MINUTES - City of Fremantle€¦ · table of contents . item no subject page declaration of opening...

MINUTES

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 6 November 2013, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 2

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 3

LATE ITEMS NOTED 4

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4

TABLED DOCUMENTS 4

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 4

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 4

PSC1311-155 SOUTH STREET NO 399 (LOT 324) SAMSON - THREE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (22 RESIDENTIAL UNITS) - (AA DA0366/13) 5

PSC1311-156 NORFOLK STREET NO 20 (LOT 1) FREMANTLE - TWO (2) STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE FOUR (4) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND ONE (1) GROUPED DWELLING) (AD DA0348/13) 18

PSC1311-157 SOUTH STREET NO 2/398 (LOT 152) O'CONNOR - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AMD CONSTRUCTION OF 27 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, SHOWROOM AND RESTAURANT 31

PSC1311-158 TUCKFIELD STREET NO 34-36 (LOT 10 & 11) - TWO STOREY ADDITION TO EXISTING TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0506/13) 38

PSC1311-161 HAMPTON ROAD NO 176 (LOT 1) SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING (AD DA0279/13) 45

PSC1311-159 SWANBOURNE STREET NO 9A (LOT 361) FREMANTLE - EXTENSION TO TERM OF PLANNING APPROVAL FOR DA0337/09 (TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH BASEMENT) (JL ET05/13) 52

PSC1311-162 NO 147 (LOT 51) EDMUND STREET BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (CJ DA0425/13) 58

PSC1311-163 WATKINS STREET NO 101A (LOT 2) WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING ADDITION (KS DA0382/13) 65

PSC1311-165 QUARRY STREET NO 77 (LOT 6) FREMANTLE - CARPORT - (CJ DA0414/13) 74

PSC1311-160 MORRIS STREET NO. 1 (LOT 300) BEACONSFIELD - SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0297/13) 79

PSC1311-164 SOUTH STREET NO 266B (LOT 2) WHITE GUM VALLEY - SINGLE STOREY GROUPED DWELLING (JL DA0228/13) 85

PSC1311-166 MEWS ROAD NO 47 (LOT 2029) FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO TAVERN (RESTRICTED) AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING - (CJ DAP80005/13) 95

PSC1311-167 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 103

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 104

PSC1311-168 FINAL ADOPTION - SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 50 - ADDITIONAL DWELLINGS 104

PSC1311-169 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 42 - REQUIREMENT FOR REGISTERED ARCHITECT TO DESIGN LARGER DEVELOPMENTS - INITIATION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 110

PSC1311-170 PROPOSED ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW 116

PSC1311-171 PROPOSED LOCAL PLANNING POLICY - CONSTRUCTION SITES 128

PSC1311-172 PROPOSED ALCOHOL MANAGEMENT POLICY 137

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 143

CLOSURE OF MEETING 143

Summary Guide to Citizen Participation and Consultation 144

Minutes - Planning Services Committee 6 November 2013

Page 1

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

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

on 6 November 2013 at 6.00 pm. DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS Mr Phillip St John, Director of Planning and Development Services declared the meeting open at 6.01 pm. NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." IN ATTENDANCE Cr Robert Fittock North Ward/Presiding Member Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward/Deputy Presiding Member Mr Jon Strachan 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 Statutory Planning Mr Paul Garbett Manager Planning Projects and Policy Mr Matthew Piggott Manager Health, Building and Compliance Mr Matthew Cantrell Policy Officer Mr Sam Van Baren Administration Officer Mrs Michelle Gibson Minute Secretary There were approximately 71 members of the public and 0 member/s of the press in attendance. As this is the first Planning Services Committee after the 2013 Ordinary Council elections the Director of Planning assumed the Chair and opened the meeting. The first item of business was the election of the Presiding Member and the Director called for nominations. Two nominations were received being Cr R Fittock and Cr J Strachan. There being more nominations than positions vacant an election by secret ballot was held to determine the position. The election returned a tied vote so the Director sought a


Page 2

second election by secret ballot. The second election returned an outcome with the Director declaring Cr R Fittock the Presiding Member for Planning Services Committee until the ordinary council elections in 2015. Cr Fittock then assumed the Chair as Presiding Member and sought nominations for deputy presiding member. Two nominations were received being Cr R Pemberton and Cr B Massie. There being more nominations than positions vacant an election by secret ballot was held to determine the position. The Director declaring Cr R Pemberton the Deputy Presiding Member for Planning Services Committee until the ordinary council elections in 2015. APOLOGIES Nil LEAVE OF ABSENCE Brad Pettitt Mayor RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE Nil PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Nil DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1311-155: Jason Townes Noel Kagi The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1311-155: Kaye Land Angela Birmingshaw Velibor Deb Ljakovic Len De Sales The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1311-156:


Page 3

Catriona Gregg June Hutchison Tony Watson Katrin Wilson The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1311-157: Paul Pawluk The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1311-157: Filipe Telo Eric Rogers Brian Eyre Rochelle McDonald The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1311-161: Julius Welke The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1311-158: Wade Routledge The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC1311-159: Paul Peca The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC 1311-162: Grant Thomas Paul Wilson The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PSC 1311-165: Sasha Ivanovich John Kirkness DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS At 6.19 pm Cr R Fittock declared a financial interest in item number PSSC1311-155 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item.


Page 4

LATE ITEMS NOTED Nil CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES MOVED: Cr R Pemberton That the minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated <Date> as listed in the Council agenda dated 2 October 2013 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan

TABLED DOCUMENTS The following documents were tabled at the meeting:

• a public submission from Franklin Gaffney relating to item PSC1310-149 • a submission from John Kirkness relating to item PSC1311-165 • information from Andrew Pawluk relating to PSC Item 1311-157 • a letter from Hua Hua Zhang relating to item PSC 1311-155 • a letter from Bernard Seeber relating to item PSC1311-155

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register Nil. 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


Page 5

Cr R Fittock vacated the chamber at 6.19 pm and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. PSC1311-155 SOUTH STREET NO 399 (LOT 324) SAMSON - THREE RESIDENTIAL

BUILDINGS (22 RESIDENTIAL UNITS) - (AA DA0366/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development Plans 2 – Applicants Response to Submissions Date Received: 31 July 2013 Owner Name: J Townes & Big Moreton Pty Ltd Submitted by: Bernard Seeber Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential (R15) and unzoned Heritage Listing: Not Heritage Listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Residential Building Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for Residential Buildings including 22 residential units across three two storey buildings. The proposed development is located on the southern side of South Street in a Residential zoned area with a density coding of R15. The density and intensity of the land use proposed is considered to be significantly above that expected in accordance with the R15 coding. The application was referred to Main Roads Western Australia (‘MRWA’) which objected to the proposal on the basis that access will be provided from South Street. MRWA requires that access be provided from the rear Temby Court; which the subject site does not directly abut. The subject land exists on the boundary of the City of Fremantle and the City of Melville and in order to provide access from Temby Court a new crossover will need to be provided over areas of public open space reserve vested with each authority. In order to provide access over these lots, a change to the reserve management category of the lots would be necessary. If the City makes a determination inconsistent with the MRWA objection, then the City will relinquish its delegated authority to determine the application; which would then be determined by the WAPC. Notwithstanding the objection of MRWA, the application is recommended for refusal as it is considered contrary to the Residential zone objectives of Clause 4.2.1(a) as the level of density proposed for the ‘Residential Building’ use is considered too intense compared to the existing intensity of development which will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area. Due to the MRWA objection, there are in affect three scenarios that could apply, inclusive of the officer’s recommendation;

• The application be refused; • The application be approved in its current form in which case the City

relinquishes its delegated authority and the application is to be determined by the WAPC; or

• The application be approved subject to amended plans and conditions that enable access to be provided via Temby Court. In this instance the City’s decision would be consistent with the MRWA advice and the City would retain its delegated authority.

BACKGROUND

The subject site is located at No. 399 (Lot 324) South Street, Samson and is partly zoned ‘Residential’ and partly unzoned (the eastern portion of the lot) pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’). The subject site exists opposite the intersection of South Street and Plane Tree Grove and borders the eastern extent of the City of Fremantle boundary.


Page 7

The subject site contains an existing single storey Single House and is 1,526m2 in size. At its Development Assessment Committee meeting of 29 May 2000, the City resolved to formally close Hudson Street, a street that previous ran through the subject land; which may have formed the current ‘unzoned’ portion of the subject site. In closing this road reserve, the committee report notes that 430m2 of land forming the reserve would be amalgamated with the adjoining lot; thereby forming the subject site. This unzoned portion of land is currently the subject of scheme amendment No. 54 to LPS4 (Third Omnibus of Minor Changes) which was adopted by the City’s Council at its meeting of 22 May 2013 following advertising. The unzoned portion of land is proposed to be rezoned Residential and coded R15 under the proposed amendment. DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a ‘Demolition of Existing Building and Construction of Three, Two (2) Storey Residential Building(s)’ including;

• The demolition of an existing single storey Single House and associated outbuildings at the land;

• Three, two storey Residential Buildings containing 22, single bedroom and/or studio units;

• The provision of 20 vehicle parking bays, including 2 universal bays, 4 motor cycle bays and parking for 20 bicycles;

• A relocated/modified driveway to South Street; and, • Associated landscaping and fencing to side boundaries as well as a screen

wall fence to South Street. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The Explanatory Guidelines of the R-Codes state that for Residential Buildings;

‘Where it is proposed to develop a residential building as defined by the R-Codes, the extent to which the provisions of the R-Codes should be applied to the development of the building will be determined by the scheme and relevant provisions under the Health Act 1911, relating to residential buildings or lodging houses.’

The form of the development proposed includes 22 residential units arranged in three, two storey buildings. Such an arrangement is considered to be consistent with the definition of ‘Multiple Dwellings’ under the R-Codes; notwithstanding the fact that the proposal meets the definition of a Residential Building. For the purpose of this report, the application has been assessed against the relevant provision of the R-Codes applicable to Multiple Dwellings at the R15 density code.


Page 8

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R Codes and planning policies. Discretionary decisions and assessment against design principles are sought against these requirements in relation to;

• Land Use (Discretionary Use); • Visual Privacy; • Primary Street Setback; and, • Vehicle Parking.

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

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the application involves a number of discretionary decisions. The application was advertised as a ‘significant application’ in accordance with Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposal. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 26 September 2013, the City had received 32 submissions; all of which were objections. The following issues were raised:

• The proposal is out-of-character with the surrounding neighborhood considering the current demographic characteristics.

• Inadequate parking will result in high traffic volumes and safety concerns. • The proposal will result in a lot of off-site parking which will impact on amenity

and streetscape. Particular concern is raised for off-site parking on Temby Court and Rushby Way.

• Inadequate on-site parking is provided. • There is potential for noise nuisance, odours and fumes from vehicles given

the high density of living proposed. • No obvious laundry facilities and some units appear to not contain bathroom

facilities within each bedroom is provided. • The existing bus shelter on South Street inhibits line of sight to exiting vehicles

making the use of the land unsafe for pedestrians and vehicles. This entry point is unsuitable.

• The design of the buildings reflects temporary type development which does not reflect the existing residential built form.

• The building is poorly designed and will impact on property values. • The existing area consists of family homes. This proposal will disturb this built

form character. • The proposed front boundary setback is unacceptable. The proposal is too

close to South Street. • Approval of the proposal will set an undesirable precedent for similar

proposals above the stated density. • Other examples of residential buildings nearby demonstrate their poor

maintenance which will impact on amenity if replicated here. • The proposal and increased density will impact on the privacy and safety of

the neighbourhood.


Page 9

• The proposal will overlook my property and impact on visual privacy and security.

• If access cannot be provided from South Street, the access will be sought from Rushby Way. This will dramatically increase local traffic and impact on safety and the quiet residential neighbourhood.

• Safety issue are raised in regards to vehicles exiting and entering to South Street. South Street is a busy road with a downhill section to the west.

• No details of bin storage or rubbish collection are provided on the plans. • The overshadowing provided on the plans does not take into account

seasonal variation and impact on western and east properties. • The proposal should include a mix of larger and smaller bedrooms/units. • The local area is already at a high enough density. • The proposal could increase crime.

Subsequent to the neighbor notification carried out as part of the proposal, the City also held two community information sessions on Tuesday 17 September 2013 and 26 September 2013. The first information session was attended by approximately 12 people and two elected members. The second information session was attended by approximately 20 people and 2 elected members. As the land exists on the boundary of the City and the City of Melville, the application was also referred to the property addresses of dwellings located outside of the City of Fremantle. A summary of the submissions received were provided to the Applicant. The Applicant provided a response to each issue which are summarised as follows;

• The proposal is residential and will accommodate Fremantle/Samson residents. There is no planned change in demographics.

• The proposal site is South Street orientated and contributes to the variety of development and demographics in the precinct;

• Car parking provision is based on the experience in similar developments by the Applicant. Residents will make use of public transport immediately available on South Street and a percentage will posses a bicycle;

• Lodge management does not permit off-site parking. Lodge management restricts the number of residents with cars to complement on-site car parking provisions;

• Vehicle movement is via the existing crossover and maintains the status quo. The Applicant will make contact with appropriate authorities to ensure that the bus shelter has been located in keeping with guidelines and codes relating to site lines;

• The building design is based on ESD principles including solar orientation and energy management through insulation and opening placement and minimisation of maintenance needs. The buildings will have a minimum life of 50 years;

• The buildings are not poorly designed and professional supporting information can be provided if required;

• Laundry and bathroom facilities are provided to all units and bin storage will be provided and appropriately managed;


Page 10

• The Applicant is not aware of any requirement for the retention of any particular built form character in Fremantle; and,

• Submissions relating to undesirable precedent, poor maintenance, privacy and safety, crime and overshadowing are not agreed to by the Applicant.

A copy of the Applicant’s direct response to the submissions raised is contained in this report at Attachment 2 – Applicants Response to Submissions. In addition to the above, the Applicant also provided comments relating to similar applications previously approved by the City. These are summarised as follows;

• A property at Stockdale Road, O’Connor has been operating successfully for 18 months. Room turn-over at this property is approximately 1 room per 3 months;

• Positive feedback has been received from surrounding landowners since the start of operations at the Stockdale Road property; and,

• Regarding the negative comments received during community consultation, it is worth noting that the architect for this proposal was awarded an Australian Institute of Architects award from the Stockdale Road development.

Main Roads Western Australia The application was referred to MRWA as the subject site abuts a portion of South Street identified as a ‘Category 2’ primary regional road. MRWA provided the following comments;

‘Main Roads objects to the current proposal on the grounds that access is sought from South Street when other access points, off a local road, are possible. Main Road have advised...that access off South Street will not be supported by Main Roads when another access is possible.’

In accordance with the City’s delegation to approve the proposal under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, if the City is to make a decision contrary to the MRWA advice, the City forgoes its delegation; the WAPC is then to determine the application. It is apparent that access could be provided via Temby Court but a significant crossover would be required. Such a crossover could also be provided from Temby Court over a portion of land in the City of Melville. Heritage As the application proposes demolition of an existing primary structure at the subject land, the application was referred to the City’s internal heritage staff for assessment. A heritage assessment was prepared which raised no objection to the demolition of the existing Single House on site. This element of the proposal is therefore supported.


Page 11

Land Administration & Access The application was referred to the City’s Land Administration Officer for comment regarding the potential for site access from Temby Court. In order to gain access from Temby Court, access will need to be provided from either;

• Lot 2554, Haynes Court Reserve, Samson – contained in the City of Fremantle; and/or,

• No. 7 (Lot 323) Temby Court, Kardinya, noted as forming part of Public Open Space – contained in the City of Melville

It is noted that Haynes Court Reserve is identified as a reserve under the Land Administration Act 1997. The reserve is vested with the City and is given a management category of ‘Public Recreation’. In order to gain access over this portion of land it would be necessary to change to management category of the land to ‘Public Access Reserve’. This process would need to be undertaken prior to the issue of a Building Permit or approval of a crossover. PLANNING COMMENT

Land Use

Pursuant to Appendix 1 of the R-Codes, a ‘Residential Building’ is defined as;

‘A building or portion of a building, together with rooms and outbuildings separate from such building but incidental thereto; such building being used or intended, adapted or designed to be used for the purpose of human habitation:

• Temporarily by two or more persons; or • Permanently by seven or more persons, who do not comprise a single

family, but does not include a hospital or sanatorium, a prison, a hotel, a motel or a residential school.’

The proposed buildings contain 22 residential units intended for habitation on a permanent basis by more than 7 unrelated persons. The proposal therefore meets the definition of a Residential Building. A Residential Building differs from a Dwelling in that it allows for occupancy, on a permanent basis, by more than 7 unrelated persons. A dwelling is limited to occupation by not more than 7 unrelated persons. As Residential Buildings are a discretionary land use, the land use is to be considered against the objectives of the Residential zone contained at clause 4.2.1(a). The table below outlines and considers the relevant objectives of the Residential zone;


Page 12

Scheme Objective Comment

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

The proposal allows for a range of densities and housing types to meet the need of different household types compared with the predominantly single house stock in the nearby area. For reasons to be discussed further in this report, the proposal is not considered to protect local character, particularly in regards to the prevailing R15 density coding.

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

The proposal is considered to broadly meet the design based requirements of the R-Codes and City policy. Notwithstanding this, the appearance of the buildings proposed is unsympathetic to the pattern of single dwelling development in Samson. The buildings proposed present as several, individual dwellings which is inconsistent with the predominant character of the area.

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

The design of the proposal is considered to be of a reasonable quality. For reasons to be discussed further in this report, the proposal is not considered to be of a scale compatible with adjoining site.

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

The subject site is the only property in Samson with direct access to South Street. It exists in no clearly defined streetscape.

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

The land use, being residential in nature, is considered compatible with the character of the area. However, the proposed density and bulk is considered to be inconsistent with the defined character of the area and of potential detriment to amenity.

As discussed above, while the proposal is considered to satisfy some elements of the objectives of the zone, the proposal is considered to be of an intensity and bulk that is significantly above the current and expected level of land use within the surrounding locality. Further consideration of this issue in the context of objectives (i), (ii), (iii) and (vi) of clause 4.2.1(a) is made below.

Density & Intensity

Given the discretionary nature of the land use, it is necessary to consider the broader context of the land and the character of the surrounding locality. The subject land exists on the southern side of South Street and is given a density coding of R15. Land located on the northern side of South Street (broadly that land contained between Plane Tree Grove and College Corner, O’Connor) are zoned Local


Page 13

Centre and coded R80. The subject site is unusual in that it is the only lot within Samson that gains access from South Street. All other lots gain access from local roads but maintain pedestrian access to South Street via a number of pedestrian access ways. The southern side of South Street contains residential development only while also providing areas of public open space. The northern side of South Street contains a mix of non-residential and residential land use as well as areas of public open space. Given the subject site’s unique position the following comments are made in respect to the potential impact of the proposal on the surrounding locality;

• Vehicle access to the site is proposed via South Street only. If this were to be maintained, there is considered to be only a minor impact on local traffic in terms of volume on South Street;

• The northern side of South Street contains a large range of non-residential activities that would likely be utilised by the residents of the proposal. The proposal is likely to result in limited interaction with the residential areas to the south side of South Street on the basis that there are no significant retail, employment, community or social facilities contained in this area;

• While there is the potential for increased off site parking on Temby Court, due to the provision of vehicle parking on site, any increase is not likely to cause a significant adverse impact.

While the position of the subject land is considered to mitigate some of the potential impacts of the proposal, further consideration of the intensity of the proposal is made below.

Development Form Dwelling Density Maximum Capacity* Single House, Grouped or Multiple Dwellings

2 dwellings 12 (6 per dwelling)

Proposed (Residential Building)

22 units +22

* Refers to the maximum unrelated persons permitted in a single dwelling by the R-Codes. The subject site would be theoretically capable of achieving approval for up to 2 Multiple or 2 Grouped Dwellings, or 2 Single Houses pursuant to the R15 code. In this instance, these dwellings would be limited to a capacity of not more than 6 unrelated persons (see table above). The proposed density/intensity of the land use would be at a level significantly above the surrounding R15 coded locality.


Page 14

Having regard to the above, the proposed development is not supported for the following reasons;

• The development, if approved, would result in the effective density of the land being significantly above that contemplated by the R15 density code of the subject site and surrounding residential zoned locality. The intensity of the development is considered inconsistent with the surrounding locality pursuant to clause 4.2.1(a)(i), (ii) and (iv) of LPS4;

• The surrounding locality on the southern side of South Street is characterised by low density, residential development largely in the form of Single House development. The intensity of the proposal represents a significant departure from this established character and is therefore considered inconsistent with clause 4.2.1(a)(iii);

• The intensity of the proposal compared to the surrounding locality could result in a change to vehicle parking character of the locality that would represent a departure from the prevailing character, albeit that the proposal is considered to be capable of compliance with noise and parking management standards; and,

• Approval of the proposed development at the density proposed would set an undesirable precedent for the introduction of development at a scale and intensity significantly above that prescribed by the applicable density coding.

Council may be of the opinion to support the proposed density of the ‘Residential Building’ as the level of intensity is manageable and fundamentally will result in no or limited detrimental impacts to the existing amenity of the adjoining residential area. An alternative recommendation is provided at the conclusion of this report should the Council form this view.

Visual Privacy

Element Required Provided North facing openings of upper floor

living & bedrooms affecting the western boundary

4.5-6.0m 1.5m (northern most building), 2.0m (middle building), 2.2m (southern

most building) The proposal does not meet the relevant design principles of the R Codes for the following reasons;

• The cone-of-vision of the openings would result in direct views over the rear area of the adjoining property at No. 3A & 3B Jose Court, Samson; portions of this area are considered to form part of the primary outdoor living area for these dwellings; and,

• The direct view to this area from three different buildings significantly increases the potential for negative visual interaction and loss of privacy between the two sites.

Although this element of the development is not support, it is not listed as a reason for refusal as if the Council were to form an alternative view and approval the proposal, a condition of approval requiring these openings to be screened would be recommended.


Page 15

Primary Street Setback

Required Provided Design Principle Assessment

6m (reduced to a minimum of 3m where compensating area provided)

1.4m 1.6m

As discussed earlier in this report, the application has been assessed against the provisions of a Multiple Dwelling pursuant to the R-Codes. A setback of 6m is required for Multiple Dwellings pursuant to Table 1 of the R-Codes. The R-Codes permits a reduction in the setback up to half the requirement (3m) where a compensating area equal to the incursion is provided behind the 6m setback line. In this instance, the application provides a sufficient compensating area, but goes beyond the maximum reduction of up to 3m. The proposal meets the relevant design principles of the R Codes for the following reasons;

• There are no other dwellings or buildings within the ‘prevailing streetscape’ as other buildings on adjoining sites gain access from Jose Court and Temby Court. Therefore, there is not considered to be an impact on any established streetscape character or pattern of development;

• There are examples, albeit in minor development forms (such as patios, outbuildings etc.) near rear boundaries to South Street of a similar setback distance. In these instances, the setback of these buildings would meets the deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes as they adjoin the rear boundaries of the respective sites; and,

• The lesser setback does not encroach into the South Street road reserve nor does it contribute adversely to other amenity impacts such as overshadowing or visual privacy.

Essential Facilities

It is noted that the application does not include details of on-site laundry facilities available for each residential unit proposed. It is recognised that individual units may be provided with their own internal laundry facilities. Provision of laundry facilities will be necessary for the future approval of a Lodging House license. Any external built form changes required to accommodate laundry facilities are likely to require future planning approval and will be assessed on its merits if such an application is received. CONCLUSION The application is recommended for refusal as it is considered contrary to the Residential zone objectives of Clause 4.2.1(a) (i), (ii), (iii) and (vi) as the level of density proposed for the ‘Residential Building’ use is considered too intense compared to the existing intensity of development. Should the Council form a different view, the following alternative recommendation is provided;


Page 16

That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for APPROVAL under the under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the proposed Three Residential Buildings (22 Residential Units) at No. 399 (Lot 324) South Street, Samson, as detailed on plans dated 31 July 2013, subject to the following conditions;

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 31 July 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to occupation, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans or any approved modifications thereto to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All landscaped areas are to be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation, any north facing, upper floor openings within 6.0m of the

western boundary shall be either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor level, or

b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or

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

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

in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. 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.

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

In addition to the above, should the Council wish to retain its decision making authority, all other issues considered, it would need to include conditions ensuring an alternative


Page 17

access arrangement for the site. In this instance access arrangements may be needed to be made with a third party. If Council were to consider resolving to approve the proposal with alternative access, that the application first be deferred to allow the Applicant time to investigate and provide details of this alternative access scenario. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr Pemberton That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Three Two Storey Residential Buildings (22 Residential Units) at No. 399 (Lot 324) South Street, Samson, as detailed on plans dated 31 July 2013, 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(a) of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 in so far as; a) The proposed density and intensity of the use proposed does not

safeguard or enhance the amenity or protect the local character of the surrounding area or pursuant to c4.2.1(a) (i) and (iv).

b) The development does not safeguard and enhance the amenity of Samson as the development form is considered unsympathetic to the surrounding area pursuant to c4.2.1(a)(ii); and,

c) The bulk and scale of the proposal is considered incompatible with adjoining sites in the context of the single house, low density development of adjoining sites pursuant to c4.2.1(a)(iii).

Cr Wilson MOVED the following: COMMITTEE DECISION The application be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee in order for the applicant to amend plans and address the issues raised in the report, public submissions and the following specific matters: Compatibility with existing scale and form Capability with local character Density of occupancy Parking and access CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan


Page 18

Cr R Fittock returned to the meeting at 7.02 pm. PSC1311-156 NORFOLK STREET NO 20 (LOT 1) FREMANTLE - TWO (2) STOREY

MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE FOUR (4) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND ONE (1) GROUPED DWELLING) (AD DA0348/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: State Heritage Office referral comments Attachment 3: Fremantle Port Authority referral comments Attachment 4: Photos from site inspection Date Received: 23 July 2013; 26 September 2013 (additional plans) Owner Name: Placate Nominees Pty Ltd Submitted by: Alex Temelcos Scheme: City Centre (R-AC3) Heritage Listing: Heritage Listed (Demolished in 1978);

West End Conservation Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Vacant lot Use Class: Office, Multiple Dwelling, Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: P, D, D


Page 19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a two (2) storey mixed use development (Office, four (4) Multiple Dwellings and one (1) Grouped Dwelling) at No. 20 (Lot 1) Norfolk Street, Fremantle. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies, with exception of the following: • LPP2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines; • LPP2.18 – New Residential Developments in the City Centre Zone – Noise from

an Existing Source Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is supportable subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions bringing the development into compliance in relation to both of the aforementioned Council Local Planning Policies. The applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes ‘design principles’ in relation to: • Street setback; • Lot boundary setback; • Outdoor living areas; • Car parking; • Visual privacy; and • Overshadowing. The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes. Where the proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’, it is considered that the proposal is supportable subject to the imposition of conditions requiring certain elements of the proposal being brought into compliance with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes. Accordingly, on balance the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘City Centre’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a density coding of R-AC3 (as per Clause 5.2.4 of LPS4) and is located within the City Centre Local Planning Area 1 (LPA 1) – 1.3 West End sub area 1 as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bound by Marine to the south-west, Essex Street to the north-west, Norfolk Lane to the north-east and Norfolk Street to the south-east. The site is on the City’s Heritage List (however it was demolished in 1978) and it is located within the West End Conservation Heritage Area which is a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4.


Page 20

The subject site is 574m2 and is located on the north-western side of the Norfolk Street, Fremantle. The subject site is currently vacant and is relatively flat in terms of its topography. A review of the property file revealed the following relevant information:

• At its meeting held on 4 October 2006, the PSC refused to grant Planning Approval for a four (4) storey building (12 Multiple Dwellings and Retail Shop) at No. 20 (Lot 1) Norfolk Street, Fremantle (refer DA102/06) under the former Town Planning Scheme No. 3 for the following reasons: “1. The proposed development is contrary to Clause 56 and Clause 77 (g), (h), and

(i) of Town Planning Scheme No.3. 2. The height of the proposed development is not sympathetic to the established

streetscape of Norfolk Street. 3 The proposed balconies overhanging the Norfolk Street road reserve are not

sympathetic to the established streetscape of Norfolk Street.”

• The decision to refuse the above application (DA102/06) was subsequently appealed by the applicant at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) (refer DR 394 of 2006). On 15 March 2007, the SAT dismissed the application for review and the decision of the PSC to refuse the application was affirmed. Specifically, SAT concluded as follows:

“The Tribunal has determined that the height of the proposed development is unacceptable in relation to streetscape. The Tribunal has also determined that the projecting balconies are unacceptable in relation to streetscape.”

• At its meeting held on 15 August 2007, the PSC granted conditional Planning Approval for a three storey mixed use development at No. 20 (Lot 1) Norfolk Street, Fremantle (refer DA278/07) under the provisions of the current LPS4;

• On 17 September 2009, the City granted an extension to the term of Planning Approval for DA278/07 for an additional two (2) years from the date of 17 September 2009 (refer ET10/09);

• It is noted that the Planning Approval for DA278/07 included demolition of the existing building on the subject site, and as this demolition occurred before 17 September 2011, this is considered to constitute ‘substantial commencement’ of the development and therefore as the approval has been acted upon, the approval remains valid;

• At its meeting held on 16 January 2013, the PSC refused to grant Planning Approval for an additional storey and alterations to existing three (3) storey mixed use development (four storeys in total) at No. 20 (Lot 1) Norfolk Street, Fremantle (refer DA0081/12).

DETAIL

On 23 July 2013 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a two (2) storey mixed use development (Office, four (4) Multiple Dwellings and one (1) Grouped Dwelling) at No. 20 (Lot 1) Norfolk Street, Fremantle. On 26 September 2013, the City received further plans, specifically overlooking diagrams.


Page 21

Specifically, the development comprises of the following: • Two (2) commercial ground floor tenancies (office 1 and 2); • Four (4) Multiple Dwellings (units 1, 2, 3 and 5); and • One (1) Grouped Dwelling (unit 4). The proposed development plans are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Policy discretions and assessment against the R Codes design principles sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes ‘design principles’ and discretions to Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 15 August 2013, the City received four (4) submissions pertaining to the proposal, of which the following relevant planning concerns: • Boundary walls; • Building bulk; • Streetscape; • Vehicle manoeuvrability; • Visual privacy;

In addition to the concerns raised above, the following concerns were raised in the submissions; however they are not considered relevant planning considerations: • Structural integrity and footing details;

Accordingly, the relevant planning concerns outlined above will be discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.

City’s Heritage Department Whilst the subject site is on the City’s Heritage List, the dwelling was demolished in 1978 and has only been retained on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) for information purposes only. Notwithstanding the above, the City’s Heritage Department has reviewed the proposal and are supportive of it. State Heritage Office (SHO) In accordance with Section 11 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, the City referred the application to the State Heritage Office (SHO) as the proposal may affect a


Page 22

State Registered Heritage Place, being the ‘Port Flour Mill’ on Essex Street, Fremantle which adjoins the subject site to the north-west. The SHO provided the following referral comments to the City in relation to this application:

“Findings • The referral is for development to the rear of the Port Flour Mill cartilage. Portions

of the existing boundary brick wall that is located approximately 500mm to the rear Mill building will be retained.

• Due to the proximity of the construction to one of the original buildings, there is potential physical impact caused by the excavation of the new development.

Advice 1. A dilapidation survey of the original Port Flour Mill shall be undertaken prior to

work commencing, and a program of vibration monitoring be conducted during works.

2. Any damage to the original Mill fabric shall be made good to conservation standards at the conclusion of works, and be undertaken by a heritage practitioner.”

Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) The City referred the application to the Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) as the proposal relates to a land that is contained within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port Buffer. The FPA provided the following referral comments to the City in relation to this application:

“It is important that the built form requirements for any developments within this area are achieved, particularly in respect to windows, openings, any air-conditioning systems, quiet house design and roof insulation. We would envisage that the development application will be assessed for compliance with these requirements and any approvals conditioned accordingly. It is important that any such built form requirements and conditions are verified following construction. The Council’s buffer policy also requires that a notification or memorial be placed on the title(s), again this would preferably be a condition of approval.”

PLANNING COMMENT

Required Street setback

Proposed Design Principles Assessment 2.00m 0.00m (nil) 2.00m The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • The upper level residential component is articulated by the provision of balconies

fronting Norfolk Street to both proposed units 1 and 2, and is further assisted by varying finishes and materials to that elevation;

• Most existing buildings along Norfolk Street have a nil setback to the primary street, and in this regard it is considered that the proposed nil setback is consistent with the desired streetscape;


Page 23

• In terms of building bulk, the proposal is only a two storey development when the height requirements of Schedule 12 of the City’s LPS4 actually permit three storeys. In this regard, and in conjunction with the articulation of the upper floor as detailed above, it is considered that the proposal does not present significant bulk upon the streetscape;

• The proposal includes an awning over the footpath of Norfolk Street, which will facilitate the provision of weather protection to pedestrians at ground level.

Lot boundary setback

Required Proposed Design Principles Assessment

1 South-western boundary (units 3 and 5 – Multiple Dwellings) 4.00m

0.00m (nil)

4.00m

2 North-western boundary (units 3 and 5 – Multiple Dwellings) 4.00m

0.00m (nil)

4.00m

3 North-eastern boundary (office 2, unit 2 – Multiple Dwelling) 4.00m

0.00m (nil)

4.00m

4 North-western boundary (unit 4 – Grouped Dwelling) 1.30m

0.00m (nil)

1.30m

5 North-eastern boundary (unit 4 – Grouped Dwelling) 1.90m

0.00m (nil)

1.90m

The reduced boundary setbacks for 1, 2 and 3 above are considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • Refer to Attachment 4 for photos of the subject site; • The proposal ensure adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation to buildings and

open space associated with them; • In terms of building bulk, it is not considered that the proposal presents a significant

impact upon adjoining properties as only the north-western adjoining property currently contains residential development with this elevation broken up by openings to both the ground and upper floors;

• It is considered that the proposal ensure access to daylight and direct sun for adjoining properties, specifically the north-eastern adjoining property with existing residential development;

• It is considered that the proposal assists with the protection of visual privacy between adjoining properties;

• In addition, it is considered that the commercial component of the development, specifically the north-eastern boundary walls are consistent with the existing street context.

Discretionary decisions 3 and 4 are supported for the following reasons: • It is considered that it makes effective use of the available space on site; • In relation to additional criteria of Council’s LPP2.4, the walls are not considered to

significantly add to any sense of confinement in terms of accumulative building bulk upon the north-western or north-eastern adjoining properties;

• Overall the proposed north-eastern and north-western boundary walls are not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the north-eastern and north-western boundary adjoining properties, in terms of restricted solar access (as a direct cause), building bulk or loss of visual amenity;


Page 24

• Therefore these proposed discretions are supported as it is considered to address the relevant ‘design principles’ of Design Element 5.1.3 of the R-Codes and the additional criteria stipulated in Council’s LPP2.4 policy.

Outdoor living areas


Unit 1 10m2 with minimum dimension of 2.4m

4.96m2 with minimum dimension of 1.6m

• 5.04m2 • 0.8m for minimum

dimension Unit 2 10m2 with minimum dimension

of 2.4m 4.96m2 with minimum dimension of 1.6m







• 1.32m2

On balance, Units 1, 2, 4 and 5 are considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • In relation to Units 1, 2 and 5, the balconies for these dwellings are capable of use in

conjunction with a habitable room of those dwellings. • In relation to Unit 4, the outdoor living area for this dwelling is capable of use in

conjunction with a habitable room of that dwelling and is open to winter sun.

Use Car parking

Car Bay Delivery Bay Visitor Bay Bicycle Rack Residential 5 0 1 1 Office 4 1 0 1 Total Required 9 1 1 2 Proposed 7 0 0 0 Shortfall/surplus -2 -1 -1 -2 The following assessment is separated into residential and office land uses. Residential -

The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • It is considered that there is sufficient on-site car parking having regard to the type,

number and size of dwellings; • There is a significant provision of on-street parking available in the immediate vicinity

and surrounding locality of the subject site; • There are bus stops located in close proximity to the site, with stops located

approximately 200m away on both Marine and South Terraces providing bus services for the 98, 99, 511, 513, 520, 530, 531, 532, 533, 825 and 920 bus routes in addition to those services provided by the Fremantle Central Area Transit (CAT). In this regard, it is considered that public transport is readily available.


Page 25

Office -

In relation to the discretions sought for the office land use, pertaining to the provision of two additional on-site parking bays, delivery bay and bicycle rack, Clause 5.7.3 of LPS4 outlines circumstances may waive or reduce the standard parking requirement specified in Table 3, and states:

“Council may—

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

(i) the availability of car parking in the locality including street parking, (ii) the availability of public transport in the locality, (iii) any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car

spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces,

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

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

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

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

(viii) any other relevant considerations. Note: *In some sub areas identified in Schedule 12 reduction of parking bays is

not permitted. The requirements of Schedule 12 prevail over this clause. (b) Council may require an applicant to submit a report completed by a suitably

qualified person or persons justifying any of the points cited above. Note: Provides greater flexibility to vary car-parking requirements based upon

alternative transport opportunities.” In relation to the above criteria of Clause 5.7.3(i), it is noted that there is a significant provision of on-street parking available in the immediate vicinity and surrounding locality of the subject site. Regarding (ii) above, there are bus stops located in close proximity to the site, with stops located approximately 200m away on both Marine and South Terraces providing bus services for the 98, 99, 511, 513, 520, 530, 531, 532, 533, 825 and 920 bus routes in addition to those services provided by the Fremantle Central Area Transit (CAT).


Page 26

In relation to (iii), due to the mixed use nature of the proposed development, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that some of the car parking bays associated with the residential component of the development may be available during business hours, which may provide for opportunity for any excess parking requirement for the office to utilise. It is recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring the provision of a minimum of two (2) bicycle racks as part of the development – one (1) to satisfy the Multiple Dwelling land use requirement, and another for the Office land use. It is considered that the existing provision of on-street parking in the immediate locality and the proximity to public transport, that the proposed on-site car parking discretion of two (2) parking bays and one (1) delivery bay should be supported, whilst the provision of a bicycle rack for the office land use should be adhered to. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of Clause 5.7.3 of the City’s LPS4. Visual privacy


1 3.00m setback to north-western adjoining property (unit 4 - first floor ‘bedroom 2’ as contained within north-western elevation)

2.49m 0.51m

2 3.00m setback to north-western adjoining property (unit 4 - first floor ‘bedroom 3’ as contained within north-eastern elevation)

1.10m 1.90m

3 3.00m setback to north-western adjoining property (unit 5 - first floor ‘bedroom 2’ as contained within north-western elevation)

1.10m 1.90m

4 3.00m setback to north-western adjoining property (unit 5 - first floor ‘bedroom 1’ as contained within north-eastern elevation)

2.95m 0.05m

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • In relation to 1 and 2 above, overlooking of major openings of the dwellings as

contained within the north-western adjoining property, being No’s. 15-17 Essex Street, Fremantle may occur despite the existing boundary fencing and as such it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the development to comply with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes.

• In relation to 3 and 4 above, overlooking of major openings of the dwellings as contained within the north-western adjoining property, being No’s. 15-17 Essex Street, Fremantle may occur despite the existing boundary fencing and as such it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the development to comply with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of Clause 6.4.1 of the R-Codes.


Page 27

CONCLUSION

The proposed two (2) storey mixed use development (Office, four (4) Multiple Dwellings and one (1) Grouped Dwelling) at No. 20 (Lot 1) Norfolk Street, Fremantle has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes and on balance the proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes pertaining to; street setback, lot boundary setback, outdoor living areas and overshadowing. Furthermore, it is recommended that at condition of approval be imposed to bring the development into compliance with visual privacy and bicycle parking requirements of the R-Codes. In addition, it is recommended that a condition of approval be imposed to bring the development into compliance with bicycle parking under LPS4 as well as Council’s Local Planning Policies; LPP2.3 and LPP2.18. Accordingly, on balance the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. COMMITTEE DECISION AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two (2) storey mixed use development (Office, four (4) Multiple Dwellings and one (1) Grouped Dwelling) at No. 20 (Lot 1) Norfolk Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 23 July 2013 and 26 September 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. A dilapidation survey of the original Port Flour Mill shall be undertaken and submitted to the City of Fremantle prior to work commencing, and a program of vibration monitoring be conducted during works, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle in consultation with the State Heritage Office.

3. Any damage to the original Port Flour Mill fabric shall be made good to

conservation standards at the conclusion of works, and be undertaken by a heritage practitioner, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle in consultation with the State Heritage Office.

4. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the south-western, north-western and north-eastern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 28

5. Prior to occupation, the design and materials of the development shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following: a) Glazing to windows and other openings shall be laminated safety glass of

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

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

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

6. Prior to occupation, all air conditioning systems installed in the development

shall comply with the built form requirements for Area 1 of the Fremantle Port Buffer as prescribed by the City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines.

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

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

8. Prior to occupation, the design and materials of the development shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 2.18 – New Residential Developments in the City Centre Zone – Noise from an Existing Source. Specifically, the development shall provide the following: a) to all external openings (windows and doors):

i) airtight rubber seals to provide acoustic protection; and ii) sliding windows shall be substituted with awning windows as they are

able to achieve a positive compression seal; and iii) standard 6mm glass shall be substituted with sealed thickened laminated

glass (no less than 10mm); or iv) standard 6mm glass shall be substituted with acoustic double glazing

incorporating a 12mm thick pane of laminated glass set in a sealed metal frame with a 100mm air gap to the other pane of glass;

b) to all external walls: i) shall achieve a sound rating of Rw 45 dB or greater;

c) to all floors and ceilings: i) A 150mm thick concrete slab with either carpet or acoustically installed

timber flooring or tiles; or ii) Installing high density insulation batts into the cavity of a lightweight,

suspended and floating ceilings or floors to absorb sound; or iii) Building components are isolated using resilient compounds such as

rubber, neoprene or silicone for the purpose of reducing the transfer of noise.


Page 29

9. Prior to occupation a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of

Land Act 1893 shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle and registered against the Certificate of Title of every residential dwelling, to notify owners and prospective purchasers of any dwelling that the land is located in or adjacent to, an area where non-residential uses may exist or be approved and, as a result, the land may be affected by activities and noise not normally associated with residential development. All costs and incidentals relating to the preparation of and registration of the Section 70A notification, including related City of Fremantle Solicitors’ costs, shall be met by the owner of the land.

10. Prior to occupation, and in relation to Unit 4, the window on the north-western elevation to ‘bedroom 2’ as contained within the first floor and the window on the north-eastern elevation to ‘bedroom 3’ as contained within the first floor shall be either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor

level, or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a

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




11. Prior to occupation, and in relation to Unit 5, the window on the north-western elevation to ‘bedroom 1’ as contained within the first floor and the window on the north-eastern elevation to ‘bedroom 2’ as contained within the first floor shall be either:

e) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor

level, or f) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a


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

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



Page 30

12. Prior to occupation, a minimum of two (2) bicycle racks be installed on-site and maintained thereafter, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

13. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. Advice Note: i. Section 391 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960

requires building owners to give adjoining landowners thirty five (35) days notice of excavation and underpinning proposed within 3m of any adjoining building. It is recommended that you read this section to determine your legal obligations.

It is recommended that the applicant obtains Structural Engineers Report regarding the integrity of the existing buildings adjoining the subject site, so to ensure that any works alleviate any damage that may occur as part of the proposed development.

CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan


Page 31

PSC1311-157 SOUTH STREET NO 2/398 (LOT 152) O'CONNOR - DEMOLITION OF

EXISTING STRUCTURES AMD CONSTRUCTION OF 27 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, SHOWROOM AND RESTAURANT

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1307-95 (3 July 2013) PSC1309-122 (4 September

2013) Attachments: 1. Amended Development Plans (dated 7 August 2013)

and 2. Applicant’s Justification for amended plans 3. Report for PSC1307-95 (3 July 2013)

4. Applicants response to recent submissions 5. Letter from Minister of Planning re Amendment 25 6. Schedule of Submissions

Owner Name: Icie Pty Ltd Submitted by: West Coast Plan Scheme: Local Centre Zone Heritage Listing: Not Listed Existing Landuse: Restaurant & Fast Food Outlet Use Class: Short Stay Dwellings, Shop, Showroom and Small Bar Use Permissibility: A, D, P & A


Page 32

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Planning Services Committee (PSC) considered a proposal for a 4 storey short stay dwelling building (27 units) and a 3 storey tavern on 3 July 2013 and resolved to defer the application in order for landscaping of the residential component to be developed further. An amended proposal was referred back to PSC on 4 September 2013 that:

• increased landscaping and pavement treatments; • increased the vehicle clearance height over the vehicle carriageway; • changed the majority of the corner building from Tavern to Showroom (the

third floor is proposed to be a small bar limited to a maximum of 120 patrons);

• reduced the car parking discretion sought. PSC resolved on 4 September 2013 to defer the item to allow for further advertising of the proposal. The proposal is recommended to be supported. BACKGROUND

PSC considered the proposal on 3 July 2013 and resolved to: “Defer the application to next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting in order for conditions relating to the landscaping of the residential component of the development to be further developed.” A meeting with Planning staff and Chair of the PSC was held on 11 July 2013 to clarify the specific details of the deferral recommendation. In response to this meeting the applicant has provided amended plans on 7 August 2013 that incorporates the following changes:

1. Footpath extended toward the front of the residential building to link with the adjoining western lot (Baskin and Robbins) to provide a pedestrian connection;

2. The cantilevered section of the corner building over the vehicle carriageway being moved from the second to the third (upper) level to increase the vehicle clearance height from approximately 4.0 to 6.5m;

3. Increasing the width of the vehicle carriageway to allow for an increased turning circle;

4. Increased landscaped strip between the car parking rows in front of the residential building;

5. Cellar, ground and first levels changing use from tavern to showroom; 6. The third (upper level) remaining as a tavern with a modified layout;

The matter was further considered by PSC on 4 September where it was resolved to: “Defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting, to allow for further advertising of the proposal for 14 days.”


Page 33

In response to submissions received, the applicant has confirmed that the tavern component of the proposal is now a small bar and numbers will be limited to no more than 120 patrons. See Attachment 3 for more background information relating to the site.

DETAIL

Planning Approval is sought for the following development:

1. Demolition of all existing structures on site; 2. Construction of a four storey building consisting of 27 short stay dwellings and

under croft (parking and storage), Manager’s Office (Unit 1) and Shop (Unit 2); 3. Construction of a three storey Showroom/small bar building with Cellar below; and 4. A total of 54 car bays.

CONSULTATION

In accordance with the PSC resolution the proposal was advertised for a further 14 days via letters to owners and occupiers within 100m. A total of 9 objections were received that raised the following issues (summarised):

1. Parking 2. Traffic congestion and safety 3. Antisocial behaviour 4. Noise 5. Potential for customers to park on the surrounding residential streets and verges 6. Short stay hotel and a tavern are not appropriate in the area 7. Height 8. Proposal not in keeping with the surrounding commercial and residential buildings 9. Privacy 10. Building bulk 11. Lack of consultation 12. Development Plan 11 has not been adhered to 13. The land is zoned R80 so multi-use commercial is not appropriate 14. A 12.0m boundary setback has not been adhered to 15. Pervious construction has occurred over the boundary without consent which has

caused structural damage 16. Several additional documents (included in the submission) should have been

tabled before any decision is made regarding this application The applicant has provided a response to the issues raised in submission and are included in Attachment 4. Also a detailed schedule of submissions is included in Attachment 6 that provides a planning comment on each issue raised in the 9 submissions. Discretions sought against the requirement of the Scheme, R Codes and relevant planning policies are discussed in the “Planning Comment” section below.


Page 34

Please see Attachment 3 for further information regarding prior consultation. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within LPS4, the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and relevant Council Local Planning Policies and includes the following discretion to acceptable development requirements:

• Vehicle Parking; and • Discretionary Land Use.

PLANNING COMMENT

The proposal that was previously considered by PSC on 3 July 2013 incorporated discretions relating to car parking and land use (tavern and short stay dwelling) and were generally supported by PSC. Car Parking The amended plans that change a large proportion of the corner building from tavern to showroom significantly reduces the car parking discretion from 97 to 40 car bays (reduction of 57 bays). As the original 97 car parking shortfall was previously supported, the reduced 40 car bay discretion can also be supported. Discretionary Use While the previously proposed uses of Short Stay Dwelling, Shop and Office still remain, Showroom and Small bar uses have been introduced to the 3 level corner building. Clause 4.3.3 states that; A “D” use – means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. An “A” use – means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval after giving special notice in accordance with clause 93.4. A Small Bar is an “A” use the same as a Tavern in the Local Centre Zone and the same as a Restaurant use that currently exists on site. As a Showroom is a more preferred use in the Local Centre Zone (‘D’ use) compared to a Tavern (‘A’ use), the proposal is considered to be more consistent with the objectives of the Local Centre zone and can therefore be supported.


Page 35

CONCLUSION The amended plans are considered to be an improvement on the previous proposal that was last considered by PSC as it increases the amount of landscaping as required by the 3 July 2013 PSC deferral, has introduced a Showroom use that is more consistent with the objectives of the Local Centre zone, has reduced the floor area of the previous Tavern and restricted numbers to a maximum of 120 which is now considered to be a Small Bar use not a Tavern and significantly reduces the car parking discretion sought. On this basis it is recommended that the proposal be supported. COMMITTEE DECISION AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Demolition of existing structures and construction of a Four Storey (27 Short Stay Dwellings) Building, Office and Shop and 3 storey Showroom and Small Bar at No. 2/398 (Lot 152) South Street, O’Connor, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 7 August 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Once vacated, digital photographs of the existing building are to be documented and forwarded to the City of Fremantle for approval before the commencement of any works.

3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant is to submit details to City’s Technical Services Department regarding following to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle:

• Pedestrian movement; • Loading area/s; • Traffic calming; and • Garbage collection

4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant is to submit details to the City’s Environmental Health Department regarding the following to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle:

• A construction management plan; • Emergency escapes; • Mechanical services and plant equipment location/s; • Undercroft ventilation; • An acoustic report; that shows how the proposed small bar in close

proximity to existing and proposed residential uses will be able to comply with noise regulations

• Garbage collection; • Kitchen layout; and • Delivery area/s


Page 36

5. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, a submission a detailed schedule of external materials, colour swatches and textures is required to be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on the advice of the Design Advisory Committee.

6. Prior to occupation this noise sensitive development adjacent to an existing major transport corridor must implement measures to ameliorate the impact of transport noise. The development is to comply with the WAPC State Planning Policy 5.4 “Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning and Implement Noise Insulation “Deemed to Comply” packages for this residential development.

7. Prior to occupation, a total of twelve (12) bicycle racks are to be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. No earthworks shall encroach onto the South Street reserve. 9. All stormwater drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site (no

discharged onto the South Street reserve). 10. The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing vegetation with

the South Street reservation. 11. All vehicle access shall be restricted to the existing driveway. 12. The ground levels on the South Street boundary are to be maintained as

existing. 13. Prior to the occupation of the development, vehicle crossovers shall be

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

14. Prior to occupation, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the site plan (SK1) or any approved modifications thereto to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All landscaped areas are to be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

15. Prior to occupation, all 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.

16. Prior to occupation, the car parking, vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of visitor parking, shall be constructed, drained and line marked to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

17. Prior to occupation, all air-conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any other plant and equipment to the roof of the building shall be located or screened so as not to be highly visible from beyond the boundaries of the development site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

18. The design and construction of the development is to meet the 4 star green star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle when a green star rating tool is not available. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of Building Compliance for the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle


Page 37

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

b) a copy of agreed equivalent documentation for instance where there is no green star rating tool available certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars.

CARRIED: 5/1 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jon Strachan

Cr Bill Massie


Page 38

PSC1311-158 TUCKFIELD STREET NO 34-36 (LOT 10 & 11) - TWO STOREY

ADDITION TO EXISTING TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0506/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1310-149 (16 October 2013) Attachments: 1 – Development Plans

2 – Site Photos 3 – Previous Development Plans (DA0359/13) Date Received: 21 October 2013 Owner Name: W & G Routledge Submitted by: W & G Routledge Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Two Storey Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 39

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a Two Storey Addition to an existing Two Storey Single House at the subject site. The application proposes lesser setbacks to the primary street, for external wall heights of 4.0m or less, than required in the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy (‘LPP2.9’). The application follows a previous application refused by the City (DA0359/13) that depicted an external wall height to Tuckfield Street greater than 4m. The lesser setback to Tuckfield Street, based on the reduced overall wall height is considered to meet the discretionary criteria contained at clause 1.2 of LPP2.9 in that it is consistent with the setback of walls to the dwelling contained on-site as well as adjoining dwellings in the prevailing streetscape. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ and coded R25 pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’). The subject site exists on the western side of Tuckfield Street, south of Burt Street, Fremantle. The subject site contains an existing Two Storey Single House and hardstand vehicle parking area (see Attachment 2 – Site Photos for images of the subject site and surrounding area). A similar application for a Two Storey Addition was lodged with the City in July 2013 (DA0359/13). At its Ordinary Council Meeting of 16 October 2013, the Council resolved to refuse the application. The current application modifies the street presentation of the proposal to achieve greater conformity with the provisions of LPP2.9. DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a Two Storey Addition to an Existing Two Storey Single House including;

• A lower floor garage for two vehicles access via an existing crossover to Tuckfield Street and storage area adjacent to the existing Single House; and,

• An upper floor storage and balcony area.


Page 40

Modifications from the previous application considered by Council on 16 October 2013 include:

• The external wall height of the building facing Tuckfield Street being reduced to 4.0m, from a previous maximum of 4.67m;

• An upper floor dormer window facing Tuckfield Street has been removed and the length of the roof line increased to accommodate the change in wall height; and,

• The ‘limestone textured wall’ and main building wall, separated under the previous proposal, being combined to create one wall feature addressing Tuckfield Street.

Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R Codes and planning policies. Discretionary and design principle decisions are sought against these requirements in relation to;

• Primary street setback; and, • Lot Boundary Setbacks.

The discretionary decisions are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community The application was not advertised to surrounding landowners as the proposal was considered to be alike to that considered as part of DA0359/13. That previous application was advertised to affected landowners and the comments raised are summarised as follows;

• Streetscape character; The existing house is already significantly out of character with the street and contains an extensive blank wall on the footpath. The proposed addition adds further to the lack of keeping with the rest of the houses on the street. The proposal simply extends the already substantial impact of the blank wall of the house further detracting from the house hiding behind the current gardens;

• Street wall; The proposal will create a continuous 21m long wall section extending across the whole frontage of the site;

• Heritage; The proposed development does not consider the heritage values of the street. It is important for the Council to protect the heritage values of this section of Tuckfield Street and encourage sympathetic development.

Consideration of relevant matters raised is discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.


Page 41

PLANNING COMMENT

Primary Street Setback

Element Required Provided Design Principle Assessment

4.0m external wall height or less

5.0m 2.0m 3.0m

The proposed development does not meet the prescribed setback requirements of Table 1 of LPP2.9 in relation to the setback of the building to Tuckfield Street. DA0359/13 proposed a wall of lesser scale, but the same setback as currently proposed. In considering that element, officers in the report to the Ordinary Council Meeting of 16 October 2013 considered that;

‘The setback of the ground floor element, being the portion of building with an external wall height less than 4m is supported on the basis that the setback is clearly consistent with the setback of buildings in the prevailing streetscape and the rest of Tuckfield Street more generally.’

The previous proposal included a split wall arrangement with a forward wall to 3.06m with a second wall behind to a height of 4.67m. The elements have now been combined to a 4.0m height wall at the same setback as the originally lower 3.06m wall; but the overall wall height of the proposal has been reduced. Notwithstanding the increase in external wall height from 3.06m at the forward element to 4.0m, the proposed lesser setback is supported as it is considered consistent with the prevailing streetscape in the following ways;

• The proposed setback will match the existing setback (2.0m) of the projecting room of the dwelling located near the north-east boundary of the subject site;

• The proposed setback is at a comparable distance to the existing dwellings at No. 32 and 38 Tuckfield Street (see Attachment 2 – Site Photos); and,

• The setback distance is comparable to those adjoining dwellings further removed within the prevailing streetscape at No. 28, 30, 32 and 40 Tuckfield Street which are setback from Tuckfield Street approximately 2.0m.

In addition to the above a dormer window facing Tuckfield Street included in the past application (DA0359/13) has been removed. This significantly reduces the visual impression, when viewed from Tuckfield Street, that the building contains two stories. The prevailing streetscape contains single storey dwellings (except for the two storey dwelling at the subject site) only and the impression of a single storey building when viewed from the street is considered complimentary to this character. Lot Boundary Setbacks

Boundary Required Provided Design Principles Assessment

South 1.2m 1.1m 0.1m


Page 42

The discretionary decision is supported for the following reasons;

• The proposal is not considered to result in adverse building bulk or scale when viewed from adjoining sites, notwithstanding the high visibility of the proposal from the street boundary;

• The lesser setback does not impact on an adjoining outdoor living area or major opening to habitable rooms in respect to access to sunlight or ventilation; and,

• The lesser setback does not contribute to any impact on visual privacy;

Despite the above, the proposal will cast a shadow over existing solar panels at No. 32 Tuckfield Street. While the shadow cast by the development is compliant with the prescribed R-Code requirements, the lesser setback is nonetheless supported. The overshadowing caused by the proposal is considered to be no additional impact compared to a proposal that would otherwise meet the 1.2m setback requirement. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Addition to Existing Two Storey Single House at No. 34-36 (Lot 10 & 11) Tuckfield Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 21 October 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to occupation, the balcony on the western and southern elevation shall

be either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.6 metres above floor level, or

b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.65 metres above the floor level, or



in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site.


Page 43

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton

That the application be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting in order for public consultation to occur.

LOST: 3/4 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan

Cr R Fittock used his casting vote AGAINST the recommendation resulting in it being LOST. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Addition to Existing Two Storey Single House at No. 34-36 (Lot 10 & 11) Tuckfield Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 3. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved


4. Prior to occupation, the balcony on the western and southern elevation shall

be either:

e) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.6 metres above floor level, or

f) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.65 metres above the floor level, or

g) a minimum sill height of 1.65 metres as determined from the internal floor level, or

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

in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site.


Page 44

CARRIED: 4/3 For Against Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan Cr Robert Fittock

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr R Fittock used his casting vote FOR the recommendation resulting in it being CARRIED. The above item is referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council for determination in accordance with 1.1 or 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register which requires that at least 5 members of the committee vote in favour of the Committee Recommendation in order to exercise its delegation.


Page 45

Cr R Fittock vacated the chamber at 7.45 pm during the following item and returned at 7.47 pm prior to determination. PSC1311-161 HAMPTON ROAD NO 176 (LOT 1) SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO

STOREY GROUPED DWELLING (AD DA0279/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans (as amended) Attachment 2: State Heritage Office referral comments Attachment 3: Photos from site inspection Date Received: 7 June 2013; 18 September 2013 (amended plans) Owner Name: Matthew Kusel Submitted by: Troppo Architects Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Yes, MHI management category level 3; South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 46

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 176 (Lot 1) Hampton Road, Beaconsfield. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies. The applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes design principles in relation to: • lot boundary setback; • boundary walls; • building height;

Further, the proposal is considered supportable subject to the imposition of a condition requiring certain elements of the proposal being brought into compliance with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes pertaining to visual privacy. The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes and accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R25 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) 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 bounded by Martha Street to the north, Hampton Road to the west, McCleery Street to the east and Lefroy Road to the south. The site is individually listed on the City’s Heritage List and the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) 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 835m2, has a predominantly east-west orientation and is currently improved by a single storey Grouped Dwelling, outbuilding and associated structures. There are also a number of mature trees and other vegetation throughout the site. In terms of its topography, the subject site (being the parent property) falls by approximately 2.06 metres downwards from its eastern (rear) boundary to its western (front) boundary. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and to this application: • On 29 October 2012, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted

conditional approval for a two (2) lot survey strata subdivision of No. 176 (Lot 1) Hampton Road, Beaconsfield (refer WAPC752-12). This subdivision is currently in the process of clearing the relevant conditions;


Page 47

• On 19 December 2012, the City granted conditional Planning Approval for demolition of outbuildings and fencing addition and alterations at No. 176 (Lot 1) Hampton Road, Beaconsfield (refer DA0516/12).

DETAIL

On 7 June 2013 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a two Grouped Dwelling at No. 176 (Lot 1) Hampton Road, Beaconsfield (DA0279/13). On 18 September 2013, the City received amended plans which included the following changes to the original plans: • Depiction of existing and proposed fencing to boundaries on development plans to

demonstrate compliance with visual privacy requirements; • Amendments to the proposed pool area, reducing the overall length of it. 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 discretions from the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 15 July 2013, the City received three (3) submissions pertaining to the proposal, of which raised the following planning concerns: • Building height; • Building bulk; • Overshadowing; • Impact on adjoining heritage listed buildings; and • Visual privacy. In addition to the above, the following concerns were raised which are not relevant to planning: • Structural related matters pertaining to retaining walls; City’s Heritage Department The City’s Heritage Department has reviewed the proposal and advised that they have no objections with the proposal. State Heritage Office (SHO) In accordance with Section 11 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, the City was required to refer development applications to the State Heritage Office (SHO) if the proposal may affect a State Registered Heritage Place, being the ‘South Fremantle Post Office (fmr)’.


Page 48

The SHO provided the following referral comments to the City in relation to this application:

“Findings • The proposed works are for the construction of a new two storey Grouped

Dwelling to the rear of 176 Hampton Road, Beaconsfield, which is adjacent to the state registered South Fremantle Post Office (fmr).

• The proposed works will not impact on the identified significance of the South Fremantle Post Office (fmr) as a landmark building on a prominent elevated corner location overlooking Hampton Road.

Advice The proposed development does not significantly impact on the identified cultural significance of South Fremantle Post Office, and therefore, we have no objections.”

A copy of the SHO’s referral comments is contained as ‘Attachment 2’ of this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Policy discretions and assessment against the R Codes design principles sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Lot boundary setback


Southern boundary (second floor – robe, ensuite, desk, bath, w/c) –2.05m

1.40 – 1.8m

0.65m

The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • The proposal complies with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes

pertaining to overshadowing; • It is considered that the proposal will provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to

the building and open spaces on the site and on the southern adjoining property; • in terms of visual privacy, the second floor complies with the ‘deemed-to-comply’

standards of the R-Codes;


Page 49

Boundary Walls

Required Proposed Discretion 1 Eastern boundary (living) – 1.00m 0.00m (nil) 0.00m 2 Northern boundary (bins, pool pump, gas bottles) – 1.00m 0.00m (nil) 0.00m 3 Western boundary (bins, pool pump, gas bottles) – 1.00m 0.00m (nil) 0.00m These discretionary decisions are supported for the following reasons: • It is considered that it makes effective use of the available space on site; • In relation to additional criteria of Council’s LPP2.4, the walls are not considered to

significantly add to any sense of confinement in terms of accumulative building bulk upon the eastern, northern and western adjoining properties;

• The eastern boundary wall is approximately only 1.80m above natural ground level at the boundary, which is equivalent height of a standard boundary fence;

• The northern boundary wall will not be visible from the northern adjoining property as it will sit below the height of the existing boundary fence;

• The western boundary wall will not be visible from the western adjoining property as it will sit below the height of the boundary fence currently under construction;

• Overall the proposed eastern, northern and western boundary walls are not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the eastern, northern and western adjoining properties, in terms of restricted solar access (as a direct cause), building bulk or loss of visual amenity;

• Therefore these proposed discretions are supported as it is considered to address the relevant ‘design principles’ of Design Element 5.1.3 of the R-Codes and the additional criteria stipulated in Council’s LPP2.4 policy.

Building height

Permitted Proposed Design Principles Assessment External wall height 6.00m

Between 6.01m and 6.30m (for approximately 3.00m in length – northern boundary)

0.01m to 0.30m (for approximately 3.00m in length)

The proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • The proposal complies with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of the R-Codes

pertaining to overshadowing; • The proposal is compliant with the maximum 9.00 metre roof ridge height permitted

by the ‘Deemed to Comply’ standards of the R-Codes, and therefore, whilst the proposal exceeds the maximum external wall height permitted, it could be said that the overall building height is consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality;

• Skillion roof designs inherently have a higher wall on one side than the other, which may therefore be attributed to the increased height sought by the proposal in this instance;

• It is not considered to present significant impacts by way of building bulk upon the northern adjoining properties, being No. 5B (Lot 5) Martha Street; No. 1/5 (Lot 1) Martha Street and No. 2/5 (Lot 2) Martha Street as the upper level is broken up by varying materials and finishes as well as openings;

• Due to the significant changes in the topography of the subject site as detailed in the ‘Background’ section of this report, the proposed height variation is exacerbated on


Page 50

the north-western portion of the proposal; however it is generally reflective of the drop of 2.06m in topography towards the western boundary of the site;

• In light of the above points, it is considered that the proposal responds appropriately to the topography of the site in a manner that seeks to minimise its impact on adjoining properties and as it is viewed from the street;

• It is not considered that the proposal will detrimentally impact the amenity of adjoining properties by way of access to views of significance;

• It is considered that it will provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on site and to the northern adjoining properties.

Visual privacy


1 7.50m setback for first floor ‘deck’ (eastern elevation) to southern adjoining property

3.00m 4.50m

2 6.00m setback for first floor ‘breezeway’ (southern elevation) to southern adjoining property

3.20m 2.80m

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ for the following reasons: • Overlooking of major openings of the dwelling as contained within the southern

adjoining property, being No. 178C (Lot 1) Hampton Road may occur despite the existing boundary fencing and proposed timber screening device and as such it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the development to comply with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards of Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes.

CONCLUSION

The proposed two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 176 (Lot 1) Hampton Road, Beaconsfield has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes and the proposal is considered to satisfy the ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes pertaining to: lot boundary setback; boundary walls and building height. Furthermore, it is recommended that at condition of approval be imposed bring the development into compliance with visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions.


Page 51

COMMITTEE DECISION AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 176 (Lot 1) Hampton Road, Beaconsfield, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 18 September 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern boundary shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation, the southern and eastern elevations of the ‘deck’ as contained within the first floor and the southern elevation of the ‘breezeway’ as contained within the first floor shall be either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor

level, or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a





4. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan


Page 52

PSC1311-159 SWANBOURNE STREET NO 9A (LOT 361) FREMANTLE -

EXTENSION TO TERM OF PLANNING APPROVAL FOR DA0337/09 (TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH BASEMENT) (JL ET05/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC0911-194 (DA0337/09) Original Application (4

November 2009) Attachment 1: Applicant Letter Attachment 2: Approval to Commence Development Letter and approved

plans for DA0337/09 (dated 11 November 2009) Date Received: 28 August 2013 Owner Name: Abby London & Paul Peca Submitted by: Kerry Hill Architects Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Not Listed/ Not within a Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Vacant Land Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 53

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Development approval is sought to extend the term of Planning Approval for a Two Storey Single house with Basement at No.9A Swanbourne Street, Fremantle. PSC approved the original plans on 4 November 2009 and a 2 year extension of time was granted in June 2011 which requires substantial commencement by November 2013. The application is supported and recommended for approval subject to same terms and conditions as the previous approval. BACKGROUND

At the Planning Service Committee (PSC) meeting held 4 November 2009, planning application DA0337/09 – Two Storey Single House with basement for no.9A Swanbourne Street, Fremantle (the site) was granted planning approval. The approval to commence development for this determination was issued on the 11 November 2009. The following discretions were granted by PSC in the original approval: • Streetscape requirements; • Boundary setbacks; • Site works; • Building height; • Solar access; and • Visual privacy. On 24 June 2011 the City granted planning approval for a two year extension to the term of planning approval for DA0337/09. In accordance with Clause 10.5.1 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) the planning approval required this approved development to be substantially commenced by the 11 November 2013. To date no development on site has been undertaken in accordance with DA0337/09. DETAILS In accordance with Clause 10.5.2, the applicant made written application requesting another extension to the term of approval be granted for DA0337/09, to enable the owner’s sufficient time to finalize building plan, Builders contract details and fundamentally substantially commence construction of the development. The application does not propose any amendments to the design of the original approved development. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R Codes and relevant planning policies. Any discretionary decisions are discussed in the “Planning Comment” section of this report.


Page 54

CONSULTATION

The original application was required to be advertised in accordance with clause 9.4 of LPS4, Council’s LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals and LPP 2.4, as the applicant was applying for a discretionary decision under LPS4, and several performance based assessments under the ‘Performance Criteria’ provisions of the R-Codes 2010 and Council’s local planning policies. At the conclusion of this advertising period the City had received two submissions. The following issues were raised in submissions:

• Possible damage to adjacent property from proposed compacting /works • External wall height of southern elevation • Southern boundary setback • Overshadowing of the southern property

The application for the extension of time is not required to be advertised under the provisions of LPS4 or City of Fremantle policy L.P.P1.3: Public Notification of Planning Proposals. PLANNING COMMENT

Clause 10.5.2 of the LPS4 states that Council may approve an extension of the term of planning approval. As the application for the extension of time was received prior to amended 11 November 2013 (as approved as part of ET03/11), the City has the ability to grant approval under Clause 10.5.2 of LPS4 and the City’s Local Planning Policy L.P.P1.1: Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals (LPP 1.1). L.P.P1.1 outlines the manner in which the City will deal with requests for the extension to the term of planning approvals. Clause 3.1 of the policy states that where an extension is granted, a period of up to a further two years can be granted. Clause 3.2 outlines that for such a request, Council may have regard to the following:

(a) whether the scheme or a relevant planning policy has changed in a material way since the planning approval was granted;

(b) whether in granting the planning approval, a discretion was exercised in relation to the Scheme or policy requirements; and

(c) whether a material change has occurred to either the site to which the planning approval relates or the surrounding locality since the planning approval was granted.

In determining DA0337/09 Council supported a variation to the building height requirements set out under Schedule 12 and clause 5.8.1 of LPS4. There have been no material changes to the provisions contained within LPS4 and particularly Schedule 12 and Clause 5.8.1 since planning approval was granted, and as such this height variation would again be assessed under the same criteria and therefore would be supportable for the same reasons in determining the original application.


Page 55

Again, the development application was originally assessed against the provisions of the R-Codes (2008) and required several performance based assessments against the following Design Elements: • Streetscape requirements; • Boundary setbacks; • Site works; • Building height; • Solar access; and • Visual privacy. In August 2013, amendments were gazetted to the R-Codes (2013). However, whilst minor modifications document layout and terminology changes occurred, these new amendments do not fundamentally alter the original performance based assessments of this application. Furthermore, the proposal sought several variations to the following Council Local Planning Policies: • LPP 2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development (LPP 2.4); • LPP 2.8 Fences Policy (LPP 2.8); and • DC 6 Garages/Carports in Front of Dwellings/Buildings (DC 6). Since the original determination of DA0337/09, Council has rescinded DC6 Garages/Carports in Front of Dwellings/Buildings and also adopted L.P.P2.9 – Residential Streetscape Policy (LPP2.9) which would be of relevance to the assessment of the original application. Council’s LPP2.9 was adopted by Council on 19 February 2013 and the provision contained within this policy would be of relevance if this application was to be reassessed today. LPP2.9 prescribes the following Primary Street setbacks for the Fremantle Local Planning Area as: Local Planning Area Prescribed minimum street

setback for development with a 4 metre or less external wall height

Prescribed minimum street setback for development with an external wall height greater than 4 metre

Fremantle 5m 7m As part of DA0337/09 Council supported the following Primary Street setbacks for this development: Ground Floor (Below 4m external wall height)

3.135m Garage 4.48m - Dwelling

Upper Floors (Exceeding 4m external wall height)

4.48m – 9.75m Dwelling

Despite the adoption of LPP2.9, it’s important to highlight and as mentioned previously the original application was required to be assessed against and was considered to comply with the relevant Performance Based criteria of the 2008 R-Code.


Page 56

Notwithstanding that the R-Codes have undergone two reviews since this application’s determination (November 2010 and recently gazetted August 2013), it’s also important to note that these particular provisions of the 2008 R-Codes haven’t substantially altered and basically remain in substance the same in the recently gazetted 2013 R-Codes. In June 2010 the City reviewed the provisions of L.P.P2.4 and made minor alterations to the additional performance criteria of this policy. However, these alterations to L.P.P2.4 are not considered to warrant a complete re-assessment of this application as the original boundary wall addition was supported under criteria that was considered to be more stringent than that relevant to L.P.P2.4 today. In relation to the provisions contained within Council’s L.P.P2.8 this policy has not altered since the original approval and therefore the provisions contained within these policies are still of relevance if this application were to be re-assessed today. If Council was of the opinion that all of the above statutory framework changes would have changed its determination in any material way since the original planning approval was granted, Council is within its right to refuse the extension of term application and invite the applicant to re-apply for planning approval under the provision of LSP4. However, whilst the R-Codes have undergone two reviews, a Council policy has been amended; one being rescinded and another adopted, the planning justification originally submitted and supported remains valid and lawful. Overall it’s noted that the statutory framework has slightly augmented since the original determination of DA0337/09, however these statutory framework changes are not considered to warrant a complete re-assessment of the application as the original discretionary LPS4, R-Code and LPP matters remain in substance the same. In relation to part (c) of clause 3.2 of L.P.P1.1, since the original determination of DA0337/09 the subject site hasn’t materially changed, however several properties immediately adjoining the south and west of site, have been improved by substantial (two- three storey Single House/ Grouped Dwelling) developments. One key concern of City Officers relating to the original assessment of DA0337/09 was the overall development ability to dominate the Swanbourne Streetscape. Taking into consideration the recent substantial residential built form transformation of this particular section of Swanbourne Street, this topic is considered to now be redundant, and instead of the original concerns of domination, the development is considered to be consistent with the existing built form of this section of Swanbourne Street. CONCLUSION Overall, the proposed extension of time for Planning Approval is considered to be consistent with the provisions contained within City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 1.1 - Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals. Consequently, an extension to the term of approval for another two years is supported.


Page 57


MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council:

APPROVE the application under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the extension of the term of approval for DA0337/09 for a period not exceeding two years from the date 11 November 2013, for a Two Storey Single House with Basement at No.9A Swanbourne Street (Lot 361), subject to the same terms as stated on the Determination on Application for Planning Approval letter dated, 11 November 2009, reference DA0337/09.



Page 58

PSC1311-162 NO 147 (LOT 51) EDMUND STREET BEACONSFIELD - TWO

STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (CJ DA0425/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site Photographs Attachment 3 – Applicant Justification Date Received: 2 September 2013 Owner Name: Grant Thomas and Rochelle Hoggan Submitted by: Paul Wilson (Beilby Design) Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single storey Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 59

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for planning approved for two storey additions and alterations to an existing Single House at No. 147 Edmund Street, Beaconsfield. Due to discretion sought against Local Planning Policies and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and assessment against the Design Principles of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), this application is referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination. In particular, the proposed upper floor and building height (external wall) does not comply with the setback requirements of LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy. Additionally, assessment against the design principles of the R Codes is required for a building on the boundary, secondary street fence, visual privacy and building height (external wall). The application is supportable on balance against discretionary criteria of Local Planning Policies and LPS4 and the Design Principles of the R-Codes and is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval, subject to a condition increasing the upper floor primary street setback. BACKGROUND

On 2 September 2013, the City received an application for two storey additions and alterations to an existing single storey Single House. The subject site is located at No. 147 Edmund Street, Beaconsfield. The site is bound by Martha Street to the south, Edmund Street to the east, Trafford Street to the west and South Street to the north. The lot is surrounded by residential properties and is located within the Fremantle South Local Planning Area. The lot is not heritage listed, however lies within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. No. 147 Edmund Street is zoned Residential R25 under the City’s LPS4. DETAIL

Additions and alterations are proposed for the existing single storey Single House at No. 147 Edmund Street, Beaconsfield and includes the following: Alterations to Existing Ground Floor

• Increase in floor area of ground floor (extension to the west and south of site); • Internal alterations to ground floor; • Swimming pool; • 1.8m solid fencing on Martha Street frontage (pool area); • Garage with store; • Replacement of 1.8m boundary fence on Northern and Western boundaries; • Deck.

Addition of Upper Floor

• 2 x bedrooms; • Ensuite and bathroom; • Living area; and • Balcony.


Page 60

Development plans are included as attachment 1. Site photographs are included as attachment 2. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed against the R-Codes, LPS4 and Local Planning Policies and includes the following discretionary and design principle decisions:

• Primary street setback; • Boundary wall; • Building height (external wall); • Fencing (secondary street); and • Visual privacy.

These are discussed further in the “Planning Comment” section below. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as a number of discretions were sought against Local Planning Policies and assessment was required against Design Principles of the R-Codes. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 23 September 2013, the City had received one (1) submission. The following issues were raised (summarised):

• Initial concerns about boundary wall, however I have spoken with the owners

who have pointed out that the western end of this boundary wall will be in line with the western end of the current second bedroom window of the existing house.

• They have been very accommodating with regard to the colour and finish of the wall. So I accept the plans on these conditions.

PLANNING COMMENT

Primary street setback (Upper Floor)

Required Provided Discretion 12m 7.6m 4.4m

The proposed primary street setback for the upper floor does not comply with LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy. The prevailing streetscape is entirely single storey (as the primary street is Edmund Street, the applicable properties to form part of the prevailing streetscape are No. 145, 143 and 141 Edmund Street), and it is therefore considered that the setback of the upper floor should be closer in compliance with the requirement. In this instance, there is sufficient space on the lot to enable the upper floor to be setback be at least 10m, particularly as there are living areas and outdoor living areas on the ground and upper floors.


Page 61

As there are no examples of similar development within the prevailing streetscape, the following condition of approval has been recommended to reduce the impact on the existing streetscape: 2. Prior to occupation, the upper floor shall be setback to 10m from the primary street (Edmund Street) to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. This condition is recommended on balance. An alternate officer’s recommendation is included in the Conclusion section of this report should PSC elect to refuse the application. The applicant has been given the opportunity to amend plans and has elected not to, however has provided the following additional justification which is included as attachment 3. Boundary wall

Required Provided Discretion 0-750mm 0mm 750mm

The proposed boundary wall is supported against the discretionary criteria of LPP 2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development, for the following reasons:

• The single storey boundary wall will not restrict access to sunlight and ventilation for major openings of the adjoining property, as the only window that may be affected is setback 2m from the boundary;

• The proposed boundary wall is not significantly different to the existing semi-permeable wall that is currently setback by 1m, and it is therefore not considered that excessive building bulk will be created by the alterations;

• A small amount of vegetation on No. 147 Edmund Street may have to be removed to create the garage, however is wholly within the subject site;

• The proposed boundary wall will not restrict access to views of significance. Building height (external wall)

Deemed-to-Comply Provided Difference 6m 8m 2m

The proposed variation to wall height is due to the proposal to create a skillion rather than pitched roof. The roof pitch height is Deemed-to-Comply against the R-Codes (9.0m). The proposed design of the skillion reduces the impact on the adjoining neighbours, by orientating the higher portion towards the street. In accordance with the provisions of 6.1.2 of the R-Codes:

• The proposed Single House will not restrict access to direct sun for surrounding buildings and open spaces.

• Adequate daylight is provided for habitable rooms through the use of setbacks. Additionally, the property to the west does not have major openings on its eastern elevation.

• The additional building height will not impact on access to views of significance for surrounding properties.


Page 62

However, LPP 2.9 also includes discretionary criteria for not meeting the Deemed-to-comply height requirements listed in the R-Codes which are addressed below:

• The proposed building height is not consistent with that within the prevailing streetscape (as defined by LPP 2.9), due to the predominant pattern on Edmund Street being single storey.

• The site is not sloping therefore variations to building height are not required to ensure level development. Additionally, no fill is proposed that would increase the building height from natural ground level.

• The property has been designed to reduce the impact on neighbouring property owners by complying with setbacks, overshadowing, visual privacy and access to views of significance.

After considering the points assessed above, it is considered that the additional building height can be supported on balance, subject to the upper floor being setback to reduce the impact on the single storey streetscape. Martha Street Fencing (Secondary Street)

Required Provided Discretion Visually permeable above

1m. 1.8-2.3m high solid fencing for 12.5m of the southern

boundary

0.8m-1.3m

Max height of 1.8m 500mm In accordance with Clause 1.3 of LPP 2.8 Fences Policy, Council may permit solid fencing for a portion of the secondary street setback area as there is sufficient surveillance of the street and dwelling provided on the rest of the southern and eastern frontages. Additionally, the upper floor with balcony will provide significantly more surveillance. In order to satisfy the clause, one of the following also needs to be met:

a) Where it is necessary to provide privacy screening where there is no alterative outdoor living area to the front setback.

b) Where it is consistent with the prevailing streetscape. The fencing is required to screen the outdoor living area and swimming pool. While there may be space further from the street boundary for the swimming pool, it is considered its current location is logical due to access from the living areas. The solid fencing will not cause sightline issues for the neighbouring property at No. 26 Martha Street, as the vehicle access for the lot is on the western portion of the site. Finally, as the solid fencing is only screening a minor portion of the dwelling on the secondary street setback (the primary street setback fencing is to remain as is – see site photographs), the solid fencing is supported.


Page 63

Visual privacy (upper floor balcony)

Deemed–to-Comply Provided Difference 7.5m 2.85m 4.65m

The upper floor balcony is provided with screening for 4m of its 6.4m western elevation; however portions of No. 26 Martha Street fall within the cone of vision that results from the unscreened portion. A site inspection has confirmed that there are no major openings or outdoor living areas that fall within this area, so in this case a condition for additional screening is not considered appropriate. The balcony is designed to achieve views west to the ocean, and the screening provided will allow for this to be achieved, while retaining the privacy of the open space at the rear of No. 26 Martha Street. The upper floor balcony is supported against the Design Principles of the R-Codes. CONCLUSION

A condition of approval has been recommended to reduce the impact the additional storey will have on an existing, single storey residential streetscape. However, as the approval is recommended on balance, the following recommendation for refusal is also provided: 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. 147 (Lot 51) Edmund Street, Beaconsfield, for the following reason:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the City’s of Fremantle’s Planning Policy LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy, specifically regarding the upper floor setback and building height.


Page 64


MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Additions and Alterations to Existing Single House at No. 147 (Lot 51) Edmund Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 2 September 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to occupation, the upper floor shall be setback 10m from the Primary

Street (Edmund Street) to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the northern boundary 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, as indicated on the approved plans, the upper floor

balcony on the northern and western elevations, shall be fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60metres above the floor level in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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



Page 65

PSC1311-163 WATKINS STREET NO 101A (LOT 2) WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO

STOREY GROUPED DWELLING ADDITION (KS DA0382/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Site photos Date Received: 4 September 2013 Owner Name: Anna Posselt & Aaron Posselt Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R20/R25 Heritage Listing: N/A Existing Landuse: Two storey Grouped Dwelling Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 66

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council as discretion has been sought from LPP2.9 Residential Streetscapes Policy which does not directly meet the discretionary criteria of the policy. On balance, it is recommended that Council support the discretion as the street to which it abuts is a laneway and which does not exhibit and established streetscape and the discretion is not considered to result in a significantly detrimental impact. The applicant is seeking planning approval for a two storey Single House at No. 101A (Lot 2) Watkins Street, White Gum Valley (subject site). The application has been assessed against the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Council’s relevant Local Planning Policies and the following elements require either Council’s discretion or assessment against the relevant Design principles of the R-Codes:

• Primary street setback; • Lot boundary setback (north & east); • Visual privacy (west & east); and • Energy efficiency and sustainability schedule requirements.

Where the proposal seeks Design principle assessments from the R-Codes, conditions of approval have been recommended to ensure compliance. Further, the development has proposed alternatives to the City’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule which are considered to comply with the objectives of the Schedule and, on balance, discretion has been supported from Council’s L.P.P2.9 in relation to the primary street setback of the dwelling. Accordingly the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

No. 101A Watkins Street, White Gum Valley is zoned Residential with a split density coding of R20/R25 and is located within the White Gum Valley Local Planning Area. The subject site pertains to strata lot 2 which comprises an existing two storey Grouped Dwelling with a site area of 798m2. The subject site can be accessed either from Lois Lane or via a vehicle access leg from Watkins Street to the north. The subject site is not identified as having any cultural heritage significance on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and is not located within a designated heritage area under the City’s LPS4. The subject site is located within the street block bound by Watkins Street, Wongan Avenue, Minilya Avenue and Samson Street. DETAIL

The applicant is seeking planning approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling addition at No. 101A Watkins Street, White Gum Valley. Development is sought at the higher density code of R25 and is proposed in the southern portion of the site with its frontage to Lois Lane. On 4 September 2013 the City received revised plans in response to their need to address the requirements of LPP2.2. The dwelling is to comprise the following:


Page 67

Ground Level

• Double garage and boat storage area; • Bath; • Office; and • Covered Courtyard.

Upper Level

• Living; • Bed 1; • Dining; • Kitchen; • Bath; and • Verandah.

For further details 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 LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 24 September 2013, the City had received three (3) submissions pertaining to the proposal, raising the following planning concerns:

• Lot boundary setback (east); and • Visual privacy.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Discretions sought against policy requirements or assessment against the R Code’s Design principles are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Lot boundary setbacks Element Deemed-to-comply

requirements Provided

Northern setback. 2.5m (Grouped Dwellings required to be setback as though there were a boundary between them).

1.75m.

Eastern setback. 2.5m. 2m.


Page 68

The northern setback is supported for the following reasons:

• The setback pertains to the setback between the existing and proposed dwelling on the same lot;

• The setback is considered to permit adequate ventilation between both dwellings and located to the south of the existing dwelling the proposed dwelling will not restrict any of its access to sunlight. The proposed dwelling is considered to be open to sufficient sunlight in the afternoon and morning and setback at 3.5m from the existing dwelling will have some access to northern sunlight; and

• The impacts of building bulk are considered minor upon the existing dwelling. The upper level Living and Bed 1 rooms on the eastern elevation comprise major openings which vary from the Visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes and have been conditioned to meet the Deemed-to-comply requirements (refer Visual privacy assessment below). On this basis, this condition of approval removes the eastern wall from being required to be assessed under Table 2b of the R-Codes as it will no longer comprise major openings and the resultant lot boundary setback requirement from the eastern boundary for the dwelling in accordance with Table 2a of the R-Codes will become 1.2m. On this basis, with the recommended condition of approval, the eastern lot boundary setback complies. Visual Privacy Element Deemed-to-comply

requirement Provided

Living room east (upper level).

4.5m. 2m.

Bed 1 east (upper level). 4.5m. 2m. Balcony west (upper level).

7.5m. 5m.

The discretions are not supported as privacy may be compromised for eastern and western adjoining properties. On this basis, a condition of approval has been recommended to bring the development into compliance. Streetscape Required Provided Discretion Required ground level setback at 7m from Lois Lane.

3.5m 3.5m (ground level)

Required upper level setback at 12m from Lois Lane.

3.5m 8.5m (upper level).


Page 69

The discretion is supported for the following reasons:

• The proposed ground level setback from Lois Lane is setback in excess of the 1m setback associated with the eastern adjoining property at No. 8 Lois Lane, White Gum Valley; and

• Lois Lane is not considered to comprise an established streetscape as aside from the dwellings at No. 8 Lois Lane, No. 9 Lois Lane and No. 154B Samson Street, the remainder of the laneway is comprised of solid 1.8m fencing of rear and side yards. On this basis the proposed setback is not considered to be of any detriment by means of resulting in a projecting element into an established streetscape.

Split Density Codes and Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule The additional Grouped Dwelling is sought at the higher density code of R25 in accordance with Council’s LPP2.2 Split Density Codes and Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule. The application varies from the following requirements of the City’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule: Required Provided 4m northern setback. 1.75m. Grey water reuse system that redirects water from the laundry and bathroom for garden irrigation.

Not provided.

R2.5 insulation in all walls. Not specified. In lieu of the above, a 3.185kw photovoltaic solar panel system has been provided as an alternative which is considered to meet the objectives of the Schedule in an alternative way. CONCLUSION The application has been assessed against the City’s LPS4 and the Residential Design Codes and where the proposal seeks a Design principle assessment from the R-Codes conditions of approval have been recommended to ensure compliance. Further, the proposal is considered to comply with Council’s LPP2.2 and has been supported against the discretionary requirements of Council’s L.P.P2.9. Accordingly the application is recommended for conditional approval. Should Council consider that the proposed primary street setback discretion from L.P.P2.9 described above to be of significant detriment to the streetscape of Lois Lane the following alternative recommendation is recommended: That the application be REFUSED under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling Addition at No. 101A (Lot 2) Watkins Street, White Gum Valley, for the following reason:

1. The proposed primary street setback is inconsistent with the requirements of Council’s L.P.P2.9 Residential Streetscapes Policy.


Page 70

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling Addition at No. 101A (Lot 2) Watkins Street, White Gum Valley, subject to the following condition(s):


2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. Prior to occupation, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the

approved plans dated 4 September 2012 and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to occupation, insulation (minimum R4 roof insulation) shall be

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

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

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

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

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

7. Prior to occupation, a minimum 3.185kw photovoltaic solar power system

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

8. Prior to occupation, water-efficient fixtures, including 3A-5A rated taps,

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

9. Prior to occupation, a 3000L rainwater tank plumbed to a toilet or laundry


10. ‘Prior to occupation, the eastern and western windows are to be tinted or

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


Page 71

11. Prior to occupation, the colour scheme of the dwelling shall consist of no

black or dark grey coloured roofs or dark coloured eastern and western external walls and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

12. Prior to occupation, all walls are to have eaves that extend horizontally for

at least 500mm to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to occupation, the Bed 1 and Living room windows on the eastern

elevation and the Verandah on the northern and western elevations shall be either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above

floor level, or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with

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




Moved Cr Waltham that the following advice note be added to the approval: The applicant is requested to voluntarily discuss the proposal with the adjoining eastern neighbour with regard to overshadowing and potential roof reflectivity issues



Page 72

COMMITTEE DECISION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling Addition at No. 101A (Lot 2) Watkins Street, White Gum Valley, subject to the following condition(s):


2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. Prior to occupation, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the

approved plans dated 4 September 2012 and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to occupation, insulation (minimum R4 roof insulation) shall be


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

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

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

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

7. Prior to occupation, a minimum 3.185kw photovoltaic solar power system


8. Prior to occupation, water-efficient fixtures, including 3A-5A rated taps,

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

9. Prior to occupation, a 3000L rainwater tank plumbed to a toilet or laundry


10. ‘Prior to occupation, the eastern and western windows are to be tinted or

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


Page 73


black or dark grey coloured roofs or dark coloured eastern and western external walls and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

12. Prior to occupation, all walls are to have eaves that extend horizontally for

at least 500mm to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to occupation, the Bed 1 and Living room windows on the eastern

elevation and the Verandah on the northern and western elevations shall be either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above

floor level, or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and

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



in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Advice Note: The applicant is requested to voluntarily discuss the proposal with the adjoining eastern neighbour with regard to overshadowing and potential roof reflectivity issues.



Page 74

Cr I Waltham vacated the chamber at 8.27 pm during the following item and returned at 8.28 pm prior to determination. PSC1311-165 QUARRY STREET NO 77 (LOT 6) FREMANTLE - CARPORT - (CJ

DA0414/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1304-48 (3 April 2013) Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – PSC1304-48 Report Date Received: 26 August 2013 Owner Name: Graeme Baumgarten Submitted by: SIA Architects Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: Level 3 Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 75

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for the addition of a carport at No. 77 Quarry Street, Fremantle. The application seeks discretion against Local Planning Scheme No 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policies, and is therefore referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination. The carport design has been altered slightly from a previous design submitted by the applicant. The previous carport was deleted from conditional planning approval DA0424/12 which was determined by PSC in April 2013. As the amended design still does not comply with statutory planning requirements, is similar to that previously refused by Council and is not supported by the City’s Heritage Planner, the application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned Residential under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is allocated with a density coding of R25.The site is adopted on the City’s Heritage List and the Municipal Heritage Inventory as Level 3. The site is not located within a designated Heritage Area under LPS4. The site is 679m2 and is located on the eastern side of Quarry Street in Fremantle. The site is currently occupied by four Grouped Dwellings. No. 77 is located on the western portion of the site. The street block is bound by Tuckfield Street to the east, Burt Street to the north, and James Street to the south. An application for Two Storey Additions and Alterations to Existing Grouped Dwelling (DA0424/12) was approved by PSC on 3 April 2013. The application included a three car carport in the front setback of the property. The carport was subsequently deleted from the approval as it was not supported by Heritage advice and did not comply with provisions of Local Planning Policy 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy. DETAIL

The application proposes the addition of a carport in the front setback of No. 77 Quarry Street, Fremantle. The carport measures approximately 9m in length 6.5m in width and 2.5m in height and is designed to accommodate three (3) cars. The following has been amended from the previous car port proposal:

• Two (2) degree fall of the carport roof to the front (west) of the site rather than to the rear; and

• Roof façade thickness as viewed from the street reduced in thickness (150mm v 500mm).


Page 76

Development plans are included as attachment 1. This application is for the carport only. Other proposed works on the plans have previously been approved by Council. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes and includes discretion against the requirements of LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy. Detailed assessment against the policy will be discussed below in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the report. CONSULTATION

Heritage In accordance with LPP 1.6 Heritage Assessment, as an assessment was completed for a similar proposal for the same property within five calendar years of this application, another assessment is not required. The following concerns were raised in relation to the carport in the assessment undertaken in January 2013:

• Given the raised height of the original duplex the additions will not have a negative impact, although the carport which is to be sited in the front setback will have a negative impact on the visual qualities to the original duplex and streetscape.

• The proposed carport will have a negative impact on the streetscape and the visual

qualities of the overall form and in particular the northern wall of the duplex, and is therefore not supported.

Discussions with the City’s Heritage Planner, have confirmed that the previous comments also apply to the revised carport design that is presented as part of this application. Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4, as it proposed variations to Local Planning Policy 2.9. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 19 September 2013, the City had received no submissions.

PLANNING COMMENT

Carport

Required Provided Discretion Sought Open on all sides Open on all sides Complies

Timber or steel vertical supports no greater than

150mm in width.

100mm supports Complies

2.8m height. 2.9-3.2m above NGL (Quarry St elevation)

100-400mm

Maintain visibility of the Dwelling visible, Complies


Page 77

dwelling and surveillance to the street.

surveillance achieved

Maximum width – 6m 9.2m 3.2m Setback 1m or greater from

side boundary 2m Complies

A carport is able to be located in front of the dwelling where it meets the above criteria of LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy. Variations to these requirements can be considered by Council for the following reason listed in Clause 2.3 of LPP 2.9:

i. The proposed building is consistent with the character of buildings in the prevailing streetscape; or

There are no carports in the front setback of properties located within the prevailing streetscape of No. 77 Quarry Street.

ii. The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting

element into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or topography of the land; or

The proposed carport will be forward of the existing dwellings verandah by approximately 2.5m, and is only proposed to be 429mm setback from the primary street. This will result in a projecting element into an established streetscape.

iii. The proposed setback of the building will facilitate the retention of a mature, significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthier of retention (Refer also to LPP 2.10 Landscaping of Development and Existing Vegetation on Development Sites); or

The proposed location of the carport is not required in order to retain a mature, significant tree on site. Existing trees in the front setback are all proposed to be removed to build the carport.

iv. The carport is lightweight in construction, appears simple in design and is visually subservient to the form and proportion of the dwelling. Additionally, the front setback area is designed in such a way so as to maintain visibility of the dwelling from the street and surveillance from the dwelling.

While it is acknowledged the carport “appears simple in its design”, it is significantly larger than the criteria set out in Clause 2.2 of LPP 2.9 (as listed in the table above). Additionally, heritage advice has determined the proposed carport to have a negative visual impact on the existing heritage listed grouped dwelling. Therefore, the proposed carport is not supported in accordance with the above criteria.


Page 78

CONCLUSION

In summary, the application seeks to vary the requirements of LPP 2.9 and is not supported by Heritage due to its visual dominance in the front setback. As such, the application is recommended for refusal. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Carport at No. 77 (Lot 6) Quarry Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 26 August 2013, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy.

2. The proposal is not supported by a Heritage Assessment as required by

Clause 10.2.1 and 7.4 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

CARRIED: 4/2 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jon Strachan

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie

The above item is referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council for determination in accordance with 1.1 or 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register which requires that at least 5 members of the committee vote in favour of the Committee Recommendation in order to exercise its delegation.


Page 79

PSC1311-160 MORRIS STREET NO. 1 (LOT 300) BEACONSFIELD - SINGLE

STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0297/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans (as amended) Attachment 2: Photos from site inspection (15 October 2013) Date Received: 24 June 2013; 10 October 2013 (amended plans) Owner Name: Russell John Thomas & Kristine Jane Thomas Submitted by: The Rural Building Co. Scheme: Residential R20/R25 Heritage Listing: Not individually listed; Not within heritage area Existing Landuse: Vacant lot Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 80

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council due to the nature of the proposed variations regarding the proposed development. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for a single storey Single House at No. 1 (Lot 300) Morris Street, Beaconsfield. The application is considered to comply with the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies, with exception of the following: • Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy (LPP2.9) • Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development (LPP

2.4) The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes and the discretionary criteria of LPP2.9 and accordingly, the application is recommended for approval on balance, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a split density coding of R20/R25 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the Beaconsfield Local Planning Area 5 (LPA 5) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Morris Street to the north, York Street to the west, Shepherd to the east and Warren Street to the south. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List; nor is it located within a prescribed Heritage Area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 486m2 and is currently vacant. In terms of its topography, the subject site falls by approximately 2.00 metres downwards from its south-eastern corner to its north-eastern corner (intersection of Morris and York Streets). A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and to this application: • At its meeting held on 28 June 2004, the City’s Development Assessments Unit

(DAU) granted conditional Planning Approval under the former Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) for the demolition of the existing dwelling at No. 1 (Lot 73) Morris Street, Beaconsfield (refer DA291/04);

• On 10 August 2004, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted conditional approval for a two lot green title (freehold) subdivision of No. 1 (Lot 73) Morris Street, Beaconsfield (refer WAPC125092);

• At its meeting of 20 June 2007, the City’s Planning Services Committee (PSC) resolved to grant conditional Planning Approval for demolition of existing dwelling and the construction of a new single storey dwelling at No. 1 (Lot 73) Morris Street, Beaconsfield (refer DA185/07);

• On 14 June 2011, the City granted conditional Planning Approval for a two storey Single House addition at No. 1 (Lot 300) Morris Street, Beaconsfield (refer DA0194/11).


Page 81

DETAIL

On 24 June 2013 the City received an application seeking Planning Approval for a single storey Single House at No. 1 (Lot 300) Morris Street, Beaconsfield. On 10 October 2013, the City received amended plans which sought to increase the setback of the building from the primary street (being Morris Street), in an effort by the applicant to reduce the impact upon the streetscape after an on-site meeting with the City’s Officers and the applicant. 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 seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes design principles and discretions to Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 22 July 2013, the City did not receive any submissions pertaining to the proposal.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Policy discretions are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

LPP 2.4 - Boundary Walls

Required Proposed Discretion Eastern boundary (garage) – 1.00m

0.05m (50mm) 0.95m (950mm)

This discretionary decision is supported for the following reasons: • It is considered that it makes effective use of the available space on site given the

relatively small size of the site (485m2); • In relation to additional criteria of Council’s LPP2.4, the wall is not considered to

significantly add to any sense of confinement in terms of accumulative building bulk upon the eastern adjoining property;

• Overall the proposed eastern boundary wall is not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the eastern adjoining property, in terms of restricted solar access (as a direct cause), building bulk or loss of visual amenity;

• Therefore this proposed discretion is supported as it is considered to address the relevant ‘design principles’ of Design Element 5.1.3 of the R-Codes and the additional criteria stipulated in Council’s LPP2.4 policy.


Page 82

LPP2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy

Required Proposed Discretion Prescribed minimum setback for development with an external wall height of 4 metres or less is 7.00 metres

6.073m - 5.335 m 0.927m - 1.665 m

As the proposal is not considered to meet the setback requirements above, it is required to be assessed against the following provisions of Clause 1.2 of Council’s LPP2.9, which states:

“1.2 Variations to the requirements of clause 1.1 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to the proposed development meeting at least one of the following criteria: i. The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of

buildings of comparable height within the prevailing streetscape; or ii. The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting

element into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land; or

iii. The proposed setback of the building will facilitate the retention of a mature, significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthy of retention (Refer also to LPP2.10 Landscaping of Development and Existing Vegetation on Development Sites).”

The table below details the characteristics of the development within the prevailing streetscape, as defined by Council’s LPP2.9:

Prevailing Streetscape

Property Address

Primary Street Setback Details

Eastern side

1 of 3 No. 1A (Lot 301) Morris Street

• Site description: Vacant lot • Ground floor setback: N/A • Upper floor setback: N/A

2 of 3 No. 3 (Lot 72) Morris Street

• Site description: Two storey Single House • Ground floor setback: ~12.00m • Upper floor setback: ~18.00m

3 of 3 No. 5 (Lot 71) Morris Street

• Site description: Single storey Single House • Ground floor setback: ~10.00m • Upper floor setback: N/A

As detailed in the table above, it is not considered that the proposal is supportable under discretionary criteria 1.2 (i) as there are the proposed setback is not consistent with the setbacks of the two existing dwellings contained within the ‘prevailing streetscape’. Should Council be of the opinion that this would be the most appropriate way to support the proposal, it should be noted that requiring a 10 metre setback would reduce the developable area of the site from 485m2 down to approximately 322m2. In addition to the above, the definition of the term ‘prevailing streetscape’ as contained within Council’s LPP2.9 provides that:


Page 83

“Greater weight may be given to the characteristics of the two immediately adjoining properties on either side of the subject site fronting the same street(s).”

In relation to the discretionary criteria 1.2 (iii) above, the City does not consider any of the existing trees on-site to be mature, significant trees worthy of retention and as such the proposed primary street setback discretion is not supported against the discretionary criteria 1.2 (iii) of LPP2.9. Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the proposed reduced primary street setback is supportable, on balance, against the discretionary criteria of clause 1.2 (ii) above for the following reasons: • As detailed earlier in this report, on 2 October 2013 the City’s offices met on-site with

the applicant to discuss the implications of Council’s LPP2.9 upon the design of the proposal. This resulted in the applicant submitting amended plans to the City, which reflected the City’s request to increase the setback of the western portion of the proposed dwelling from the primary street, with the changes reflected in the table below:

Original Amended Change

4.062 metre 5.335 metre +1.273 metre • Whilst the proposal does not satisfy the prescribed 7.00 metre setback requirement

for the primary street, the majority of the building is setback greater than 5.835 metres from the street (excluding ‘master suite’ recess which is setback at 5.335 metres);

• The majority of the dwelling is setback 6.073m with only a small portion setback 5.335m;

• In terms of its topography, the subject site is considerably lower than the three other properties to the east along Morris Street which are contained within the ‘prevailing streetscape’. In this regard, the impacts of the proposed reduced primary street setback are considered to be ameliorated by the subject site being lower than the other properties within the streetscape vista.

CONCLUSION

The proposed single storey Single House at No. 1 (Lot 300) Morris Street, Beaconsfield has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes and the proposal is considered to satisfy the discretionary criteria of Council’s LPP2.4 and be supportable on balance under the provisions of Council’s LPP2.9. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval on balance, subject to appropriate conditions.


Page 84


MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the single storey Single House at No. 1 (Lot 300) Morris Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved


2. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern boundary shall be

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

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

CARRIED 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan


Page 85

PSC1311-164 SOUTH STREET NO 266B (LOT 2) WHITE GUM VALLEY - SINGLE

STOREY GROUPED DWELLING (JL DA0228/13) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans (Dated 17 September 2013) Attachment 2: Sections of Geotechnical Report Attachment 3: Main Roads Western Australia Referral Comments Attachment 4: Site Photos Date Received: 15 May 2013 Owner Name: W. Tegmouss Submitted by: Metrostrata Developments Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential R20/25 Heritage Listing: Nil Existing Landuse: Vacant land Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 86

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is referred to the Planning Services Committee (the Committee) due to the proposed level of fill and a relevant submission which raises planning concerns relating to this matter has been received. The Committee is requested to consider an application for the construction of a Single Storey Grouped Dwelling to be constructed at No.266B South Street, White Gum Valley (the Site). The application is presented before the Committee, due to the applicant seeking Design Principle assessments against the following Design Elements (DE) of the Residential Design Codes 2013 (R-Codes):

• Lot Boundary Setback – (Southern Boundary Wall), • Site Works (Level of Fill), • Retaining Walls (Setback of western and southern boundary walls), and • Visual privacy.

In addition to the above Design Principle matters, the applicant is also seeking discretion in relation to provisions of the following Council local planning policies:

• LPP2.2 – Split Density Codes and Energy Efficiency & Sustainability Schedule policy, and

• LPP2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Developments policy On balance it is recommended that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is known as No. 266B South Street, White Gum Valley. The subject site is rear survey strata property which is currently vacant. The property is zoned Residential under the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) and has a split density coding R20/R25. The site is not heritage listed and is not within any Local Planning Policy area, but is within the White Gum Valley Local Planning Area (LPA). The site is located on the northern side of South Street and comprises of approximately 320m2. The site is currently vacant and has a north south orientation. The development site has a cross fall from north east to south west of approximately 1.5m. The western adjoining property (No.264 South Street) is improved by a two single storey grouped dwellings. The immediate western rear property of No.264 South Street has approximately a 2.2-2.3m lower topography and has an existing dilapidated 1.2m high retaining wall which runs parallel with the common boundary between these two sites. The northern adjoining site is currently vacant and has a similar natural topography to the subject site.


Page 87

The southern adjoining property (No.266 South Street) is improved by a single storey weatherboard and tile pitched roof dwelling. This site has a slightly lower topography and also incorporates a cross fall from north east to south west of approximately 1.5m sloping towards South Street road reserve. The eastern adjoining properties which abut the subject site and common property vehicle access leg (No.29 Minilya Avenue) are improved by three single Storey Grouped Dwellings natural topography that is approximately 1.5 to 2.5 metres lower than the development site. This site is equipped with vehicle access off Direction Way. The existing dwelling on this site also incorporates a 5 metre high boundary wall for a 12.7m long portion along the western common boundary of the subject site. DETAIL

On 15 May 2013, the City received a development application (refer DA0228/13) seeking Planning Approval to construct a single storey Single House at no.266B South Street, White Gum Valley (the site). On 31 May 2013, upon conducting a preliminary assessment of the development plans submitted with the original application, City Officers organised a site inspection with the applicant to discuss concerns associated with the level of fill and proposed retaining wall setbacks to the western and southern properties. As a result of this meeting, the applicant advised the City that additional justification and a geotechnical report would be submitted to justify the proposed level of fill and setbacks for retaining walls On 17 September 2013 the City received additional justification relating to the above matter. See Attachment 2 of the report for the submitted Geotechnical Report, by Structure Consulting Engineers. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The development has been assessed against the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes 2013 of WA (R-Codes) and Council’s Local Planning Policies (Council’s Policies). The proposed development has been assessed against and is consistent with the ‘Deemed to Comply’ standards of the R-Codes, except for:

• Lot Boundary Setback – (Southern Boundary Wall), • Site Works (Level of Fill), and • Retaining Walls (Setback of western and southern boundary walls), and • Visual Privacy

The development seeks discretions against the requirements of the following Council’s Local planning policies:

• LPP2.2 – Split Density Codes and Energy Efficiency & Sustainability Schedule policy, and

• LPP2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Developments policy


Page 88

Further discussion relating to these matters will be included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. 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 Design Principle assessments against several Design Elements of the R-Codes and several discretionary assessments against relevant Council policies (LPP2.2 and LPP2.4). At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 18 June 2013, the City had received one submission which raised the following concerns:

• Level of Fill, and • Setback of retaining walls.

The submission received elaborates and stated, ‘The proposed variations are considered to impose unnecessary bulk’ on neighboring properties to the west of site. Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) As the subject site abuts a category 3 Primary Regional Road the application was required to be referred to Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) for comment. On 7 June 2013 MRWA responded stating that, ‘Main Roads have no objections to the proposed development, subject to the following conditions being imposed: 1) No earthworks are to encroach onto the South Street road reservation. 2) No storm water drainage is to be discharged onto the South Street reservation. 3) The driveway shall be designed to have an internal turn around facility or area that

enables vehicle to turn around and exit the driveway in a forward movement. 4) Only one driveway for dwellings 266A and 266B will be permitted onto South Street.

The crossover shall be constructed to the City of Fremantle’s standards for residential crossovers.’

See ‘Attachment 3’ of this report for complete copy of MRWA’s referral to this application. PLANNING COMMENT Lot Boundary Setback

Deemed to comply provision Proposed Southern Boundary Setback - 1 m 0 m (Garage Wall) On balance the proposal meets the relevant Design Principle criteria of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

• The wall is considered to make effective use of the limited development space of site


Page 89

which will enhance the amenity of the development for its future occupants in that it facilitates two sheltered on site car bays, whilst having a negligible impact in terms of building bulk and restriction of solar access to existing exclusive outdoor living areas or existing habitable rooms of the neighbouring property’s dwelling.

• In terms of restricting solar access to existing habitable room windows and outdoor living area of the southern property, its acknowledged that the proposed wall will cast a shadow directly on the adjoining southern lot, but given its limited length (6.7m long), and the neighbouring dwelling raised floor level, the amount and direct line of shadow cast isn’t considered excessive and as such would not detrimentally impact existing exclusive habitable indoor and outdoor areas of the property and dwelling. With regards to the addition’s ability to add excess building bulk, given the immediate area of the neighbouring property which will be directly impacted by the wall and that this area merely incorporates rear access area of the dwelling and not an outdoor living area, the overall building bulk impact is considered negligible. The application was advertised and while a submission was received by the City, no objections were raised in relation to the proposed boundary wall.

• The proposed boundary all is considered acceptable as its not considered excessive in terms of bulk, whilst making effective use of space of the site given the limited development site area (360m2 approx) of the rear lot. Due to the boundary wall location on the southern common boundary of the property, whilst the wall will throw shadow on the southern adjoining property, as mentioned previously the level and area of the shadow isn’t considered to cause significant adverse impact on this neighbour. The wall is also considered to not pose a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the existing southern dwelling or neighbours in terms of adding to a sense of confinement, unnecessary building bulk or ventilation.

• There are no mature trees or other significant vegetation present on site today worthy of protection. Additionally, the proposed dwelling will not restrict any existing views of significance captured by adjoining or adjacent properties.

Site Works Deemed to

Comply Proposed

Fill 0.5m natural ground level

Up to 1.15m above natural ground level (south western corner of site)

Retaining wall setback

1.5m

Western boundary - 0m (Retaining Wall ranges from 500mm to 1150mm in height and 15.5m long)

1.0m Southern boundary – 0m (Two Retaining Walls) South western section ranges from 1000mm to 1150mm in height and is 1.8m long South Eastern section ranges 300mm to 700mm in height and is 4.6m long

The subject site has a significant cross fall of 2.2-2.3m as mentioned previously sloping from north eastern corner to the south western corner of site. The existing site has existing exposed limestone crops on site. The applicant has provided a geotechnical report which has identified that,


Page 90

Based on the results from assessments conducted by Structurre, it is highly probable that limestone would be encountered during excavation on the site at Lot 1833 (#266) South Street, White Gum Valley. Any Excavation conducted on site may require hard digging, (by machine), or require some rock breaking to excavate to depth, dependant on rock strength. Due to the typical nature of pinnacle limestone, having loose sand zones interspersed, care must be taken with increased vibration caused by earthworks on existing structures in close proximity to the site.

It is recommended machine excavations be kept to a minimum, to reduce the risk to damage of surrounding structures.

Typically, when site works are proposed as part of a development application Council seek an equal level of excavation and fill to accommodate an acceptable development footprint on unusual natural topographical sites. In this instance the applicant is proposing fill up to 1100mm to the south western corner. The key reasons for this is the applicant argues that the site contains substantial limestone crops and if excavation is required in lieu of fill, the level of excavation, the machinery anticipated to be required to undertake these works and the likelihood of damage occurring to surrounding properties will significantly increase along with associated financial implications in comparison to allowing fill onsite. However, it must also be noted that financial implication is not a legitimate planning consideration and furthermore should not be taken into account when impact could be created on adjoining properties/ neighbours amenity. As such this matter should not be taken into Council’s consideration in determining this planning application. Additionally notwithstanding the above consultant comments, if a higher level of excavation is sought by Council as an appropriate site works remediation, and limestone crops became problematic as a result of excavation, there are appropriate measures and rock breaking methods which can and have been used to significantly reduce and in some instances completely mitigate the risk of damage occurring to neighbouring properties. Having regard to the above comments on balance the proposal meets the relevant design principles for the following reasons: The southern adjoining property isn’t considered to be significantly impacted by the proposed level of fill and nil retaining wall setback as the majority of this common boundary is occupied by an existing boundary wall associated with the existing dwelling located on this lot or remote rear access area which isn’t considered to be sensitive area. Ultimately, the proposed level of fill and retaining wall additions are not considered to detrimentally impact this property particularly with regards to building bulk. Whilst the proposed site works and associated retaining walls could be considered appropriate in effectively responding to the existing subject sites unusual sloping topography, it is questionable if the proposal appropriately responds to and addresses the western adjoining properties significantly lower topography. As seen from the western adjoining property the proposed fill and nil retaining wall setbacks will add impact in terms of building bulk on this property. This issue would also be exacerbated by a further addition of a 1.8m high boundary fence, which would be required for


Page 91

screening of visual privacy, which would result in a total built form height of 2.9m as measured from the top of the existing retaining wall between the two sites and 4.1m high if measured form the FFL of the adjoining western properties dwelling. The area directly impacted of the western adjoining property consists mainly of vehicle access and hardstand car parking area. The City received an objection regarding the proposed level of fill stating that the, ‘proposed variations are considered to impose unnecessary bulk’. Council could be of the opinion that a level of excavation should be undertaken onsite to reduce the impacts of building bulk particular for the western adjoining property, then Council could impose a planning condition reducing the Finished Floor Level (FFL) of the development from 10.8FFL to 10.2FFL, the western and southern retaining walls to not exceed 10.2RL which would result with a finished floor level consistent with the existing natural central contour line of the subject site. If this is the preferred option of Council, then the following condition would be recommended:

The Finished Floor Level (FFL) of the Grouped Dwelling shall be reduced to not exceed 10.2FFL and the top of the southern and western retaining walls shall not exceed 10.2RL to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

It should also highlighted that if a compliant two storey dwelling (max 6m external wall height and 9m roof ridges) with the required 1.2m -1.5m setback from the western common boundary was proposed in lieu of the current single storey development with associated fill, the building bulk impacts created on the western adjoining properties by such alternative compliant development would in fact be significantly greater in comparison to that created by the current proposed. Although, taking all of the above into account, whilst a portion of cut and fill is normally sought to address such issues, in this particular instance given the proposal includes only a single storey development and that the areas of the respective adjoining properties that the development will directly abut are not considered to be visually sensitive, as they are not regularly occupied for long periods of human habitation, the overall building bulk of the development is considered acceptable. Visual Privacy Deemed to Comply

Proposed

7.5m setback South and west adjoining properties = Nil Setback due to proposed level of Fill exceeding 500mm of natural ground level (ngl)

Due to a portion of the subject site in the south western corner being proposed to be filled up to a maximum height of 1100mm above NGL, the issues of overlooking the southern and western adjoining properties arises. A condition of planning approval will be imposed that a minimum 1.6 metre high boundary fence is erected on the approved western and southern boundary retaining walls as this is considered appropriate screening in accordance with clause 5.4.1 of the R- Codes.


Page 92

Energy Efficiency & Sustainability Schedule The applicant is seeking Council’s discretion in relation to not satisfying two of the Schedule B requirements of LPP2.2 policy, specifically the installation of:

• an approved Grey Water reuse system, • a 3000ltr rain water tank, and • Roof ventilators.

In accordance with LPP2.2, the applicant is proposing what is considered to be a suitable alternative for these two energy efficient treatments by achieving a 7.5 star thermal rating for the proposed dwelling. This is considered to be a suitable alternative as it clearly meets the intent of the policy and therefore this discretion is supported and an appropriate condition is included as part of the ‘Officers Recommendation’. CONCLUSION

Based upon the above assessment it is considered that the proposed development complies with the provisions of LPS4, the majority of the relevant ‘Deemed to Comply’’ provisions of the R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Where the proposed development has been assessed to not meet the provisions of ‘Deemed to Comply’ criteria of the R-Codes or relevant Local Planning Policies, it has been outlined above in the Planning Comment section that the proposed development is considered to satisfy the relevant ‘Design Principle’ criteria of the R-Codes and relevant Local Planning Policies. Consequently, on balance the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions.


Page 93


MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Single Storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 266B (Lot 2) South Street, White Gum Valley, subject to the following condition(s):


2. Prior to applying for a Building Permit the landowner shall submit

documentation to the City of Fremantle confirming that the approved dwelling achieves an energy efficiency star rating of 7.5 that is certified by a NatHERS accredited energy assessor using NatHERS accredited software to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation, the southern and western retaining wall additions

shall be either: a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above

floor level that is at least 75% obscure, or b) fixed with vertical screening that is at least 75% obscure, to a

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

floor level, or d) screened by an alternative method to the satisfaction of the Chief

Executive Officer, City of Fremantle,

in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 & C1.2 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle

4. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern 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. Prior to occupation, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with

the approved landscaping plan and Plant Schedule dated 17 September 2013 and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation, a gas boosted solar hot water system shall be



Page 94

7. Prior to occupation the installation of water-efficient fixtures, including 3A-5A rated taps, toilets and showerheads shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


black or dark grey coloured roofs or dark coloured eastern and western external walls and maintained thereafter, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 10. No earthworks are to encroach onto the South Street road reservation.



Page 95

PSC1311-166 MEWS ROAD NO 47 (LOT 2029) FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE

OF USE TO TAVERN (RESTRICTED) AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING - (CJ DAP80005/13)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans Attachment 2 – Site Photographs Attachment 3 – State Heritage Office Referral Comment Attachment 4 – Internal Heritage Comment Date Received: 9 October 2013 Owner Name: Minister for Transport Submitted by: McDonald Jones Architects Scheme: Public Purposes Reserve –Special Use (MRS) Heritage Listing: Precinct Management Existing Landuse: Restaurant Use Class: Tavern Use Permissibility: N/A


Page 96

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received a referral from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in regards to a partial change of use and additions and alterations at No. 47 Mews Road, Fremantle (otherwise referred to as the Fishermans Co-Op). As the land is reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) only, the City’s Local Planning Policy and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) do not formally apply, however have been used as a guide to determine the City’s intent for the area. The applicant has opted to have the application determined by the Development Assessment Panel (DAP). The proposed development seeks to vary the parking requirements for a ‘Tavern’ use as listed by LPS4. It is considered that any variations sought meet discretionary criteria of policies, and that the development overall meets the objectives of the area. The application is recommended to be referred to the WAPC with a recommendation for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

The No. 47 Mews Road, Fremantle is reserved as ‘Public Purpose – Special Use’ under the MRS. The subject site is located on the northern side of Mews Road in Fremantle. It is located within the West End Conservation Heritage Area, and is listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory and Heritage List as part of Fishing Boat Harbour. The subject site is bound by Arthur Head Reserve to the north, the Esplanade to the east and Fishing Boat Harbour to the south. The following table details recent planning history for the site: DA No. Date Description DA0592/09 20/01/13 Signage DA257/06 7/8/07 Alterations to First Floor Tenancy DA556/06 16/03/07 Refurbishment to First Floor Tenancy DA545/06 17/10/06 Signage DA53/05 12/04/05 Terraced Area DA296/03 26/06/03 Alterations to McDonalds Restaurant – Remodel of Terrace,

Extension of Main Dining Area, Internal Modifications, Alterations to Entrance and Associated Signage Upgrade

As the property is reserved under the MRS only, the Department of Planning is the Responsible Authority for the application; however the City is required to forward comments as a referral body. DETAIL

The application for planning approval includes the following:

• Partial change of use to Tavern of the western portion of the building. o Internal alterations on the ground and upper floors including kitchens, bars,

toilets, office and keg cool room. The ground floor of the proposed Tavern appears to be more similar in use to a Restaurant, largely due to the presence of a large dining area on the ground floor, and very little bar


Page 97

standing space. The use of Tavern is proposed for Liquor Licensing purposes and includes the upper floor function area.

o External alterations to openings for Bar/Bistro area on ground floor and Special Events Bar on upper floor.

• Reconstructed canopy on all elevations. • Covered alfresco on eastern and southern elevations. • Expanded bin holding. • Painting of walls and balustrading. • Reactivation of northern elevation. • General maintenance and upgrading of the existing building.

The eastern tenancies are not proposed to be changed internally as part of this application, however will be upgraded externally. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

As the subject site is reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the City’s LPS4 and Local Planning Policies have been used as a guide in this assessment. The application is generally consistent with the precinct objectives, with the exception of car parking. Detailed planning assessment is included in the Planning Comment section below. CONSULTATION

Internal Referrals Design Advisory Committee The proposal has been presented to the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) prior to formal lodgement. The following recommendation was made on 22 July 2013:

1. The concept plans that offer significant community benefit are strongly supported including the revised location of the pedestrian link from Char Char Bull to the Fisherman’s Co-op building.

2. The Committee would like to see further details relating to the balustrading to the west facing upper deck and the awning details including their junction with the existing building.

Revised plans were presented to DAC on 12 August 2013, with the following recommendation:

• While it is encouraged that the upper floor enable all year round use, the upper floor enclosure needs to be read as lighter and more transparent to achieve the design intent of the original concept last presented and supported by the Committee.

The plans submitted as part of this application have slightly altered the upper floor enclosure to present as a more lighter weight roof structure as recommended by the DAC. A condition has been recommended to require referral back to DAC for final design materials.


Page 98

Heritage The proposed additions and alterations have been assessed by the City’s Heritage Planner, with the following recommendation made: Overall the proposal is supported on heritage grounds, although it is recommended that consideration be given to relocation or reduction of the extended bin area, as not to protrude in front of the building line or verandah columns. Also, further details for materials and finishes should be provided. Further details regarding materials and finishes have been requested as part of Condition 3. The full comment from Heritage is included as attachment Health The application was referred to the City’s Environmental Health Officers for comment, with the following recommendations made: The premises must comply with the Food Act 2008, regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS 4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Detailed architectural plans and elevations must be submitted to Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For further information contact Environmental Health Services on 9432 9999 or via [email protected]; As it is intended to use the premises as a “public building” as defined in Section 173 of the Health Act 1911, it is necessary to make application for a Certificate of Approval from the City of Fremantle’s Environmental Health Services before commencing. The above will be referred as advice notes to the applicant. External Referrals State Heritage Office Due to the proposed development being in the vicinity of the Round House and Arthur Head Reserve which are on the State Register of Heritage Places, the application was forwarded to the State Heritage Office for their comment. The following advice was provided: The proposed development does not significantly impact on the identified cultural significance of Round House and Arthur Head Reserve. The comment in full is included as attachment 3. Fremantle Ports Authority As the proposed development lies within the Fremantle Ports Buffer Area 2, the application was required to be referred to the Fremantle Ports Authority for comment. The following comment was received:

mailto:[email protected]�


Page 99

The built form requirements for Area 2 include treatments to windows, openings, air conditioning systems, quiet house design criteria and roof insulation. We would request that the proposal be assessed for compliance with these requirements. In accordance with the policy it is anticipated the following will be recommended and have been included as conditions: Windows and openings

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

b) All safety glass shall be manufactured and installed to an appropriate Australian Standard.

All air conditioning systems shall incorporate the following features: i) multiple systems to have internally centrally located shut down point and

associated procedures for emergency use, ii) preference for split “refrigerate” systems. Community At the time of writing this report, the City had received no submissions. The advertising period closed on 1 November 2013, however the agenda was finalised before this date. Any submissions received after the agenda is finalised will be forwarded to PSC members under separate cover.

PLANNING COMMENT

Land Use The subject site is located within Area ‘B’ – Visitor/Tourist Waterfront Activities of Local Planning Policy DGF10 Fremantle Boat Harbours Development Policy. The proposed change of use is supported in accordance with the policy for the following reasons:

• The proposed use of ‘Tavern’ and proposed alterations will provide additional opportunities for enjoyment of the harbour environment and coastline.

• State Heritage Office advice has supported the proposed development as it is not considered to impact negatively on the surrounding areas of state heritage significance, particularly Arthur Head and Fishing Boat Harbour.

• The northern elevation is altered to allow for greater interaction between pedestrians and businesses, and alfresco areas will enable members of the public to enjoy views out to Bathers Beach.

• The building is not increasing in height or scale. • Building materials are consistent with those included in the policy and there is the

addition of canopies for pedestrian areas around the entire building. • Proposed signage is fixed to the eastern wall and is relatively simple in design

notifying visitors of the use of the building and the name of the business only.


Page 100

• The signage indicates the name of the building and its major tenant. It does not extend above the roofline and is integrated with the building and will not include flashing lights. A standard signage condition is recommended to ensure this.

• The proposed and existing use will attract visitors during the day and at night, seven (7) days a week.

• Tavern/Bistro is listed as a preferred use for Area B. • There is no change to the maximum building height or building footprint.

Parking In accordance with DGF10, the amount of parking required on site, is as per Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3). As TPS3 has been superseded by LPS4, the parking requirement for the portion of the premises changing in use to Tavern is as follows:

Required Provided Discretion 135 (public bar area)

Nil

180 bays 45 (lounge/special events bar) As the previous use of ‘Restaurant’ also had no bays provided, at a calculation of 1:5m2

dining area, 113 would have been required. Therefore, taking into account the existing shortfall on site, an additional 67 bays would be required on site for the change of use to ‘Tavern’. While DGF 10 requires car parking, it is considered that a lack of car parking on site can be supported in accordance with the Clause 5.7.3.1a), in particular the following:

i) The availability of car parking in the locality including street parking. ii) The availability of public transport in the locality. iv) Any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land.

Heritage The City’s Local Planning Policy DGF 14 Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy sets out objectives for the West End of the Fremantle City Centre. The subject site falls within this policy area, specifically in Zone 1 – Foreshore Area. In accordance with the policy, due to the significance of the greater area, the development proposal has been assessed by internal and external (State Heritage Office) heritage planners. As the proposal is supported by heritage advice, it can therefore be supported against DGF 14.


Page 101


MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for APPROVAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme for the proposed Change of Use to Tavern (Restricted) and Additions and Alterations to Existing Building at No. 47 (Lot 2029) Mews Road, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 9 October 2013. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant is to provide additional

details regarding the following matters to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission, on advice of the City of Fremantle’s Design Advisory Committee:

i. The upper floor enclosure needs to be assessed to ensure it can be read as lighter and more transparent to achieve the design intent of the original concept presented to the Design Advisory Committee.; and

ii. Details of materials, colours and textures.

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

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

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

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

5. The signage herby permitted shall not contain any flashing or moving light or radio; animation or movement in its design or structure; reflective; retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design structure.


Page 102



Page 103

PSC1311-167 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED

AUTHORITY (3.61.21) Acting under authority delegated by the Council the Manager Statutory Planning determined, in some cases subject to conditions, each of the applications listed in the Attachments and relating to the places and proposal listed. COMMITTEE DECISION AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the information is noted. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan


Page 104

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) PSC1311-168 FINAL ADOPTION - SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 50 - ADDITIONAL

DWELLINGS DataWorks Reference: 218/056 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Policy & Projects Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1305-65 (PSC 19 June 2013) PSC1306-87 (OCM 26 June 2013) Attachments: 1 – Report to Ordinary Council Meeting PSC1306-87

2 – Scheme Amendment Report 3 – Schedule of Submissions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Proposed Scheme Amendment 50 – Additional Dwellings was initiated by Council in June 2013 for public consultation. The purpose of this item is to report on the submissions received during the consultation period, and to recommend that Council adopt the amendment, with minor modifications. The purpose of Amendment 50 is to introduce new provisions into Part 5 (General Development Requirements) of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’). The proposed provisions will give the City the discretionary power, in certain circumstances, to grant planning approval for an additional dwelling to be developed on a Single House lot, despite the minimum site area requirements of the Residential Design Codes (‘R-Codes’). The provisions will apply to residential zoned land with separate, dedicated frontage to more than one public road, except for corner lots. The intent of the provisions is to facilitate the development of additional dwellings to activate inactive road frontages. In response to comments received during the community consultation period, it is recommended that the Council adopt the proposed amendment with minor modifications. BACKGROUND

The proposed scheme amendment would introduce new clauses into the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 that will allow Council to exercise a discretionary power to approve an additional dwelling on a Single House lot in certain circumstances. Each dwelling on the lot would be required to present to the street it is located on and provide pedestrian and/or vehicle access from that street. The provisions would only apply to development, not subdivision, however once the dwelling is built subdivision could be possible under the provisions of the R-Codes subject to WAPC approval.


Page 105

At its Ordinary Council meeting of 26 June 2013, the Committee adopted the draft provisions of amendment No. 50 for public consultation (see Attachment 1 - Report to Ordinary Council Meeting PSC1306-87). For further background information relating to the proposed amendment please refer to the scheme amendment report contained in this report at Attachment 2 – Scheme Amendment Report. CONSULTATION

The amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (‘EPA’) for confirmation that a formal environmental assessment was not required, in accordance with regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967. Community consultation was undertaken from 20 August 2013 to 4 October 2013 – 45 days in total. Advertising consisted of:

• Public advertising notices in the Fremantle Gazette local newspaper – 20 & 27 August 2013;

• Media releases outlining the amendment and advising of the associated public comment period to local newspapers;

• City of Fremantle website notification for the duration of consultation period; • Notification of the amendment in the public area of City of Fremantle

administration building; • Preparation of a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ information document,

including sketches demonstrating the types of properties where the proposed amendment is likely to apply;

• Letters of notification and inviting comment on the proposal to various service agencies and government organisations; and,

• Letters of notification and inviting comment to all precinct groups with an offer for City officers to attend precinct meetings to discuss the proposal.

A total of 11 submissions were received at the close of the consultation period. 7 of the submissions were supportive, or raised a minor modification to the proposed amendment, while 4 submissions objected to the proposed amendment. The comments raised by the objections are summarised as follows;

• The amendment will result in new development that impacts on access to light; visual privacy and noise;

• The proposal will generate a lot of street parking; • The amendment will result in street parking being removed to provide for new

dwellings; • The amendment will reduce the curtilage to existing heritage properties; • The proposal will generate increased local vehicle traffic; and, • There are already generous zoning concessions in place and density coding

well defined and considered.


Page 106

Attachment 3 – Schedule of Submissions provides a full list of the submissions with officer comments in response to any relevant concerns. In general, the concerns raised relate to future assessment of development applications. Future development assessment will be undertaken on its merits in accordance with the planning framework at the time of making the decision. Two submissions suggested modifications to the amendment which are summarised as follows:

• The amendment provisions should not apply to properties with frontage to a primary regional road under the management of Main Roads Western Australia (‘MRWA’); and,

• The amendment provisions should apply to corner lots and laneway lots subject to applications being advertised to affected landowners.

Consideration of the suggested modifications is made in the Planning Comment section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

The City is supportive of providing opportunity for small housing within established areas as a direct response to declining household sizes and less affordable housing in the Perth metropolitan area. The proposed amendment aims to provide opportunities to develop new dwellings that address otherwise underutilised street frontage thereby making more efficient use of land and existing infrastructure. The small dwelling initiatives, of which this amendment forms a part, are in line with the City’s Strategic Plan 2010-2015. The proposed amendment will provide for a greater diversity of housing and help achieve infill goals established in the WAPC’s Directions 2013 and Beyond and Draft Central Metropolitan Sub Regional Strategy. There is a strong potential for the proposed amendment to facilitate development of new dwellings at varying sizes and accommodation types. The provisions of the proposed amendment are not considered to adversely affect the operation of the existing density code regime given the specific application of the proposed provisions. Modifications to Proposed Amendment Main Roads Western Australia MRWA raised the following comment in relation to the proposed amendment text;

‘1. It is advised that the City insert an additional sub-clause, 5.4.6.1(c), into its proposed amendment which states the following; ‘Where the proposed dedicated road is not an asset under the control of Main Roads Western Australia.’


Page 107

MRWA has management control over primary regional roads in the City of Fremantle. The City is required to refer most development applications to MRWA where properties abut or are contained within the primary regional road reserve. Any development application and/or subdivision application arising from the proposed amendment would similarly be forwarded to MRWA for comment prior to determination. In these instances MRWA will have the opportunity to assess each application on its merits and make recommendations accordingly. Notwithstanding this the recommended change to limit application of the scheme amendment provisions in cases where a site abuts a primary regional road is considered to have merit. It would not affect the broad intent of the amendment and accords with the rationalisation of access to primary regional roads required under the WAPC’s Development Control Policy 5.1 – Regional Roads (Vehicle Access). It is therefore recommended that the amendment text be modified to include an additional criteria in proposed clause 5.4.6.1 as follows:

‘5.4.6.1(c) The road which the additional dwelling faces and obtains access from is not a primary regional road under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.’

Submission from private property owner/occupier - The amendment should apply to corner and laneway lots, subject to community consultation. A submission received from a property owner/occupier suggested that the amendment provisions should also apply to corner lots and to laneway lots. Inclusion of corner lots could result in design issues in established areas; especially in heritage areas. Allowing for an additional dwelling on a small corner lot, particularly if the existing house is orientated to a street corner splay, could then result in development that creates an undesirable streetscape pattern and design outcome within an established area. Moreover, one of the purposes of the amendment is to activate underutilised rear frontages. Properties located on street corners often address both street frontages and making the provisions applicable to corner lots could result in an inequity between additional dwellings being provided on street corner lots but not elsewhere in the same prevailing streetscape. The term ‘dedicated and constructed road’ is not intended to allow for additional dwellings on ‘undersized’ lots with a frontage to a private rear laneway or right of way, as unsatisfactory streetscape outcomes or servicing difficulties could result due to the more restricted width and design of laneways. Accordingly the inclusion of corner or laneway lots within the amendment provisions, as suggested in the submission, is not recommended. Should the amendment be approved by the Minister for Planning, officers intend to recommend to Council preparation of an accompanying local planning policy. This policy will address the matters to be considered by Council in exercising the discretionary power to approve the proposed additional dwelling, and the policy could also clarify the meaning of ‘dedicated road’ as referred to in the scheme amendment text. The term is intended to be used on the basis of the definition of ‘road’ in the Land Administration Act 1997.


Page 108

CONCLUSION Amendment No. 50 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 has been prepared to facilitate the development of additional dwellings on existing smaller residential lots. The intent of the amendment is to facilitate higher density development of land with frontage to more than one dedicated and constructed road frontage. The recommended modifications to the amendment, arising from the community consultation process, are considered relatively minor in nature. It is recommended that Council adopt scheme amendment No. 50 with these minor modifications. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council – 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and

Attachment 3; 2. Resolve pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005

and Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, to adopt the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 with minor modifications as follows:

Inserting the following clauses into Part 5 after clause 5.4.5:

5.4.6 Additional Dwelling 5.4.6.1 Despite the site area requirements of the Residential Design Codes,

Council may grant consent to the development of one additional dwelling on a Residential zoned Single House lot where:

a) The lot is not a corner lot and has two or more separate frontages to a

dedicated and constructed road; and,

b) Both dwellings each face a separate dedicated and constructed road and shall obtain access from the respective road; and,

c) The road which the additional dwelling faces and obtains access from is not a primary regional road under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

5.4.6.2 Any proposed development as referred to in clause 5.4.6.1 shall be assessed against all other applicable grouped dwelling development standards and requirements for the site as specified in the Scheme and state and/or local planning policies. This includes requirements linked to the density coding of the lot. In the case of a lot subject to a split density


Page 109

coding, the development standards and requirements associated with the lowest density coding will be applied in the assessment of the proposed development.

5.4.6.3 Clause 5.4.6.1 only applies to the development of grouped dwellings and does not apply to the subdivision of vacant land parcels.

3. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant

documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

Request the Minister for Planning to grant final consent to Scheme Amendment No. 50 as referred to in (2) above. CARRIED: 5/1 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie

Cr Jon Strachan


Page 110

PSC1311-169 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 42 - REQUIREMENT FOR

REGISTERED ARCHITECT TO DESIGN LARGER DEVELOPMENTS - INITIATION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING

DataWorks Reference: 218/046 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1305-73 Attachments: 1. Discussion Paper; Scheme amendment for a SEPP

65‐type planning policy trial EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 22 May 2013 Council adopted a set of principles upon which to draft a Scheme amendment that would introduce into the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) the requirement for a registered architect to design large developments in the City of Fremantle. Subsequent to this, officers of the Office of the Government Architect and the City of Fremantle consulted with representatives from the Department of Planning regarding the preparation of a draft amendment to LPS4 based on these principles. The Department of Planning officers’ preliminary response to an amendment based on the principles was positive. Accordingly, officers have prepared a scheme amendment to LPS4 that incorporates these principles. It is considered the amendment will strengthen the City of Fremantle’s commitment to delivering quality design and urban form in large developments. It is therefore recommended Council resolve to initiate Scheme Amendment No. 42 to LPS4. BACKGROUND

At its Ordinary Meeting of Council meeting 22 May 2013, Council resolved to: 1. Endorse preparation of an amendment to LPS4 for further consideration by Council

based on the following principles:

a. A registered architect (in accordance with the Architects Act 2004) is required to design the same developments that require assessment by the City’s Design Advisory Committee under clause 11.8.6.2 of LPS4 e.g. development applications that propose a building with a building height of 11 metres or greater in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones.

b. The proposed amendment will include a sunset clause meaning the provisions cease after a specified trail period (proposed 5 years) and during this time the provisions will be monitored to ensure they are performing as proposed.


Page 111

2. Authorise officers to consult with representatives of the Department of Planning regarding the preparation of a draft amendment to LPS4 based on the principles in (1) above, prior to presenting a report on the matter to Council for further consideration and possible initiation of a Scheme amendment.

Officers from the City of Fremantle and the Office of the Government Architect Western Australia met with officers from the Department of Planning (DoP), including the Director General, and presented a briefing paper on the above (1) principles for an amendment to the City’s Scheme. The purpose of the meeting was to ascertain, from DoP, the level of support for the principles and a subsequent amendment. DoP indicated at the meeting preliminary support. Consequently, the City’s officers have progressed with the drafting of the amendment in consultation with the Office of the Government Architect Western Australia. The proposed amendment is discussed in planning comment section of this report. For more information on the background of this Scheme amendment please see the previous report in the 22 May 2013 Ordinary Meeting of Council minutes (PSC1305-73). PLANNING COMMENT

The City of Fremantle is committed to strengthening its planning framework to enhance the quality and amenity of new development and the built environment. The most recent initiatives the City of Fremantle has implemented are:

• Scheme amendment No. 49 (gazetted 18 January 2013) introduced into LPS4 provisions that specifically allow for Council to establish and maintain a Design Advisory Committee (DAC). The DAC’s main mandate is to advise on matters associated with the design quality of any proposed building development 11 metres or greater in height in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones (refer to clause11.8 of LPS4). The amendment also introduced design principles into the Scheme which the DAC use when considering the design quality of a development (clause 11.8.6.3); and

• Local Planning Policy 1.9 - Design Advisory Committee & Principles of Design (adopted by Council 11 June 2013). This policy provides further detail on the type and scale of development applications and planning proposal to be referred to the DAC, and details the design principles in LPS4 in more detail.

As a means to further strengthen the City’s approach and commitment to quality design and improve the level of building design provided in development applications viewed by the DAC, Council supported the following principles on which to base an amendment to LPS4 at its Ordinary Meeting 22 May 2013 (refer PSC1305-73): 1. Require a registered architect to design “large developments”; 2. “Large developments” are the same developments as those required to be assessed

by the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) e.g.11 metres of height or greater in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones; and

3. The amendment is to include a sunset clause to ensure trial and monitoring of the provisions.


Page 112

As stated above (see Background), preliminary consultation on a draft amendment based on these principles was undertaken with DoP and their preliminary response was positive. Accordingly an amendment to LPS4 is proposed as discussed below. Proposed amendment Insert the following clauses after 9.2 ‘Accompanying Material’. 9.3 Additional material - Registered Architect Requirements. 9.3.1 Where a development application would require referral to the City’s Design

Advisory Committee under clause 11.8.6.2 the application must additionally be accompanied by: a) a statutory declaration, made by a Registered Architect (as defined in the

Architects Act 2004) that declares that he or she designed, or directed the design of the development; and

b) a design statement addressing the matters listed under clause 11.8.6.3.

9.3.2 The provisions of clause 9.3.1 shall cease to have effect on the date of the fifth anniversary after publication in the Gazette of the amendment introducing those provisions into the scheme.

Proposed Clause 9.3.1 The introduction of clause 9.3.1 into LPS4 will result in additional material being required to be submitted as part of a planning application when the proposal also requires referral to the City’s DAC as per clause 11.8.6.2 of LPS4 (i.e. any proposed development 11 metres in height or greater in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones). The additional material includes a statutory declaration that a Registered Architect designed or directed the design of the development and the requirement for a design statement. The proposed amendment provisions are based on the well regarded design requirements of New South Wales’ (NSW) Department of Planning and Infrastructure state planning design policy: State Environment Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65). This policy was adopted in 2002 and is widely renowned as an initiative that has improved the quality of residential flat (multiple dwelling) development in NSW. Along with other design initiatives, such as a design advisory committee and a design code, SEPP 65 contains the design requirement for a registered architect to submit, with the planning application, a design verification, which includes a statement that declares that he or she designed, or directed the design of the development and an assessment of the development against the design principles in SEPP65. There are, however, two slight differences between the City’s proposed amendment provisions and the design requirements provisions of SEPP65. The first difference is that while the wording of the registered architect’s statement is the same (i.e. the registered architect designed or directed the design of the development), the City’s amendment would additionally require the statement to be completed as a statutory declaration. The purpose of this is to strengthen the requirement as, unlike NSW, there is currently limited leadership from state government in this area.


Page 113

Additionally, making the statement a statutory declaration gives it more legal standing in the event that there are any issues with the wording on the statement at a later stage. The second difference is the design statement requirement. SEPP65 requires a design statement based on design principles that are used state wide. As there are currently no such design principles for Western Australia, the proposed amendment’s design statement requirement will instead be based on the matters already provided in LPS4 for the City’s Design Advisory Committee to have regard to when determining the design quality of a proposed development (clause 11.8.6.3). These include:

• Character • Continuity and enclosure • Quality of the public realm • Ease of movement • Legibility • Adaptability • Diversity

Proposed Clause 9.3.2 The amendment includes a ‘sunset clause’, which means the provisions, once gazetted, would cease after five years. The reason for this is that the Scheme amendment provisions are new for Western Australia and, while the provisions could make a significant contribution towards achieving better quality of design, there is uncertainty around how well the amendment will perform in achieving the objectives of good design. Accordingly, this clause would enable the impact and operation of the provisions to be assessed and modified or revoked, if necessary, after an appropriate length of time. It would also allow for the provisions to cease if similar provisions are provided by state government (see discussion on planning reform below). Planning reform The Minister for Planning recently launched the document Planning makes it happen: phase two – Planning reform discussion paper for public comment. This document is the second in a series of proposed planning reform initiatives by the state and primarily focuses on statutory decision making, and governance and administrative reforms. One part of the paper focuses on design initiatives and proposes the following to deliver better built form and place design outcomes: 1. the development of a State Planning Policy, design manual or scheme provisions

enshrining the importance of, and principles for, quality design, including architectural, urban, landscape and environmentally sensitive design;

2. for local governments to establish design advisory panels and/or ‘city architects’ positions (for larger/urban local governments);

3. for development applications over certain thresholds (e.g. multi storey office or apartment developments) to be assessed by a design review panel prior to determination by a Development Assessment Panel; and

4. to amend the Multi-Unit Housing R-Codes provisions to require multi-unit housing to be designed by a qualified, registered architect.


Page 114

Officers are supportive of the design initiatives the reform paper proposes above as they are similar to what the City is trying to achieve with its own design initiatives. The City currently operates a combination of these initiatives, including a design advisory committee, and the proposed Scheme amendment would further align the City’s design initiatives with the state’s planning reform proposals. Accordingly this part of the reform paper is one of the main points the City will be supporting in the response back to the Minister. A report on the planning reform paper will be presented to Council in the near future as the public consultation period for the planning reform discussion paper closes on Friday 13 December 2013. CONCLUSION This proposed amendment is another of the City’s initiatives to increase the quality of building design within Fremantle. It seeks to strengthen the City of Fremantle’s commitment to delivering quality design and urban form and improving the level of building design provided in development applications viewed by the DAC. The amendment is supported by the Office of the Government Architect Western Australia and has received a positive response in preliminary discussions with the Department of Planning. It is therefore recommended Council resolve to initiate Scheme Amendment No. 42 to LPS4.


Page 115

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock 1. That Council resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development

Act 2005, to amend Local Planning Scheme No. 4 by: A. Inserting the following clauses after 9.2 accompanying material. 9.3 Additional material - Registered Architect Requirements. 9.3.1 Where a development application would require referral to the City’s Design

Advisory Committee under clause 11.8.6.2 the application must additionally be accompanied by: a) a statutory declaration, made by a Registered Architect (as defined in

the Architects Act 2004) that declares that he or she designed, or directed the design of the development; and

b) a design statement addressing the matters listed under clause 11.8.6.3.

9.3.2 The provisions of clause 9.3.1 shall cease to have effect on the date of the fifth anniversary after publication in the Gazette of the amendment introducing those provisions into the scheme.

B. Renumbering the existing clauses 9.3 Additional Material for Heritage Matters

through to 9.5 Public Inspection of Applications accordingly. 2. That the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute the

relevant Scheme Amendment documentation. 3. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Environment

Protection Authority requesting assessment prior to commencing public consultation.

4. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission for information.

5. That upon receipt of the environmental assessment from the Department for Environment and Conservation, the amendment be advertised for a period of not less than 42 days in a local circulating newspaper.

CARRIED: 4/2 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson


Page 116

PSC1311-170 PROPOSED ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW DataWorks Reference: 010/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Health, Building and Compliance Actioning Officer: Policy Officer Decision Making Authority: Planning Services Committee Agenda Attachments: City of Fremantle Alfresco Dining Local Law (draft) City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Outdoor

Eating Areas 1998 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under the Local Government Act 1995 (“The Act”), the City is required to undertake a review of its local laws every eight years. Recently the City reviewed its Local Laws relating to Outdoor Eating Areas 1998 and identified the need to amend the local laws to enable greater flexibility for food business and licensed premises operators. In considering the content of a revised local law, the City has sought to achieve the following objectives -

- Greater flexibility for proprietors with regard to responsible consumption of alcohol in alfresco areas;

- A simplified fee structure and licensing process; - Alignment of the terms and definitions of the local law with other relevant

legislation (e.g. the Food Act, the Local Government Act and the Liquor Control Act); and

- Modified infringement penalties for offences under the local laws.

The City’s proposed Alfresco Dining Local Law seeks to achieve the above mentioned objectives as well as improving the general format and useability of the local law. The purpose of this report is to present the City’s proposed Alfresco Dining Local Law for consideration by Council. BACKGROUND

In 1998 the City brought into effect its Local Laws relating to Outdoor Eating Areas to govern the use of the road reserve for public outdoor dining in connection with ‘eating houses’. Although the local law continues to provide a framework for the licensing and management of outdoor eating areas, changes in Fremantle’s strategic direction as well as changes to liquor, tobacco and food legislation have made parts of the local law either redundant or impractical to uphold.


Page 117

COMMENT

In its 2013 review of the existing local laws, the City identified a number of shortfalls including the following - Use of the term eating house ‘Eating house’ is a redundant term that essentially refers to a cafe or restaurant. It was repealed in 2008 and replaced with the term ‘food business’ under the Food Act 2008. Licensed premises (other than licensed restaurants) are not considered eating houses and are technically prohibited from operating an outdoor eating area by the current local laws. This technicality prohibits premises such as Whisper Wine Bar and the National Hotel from conducting outdoor eating areas. The City has made exceptions and granted approvals to these businesses but it is essential to remove this restriction to meet current community expectations and provide a greater degree of flexibility for proprietors of licensed premises in accordance with the City's strategic vision. The City proposes in its revised local law that alfresco dining areas will be not be limited to restaurants. The Liquor Control Act and conditions of approval can ensure the responsible consumption of alcohol in alfresco dining areas when consumption is not ancillary to a meal. Fremantle licensees have demonstrated a history of responsible service of alcohol in alfresco dining areas. Outdated application requirements The current local laws application requirements are tedious, overly prescriptive and in many cases unnecessary. ‘Traditional’ (for one of a better word) application requirements, for example those appearing in the current local laws and older style legislation, have largely been replaced in modern examples by simplified and more flexible application wording. For example, rather than stating ‘an applicant shall submit a management plan' the local law would simply state that ‘an applicant shall provide any information reasonably required by the local government to determine the application’. This has the major benefit of permitting the local government to simplify application requirements for the customer without having to amend the local law. Smoking in outdoor eating areas The current local laws restrict smoking in outdoor eating areas. This is redundant as the state-wide Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 prohibits smoking in outdoor eating areas and contains enforcement provisions for non-compliance. Outdoor dining fees based on gross rental value of the premises


Page 118

Currently the local laws require outdoor eating area license fees to be determined according to the gross rental value (“GRV”) of the premises. Setting fees according to GRV figures, which are often inconsistent and out of date, has led to adjacent premises paying significantly different fees to the City in the past. This is particularly unfair to disadvantaged businesses. In the City's Fees and Charges Schedule for 2012/13 and 2013/14, Council endorsed a flat rate per square metre of outdoor eating area for the inner CBD, outer CBD and non-CBD areas. It is necessary to remove the antiquated GRV fee structure from the local laws. Absence of infringement provisions (prescribed offences)

Under the current local laws, non compliances relating to the use of outdoor eating areas must be pursued by the City via the Court system. Under the proposed local law the City has developed a number of prescribed offences to enable officers to issue infringement notices for non compliances rather than having to resort to a prosecution. Infringement provisions are now commonplace in local laws and state regulations as they provide modified penalties and a simplified enforcement pathway for local governments and other enforcement authorities and generally result in more favourable outcomes. License and application form pro formas

The current local laws include both an application form pro forma and license pro forma. The City considers that removal of the license pro forma will enable the City to legally update the license format in accordance with future changes to the City’s branding and other changes that may arise. Removal of the application form pro forma will save the City having to amend the local law should it decide to vary application requirements in the future. In summary, the key changes proposed for the City’s revised local law are as follows:

- Definition of ‘eating house’ replaced with ‘food business’. This now encompasses licensed premises which were not previously captured under the previous Health Act 1911 definition;

- The complicated GRV fee structure has been removed from the local laws and replaced with a simple fee structure in the City's annual fees and charges schedule calculated per m2 of alfresco floor area;

- Infringement notice provisions for prescribed offences (rather than having to pursue non compliances solely though the court process);

- Appeal provisions for applicants as per the Local Government Act; and - Removal of unnecessarily onerous procedural content from the local laws such as

application requirements and licence pro forma.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Financial Nil.


Page 119

Legal The City must follow the local law adoption procedure as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995. Operational The proposed local law will improve and simplify the current application, assessment and licensing process for outdoor eating areas as well as providing improved enforcement pathways for City officers. Organisational The proposed local laws will serve as a standalone law to manage the use of City land for alfresco dining. The City has a number of other policies and local laws that relate to activities in the road reserve and these will continue to be enforced by relevant business units. CONCLUSION

The City’s proposed Alfresco Dining Local Law is a significant improvement to the current local laws and will serve to support the City’s strategic vision and simplify management of alfresco dining areas. The City has prepared a modern and relevant local law that seeks to achieve greater flexibility for business proprietors as well as simplifying the approvals and compliance procedures for City officers. The City considers the proposed local law to represent best practice for the management of City owned/managed space for dining and other compatible uses. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

City of Fremantle Strategic Plan 2010 – 2015 Strategic Imperative 1 – Strengthen Fremantle’s economic capacity Strategic Imperative 2 - Provide a great place to live, work and play through growth and renewal. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The City shall advertise the draft local law and invite public submissions over a six week period. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Absolute majority required

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council agree to adopt the City of Fremantle Alfresco Dining Local Law and repeal the City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Outdoor Eating Areas 1998 and Interim Local Planning Policy DBU8: Outdoor Eating (tables and chairs), as shown below:


Page 120

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995

CITY OF FREMANTLE

ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW 2014 Under the powers conferred by the Local Government Act 1995 and under all other powers enabling it, the Council of the City of Fremantle resolved on (insert date) to make the following Local Law. PART 1 – PRELIMINARY 1.1 Citation This local law may be cited as the City of Fremantle Alfresco Dining Local Law 2014. 1.2 Commencement

(1) This local law comes into operation 14 days after the date of its publication in the Government Gazette.

1.3 Purpose and effect

(1) The purpose of the local law is to provide for the regulation, control and management of alfresco dining areas in any public place within the district.

(2) The effect of this local law is to control alfresco areas so that they do not interfere with the safe and reasonable movement of pedestrians and vehicles as well as to encourage high quality alfresco dining to enhance amenity, vitality and ambience of the city.

1.4 Repeal The following local laws are repealed on the day that this local law comes into operation –

(1) City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Outdoor Eating Areas as published in the Government Gazette on 6 May 1998.

1.5 Transitional A licence issued in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Outdoor Eating Areas -

(a) is to be taken to be a licence granted under this local law; (b) is to be valid for the period specified in the license; and (c) may be earlier cancelled or suspended under this local law.

1.6 Application This local law applies throughout the district 1.7 Interpretations In this local law, unless the context otherwise requires – “Act” means the Local Government Act 1995; “alfresco dining area” means an area in which tables, chairs and other structures are provided for the purpose of the supply of food or beverages or both to the public or the consumption of food or beverages or both by the public; “alfresco dining” means outdoor dining or drinking or both in a public place;


Page 121

“authorised person” means the CEO or any other person authorised by the City under section 9.10 of the Act to be an authorised person for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this local law; “CEO” means the Chief Executive Officer of the City; “City” means the City of Fremantle; “City property” means anything except a thoroughfare –

(a) which belongs to the City; (b) of which the City is the management body under the Land Administration

Act 1997; or (c) which is an “otherwise unvested facility” within section 3.53 of the Act;

“Council” means the Council of the City of Fremantle; “district” means the district of the City of Fremantle; “food business” has the same meaning as the Food Act 2008; “fee” means a fee or charge imposed under sections 6.16 to 6.19 of the Act; “furniture” means chairs, tables, waiter’s stations, planter boxes, umbrellas, screens, barriers, awnings, portable gas heaters and any other structure set up in the alfresco dining area; “Health Act” means the Health Act 1911; “licence” means a licence issued by the City under this local law to set up and conduct an alfresco dining area; “licence period” means the period referred to in clause 2.9; “licence plan” means a plan attached to and forming part of a licence depicting the parts of a street or public place within which an alfresco dining area may be set up and conducted; “licensee” means a proprietor of a food business who holds a valid licence; “Liquor Control Act” means the Liquor Control Act 1988; “local public notice” has the meaning given to it in section 1.7 of the Act; “month” means calendar month; “public place” means any thoroughfare, pedestrian mall or City property; “proprietor” has the same meaning as the Food Act 2008; “Regulations” means the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996; “utility” means any public or private body which provides an essential service, such as electricity, gas, water, drainage, sewerage, telecommunications or traffic control, and has equipment on, in or under a public place for that purpose; “valid”, in relation to a licence issues under this local law, means current and for which all the associated fees have been paid in full; and “vehicle crossing” means a crossing used by vehicles to allow access from a thoroughfare to private land or a private thoroughfare. PART 2 - LICENCE 2.1 Licence required Unless exempt under clause 2.2, a person shall not set up of conduct an alfresco dining area in any public place –

(a) other than in a portion of a public place adjoining a food business; (b) unless the person is the proprietor of a food business or is acting on behalf

of the proprietor of a food business referred to in paragraph (a); (c) unless the person is the holder of a valid licence issued under this local law;

and


Page 122

(d) other than in accordance with the licence plan and any terms and conditions set out in, or applying in respect of, the licence.

2.2 Exemptions

(1) The city may exempt a person or class of persons in writing from the requirement to have a licence.

(2) Any exemption in subclause (1) may be exercised- (a) on the application of a person; or (b) at the City’s discretion. (3) An exemption in subclause (1) may be given subject to any conditions the

City sees fit. (4) An exemption may apply to, or in respect of – (a) a particular event, street festival, carnival or activity approved by the City; (b) particular goods or services; (c) a period of time.

2.3 Application for a licence (1) A person who is required to obtain a licence under this local law shall apply for the licence in accordance with subclause (2). (2) An application for a licence under this local law shall-

(a) be in the form determined by the City; (b) be signed by the proprietor of a food business adjacent to the portion of the

public place to which the application relates; (c) provide the information required by the form; and (d) be forwarded to the CEO together with any fee imposed and determined by

the City. (3) The City may require an applicant to provide additional information reasonably related to an application before determining the application. (4) The City may require an applicant to give local public notice of the application for a licence. (5) The City may refuse to consider an application for a licence which is not in accordance with subclause (2) or where the applicant has not complied with subclauses (3) or (4). 2.4 Relevant considerations in determining application for licence In determining an application for a licence, the City is to have regard to –

(a) relevant policies of the City; and (b) any other matters that it considers to be relevant.

2.5 Decision on application for licence (1) The City may, in respect of an application for a licence-

(a) approve the application unconditionally or subject to any conditions; or (b) refuse to approve the application. (2) Without limiting the scope of the City’s discretion under subclause 1(b), the

City may refuse an application for a licence if, in its opinion- (a) the proposed alfresco dining does not conform with the requirements of the

Health Act or any other written law; (b) the proposed alfresco area is undesirable; (c) the proposed furniture is unsuitable, in any respect, to the location in which

the licence is to operate;


Page 123

(d) the proposed licensee has been convicted during the preceding five years of an offence against – (i) this local law; (ii) the City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Outdoor Eating Areas; (iii) the Health Act; (iv) the Liquor Control Act; or (v) any other written law which affects alfresco dining; or

(e) the proposed licensee is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. (3) If the City approves an application for a licence, it is to issue to the applicant

a licence in the form determined by the City. (4) If the City refuses to approve an application for a licence, it is, as soon as

practicable after the decision is made – (a) to give the applicant written notice of, and written reasons for, the refusal;

and (b) inform the applicant of his or her rights, under Part 9, Division 1 of the Act,

to object to, and apply for a review of, the decision. (5) Where a clause of this local law refers to conditions which may be imposed

on a licence of which are to be taken to be imposed on a licence, the clause does not limit the power of the City to impose other conditions on the licence under subclause (1)(a).

(6) Where a clause of this local law refers to the grounds on which an application for a licence may be of is to be refused, the clause does not limit the power of the City to refuse, the application for a licence on other grounds under subclause (1)(b).

2.6 Conditions which may be imposed on a licence The City may approve an application for a licence subject to conditions relating to –

(a) the area or location to which the licence applies; (b) the number, type, form and construction, as the case may be, of any

furniture which may be used in the alfresco dining area; (c) the care, maintenance and cleaning of any furniture used in the alfresco

dining area; (d) The removal and storage of furniture used in the alfresco dining area prior

to the closure of the adjacent food business; (e) The requirement to maintain pedestrian access between the alfresco dining

area and the adjacent food business; (f) The alfresco dining area not impeding or obstructing a public place used by

either pedestrians or vehicles; (g) The requirement to maintain clear sight lines for vehicles entering or leaving

a thoroughfare or a vehicle crossing; (h) The obtaining of public risk insurance in an amount and on the terms

reasonably required by the City; (i) The grant of another approval, permit, licence or authorisation which may be

required under any written law; (j) The duration and commencement of the licence; (k) The placement of advertising on furniture within the alfresco dining area; (l) The payment of all fees, charges, rates and taxes levied or incurred as a

result of the establishment and operation of the alfresco dining area; (m) The payment of costs

associated with the City preparing the public place for the use as an alfresco


Page 124

dining area including but not limited to the reshaping of footpaths and marking the boundaries of the alfresco dining area.

2.7 Compliance with conditions Where –

(a) an application for a licence has been approved subject to conditions; or (b) a licence is to be taken to be subject to conditions under this local law,

the licensee shall comply with each of those conditions. 2.8 Amendment of licence conditions (1) A licensee may apply in writing to the City to amend any of the terms of conditions of the licence. (2) The City may, in respect of an application under subclause (1) –

(i) amend the licence, either in accordance with the application or otherwise as it sees fit; or

(ii) decline to amend the licence. (3) The City may, at any time, amend any of the terms and conditions of the

license. (4) If the City amends a licence under this clause, it is to notify the licensee in

writing of the amendment as soon as practicable after the amendment is made and , unless otherwise specified in the amendment, the amended term or condition, or both, of the licence apply from the date of the notification

(5) If the City amends a licence otherwise than in accordance with an application from the licensee, it is, as soon as practicable after the decision to amend is made –

(i) To give the licensee written notice of, and written reasons for, its decision to amend; and

(ii) Inform the licensee of his or her rights, under part 9, Division 1 of the Act, to object to, and apply for a review of, the decision.

2.9 Duration of licence A licence is valid for twelve months from the date on which it is issued, unless it is –

(a) otherwise stated in this local law or in the licence; or (b) cancelled under clause 2.12

2.10 Renewal of licence (1) A licensee may apply to the City in writing no later than two months before the expiry of a licence for the renewal of the licence. (2) The provisions of the local law relevant to the license which is to be renewed shall apply, with such modifications as are required, to an application for the renewal of a licence. 2.11 Transfer of licence (1) An application for the transfer of a valid licence is to –

(a) be in the form determined by the City; (b) provide the information required by the form or by any other clause of this

local law; (c) be signed by the licensee and the proposed transferee of the licence: and (d) be forwarded to the City together with any transfer fee imposed and

determined by the City.


Page 125

(2) The City may refuse to consider or determine an application for the transfer of a licence, which is not in accordance with subclause (1).

(3) The City may approve an application for the transfer of a licence, refuse to approve it or approve it subject to such terms and conditions as it sees fit, and if it is approved, the proposed transferee shall become the licensee from the date of the approval.

2.12 Cancellation of suspension of licence (1) A licence may be cancelled by the City on any one or more of the following grounds –

(a) the licensee has not complied with – (i) a condition of the licence; or (ii) a provision of this local law or any other written law which may relate

to the activity regulated by the licence; (b) if it is relevant to the activity regulated by the licence –

(i) the licensee is an undischarged bankrupt, or is in liquidation;

(ii) the licensee has entered into a composition arrangement with creditors; or

(iii) a manager, administrator, trustee, receiver, or receiver and manager, is appointed in relation to any part of the licensee’s undertakings or property;

(c) the proprietor of the food business changes; (d) the setting up or conduct of the alfresco dining area, or the behaviour of

customers within the alfresco dining area, is causing a nuisance. (2) The City may cancel or suspend a licence if the City or a utility requires access to or near the place to which a licence applies, for the purposes of the carrying out works in or near the vicinity of that place; (3) If the City cancels or suspends a license under this clause, it is, as soon as practicable after the decision is made –

(a) to give the licensee written notice of, and reasons for, the decision; and

(b) inform the licensee of his or her rights, under part 9, Division 1 of the Act, to object to, and apply for review of, the decision; and

(c) the cancellation or suspension takes effect from the date on which the licensee is served with the cancellation or suspension notice.

(4) On the cancellation of a licence, the licensee shall return the licence as soon as practicable to the City.

(5) On the cancellation or suspension of a licence, the licensee is, subject to subclause (6), to be taken to have forfeited any fees paid in respect of the licence.

(6) Where a licence is cancelled or suspended through no fault of the licensee, the City may refund to the licensee all or part of the license fee in respect of what would otherwise have been the balance of the terms of the licence.

2.13 Display and production of licence (1) A licensee shall produce to an authorised person his or her valid licence immediately on being required to do so by an authorised person.


Page 126

(2) A licensee shall display his or her valid licence in accordance with the conditions set out in the licence. PART 3 – OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS 3.1 Application of Part 9 Division 1 of the Act (1) Where the City makes a decision as to whether it will –

(a) grant an application for a licence; (b) vary cancel or suspend a licence; or (c) impose or amend a condition to which a licence is subject,

the provisions of Division 1 of Part 9 of the Act and regulation 33 of the Regulations apply to that decision. (2) Under these provisions, an affected person may have the right to object to, or to appeal against, a decision of the City. PART 4 – ENFORCEMENT 4.1 Direction of authorised person to be obeyed (1) A licensee who is given a lawful direction by an authorised person or a member of the W.A. Police shall comply with that direction. (2) A licensee shall not obstruct or hinder an authorised person in the performance of that person’s duties. 4.2 Notice to repair damage to public place Where any portion of a public place has been damaged as a result of the use of that public place as an alfresco dining area, the City may, by notice to the licensee, order the licensee to repair or replace that portion of the public place to the satisfaction of the City. 4.3 City may undertake requirements of notice If a person fails to comply with a notice under clause 4.2, the City may do the thing specified in the notice and recover from that person, as a debt, the costs incurred in so doing. 4.4 Removal and impounding of goods Where an alfresco dining area is conducted without a licence or in contravention of a condition of a licence, any furniture may be removed and impounded by an authorised person under regulation 29 of the Regulations. 4.5 Offences (1) A person who fails to do anything required or directed to be done under this local law, or who does anything which under this local law that person is prohibited from doing, commits an offence. (2) An offence against a clause specified in the First schedule of this local law is a prescribed offence for the purposes of section 9.16(1) of the Act. (3) A person who commits an offence under this local law shall be liable, on conviction –


Page 127

(a) to a penalty not exceeding $5,000 and if the offence is of a continuing nature, to an additional penalty not exceeding $500 for each day of part of a day during which the offence has continued.

4.6 Infringement and infringement withdrawal notice For the purposes of this local law –

(a) the form of the infringement notice referred to in section 9.17 of the Act is that of Form 2 in Schedule 1 of the Regulations; and

(b) the form of the infringement withdrawal notice referred to in section 9.20 of the Act is that of Form 3 in Schedule 1 of the Regulations.

4.7 Offence description and Modified Penalty The amount appearing in the final column of the First Schedule directly opposite an offence described in that schedule is the modified penalty for that offence. 4.8 Authorised persons Unless expressly state otherwise by the City, a person appointed by the City to be an authorised person for the purposes of this local law is taken to have also been appointed by the city to be an authorised person for the purposes of sections 9.13 and 9.16 of the Act in relation to offences against this local law. First Schedule City of Fremantle ALFRESCO DINING LOCAL LAW 2014 OFFENCES AND MODIFIED PENALTIES Item No.

Clause No.

Nature of Offence Modified Penalty $

1 2.1 Set up or conduct an alfresco dining area without a valid licence

300

2 2.7 Failure to comply with a condition of licence 100 3 2.13

(1) Failure to produce to an authorised person a valid licence when requested to do so

100

4 Other offences not specified 100 CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan


Page 128

PSC1311-171 PROPOSED LOCAL PLANNING POLICY - CONSTRUCTION SITES DataWorks Reference: 117/010 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Health, Building and Compliance Actioning Officer: Policy Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Amendment 49 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 in November 2012 increased the height limits on a number of key sites which will pave the way for future multistorey development in the CBD area. The City proposes a local planning policy to enable the appropriate management of large construction sites and road reserve areas consistent with the City’s requirements. BACKGROUND On 28 March 2012, Council adopted amendments to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (Amendment 49) to enable the development of sufficient new floor space to accommodate higher density residential, retail and commercial development in the Fremantle CBD. On 16 November 2012 these amendments were approved by the Minister for Planning. The basis for Amendment 49 was to increase height limits on twelve non-heritage listed sites in the Fremantle CBD to encourage quality developments and increase Fremantle’s economic capacity. The twelve key sites are located in the eastern area of the city centre zone (sub area 1.3.2), focused around Queen Street between the Fremantle Railway Station and Kings Square. These sites were identified by the City as capable of supporting redevelopment of an intensity and scale that would make a significant contribution to achieving the strategic imperatives of the City’s Strategic Plan 2010-2015. Whilst development of these key sites forms a key feature of the City’s economic strategy, it is anticipated that construction on these sites and other significant sites is likely to impact upon the inner city environment in terms of traffic, visual amenity, noise, dust and the normal use of footpaths and roads. The City therefore considers it necessary to implement an appropriate strategy to minimise these impacts and ensure minimal disruption to business activities in the inner City area during the construction phase. Currently the City regulates construction activities within the road reserve via an application and permit system. This is fairly typical across local government and is derived from the requirements of the City’s Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law and the Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996. The City’s current process involves multiple application forms for similar uses and often requires referral of applications between business units (for example between planning and technical services) to communicate technical


Page 129

requirements and legislative requirements etc. The current process is considered resource intensive and somewhat convoluted. Under the City’s proposed inner city construction sites policy, the existing application-permit process will be replaced by a simpler arrangement whereby approval of construction activities in the road reserve is implicit subject to compliance with the requirements of the policy. Essentially this means that an applicant would be able to use the road reserve for an approved activity (for example, scaffolding and site deliveries) without having to enter into an application/approval dialogue with the City. The requirement to pay fees however still applies. The City believes that this will largely eliminate the need for internal referrals between business units; demystify the City’s technical requirements relating to use of the road reserve; and simplify the invoicing and payment activities for City staff. It is anticipated that compliance with the policy will form a condition of the development approval (i.e. planning condition) and thus will be enforceable under the Planning and Development Act 2005. However, since the majority of the policy requirements are already embodied by existing City local laws, enforcement of the policy can be pursued under the relevant local law. There are a number of significant changes to current requirements relating to construction sites and road reserves in the new policy including:

• All parking bays within the street frontage of a development site will be allocated for construction related activities for the period of construction (fees apply); This has in principle support from parking and ranger services;

• Minor traffic disruptions not requiring to be advertised can be self managed in accordance with main roads guidelines;

• An emphasis on protection and replacement of street trees; • Public liability insurance requirements are more explicit; • The policy will apply to construction sites considered to impact upon public areas.

The requirements contained within the policy are considered to be best practice by the City and reflect the need to balance the interests of the public and the property development industry. STATUTORY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Clause 2.4 of LPS4 allows Council to formulate a local planning policy and outlines the procedure by which this must occur. CONSULTATION Should Council resolve to proceed with the new local planning policy, the draft policy will be advertised in accordance with the requirements of clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 which includes:

1. Advertisement in a local newspaper for 2 consecutive weeks detailing where the policy can be inspected, the subject and nature of the draft policy and closing date of the 28 day advertising period;

2. Listing on the City’s web site; and


Page 130

3. Referral to precinct groups CONCLUSION The City considers that its proposed construction sites policy will serve to improve the management of inner city and other significant construction sites and minimise the impacts of construction related activities on the public environment. From an operational point of view, the City believes that the proposed policy will serve to simplify the existing approvals process and provide a concise set of standards for developers and builders engaged in construction projects. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council adopt the draft Local Planning Policy – Construction Sites for advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 2.4 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as shown below:

CITY OF FREMANTLE LOCAL PLANNING POLICY

CONSTRUCTION SITES ADOPTION DATE: AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 INTRODUCTION Construction sites can impact upon the amenity of the surrounding locality and must be properly managed to preserve a safe and healthy environment for residents, workers and visitors to Fremantle. This policy recognises the need to balance the interests of the Fremantle public with that of the property development industry. SCOPE This policy applies to construction sites where there is limited capacity to contain construction related activities on site. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this policy are:-

• To reduce the impacts of construction sites on the occupants of adjacent sites and nearby sensitive land uses;

• To maintain and safe and pleasant inner City environment for the public;


Page 131

• To assist developers of large scale residential and commercial buildings understand the City's expectations with regard to construction site management;

• To protect road reserve infrastructure that could be damaged as a result of construction related activities;

DEFINITIONS “AS” means Australian standard “Builder” means the builder whose name appears on a building permit issued by the City under the Building Act 2011. “Construction and demolition waste” means waste resulting from the construction, alteration, repair or demolition of a building and includes liquid wastes. “Construction related activities” means activities within the road reserve relating to the construction, demolition, alteration or repair of a building. “Construction site” means the lot or land on which construction or demolition works or earthworks are being carried out. “Construction work” has the same meaning given to it in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 “Gantry” means an overhead structure used in conjunction with scaffolds and elevated work platforms to provide over head and side protection to a walkway. “Hoarding” means a temporary structure erected around a construction site to separate the site from adjoining land. “Infrastructure” means all structures, kerbs, signs, furniture, surfaces, soil and vegetation within the road reserves and includes underground and overhead services. “Street tree” means a tree within the road reserve and includes shrubs exceeding one metre in height. “Waste receptacle” includes a skip bin, commercial bulk rubbish container, and household waste or recycling bin of capacity 240L or greater or other suitable receptacle designed to receive and contain wastes. POLICY 1.0 Legal implications 1.1 The requirements of this policy are the minimum standards for construction

sites (may also be referred to as “site or “sites”) captured within the scope of this policy. Permits traditionally issued by the City in relation to the use of the road reserve are not required for construction sites captured under this policy provided the requirements of this policy are met.

1.2 Where an applicant is able to demonstrate that a requirement of this policy cannot be reasonably met, i.e. due to special circumstances, the City may approve a variation to any requirement of this policy. Any departure from the requirements of this policy without express written permission from the City may result in prosecution against liable parties.

1.3 Compliance with this policy is not a substitute for compliance with other laws. A person carrying out building work is responsible for obtaining all necessary consents or permits.


Page 132

2.0 Documentation required 2.1 All gantries and hoardings are to be structurally certified by a “Professional

Engineer” as defined by part A1 (INTERPRETATION) of volume one of the current National Construction Code with written certification being forwarded to the City prior to any overhead work being commenced on the site.

2.2 Any changes to gantries and hoardings during the construction period of the site are to be approved by a "Professional Engineer".

2.3 Before commencing work within or above the road reserve; including but not limited to excavations, erection of structures and signs, storage of materials and dewatering operations, the builder or responsible contractor must obtain a public liability insurance policy noting the City of Fremantle as an interested party, with cover of not less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) and indemnifying the City against any claim for damages.

General requirements for construction sites 3.0 Parking bays for construction related activities 3.1 The City will allocate all parking bays within the limits of the street frontage of

the site, for the term of construction for construction related activities including deliveries and storage of materials, skip bins, site offices and contractor parking.

3.2 Where there are no parking bays adjacent to a site, an application may be made to the City to use a part of the road or a loading zone for construction related activities.

3.3 The perimeter of the allocated area is to be fenced to height of minimum 1.8m with visually permeable fencing (e.g. temporary fencing) which should not encroach more than 500mm onto a footpath and in any case a minimum effective footpath width of 1.2m is to be maintained.

3.4 The fencing must not impede pedestrian/traffic sightlines and must be illuminated so as to be clearly visible from the hours between sunset and sunrise.

3.5 Parking bay hire fees will apply at commercial rates in accordance with the City's Fees and Charges Schedule in fee paying locations.

3.6 No storage of materials or equipment is permitted outside of the allocated area.

3.7 Use of the area must not impede the movement of pedestrians or road users. 4.0 Protection of infrastructure within the road reserve 4.1 All reasonable care must be taken during the term of construction to protect

infrastructure (see definition) within the road reserve. 4.2 A bond shall be paid to the City in accordance with the City's Fees and

Charges Schedule in respect to the protection of infrastructure within the road reserve prior to the commencement of works.

4.3 Where it is essential to relocate any infrastructure within the road reserve to enable access to a construction site or for any other reason deemed appropriate by the City, the City may remove or relocate any infrastructure


Page 133

within the road reserve at the builder’s cost to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site.

4.4 Any damage to infrastructure within the road reserve as a result of construction related activities shall be made good by the builder within a time specified by the City. In the event, that the builder fails make good any damage, the City may carry out such repairs as necessary and recover all appropriate costs from the builder.

5.0 Street trees 5.1 Street trees are considered assets to the City that contribute to the wellbeing

of the community and the natural environment. Street trees shall be protected during all phases of development in accordance with AS4970-2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites.

5.2 Where a tree or part of a tree is required to be removed to enable access to a construction site or for any other reason deemed appropriate by the City, the removal or pruning of trees shall not be undertaken except by the City’s staff or City contractor.

5.3 Street tree removal shall be assessed by the City in accordance with the City’s street tree policy.

5.4 If a tree is damaged during development works then any pruning, removal and/or replacement costs shall be at the expense of the land owner.

5.5 Where trees are authorised for removal as part of a development application, the land owner shall fund the full cost of the tree removal and pay for the cost of two replacement trees on the verge of the property the following planting season.

6.0 Security fencing around construction sites 6.1 All construction sites are required to be secured and fenced to a height of 2.1m

-2.4m. In some instances, the City may require a solid barrier such as a hoarding around a construction site in the interests of preserving the amenity of the surrounding area.

6.2 A fence or hoarding must not encroach more than 500mm onto the road reserve.

6.3 A fence or hoarding must not obstruct pedestrian and motorist sightlines and must be clearly visible during the hours between sunset and sunrise.

6.4 All fencing and hoardings are to be maintained to a high standard at all times. 7.0 Gantries 7.1 Where scaffolding is erected upon or above a footpath, a suitably designed

overheard gantry and protective barrier (scaffold side) shall be provided along the length of the scaffold to protect pedestrians from falling objects.

7.2 A minimum width of 1.2 metres and a headroom clearance of at least 2.40 metres are required for pedestrian access.

7.3 Gantries shall be setback a minimum of 750mm from the kerb and designed so as not to collapse or cause injury to any person when subjected to vehicular impact.


Page 134

7.4 Gantries shall incorporate a continuous guardrail fixed between columns 800mm above the footpath and incorporate adequate overhead lighting for pedestrians.

7.5 On narrow footpaths where a gantry setback and 1.2 metre footpath width cannot be achieved, the City may approve an alternative arrangement.

8.0 Access to site by construction vehicles 8.1 All vehicle crossings to a construction site are required to be separated from

any infrastructure within the road reserve by (a) a minimum of 2.0 metres in the case of street trees; (b) a minimum of 1.2 metres (in the case of bus shelters, traffic management

devices, parking embayments or street furniture), and (c) a minimum of 1.0 metre in the case of power poles, road name and

directional signs.

8.2 Upon application, the City may consider approval to a lesser distance in cases where:

(a) no practical alternative location is available for the crossover, and (b) the infrastructure/tree is not damaged by the proposal, and (c) safe and adequate traffic sight distances are maintained.

9.0 Contact Details 9.1 In addition to the requirements of the Building Services (Registration)

Regulations 2011, the following details shall be displayed prominently on the site: (a) The name of the main contractor or builder; (b) Name of company responsible for structures over the street; (c) Contact telephone numbers; (d) Site address; and, (e) Expected completion date of construction

10.0 Site offices 10.1 Where it is not possible to situate a site office on a construction site, a site

office may be situated within the allocated parking area or on a suitably designed gantry structure.

10.2 Upon application, the City may approve a site office in an alternative location. Environmental Management 11.0 Noise - Construction Work and Deliveries 11.1 Construction work is limited to the following hours:

• Monday to Saturday: 7:00am – 7:00pm; • Sundays and Public Holidays: no work permitted.

11.2 Deliveries to the site shall occur without disruption to the surrounding locality. Any deliveries to the site outside of these hours shall comply with the neighbourhood noise limits imposed by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.


Page 135

11.3 The City cannot permit construction work outside of permitted hours unless an application is made in writing to the CEO in accordance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Construction work outside of permitted hours shall not unreasonably impact upon the surrounding locality.

12.0 Sand drift and dust management 12.1 Any activities likely to generate sand drift or dust; including but not limited to

demolition, earthworks and the cutting or sawing of materials, shall be conducted in a manner that minimises the generation and movement of sand or dust off the site.

12.2 Sand and dust shall not be permitted to accumulate in excessive amounts on the road reserve adjoining the site.

13.0 Waste management 13.1 Except for allocated parking bays (see 3.0), the road reserve adjoining

construction sites is to be maintained free from rubbish and construction and demolition wastes including liquid wastes at all times.

13.2 All wastes generated on site are to be contained in waste receptacles which are to be emptied as required.

13.3 Suitable measures are required to prevent waste blowing out of receptacles during windy conditions, e.g. the use of lids or relocation of bins to protected areas of the site.

14.0 Dewatering 14.1 Dewatering of a site shall not occur without approval from the City. 15.0 Traffic management 15.1 Any disruption to traffic movement involving lane closures, deviation of

vehicles from their normal progress or path, or other complex traffic arrangements requires a traffic management plan to be prepared by a person accredited by Main Roads WA in accordance with Main Roads Western Australia’s Traffic Management for Events and or Works on Roads Code of Practice and AS1742.3.

15.2 A traffic management plan shall be submitted to the City's Technical Services section at least 21 days prior to the date of the traffic disruption to allow advertising to occur.

16.0 Works affecting pedestrian areas 16.1 Whether a footpath is present or not, portions of the road reserve adjacent to

construction sites are to be maintained in a safe condition at all times. 16.2 Temporary crossings to building sites shall be constructed in a manner that

enables the safe passage of pedestrians over the crossing. Where interference or obstruction to the normal use of a footpath occurs or is planned to occur, appropriate traffic control devices/signs complying with the


Page 136

requirements if AS 1742.3 are to be provided in appropriate locations to inform and guide users of the footpath safely through, around or past such works. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Jon Strachan


Page 137

PSC1311-172 PROPOSED ALCOHOL MANAGEMENT POLICY DataWorks Reference: 030/018 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 November 2013 Responsible Officer: Manager Health, Building and Compliance Actioning Officer: Policy Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Alcohol Management Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 28 August 2013, Council resolved to adopt a number of principles to guide the development of future alcohol policy. The adopted alcohol principles consist of both planning and non-planning related principles. As its first action in relation to this resolution, the City has developed an overarching Alcohol Management Policy that embodies the principles agreed to by Council. The purpose of this report is to present the proposed Alcohol Management Policy for consideration by Council. The proposed policy is presented as a Council policy, as opposed to a local planning policy. The planning related principles adopted by Council on 28 August 2013 relating to small bars, liquor stores and ‘high risk’ licensed premises are dealt with in a separate report for consideration by PSC titled Licensed Premises - Proposed Amendments to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Local Planning Policy. BACKGROUND

Despite the important social and economic role of alcohol in society, the harms associated with excessive alcohol consumption are of increasing concern to the City and the community alike. Latest figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Federal Govt.) estimate that over twenty percent of Australians aged fourteen and above consume alcohol at levels that put them at risk of harm over their lifetime. The annual costs associated with alcohol related harm have been conservatively estimated at 15.6 billion dollars. The City believes that effective local government management of alcohol related issues can be delivered through:

• effective local government leadership in promoting and modelling healthy behaviours and attitudes;

• The use of local government services and mechanisms to build the capacity of individuals and communities to sustain positive lifestyle behaviours.

• the establishment of cross agency relationships; and • an ongoing commitment to the development of a safe, diverse and vibrant night time

economy. As its first action following Council’s resolution at its meeting on 28 August 2013 to adopt a number of guiding principles in relation to alcohol management, the City has prepared an alcohol management policy that seeks to embody the principles agreed upon by Council and reflect the contemporary issues facing Fremantle as a place of economic and cultural significance.


Page 138

The principles endorsed by Council on 28 August 2013 at its OCM are as follows:

• The City of Fremantle is seeking to achieve a vibrant and sustainable night time economy, promote small business, protect public health and enhance amenity within its capacity as a local government authority;

• The City is committed to encouraging a more responsible drinking culture and will consider health promotion strategies to initiate behavioural change;

• The City supports restaurant and small bar licence categories as the type of low risk licensed venues that best compliment the City's desired character and identity for Fremantle;

• A general presumption in favour of alcohol-free events, attractions and other cultural, arts and recreation activities; and consideration of incentives for applicants;

• Consideration of support for licensed premises where alcohol consumption is not the primary activity and is ancillary to other compatible uses carried out on site; and

• Consideration of support for small, temporary, 'pop up' venues in the City centre zone that serve to activate underutilised areas or spaces, compliment surrounding land uses and display a commitment to responsible service of alcohol and harm minimization principles;

• A general presumption in favour of development of small bars; • The City providing assistance to small bar applicants in the preparation of a public interest

assessment report (PIAR) as part of their liquor licence application; • A general presumption against large or high risk licensed premises in the City centre

trading past 1am and a general presumption against licensed premises outside of the City centre trading past 12am;

• A general presumption against large liquor stores; • A general presumption against liquor stores near schools and in areas adequately

serviced by existing liquor stores; and • The public interest assessment report forming a consideration of the City in the

assessment of licensed premises proposals. The City has already implemented a number of strategic initiatives in relation to alcohol management including a submission to the Liquor Control Act Reform Committee in February 2013 advocating for greater flexibility in liquor licensing, Local Planning Scheme No. 4 amendment 52, the development of a draft public interest assessment template to assist small bar applicants as well as the development of a local alcohol profile in collaboration with the South Metropolitan Public Health Unit. The City is also in the process of developing an alcohol management ‘action plan’ to aid in the implementation of the City’s draft alcohol management policy across relevant business units. The City acknowledges that Local Government is not solely responsible for the management of alcohol related issues within the community, but it can positively support a responsible drinking culture through a range of holistic mechanisms such as land use planning and night time economy management and the delivery of ‘grass roots’ local government services such street lighting, graffiti removal and event planning. CONCLUSION

Reducing the harmful effects of alcohol use is a national health priority and requires a concerted approach from all levels of government to improve attitudes toward alcohol consumption. The City has sought input from Council to establish a set of guiding principles for future actions in relation to alcohol management. The City’s proposed alcohol management policy seeks to


Page 139

embody the principles adopted by Council and will serve to guide a range of community focused actions to achieve the policy objectives. OFFICER’S RECOMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock

1. That Council adopt the City’s proposed Alcohol Management Policy. Policy Alcohol Management Type: Strategic Legislation: Liquor Control Act 1988 Procedure: TBA Delegation: 4.4 Liquor Act Other related document: City of Fremantle Strategic Plan 2010-2015 Local Planning Policy - TBA Objective The objective of this policy is to provide for an integrated and holistic response to the management of alcohol related issues within the City of Fremantle. Policy The City of Fremantle considers that an integrated and population wide approach is necessary to improve attitudes toward alcohol consumption. The City also recognises its capacity as a local government to foster a healthy and responsible drinking culture and to implement a range of strategies to minimise the incidence of alcohol related harm in the community. To achieve its objectives, the City of Fremantle will –

1. Provide appropriate services and infrastructure to support the needs of the community in relation to the management of alcohol related issues;

2. Develop, promote and support a variety of events and activities where alcohol consumption is not the primary focus of activity including art and cultural programs, retail trading and recreational infrastructure;

3. Encourage a responsible drinking culture through the use of health promotion strategies to initiate behavioural change: :

4. Promote an appropriate mix of land use consistent with the objectives of the City’s strategic plan and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and to minimise the impacts of the operation of licensed venues on surrounding areas;

5. Ensure thorough and integrated determination of liquor licence applications through the application of appropriate criteria having regard to the objectives of the City’s Strategic Plan, Local Planning Scheme No. 4, other relevant City policies and applicable statutory requirements;

6. Provide appropriate comment to the Director of Liquor Licensing in regard to liquor licence applications as per the provisions of the Liquor Control Act 1988;


Page 140

7. Promote a responsible approach to alcohol consumption at events supported and organised by the City and at venues it owns or manages.

8. Establish and expand partnerships with relevant stakeholders including community groups to improve attitudes toward alcohol consumption and reduce the prevalence of alcohol related harm within the community;

9. Consult and engage with the community regarding alcohol related issues and ensure an appropriate response to alcohol related concerns and complaints;


MOVED Cr Fittock to add the following additional wording to point 3:

and reduce the normalisation of alcohol consumption in the minds of children and teenagers



Page 141

COMMITTEE AND OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council adopt the City’s proposed Alcohol Management Policy. Policy Alcohol Management Type: Strategic Legislation: Liquor Control Act 1988 Procedure: TBA Delegation: 4.4 Liquor Act Other related document: City of Fremantle Strategic Plan 2010-2015 Local Planning Policy - TBA Objective The objective of this policy is to provide for an integrated and holistic response to the management of alcohol related issues within the City of Fremantle. Policy The City of Fremantle considers that an integrated and population wide approach is necessary to improve attitudes toward alcohol consumption. The City also recognises its capacity as a local government to foster a healthy and responsible drinking culture and to implement a range of strategies to minimise the incidence of alcohol related harm in the community. To achieve its objectives, the City of Fremantle will –

1. Provide appropriate services and infrastructure to support the needs of the community in relation to the management of alcohol related issues;

2. Develop, promote and support a variety of events and activities where alcohol consumption is not the primary focus of activity including art and cultural programs, retail trading and recreational infrastructure:

3. Encourage a responsible drinking culture through the use of health promotion strategies to initiate behavioural change and reduce the normalisation of alcohol consumption in the minds of children and teenagers:

4. Promote an appropriate mix of land use consistent with the objectives of the City’s strategic plan and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and to minimise the impacts of the operation of licensed venues on surrounding areas;

5. Ensure thorough and integrated determination of liquor licence applications through the application of appropriate criteria having regard to the objectives of the City’s Strategic Plan, Local Planning Scheme No. 4, other relevant City policies and applicable statutory requirements;

6. Provide appropriate comment to the Director of Liquor Licensing in regard to liquor licence applications as per the provisions of the Liquor Control Act 1988;


Page 142

7. Promote a responsible approach to alcohol consumption at events supported and organised by the City and at venues it owns or manages.

8. Establish and expand partnerships with relevant stakeholders including community groups to improve attitudes toward alcohol consumption and reduce the prevalence of alcohol related harm within the community;

9. Consult and engage with the community regarding alcohol related issues and ensure an appropriate response to alcohol related concerns and complaints;



Page 143

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS Nil. CLOSURE OF MEETING THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 9.22 PM.


Page 144

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION

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.


Page 145


Decisions must also be made in accordance with any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or 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 146


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 147

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 148


Page 149

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 6 November 2013, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Planning Services Committee 6 November 2013

Page 2

MINUTES - City of Fremantle€¦ · table of contents . item no subject page declaration of opening...

Documents

Transcript of MINUTES - City of Fremantle€¦ · table of contents . item no subject page declaration of opening...