and is covered by the second storey element of the approved dwelling; as a result it is important that access to sunlight for the alfresco area of the southern adjoining dwelling is maintained. In observing the modifications made to the proposal, the manner in which the first floor is setback minimises the extent of overshadow cast onto the outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property and is considered to be an improvement on the overshadowing associated with the previous plans. Accordingly, in considering the area of the alfresco overshadowed by the approved southern adjoining site onto itself, the proposal for the subject site itself will only contribute a further 1.1m² of overshadow to the alfresco area of the southern adjoining site. The majority of the shadow cast by the proposed dwelling will project onto the approved ground floor parapet wall of the southern adjoining site. Accordingly the extent of the impact on major openings of the southern adjoining site is seen to be largely reduced due to the configuration of the upper floor. The proposal will not overshadow solar collectors, balconies or verandahs of the southern adjoing site. For the reasons outlined above, the proposal is considered to meet the performance criteria of Design Element 6.9.1. Boundary Setbacks The applicant is proposing the following departures from the Acceptable Development Criteria of Design Element 6.3.1: Required Provided Variation Northern Elevation Upper Floor (Balcony Component) 3 metres

1 – 1.2 m

1.8 – 2 m

Southern Elevation Upper Floor – 2metres

1 – 2.89m

1m – Nil

The proposed reduced setbacks have been assessed against the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.3.2.


Page 65

The Performance Criteria of the R-Codes relating to boundary setbacks state: “Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; • ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; • assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; • assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and • assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.” Northern Boundary Setbacks The proposed boundary setbacks are considered to provide for direct sun and ventilation to the proposed dwelling as well any future dwelling located on the western adjoining site. As the component associated with the reduced setback is to be comprised largely of louvers the proposal is not anticipated to have any significant impact in terms of building bulk. Furthermore, the proposal is not anticipated to significantly impact on the amenity of the adjoining property nor restrict the development potential of the adjoining lot. Given the wall is located on the northern side of the site; the reduced setback proposed will not contribute to the increased overshadowing of the southern adjoining site. Overall the proposed western boundary setback is considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes. Southern Boundary Setback The proposed setback is not anticipated to limit ventilation to the subject site nor the southern adjoining property. The variation proposed has been reduced as a result of concerns raised throughout the consultation period. The original proposal specified the southern elevation to be 14.7m in length and setback at 1.3m, with a small component reduced to 1m from the southern boundary. The revised plans show a length of 12.3m setback at 1.3m, with the remaining component of the elevation adjacent to the southern adjoining outdoor living area setback at 2.8m. This has reduced the impact on the adjoining property in respect to building bulk and has contributed to reducing the extent of overshadowing to the southern adjoining outdoor living area. Adjacent to the southern side setback variation, the corresponding area on the southern adjoining site is comprised of a boundary wall on the ground floor and no major openings on the northern adjoining site. Furthermore, it is important when assessing the discretionary decision sought that the constraints on the site are also recognised. Overall the proposed reduced setback is considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.3.1 of the R-Codes.


Page 66

Buildings on Boundary The applicant is proposing a boundary walls to be located on the northern and southern boundaries of the subject site. Elevation Height Length Northern Elevation Ground Floor Upper Floor

3.3m 5.7m

10.4m 4.1m

Southern Elevation Ground Floor

3.3m

11.5m

The wall to be located on the northern boundary is comprised of components on both the ground and first floor. The component located on the northern side is to be 10.4m in length and 3.3m in height which ties into the first floor component which is to be a total of 5.7m high and 4.1m in length. The boundary wall proposed on the southern boundary is to be 11.5m in length and 3.3m in height located forward on the subject site. The proposed boundary walls do not abut an existing constructed boundary wall of similar or greater dimension and are not specifically permitted under LPS4 or any other Council Policy, as a result requires a performance based assessment. Council’s LPP 2.4 states: “When considering an application under the performance criteria in clause 6.3.2P2 of the Residential Design Codes, the Council is required to consider a number of specified matters, including whether a boundary wall is desirable in order to not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property”. The proposed boundary walls were advertised to the northern and southern adjoining neighbours, at the conclusion of the advertising period no submissions were received. L.P.P2.4 outlines the following criteria for consideration when assessing the impact of a boundary wall on adjoining properties: • access to daylight and ventilation to major openings; • access to direct sunlight and ventilation to outdoor living areas; • sense of confinement due to accessible cumulative building bulk; • existing trees or vegetation; • access to views of significance. It is acknowledged that of the proposed boundary walls, the southern boundary wall is more likely to have an impact on the adjoining property in regard to the above criteria. The boundary located on the northern side of the site is not anticipated to have any significant impact on the northern adjoining neighbour in regard to the above.


Page 67

Notwithstanding, the proposed boundary walls are required to be assessed against the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.3.2. The Performance Criteria of this provision states as follows: “Buildings built up to the boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to: • make effective use of space; or • enhance privacy; or • otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; • not have any significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property; and • ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas

of adjoining properties is not restricted”. Southern Boundary Wall Given that boundary walls are not specifically permitted in this locality, consideration shall be afforded to any impact the southern boundary wall may cause on the southern adjoining neighbour. It should be noted that the proposed wall itself does not significantly contribute to the overshadowing of the southern adjoining site as the upper floor contributes to a greater extent of overshadowing. Furthermore, if the wall was setback to comply with the Codes, the overshadowing variation would still exist to the same extent. Accordingly, the proposed southern boundary wall is supported in accordance with the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.3.2 for the following reasons: • Due to aforementioned development constraints (Western Power Easement) the

proposed boundary wall is considered to make effective use of space on the subject site;

• As the wall is single storey and largely proposed abutting an existing boundary wall, the wall is not anticipated to have any significant impact on the adjoining neighbours in terms of building bulk;

• The proposed boundary wall will not individually restrict direct sunlight to any outdoor living areas or major openings;

• The proposed boundary wall is not anticipated to restrict direct sunlight to any outdoor living areas or major openings due to the forward location of the wall on the site;

Overall, the proposed southern boundary wall is considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes and Council’s L.P.P2.4 Boundary Walls Policy.


Page 68

Northern Boundary Walls The proposed northern boundary walls are supported in accordance with the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.3.2 for the following reasons: • Due to aforementioned development constraints (Western Power Easement) the

proposed boundary wall is considered to make effective use of space on the subject site;

• Given that the wall is predominantly single storey, with a small first floor component, the proposal is not anticipated to have any significant impact on the adjoining neighbours in terms of building bulk, thus not impacting the amenity of adjoining neighbours;

• The northern boundary wall will not restrict direct sunlight to any outdoor living areas or major openings as the shadow from this wall falls onto the subject site;

Overall, the proposed northern boundary wall is considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes and Council’s L.P.P2.4 Boundary Walls Policy. CONCLUSION

The proposed two storey single house at No.3/84 Thompson Road requires the Council to consider the discretionary decisions sought in light of the development constraints existing on site. As discussed previously a Western Power easement burdens the Thompson Road frontage of the site which restricts the development potential within this area. This situation is further exacerbated by lot sizes that are less than the minimum prescribed by the density coding of the site. As a result the proposed development requires a number of performance based assessments for variations from the Acceptable Development provisions of the R-Codes, this in addition with the east-west orientation of the lot results in the property being prone to increased overshadowing. As discussed previously the proposed amendments to the proposal are considered to minimise the potential impact on the southern adjoining property which is considered to be a positive outcome given the constraints that exist on site. The proposal is considered to meet the relevant Acceptable Development of the R-Codes other than the discretionary decisions sought in relation to Design Element 6.3.1, 6.3.2 and 6.9.1. For the reasons outlined within the ‘Planning Comment’ section above, it is considered that the proposed discretionary components should be supported since they meet the relevant ‘Performance Criteria’ of the R-Codes and Council Policy. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval.


Page 69


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No.3/84 (Lot 209) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, with the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 16 December 2010. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the northern and southern

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

Advisory Notes: i) This planning decision is confined to the authority of the Planning and

Development Act 2005 and the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme 4. This decision does not remove the obligation of the applicant and/or property owner to ensure that all other required local government approvals are first obtained, all other applicable state and federal legislation is complied with, and any restrictions, easements, or encumbrances are adhered to.

ii) This planning approval has been issued on the basis of the plans hereby

approved. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the approved plans are accurate and are a true representation of all existing and proposed development on the site, and to ensure that development proceeds in accordance with these plans.



Page 70

Cr D Haney vacated the chamber at 8.34 pm. PSC1106-109 WOOD STREET NO.6/55 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE TWO STOREY

SINGLE HOUSE (MS DA0131/11) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 15 June 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans Date Received: 22 March 2011 Owner Name: C & E Anda

Submitted by: As Above Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Nil Existing Landuse: Nil Use Class: Single House (Proposed) Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 71

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a two storey Single House at No.6/55 Wood Street, Fremantle. The application is presented before Planning Services Committee as submissions have been received throughout the consultation period regarding potential impacts associated with departures from the Acceptable Development criteria of Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LSP4) the R-Codes and relevant Local Planning Policy with variations proposed in relation to the Street Walls and Fences, Buildings Setback from Boundary, Buildings on Boundary and Visual Privacy. The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential R25’ under the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme 4 (LPS4), and is located on the western side of Wood Street, Fremantle. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List nor is it located within a designated Heritage Area in accordance with clause 7.2 of LPS4. The topography on site is relatively flat and is currently vacant. DETAIL The applicant is seeking planning approval for the construction of a two storey single house to be constructed at No.6/55 Wood Street, Fremantle. The development is to be of a rendered brick, corrugated colourbond and painted cement sheet construction. The proposed development plans are enclosed as an attachment to this report (Attachment 1).


Page 72

CONSULTATION

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and the City’s L.P.P1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the closure of the advertising period, being the 14 April 2011, two submissions had been received. The content of the submissions are summarised below: Submission 1 Visual Privacy concerns associated with the northern studio window

located on the first floor; Submission 2 Visual Privacy concerns associated with west facing stairway

window on the western elevation of the first floor, further concerns raised in regard to the bulk and scale associated with the proposed western boundary wall.

The content of these concerns will be discussed further in the planning comment section below. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Residential Design Codes The development has been assessed against and complies with the relevant ‘Acceptable Development’ criteria of the R-Codes with the exception of Design Element 6.2.5 Street Walls and Fences, 6.3.1 Buildings Setback from Boundary, 6.3.2 Buildings on Boundary, and 6.8.1 Visual Privacy. Council Policy The following Council Policies are of relevance to the assessment of this application:

• L.P.P2.4 Boundary Walls in residential development; • L.P.P2.8 Fences Policy.

The assessment against these policies will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Street Walls and Fences It is noted on the section and perspective drawings provided the applicant has indicated a 1.8m fence within the front setback area. However this has not been indicated on all provided drawings. This component is inconsistent with the requirements of the Design Element 6.2.5 of the R-Codes and the City’s Local Planning Policy L.P.P2.8 Fences Policy. As a result a condition will be included recommending that this component not be included as a part of the approval.


Page 73

Buildings Setback from Boundary The applicant is proposing the following departures from the Acceptable Development Criteria of Design Element 6.3.1: Required Provided Variation Southern Elevation Ground Floor – 1.5metres

0.9 – 1.5 metres (at closest point)

0.6 metres - Nil

The proposed reduced setbacks have been assessed against the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.3.2. The Performance Criteria of the R-Codes relating to boundary setbacks state: “Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; • ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; • assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; • assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and • assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.” In relation to the southern setback, the required 1.5m as per Design Element 6.3.1 of the R-Codes is observed for part of the setback, whilst there are components of the elevation protruding 0.6m into the setback area. The components in departure of the Acceptable Development criteria are not considered to limit ventilation to the subject site, nor the southern adjoining property. Given that this departure is only associated with a single storey component of the dwelling, any impacts associated with bulk and overshadowing are largely negligible. Furthermore, reduced setback will act to increase privacy between the primary outdoor living areas of the southern adjoining site and the subject site. It is on this basis that the proposed setback is considered to fulfil the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.3.1 of the R-Codes. Buildings on Boundary The applicant is proposing two boundary walls to be located on the northern and western boundaries of the subject site. The wall to be located on the northern boundary is to be 4.27m in length and between 3.1m to 3.5m in height. The boundary wall proposed on the western boundary is to be 4.34m in length and between 3.1m to 3.5m in height.


Page 74

The proposed boundary walls do not abut existing constructed boundary walls of similar or greater dimensions and are not specifically permitted under LPS4 or any other Council Policy, as a result require a performance based assessment in accordance with Design Element 6.3.2 of the R-Codes. Council’s LPP 2.4 states: “When considering an application under the performance criteria in clause 6.3.2P2 of the Residential Design Codes, the Council is required to consider a number of specified matters, including whether a boundary wall is desirable in order to not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property”. The proposed boundary walls were advertised to the northern and western adjoining neighbours. L.P.P2.4 outlines the following criteria for consideration when assessing the impact of a boundary wall on adjoining properties: • access to daylight and ventilation to major openings; • access to direct sunlight and ventilation to outdoor living areas; • sense of confinement due to accessible cumulative building bulk; • existing trees or vegetation; • access to views of significance. As previously discussed, the proposed boundary walls are to be assessed against the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.3.2 of the R-Codes. The Performance Criteria of this Design Element states as follows: “Buildings built up to the boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to: • make effective use of space; or • enhance privacy; or • otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; • not have any significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property; and • ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas

of adjoining properties is not restricted”.


Page 75

The proposed northern and western boundary walls are supported in accordance with the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.3.2 for the following reasons: • At present the western boundary wall is located adjacent to an existing outbuilding on

the western adjoining property, which will act ameliorate and impacts associated with bulk associated with this structure;

• Planning Approval has been granted for four Grouped Dwellings on the western adjoining site. The approved plans indicate that the area adjacent to the proposed parapet wall will contain an access area and blank wall. Given the boundary wall will not affect any major openings or outdoor living areas, the impact on the adjoining property is considered to be minimal;

• As the walls are single storey, they are not anticipated to have any significant impact on the adjoining neighbours in terms of building bulk, thus not impacting the amenity of adjoining neighbours;

• The boundary walls are seen to make effective use of space on site as they allow for a greater amount of functional space to be encompassed into the dwelling, as opposed to providing side setbacks which are generally difficult to effectively utilise;

• The northern boundary wall is not anticipated to restrict direct sunlight to any outdoor living areas or major openings on the subject site or adjoining properties due to the forward location and alignment of the wall on the site;

• The western boundary wall will not restrict direct sunlight to any outdoor living areas or major openings on the subject site or adjoining sites due to the alignment and location of the wall.

Overall, the proposed northern and western boundary walls are considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes and Council’s L.P.P2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development. Visual Privacy The applicant has proposed major openings on the first floor of the existing that do not meet the Acceptable Development criteria of Design Element 6.8.1 of the R-Codes. It is considered that the major openings located on the northern and southern elevations of the first floor, associated with the studio and bedroom respectively, may contribute to an impact on the amenity of the northern and southern adjoining neighbours. On this basis a condition will be recommended pertaining to the openings on the northern and southern elevations of the first floor being modified to meet the Acceptable Development criteria of Design Element 6.8.1.


Page 76

CONCLUSION The proposal is considered to meet the relevant Acceptable Development of the R-Codes other than the discretionary decisions sought in relation to Design Element 6.2.5, 6.3.1, 6.3.2 and 6.8.1. For the reasons outlined within the ‘Planning Comment’ section above, it is considered that the proposed discretionary components should be supported since they meet the relevant ‘Performance Criteria’ of the R-Codes and Council Policy, or are otherwise addressed through conditions of Planning Approval. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No.6/55 (Lot 3) Wood Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 22 March 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. This approval does not include approval for the front fence as indicated on the

approved plans. The construction of the front fence specified will result in the commencement of legal action by the City of Fremantle without further notice in accordance with the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy L.P.P1.5 - Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance Policy.

4. Prior to occupation, the upper level window(s) on the northern and southern

elevations shall be fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.65 metres above the upper floor level or alternatively a minimum sill height of 1.65 metres as determined from the internal floor level to prevent overlooking in accordance with Clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

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


Page 77

CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Cr Dave Coggin Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 78

Cr D Haney returned to the meeting at 8.36 pm. The following item number PSC1106-108, PSC1106-112, PSC1106-115, PSC1106-116 and PSC1106-118 were moved and carried en bloc. PSC1106-108 DOURO ROAD NO. 25 (LOT 95) SOUTH FREMANTLE - PROPOSED

CHANGE IN DAYS AND HOURS OF OPERATION FOR EXISTING APPROVED RESTARUANT USE (SS DA0143/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Coordinator Planning Mediation Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Meeting Date: 15 June 2011 Previous Item Number/s: PSC1009-163 Attachment 1: Covering letter Date Received: 30 March 2011 Owner Name: Lisa Ramakrishnan & Naimish Patel Submitted by: Timothy Grey-Smith Scheme: Neighbourhood Centre Heritage Listing: Heritage List (LPS4) and Management Cat. Level 3 (MHI) Existing Land use: Restaurant Use Class: Restaurant Use Permissibility: A


Page 79

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The development application is referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) meeting for determination as a submission was received of which the concerns outlined cannot be resolved via conditions of approval. Planning approval was granted in 1986 (1986 approval) for the site to be used for restaurant purposes. At its meeting held on the 22 September 2010, Council granted its Planning Approval (2010 approval) to the proposed change in hours and days of operation for the existing restaurant use, as well as new signage. A new application for Planning Approval (2011 application) has been received that is seeking planning approval for the restaurant to trade with modified days/hours of operation as follows: • Wednesday night – from 6pm to 10pm; and • Closed on Sunday night. The change in the trading day/time period was advertised to those property owners/occupiers within a 100m radius of the site. After the close of the submission period, 1 submission had been received objecting to the proposal. The primary issue raised relates to noise from the site. There have been no complaints received in recent times relating to the restaurant operation, in particular, issues associated with noise from the site. In spite of this, the matter has been referred to the City’s Health section for further investigation. Overall, it is considered that the application to change trading from Sunday evenings to Wednesday evenings could be approved as it raises no new planning issues. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned Neighbourhood Centre and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area as described in Schedule 12 of the City’s LPS4. The site is listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Management Category Level 3 due to the property’s contribution to the streetscape, local area and Fremantle as a collective whole. The property is also listed on the City’s Heritage List under LPS4. The subject site is located on the south-western corner of Douro Road and Thomas Street, and coupled with the properties to the west, are within the Neighbourhood Centre Zone. Although the property at No. 23 Douro Road is zoned Neighbourhood Centre, the property is used for residential purposes. The land immediately to the south of the site (1 Thomas Street) and located on the western side of Thomas Street are all zoned Residential. On the 19 March 1986, conditional Planning Approval (DA2/86) was granted under Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS2) for a Restaurant use on the development site. The development site has been used for restaurant purposes for most of that time.


Page 80

At its meeting held on the 22 September 2010, Council granted its approval to the proposed change in operating days and hours of operation of the approved restaurant use. The relevant condition of approval relating to operating days/hours/seating capacity, condition b), is shown below:

b) The hours and days of operation of the restaurant, and the seating capacity of the restaurant, shall be restricted as follows:

PERMITTED DAYS OF

OPERATION PERMITTED HOURS

OF OPERATION MAXIMUM SEATING

CAPACITY Daytime hours

Monday – Friday 7:00am – 4:00pm 40 Seats Saturday and Sunday 7:00am – 4:00pm 60 Seats Evening/Night time hours

Thursday to Sunday 6:00pm – 10:00pm 60 Seats

DETAILS The City has received an application for the proposed following change to the operating hours of the approved restaurant use on the subject site. The application is in effect, a proposal to alter condition b) of the 2010 approval for the site. A table of the proposed hours of operation is shown below:

PERMITTED DAYS OF OPERATION

PERMITTED HOURS OF OPERATION

MAXIMUM SEATING CAPACITY

Daytime hours


Wednesday to Saturday 6:00pm – 10:00pm 60 Seats The only change to the days of operation is that the portion of the table that stated “Thursday to Sunday” has been modified to “Wednesday to Saturday”. The proposed hours of operation and seating numbers for Wednesday night, are the same as that originally approved for Sunday night trading. The covering letter (Attachment 1) sets out the grounds for the proposed change, which are summarised as follows: • Customer feedback is a greater preference for Wednesday night trading rather than

Sunday night; and • No amenity impact expected and considered to be a positive impact as it reduces

weekend trading.


Page 81

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Local Planning Scheme No.4 The application is for a change of the previously approved days of operation. Clause 10.2 of LPS4 is the primary clause for consideration of this application. CONSULTATION Community In accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and the City’s LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals Policy, the current planning application, which sought to change the approved days of operation from Sunday night to Wednesday night was advertised for public comment. There were 93 letters sent out and at the conclusion of the advertising period, being 5 May 2011, the City had received 1 written submission. The following issues were raised: • There are no details on noise attenuating proposals for the roof/ceiling area on the

inside of the restaurant; • Controls on the side door that to control noise levels from people dining; and • No mention of noise levels coming from people working in the kitchen area until

midnight every week. PLANNING COMMENT

Proposed Change to Days and Hours of Operation The original 1986 approval for the site to be used as a restaurant, allowed the restaurant to operate 7 days a week and between certain hours. The 2010 approval reduced the approved hours of operation - refer to the background section of this report for the approved 2010 hours of operation. The current proposal seeks to permit trading on Wednesday evening in lieu of the approved Sunday evening trading hours. The proposed change in the days/hours of operation are generally considered to be reasonable hours for a restaurant in terms of trading hours. Since the commencement of the operation of the restaurant with the current operator, the City has not received any formal complaints in relation to the operation of the restaurant. The current application is to transfer the Sunday night trading period to a Wednesday night. Such a change raises no new planning issues. Issues raised during submission process The following comments are made in relation to the issues raised during the submission process: Controls on the side door to control noise levels from people dining


Page 82

This matter relates to a door to the area identified as “proposed dining” that was shown on the plans originally submitted with the 2010 planning application. This area cannot be used for dining purposes based on the following condition of approval that was imposed on the 2010 approval:

a) This approval does not permit the use of the rear enclosure or rear courtyard for dining purposes. Any proposal for the use of these areas shall be the subject of a separate application for planning approval.

It is proposed to include the same condition in the recommendation of approval. No mention of noise levels coming from people working in the kitchen area until midnight every week. The City does not have any recent complaints with the operation of the site, in particular, the kitchen area. However, as this is a matter that has been raised during the consultation process, the matter has been referred to the Health section for further investigation as it relates only to a change in the trading evening from Sunday to Wednesday. In any event, noise emanating from the site is required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Conclusion The existing site has been approved for restaurant use since 1986. Council granted its Planning Approval to a proposed change in the operation to the restaurant, in particular, to the days and hours of operation in 2010. The current proposal is to change the approved 2010 trading time from Sunday night to Wednesday night only. The proposed change is supported having regard to the:

• proposed move away from trading on a Sunday evening; • no new planning issues arising; and • lack of issues raised during the extensive consultation process.


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the proposed change in the approved days and hours of operation for the existing restaurant at No. 25 (Lot 95) Douro Road, South Fremantle, as set out in the application received on the 30 March 2011, subject to the following conditions:

1) This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 30 March 2011 and subject to the other conditions of this Planning Approval. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.


Page 83

2) This approval does not permit the use of the rear enclosure or rear courtyard for dining purposes. Any proposal for the use of these areas shall be the subject of a separate application for planning approval.

3) The modified hours and days of operation of the restaurant, and the

seating capacity of the restaurant, shall be restricted as follows:

PERMITTED DAYS OF OPERATION

PERMITTED HOURS OF OPERATION

MAXIMUM SEATING CAPACITY

Daytime hours


Wednesday to Saturday 6:00pm – 10:00pm 60 Seats

4) Once acted upon, this approval supersedes the 1986 Planning Approval

(DA2/86). 5) Prior to the re-commencement of the approved use under this approval,

a Management Plan for the site shall be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, and the operation of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Management Plan. The Management Plan shall cover the following areas of operation of the restaurant, including but not limited to the following: · location and timing of deliveries, · rubbish storage and removal, · minimising of odours from the kitchen; and · modifying the seating capacity during the different hours of

operation to reflect the approved hours of operation/seating capacity.

6) The proposed sign shall not contain any flashing or moving lights at any

time. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Dave Coggin Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 84

PSC1106-112 JAMES STREET NO. 12-14 (LOT 106) SOUTH FREMANTLE

TEMPORARY CHANGE OF USE TO OFFICE (ES DA0203/11) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 15 June 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Accompanying Submission Date Received: 4 May 2011 Owner Name: J & J Everett Submitted by: Conservation Volunteers Australia Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: MHI Level 2 Existing Landuse: Commercial Premises Use Class: Office Use Permissibility: X


Page 85

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination as the applicant seeks Temporary Approval under Clause 10.6 of LPS4 for an “X” land use. BACKGROUND

The site of the subject application is located at No. 12 James Street, Fremantle (the site). The 104m2 site is located on the northern side of James Street and contains an existing heritage listed commercial premises. The site is zoned Residential R25 under the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the Fremantle Local Planning Area. The City’s records contain the following relevant history pertaining to the site is applicable to this application. 26 January 1977 The City conditionally Approved ‘Showroom/Office/Open Air

Display’ at the subject site. 21 December 1981 The City conditionally Approved ‘Pottery Studio, workshop

and caretaker’s flat’ at the subject site under the provisions of TPS2. At this time, the site was located within an area zoned ‘Warehousing’.

DETAILS On the 4 May 2011 the City received an application involving Change of Use to Office at the subject site. Given the site is currently zoned “Residential” under the provisions of LPS4, the proposed land use is not permitted (“X” use). On this basis, the applicant seeks temporary approval in accordance with Clause 10.6.1 of LPS4 that states, ‘despite any other provision of the Scheme to the contrary, if the Council considers that any use should be permitted on any land temporarily, it may give Planning Approval strictly limited in time as a temporary use’. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION In accordance with L.P.P 1.3 relating to Public Notification of Planning Proposals and Clause 10.6.3 of LPS4 relating to Temporary Approval, the City advertised the application for 14 days concluding on 24 May 2011. The City did not receive any submissions during the advertising period. PLANNING COMMENT Within a Residential Zone, an “Office” use is an “X” use in accordance with the Zoning table, therefore the proposed use is not permitted at the subject site. Notwithstanding the above, the subject site has particular characteristics whereby the approval of the use on a temporary basis is consistent with the objectives of the scheme and is not considered to have any significant undue amenity on the adjoining properties or locality generally.


Page 86

The site provides the required number of car parking bays for the “Office” use in accordance with Table 3 of LPS4. The site has been used for commercial land uses since at least 1977, and is located directly adjacent to sites that a mix of intensive commercial uses and residential dwellings. The proposed Office use will not have any significant impact on the residential amenity of the area given several of the adjoining sites within the residentially zoned land are also used for commercial purposes. The landowner is in the process of initiating a scheme amendment to rezone the site to “Mixed Use”. The applicant has received “in principle” support for this amendment given the nature of the site and locality generally from the Planning Services Committee on 6th April 2011. Clause 10.6 of LPS4 indicates that despite the scheme provisions, if Council considers that any used should be permitted on any land temporarily it may give Planning Approval strictly limited in time as a temporary use. L.P.P1.5 - Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance As the application is retrospective in nature an assessment is required to undertaken against the provisions of Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.5 – Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance Policy. The policy states that where the property has been brought into compliance within the specified time period, in most cases, the Council will not prosecute. However, where in the opinion of the Manager Development Services there is a broader public interest in undertaking legal action, a report will be prepared for the Council to consider further prosecution action. Clause 1.1 of LPP 1.5 relates to Discretionary Criteria, in addition to the specific criteria set out in this policy. Council, in determining whether to take compliance action, shall have regard to the following general criteria:

(a) Whether it is in the public interest of the proper and orderly development and use of land that the applicable law(s) should generally be complied with;

(b) the impact of the contravention of the law on the effected locality and environment. This includes a consideration of whether the breach complained of is purely technical in nature which is unnoticeable other than to a person well versed in the relevant law;

(c) those factual circumstances in which the contravention of the law took place;

(d) the time which has elapsed since development was undertaken in

contravention of the law, and

(e) the expense and inconvenience which would be involved in remedying the contravention of the law.


Page 87

In addition to this, Clause 2.3.3 of the LPP 1.5 policy stipulates Circumstances Where Council May Take No Further Compliance Action, including the following relevant criteria:

(a) The breach is in relation to a fence, outbuilding, shade structure, external fixture, air conditioner, or minor structure as defined in Schedule 1 of LPS4;

and

(b) It can be established that the development the subject of the breach has been in existence for a substantial time period; and

(c) The development has no apparent impact on the amenity of adjoining

properties, the streetscape, or the locality; and (d) The development is, in the opinion of the Principal Building Surveyor,

structurally sound. In relation to clauses 1.1 and 2.3.3 of the policy, it is considered that further compliance action is not justified in this instance as:

1. It is not in the public interest; 2. The breach is not likely to be noticed to anyone other than someone familiar with

the development approval history of the site; 3. Commercial uses including “Office” uses have occupied the subject site as

indicated within the City’s records for a substantial period of time; 4. If this application is approved, the contravention would be remedied; 5. The applicant is not the original offender; 6. Notwithstanding that clause 2.3.3 does not refer to change of use development, the

principles of this clause are relevant including: a. The development has existed for some time; b. the development has no apparent impact on the amenity of the adjoining

properties or the locality given the predominantly mixed use nature of the locality;

c. there are not structural issues associated with the development

Given the consistency with the above provisions and intent of the L.P.P1.5 policy, an infringement is not recommended to be included as part of the Approval. 5. CONCLUSION The proposal is considered to be consistent with the provisions of LPS4 in relation to Temporary Approval as stipulated above and on this basis temporary approval of the “Office” use is recommended for a period of two years.


Page 88

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Temporary Change of Use to Office at No. 12 -14 (Lot 2) James Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

1. The approval relates only to the development and use as indicated on the approved plans dated 4 May 2011. It does not relate to any other use on this lot.

2. This approval allows the “Office” hereby permitted for a period of two (2)

years from the date of this Approval to Commence Development. 3. The signs hereby permitted shall not contain any flashing or moving light at

any time. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Dave Coggin Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 89

PSC1106-115 JOSLIN STREET NO. 11A (LOT 1108) HILTON SINGLE STOREY

GROUPED DWELLING (ES DA0125/11) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 15 June 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Attachments: Development Plans Date Received: 14 March 2011 Owner Name: D Redeckis & S Kellow Submitted by: Residential Building WA Scheme: Residential R20 Heritage Listing: N/A Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: P


Page 90

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination as the City received two objections during the community consultation period that cannot be dealt with via a condition of Planning Approval. The application proposes a Single Storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 11A Joslin Street, Hilton. The subject site is a rear survey strata lot with access via common property shared along the western side of the lot. A performance based assessment of the western and northern proposed boundary walls is required in accordance with the City’s L.P.P 2.4 policy and variations to the southern boundary and retaining wall setbacks are supported by the City’s Officers. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the provisions of the City of Fremantle’s (the City) Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) and has a density coding of R20. The site is it located within the Hilton Local Planning Area under the provisions of LPS4. The site is approximately 382m2 and is located on the southern side of Joslin Street, Hilton (the site) on a rear survey strata lot. DETAILS On 14 March 2011, the City received a development application seeking the City’s Planning Approval for a Single Storey Grouped Dwelling at the site. The proposed dwelling includes open plan living, dining and kitchen area, three bedrooms including master bedroom with ensuite. The variations to the Acceptable Development provisions of the R Codes including boundary setbacks, setback of retaining wall and an assessment of the western and northern boundary walls is contained within the Planning Comment section below. CONSULTATION – COMMUNITY The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Council’s L.P.P1.3 Public Notification of Planning Approvals policy. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 6 April 2011, the City had received two submissions. The following issues were raised:

• Further detail of northern boundary wall requested; • Power dome to be relocated; • Sewer, water and power dome to be adequately covered by a trafficable lid or

relocated; • Western boundary wall - height of wall (4 metres) and choice of brick, • Security and impact on amenity during construction.


Page 91

The applicant submitted amended plans to the City on 20 May 2011 in an attempt to respond to the comments made by the adjoining landowners during the community consultation period. The amendments included reduced western boundary wall height and clarification on the external finish of the western boundary wall. The owner is obliging to render this wall as viewed from the western adjoining property, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle. This is included as a condition of Planning Approval. In addition to this, the applicant has submitted further information in relation to the proposed northern boundary wall. A performance based assessment of this wall is contained within the Planning Comment section of this report. In relation to the location of the power dome and water and sewer facilities, the City does not have jurisdiction over these aspects of the development. Queries of this nature should be forwarded to Western Power and the Water Corporation. Site security and the impact on adjoining landowners amenity during construction is addressed at the Building Licence stage of development. PLANNING COMMENT

Residential Design Codes Design Element 6.3.1 – Boundary Setbacks Required Provided Variation South (Rear): 1.5 metres 1.357 – 2 metres 0.143 metres The rear boundary setback is supported as it is not considered to have any significant adverse impact on the amenity of the southern property. The southern building wall complies for the majority of the length of the wall however given the angle of the rear boundary, the south eastern most corner of the dwelling proposes a minor variation from the required 1.5 metre requirement. The proposed boundary setback will not result in any overshadowing, loss of ventilation of sunlight, impact on visual privacy or have any impact of building bulk on the adjoining rear property and is supported by the City’s Officers. Design Element 6.3.2 – Buildings on Boundary Provided North (Garage): 10.39 metres length, 2.6 metres height West (Verandah): 6.137 metres length, 2.8 metres height The City’s L.P.P 2.4 policy replaces the acceptable development provisions of the R Codes for Design Element 6.3.2 relating to Buildings on boundary. In assessing the proposed northern and western the City must be satisfied the proposal meets the applicable policy provisions. The original plans received by the City on 14 March 2011 proposed a 6.137 metre portion of wall to a height of 4 metres along the western boundary adjoining No. 9A Joslin Street. As mentioned above, the applicant amended the plans on 20 May 2011, whereby the proposed length of 6.137 metres was maintained but the wall height was reduced to 2.8 metres.


Page 92

The performance criteria of the R Codes states buildings built up to boundaries, where it is desirable to do to in order to make effective use of space, enhance privacy, otherwise enhance the amenity of the development, not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property and ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of adjoining properties is not restricted. Furthermore, given the north-south orientation of the development lot, the proposed walls will not result in any overshadowing of the adjoining properties as the shadow generated by the proposed walls will fall within the lot boundaries of the subject site, as measure by the R Codes. The location of the proposed boundary walls are considered desirable in order to make effective use of the space on the lot and through providing an additional northern facing outdoor living area to enhance the amenity of the dwelling for the future occupants of the dwelling. In regard to privacy, the impact of the proposed western and northern boundary walls along a portion of the western and northern lot boundary is not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining property given due to the absence of any major openings along the northern and western boundaries. The additional provisions of the City’s L.P.P 2.4 policy require Council to have consideration to the impact of the proposed wall on access to daylight and ventilation to major openings and outdoor living areas, to any sense of confinement due to cumulative building bulk, existing trees or vegetation and access to views of significance. The proposed northern and western boundary walls as mentioned above will not result in any overshadowing of the adjoining northern or western property as measured by the R Codes. Overall, the proposed western and northern boundary walls are not considered to have any significant undue impact on the amenity of the adjoining landowners given they comply with the Performance Criteria of the R Codes and the additional criteria of L.P.P 2.4. The proposed boundary walls are considered to make effective use of the lot area and will enhance the amenity of the future occupants of this dwelling, while not having any significant undue impact on the amenity of the northern and western adjoining properties and are supported on this basis. Design Element 6.3.3 – Setback of Retaining Walls Required Provided Variation South: 1 metre (0.55- 0.85 metres height)

Nil 1 metre

West: 1 metre (0.63-0.7 metres height)

Nil 1 metre


Page 93

The proposed retaining walls are required along the southern and western lot boundaries of the site in order to formalise the ground level across the sites and adjoining sites. The retaining walls are designed to minimise the impact on the adjoining properties and will not have any significant undue impact on these adjoining properties in regard to privacy and standard boundary fencing is proposed to be erected above the proposed retaining walls. CONCLUSION Overall, the development is largely compliant with the Acceptable Development provisions of the R Codes and applicable scheme and policy requirements. A performance based assessment of boundary setbacks, buildings on boundary and setback of retaining walls is supported by the City’s Officers and on this basis, the application is recommended for conditional Approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Single Storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 11A (Lot 1108) Joslin Street, Hilton, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 20 May 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.


3. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the northern and western boundaries shall be of a clean finish in sand render, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.



Page 94

PSC1106-116 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED

AUTHORITY Acting under authority delegated by the Council the Manager Development Services 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

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the information is noted. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Dave Coggin Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 95

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) PSC1106-118 RE-NAME PROPOSED PUBLIC ROAD NAME (BOAT LANE) -

PROPOSED ROAD LINKING MEWS ROAD RAIL CROSSING WITH MARINE TERRACE, FREMANTLE - (KSW)

DataWorks Reference: 164/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 15 June 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Land Administrator Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1103-63 Attachment 1: Un-lodged Deposited Plan No. 66940 Attachment 2: Geographic Names Committee assessment – “Boat Lane”


Page 96

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks Councils approval to re-name the proposed new public road linking Mews Road Railway Crossing with Marine Terrace, Fremantle as shown in un-lodged deposited Plan No. 66940 (see attachment 1). The former proposed name of “Cray Street” was adopted by Council on 23 March 2011 (PSC1103-63) with conditional approval provided by the Geographic Names Committee (GNC). The City’s road naming application to the GNC dated 01 April 2011 was rejected on the grounds that the name sounded too similar to Wray Avenue and Grey Street. The GNC requested that the City select a completely new road name. Council item PSC1103-63 discussed two proposed road names being “Cray Street” and “Boat Street” selected for their connection to Fishing Boat Harbour located on the southern side of Mews Road. As “Cray Street” is now rejected by the GNC the second name of “Boat” is the recommended alternative. The City has received an email from the Geographic Names Team on 01 June 2011 (see attachment 2) in support for the use of the name “Boat Lane - the GNC will process the approval upon Council’s resolution for the use of this name. It is noted that future proposed changes to the Australian and New Zealand 4819 Standard include changes to road types and the GNC has pre-empted these amendments by suggesting that the road type “Lane” be used in this instance as “Link” is one of the road types to be removed from future use. It is recommended that Council approve the name “Boat Lane” to replace the former proposed name of “Cray Street”, Fremantle being the proposed public road name linking Mews Road Railway Crossing with Marine Terrace, Fremantle. BACKGROUND

On 22 September 2010 (SGS1009-5) Council resolved; "That the proposal to construct a new vehicle and pedestrian rail crossing to the west of the Esplanade Park through car park number 2 to accommodate exit only vehicles from Mews Road as shown on concept plan number 370-1008-R01 be received with additional examination of options for two way traffic". On 25 January 2011 (PSC1101-16) Council resolved to;

1. "APPROVE the proposed excision of a 12 metre wide portion of Reserve No. 40766 being Lot 2044 (car park No.2) for the purpose of re-vesting the land as public road reserve (as shown on drawing No. 370-1008-BDY).

2. ADVISE State Land Services in writing of Council's resolution pursuant to Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (ACT) and indemnify the Minister for Lands from all costs associated with this process in accordance with Section 56 (4) of the Act."

On 18 February 2011 the City advised State Land Services (SLS) of Councils decision in a written application to excise and re-vest a 493m2 portion of Reserve No. 40766, as public road reserve.


Page 97

On 17 February 2011 the GNC provided conditional approval for the proposed names of “Cray Street” and “Boat Street” and rejecting the names of “Port” and “Fisher”. On 25 March 2011 (PSC1103-63) Council resolved to" "ADVISE the Geographic Names Committee that it has selected "Cray Street" as the new road name to be applied to the 493m2 parcel of land described as "road" on un-lodged Deposited Plan No. 66940 linking the Mews Road Rail link and Marine Terrace, Fremantle." On 01 April 2011 the City wrote to the GNC advising them of Councils decision and requesting the name to be applied to the area marked as "road" on un-lodged Deposited Plan No. 66940. On 27 April 2011 the GNC expressed concerns that the proposed name of "Cray Street" may be confused, in the case of an emergency, with Wray Avenue, Grey Street or Gray Court in Hamilton Hill less than 10 kilometres away. The GNC requested that a new name be selected. Consideration was given to a change of suffix from “Street” to “Link” while still keeping the prefix “Cray” which would still be consistent with the Committees March 2011 resolution. On 13 May 2011 the City received an email from the GNC whereby the City’s road naming application was reviewed with the proposed name of “Cray Link” completely rejected. The GNC stated that: "In regards to the above, the use of names the same as or similar sounding to existing names within a locality, adjoining locality or local government area will not be considered for approval.” The GNC suggested that; “if Council wishes to recognise the lobster/Cray industry in the area, we suggest the naming of a park or reserve or some other suitable feature”. On 30 May 2011 the City contacted the Manager of the GNC requesting a written assessment of the City’s proposed name of “Boat Street” prior to the item going back to Council – the GNC agreed to provide a formal reply. On 01 June 2011 the Geographic Names Team provided written support for the use of the name “Boat Lane”.


Page 98

COMMENTS The GNC has apologised to the City for any confusion regarding the proposed “Cray Street” or “Cray Link” road naming assessment. The GNC has forwarded the City a copy of a draft document currently out for public comment (from 8 April 2011 to 10 June 2011) being a revision of Australian and New Zealand Standard 4819 titled “Rural and Urban Addressing”. The document is designed to provide a more robust and succinct addressing standard. The Manager of GNC noted that the use of “Link” as a road type or suffix will no longer be available for road naming from October 2011. The former proposed name of “Boat Street” received the same GNC conditional approval as “Cray Street” prior to the item going to Council for approval. The City has requested, via telephone and email, that the GNC provide the City with a written assessment with regard to the proposed name of “Boat” with an appropriate suffix, before taking this road naming item back to Council. On 01 June 2011 the Geographic Names Team provided written support for the use of the name “Boat Lane” and added that; “Once we have confirmation from your Council that they support this road name, we will process the approval accordingly”. EXTERNAL SUBMISSIONS

Neighbour Notification: Nil. The selection of names for roads is at local government discretion subject to the approval of the GNC. Consultation is only required by the GNC when naming Ovals, Pavilions, the naming or renaming of Parks and Reserves or the naming of Towns and Localities. CONCLUSION

The Geographic Names Committee has rejected the proposed road name of “Cray Street” adopted by Council on the 25 March 2011 (PSC1103-63). A second name included in PSC1103-63 being “Boat” with the amened suffix of “Lane” has received the written support from the Geographic Names Team and, subject to Council approval, the GNC will process their approval accordingly. It is recommended that Council approve “Boat Lane” as the new road name liking Mews Road Railway Crossing and Marine Terrace, Fremantle as shown on Deposited Plan No. 66940.


Page 99

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council: ADVISE the Geographic Names Committee that it has selected “Boat Lane” as the new road name to be applied to the 493m2 parcel of land described as “road” on un-lodged Deposited Plan No. 66940 linking the Mews Road Rail Link and Marine Terrace, Fremantle. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Dave Coggin Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 100

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS Nil. CLOSURE OF MEETING THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.37 PM.


Page 101

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION The Council adopted a Participation Policy in August 2001 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. The City values citizen participation and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective participation 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 its Advisory Committees and Task Forces, its Community Precinct System, and targeted consultation 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 annual 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


Page 102


of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or 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 procedures 11.

The City’s consultative processes must be clear, transparent, efficient and timely. City officers must ensure that policies and procedures are fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.

Consultation 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, consultative 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 citizen input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords citizens the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via


Page 103


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, via ‘Consultation Process notifications’, 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 www.freofocus.com/projects/html/default.cfm, checking the Port City Column in the Fremantle Herald or inquiring at the Service and Information Desk by phone 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 Schedule of Input received 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 www.freofocus.com/projects/html/default.cfm

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 www.freofocus.com/projects/html/default.cfm or at the City Library or Service and Information counter.

http://www.freofocus.com/projects/html/default.cfm�




Page 104

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

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

been delegated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

protecting public safety.

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

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

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


Page 105

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 15 June 2011,6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Planning Services Committee 15 June 2011

Page 2

MINUTES - City of Fremantle PSC... · table of contents . item no subject page . declaration of...

Documents

Transcript of MINUTES - City of Fremantle PSC... · table of contents . item no subject page . declaration of...