MINUTES - City of Fremantlestorey single house with loft (ms da0441/11) 70 psc1202-19 forrest street...

MINUTES

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 1 February 2012,6.00 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 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 2

LATE ITEMS NOTED 2

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 2

TABLED DOCUMENTS 3

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 3

PSC1202-10 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 226 (LOT 4) FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF OUTBUILDING AND REAR TWO STOREY ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (JWJ DA0270/11) 3

PSC1202-11 BANNISTER STREET NO.7-15 (LOT 1, 22, 123 AND 435), FREMANTLE DEFERRED ITEM PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CLUB PREMISES, CHANGE OF USE TO HOTEL AND RESTORATION, ALTERATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR STOREY ADDITION TO EXISTING HERITAGE BUILDING (JL DA046 8

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 19

PSC1202-15 WRAY AVENUE, NO. 96 (LOT 36) FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO EXHIBITION CENTRE, COMMUNITY PURPOSE, HEALTH STUDIO AND SIGNAGE (JWJ DA0477/11) 19

PSC1202-17 FORREST STREET, NO. 116 (LOT 1) FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND TWO STOREY ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (JWJ DA0326/10) 27

PSC1202-18 TUCKFIELD STREET NO.38 (LOT 9), FREMANTLE PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND TWO STOREY REAR ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (JL DA0518/11) 31

PSC1202-12 SOUTH TERRACE (LOT 5) NO. 92 RETOSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR PARTIAL DEMOLITION/APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION OF REMAINING PORTION OF EXISTING LEAN TO STRUCTURE AT REAR OF EXISTING BUILDING AND NEW EXTERNAL STAIR ACCESS - THE SYNAGOUGE (SS DA0521/11) 42

PSC1202-13 LEFROY ROAD NO. 55 (LOT 650), BEACONSFIELD TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0376/11) 53

PSC1202-14 HIGH STREET NO. 72 (LOT 410), FREMANTLE RETROSPECTIVE SIGNAGE ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING (AD DA0379/11) 62

PSC1202-16 KEELING WAY NO.25 (LOT 224), SOUTH FREMANTLE TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH LOFT (MS DA0441/11) 70

PSC1202-19 FORREST STREET NO.156 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE TWO, TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS (MS DA0537/11) 77

PSC1202-20 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 85

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 86

PSC1202-21 REVIEW OF LPP 1.5 PLANNING, BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMPLIANCE PRINCIPLES 86

PSC1202-22 PROPOSED PARTIAL ROAD CLOSURES AND AMALGAMATIONS - OF PORT BEACH ROAD AND TYDEMAN ROAD, NORTH FREMANTLE - WITH FORESHORE RESERVE NO. 43311 AND NO. 29 PORT BEACH ROAD, NORTH FREMANTLE (KSW) 92

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 101

CLOSURE OF MEETING 101

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Planning Services Committee 1 February 2012

Page 1

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

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

on 1 February 2012 at 6.00 pm. DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 6.00 pm. NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." IN ATTENDANCE Brad Pettitt Mayor Cr Robert Fittock North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham 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 Mr Steve Sullivan Coordinator Planning Mediation Ms Oenone Rooksby Strategic Project Officer Mrs Kayla Beall Minute Secretary There were approximately 9 members of the public and 1 member/s of the press in attendance. APOLOGIES Nil LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil


Page 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE Nil PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Nil DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1202-10: Peter Robinson The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1202-11: Helen Hewitt Patrick Prendiville James Alexander The following member/s of the public spoke against item PSC1202-11: Phillip Purtle The following member/s of the public spoke against item PSC1202-15: Bruce Abbott The following member/s of the public spoke against item PSC1202-17: Brian Marwick The following member/s of the public spoke against item PSC1202-18: Ben Roberts DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS Cr I Waltham declared a impartiality interest in item number PSC1202-12 and left the chamber during the determination of this matter. LATE ITEMS NOTED Nil CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES MOVED: <Right Click> Councillor Name That the Minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 18 January 2012 as listed in the Council Agenda dated 25 January 2012 be confirmed. CARRIED: 7/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 3

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 PSC1202-10 SOUTH TERRACE, NO. 226 (LOT 4) FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF

OUTBUILDING AND REAR TWO STOREY ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (JWJ DA0270/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 February 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1111-200 (November 2011) / PSC1112-210

(December 2011) Attachment 1: Development Plans (15 December 2011) Attachment 2: PSC1111-200 report (16 November 2011) Attachment 3: PSC1112-210 report (7 December 2011) Date Received: 13 June 2011 Owner Name: G De Bari Submitted by: Peter Robinson Architectural Designer Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: None Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Residential Use Permissibility: P


Page 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its meeting on 7 December 2011, the Planning Services Committee (PSC) resolved to defer the application (DA0270/11) to the next appropriate PSC meeting:

‘…for the applicant to amend plans to significantly reduce overshadowing impacts on the adjoining southern property.’

On 15 December 2011, the applicant submitted revised plans to address matters raised at the PSC meeting on 15 December 2011. The amendments include reconfiguration of the southern elevation upper floor of the proposed rear addition. The revised plans dated 15 December 2011 are considered to further reduce overshadowing and the impact of building bulk and scale of the rear addition to the southern adjoining property. The proposed development is recommended for approval subject to conditions. BACKGROUND

Refer to PSC1111-200 and PSC1112-210 reports (Attachments 2 and 3) for detailed background information regarding the site and application. On 7 December 2011, PSC resolved to defer the application to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting:

‘…for the applicant to amend plans to significantly reduce overshadowing impacts on the adjoining southern property.’

On 15 December 2011, the applicant submitted revised plans to address matters raised at the PSC meeting held on 7 December 2011. DETAILS The specific details of the previously assessed plans for the application (DA0270/11) are contained within the report presented to PSC on 16 November 2011 (PSC1111-200) and 7 December 2011 (PSC1112-210), which are attached to this report. On 15 December 2011, the applicant submitted amended plans to address concerns discussed at the PSC meeting held on 7 December 2011. The amendments include: • The roof has been reconfigured to present as a traditional loft style development; • Minor increase to the height of the southern boundary wall; • Upper floor roof pitches reconfigured to be within the same roof plane to reduce

vertical elements of the upper floor facing the southern adjoining property. Further assessment and discussion is contained in the Planning Comment section of the report.


Page 5

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Refer to ‘Statutory and Policy Assessment’ and ‘Planning Comment’ sections of PSC1111-200 and PSC1112-210 reports for detailed assessment and discussion regarding the previously proposed variations to the requirements of LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. Variations/discretions sought are discussed further in the Planning Comment section below. CONSULTATION

Community The application was not required to be readvertised in accordance with clause 9.4 of the LPS4. PLANNING COMMENT

Boundary Walls Elevation Height Length

Previous Proposed Previous Proposed Southern – ground floor 2.8m 3.2m 6.1m 6.1m Northern – two storey 4.7m 4.7m 6.1m 6.1m Eastern - upper floor

5.2m (max)

3.2m-5.3m

4.7m

2.7m-5.7m

The amendments to the boundary walls are supported for the following reasons: • The amendments reduce the overall bulk and scale of the boundary walls; • They are not considered to create a sense of confinement by way of excess building

bulk; • The reconfiguration of the roof is considered to reduce overshadowing to the

southern adjoining property from the southern elevation of the addition.


Page 6

Overshadowing It is noted that there was a minor discrepancy in the overshadowing calculations in the previous PSC report PSC1112-210. The calculation did not take into account that the southern adjoining property is slightly elevated above the subject site by approximately 0.3m therefore reducing overshadowing. Maximum Permitted

Previous Proposed Variation Addition Total Proposed Total

11% (24m²)

35% (78m²)

18% (41m²)

50% (115m²)

13% (31m²)

46% (105m²)

The variation to the overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes is supported for the following reasons: • The reconfiguration of the roof is considered to further reduce overshadowing to the

southern adjoining property; • The existing dwelling’s roof line is in line with the adjoining terrace dwelling of the

southern adjoining property. Overshadowing of the existing dwelling falls on the roofspace of the southern adjoining terrace dwelling.

CONCLUSION

The revised plans dated 15 December 2011 are considered to further reduce the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the southern adjoining property in accordance with the 7 December 2011 PSC resolution. The amendments are considered to further reduce overshadowing and ameliorate the impact of building bulk to the southern adjoining property by way of: • Reconfiguration of the rear addition to present as a traditional loft style development; • Minimal presentation of vertical elements of the southern upper floor to the southern

adjoining property; • Roof pitch reconfigured to be within the same plane to reduce overshadowing; • Reduction of building bulk to the southern adjoining property by way of an increased

roof pitch away from the southern boundary. The proposed development is recommended for approval subject to conditions.


Page 7

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 Demolition of Outbuilding and Rear Two Storey Addition to Existing Single House at No. 226 (Lot 4) South Terrace, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 15 December 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 northern, eastern and southern boundary walls 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 occupation, the ‘lumnisty film’ to be applied to the upper level window

on the western elevation of the addition shall be installed to a standard that is equivalent to obscured glazing 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.

CARRIED: 7/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 8

PSC1202-11 BANNISTER STREET NO.7-15 (LOT 1, 22, 123 AND 435),

FREMANTLE DEFERRED ITEM PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CLUB PREMISES, CHANGE OF USE TO HOTEL AND RESTORATION, ALTERATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR STOREY ADDITION TO EXISTING HERITAGE BUILDING (JL DA046

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Dates: Original Meeting - PSC 7 December 2011

Current Meeting - PSC 1 February 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Amended Development Plans Dated 23/1/2012 Attachment 2: Previous PSC Report – PSC1112-211 Date Received: 23 September 2011 Owner Name: Redrock Consolidated P/L Atf Bada’s Trust & Hutchy’s

Trust Submitted by: Alexander Planning Consultants Scheme: City Centre Heritage Listing: Heritage Listed Level 3 Existing Landuse: Club Premises Use Class: Hotel Use Permissibility: A


Page 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is seeking Planning Approval to partially demolish the existing 1960’s two storey ‘Club premises’ (The Fremantle Club), restoration of the older existing two storey Fremantle Club building and construction of a three wing, four storey ‘Hotel’ at No. 7-15 Bannister Street, Fremantle. At its meeting held 7 December 2011, Planning Service Committee (PSC) resolved to defer the item and:

A Advise the applicant that the proposed ‘Hotel’ use, building height discretion and onsite car parking variation are supported in principle.

B. Advise the applicant that Council is not prepared to grant planning

approval to the proposal and plans dated 25 November 2011 in their current form due to further consultation with DAC and possible revisions being required relating to the façade details.

C. Invite the applicant to liaise further with the Design Advisory

Committee regarding amendments and additional information relating to the current application.

The proposed Hotel includes a Restaurant/ Bar, Terrace Bar, Gym, Pool and Deck area , 89 Bedroom with en-suites, 3 self contained apartments, lounge and reception room, office space and function/ Conference room. The applicant is seeking Council’s discretion in relation to:

• on site car parking under clause 5.7.3 of LSP4, • Building height under Schedule 12 of LSP4, and • the proposed ‘Hotel’ use being identified as a discretionary (‘A’) use under

the provision of the City’s LPS4.

Since PSC’s advice, the applicant has liaised with the City of Fremantle’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC), in order to address several architectural concerns associated with the façade and heritage significance of the existing Hotel building on site. At its meeting dated 13 February 2012 DAC supported the recently amended plans, subject to specific conditions. Consequently, the application is recommended for conditional approval.


Page 10

BACKGROUND For a copy of the detailed background information relating to the subject site, see previous PSC report (PSC1112-211). At its meeting held on 7 December 20011, the PSC resolved to defer the application for the reasons outlined in the ‘Executive Summary’ section above. Resulting from the PSC’s above resolution, the applicant presented a modified proposal to DAC on numerous occasions with the most recent meeting being 13 January 2012. See ‘Consultation’ section below for the DAC’s recommendations for this application to date. On 23 January 2012, the applicant submitted amended plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT See previous report PSC1112-211 for relevant statuary and policy assessment regarding the proposed development. CONSULTATION See PSC1112-211 for a copy of the consultation undertaken, in relation to community, external authorities, heritage matters for this application and DAC’s original comments. PLANNING COMMENT Design Advisory Committee (DAC) Upon receiving PSC’s resolution to defer the application on 7 December 2011, the applicant has liaised with DAC on several occasions regarding design solutions, amendments and additional information to address DAC’s concerns which were identified at its 14 October 2011 and 4 November 2011 meetings. On 2 December 2011 the applicant presented to DAC a modified proposal which included several façade and other minor modifications. At this meeting DAC resolved to advise the applicant that:

1. The DAC supports hotel use on the site, upper floor setback from the southern boundary and the additional historical investigation undertaken.

2. A clear and well-defined architectural approach to the Bannister Street façade needs to be established. The facade composition needs further development in terms of its coherence and response to the context. The DAC cannot support it in its current form.

3. The applicant is invited to further liaise with the committee regarding appropriate façade design.

4. Further consideration needs to be given to the external and internal treatment of the retained building and the architectural response to its historic evidence.


Page 11

Again, the applicant submitted modifications to address DAC’s concerns from the above meeting and presented before DAC on 13 January 2012. The DAC provided the following summary regarding the newly modified plans: The proposal can be supported subject to the following facade modifications: 1. Continuing of the white frame around the façade of the double height room and hotel

windows. 2. The metal grid to the double height room should be a thinner profile and in the same

plane as the hotel windows (i.e. setback within the white frame which projects 1.2m front the front boundary)

3. The white frame to the double height room is to be joined adjacent to heritage building to emphasise shadow gap between old and new which will serve to further express the separation of the old and the new building.

4. Consideration be given to modifying the proposed “peeled back” window treatments which are considered to trivialise the metal container/modulation theme.

5. A multiple coloured checkered pattern to the façade windows (rather than just two colours) is supported.

The above modifications are to be forwarded to the City who will refer the plans to DAC members via email to confirm that the modifications are satisfactory. DAC also advise that; 6. The additional red brick banding on top of the façade which increases the parapet

wall façade height is supported as it achieves a better architectural outcome. 7. The proposed approach to the heritage building façade (i.e. the removal of the

render and the quality of the exposed façade will determine what portions of brick wall are to remain exposed and what portions will be re-rendered in breathable materials) is in accordance with the Burra Charter and is therefore supported.

8. Any approval for the development is to include conditions requiring that: a) Prior to the commencement of development a detailed schedule of external

colours, textures and finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle; and

b) Prior to occupation the approved schedule of external colours, textures and finishes as detailed in the condition above shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

On 23 January 2012, amended plans were submitted to the City, which have since been forwarded to DAC members for comment. The revised plans have been reviewed by DAC members and are considered to generally address matters raised in DAC’s recommendation No’s 1, 2, 3 and 5. However, with regards to recommendation No.4, the applicant is still proposing the ‘peeled back’ awning window treatments for the hotel room façade element of the development, and as such an appropriate condition is included in the ‘Officers Recommendation’ requiring these window awnings to be deleted. With regards to DAC’s no.7 and 8 recommendations, as recommended by DAC, relevant conditions have also been included as part of the ‘Officers Recommendation’. Building Height, Car parking, Sustainable Building Design, Heritage Maters and Community Concerns


Page 12

Please note that none of the recent amendments have introduced any new discretionary matters regarding these elements of the proposal. As such see PSC1112-211 for discussion relating to the original discretionary matters regarding the application. CONCLUSION In summary, the proposed development is considered acceptable. The proposed building height, onsite car parking variation and Hotel use of site are supportable as the application has been assessed against and complies with the relevant provisions of LPS4 and Council’s relevant local planning policies. Additionally the applicant has addressed the majority of DAC’s original concerns, regarding the proposed Hotel development, particularly in relation to façade, external treatments and heritage significance of the existing building. However, to address and ensure that some of DAC’s original concerns associated with the proposal are satisfactory address, several conditions have been recommended accordingly. Overall, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial Demolition of existing Club Premises, Change of Use to hotel and Restoration, Alterations and construction of four storey addition to existing heritage Building at No. 7-15 Bannister Street (Lots 1, 22, 123 and 465), Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. The development and Hotel use hereby permitted shall take place in accordance

with the approved plans dated 23 January 2012. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. The development and Hotel use hereby permitted must substantially commence with four (4) years from the date of this decision letter.

3. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not

irreparably damage any original or rare fabric of the building. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of classification for the development,

the owner is to submit to the City of Fremantle a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars (or equivelant).

5. Prior to occupation, stormwater drainage works must be completed in accordance

with the approved plans to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 13

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

7. 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.

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

the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy L.P.P2.3: Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

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

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

down’ points and associated procedures for emergency use.

iii. Roof insulation shall be provided in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.

9. Prior to occupation, all boundary walls shall be of a clean finish in either sand

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

10. Prior to occupation,

i) All existing render to the façade of the heritage building, shall be appropriately removed to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,

ii) Following the removal of the render, a report prepared by a suitably

qualified individual including a detailed elevation of the façade and photographic record, shall be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, indicating the proposed future external works to the heritage building, showing what revealed brick work is suitable to be re-pointed and restored and what portions of the façade are to be re-rendered with breathable material.

iii) The conservation works hereby approved as part of (ii) above, shall be

undertaken and maintained in accordance with the approved report to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

11. Prior to commencement, the applicant shall submit for approval a revised northern

elevation and streetscape plans outlining façade details and alterations to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, which include the following alterations and additional information:


Page 14

i) The white frame around the façade of the double height room be continued around the hotel windows on the Bannister Street façade as indicated on approved street elevation plan DA18, dated 23 January 2012,

ii) Specific design details of the proposed artwork which is to be located in the three upper infill panels on the Bannister Street elevation of the new additions for the Terrace Bar,

iii) A multiple coloured checkered pattern to the hotel façade windows (rather than just two colours),

iv) Delete the ‘Peeled back’ window awning treatments (including the "can opener" representation) to the Hotel Accommodation sections of the Bannister Street façade, and

v) The metal grid to the double height room indicated as the terrace bar, shall be of a thinner profile and in the same plane as the hotel windows (i.e. setback within the white frame which projects 1.2m front the front boundary).

12. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed schedule of external colours, external façade window treatments, textures and finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to occupation the approved schedule of external colours, external artworks,

textures and finishes as detailed in the condition below shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

14. Prior to commencement, a report shall be submitted by a suitably qualified

acoustic engineer certifying that the proposal incorporates sufficient sound attenuation measures to limit noise impact on adjoining properties to within the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

15. Prior to the commencement of the works hereby permitted, Lots 1, 22, 123 and

465 are to be legally amalgamated or alternatively the owner may enter into a legal agreement with the City of Fremantle, drafted by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties concerned prior to the commencement of the works. The legal agreement will allow the owner twelve (12) months to amalgamate the lots.

16. Prior to commencement of development, outdoor lighting plans must be submitted

and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, in accordance with Clause 10.8.1 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4. The outdoor lighting is to be designed, baffled and located to prevent any excessive light spill onto the adjoining properties.

17. Prior to the commencement of development, detailed drainage plans shall be

submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

18. All air-conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any other plant and equipment to the roof of the building shall be located to be not visible from the street, and where visible from other buildings or vantage points shall be suitably located, screened or housed, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 15

Cr J Wilson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to delete condition 11 iv) CARRIED: 4/3 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie

Cr Andrew Sullivan Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr B Massie MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to delete condition 11 i) LOST: 3/4 For Against Cr Robert Fittock Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr Andrew Sullivan

COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial Demolition of existing Club Premises, Change of Use to hotel and Restoration, Alterations and construction of four storey addition to existing heritage Building at No. 7-15 Bannister Street (Lots 1, 22, 123 and 465), Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. The development and Hotel use hereby permitted shall take place in

accordance with the approved plans dated 23 January 2012. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. The development and Hotel use hereby permitted must substantially

commence with four (4) years from the date of this decision letter. 3. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does

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

4. Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of classification for the

development, the owner is to submit to the City of Fremantle a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars (or equivelant).


Page 16

5. Prior to occupation, stormwater drainage works must be completed in accordance with the approved plans to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to the occupation of the development, vehicle crossovers shall be

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

7. 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.

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

adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy L.P.P2.3: Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

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

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

ii. Air conditioners if provided, shall incorporate internal centrally

located ‘shut down’ points and associated procedures for emergency use.

iii. Roof insulation shall be provided in accordance with the Building

Code of Australia. 9. Prior to occupation, all boundary walls shall be of a clean finish in either

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

10. Prior to occupation,

i) All existing render to the façade of the heritage building, shall be

appropriately removed to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,

ii) Following the removal of the render, a report prepared by a suitably

qualified individual including a detailed elevation of the façade and photographic record, shall be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, indicating the proposed future external works to the heritage building, showing what revealed brick work is suitable to be re-pointed and restored and what portions of the façade are to be re-rendered with breathable material.

iii) The conservation works hereby approved as part of (ii) above, shall be

undertaken and maintained in accordance with the approved report to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 17

11. Prior to commencement, the applicant shall submit for approval a revised northern elevation and streetscape plans outlining façade details and alterations to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, which include the following alterations and additional information: i) The white frame around the façade of the double height room be

continued around the hotel windows on the Bannister Street façade as indicated on approved street elevation plan DA18, dated 23 January 2012,

ii) Specific design details of the proposed artwork which is to be located in the three upper infill panels on the Bannister Street elevation of the new additions for the Terrace Bar,

iii) A multiple coloured checkered pattern to the hotel façade windows (rather than just two colours),

iv) The metal grid to the double height room indicated as the terrace bar, shall be of a thinner profile and in the same plane as the hotel windows (i.e. setback within the white frame which projects 1.2m front the front boundary).

12. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed schedule of external

colours, external façade window treatments, textures and finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to occupation the approved schedule of external colours, external

artworks, textures and finishes as detailed in the condition below shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

14. Prior to commencement, a report shall be submitted by a suitably qualified

acoustic engineer certifying that the proposal incorporates sufficient sound attenuation measures to limit noise impact on adjoining properties to within the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

15. Prior to the commencement of the works hereby permitted, Lots 1, 22, 123

and 465 are to be legally amalgamated or alternatively the owner may enter into a legal agreement with the City of Fremantle, drafted by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties concerned prior to the commencement of the works. The legal agreement will allow the owner twelve (12) months to amalgamate the lots.

16. Prior to commencement of development, outdoor lighting plans must be

submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, in accordance with Clause 10.8.1 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4. The outdoor lighting is to be designed, baffled and located to prevent any excessive light spill onto the adjoining properties.

17. Prior to the commencement of development, detailed drainage plans shall

be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

18. All air-conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any other plant and

equipment to the roof of the building shall be located to be not visible from


Page 18

the street, and where visible from other buildings or vantage points shall be suitably located, screened or housed, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.



Page 19

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register Cr R Pemberton vacated the chamber at 7.36 pm. Cr R Pemberton returned to the meeting at 7.38 pm. PSC1202-15 WRAY AVENUE, NO. 96 (LOT 36) FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE

OF USE TO EXHIBITION CENTRE, COMMUNITY PURPOSE, HEALTH STUDIO AND SIGNAGE (JWJ DA0477/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 February 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: None Attachment 1: Development plans (29 September 2011) Date Received: 29 September 2011 Owner Name: T & T Beringhelli Submitted by: B Abbott Scheme: Local Centre Heritage Listing: None Existing Landuse: Garden Centre Use Class: Commercial Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 20

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination as the proposed development has received objections during advertising that cannot be resolved via conditions of planning approval. Planning Approval is sought for a partial change of use to Exhibition Centre, Community Purpose, Health Studio and Signage at 96 Wray Avenue, Fremantle. The site is considered to have reached capacity in the form of the current approved Garden Centre use, particularly in relation to on-site car parking. The proposed partial change of use is not considered to satisfy the objectives of the Local Centre zone as the uses will detrimentally impact adjoining owners and residential properties by way of traffic and over capacity of the site. The proposed signage is not supported as it is considered to produce a proliferation of signage to the site, resulting in a visual cluttering of the site and is contrary with Council policy DBH 6 Signs and Hoardings. The application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned Local Centre under the provisions of the City of Fremantle’s (the City) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and has a density coding of R30. The site is located within Sub Area 4.3.4 as contained in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List nor located within a designated Heritage Area in accordance with LSP4. The site is located on the northern side of Wray Avenue, Fremantle and is improved by an existing single storey commercial building and ancillary rear outbuildings. The site is approximately 1,130m². Vehicle access is provided to the site via a crossover to the south eastern corner of site. A bitumen area surrounds the existing building which contains area for approximately 19 parking bays. An existing bus stop is located at the front of site on Wray Avenue. A review of the property file found the following relevant planning background: • On 1 December 2010, Planning Services Committee considered an application for

the change of use to Garden Centre and Signage at 96 Wray Avenue, Fremantle (refer DA0482/10) and resolved:

‘…That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Change of Use to Garden Centre and Signage at No. 96 Wray Avenue, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the change of use and signage as indicated on the

approved plans, dated 20 September 2010. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.


Page 21

2. The sign hereby permitted shall not contain any flashing or moving light at any time.

3. The proposed central crossover and vehicle access point, indicated on the plans

dated 20 September 2010 is to be deleted from this application and does not form part of this planning approval.’

DETAILS On 29 September 2011, the City received a development application for the partial change of use to Exhibition Centre, Community Purpose, Health Studio and Signage at 96 Wray Avenue, Fremantle. The applicant has provided the following information pertaining to the application: • Exhibition Centre:

o Hours of operation – 7am – 6pm Monday to Sunday; Occasional opening nights – 6pm-10pm - Friday;

o Maximum number of clients -20; o Events:

Film nights; Art exhibitions;

• Community Purpose: o Hours of operation – 6am-10pm Monday to Sunday;

Dependant on bookings; o Maximum number of clients – 20; o Community events:

Nyoongar Culture Workshops; Focus on storytelling and language; Sustainability workshops;

• Health Studio: o Self development courses:

Yoga Personal Development workshops;

• Number of employees: o Part/full time – 5;

• 14 car parking bays provided; • Bike rack to be provided within site boundary; • Proposed signage:

o Freestanding steel pole mounted fibreglass sign with changeable lettering: o Height:

Maximum – 5m; Fibreglass element – 3.8m-5m;

o Width – fibreglass element maximum 2.4m. The development plans dated 29 September 2011 indicate six car parking bays on the southern end of the site (Wray Avenue side) were proposed to be removed to provide a display area for the existing Garden Centre use.


Page 22

A site visit undertaken by City officers on 11 January 2012 found the following: • The proposed signage as part of the application had been installed; • Car parking as per the previous Planning Approval (DA0482/10) and as indicated on

the development plans dated 29 September 2011 are occupied for display areas and storage of materials relating to the current use on site.


The development has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LSP4 and Council Local Planning Policies. The following Council Local Planning Policies are relevant to the application: • DBH 6 Signs & Hoardings • LPP 1.5 Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance Refer to the Planning Comment section of this report for further assessment and detailed discussion. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with clause 9.4 of the LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 16 November 2011, the City had received 13 submissions, two of no objection. The following relevant planning issues were raised (summarised): Proposed Use • Extra signage unnecessary • Overcapacity of the site Compliance • Car parking • Hours of operation • Noise A late submission was received in December 2011 regarding potential workshops been run on site prior to determination of the planning approval. Refer to the Planning Comment section of this report for detailed discussion of the application.


Page 23

PLANNING COMMENT

Use Existing Type Required Provided Car parking 5 bays 19 Delivery bays 1 1 Total 6 20 Proposed Type Required Provided Car parking 14 13 Delivery bays 2 0 Total 16 13 Table 3 of LPS4 does not contain specific car parking requirements for Exhibition Centre, Community Purpose and Health Studio. The following criteria have been considered: • Exhibition Centre has been assessed against the Showroom requirements of Table 3; • Community Purpose (workshops etc) has been assessed against the Tertiary School

requirements of Table 3; • Health Studio has previously been assessed to require 1 car parking bay per 20m² of

GLA. Car parking requirements for each proposed use have been assessed against the requirements of Table 3 of LPS4. A Local Centre zone specifically caters for weekly and convenience retailing. The proposed uses of Exhibition Centre, Community Purpose and Health Studio are considered to intensify the current approved use on site and are considered to be more appropriate in a Mixed Use or Commercial zone rather than the Local Centre zone. The site is considered to have reached capacity with the current approved use on site. Any increase to the number of uses operating on site is not supported as it is considered it would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining owners and residential properties by way of increased traffic to and overcapacity of the site. Signage The application includes proposed signage. Previous signage has been approved as part of previous Planning Approval DA0482/10. The proposed signage is not supported as it is considered to produce a proliferation of signage to the site, resulting in a visual cluttering of the site and is contrary with Council policy DBH 6 Signs and Hoardings.


Page 24

A site visit undertaken by City officers on 11 January 2012, found the signage had already been installed. Refer to the Compliance section of the report below for further discussion. Compliance A site visit undertaken by City officers on 11 January 2012 found the use operating on site to be in breach of Planning Approval granted on 6 December 2010 (refer DA0482/10) in respect to: • Car parking as indicated on the approved plans dated 20 September 2010 to be

occupied by materials and items on display. Furthermore, it was found that the proposed signage as part of the current development application has already been installed. Council Policy LPP 1.5 Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance contains provisions regarding unauthorised development and non-compliance with planning approval. At the time of writing this report, City officers have written to the applicant in respect to non-compliance with previous planning approval DA0482/10 regarding car parking. CONCLUSION

The site is considered to have reached capacity in the form of the current approved Garden Centre use (refer DA0482/10). The proposed partial change of use is not considered to satisfy the objectives of the Local Centre zone as the uses will detrimentally impact adjoining owners and residential properties by way of traffic and over capacity of the site. The proposed signage is not supported as it is considered to produce a proliferation of signage to the site, resulting in a visual cluttering of the site and is contrary with Council policy DBH 6 Signs and Hoardings. The application is recommended for refusal. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial Change of Use to Exhibition Centre, Community Purpose, Health Studio and Signage at No. 96 (Lot 36) Wray Avenue, Fremantle, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inappropriate having regard to the purposes for which the land is

zoned and clause 4.2.1 (c) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme 4.


Page 25

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED an alternative recommendation as follows That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial Change of Use to Exhibition Centre, Community Purpose, Health Studio and Signage at No. 96 (Lot 36) Wray Avenue, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the change of use as indicated on the approved plans

dated 29 September 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot. 2. The sign hereby permitted shall not contain any flashing or moving light at any

time. 3. The hours of operation be limited to 7am to 9pm.”

Cr R Fittock MOVED an amendment to the Alternative Recommendation to alter condition 3 to be 6am to 9pm. LOST: 3/4 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Bill Massie Cr Josh Wilson Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Cr J Wilson moved an amendment to the Alternative Recommendation to include the following condition 4: 4 This approval is valid for a 12 month period from the date of the decision in

accordance with clause 10.6.1 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No 4.

CARRIED: 6/1 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr Bill Massie


Page 26

COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial Change of Use to Exhibition Centre, Community Purpose, Health Studio and Signage at No. 96 (Lot 36) Wray Avenue, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the change of use as indicated on the approved

plans dated 29 September 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. The sign hereby permitted shall not contain any flashing or moving light at any

time. 3. The hours of operation be limited to 7am to 9pm.” 4. This approval is valid for a 12 month period from the date of the decision in

accordance with clause 10.6.1 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No 4.

CARRIED: 6/1

For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr Bill Massie


Page 27

Cr R Fittock vacated the chamber at 7.43 pm. Cr R Fittock returned to the meeting at 7.44 pm. PSC1202-17 FORREST STREET, NO. 116 (LOT 1) FREMANTLE - PARTIAL

DEMOLITION AND TWO STOREY ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (JWJ DA0326/10)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 February 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1101-8 Attachment 1: Revised development plans (27 October 2011) Attachment 2: Applicant’s justification (27 October 2011) Attachment 3: Previous PSC report PSC1101-8 (12 January 2011) Date Received: 5 July 2010 Owner Name: B J & J E Marwick Submitted by: S Marwick Scheme: Residential R25/R30 Heritage Listing: None Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Residential Use Permissibility: P


Page 28

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its meeting on 12 January 2011, the Planning Services Committee (PSC) resolved to defer the application (DA0326/10) to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee to:

‘…allow the applicant to address some of the concerns raised in the officers report.’

On 27 October 2011, the applicant submitted amended plans and further justification to address concerns raised in the previous report. The revised plans dated 27 October 2011 have been assessed against the relevant provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Council Local Planning Policies. The revised plans include the following variations: • Boundary setbacks; • Boundary walls; • External wall height. The revised plans included amendments to address overlooking to the western adjoining property. Overall the revised plans are not considered to address concerns raised in the previous report in respect to the western boundary wall and external wall height requirements. Consequently, the application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

Refer to PSC1101-8 (Attachment 3) for detailed background information regarding the site. On 12 January 2011, PSC resolved to defer the application DA0326/10 to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to:

‘…allow the applicant to address some of the concerns raised in the officers report.’ DETAILS The specific details of the proposed works at 116 Forrest Street are contained within the report presented to PSC on 12 January 2011 (PSC1101-8), which is attached to this report (refer Attachment 3). STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The revised plans dated 27 October 2011 have been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. Refer to the Planning Comment section of this report for detailed assessment and discussion.


Page 29

CONSULTATION

Community The application was not required to be readvertised in accordance with clause 9.4 of the LPS4. The consultation carried out for the subject application is discussed within the report presented to PSC on 12 January 2011 (PSC1101-8). PLANNING COMMENT

Western Boundary It is considered that no changes have been made to the dimensions and setback of the proposed western boundary wall. Refer to previous PSC report PSC1101-8 regarding assessment of the western boundary wall. As no changes to the western boundary wall have been incorporated as part of the revised plans dated 27 October 2011, it is considered that concerns raised regarding this element of the development have not been addressed. Therefore as per the previous PSC report, the western boundary wall is not supported as it is considered that it will create a sense of confinement to the western adjoining property due to excessive building bulk and scale. External Wall Height It is considered that no changes have made to the previously proposed external wall height of the rear two storey addition. Refer to previous PSC report PSC1101-8 regarding assessment of the proposed external wall height variation. Therefore as per the previous PSC report, the proposed external wall height is not supported as it is considered that the variation will further significantly impact on the amenity of the western adjoining property. Visual Privacy The revised plans dated 27 October 2011 incorporate amendments to provide screening to the upper floor Bed 4 to ameliorate potential overlooking to the western adjoining property.


Page 30

CONCLUSION

The revised plans dated 27 October 2011 incorporate amendments to provide screening from the upper floor of the proposed two storey addition, to ameliorate potential overlooking to the western adjoining property. It is considered no changes have been made to address concerns raised in the previous PSC report regarding the: • Western boundary wall; • External wall height requirements. As per the previous PSC report, it is considered the previous officer recommendation is appropriate regarding the proposed development and is therefore recommended for refusal due to inconsistency with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes in respect to: • Western boundary wall; • External wall height requirements. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial Demolition and Two Storey Addition and Alterations at No. 116 (Lot 1) Forrest Street, Fremantle, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the Residential Design

Codes in respect to: • Western boundary wall; and • External wall height requirements.



Page 31

Cr B Massie vacated the chamber at 7.59 pm. PSC1202-18 TUCKFIELD STREET NO.38 (LOT 9), FREMANTLE PARTIAL

DEMOLITION AND TWO STOREY REAR ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (JL DA0518/11)

Meeting Date: PSC -1 February 2012 DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Heritage Assessment Attachment 3 Site Photos Date Received: 19 October 2011 Owner Name: Peter Cann Submitted by: As Above Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Heritage Listed Level 3 Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 32

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Committee is requested to consider an application for the partial demolition and construction of a two storey rear additions and alterations to the existing Single House at No.38 Tuckfield Street, Fremantle (the site). The application is presented before the Planning Services Committee (PSC), due to the applicant seeking performance based assessment from the Residential Design Codes in relation to:

• Design Element 6.3.2 – Buildings on boundary, • Design Element 6.7.1 – Building Height, and • Design Element 6.8.1 – Visual Privacy.

Furthermore, the City has received submissions relating to the proposal raising concerns which cannot be addressed via relevant conditions of planning approval. Overall, the development is considered to satisfy the requirements within LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant Local Planning Policies. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is located at No.38 Tuckfield Street, Fremantle. The site is zoned Residential R25 under the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4). The site is individually listed on the City’s Heritage List and is identified as a Management Category level 3 place on the City’s Municipal Heritage inventory. The site is approximately 304m2 in area, and is located on the western side of Tuckfield Street, Fremantle. The site has an east-west orientation and has a slight slope in topography from east (street) to west (rear) of approximately 700mm. The site has an existing single storey brick and tile dwelling located on the front portion of site and a 1970’s and 1980’s two storey addition located at the rear of site. See ‘Attachment 2’ and ‘3’ for site photos of existing development to onsite. A review of the planning background is provided as follows: On 11 November 2003, Council granted Planning Approval (refer DA574/03) for alterations and two storey additions to an existing Single House at the subject site. On 5 April 2005, the City granted a 12 month extension of term to Planning Approval for DA574/03. On 9 November 2006, the City granted a second 12 month extension of term to Planning Approval for DA574/03. On 15 October 2007, the City granted a third extension of term for 24 months (ET08/07) to Planning Approval for DA574/03. On 2 December 2009 the City granted approval for a fourth extension of term to planning approval for 24 months (ET 12/09) to Planning Approval for DA574/03.


Page 33

On 22 November 2011 the City granted approval for a fifth extension of term to planning approval for 24 months (ET05/11) to Planning Approval for DA574/03. Planning Approval for DA0574/03 expires on 10 November 2013. DETAILS On 19 October 2011, the City received a development application (refer DA0518/11) seeking Planning Approval to partially demolish and reconstruct a two storey rear additions and alterations to an existing Single House located on site. The key difference between this application and the previous approval for DA574/03 is this application proposes the demolition and reconstruction of rear two storey additions rather than the previous approval (DA574/03) alterations and refurbishment of existing two storey additions to existing Single House. See ‘Attachment 1’ below for a copy of the development plans. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Council’s L.P.P1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals policy, as the proposed development requires several performance based assessment against the development criteria of the R-Codes. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 29 November 2011, the City had received four submissions. A summary of the relevant planning concerns raised are as follows: • Visual privacy of the south western and western adjoining properties from the

proposed deck area and upper floor windows of the proposal, • Collapsing retaining wall issues which is located between the subject site and the

south western adjoining properties, • Retaining wall encroachment into the neighboring southern property, and • No roof top terrace being approved. The issues raised in submissions that do not meet the relevant requirements are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report below. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposed development has been assessed against and is considered to comply with the relevant provisions of LPS4, the Residential Design Codes 2008 (R-Codes) and Council Local Planning Policies, except for the performance based matters regarding boundary setbacks, building height and visual privacy. These discretionary maters will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.


Page 34

PLANNING COMMENT

Boundary Wall

Setback Proposed Required Variation 320mm setback Northern

boundary – 11.2m long wall x 8 m max wall height

1.5m

1.18m

The above variation is supported for the following reasons:

• As the proposed boundary wall will replace an existing boundary wall of similar dimensions, any additional building bulk impacts created on the northern adjoining neighbour will be minimal. Additionally, taking into consideration that the proposed wall is to be located on the northern common boundary of site, any impact created in terms of overshadowing will be negligible.

• The design of the additions and orientation of the site, are considered to help limit

overshadowing impacts on the immediate southern property, with the majority of shadow thrown from the development being captured on the subject site. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of DE6.9.1 of the R-Codes, and complies with the Acceptable Development provisions for R25 coded property.

• In terms of contributing to any sense of confinement, the proposed wall is not

considered to significantly intensify any such existing impact experienced by the northern adjoining property today. Furthermore, taking into consideration that a current planning approval (DA574/03) allows a boundary wall to be constructed in the same location but to a height 50mm higher than the wall proposed, this discretionary decision is considered supportable.

• There are no mature trees or vegetation on site which would be impacted by the

proposed development and any existing views of significance experienced by adjoining or adjacent properties would not be significantly impacted by the development.


Page 35

Building Height Zone Permitted Provided Variation Residential DE 6.7.1 Table 3

Top of external wall (Concealed roof) – 7m

Maximum external wall height 8.5 metres rear western elevation

1.5m

The existing dwelling has a maximum external wall of 7.6 metres as measured from natural ground level (ngl), which also exceeds the prescribed Acceptable Development building height requirement of the R-Codes. With regard to being consistent with desired building heights within the locality, both adjoining properties incorporate rear two storey additions which have similar setbacks, building height and overall bulk and scale to the current proposal. As mentioned previously, the proposed design and location of the development, allows adequate solar access to adjoining properties existing habitable rooms and appurtenant open spaces. Any existing views of significance captured by adjoining or adjacent properties within Tuckfield Street also will not be significantly impacted by the proposal. Again, in determining if a discretionary decision for the proposed building height should be supported, it must be noted that previously approved development which is still valid (refer DA574/03) also includes a concealed roof design which has a maximum external wall height of 8.6 metres as measured from ngl, which is 100mm greater than the current proposal. For the reasons outlined below, the proposed building height variation is supported as the development is considered satisfies the ‘Performance Criteria’ of Design Element 6.7.1 the R-Codes.

• the addition is 100mm less than the approved external wall height of the approved development for DA574/03,

• the ‘Acceptable Development’ requirements of Design Element 6.9.1 of the R-Codes for an R25 coded property, the proposed addition has been assessed and will not add to any shadow thrown by the development

• the two storey addition is significantly setback (11.8 metres) from Tuckfield Street with the existing roof void of the heritage cottage limiting the majority of views of the addition from Tuckfield Street streetscape, and

• that the majority of the building is sufficiently setback from neighboring properties and that any building bulk impacts created by the development are considered to be comparable to what reside on site today and immediate adjoining properties.


Page 36

Visual Privacy

Acceptable Development Provision

Proposed Variation

Bedroom – 4.5m setback Unenclosed outdoor active habitable space above 500mm of NGL – 7.5m setback

Upper Floor Master Bedroom Windows Southern Elevation Windows – 6.9m Western elevation – 2.1m Deck Area Ground Floor - 2.4m southern common

boundary Upper Floor Balcony – - 3.3 m southern common

boundary - 8.1m western common

boundary

Complies 2.4m setback variation 5.1m setback variation 4.2m setback variation Complies

For simplicity reasons the affected properties regarding this discretionary matter will be assessed individually: Adjoining Southern Property With regards to the visual privacy matters relating to the southern elevation of the ground floor deck area and upper floor balcony these variations are supported as significant vegetation, privacy screening and built form between the subject site and the southern adjoining property, significantly restricts any direct line of site of visually sensitive spaces of the southern property. See ‘Attachment 3 ‘of this report for site photos of existing mature vegetation, screening material and built form between the sites. Accordingly these elements of the proposal area considered to address the ‘Performance Criteria’ of DE6.8.1 of the R-Codes.


Page 37

North Western Adjoining Property With regards, to the overlooking matter raised in relation to the upper floor western elevation master bedroom, Council may be inclined to not support this variation as clearly the immediate north western adjoining property’s exclusive outdoor living area will be significantly impacted. As see in ‘Attachment 3’, the view captured today from the upper floor western elevation balcony and bedroom window currently allows clear sight of key sections of the adjoining property’s outdoor living area. As also seen, some screening devices and an outbuilding structure located on the neighboring property does help restrict some direct line of sight and overall visual impact created today. However its considered that this visually sensitive area of the adjoining north western neighbour is significantly impacted today. Council could be of the view that screening of the proposed windows is a necessity in protecting the privacy of this property and if this was the opinion of Council, then the following condition could be included as part of the ‘Officers Recommendation’:

Prior to occupation, the upper level window(s) on the western 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.

The applicant has verbally indicated that the intent of the window alteration is to retain existing views of the harbour to the west, whilst improving the building cross ventilation. Taking this into account, Council may consider vertical screening which incorporates horizontal louvers to be erected on the western elevation master bedroom opening, allowing a view out towards the port, but restricting a downward view into the adjoining property’s backyard. If this was the preferred option, the following condition would be required to form part of the ‘Officers Recommendation’:

Prior to occupation, the upper level window(s) on the western elevation shall be fixed with vertical screening which incorporates horizontal louvers to a height of 1.65 metres above the upper floor level to prevent a downward 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.

During assessment of this application horizontal screening was considered, however if fitted, to successfully prevent the direct downward line of sight, the structure would extend beyond the subject sites western cadastral boundary, of which Council is unable to approve.


Page 38

In assessing this discretionary decision, it’s also important to note that the State Administration Tribunal (SAT) as part of a WASAT 123 of 2009, found that when Council’s are determining identical or near identical applications, that if a proposal, ‘was in substance the same as a previous application’, and that the new, ‘application introduced no new matters for consideration beyond those [previously] examined’, that it’s, ‘important for the process of orderly public sector decision making that original decision makers pay careful attention to consistency in that decision making process; that they also pay regard to the advice of their professional officers; and that they avoid the need for the rearguing of cases where there are in fact no material changes to the circumstances where an earlier identical planning approval has been given’ (WASAT 123 [2009], paragraphs 16,17 and 36). Therefore, taking into consideration that Council has previously exercised the same discretionary matter in determining DA574/03, it’s considered that a performance based assessment should be supported again for the following reasons:

1) The proposed window will replace an existing first floor balcony capable of outdoor entertainment use, which requires a greater setback requirement of 7.5 metres in comparison to a bedroom which is 4.5 metres as stated by the R-Codes, and

2) Approved plans for DA0574/03 permit a floor to ceiling window which is larger than that now proposed with this current application.

Heritage Matters Upon reviewing the property file, it’s important to note that when the original application DA574/03 was assessed, the City also required a Heritage Assessment to be undertaken which was completed by Seeber Architects which concluded the following:

The proposed alterations to the rear additions are clearly of ‘another time’ and are independent enough of the original Place so as not to impact on its heritage integrity. The rear additions are largely not visible from street level, however the scale, form and materials of the proposed alterations are sympathetic to the surrounding streetscape.

In accordance, with Council’s L.P.P1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessments policy, as the previous assessment was undertaken more than 2 calendar years ago, another heritage assessment was required to be undertaken, of which Griffiths Architects were consulted and made the following comments:

• Demolition of the rear additions will result in no real loss of significance, • The addition is substantial and will be seen from the street thereby having a

negative impact imposed by its presence, • There is no permanent loss of significance on the whole, • In terms of bulk, the addition is considered to dominate the streetscape viewpoint.

and • The roof replacement of the existing cottage is considered acceptable.

See ‘Attachment 2’ below for a copy of the heritage assessment.


Page 39

As a result, the City currently has two heritage reports which provide contradicting advice. At the time of writing this report, Griffiths Architects were requested to review their advice and were supplied with a copy of the 2003 heritage assessment. Furthermore, it was requested that further advice be provided regarding the proposed development and its compliance with provisions Council’s D.B.H1 – Urban Design and Streetscape Policy. The amended heritage assessment has not been received by the City in time for finalization of the agenda, however if available the amended document will be circulated to Elected Members at or prior to the PSC meeting. However, notwithstanding the above, the City’s Heritage Planner was also consulted and considers the current proposal acceptable on heritage grounds and made the following comments:

• the current proposal is approximately 200mm higher than the existing rear additions on site today, and the current proposal is approximately 100mm less in building height than that approved as part of DA0574/03,

• The two storey additions will be setback approximately 11.8m from the Tuckfield Street boundary line, and the addition is setback the required 4m distance from the original roof ridge which is in compliance with Council’s D.B.H1 policy, which will lessen any impact of the proposal, and that

• Both No.36 and 40 Tuckfield Street dwellings, also incorporate two storey additions which have been added to the rear of existing heritage dwellings, which also portray a similar building bulk,

• There will be some loss of heritage fabric due to some loss of the rear wall. However, to facilitate the additions this is considered acceptable providing there is an understanding of the original layout of the place, for example a portion of the wall is retained for interpretive purposes such as a nib or bulk head.

Therefore, it is considered questionable as to what additional adverse impact the proposed rear additions will have in terms of excess building bulk and dominance on the existing heritage dwelling or the existing Tuckfield Streetscape, in comparison to what is on site today or what has been approved as part of DA0574/03.

Submitter Concerns With regards to the concerns raised in relation to dilapidated retaining walls or encroachment of existing structures on adjoining properties, these matters need to be dealt with as separate compliance and building enquiry matters. With regards to the concern associated with a roof top terrace being proposed, no such development is being proposed as part of this application and as such no planning concern exists.


Page 40

CONCLUSION In conclusion, the proposed development is considered to be very similar to the current approved development for DA0574/03. The key differences between the current application and the DA574/03, is that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish and rebuild a rear two storey addition to the existing Single Storey house on site, rather than reconstruct and modify the existing two storey additions on site today. Whilst differing heritage opinions have been raised, the City considers the current proposal supportable on heritage grounds, as the proposed rear two storey additions are considered to be similar to what exists on site today and slightly less than what is approved as part of DA574/03, and ultimately the proposed development will present a similar building bulk and visual dominance as seen from Tuckfield Street today. Overall, the development has been assessed against and complies with the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes, and local planning policies. Where the proposed development does not meet the ‘Acceptable Development’ criteria, particularly in relation to boundary walls, building height and visual privacy, it has been outlined above that the development is considered to satisfy the relevant ‘Performance Criteria’ of the R-Codes. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial Demolition and Two Storey Additions and Alterations to existing Single House at No. 38 (Lot 9) Tuckfield Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with the approved plans dated 19 October 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. The finished floor level of the ground floor of the rear two storey additions shall not

exceed 10.51, as per the existing floor level of the retained existing dwelling on site.

4. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the northern common boundary

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

5. An interpretative nib or portion of the removed rear wall of the existing dwelling

marked in red on approved plans dated 19 October 2011, shall be retained so the floor layout of the original house can be appropriately understood, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Cr A Sullivan MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Service Committee meeting to allow Officers to obtain written legal advice.


Page 41

CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 42

Cr B Massie returned to the meeting at 8.03 pm. Cr I Waltham declared a impartiality interest in item number PSC1202-12 and left the chamber during the determination of this matter. PSC1202-12 SOUTH TERRACE (LOT 5) NO. 92 RETOSPECTIVE APPROVAL

FOR PARTIAL DEMOLITION/APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION OF REMAINING PORTION OF EXISTING LEAN TO STRUCTURE AT REAR OF EXISTING BUILDING AND NEW EXTERNAL STAIR ACCESS - THE SYNAGOUGE (SS DA0521/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 January 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Coordinator Planning Mediation Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1108-158 Attachment 1: Photographs of internal rear entrance and partly

demolished lean to addition at rear of Synagogue Attachment 2: Supporting correspondence/plans (received 10 Oct 2011) Attachment 3: Heritage Council advice (Dated 15 Nov 2011) Attachment 4: External Heritage Assessment (received 16 Nov 2011) Date Received: 19 October 2011 Owner Name: Roger McKimm Submitted by: Roger McKimm MRS Scheme: Central City Zone LPS4: Not Zoned Heritage Listing: State Register Heritage Places; Heritage List (LPS4) and

Level 1A on Municipal Heritage Inventory Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: N/A Use Permissibility: N/A


Page 43

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) as the planning application involves retrospective approval for the unauthorised partial demolition of a lean to addition appurtenant to a heritage listed building Planning Approval was issued on the 8 September 2011 (2011 approval) for various restoration works to be undertaken in relation to the building known as the Synagogue, which is located at 92 South Terrace (DA0267/11). The works related to the restoration works of the building, which is a building that is on the State Register of Heritage Places and on the Heritage List of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The land is not zoned under LPS4 and as such, Council acted under delegated authority from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) to grant planning approval to these works. Condition 5 of that approval required the retention of the existing lean to addition located at the rear of the main building. Whilst the Heritage Council (HC) supported the demolition of the lean to addition, from a local context, it was recommended by the external heritage consultant that the lean to addition be kept. The 2004 Conservation Plan for the site described the lean to addition to be of some significance, although the background to this addition was not clear from the records/research. Consequently, it was recommended to Council that the planning approval require the retention of the lean to addition. On the 22 September 2011, the City became aware that the lean to addition was being demolished (refer to Attachment 1), contrary to condition 5 of the 2011 planning approval. The demolition works ceased and following meetings with City officers, the owner lodged a planning application to remove the remaining section of the lean to addition and to construct a basement space with stairs in the vicinity of the lean to addition. A doorway linked the main building and the lean to addition. It was during the recent restoration works that were being undertaken in accordance with the 2011 planning approval, that the full height and detail of this original rear internal doorway and wall of the main building was discovered (refer to Attachment 1). The doorway is a mirror image of the main doorway located at the front of the Synagogue building that links the shop and the main hall. This detail was not known when the 2004 Conservation Plan was prepared. Council needs to determine whether to require the lean to addition to be restored or to display the full extent of the original rear entrance of the main building. The conclusion from the applicant, the external heritage consultant commissioned by the City and the HC have been to support the removal of the remaining section of the lean to addition to expose the full extent of the rear entrance to the building. Based on the comments from the three parties, it is recommended that the remaining section of the lean to addition be demolished. No objection is held in relation to the proposed excavation works and the creation of stair access to this basement area, which will then provide access to the basement floor level of the main building.


Page 44

Therefore, it is recommended that conditional approval be granted for the demolition of the remaining section of the lean to addition and the proposed stair/basement. In relation to the non-compliance with the condition of planning approval, and as this is not the first instance of non-compliance, it is recommended that an Infringement Notice be issued under Section 226 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. BACKGROUND

The property at No 92 South Terrace is located on the eastern corner of the South Terrace and Parry/Norfolk Street intersection. The site contains a former synagogue/shop and is privately owned. The site has been the subject of numerous planning applications including several changes of use as well as alterations over the years. The Synagogue site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and is on the City’s Municipal Inventory of Heritage Places (management category 1A). It is also included on the State Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990. The State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) granted conditional approval on the 5 June 2008 (2008 approval) for the commencement of a mixed residential and commercial development involving conservation works to the main building and new works to the rear of the existing building (DA696/05). The approval involved the following: • Restoration works to the Synagogue/shop building; • Excavation beneath the main floor level of the Synagogue building; • Addition of an upper level floor within the synagogue building, resulting in three

levels; • A basement car parking area to the rear of the site with a predominately three

storey development on top, that had offices/short stay accommodation units; • Balcony and verandah overhangs in the Parry Street Road Reserve; and • Retention of the existing lean to located to the rear of the main building. A building licence was issued and works commenced based on the 2008 approval. On the 13 June 2011, an application for Planning Approval (DA0267/11) was received for proposed changes to the 2008 approval relating to the Synagogue building. The PSC granted its approval, acting under delegated authority from the WAPC at its 3 September meeting (2011 approval) to the application. Condition 5 of that approval stated the following: 5) The limestone and brick lean-to along the rear north elevation is to be retained. On the 22 September 2011, the City became aware that the lean-to addition at the rear of the main building was being demolished, contrary to condition 5) of the 2011 approval. Work ceased on the demolition of the lean-to when requested by the City. Approximately one third of the lean to structure remains. The limestone that was part of the demolished lean to walls has been stored on the site. Meetings were held between the City and the owner of the site and as a consequence of those discussions, an application for planning approval under the MRS for the demolition


Page 45

of the remaining portion of the lean-to addition has been submitted for determination by Council which is the subject of this report. DETAILS The applicant is seeking Council approval for: • Retrospective planning approval for the unauthorised partial demolition of the

existing lean-to addition; • Planning approval for the demolition of the remaining portion of the lean-to addition;

and • Excavation and construction of stairs (in the vicinity of the lean-to addition) leading

from the existing ground level at the rear of the main building to the basement level. A letter in support of the application, reason for demolition of the existing structure and the proposed development plans are part of Attachment 2. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The site is not currently zoned under LPS4 however, it is zoned Central City Zone under the MRS. Council has delegated authority to determine the application under the MRS. In doing so, Council is required to have regard to the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The site is partly located within DGF14 - West End Conservation Area and regard will be had to that policy. The site is a registered site on the State Register of Heritage Places. CONSULTATION

The application was referred to the Heritage Council of Western Australia (HC) as the site is included on the State Register of Heritage Places – refer to Attachment 3 for comments from the HC. These comments are discussed further in the Planning Comment section of the report. In accordance with the provisions of Local Planning Policy 1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessments, the City received a heritage assessment in relation to the request to permit the demolition of the lean-to addition – refer to Attachment 4. Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. Four letters were sent to surrounding property owners advising them of the proposal and providing them with a two week submission period. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being the 10 November 2011, the City had not received any public submissions. PLANNING COMMENT

Planning Framework


Page 46

Although the provisions of LPS4 do not apply to this site as the site is not zoned under LPS4, Council has delegated authority from the WAPC to make a determination on the planning application under the MRS. There are three parts to dealing with this application and these are set out below: a) To make a determination on the application for retrospective approval for the partial

demolition of the lean to and the proposal to demolish the rest of the lean to; b) Depending upon the outcome of part a) above, to deal with the proposed basement

works that are proposed to be carried out below the current location of the lean to addition; and

c) Determine whether any compliance action should be undertaken. Unauthorised and proposed works Unauthorised removal of lean to addition Condition 5 of the 2011 Planning Approval issued on the 8 September 2011 required the retention of the lean to addition at the rear of the main building. The HC had supported the removal of this later addition, although from a local context perspective, the independent Heritage Consultant engaged by the City recommended that the structure be retained. The author of the 2004 Conservation Plan was also of the view at that time and based on the information available, that the lean to addition was of some significance. On the basis of its importance in the local context, condition 5) was imposed in the 2011 decision. The imposition of such a condition was also consistent with the 2008 SAT decision. The partially demolition of the lean to addition was not in accordance with the Planning Approval issued by the Council on behalf of the WAPC and therefore, is a breach of the Planning and Development Act 2005. This matter will be discussed further in the report. Rear doorway opening There was an existing small doorway between the main building and the lean to addition. The recent restoration works have now revealed a doorway of similar size and style of original doorway opening at the rear of the main building that mirrors the front entrance to the Synagogue building. This full doorway opening and detail had been hidden due to other works that had occurred over the years. The application before Council is to complete the removal of the remaining section of the lean to addition. The purpose of the removal of the remaining portion of the lean to section is to facilitate restoration of this opening with an improved outlook from within the main building. The issue now before Council is whether to require restoration of the lean to addition as part of the evolution of the building or to allow the demolition to support the importance of the rear doorway opening and the detail of the original main structure.


Page 47

Heritage Assessments There has been three heritage assessments provided by different parties on this matter. A Conservation Officer from the HC in their latest advice on this proposal has re-iterated their previous support for the removal of the remaining portion of the lean to addition as follows:

We advise that we have no objection to the proposed demolition of the remaining portion of the lean-to, as the Development Committee previously provided support for its demolition as part of a broader proposal. In this context, we also support the proposed rear landing and associated stairs.

Attachment 3 contains a detailed submission from the applicant which seeks to support the removal of the remaining portion of the lean to addition. The applicant was also responsible for the preparation of the 2004 Conservation Plan for the site. Whilst the Conservation Plan described the lean to addition as having some significance, the restoration works have now revealed original doorway details that had been hidden over time through other works. The City’s heritage assessment for this proposal (Attachment 4) prepared by an external heritage consultant, contains the following comments which have been extracted from different parts of the assessment:

A Conservation Plan is not a static document and is derived from documentary and physical evidence available at the time of inquiry. The Conservation Plan for the subject site states that ‘no original drawings or documentation survives from the time of construction’ and therefore it is not possible to definitively substantiate from documentary evidence the age and intent of the lean-to structure.

Whilst the lean-to does have some significance in that it demonstrates the evolution and adaptation to the place overtime it is not considered fundamental to the understanding of the history and significance of the place, as first a Jewish Synagogue and later as premises for various commercial purposes.

The demolition of the lean-to will not have a significant impact on the presentation of the complex (former Synagogue and shopfronts) when viewed from the main Parry Street and South Terrace intersection or on its contribution to the historical character of the area. The demolition of the structure will reveal and conserve a quoined archway, an original feature of the former Synagogue, which will ensure interest and integrity is maintained to the building when viewed from the rear.

Based on the information and advice from the HC, the applicant and the City’s external heritage consultant, it is considered that the remaining portion of the lean to addition be permitted to be demolished to highlight an original feature of the main building.


Page 48

Proposed rear stairs and basement In relation to the proposed basement and stairs, there were no objections to these works from the various heritage parties. The City’s consultant has included recommendations for proposed conditions in relation to this aspect of the development to address: • potential issues of damp to the main building; • the potential impact that the proposed excavation/basement works do not impact on

the structural integrity of the main building; and • the finishes of those works. Recommended conditions In the report from the external heritage consultant, it was recommended in part 3.2.1 that:

3.2.1 The face limestone wall of the northern elevation should be maintained and conserved.

Within Section 3.3, the following recommendations were made to ensure the execution of the remainder of the works protect and enhance the significance of the place:

3.3.1 certification should be provided from a recognised geotechnical engineer with input from a structural engineer, to demonstrate that the excavation and proposed new stair wells to the basement will not have an undue physical impact on the existing heritage building.

3.3.2 detail should be provided to demonstrate that the open stairwells are properly drained and will not result in adverse damp impacts on the former synagogue structure.

3.3.3 detail should be provided on the conservation and treatment of the northern limestone wall. No part of this elevation should be rendered. The application of render with an ashlar finish similar to the treatment of the western elevation is not appropriate.

3.3.4 detail should be provided on the proposed finishes to the landing, stairs and balustrades to ensure that they are sympathetic to the heritage building.

3.3.5 a methodology should be prepared to provide for the professional archaeological monitoring of any excavation works, including a plan of the action to be taken if any artefacts or other archaeological evidence is revealed.

3.3.6 upon practical completion of new works the original Conservation Plan, prepared by John Kirkness (2004) should be updated to reflect the changes to the place. To ensure the document remains relevant and a useful guiding document.

It is recommended that the application for the proposed works be approved with the items 3.2.1, 3.3.1 – 3.3.6 as conditions of planning approval.


Page 49

Compliance Matters The development site is on the State Register of Heritage Places, which comes under the control of the HC, however, the HC have advised that they will not be taking any action in relation to this matter. This is on the basis that they had originally supported the demolition of the lean to addition. In relation to the unauthorised partial demolition of the lean to addition, condition 5 of the planning approval issued by the City on behalf of the WAPC required the lean to addition to remain. This is a breach of the planning approval issued under the MRS. Local Planning Policy 1.5 Planning, Building And Environmental Health Compliance (LPP1.5) provides direction for the City in relation to compliance matters under LPS4. Part 4.5 of LPP1.5 sets out the situations where an Infringement Notice can be issued or in special circumstances, the commencement of legal action as set out below:

Where, in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, there is a broader public interest in undertaking legal action instead of issuing an infringement notice, a report will be prepared for the Council to consider further prosecution action.

This is an unusual situation in that the provisions of LPS4 (and its policies) are not applicable to the site in this instance. Council has exercised powers delegated to it by the WAPC to make a determination on the application for planning approval under the MRS. Therefore, the provisions of LPP1.5 can only be used as a guide where applicable. Based on legal advice, Council has the following options open to it in relation to the unauthorised works: a) commence prosecution proceedings for an offence committed under Section 218 of

the Planning and Development Act 2005 where there has been a breach of a condition of Planning Approval imposed by the City in granting planning approval as a delegate of the WAPC under the MRS;

b) commence prosecution proceedings under Section 374A(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 for taking down part of the lean to without a demolition licence from the City;

c) revocation of the 2011 approval under Clause 30(2) of the MRS if the conditions of approval are not complied with; and

d) issue an Infringement Notice. In relation to option a), it is understood from the legal advice that this may be the first time a Local Authority has taken action under this section of the Act, as a delegate of the WAPC. Whilst this may be the case, it is considered that this is still an option for Council. Whilst the courts would determine the level of the penalty, legal advice has indicated that a fine (including court costs) of approximately $10-20,000 is potentially likely in this instance. In relation to option b), Council has the option of taking action under the Local Government Act for the not obtaining a building licence for the partial demolition of the lean to addition.


Page 50

In relation to option c), it is considered that the works being undertaken are for the benefit of the restoration of the main heritage listed building and as such, no benefit to the site or the community would be achieved if the previous planning approval was revoked. Option d) is an option that would result in an Infringement Notice (modified penalty of $500) being issued to the owner for the unauthorised works. Of the options listed above, it is considered that issuing an Infringement Notice in the circumstances would be the most appropriate having regard to: • The continued support of the Heritage Council for the demolition of the structure;

and • The increased significance of the opening to the rear of the building due to the

doorway detail that has been exposed as a consequence of the restoration works. CONCLUSION The partial demolition of the lean to addition was contrary to a condition of planning approval. However, the importance of the lean to addition has been lessened by the discovery of elements of the main building that had been covered up over time, but exposed through the restoration works. The heritage assessments (HC and the external consultant) support the proposed demolition works of the remaining section of the lean to addition and the proposed stair access to the basement subject to the imposition of certain conditions of approval. To facilitate the restoration of the main building, it is recommended that retrospective approval be granted for the partial demolition of the existing lean to and conditional approval be granted for the proposed works, including the removal of the remaining section of the lean to addition. On the basis that the importance of the lean to addition has been reduced due to the increased importance of the rear opening to the main heritage listed building has been established through the authorised restoration works, it is recommended that an Infringement Notice be issued under Section 226 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.


Page 51


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1) That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme

for the retrospective demolition of the existing lean to addition, approval to demolish the remaining section of the lean to addition at the rear of the main building and the proposed construction of stairs to the basement at No. 92 (Lot 5) South Terrace, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

a) The detailed plans approved as part of this application are dated 19

October 2011. b) This approval is for the proposed demolition of the remaining portion of

the lean to addition and the proposed construction of stairs to the basement only. The proposed use and internal layout of the development does not form part of this approval and is required to be the subject of a separate application for planning approval.

c) The face limestone wall of the northern elevation shall be maintained

and conserved.

d) Prior to any further works being undertaken in relation to this approval, details/plans/reports where required shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer City of Fremantle:

i) from a recognised geotechnical engineer with input from a

structural engineer demonstrating that the excavation and proposed new stair wells to the basement will not have an undue physical impact on the existing heritage building.

ii) demonstrating that the open stairwells will be properly drained and will not result in adverse damp impacts on the former synagogue structure.

iii) setting out the proposed conservation and treatment of the northern limestone wall. No part of this elevation should be rendered. The application of render with an ashlar finish similar to the treatment of the western elevation is not appropriate.

iv) on the proposed finishes to the landing, stairs and balustrades to ensure that they are sympathetic to the heritage building.

v) a methodology should be prepared to provide for the professional archaeological monitoring of any excavation works, including a plan of the action to be taken if any artefacts or other archaeological evidence is revealed.

e) The remnant of the early limestone retaining wall to the Parry Street

frontage is to be preserved. Any restoration works shall be submitted for approval by the Heritage Council.

f) Upon practical completion of the new works, the original Conservation

Plan, prepared by John Kirkness (2004) is to be updated to reflect the


Page 52

changes to the place in order to ensure the document remains relevant and a useful guiding document for future development of the site.

2) An Infringement Notice be issued due to the reduced significance of the lean

to addition and the increased significance of the rear opening to the main heritage listed building, which was established through the authorised restoration works.

CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 53

Cr I Waltham returned to the meeting at 8.05 pm. PSC1202-13 LEFROY ROAD NO. 55 (LOT 650), BEACONSFIELD TWO STOREY

ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0376/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 February 2012 (PSC) Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans (As Amended) Attachment 2: Heritage Assessment Date Received: 10 August 2011;

23 November 2011 (Amended Plans) Owner Name: Tim & Elizabeth MacNamara Submitted by: Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: MHI – Management Category Level 3,

South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Residential Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 54

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 55 (Lot 650) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield. The application is not considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies, specifically Council’s DBH1 – Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines policy. The applicant is pursuing discretionary decisions in relation to ‘Acceptable Development’ requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) pertaining to the following Design Element’s: • 6.3.1 – Buildings setback from the boundary; • 6.7.1 – Building height; and • 6.8.1 – Visual privacy. On balance, it is considered that the proposed two storey additions are not sympathetic to the heritage significance of the place, and therefore the application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a density coding of R25 and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area 4 (LPA 4) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bound by Hale Street to the west, Beard Street to the south, Lefroy Road to the north and Livingstone Street to the east. The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List as a Management Category Level 3, and is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 503m2 and is located on the southern side of Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield with a north-south orientation and is currently improved by a single storey Single House, outbuilding and associated structures. In terms of topography, the site rises approximately 2.00 metres from its front (Lefroy Road) up to the rear of the lot.


Page 55

A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and to this application:

• On 11 April 1988, the City granted Planning Approval for Alterations and Additions to the Existing Single House at No. 55 (Lot 650) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield (refer DA16/88). The approved development included partial demolition of the existing kitchen, bedroom, bathroom/laundry and enclosed verandah at the rear of the dwelling and construction of a new kitchen, family room, bathroom/laundry and porch. Numerous internal alterations and some external alterations to the front verandah were also approved; and

• On 1 May 2000, the City granted Planning Approval for a Patio Addition to the Existing Single House at No. 55 (Lot 650) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield (refer DA186/00).

DETAIL On 10 August 2011 the City received a planning application for two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 55 (Lot 650) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield. On 23 November 2011, the City received amended plans for the proposal and justification in response to the proposed variations and to the comments made in the Heritage Assessment. The proposed development plans (as amended) are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is proposing a number of variations from the ‘Acceptable Development’ standards of the R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 6 September 2011, the City had received three (3) submissions pertaining to the proposal, raising the following concerns:

• Boundary setback (upper floor, east); and • Visual privacy. Accordingly, these concerns will be discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.


Page 56

Heritage In accordance with Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessments (LPP 1.6), a Heritage Assessment was carried out to determine the potential impacts that the proposal may have on the heritage values of the heritage listed place, and its context including the streetscape and/or heritage area. Heritage advice was received by the City on 5 October 2011. The Heritage Assessment identified the place as being of ‘some’ heritage significance. Overall, the Heritage Assessment was not supportive of the proposal in terms of its mass and bulk and the subsequent impact upon the form and scale of the original building as well as the immediate streetscape of Lefroy Road. The following comments were provided outlining the impacts of the proposed development upon the heritage significance of the place:

“... Retention of original fabric is positive in light of the place’s cultural heritage significance ... However, the degree of change to the place in terms of its mass and bulk, with a ridge height in excess of 8 metres from the existing floor level, relationship to the form and scale of the original building, and impact on the immediate streetscape of Lefroy Road and its number of intact original buildings in the neighbourhood is incompatible with the scale of both the existing building and the local significant streetscape, and would therefore constitute a negative change to the heritage significance of the place and the streetscape. There is no historic evidence to suggest that the original street-facing gable was clad with weatherboard with a tapered timber finial, and as such these changes suggest an original façade that is not supported by evidence of the original street-facing presentation of the place. The scale of the proposed extensions overwhelms the existing building and represents a negative and permanent impact on the significance of the place, particularly in light of its position at the ridge of Lefroy Road close to the highest point at Mardie Street and its streetscape presence in the local landscape. 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 design solution and architectural language of the proposed extension generally replicate the original streetscape with a 27 degree roof pitch and street-facing gable, but the height and scale are incompatible with the local single-storey streetscape.”

The Heritage Assessment was not supportive of the proposed cladding addition to the original street facing gable. The applicant has advised the City that they are happy to remove this element of the proposal, of which will be recommended as a condition if the PSC was of the mind to grant approval, with such a condition stating that this element does not form part of the proposal. A copy of the Heritage Assessment is contained as ‘Attachment 2’ of this report.


Page 57


The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Variations to the prescribed standards sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.

PLANNING COMMENT

Residential Design Codes 2008 (R-Codes) 6.3.1 – Buildings setback from the boundary

Boundary Required Proposed Variation Eastern boundary (upper floor –‘sitting’, ‘stairs’, ‘bed 4’, ‘w/c’)

1.70m 1.55m 0.15m (150mm)

This variation is supported for the following reasons: • The proposed eastern boundary setback variation (upper floor) is supported as it is

considered that it will provide adequate and direct sun and ventilation to the proposed Single House;

• Additionally, it is not considered to present any significant impacts on the eastern adjoining property by way of building bulk given the architectural design and integration of a number of windows that act to break up the bulk of the elevation;

• Given the orientation of the subject site, being north-south, overshadowing of the eastern adjoining property will not be an issue and is fully compliant with the Acceptable Development standards of 6.9.1 – Solar access for adjoining sites; and

• In their submission, one of the submitters whom had concerns with the eastern setback variation for the proposed upper floor specified that preservation of their visual privacy was an important consideration. These concerns were passed onto the applicant, of whom has indicated that they would be happy to obscure the ‘sitting room’ windows to address this issue. In accordance with the R-Codes, if the PSC was of the mind to approve this development, it will be recommended that this be imposed as a condition requiring those windows be fixed and obscured.

6.7.1 – Building height

Element (Height) Permitted Proposed Variation Wall 6.00m 7.30m 1.30m (1,300mm) Ridge 9.00m 9.50m 0.50m (500mm) This variation is not supported as it is not considered that the building height is consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality. In terms of the surrounding streetscape in the immediate locality of the subject site, the Heritage Assessment provided the following comments: [bolded for emphasis]

“The street in the immediate neighbourhood of 55 Lefroy Road is primarily comprised of single-storey residential masonry dwellings are generally set close to the front boundaries behind walls of varying heights and materials including masonry, timber pickets and wrought iron.”


Page 58

Having identified that the immediate neighbourhood of No. 55 (Lot 650) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield comprises primarily single storey dwellings, the Heritage Assessment goes on to further state that there has been little change to those single storey dwellings:

“There appears to have been little change to original buildings, which generally retain their original form and scale, although there has been some later development, generally set back to the rear of original dwellings.”\

It does, however, acknowledge an exception to the predominant single storey nature of dwellings in the locality:

“An exception is 53 Lefroy Road, the neighbour to the west of 55 Lefroy Road, which has been recently extended and re-roofed with corrugated iron.”

At its meeting on 5 November 2008, the PSC granted approval for two storey additions at No. 53 (Lot 1) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield, the western adjoining property to the subject site (refer PSC0811-298, DA313/08). Those two storey additions approved included a height variation to the standards prescribed by the R-Codes, however this variation was limited exclusively to wall height with 6.60m being approved – 0.60m above the prescribed standards. It is noted that those two storey additions complied with the roof height requirements, proposing 8.50m which is less than the permitted 9.00m. In this regard, whilst it may be considered that precedent has been set in granting variations to the height requirements, those approved by the PSC for No. 53 (Lot 1) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield are considered to be of a lesser impact than that proposed by this application at No. 55 (Lot 650) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield. In this regard, it can be said that the proposal is not in keeping with the predominant building height of dwellings in the locality and therefore is not supported. 6.8.1 – Visual privacy

Required Provided Variation Setback 6.00m in the case of habitable rooms other than bedrooms and studies

Eastern elevation for the upper floor (‘Sitting Room’) setback 0.805m (805mm) from the eastern adjoining property (No. 57 (Lot 71) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield); and

5.195m

Setback 7.50m in the case of unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces

Western elevation for the upper floor (‘Balcony’) setback 5.21m from the western adjoining property (No. 53 (Common Property Lot) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield);

2.29m

The variation for the ‘Sitting Room’ is supported for the following reason(s):


Page 59

‘Sitting Room’ • As discussed in 6.3.1 above, the applicant has indicated that they would be happy to

obscure the ‘sitting room’ windows to address the issue of overlooking. In accordance with the R-Codes, if the PSC was of the mind to approve this development, it will be recommended that this be imposed as a condition requiring those windows be fixed and obscured so as to fully satisfy the Acceptable Development standards of the R-Codes in this instance.

However, the variation for the ‘Balcony’ is not supported for the following reason(s): ‘Balcony’ • The balcony would allow overlooking into the rear courtyard of the western adjoining

property, No. 53 (Lot 1) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield notwithstanding that the 7.5m cone of vision falls onto the Common Property Lot of that property; and

• It is not considered that this variation should be supported, however given that it can be easily dealt with via a condition of approval it is not considered that this variation be listed as a reason for refusal.

Local Planning Policies DBH1 – Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines The existing dwelling is best described as a single storey rendered and hipped and gabled zincalume roofed house. Council’s DBH1 policy states the following provisions for architectural design and that of additions and extensions:

“6. Additions and Extensions (a) Any additions should be designed in such a way as to retain and

enhance the character and integrity of the existing house and to minimise any impact of new additions on the streetscape and neighbourhood properties.

(b) Additions and extensions to existing single houses will be assessed in light of the following conditions: [inter alia] • If an upper floor extension within the existing roof space or loft is

not possible, then any upward extension should be in the form of a two-storey addition built at the rear of the existing house, that is, a minimum of 4 metres behind the ridge line, such that its visual impact can be minimised with respect to the built environment of the property, neighbourhood and streetscape.”

As discussed earlier in this report, the Heritage Assessment identified that the proposed two storey rear additions would not be sympathetic to the character and integrity of the existing house, the neighbourhood and surrounding streetscape, specifically in terms of bulk and scale, when it states that the:

“relationship to the form and scale of the original building, and impact on the immediate streetscape of Lefroy Road and its number of intact original buildings in the neighbourhood is incompatible with the scale of both the existing building and the local significant streetscape, and would therefore constitute a negative change to the heritage significance of the place and the streetscape.”


Page 60

Furthermore, the proposed two storey rear addition is not located at least 4.00m behind the ridge line of the existing house as prescribed by Council’s DBH1 policy. As such, it is not considered that the two storey additions are consistent with this policy provision. LPP 2.5 – External Treatment of Buildings Clause 2.2 of Council’s LPP 2.5 – External Treatment of Buildings policy (LPP 2.5) states as follows in relation to the treatment of existing buildings listed as Management Category Level 3 on the City’s MHI:

“2.2 Where the external building is constructed of face brickwork and limestone fabric, treatment of external surfaces shall be in accordance with clause 1.2 of this policy.

1.2.1 Council will not approve the rendering or painting of face brickwork or limestone fabric for buildings of recognised heritage significance unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant that it is not possible to conserve the face brickwork or limestone fabric in its current form, and painting or rendering the face brickwork or limestone fabric is the only suitable conservation treatment in the circumstances.

1.2.2 The sealing of exposed face brickwork or limestone fabric of buildings with recognised heritage significance is not considered appropriate and will not be supported.

1.2.3 In cases where treatment of face brickwork and limestone fabric is proposed, an application shall be accompanied by a technical report from a suitably qualified expert in support of the methodology to ensure that the treatment will be beneficial for the ongoing conservation of the building.”

The proposal included the addition of ‘Primeline Summit’ weatherboard to the existing gable of the original house. The Heritage Assessment was not supportive this particular element of the proposal, and as such the applicant has agreed to leave the existing gable of the original house as is. In this regard, the proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives and provisions of Council’s LPP2.5 policy. As discussed earlier in this report, if the PSC was of the mind to approve this application, this would be imposed as a condition of approval. CONCLUSION

The proposed two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 55 (Lot 650) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield has been assessed against and is considered to meet the Performance Criteria provisions of the Residential Design Codes specifically DE 6.3.1 – Buildings setback from the boundary and DE 6.8.1 – Visual privacy. Notwithstanding, the proposal is not considered to meet the Performance Criteria provisions of the Residential Design Codes in relation to DE 6.7.1 – Building height. Furthermore, it is not considered that the application adequately addresses the criteria as contained within Council’s DBH1 policy and following a heritage assessment it has been found that the proposed two storey additions to the existing dwelling, in its current form, would detrimentally affect the heritage value of the place. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.


Page 61

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 55 (Lot 650) Lefroy Road, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 23 November 2011, for the following reason(s): 1. The proposal is inappropriate having regard to the heritage value of the place and

Clause 10.2.1 (zi) of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4. 2. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy

DBH1 - Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines. Cr R Fittock moved to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow the applicant time to address the issues raised in the Officers report. CARRIED: 7/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 62

PSC1202-14 HIGH STREET NO. 72 (LOT 410), FREMANTLE RETROSPECTIVE

SIGNAGE ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING (AD DA0379/11) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 February 2012 (PSC) Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Heritage Assessment Date Received: 12 August 2011 Owner Name: Anthony Macri & Giuseppe Macri Submitted by: Merenda Gallery Scheme: City Centre Zone Heritage Listing: MHI Management Category Level 1B,

West End Conservation Heritage Precinct Existing Landuse: Shop Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 63

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The applicant is seeking retrospective approval for unauthorised ‘banner’ signage at No. 72 (Lot 410) High Street, Fremantle. Council may grant retrospective approval for unauthorised works if those works are considered to satisfy the relevant provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies. On balance the unauthorised signage is not considered to be consistent with the provisions of Council’s DGF14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy and DBH6 – Signs & Hoardings policy. Furthermore, the unauthorised signage is considered to detrimentally impact the heritage significance of the building, and detract from the streetscape and the locality in general. Accordingly, the application for retrospective approval for the unauthorised signage is therefore recommended for refusal. Furthermore, it is recommended that Council issue a direction to remove the unauthorised signage within 60 days and that if the direction is not complied with, legal action will be initiated. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Central City’ under the provisions of the City of Fremantle’s (the City) Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) and is located within the City Centre Local Planning Area 1 (Sub Area 1.3 – West End) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Pakenham Street to the west, High Street to the south, Leake Street to the north and Market Street to the east. The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as Management Category Level 1B and is within the West End Conservation Heritage Precinct which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 506m2 and is located on the northern side of High Street, Fremantle with a north-west orientation and is improved by a three storey commercial building. A review of the property file revealed the following relevant planning history pertaining to the site and to this application: • On 3 September 2010, the City investigated reports that unauthorised ‘banner’

signage had been erected on the first floor façade of the existing building, of which was confirmed by a site inspection;

• On 29 September 2010, the City sent the landowners a written warning advising that they either: 1) reinstate the property to its original state prior to erection of the banner signage; or 2) lodge an application for retrospective approval with the City within 28 days (ie by 27 October 2010);

• On 24 January 2011, the City sent the landowners a second letter instructing them to either remove the unauthorised signage or lodge an application for retrospective approval within 14 days (ie by 7 February 2011);

• On 18 May 2011, the City conducted a further site inspection which confirmed that the signage had not yet been removed;


Page 64

• On 11 August 2011, the City sent a letter to the landowner advising that the matter would be forwarded to the City’s Solicitors for further action; and

• On 12 August 2011, the City received an application seeking retrospective approval for the unauthorised banner signage (refer DA0379/11).

DETAIL On 12 August 2011, the City received an application seeking retrospective approval for two (2) unauthorised ‘banner’ signs attached to the external façade of the first floor of the existing building at No. 72 (Lot 410) High Street, Fremantle. Details of both of the unauthorised ‘banner signs’ are as follows:

• Height: 3.00m • Width: 1.35m (top); 0.74m (bottom) • Material: Canvas • Colour: One sign is black, the other is white • Inscription: ”Merenda Gallery Fine Art”

The development plans are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s LPP 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 7 September 2011, the City did not receive any submissions pertaining to the proposal. Heritage In accordance with Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessments (LPP 1.6), a Heritage Assessment was carried out to determine the potential impacts that the proposal may have on the heritage values of the heritage listed place, and its context including the streetscape and/or heritage area. The Heritage Assessment was prepared by the City and completed on 26 September 2011. The Heritage Assessment deems the building to be of ‘considerable significance’ and states that the unauthorised signage, in its current form is detrimental to the heritage significance of the place and the locality and therefore not supported. The following comments were provided outlining the impacts of the proposed development upon the heritage significance of the place:

“The scale and prominence of the vertical banner signs which are attached to the pilasters of the facade have a negative visual impact on the aesthetic values of the building. This is not in accordance with the City’s signage policy D.B.H6 Signs and Hoardings … [however] The simplicity of the colouring and lettering design of the signs is appropriate.”


Page 65

In addition to the detrimental impact upon the heritage significance of the building itself, the Heritage Assessment was also critical of the impact that the unauthorised signage has on the streetscape:

“As above the as well as the impact on the building there is also a negative impact on the important High Street streetscape … As well as the impact on the building there is also the impact on the streetscape. Vertical banner signs are not common within the West End and are not encouraged. Although it is acknowledged that there is a preference for the first floor spaces of the heritage buildings to be occupied and therefore requires some signage.

Further, the Heritage Assessment deemed the scale of the unauthorized signage to be inconsistent with the locality:

“The existing banner signs add to visual clutter on the significant High Street streetscape … There is a temporary type banner sign on the building adjoining which is also considered too large and obtrusive. The vertical banner sign on 84 High Street is smaller and can be considered acceptable.”

A copy of the Heritage Assessment is contained as ‘Attachment 2’ of this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal was assessed against the relevant scheme and planning policy requirements. Any variations/discretions sought will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Local Planning Policies DBH6 – Signs & Hoardings The objectives of Council’s DBH6 – Signs & Hoardings policy are to: [inter alia]

“The objectives of the policy are to: (i) ensure that signs erected or displayed in the City of Fremantle are

appropriate to their location and function and do not diminish the visual amenity, aesthetic, heritage significance and character of the locality or detract from the appearance of buildings and places.

(ii) ensure that any signs erected or displayed on listed buildings and places (Council’s interim Heritage Listings Database Printout) are compatible with the function of the building, the character of the place and the appreciation and conservation of its architecture and streetscape.”


Page 66

In this regard, and in light of the heritage advice received, it is not considered that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of this policy. Clause 2.1(i) of Council’s DBH6 policy states:

“2.1 The Council will ensure that signs are in harmony with the exterior design of the building to which they are fixed, and specifically: [inter alia] iii) in the case of listed buildings, signs may be applied to the facade in

a manner appropriate to the period and function of the building or otherwise shall be below the awning level;”

In this regard, Council should consider the advice provided in the Heritage Assessment which considered the unauthorised signage to have a detrimental impact upon the heritage significance of the place, particular on its facade and the streetscape. The Heritage Assessment identified “the first floor of the façade [of the building] is noted for its elaborate detailing.” It is noted that this is the location of the unauthorized banner signage. Clause 2.2 of Council’s DBH6 policy states:

“2.2 In the case of a listed building the Council shall have regard to and may attach conditions concerning the historical appropriateness of the materials, style, design and lettering of the sign and whether it is affixed in such a way that it causes no damage to the building and may be removed without leaving evidence of its having been affixed.”

Whilst the Heritage Assessment was not supportive of the unauthorised signage in its current form, it did provide some guidance for Council to consider in the event that an alternative signage proposal for the building was forthcoming. The Heritage Assessment identified the following circumstances where such an alternative signage proposal for this building may be supported:

“Overall, the existing signs are not supported. To facilitate the use of the first floor as a gallery one vertical sign could be supported with the following condition; 1. That there is only one vertical banner sign and it does not protrude further than

600mm from the wall with the fabric no more than 500mm in width and 2000mm in height.

2. That the sign is affixed so as to cause minimal impact to the fabric of the original façade.”


Page 67

DGF14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy

The subject site is located within ‘The West End’ zone of the Council’s DGF14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy. Clause 4.2.2 of Council’s DGF14 policy relates to Development Control within the West End Conservation Area and states: [inter alia]

“4.2.2 Development Control – Policy for the West End Conservation Area (a) Townscape and Amenity

… In considering any application within the West End the Council will have regard to the existing cultural environmental, historical, scenic and, scientific interest as defined by this policy and in particular: • Elements of townscape such as the relationships of buildings along a

street in terms of horizontal and vertical alignments, skyline, siting of buildings; the relationships of new to existing buildings and roof shapes, refinement of details, material, colours and finishes of proposed building work, advertising and other signs, location and protrusion of plant rooms, external furniture displays and hoardings, landscaping and public space provisions within the development.

• The Council will ensure that heritage values of the entire West End Conservation Area be conserved.”

The unauthorised signage is not considered to be consistent with the provisions of Council’s DGF14 policy as detailed above given its incompatibility with the heritage significance of the place and streetscape. LPP1.5 – Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance

Under the provisions of Clause 4.5 of Council’s LPP1.5 - Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance (LPP1.5), an infringement is not able to be issued to the alleged offender as the offence is believed to have been committed more than six (6) months ago. Notwithstanding, Clause 4.6 of Council’s LPP1.5 prescribes the circumstances where prosecution can occur under the Planning and Development Act 2005, stating as follows:

“Where non-compliant development or use is being or has been carried out; and (a) the non-compliance has not been rectified within the specified timeframe

following the warning, and (b) an infringement notice has not been issued, or payment of the modified

penalty has not occurred within the allotted time, and (c) no opportunity for retrospective approval is to be given, or if given, an

application has not been forthcoming or has been refused.


Page 68

Then the matter will be the subject of prosecution action, without further notice. 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 Chief Executive Officer there is a broader public interest in undertaking legal action, a report will be prepared for the Council to consider further prosecution action.”

As discussed in the ‘Background’ section of this report, on 3 September 2010, the City investigated reports that unauthorised signage (banners) had been erected on the first floor façade of the existing building, of which was confirmed by a site inspection by the City’s Officers. Following an investigation of property file, it was confirmed by the City that no Planning Approval had been obtained for the signage. The City has afforded the alleged offender two (2) opportunities to either reinstate the property to its original state or to lodge an application for retrospective approval with the City in two separate letters dated 29 September 2010 and then on 24 January 2011. The alleged offender failed to act on either of the two options afforded by the City by the prescribed deadlines. Based on the above, on balance it is considered that there is a broader public interest in undertaking legal action. On this basis it is recommended that a direction be issued to the alleged offender to remove the unauthorised banner signage and that legal action be initiated. In the instance however that the Committee wish to support the signage, the following alternative recommendation would be appropriate. That the retrospective application be APPROVED the under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Signage Addition to Existing Building at No. 72 (Lot 410) High Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 12 August 2011, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with development

plans dated 12 August 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot. 2. The works hereby permitted shall be undertaken in a manner which does not

irreparably damage any original or rare fabric of the building. Should the work subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive officer, City of Fremantle.

CONCLUSION On balance the unauthorised signage addition is not supported as it is considered to have a significant impact on the heritage values of the listed place and locality. Furthermore, the unauthorised signage is not considered to comply with the provisions of Council’s DGF14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy and DBH6 – Signs & Hoardings. Consequently, the application is recommended for refusal. Furthermore, it is recommended that Council issue a direction to remove the unauthorised signage within 60 days and that if the direction is not complied with, legal action will be initiated.


Page 69

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council: A) REFUSE the application for retrospective approval under the Metropolitan Region

Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the unauthorised Signage Addition to Existing Building at No. 72 (Lot 410) High Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 12 August 2011, for the following reason:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy

DGF14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy and DBH6 – Signs & Hoardings policy.

B) The City of Fremantle to issue a direction to require that within thirty (30) days, the

unauthorised signs be removed from the existing building to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

C) In the instance that the direction outlined in B) above is not complied with, the City

of Fremantle is to initiate legal action. Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow the officers to prepare an alternative recommendation for approval consistent with heritage advice. CARRIED: 7/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 70

PSC1202-16 KEELING WAY NO.25 (LOT 224), SOUTH FREMANTLE TWO

STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH LOFT (MS DA0441/11) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 February 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: 9 September 2011 Owner Name: Mr John Henry Leonard Squibb & Mrs Paula Jo-Anne

Squibb Submitted by: Dickie Architects Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: Nil Existing Landuse: Nil Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 71

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination as the City received submissions during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval to construct a two storey Single House with a loft at No.25 Keeling Way, South Fremantle. The applicant is pursuing an exercise of discretion in relation to Development Plan 14 contained within Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) and the Acceptable Development requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) pertaining to: • Building Height; • Setbacks of Buildings Generally; • Sight lines at Vehicle Access Points and Street Corners; • Buildings on Boundary. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria of the R-Codes with the exception of Setback of Buildings Generally. The proposal contains a nil setback to Dorre Lane, which is considered to be incongruous with the consistent 1m setback observed along the street. Accordingly it is recommended that a condition be included requiring the building be setback 1m from Dorre Lane. According, the proposal is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the south eastern side of the intersection of Keeling Way and Dorre Lane, South Fremantle. The site is zoned Residential under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory nor is it located within a designated Heritage Area in accordance with Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The applicant submitted amended plans to the City on the 8 December 2011 in order to address concerns raised throughout the consultation period, particularly in regard to the building height of the proposal. Initially a height of 7.82m to the eaves was sought, with an overall height of 9.83m. The revised plans indicate the height to be decreased to 5.7m to the eave with the overall height being reduced to 9.26m. DETAIL The applicant is seeking planning approval for a two storey Single House at No.25 Keeling Way, South Fremantle. The development is to have frontage to Keeling Way and vehicular access provided from Dorre Lane. The applicant is also proposing the use of the roof space to be used as a loft area to be serviced by shed dormer windows. The development plans are enclosed as an attachment to this report (Attachment 1).


Page 72


The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of the scheme, R-Codes and relevant planning policies. Any variations/discretions sought are discussed in the Planning Comment section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with the City’s L.P.P1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being the 25 October 2011 there were a total of 3 submissions received. The content of the submissions received is summarised below: Submission 1 Concerns expressed in regard to overall height and scale of the

development, incongruity with the surrounding dwellings, loss of views through reduced primary street setback, concern regarding shadow generated by proposed boundary wall and concerns in regard to visual privacy in association with the drying balcony on the first floor of the dwelling.

Submission 2 Concerns expressed in regard to overall scale and style of the

development, incongruity with the surrounding dwellings and streetscape.

Submission 3 Concerns expressed in regard to overall height and scale of the

development, incongruity with the surrounding area, views through reduced primary street setback, concern regarding shadow generated by proposed boundary wall and concerns in regard to visual privacy in association with the drying balcony on the first floor of the dwelling.

The issues raised in submissions in relation to the discretionary decisions sought will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report.


Page 73

PLANNING COMMENT

Building Height

Required Provided Variation 5.5m to eaves as measured from adjoining ground level

5.7m at highest point 0.2m at highest point

8.5 roof ridge 9.26m at highest point 0.76m at highest point The council may entertain a variation to the above requirements where the following criteria are satisfied: (a) The variation will not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or within

the locality generally; (b) Conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on site and adjoining; and (c) Any other relevant matter outlined within councils local planning policies. In regard to points (b) and (c), the subject site is not located within an area, or adjoining sites of cultural heritage significance, furthermore, requirements for the south beach area outlined in D.G.S6 have been mostly encompassed into Development Plan 14 contained within LPS4. Accordingly, in exercising discretion for the above variation to the height requirements of LPS4, Council should be satisfied that the proposal will not be detrimental to the amenity of the adjoining properties or the locality generally. Accordingly the discretion sought in regard to the height requirements of development plans 14 is supported for the following reasons: • The discretion sought for height to the eave is associated with the western elevation of

the site, which is separated from the western adjoining properties by Dorre Lane. Accordingly it is considered that impacts on the adjoining properties brought about by the discretion sought are reduced in this instance;

• The discretion sought can in part be attributed the fall of natural ground level to the west of the site. On this basis, the additional height will have little impact in terms of access to sunlight, bulk and scale.

As indicated in the table below, there are examples within the locality of discretion being sought in regard to height of buildings to the eave, however to date the City’s records indicate that discretion is yet to be sought for an overall height variation.

Property Address Eave Height Overall Height Discretion 23 Keeling Way 5.5m 7.7m Nil 21 Keeling Way 5.3m 8.5m Nil 29 Keeling Way 5.5m 8.2m Nil 11 Keeling Way 6.8m 7.1m Wall Height 27 Keeling Way 7.5m 7.8m Wall Height


Page 74

Notwithstanding, It is acknowledged that the discretion sought for height can be for the reasons previously discussed, and that variation is not extensive in this particular circumstance. However in granting discretion, Council is to be satisfied that the variation will not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or within the locality generally as this discretion is likely to establish some form of precedent in terms of height. Given that the discretion sought is not considered to contribute to any perceivable impact on the adjoining properties, it is recommended that council exercise its discretion in this instance. Setbacks of Buildings Generally Required (Secondary Street) Provided Variation

1.5m 1.0 – 1.5m ground floor 0-1.9m upper floor

0.2m - 1.5m 0-1.5m

The variation upper floor variation is not supported for the following reasons: • There is a consistent established streetscape along Dorre Lane in that all dwellings

are setback at 1m, therefore the development containing a nil setback would be incongruous with other development in the area; and

• It is considered that the cumulative effect of a nil setback and increased height will imposing on Dorre Lane terms of bulk and scale.

Accordingly a condition of approval will be recommended requiring that the applicant observe a 1m setback to the western side of the site. The ground floor variation is supported as it is minor and retains thee existing setback of other dwellings in Dorre Lane. Sight lines at Vehicle Access Points and Street Corners

Required Provided Variation Walls and fences no truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of where walls and fences adjoin vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street and where two streets intersect.

1m truncation provided to Dorre

Lane

0.5m

The variation is supported for the following reason: • Given that the vehicle access is not located adjacent to any footpaths, and that the

setback of the garage is consistent with Appendix 1 of D.G.S6, it is considered that the proposed setback is adequate in providing vehicular sightlines on the basis that Dorre Lane has been designed to provide vehicle access to dwellings along Keeling Way and South Beach Promenade, therefore will not be subject to high volumes of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.


Page 75

Buildings on Boundary

Elevation Length Height East 4.44m 3.3m at highest point East 3.82m 3.15m at highest point

The proposed boundary walls partially abut existing constructed boundary wall of similar or greater dimension, however are not specifically permitted under LPS4 or any other Council Policy and do not satisfy the replacement acceptable development criteria of the City’s L.P.P2.4 and as a result require an assessment against the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes. The proposed boundary walls are supported in accordance with the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.3.2 for the following reasons: • The boundary wall is built in part adjoining the garage of the eastern adjoining

property, accordingly the walls are seen to make effective use of space on site as it allows for a greater amount of functional space to be encompassed into the Dwelling, as opposed to providing a 1m side setback that is generally difficult to effectively utilise;

• the proposed walls are located adjacent to an existing boundary wall and side setback area associated with non habitable rooms, and are not adjacent to any outdoor living areas;

• Given the alignment of the proposed boundary wall the eastern adjoining property will not be impacted by overshadowing;

• The boundary wall does not contain any major openings, therefore will not impact the visual privacy of the adjoining property.

Overall, the proposed boundary walls are considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes and Council’s L.P.P2.4 Boundary Walls Policy. CONCLUSION The proposal has been assessed against the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme, the Residential Design Codes and the City’s Local Planning Policies. As discussed above, the applicant provided amended plans which are considered to contribute to the concerns raised by adjoining property owners being ameliorated. Furthermore, the revised plans have resulted in a smaller overall discretionary decision being sought in regard to Building Height. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the discretion sought in regard to the proposed secondary street setback in addition to the other discretionary decisions will contribute to the proposal being incongruent with the existing built form of south beach. Accordingly a condition is included recommending that the 1m setback which is maintained throughout Dorre Lane be observed at the subject site. Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.


Page 76


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 with Loft at No.25 (Lot 224) Keeling Way, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with

development plans dated 8 December 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 boundary walls located on the eastern and southern

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

4. The proposed ‘Master Bedroom’ is to be reconfigured so as to be setback 1m

from the western boundary of the site in accordance with Appendix 1 of the City’s D.G.S6 Local Planning Policy South Beach Village.



Page 77

PSC1202-19 FORREST STREET NO.156 (LOT 3), FREMANTLE TWO, TWO

STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS (MS DA0537/11) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 February 2012 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: 31 October 2011 Owner Name: Keith Alfred Smith Submitted by: Hodge Collard Preston Architects Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: Nil Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 78

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for two, two storey Grouped Dwellings at No.156 Forrest Street, Fremantle. The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination as the City received submissions during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval. The applicant is pursuing an exercise of discretion in relation to the Acceptable Development requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) pertaining to: • Setback of Garages and Carports; • Buildings setback from the Boundary; • Buildings on Boundary; • Setback of Retaining Walls; • Excavation and Fill; • Building Height; • Visual Privacy. The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme 4 (LPS4), and is located on the northern side of Forest 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. On the 11 January 2012 the City referred a recommendation of approval subject to conditions through to the WAPC in regard to a proposed three lot subdivision at the subject site. The WAPC is yet to finalise its determination on this matter however the proposal is consistent with the lot configurations depicted in the subdivision plan. DETAIL The applicant is proposing the construction of two, two storey Grouped Dwellings to be constructed at No.156 Forrest Street, Fremantle. The Grouped Dwellings are to be located to the rear (north) side of the site with vehicular access provided from the adjacent right of way. The proposal also contains pedestrian access from Forrest Street to the Dwellings. The applicant submitted amended plans to the City on the 15 December 2011 in order to address concerns raised in throughout the consultation period. The applicant included the addition of opaque windows to a height of 1.6m on the upper floor of the proposed dwelling. Whilst no discretion was sought for these openings in terms of visual privacy, the alterations were made to address concerns raised by the adjoining neighbours. The proposed development plans are enclosed as an attachment to this report (Attachment 1).


Page 79


Residential Design Codes The applicant is pursuing an exercise of discretion in relation to the Acceptable Development Criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) pertaining to: • Setback of Garages and Carports; • Buildings setback from the Boundary; • Buildings on Boundary; • Setback of Retaining Walls; • Excavation and Fill; • Building Height; • Visual Privacy.

The assessment against the Performance Criteria of the above Design Elements will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with the City’s L.P.P1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being the 30 November 2011 there were a total of 3 submissions received. The content of the submissions received is summarised below: Submission 1 Suggestion of opaque glass on bedroom windows of upper floor,

“like the design of the development”. Submission 2 Concerns expressed in regard to boundary wall impeding on natural

light entering the property. Submission 3 Concerns expressed in regard to loss of visual privacy in association

with upper floor windows. The content of the submissions will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report.


Page 80

PLANNING COMMENT

Setback of Garages and Carports

Required Provided Variation 4.5m 2.5m 2m

The proposal is considered to meet the Performance Criteria of this design element for the following reasons: • The setback of the Garage is consistent with the setback of other dwellings along the

right of way, therefore the garage will not appear inconsistent with other dwellings as seen from the right of way;

• The location of the Garage is not anticipated to obstruct views of the dwellings from the right of way and vice versa.

Accordingly the proposal is considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.2.3. Buildings setback from the Boundary Southern Elevation (Ground Floor)

Required Provided Variation 1.8m 1m 0.8m

The proposal is considered to meet the Performance Criteria of this design element for the following reasons: • The proposed setback is not anticipated to limit ventilation to the subject site nor the

southern adjoining property. • The area of the southern adjoining site adjacent to the southern elevation is not used

for outdoor living purposes. Furthermore, there combination of existing trees, space between the subject site and the dwelling to the south, along with the size of the elevation (Length 5.438m, Height 4m) will act to ameliorate matters associated with building bulk.

Accordingly, the reduced southern boundary setback is considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes. Buildings on Boundary

Elevation Length Height East 8.55m 3 – 3.4m West 8.55m 3 – 3.6m


Page 81

The proposed eastern and western boundary walls are supported in accordance with the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.3.2 for the following reasons: • The location of the proposed boundary walls have been positioned adjacent to part of

an existing boundary wall (East) and non habitable side setback area (West). On this basis the walls are considered to make effective use of the space on site and are located in a sensitive manner to reduce impacts of bulk on the adjoining property;

• The boundary walls are not anticipated to restrict northern access to any outdoor living

areas or major openings due to the north-south alignment of the walls. Overall, the proposed boundary walls are considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes and Council’s L.P.P2.4 Boundary Walls Policy. Setback of Retaining Walls Western Retaining Wall

Setback Required Provided Variation 1m Nil 1m

Accordingly, the proposed retaining wall is considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of this Design Element for the following reasons: • Given the north-south alignment of the wall, the wall is not anticipated to have any

detrimental impact on the adjoining property by way of access to sunlight or ventilation.

• The area adjacent to the western boundary falls by about 0.8m from the predominant

topographical contour of the site. As the area to be retained is associated with the vehicle storage on site, the alterations to the site levels are considered to be necessitated for the purposes of providing for vehicular access to the site.

• The area of the adjoining property adjacent to the retaining wall is comprised of a side

setback area and will not be impacted by building bulk; Overall, the proposed retaining wall appropriately responds to the topography of the site and is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the western adjoining properties, and is considered to satisfy the performance criteria of this Design Element.


Page 82

Excavation or fill

Permitted Provided Variation 0.5m of fill Up to 0.8m within 1.0m of the western

boundary 0.3m of fill

The proposal is supported in accordance with the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.6.1 for the following reasons: • The proposal has been designed in a manner which maintains the key topographical

characteristics of the site. Accordingly, the site works are primarily ‘stepped’ to follow the topography of the site with the exception of the component associated with vehicle access.

• The proposed fill will not be visible from the adjacent right of way. Accordingly the proposal is considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.6.1. Building Height

Required provision Proposed Variation 6m (Wall) 8.8m (Lot 2)

9.35m (Lot 3) 2.8m

3.35m 9m (Overall) 8.8m (Lot 2)

9.35m (Lot 3) Nil

0.35m This variation is supported for the following reasons: • The applicant has concentrated the height of the proposal to the centre of the site in

order to graduate the height down towards the eastern, southern and western adjoining properties. It is to be noted that in order to increase the extent of graduation between the properties, the proposal has incorporated a curved-skillion design. It is noted that designs incorporating a flat, skillion or curved roof are more likely to require a greater wall height than a development that incorporates a more traditional pitched roof;

• As the increased wall height varies with the angle of the roof, and that roof angles

down from the from the centre outward towards the east and west, the eastern and western adjoining properties will be subject to a smaller overall elevation;

• Given that the dwelling is located on a rear lot, its impact on the streetscape will be

negligible, thus not establishing an undesired precedent along Forrest Street. • The proposal is not anticipated to restrict views of significance from the adjoining

properties. It is on this basis the proposed departure from the height requirements of Table 3 is supported in accordance with the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.7.1.


Page 83

Visual Privacy

Opening Required Setback Provided Setback South facing outdoor living area on

ground floor of proposed Lot 2. 7.5m 1m (at closest point)

It is considered that the extent of the projected overlooking into the southern adjoining property is likely to contribute to a detrimental impact on the use of the active open spaces associated with the site. On this basis, it is considered appropriate that the above opening be suitably screened in accordance with Design Element 6.8.1 of the R-Codes. Accordingly conditions of approval has been included pertaining to the above departure from the Acceptable Development criteria of Design Element 6.8.1. CONCLUSION The proposal has been assessed against the relevant requirements of the Residential Design Codes and the City’s Local Planning Policies. It is considered that the proposal is supportable in that the discretionary decisions sought are considered to satisfy the relevant Performance Criteria of the R-Codes, otherwise maintaining that the visual privacy of the southern adjoining properties is protected through a condition of planning approval. Accordingly the proposal 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, two storey Grouped Dwellings at No.156 (Lot 3) Forrest Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with

development plans dated 15 December 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 boundary wall located on the eastern and western

elevation 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 occupation, 80% solid surface area / obscured balustrading to a

minimum height of 1.6 metres above the floor level shall be provided to south facing outdoor living area of Lot 2 in excess of 0.5m above natural ground level 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.


Page 84



Page 85

PSC1202-20 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/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the information is noted. CARRIED: 7/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 86

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) PSC1202-21 REVIEW OF LPP 1.5 PLANNING, BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENTAL

HEALTH COMPLIANCE PRINCIPLES DataWorks Reference: 117/027 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 1 February 2012 Planning Services Committee (PSC) and

22 February 2012 Council Meeting Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Manager Development Services Decision Making Level: Council Attachments: Existing LPP 1.5 (Amended March 2010) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND Local Planning Policy 1.5 Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance (the policy) was adopted in September 2008 to outline a clear and equitable approach to the administration of planning, building and environmental health compliance issues. The policy was subsequently reviewed in March 2010 to:

1. Include additional criteria to “write off” certain compliance matters (take no further action);

2. Allow for extensions to the 28 day “warning period” to a maximum of another 28 days;

3. Introduce the issue of $500 infringements which is linked to the issue of retrospective development approvals.

PLANNING COMMENT The building and environmental health components of the policy have been operating effectively for some time and since March 2010 several planning infringements have been issued. However the linking of the infringement process and the retrospective development approval process has proved to be problematic. This is due to the time between when the City becomes aware of the compliance issue and retrospective development approval is granted sometimes being more than 6 months. Legally an infringement can only be issued within this 6 month time frame. On this basis it is considered that a review of the policy is required to address this matter specifically and as it has been approximately 2 years since the policy was reviewed last, a more general review of the policy is also appropriate.


Page 87

It is proposed to amend the policy by:

1. Introduction of a compliance procedure that separates the infringement/prosecution components of compliance from the retrospective development application process.

2. Refining the ‘write off’ provisions (circumstances where Council may take no further

action) so that the criteria is less subject to interpretation and includes an assessment of heritage impact;

3. Separating planning from building and environmental health compliance; 4. Simplifying the format of the policy; 5. Clearly identifying the objectives of the policy i.e.

i) Identify the general criteria by which it is determined whether to take compliance action or not;

ii) Define whether a particular compliance matter is under the jurisdiction of the City;

iii) Identify specific circumstances where no compliance action will be taken; iv) Identify in what circumstances a stop work order is issued; v) Outline the general compliance procedure include the issue of infringements

and prosecutions. 6. Refining the circumstances when a stop work order is issued;

Changes 1 and 2 are the most significant changes to the policy and are discussed further below. Compliance Procedure The current policy requires that once a compliance matter is brought to the City’s attention:

1. The owner is given 28 days to rectify the matter or apply for a retrospective development application for the unapproved works;

2. If retrospective development approval is granted or the unapproved works are removed, a $500 infringement is issued;

3. If retrospective approval is not granted, or the unapproved works are not removed, prosecution will occur.

The majority of compliance matters dealt with by the City are able to be granted retrospective development approval therefore a $500 infringement should be issued. A $500 infringement must legally be issued within 6 months of the City becoming aware of the compliance matter (i.e. after an inspection has been conducted and it has been confirmed by staff that the matter is unapproved). In some circumstances the 6 months in which to issue an infringement has lapsed therefore no infringement can be issued. This leads to an inequitable application of infringements. The policy review proposes to separate the issues of infringements from the retrospective development application process to avoid the likelihood of the 6 month time frame in which to issue an infringement to pass. The policy review proposes the following process:


Page 88

1. Does the compliance matter meet the “write off provisions”; 2. It yes then the Manager Development Services to refer a report to Planning

Services Committee (PSC); 3. If no then the following process will apply:

a. If the compliance matter relates to non-compliance with a condition of planning approval which requires an action within a specified time frame, a letter is issued requiring that the matter be rectified within 21 days. If after 21 days the matter is not rectified:

i. A $500 infringement will be issued; and ii. A notice will be issued requiring the compliance matter to be

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

b. In all other cases (e.g. unapproved development or non-compliance with other development approval conditions):

i. A $500 infringement will be issued; and ii. A notice will be issued requiring the compliance matter to be

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

If the Manager Development Services considered that there are extenuating circumstances to depart from the above procedure, like any other significant variation to policy requirements, a report will be prepared and referred to PSC. “Write off” provisions The write off provisions of the current policy state: 2.3.1. Uncertainty of Compliance

Where, after reasonable investigation, it is uncertain that a matter is compliant with planning or building requirements, or it is uncertain whether it is capable of enforcement owing to:

(a) a lack of precision in the plans / documents of any relevant approval, or (b) a lack of certainty at the time of development as to the legal status of the development or the

requirement to obtain approval, or (c) any other legal consideration.

2.3.2 Matter Considered Trivial or Insignificant

Where there is a breach of planning or building requirements and the matter may reasonably be considered trivial or insignificant.

For the purposes of this policy, a matter will be considered to be trivial or insignificant only where the extent of the non-compliance is very minor to the point where the distinction between complying and not complying with the relevant legislation would be almost indistinguishable.


Page 89

2.3.3 Other Circumstances

Where it has been established that a breach of planning or building requirements has occurred and that the breach is neither trivial nor insignificant, Council following the consideration of a report, may determine not to take action where a matter meets all of the following 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 all other cases, compliance action will proceed in accordance with this policy and without further referral to Council. In relation to Clause 2.3.2 it is proposed to amend the wording to state that the distinction between complying and non-complying would not be obvious other than to a person well versed in the relevant law. An example of where this would apply is the circumstance where a wall is built 100mm higher than approved. This is not likely to be distinguishable to a person other than a Council Officer checking approved drawings against the built outcome. Clause 2.3.3 relating to ‘other circumstances’ where a compliance matter can be written off current only applies to minor structures such as fencing, outbuildings, shade structures, external fixtures, air conditioners or minor structures. It is proposed to delete this clause so that it could apply to any development. The other remaining sub clauses that require the breach to have existed for some time, to have no apparent impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape of the locality and be structurally sound are proposed to remain. The purpose of this change is that the majority of such minor breaches often involve minor changes to single houses. For example a window that has changed from a highlight window to obscure glazing (and still complies with the privacy requirements of the R Codes) currently cannot be written off because it appurtenant to a single house. It is also proposed to add to this clause a requirement that the breach does not adversely impact the heritage values of the place. Delegation It is proposed that action relating to the proposed compliance procedure (issue of reminders for time related issues of non-compliance, $500 infringements and notices giving 4 months for a matter to be rectified) be undertaken under delegation as the assessment criteria is clear. The question remains however whether some or all of the ‘write off’ provisions should be delegated or in all instances these decision should be referred to PSC. Currently the policy is unclear and appears to only require that matters relating to clause 2.3.3 “Other circumstances” be considered by PSC. However it may have been the intent of the policy for all ‘write off’ matters to be referred to PSC.


Page 90

The types of non-compliance issues that could be written off can range from the very minor to requiring an on balance decision. It is generally considered that compliance matters that fall within clause 2.3.1 “uncertainty of compliance” and clause 2.3.2 “matters considered trivial or insignificant” are generally more straightforward and less subject to interpretation. However as the criteria of clause 2.3.3 “other circumstances” involves subjective judgments about whether the breach has an adverse effect on amenity or heritage values, is it considered more appropriate for these matter to be considered by PSC. These delegation issues are not included in the recommendation as it is proposed to discuss these matters further at PSC. CONSULTATION

Once the principles of the policy review have been adopted, changes will be made to the policy and a report will be presented to Council for consent to advertise. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That a review of LPP 1.5 Planning, Building And Environmental Health Compliance be undertaken and a report prepared for Council’s consideration that addresses the following principles: A Introduction of a compliance procedure that separates the

infringement/prosecution component of compliance from the retrospective development application process by the following process

1. Does the compliance matter meet the “write off provisions”; 2. It yes then the Manager Development Services to refer a report to Planning

Services Committee (PSC); 3. If no then the following process will apply:

c. If the compliance matter relates to non-compliance with a condition of planning approval which requires an action within a specified time frame, a letter is issued requiring that the matter be rectified within 21 days. If after 21 days the matter is not rectified:

i. A $500 infringement will be issued; and ii. A notice will be issued requiring the compliance matter to

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

b. In all other cases (e.g. unapproved development or non-compliance with other development approval conditions):

i. A $500 infringement will be issued; and ii. A notice will be issued requiring the compliance matter to

be resolved within 4 months (this may include obtaining retrospective development approval, stopping an unapproved use, removing an unapproved structure or undertaking the


Page 91

prescribed work). If after 4 months the matter is not resolved, then the matter will proceed to legal action.

B Refining the ‘write off’ provisions (circumstances where Council may take no

further action) so that the criteria is less subject to interpretation and includes an assessment of heritage impact;

C Separating planning from building and environmental health compliance; D Simplifying the format of the policy; E Clearly identifying the objectives of the policy i.e.

i) Identify the general criteria by which it is determined whether to take compliance action or not;

ii) Define whether a particular compliance matter is under the jurisdiction of the City;

iii) Identify specific circumstances where no compliance action will be taken;

iv) Identify in what circumstances a stop work order is issued; v) Outline the general compliance procedure include the issue of

infringements and prosecutions. F Refining the circumstances when a stop work order is issued; CARRIED: 7/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 92

PSC1202-22 PROPOSED PARTIAL ROAD CLOSURES AND AMALGAMATIONS -

OF PORT BEACH ROAD AND TYDEMAN ROAD, NORTH FREMANTLE - WITH FORESHORE RESERVE NO. 43311 AND NO. 29 PORT BEACH ROAD, NORTH FREMANTLE (KSW)

DataWorks Reference: 163/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 01 February 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Land Administrator Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1110-181 Attachment 1: letter of 05 July 2011 from the Department of Regional

Development and Lands (RDL) - State Lands - Metropolitan Region.

Figure 1 - Port Beach Road and Tydeman Road Location Plan


Page 93

Figure 2 - Port Beach Road, North Fremantle - not to scale

Figure 3 - Tydeman Road, North Fremantle - not to scale


Page 94

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to submit to Council the results of a 35 day public comment period with an additional 2 weeks (due to public holidays) in relation to the proposed closure and amalgamation of a portion of Port Beach Road and Tydeman Road, North Fremantle. The proposal relates to a rationalisation of the land boundaries brought about by the North Quay Rail Loop and Rail Terminal Project undertaken by the Fremantle Ports' with the actual road works completed in 2006. There are three sections to this item as follows;

1. The proposed partial closure of a portion of Port Beach Road, North Fremantle (see Figure 2 above) as described on Preliminary Plan titled "Land Requirements for Port Beach Road North Fremantle" (see attachment 1) for the purpose of amalgamating the land with the City of Fremantle managed Foreshore Reserve No. 43311.

2. The proposed partial closure of a portion of Tydeman Road, North Fremantle (see Figure 3 above) as described on Preliminary Plan titled "Land Requirements for Tydeman Road, North Fremantle" (see attachment 1) for the purpose of amalgamating the land with the adjoining Fremantle Ports' owned land on the southern side of the road reserve.

3. To recommend that a 2632m2 parcel of land coloured yellow on the preliminary plan titled "land requirements for Port Beach road, North Fremantle" (the "Carpark") and in the current ownership of the Fremantle Ports' - is surrendered to the Crown for the purpose of amalgamation with Reserve No. 43311 (see figure 2 above). This recommendation is supported by the Manager of Technical Services with an in principal agreement from the Fremantle Ports' representatives subject to the approval of the Fremantle Ports' Board of Directors.

As the City has received no objections to the proposal and the physical amendments to the respective road reserves are completed, it is recommended that the City proceed and formalise the land administration requirements relating to Local Government. The formalisation requires the City to close a portion of Port Beach Road and Tydeman Road as detailed above pursuant of Sections 58 and 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997. The other amendments involving the dedication of land are the responsibility of the registered owner being the Fremantle Ports' in this case. BACKGROUND

The Fremantle Port's managed the North Quay Rail Loop and Rail Terminal Project whereby the physical amendments to the road boundaries described above were completed in 2006. The project was jointly funded by Fremantle Ports, Main Roads WA and the Public Transport Authority. The Department of Regional Development and Lands ( RDL) - State Lands, wrote to the City of Fremantle on 5 July 2011 advising that a portion of Port Beach Road, North Fremantle and Tydeman Road, North Fremantle require a formal closure process in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 ("Act"). Further that the City accept the inclusion of the closed portion of Port Beach Road into Foreshore Reserve No. 43311 or accept management as a separate reserve and to provide any comments with regard to the proposals as a whole.


Page 95

On 02 August 2011 - The Asset manager for Main Roads WA supported the changes in land tenure as detailed in the attachments to the letter from RDL State Lands (see attachment 1). Further, the Land Project Co-ordinator of Main Roads WA, agreed with the City of Fremantle that the Carpark land would better serve the public as part of the Foreshore Reserve No. 43311. On 29 August 2011 - City's officers met on-site with the Fremantle Ports representative to discuss the Carpark area shown in figure 2 above. On 06 September 2011 - City's officers met with the Fremantle Ports' representatives who agreed in principal to ceding the 2632m2 Carpark area to the City for amalgamation with Foreshore Reserve No. 43311 - subject to the approval of the Fremantle Ports Board of Directors. On 12 October 2011 (PSC 1110-181) Council resolved to;

1. "Undertake a public consultation and advertising process including a 35 day public comment period in regard to the proposed closure of portion of Port Beach Road and Tydeman Road, North Fremantle being the rationalisation of land boundaries completed in 2006, as shown on the Fremantle Ports Preliminary Plans titled "Land requirements Tydeman Road North Fremantle" and "Land requirements Port Beach Road North Fremantle" dated September 2006 being drawing numbers G2671/01/01 (1) and G2671/01/01 (2).

2. Following the completion of the advertising period, consider the submissions

received during the advertising and public consultation in a report to Council for a final decision prior to advising State land Services of that decision relating to the land described in point 1 in accordance with Section 58 and 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997."

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The proposed public road closure of a portion of Port Beach Road, North Fremantle and Tydeman Road, North Fremantle as described in the maps above is pursuant of Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997. The Act requires that an advertising period of 35 days must precede any application to RDL State Lands. The advertising period was extended by a further two weeks due to public holidays falling between 18 December 2011 and 8 January 2012, in accordance with Local Planning Policy 1.3 Section 10. Section 58 (6) (a) of the Land Administration Act 1997 states that; "When a road is closed under this section of the Act, the land comprising the former road becomes unallocated Crown Land." Section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997 provides the Minister with the legislative authority to convey in fee simple or lease Crown land for subsequent amalgamation with the adjoining land. The public advertising consists of an advertisement in the local paper including a publication on the City's web site under "Community Engagement", comments from public utilities and the Department of Planning.


Page 96

COMMENTS The City's Officers have engaged in discussions with representatives from the Fremantle Ports regarding a 2632m2 parcel of Fremantle Ports owned land shown as Carpark and coloured yellow in the preliminary plan for Port Beach Road. The City has suggested to the Fremantle Ports that this parcel of land currently utilised as a public parking access to Port Beach, should be amalgamated with Foreshore Reserve No. 43311 under the City's care, control and management. Under the current proposal two thirds of the carpark area will remain in the ownership of the Fremantle Ports with the north western portion, being part of the former Port Beach Road alignment, amalgamated with the Foreshore Reserve. The end result would be a shared management of the carpark area. The Fremantle Ports initially wanted to retain the 2632m2 parcel of land for future use as an emergency breakdown lane. However it was agreed at the on-site meeting that the land was not long enough for an emergency breakdown lane or an arrester lane for trucks. The land was better served as a public carpark being part of the Foreshore Reserve and managed by the City of Fremantle. The City's officers support the formalisation of the land boundaries where road closures are required on both Port Beach Road and Tydeman Road, North Fremantle. The Fremantle Ports' are required to formalise the road widening and dedication requirements where the ceding of the Ports' land is required. It is believed that the Fremantle Ports' Property section initially requested that State Lands take action to formalise the road boundaries associated with the North Quay Rail Loop and Rail Terminal Project completed in 2006. Comments - Technical Services

• Supports the proposed amalgamation of the subject portion of Port Beach Road with Foreshore Reserve No. 43311 under the management of the City of Fremantle.

• Supports the proposed closure of a portion of Port Beach Road and Tydeman Road, North Fremantle as described in Attachment 1.

• Inspected the 2632m2 Carpark area currently left in the ownership of the Fremantle Ports' and supports the proposal to amalgamate this parcel of land with Foreshore Reserve No. 43311. It is noted that the City has provided rubbish bins, signage and line markings at the entrance and exit of the carpark in order to improve the safety of the area. The carpark has an acceptable limestone surface which would only require occasional grading in order to maintain the surface. Therefore the costs involved to maintain the carpark would be low.

Comments - Main Roads WA Support the changes in land tenure as detailed in attachment 1 with the Land Project Co-ordinator supporting the proposal to have the Carpark land transferred to the Crown for amalgamation with Foreshore Reserve No. 43311.


Page 97

EXTERNAL SUBMISSIONS Community The proposal to close and amalgamate a portion of Port Beach Road and Tydeman Road as described in points 1 and 2 above, was advertised for a period of not less than 35 days in accordance with statutory requirements. The advertising period was extended by a further two weeks being a total of 53 days due to the Christmas and New Year public holidays. Public advertising included:

• Advertisement placed in the Fremantle Gazette on the 22 November 2011 with a 53 day public comment period

• Proposal advertised on the City of Fremantle Public Engagement website. • Letter sent to the North Fremantle Precinct.

At the conclusion of the 53 day advertising period, being 13 January 2012, the City had not received any submissions from the public and no objections from Infrastructure providers subject to the conditions detailed in the summary of submissions below.

SUBMITTER NAME

SUBMITTER ADDRESS

COMMENTS (IN POINT FORM)

OFFICERS RESPONSE

Water Corporation

Leederville No Objection

• Sewer pressure main located along the Foreshore Reserve will not be affected as access is permissible.

• There are no services affected by the Tydeman Road amalgamation.

Comments noted

Western Power

Perth No Objection Comments noted

WA Gas Networks - Trading as ATCO Gas Australia

Jandakot No. Objection at this stage

• Live High Pressure and Medium Pressure gas distribution assets are currently installed in the vicinity of your proposed works.

The ATCO Gas Australia maps indicate that the subject areas of road closure and amalgamations will not affect the existing gas lines. This is due to the completion of the physical road works


Page 98

SUBMITTER NAME

SUBMITTER ADDRESS

COMMENTS (IN POINT FORM)

OFFICERS RESPONSE

in 2006 with any relocation of gas lines carried out at that time.

Telstra Perth No Objection .

Comments noted.

Main Roads WA

No Objection

• Support the proposed changes in land tenure as requested by the department of Regional Development and lands - State Land Services.

• Support the proposal to have the Carpark land transferred to the Crown for amalgamation with Foreshore Reserve No. 43311.

Comments noted.

Department of Planning

Perth No response received

North Fremantle Precinct

City of Fremantle

No response received

Phone Calls Nil Nil

CONCLUSION

Both the portions of Port Beach Road, North Fremantle (figure 2) and Tydeman Road, North Fremantle (figure 3) require a formal closure and amalgamation process to commence in order to formalise the earlier road works completed in 2006. Technical Services support the proposed section of Port Beach Road to be closed and amalgamated with Foreshore Reserve No. 43311 rather than create an entirely new reserve.


Page 99

Also the Carpark area currently owned by the Fremantle Ports and utilised by the public is to be ceded to the Crown for amalgamation with Foreshore Reserve No. 43311. The City has not received any objections to the proposal; however ATCO Gas Australia has advised the City that live High Pressure and Medium Pressure gas distribution assets are currently installed in the vicinity of the proposed road closures and amalgamations. It is therefore recommended that Council resolves to close and amalgamate a portion of Port Beach Road and Tydeman Road, North Fremantle as described in Figure 2 and 3 above together with the plans included with attachment 1. Further, that Council recommend the carpark area shown above in figure 1 and 2 be ceded to the crown and amalgamated with Foreshore Reserve No. 43311. The existing infrastructure will not be impacted by the proposed Road closures and amalgamations as the physical works were completed in 2006. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

1. NOTE that no objections were received as a result of an extended public advertising period from 22 November 2011 to 13 January 2012.

2. APPROVE the proposed closure of a portion of Port Beach Road and

Tydeman Road, North Fremantle being the rationalisation of land boundaries completed in 2006, as shown on the Fremantle Ports Preliminary Plans titled "Land requirements Tydeman Road North Fremantle" and "Land requirements Port Beach Road North Fremantle" dated September 2006 being drawing numbers G2671/01/01 (1) and G2671/01/01 (2).

3. APPROVE the proposed amalgamation of the portion of Port Beach Road

described in item 2 with the Foreshore Reserve No. 43311 in preference to creating a separate reserve.

4. APPLY to the Department of Regional Development and Lands (RDL) State

Lands and request the closure and amalgamation of a portion of Port Beach Road and Tydeman Road, North Fremantle as detailed in item 2 in accordance with Section 58 and 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997.

5. RECOMMEND to the RDL State Lands, that the 2632m2 parcel of land

currently shown in the Fremantle Ports' preliminary Plan titled "Land Requirements Port Beach Road North Fremantle" and identified as "Fremantle Ports land isolated by road deviation", be ceded to the crown and amalgamated with Foreshore Reserve no. 43311 subject to the approval of the Fremantle Ports' Board of Directors.


Page 100



Page 101

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS Nil. CLOSURE OF MEETING THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.34 PM.


Page 102

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

The Council adopted a Community Engagement Policy in December 2010 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1. The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2. The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3. The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4. These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5. The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.

All input is of equal value 6. No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7. Local Government in WA is a representative democracy. Elected Members and the CEO are charged under the Local Government Act with the responsibility to make decisions based on fact and the merits of the issue without fear or favour and are accountable for their actions and decisions under law. Elected Members are accountable to the people via periodic elections. As it is a representative democracy, decisions may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will


Page 103


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 policy and procedures

11. The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.


Page 104


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

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

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

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

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

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

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

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16. Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


Page 105

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 106

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 1 February 2012,6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Planning Services Committee 1 February 2012

Page 2

MINUTES - City of Fremantlestorey single house with loft (ms da0441/11) 70 psc1202-19 forrest street...

Documents

Transcript of MINUTES - City of Fremantlestorey single house with loft (ms da0441/11) 70 psc1202-19 forrest street...