Wednesday, 21 September 2011,6.00 pm - City of Fremantle · 2018. 3. 8. · CITY OF FREMANTLE ....

AGENDA

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 21 September 2011,6.00 pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING

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

Wednesday, 21 September 2011 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8 William

Street, Fremantle (access via stairs, opposite Myer) commencing at 6.00 pm.

Philip St John DIRECTOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 16 September 2011

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

AGENDA

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE The following questions were asked by Dalveen Godwin at PSC meeting 7 September 2011 relating to 3/16 Minilya Avenue, White Gum Valley: 1) Why has parking control signage not been erected in Minilya Ave, and 2) When will parking control signage be erected in Minilya Ave Answer given by Philip St John Director of Development Services: The parking control signage not been erected for the reason that the City had been developing a new procedure for issuing permits for this area. This has now been mailed out to residents and they will have until Close of Business on the 23rd to respond and then signs will be installed the week beginning the 3rd October. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS LATE ITEMS NOTED CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the Minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 7 September 2011 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PSC1109-161 SOUTH TERRACE NO.258 (LOT 309) SOUTH FREMANTLE - DEFERRED ITEM - RELOCATION OF UNAUTHORISED EXHAUST FAN TO EXISTING RESTAURANT (MS DA0071/11) 1

PSC1109-162 MARTHA STREET NO. 22 (LOT 39), BEACONSFIELD – DEFERRED ITEM – TWO STOREY REAR ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE – (AD DA0142/11) 7

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 12

PSC1109-163 LILLY STREET, NO. 11A (LOT 701) SOUTH FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR UNAUTHORISED ALTERATIONS AND DECK ADDITION AND PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AND LOFT ADDITION TO EXISTING TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (JWJ DA0483/10 & DA0545/10) 12

PSC1109-164 QUEEN STREET, NO. 13A (LOT 3) FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE TO MEDICAL CENTRE (NEEDLE EXCHANGE) (JWJ DA0368/11) 24

PSC1109-165 STATUS REPORT - NEIGHBOUR MEDIATION PROCESS – NO. 6 AMELING RISE, FREMANTLE VA0018/11 29

PSC1109-166 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 31

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 32

PSC1109-167 MUNICIPAL HERITAGE INVENTORY REVIEW - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 PLACES 32

PSC1109-168 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 32 - HILTON COMMERCIAL CENTRE REZONING AND AMENDED DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS LOT 888 SOUTH STREET, HILTON - ADOPTION 58

PSC1109-169 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 44 - ADVERTISING OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - FINAL ADOPTION 70

PSC1109-170 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 47 - PUBLIC ART CONTRIBUTION AREAS - FINAL ADOPTION 75

PSC1109-171 RE-NAME PROPOSED PUBLIC ROAD NAME (DECK LANE) - PROPOSED ROAD LINKING MEWS ROAD RAIL CROSSING WITH MARINE TERRACE, FREMANTLE - (KSW) 85

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 89

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PSC1109-161 SOUTH TERRACE NO.258 (LOT 309) SOUTH FREMANTLE - DEFERRED ITEM - RELOCATION OF UNAUTHORISED EXHAUST FAN TO EXISTING RESTAURANT (MS DA0071/11) 3

PSC1109-162 MARTHA STREET NO. 22 (LOT 39), BEACONSFIELD – DEFERRED ITEM – TWO STOREY REAR ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE – (AD DA0142/11) 16

PSC1109-163 LILLY STREET, NO. 11A (LOT 701) SOUTH FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR UNAUTHORISED ALTERATIONS AND DECK ADDITION AND PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AND LOFT ADDITION TO EXISTING TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (JWJ DA0483/10 & DA0545/10) 49

PSC1109-164 QUEEN STREET, NO. 13A (LOT 3) FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE TO MEDICAL CENTRE (NEEDLE EXCHANGE) (JWJ DA0368/11) 55

PSC1109-166 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 60

PSC1109-167 MUNICIPAL HERITAGE INVENTORY REVIEW - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 PLACES 63

PSC1109-168 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 32 - HILTON COMMERCIAL CENTRE REZONING AND AMENDED DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS LOT 888 SOUTH STREET, HILTON - ADOPTION 68

PSC1109-169 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 44 - ADVERTISING OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - FINAL ADOPTION 90

PSC1109-170 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 47 - PUBLIC ART CONTRIBUTION AREAS - FINAL ADOPTION 91

PSC1109-171 RE-NAME PROPOSED PUBLIC ROAD NAME (DECK LANE) - PROPOSED ROAD LINKING MEWS ROAD RAIL CROSSING WITH MARINE TERRACE, FREMANTLE - (KSW) 92

CLOSURE OF MEETING

Agenda - Planning Services Committee 21 September 2011

Page 1

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register PSC1109-161 SOUTH TERRACE NO.258 (LOT 309) SOUTH FREMANTLE -

DEFERRED ITEM - RELOCATION OF UNAUTHORISED EXHAUST FAN TO EXISTING RESTAURANT (MS DA0071/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 September 2011 Responsible Officer: A/Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1107-128 (Presented 20 July 2011 Planning Services

Committee, 27 July Full Council, 3 August 2011 PSC) Attachments: Report presented to PSC (3 August 2011) Date Received: 15 February 2011 Owner Name: Umberto Ricciardi Nominees Pty Ltd Submitted by: L & N Ford Scheme: Mixed Use R30 Heritage Listing: Historic/Archaeological Site - Demolished Existing Landuse: Restaurant Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its meeting on the 3 August 2011, Planning Services Committee (PSC) resolved to defer this application to September 2011 PSC meetings in order to allow the City to conduct further investigation and liaison with the applicant in regard to the odour issues associated with the existing exhaust fan. This application is presented before PSC to present the outcomes of investigations conducted by the City’s Environmental Health Department in regard to the issues associated with odour emanating from the existing exhaust fan at the existing restaurant located at No.258 South Terrace, South Fremantle. Specifically, the proposal is comprised of the following: • Relocation of the unauthorised exhaust fan from the centre of eastern facing

roof plane to northern Silver Street side; • Exhaust fan to be 2.38m in height above the roof and be 900mm wide at top; • Proposed coffee roaster flue approximately 1.5m in height above the roof

located on south eastern side of roof; • Proposed 3 x exhaust outlets for new ablutions approximately 400mm in height

outlets located on south eastern corner of roof; • Internal alterations to the existing building; • Modifications to existing cool room. The application is considered to satisfy the objectives of the ‘Mixed Use’ zone and is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

Refer to PSC1107-128 for detailed background information regarding the subject site. In January 2011, the City received complaints from adjoining residents regarding noise and odour emitted from the Restaurant operating on site. The complaints related to an unauthorised exhaust fan located in the centre of the eastern facing roof plane of the building. The applicant was subsequently advised that a planning application was required to be submitted to the City pertaining to the exhaust fan. Subsequently a planning application was received by the City on 15 February 2011 seeking retrospective approval for the unauthorised exhaust fan to the existing Restaurant. The proposal has been presented before Council on a number of occasions of which are detailed as follows: • On 20 July 2011 the application was presented before PSC with a recommendation

for approval. The recommendation was carried with an additional advice note regarding consideration be given to increasing the height of the exhaust fan. The item was also referred to full Council;

• On 27 July 2011, the item was presented before full Council who resolved to defer

the item to PSC in order to “improve amenity of the neighbours and explore avenues of height of the stack”


Page 3

• On 3 August 2011, the item was presented before the PSC in accordance with the recommendation of full Council. The item was deferred “in order to allow the City to further investigate and discuss with the applicant the odour issues”.

DETAIL In accordance with the determination of the PSC on the 3 August 2011, the item is presented before PSC to present information and findings of the City’s investigation relating to odour issues associated with the proposal. It is worth reiterating that since the applicant has submitted the planning application for the above works, a separate application has been received for a partial change of use to ‘Light Industry’ (Coffee Roasting) and the associated position of the coffee flue. On this basis, a condition will be included recommending the coffee roaster be deleted from this proposal and determined as a separate matter. The specific details of proposal are contained within the report presented to PSC on the 3 August 2011 (PSC1107-128), which is enclosed as an attachment to this report (Attachment 1). STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Refer to PSC1107-128 for the details in regard to the statutory assessment of the proposal. CONSULTATION

Environmental Health Department The following summary of investigation has been provided by the City’s Senior Environmental Health Officer in regard to the odour associated issues at the subject site:

“The City’s Environmental Health Officers have conducted at least 6 site visits to the area around the café located at 258 South Terrace, (The City) has been on site on the 4th, 12th and 18th of August and also the 2nd of September, however we did not detect strong or even mild odours on these occasions. (The City) has also visited the site on the 28th and 30th of August and did not detect any offensive odours on either of these occasions either. During these site visits we walked along Silver Street and a considerable distance downwind of the café to see if the odour plume was more evident at a distance from the café, however on the days of our visits it was not. All the site visits except that on the 2nd of September were conducted when the weather was fine and winds were light which we thought may lead to a concentration of the odour in the general area as wind dispersal would be less during calm conditions. On the 2nd of September the weather was very windy and rainy.

We have checked the filters in the exhaust canopy and at the time we were there they were clean. There were no strong cooking odours in the kitchen. The kitchen was very busy and had a considerable number of customers at the time.

The café owners have a contract to have the exhaust canopies filters exchanged with clean ones on a 4-6 weekly basis and for the exhaust ducting to be inspected


Page 4

and cleaned every 6 months. This would appear to be a reasonable frequency given the state of the filters when I have been on site and also that the café does not undertake intensive cooking such as char grilling or deep frying on a regular basis.

I have spoken to the manufacturer of the exhaust canopy and he indicated to me that he believed that the best solution to any odour issue would be to raise the exhaust stack 2 to 3 meters which should lift it above the balcony level of the neighbouring properties. He did not provide me with a price for this work to be undertaken.

I have obtained a quote for an odour assessment / report to be prepared by the “Odour Unit”. John Hurley who is manager and senior odour consultant has indicated that the cost of the work would not go beyond $3600 plus GST for a report detailing the current situation and providing recommendations relating to stack height and other control methods.

I have also obtained some pricing information relating to a secondary filtration unit known as an “Odour Guard” model aaog-1800-2 which would probably suit this situation. The price for this unit is $9500 plus GST and installation etc…. I do not believe any cafes or restaurants in Fremantle have such a system in place.

The investigations into the odour associated with the café have not resulted in evidence that the situation is such that a notice relating to a nuisance under the relevant provisions of the Health Act 1911, could reasonably be issued.

If the City requires more detailed assessment of the issue it may be that the committee could request an odour report be prepared as discussed at the last meeting when it was suggested that the City could possibly pay for such a report to be commissioned.

The comment provided by the City’s Environmental Health Department will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report. Community Refer to PSC1107-128 for the details in regard to the community consultation process associated with the proposal. Furthermore, through the investigations of the City’s Environmental Health Department, Environmental Health Officers have met with several parties who have raised concerns in regard to odour associated with the site and have also conducted investigation in regard to the impact on these properties.


Page 5

PLANNING COMMENT

As discussed within PSC1107-128, of the objectives of the Mixed Use zone, Council is to be satisfied that the proposal satisfies the following objective of the Mixed Use zone:

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

Given that the application has arisen as a result of complaints received residents of the adjoining properties, it is important Council is satisfied that the proposal meets this specific objective of the Mixed Use zone. It is acknowledged that while a number of concerns have been conveyed in relation to issues resulting from the proposed relocation of the exhaust fan, it is important to note that there is an existing regulatory framework external to planning control to deal issues such as odour and noise. Given such fixtures are mandatory in the operation of a premises of this nature, and that such premises is considered to be synonymous with a Mixed Use zone it is considered that the proposal in its current form, being satisfactory to the City’s Environmental Health Services is a positive outcome. The proposal will alleviate detriment to the adjoining properties whilst maintaining the operation of the premises in accordance with the appropriate environmental health standards. CONCLUSION At its meeting on the 3 August 2011, PSC resolved to defer the application “in order to allow the City to further investigate and discuss with the applicant the odour issues”. As discussed above, the City’s Environmental Health Department have conducted extensive investigation into the location of the exhaust fan and associated issues in regard to odour. Furthermore, information has been provided in relation to the costs associated with commissioning further investigation external by an odour specialist. Should Council be of the opinion that further investigation is required in this instance, Council may be of the view to defer the application. However it is considered that the odour associated with the café has not resulted in a situation that a notice relating to a nuisance under the relevant provisions of the Health Act 1911, could reasonably be issued. On this basis, it is considered that there are no further grounds to pursue further works in association with the proposed relocation of the existing exhaust. Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to the same conditions.


Page 6

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Relocation of unauthorised exhaust fan to Existing Restaurant at No. 258 (Lot 309) South Terrace, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the Relocation of unauthorised exhaust fan to

Existing Restaurant as indicated on the approved plans dated 15 February 2011 and 21 April 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. The ‘Coffee Roaster Flue” indicated on the approved plans dated 15 February

2011 and 21 April 2011 does not form part of this approval. 3. Within 60 days of the date of this approval, the owner shall relocate the exhaust fan as indicated on the approved plans dated 15 February 2011 and 21 April 2011 to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 7

PSC1109-162 MARTHA STREET NO. 22 (LOT 39), BEACONSFIELD – DEFERRED

ITEM – TWO STOREY REAR ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE STOREY SINGLE HOUSE – (AD DA0142/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 September 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1107-131 Attachment 1: Revised Development Plans (dated 05 September 2011) Attachment 2: PSC1107-131 (Previous PSC Report) Attachment 3: Original Development Plans (dated 29 March 2011) Attachment 4: Heritage Assessment (dated 16 June 2011) Date Received: 29 March 2011;

05 September 2011 (Revised Development Plans) Owner Name: Siv Anna Camilla Sundbladh and Peter Anthony Schwindt Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Management Category Level 2, South Fremantle Heritage

Area Existing Landuse: Residential - Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented before the Planning Services Committee (PSC) as the applicant has provided amended plans in order to address concerns raised by the City and PSC. At its meeting held 20 July 2011, PSC resolved to ‘defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee Meeting to allow the applicant the opportunity to address the issues of the short fall of the upper floor front setback and chimney retention’. The applicant has submitted amended plans to the City on 5 September 2011, which includes a number of minor changes to the original plans. The changes made by the applicant are considered to satisfy the PSC’s reasons to defer the item from its 20 July 2011 meeting. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

At its meeting held 20 July 2011, PSC resolved to defer the item in order to allow the applicant to amend the development plans to resolve issues pertaining to:

• the upper floor setback of proposed rear two storey additions from the roof ridgeline of the existing dwelling; and

• the retention of the chimneys on the existing dwelling. Please refer to previous item PSC1107-131, contained as ‘Attachment 2’ of this report for further background information. DETAIL For specific site and original planning application details see’ Attachment 2’ & ‘Attachment 3’ of this report. On 5 September 2011, the applicant submitted revised plans proposing the following amendments:

• Incorporation of a single storey addition located between the rear of the existing dwelling and the proposed rear two storey additions. This single storey addition is approximately 1.75 metres in length, and 2.90 metres in height and results in the proposed rear two storey additions to meeting the minimum 4.00 metre setback to the roof ridgeline as prescribed by Council’s DBH1 – Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines policy;

• Inclusion of the chimneys of the existing dwelling on the development plans, of which are to be retained as part of the proposed works;

• Deletion of the rear upper floor balcony as previously proposed; • Deletion of the side boundary fencing along the western and eastern boundaries

of the subject site as previously proposed; and • Various changes to a number of windows as previously proposed, of which do not

affect the setback requirements as determined for the original proposal.


Page 9

The revised development plans are contained as ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. CONSULTATION Community In accordance with Clause 6 of Council’s LPP 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals policy, additional public notice of the proposal’s revised plans was not required to be undertaken as there were no additional variations to arise from the modifications those proposed by the original plans. As discussed in the previous item PSC1107-131, contained as ‘Attachment 2’ of this report, at the conclusion of the initial advertising period, being 5 May 2011, the City had received one submission. The following issues were raised:

• Visual Privacy

The submitter objects to the impact on privacy from the rear windows of the proposed master bedroom of the upper and the open balcony of the upper floor due to overlooking into the rear yard and living area of the submitter’s property.

• Boundary Wall (Northern Boundary) The submitter objects to the northern parapet wall of the proposed alfresco area adjoining the submitter’s property. If the northern parapet wall of the proposed alfresco area is subsequently approved by Council, the submitter requests reassurance that the northern parapet wall of the proposed alfresco area be constructed entirely within the bounds of the lot (22 Martha Street) and not encroach on the submitter’s property, particularly the adjoining driveway.

These comments were addressed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the previous item PSC1107-131 as contained as ‘Attachment 2’ or this report. PLANNING COMMENT The application has been assessed against the requirements of the City’s LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant Council Local Planning Policies and requires a discretionary decision with respect to: • Buildings setback from boundary; • Buildings on boundary; • Design of parking spaces; • Building height; and • Visual Privacy. All of the above variations have been addressed as part of the previous item PSC1107-131, contained as ‘Attachment 2’ of this report. All of the above mentioned original proposed variations were supported by City officers apart from those relating to Visual privacy. Notwithstanding, the revised plans included modifications pertaining to the previously proposed rear upper floor balcony and this subsequently necessitated a revised assessment against the relevant visual privacy provisions of the R-Codes, discussed as follows:


Page 10

Design Element 6.8.1 - Visual privacy

Required Provided Variation Setback 4.50 metres in direct line of sight in the case of bedrooms and studies

Major opening as contained within the northern elevation for the upper floor (‘Master’ bedroom) is setback 2.60 metres in direct line of sight from the western adjoining property

1.90 metres (at 45 degree cone of vision)

This variation is not supported for the following reason(s):

• The major opening to a habitable room (‘Master’ bedroom) as contained within the northern elevation for the upper floor is anticipated to overlook rear garden space and outdoor living area western adjoining property;

• One submission received from the landowner of the northern adjoining property objected to overlooking from the ‘Master’ bedroom and balcony of the upper floor (northern elevation) as proposed by the original development plans. The amendments made by the applicant as part of the revised development plans dated 5 September 2011, do not ensure that no overlooking of the northern adjoining property will occur from the proposed upper floor ‘Master’ bedroom and ‘Sitting room’; and

• Therefore, the visual privacy variation to the western adjoining property does not comply with the Acceptable Development standards nor the applicable Performance Criteria of clause 6.8.1 of the R-Codes, and as such it will be recommended as a condition of approval that the applicant incorporate appropriate screening measures in order to comply with the Acceptable Development standards of the R-Codes.

Fencing The revised plans dated 5 September 2011 did not include the fencing along western and eastern boundaries as was proposed by the development plans originally submitted. The fencing along the western boundary proposed as part of the original plans measured 5.70 metres in length, and up to a maximum of 1.60 metres in height and was to be of solid construction. Similarly, the fencing along the eastern boundary proposed as part of the original plans measured 10.00 metres in length, and up to a maximum of 1.80 metres in height and was to be of solid construction. Sub-clause 2.2 of Council’s LPP 2.8 – Fences Policy states that Council may specify the type of building materials of a proposed fence on a Heritage Listed property so that is consistent with the heritage character of the place. The Heritage Assessment undertaken for this development did not raise any issues specific to the proposed eastern and western boundary fencing and as such it is considered that the fencing detailed on the original development plans is adequate in this regard. It is possible that the omission of these two side boundary fences were an oversight from the applicant when preparing the revised plans, and as such it is considered appropriate to recommend that a condition of approval be imposed requiring that the western and eastern side boundary fences are to be no greater than 1.80 metres in height above natural ground level.


Page 11

CONCLUSION The proposal is considered to meet the relevant Acceptable Development of the R-Codes other than the discretionary decisions sought in relation to Design Elements 6.3.1 – Buildings setback from the boundary; 6.3.2 – Buildings on boundary; 6.5.3 – Design of parking spaces; 6.7.1 – Building height; and 6.8.1 – Visual privacy. For the reasons outlined within the ‘Planning Comment’ section above, it is considered that the proposed discretionary decision regarding boundary walls should be supported since they meet the relevant ‘Performance Criteria’ of the R-Codes and Council’s LPP 2.4. The submitter’s concerns pertaining to the northern boundary wall of the alfresco area have also been addressed through an appropriate condition of approval (Condition No. 3). Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Rear Addition to Existing Single Storey Single House at No. 22 (Lot 39) Martha Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 5 September 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

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

3. All structures of the development, including footings to the northern, eastern and western side boundary walls, shall be contained within the subject lot.

4. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the northern, eastern and western side 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. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 6. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not

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

7. The side boundary fences located on the northern, western and eastern boundaries shall be a maximum height of 1.80 metres above natural ground level.


Page 12

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 PSC1109-163 LILLY STREET, NO. 11A (LOT 701) SOUTH FREMANTLE -

RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR UNAUTHORISED ALTERATIONS AND DECK ADDITION AND PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AND LOFT ADDITION TO EXISTING TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (JWJ DA0483/10 & DA0545/10)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 February 2011 Responsible Officer: A/ Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: A/ Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: None Attachment 1: Development Plans (Revised submitted 4 July 2011) Date Received: 21 September 2010 & 1 November 2011 Owner Name: T Lee Submitted by: As Above Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: None Existing Landuse: Two storey Single House Use Class: Residential – Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The applications have been referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination as submissions received during advertising raised concerns that cannot be resolved via conditions of planning approval. Planning Approval is sought for proposed alterations and loft addition to the existing two storey Single House at No. 11A Lilly Street, South Fremantle (DA00483/11). Retrospective approval is also sought for unauthorised rear deck additions to the existing two storey Single House at (DA0545/10). The unauthorised development includes: • Western deck – 500mm above NGL; • Middle deck – 800mm above NGL. The applications include variations to following the ‘Acceptable Development’ criteria of the Residential Design Codes 2010: • Design Element 6.3.1 – Buildings setback from the boundary; • Design Element 6.8.1 – Visual privacy. The variations have been assessed and are considered to satisfy the ‘Performance Criteria’ of the R-Codes. It is recommended that the application be conditionally approved. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned Residential in accordance with the City of Fremantle’s (the City) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a density coding of R30. The site is located within Sub Area 4.3.4 of Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List but is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Precinct which is a designated Heritage Area in accordance with clause 7.2 of LPS4. The site is approximately 313m² and incorporates an east-west orientation. The site is improved by an existing two storey Single House. A review of the property file found the following relevant planning background: • On 22 June 1987, the City granted planning approval for a two storey residence at

No. 11A Lilly Street, South Fremantle (DA138/87) which incorporated one on-site car parking bay;

• On 19 April 1988, the State Planning Commission endorsed a survey strata subdivision to create two lots at No. 11 and 11A Lilly Street, South Fremantle (DA138/87);

• On 13 November 2001, the City granted planning approval for a front fence and carport at No. 11A Lilly Street, South Fremantle (DA639/01).

The topography on site consists of a moderate downwards slope from east to west of approximately 1.1m.


Page 14

The streetscape of Lilly Street consists of single and two storey dwellings, some with setbacks approximately between nil and 3m. Several dwellings do not provide parking on site or incorporate single carports forward of the dwelling. The adjoining properties to the site consist of: The northern adjoining property at No. 9A Lilly Street is a single storey Single House. The existing dwelling incorporates a southern boundary wall approximately 22m in length extending from the rear south western corner of the adjoining site. The boundary wall incorporates a window which is located abutting the unauthorised western deck on the subject site. The southern adjoining property 11 Lilly Street is a single storey Single House which is listed on the City’s Heritage List and MHI as a Management Category Level 3. The eastern adjoining property at No. 8 Lilly Street is a single storey Single House and is listed on the City’s Heritage List and MHI as a Management Category Level 3. No. 8 Lilly Street incorporates a nil setback to the street and vehicle access to the rear of site via a vehicle access leg to the south. The western adjoining properties at No. 86-90 Attfield Street, consist of three Grouped Dwellings and an incorporated common property vehicle access leg. The Grouped Dwelling at No. 86 is a two storey dwelling. The Grouped Dwellings at No. 88 and 90 Attfield Street is a single storey duplex and is listed on the City’s Heritage List and MHI as a Management Category Level 3. DETAILS The details of the application are as follows: • On 22 April 2010, the City contacted the applicant regarding an unauthorised deck at

No. 11A Lilly Street, South Fremantle. • On 21 September 2010, the City received a development application for proposed

alterations to the existing dwelling and loft addition to the existing Single House (JWJ DA0483/10);

• On 29 October 2010, the applicant submitted revised plans regarding the proposed works due to the minor discrepancies found during a preliminary assessment of the application;

• On 1 November 2010, the City received a development application for retrospective approval for unauthorised works regarding the rear western and middle deck additions (DA0545/10);

• On 15 February 2011, the applicant submitted revised plans to provide further clarification and justification for proposed variations and to address concerns raised during the consultation period;

• On 4 July 2011, the applicant submitted further revised plans which incorporated amendments to originally proposed: o Loft / dormer window addition; o Southern and western facing balcony addition.

The revised plans dated 4 July 2011 (DA0483/10) and 15 February 2011 (DA0545/10) were assessed against and considered to satisfy the relevant provisions of LPS4, the


Page 15

‘Acceptable Development’ criteria of the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies, except in relation to: • Design Element 6.3.1 – Buildings setback from the boundary; • Design Element 6.8.1 – Visual privacy. The following Council Local Planning Policies are also relevant to this application: • DBH 1 Urban Design and Streetscape Policy; • DGS 3 South and Attfield Streets, Hampton and Lefroy Roads Local Area. CONSULTATION

Community The applications were advertised in accordance with clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising periods, being 17 November 2010 (DA0483/10) and 26 November 2010 (DA0545/10), the City had received seven submissions, which raised the following relevant planning concerns (summarised): Impact of Proposed Development • Storm water runoff to adjoining properties; • Dormer window / mezzanine level being considered a loft; • Noise from balcony and loft addition; • Potential overlooking from:

o Upper floor window to north adjoining property o Dormer window and balconies to western adjoining properties

• Originally proposed overheight western boundary fence. Existing Development • Overlooking and associated noise from unauthorised rear deck; • Location of deck abutting existing northern boundary wall and window; • Window within northern boundary wall being screened.


Page 16

PLANNING COMMENT Boundary Setbacks North Required Originally Proposed Amended Variation North (ground floor) – 1.5m

1.4m n/a – no change to proposed

0.1m

North (upper floor- balcony) – 1.5m

1.5m - 2.6m 1.1m 0.4m

The variations to the setback requirements of the R-Codes are supported for the following reasons: • The balcony is to be appropriately screened in accordance with overlooking

requirements of the R-Codes; • The ground floor northern elevation of the dwelling abuts an existing single storey

boundary wall which extends for the majority of the northern boundary of the site; • The existing covered walkway, reconfigured carport and balcony are considered to be

of lightweight and open construction and are not considered to significantly detrimentally impact on the northern adjoining neighbour by way of excessive building bulk.

South Required Originally

Proposed Amended Variation

South (ground floor) – 1.5m

1.4m n/a – no change to previously proposed

0.1m

South (upper floor) – 1.5m

1.4m n/a – no change to previously proposed

0.1m

The variations to the setback requirements of the R-Codes are supported for the following reasons: • The balcony addition is to be in line with the existing southern boundary setback and

is to be appropriately screened; • Existing openings to the upper floor of the southern elevation are to be reconfigured

to non major openings in accordance with overlooking requirements of the R-Codes; • The balcony is to be constructed of lightweight materials and is to be open in design; • Therefore it’s not considered to significantly impact the southern adjoining property by

way of excessive building bulk; • Furthermore, the variations are not considered to significantly restrict direct sun

access and ventilation to the southern adjoining property.


Page 17

Visual Privacy Permitted Provided Variation Major openings to bedrooms and studies with floor level above 0.5m above NGL to be setback 4.5m or screened

Major opening to loft bedroom: West– 11.8m North – 4.6m South– 4.5m

Complies Complies Complies

Outdoor living areas with a floor level above 0.5m above NGL to be setback 7.5m or screened

Element of western elevation of upper floor balcony setback: North - 6.2m West – 9m

North – 1.3m West - Complies Complies West– 1.1m North– Complies

Western ground floor deck abutting western boundary <0.5m above NGL

Middle ground floor deck extension - setback 6.4m from western boundary and 0m from northern boundary (abutting boundary wall) / not screened

Upper Floor Balcony In accordance with Design Element 6.8.1 of the R-Codes it is recommended conditions be imposed to appropriately screen the western elevation of the proposed upper floor balcony. Middle Deck A site inspection undertaken on 3 November 2010 found existing mature trees to be located near the western common boundary of the subject site. The applicant has since constructed a fence no more than 1.8m in height from natural ground level with 500mm of screening above, abutting the western common boundary, in accordance with Schedule 15 of LPS4. A site visit undertaken on 25 February 2011 to the western adjoining property confirmed the construction of the fence (see Attachment 2 below for site photos). An upper floor window in the eastern elevation of No. 86 Attfield Street can be seen from the unauthorised middle deck. It should be noted that the eastern upper floor elevation of 86 Attfield Street is setback approximately 11m from the western common boundary and approximately The western boundary common fence and existing vegetation are considered to assist in preventing direct overlooking to visually sensitive outdoor living areas and ground floor habitable windows of the western adjoining properties.


Page 18

The western common boundary fence abuts the common property vehicle access area for the western adjoining properties at 86-90 Attfield Street and an outbuilding located in the north eastern corner of site associated with the property at No. 86 Attfield Street. The outbuilding incorporates a single storey eastern boundary wall. As mentioned previously there is an existing downwards slope on site from east to west of approximately 1.1m. The western adjoining properties are located approximately 0.5m-1m lower than the subject site. The combination of the subject site’s higher topography, the existing boundary wall located on the north western corner of site (associated with No. 86 Attfield Street) and the screening above the western common boundary fence is considered to restrict direct overlooking to visually sensitive areas of the western adjoining properties. Therefore further screening to the unauthorised middle deck is not considered to be required. For site photos regarding screening please refer to Attachment 2 of this report. The finish to the western elevation of the western common boundary fence is not considered a relevant planning concern and shall be dealt with between the parties as a civil matter. Unauthorised Works Rear Decking The western ground floor deck abutting the western boundary is considered to satisfy the ‘Acceptable Development’ requirements of Design Element 6.8.1 of the R-Codes in relation to visual privacy. The unauthorised middle ground floor deck extension has been assessed against the performance criteria for visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes and is considered to comply. The location of the deck abutting the existing northern boundary wall is considered to satisfy the setback requirements of the R-Codes and LPP 2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development. Further submissions received during the advertising period requested for the unauthorised decks to be required to be removed. The unauthorised decks are not considered to significantly impact on adjoining properties by way of excessive building bulk and scale. In this instance, it is not considered that the decks should be required to be removed. LPP 1.5 - Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance Clause 4.5 of LPP 1.5 Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance (LPP 1.5) states that ‘an infringement notice shall be issued as soon as possible after the offence has been committed, but in any event, must be given within 6 months after the alleged offence is believed to have been committed’. An infringement notice would result in a $500 fine being issued to the ‘alleged offender’.


Page 19

As the construction of the rear decks have occurred outside of the specified 6 month timeframe, Council cannot issue an infringement notice in accordance with Section 226 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, as prescribed by Council’s LPP 1.5. Clause 4.6 of LPP 1.5 contains provisions that relate to where non-compliant development has been carried out and when the matter will be the subject of prosecution action. The policy states that where the property has been brought into compliance within the specified time period, in most cases, the Council will not prosecute. However where, in the opinion of the Manager Development Services there is a broader public interest in undertaking legal action, a report will be prepared for the Council to consider further prosecution action. Although elements of the development in its current form incorporate variations to the provisions of LPS4 and the R-Codes, the works that have taken place are supportable. Furthermore, the unauthorised works relate to minor external structures and this is also the first offence by the applicant known to the City. Taking this into account, it is not considered that there is a broader public interest in undertaking legal action regarding the unauthorised works, subject to the determination of the application. Notwithstanding this, if Council refuses the unauthorised works, some enforcement measures are required to ensure the unauthorised works are brought into compliance with the provisions of LSP4. Submitter Concerns Loft Addition Submissions received during the advertising period argued that the proposed loft addition should be considered a storey. The site is located within Sub Area 4.3.4 of Schedule 12 of LPS4. In accordance with Schedule 12, development on land zoned Residential within Sub Area 4.3.4 of LPS4 shall be limited to two storeys. The proposed mezzanine level of the dwelling is considered to satisfy the definition of loft as defined under LPS4, which states:

‘means a habitable room or non habitable space contained wholly within the roof of a building including any space served by dormer type windows which may project forward of the main roof pitch.’

LPS4 states that ‘storey’ is defined as:

‘means that portion of a building which is situated between the top of any floor and the top of the floor next above it and if there is no floor above it, that portion between the top of the floor and the ceiling above it but does not include any portion of a building used solely for car parking and having 50% or more of its volume below ground level.’

On 4 July 2011, the applicant submitted amended plans addressing officer concerns regarding the originally proposed size of the dormer window. The amended plans reduce the height of the dormer roof protruding from the existing roof plane from 2m to 1.5m.


Page 20

Legal advice was sought by the City in regards to the amended plans dated 4 July 2011, seeking clarification that the proposed dormer extension would fall within the definition of loft as contained in LPS4. The proposed loft addition was not considered to vary the height requirements as contained in Sub Area 4.3.4 of Schedule 12 of LPS4. In granting consent to the maximum heights prescribed under Sub Area 4.3.4 of Schedule 12 of LPS4, clause 4.2 of Schedule 12 of LPS4 contains provisions where Council shall be satisfied in regard to the following:

(a) That the proposal is consistent with the predominant height patterns of adjoining properties and the locality generally;

(b) The proposal would not be detrimental to the amenity of the area; (c) The proposal would be consistent, if applicable, with conservation objectives for

the site and locality generally; and (d) Any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.

Clause 4.2 further states:

Council shall impose a lesser height in the event that the proposal does not satisfy any one or all of the above requirements.

Height Pattern As mentioned previously, the proposed loft addition to the existing two storey dwelling is not considered to be another storey and therefore does not vary the height requirements contained in Sub Area 4.3.4 of Schedule 12 of LPS4. The western adjoining property is a two storey Grouped Dwelling. The loft addition is located on the western elevation of the dwelling and is therefore considered consistent with the existing heights of the subject site and western adjoining property. Amenity The proposed development has been assessed against the requirements of LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. As mentioned previously, the proposed development incorporates variations to boundary setback and visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes. Please see the Planning Comment section for further assessment and discussion. The boundary setback variations specifically relate to the alterations to ground and upper floor of the existing dwelling. Previously, the State Administrative Tribunal has determined that dormer windows do not fall within external wall height provisions contained under the R-Codes (refer 36 Paget Street, Hilton - DA466/08). Therefore it is considered there are no setback requirements contained in the R-Codes specifically relating to the dormer window of the loft addition. The dormer window of the loft addition has been assessed against and is considered to satisfy the ‘Acceptable Development’ criteria of the R-Codes in relation to visual privacy.


Page 21

The proposed loft addition at No. 11A Lilly Street is incorporated to the western facing element of the roof. The major opening to the loft addition has been assessed against and is considered to satisfy the setback requirements of the R-Codes in relation to visual privacy. The loft addition is considered to have a minimal impact on the streetscape of Lilly Street as it is setback behind the existing roof line. It is acknowledged that due to the existing slope on site, the existing development essentially sits slightly higher than development on Attfield Street. However, the existing dwelling is considered to be setback appropriately from the western boundary. The dormer window is to be contained within the existing roof form and therefore is not considered to significantly detrimentally impact on adjoining properties by way of excessive building bulk. Conservation & Council Policies As mentioned previously, the site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List but is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Precinct. The objective of Council policy DBH 1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines (DBH 1) is to conserve and enhance areas of architectural or historic character whilst encouraging harmonious development with the existing authentic character and appearance of the traditional residential areas of Fremantle. The proposed additions are to be in line with the existing setbacks of the dwelling. The rear loft addition facing west away from Lilly Street. The rear loft addition is not considered to significantly detrimentally impact on adjoining properties and the existing streetscape of Lilly Street by way of excessive building bulk, in accordance with DBH 1 and Council policy DGS 3 South and Attfield Streets, Hampton and Lefroy Roads Local Area (DGS3). Council shall impose a lesser height in the event that the proposal is not considered to satisfy one or all of the above requirements. Noise In general terms household noise produced from a dwelling is highly likely to be within the prescribed limits contained in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and is therefore permitted. However any acoustic noise produced is required to be within the limits prescribed. Western Boundary Fence In accordance with LPS4, height when used in relation to a fence or screening material is defined as:

‘the vertical distance between:

a. the top of the fence of screening material at any point; and b. the ground level, or where the ground level on each side of the fence is

different, the higher ground level immediately below that point.’


Page 22

The previous development plans for DA0483/11, dated 29 October 2010 proposed an over height boundary fence on the western boundary to be approximately 3.1m in height including louvered screening. A fibro fence exists on the western boundary of site approximately 1.2m in height as measured from No. 11A Lilly Street. Several submissions objected to the original proposed overheight boundary fence. Further submissions received requested the existing fence or a new fence to be constructed (potentially as a solid wall) up to 1.8m in height to restrict noise emissions from the existing rear decking area. The applicant has since constructed a weatherboard fence no more than 1.8m in height as measured from No. 11A Lilly Street natural ground level with approximately 0.5m of wooden slatted screening above. A further submission requested that the subject fence to be constructed in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act 1961. The Dividing Fences Act is administered by the Department of Commerce. DBH1 does not contain specific requirements in relation to fencing materials. Schedule 15 of LPS4 contains provisions regarding minor development which does not require planning approval. In accordance with Schedule 15, ‘any other fence’ may be constructed up to 1.8m in height, with up to 500mm of screening above without requiring planning approval, where the property or the boundary of the property is not on the heritage list. The western adjoining Grouped Dwelling at No. 86 Attfield Street and associated common property which abuts the subject site is not on the City’s Heritage List. Design of Additions In relation to building materials, DBH 1 states that such building materials as zincalume, sheet metal for roofing and stone, brick, timber and weatherboard/corrugated iron cladding are considered traditional building materials which are compatible with the current existing built environment of the suburbs of Fremantle. Therefore the proposed building materials are considered to be appropriate and in accordance with DBH 1 requirements. CONCLUSION

The unauthorised development and proposed development has been assessed against and is considered to satisfy the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Furthermore, the unauthorised works that have taken place are supported, subject to appropriate conditions. It is not considered that there is a broader public interest in undertaking legal action regarding the unauthorised works.


Page 23


A) That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Proposed Alterations and Loft Addition To Existing Single House at No. 11A (Lot 701) Lilly Street, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

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

approved plans dated 15 February 2011 and 4 July 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. Prior to occupation, 80% solid surface area / obscured balustrading to a

minimum height of 1.65 metres above the floor level shall be provided to the western elevation of the proposed upper floor balcony, as marked in red on the approved plans dated 4 July 2011, in accordance with clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Unauthorised Deck Additions To Existing Single House at No. 11A (Lot 701) Lilly Street, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

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

approved plans dated 15 February 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

C) Take no further compliance action regarding Part B of this resolution (refer

DA0545/10) and to not issue an infringement notice under the Planning and Development Act 2005.


Page 24

PSC1109-164 QUEEN STREET, NO. 13A (LOT 3) FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE

TO MEDICAL CENTRE (NEEDLE EXCHANGE) (JWJ DA0368/11) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 September 2011 Responsible Officer: A/ Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: A/ Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: n/a Attachment 1: Development plans (August 2011) Attachment 2: Applicant response to submissions (September 2011) Date Received: 8 August 2011 Owner Name: City of Fremantle Submitted by: WA Aids Council Scheme: City Centre zone Heritage Listing: None Existing Landuse: Office Use Class: Medical Centre Use Permissibility: P


Page 25

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee as objections were received during advertising which are unable to be addressed through conditions of Planning Approval. The applicant is seeking approval for a change of use from Office to Medical Centre (Needle Exchange) at No. 13A Queen Street, Fremantle. The subject site is zoned City Centre and forms part of a large commercial and car parking complex on the corner of Queen, Holdsworth and William Streets. The Queensgate car park forms part of the commercial complex. The application for change of use to Medical Centre (Needle Exchange) is recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned City Centre and located within the City Centre Local Planning Area in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List nor located within a designated Heritage Area in accordance with LPS4. The subject site has a total gross lettable area of 69m² and is a commercial tenancy suite located within a commercial strata complex. The site has street frontage to Queen Street. The Queensgate car parking complex forms part of the commercial strata complex. There are no car parking bays specifically allocated to the subject site. Pedestrian access to the site is available via the Queens Street frontage and a side entrance. DETAILS On 8 August 2011, the City received a development application for a change of use to Medical Centre (Needle Exchange) at No. 13A Queen Street, Fremantle. The applicant provided the following information: • Clinic will operate primarily as a fixed-site needle and syringe exchange program

(NSEP), with other services being offered by appointment, including: o Counselling; o Vaccinations; o Testing.

• Clinic will operate Monday – Saturday between 9am-5pm; • Minimum of 2 staff and maximum of 3 staff present during operational hours; • Deliveries to the site will be approximately once a month; • No external alterations proposed; • No signage proposed. The following Council Local Planning Policies are relevant to this application: • LPP 2.3 Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines - Area 2 • DBM7 Cash-in-lieu of Car parking policy


Page 26

CONSULTATION

Community The application was advertised under the property address No. 15 Queen Street, Fremantle. The address of the site has now changed to No. 13A Queen Street, Fremantle, for the purposes of internal record keeping however the physical location of the site has not changed. The application was required to be advertised in accordance with clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 31 August 2011, the City had received three submissions. The following concerns were raised: • Potential adverse impact on adjoining businesses; • Devaluation of adjoining properties; • No ‘in principle’ objection to needle exchange program in Fremantle, instead

suggestion to: o Implement needle exchange system through pharmacies located within

immediate Fremantle area, and when pharmacies are closed, needle exchange system to operate from Fremantle hospital;

o Needle exchange should be appropriately housed in a City of Fremantle shop on Henderson Street directly opposite Fremantle courthouse and entrance to the Police Station.

• Proposed use inappropriate and in contradiction to current Council Policies and economic strategies for the locality;

• Damage to businesses and anti-social behaviour within Queen Street and locality by demographic utilising Police Station, Fremantle Court and Justice Department and proposed Needle Exchange;

• Impact on operation of Myer department store. PLANNING COMMENT Use Clause 4.2.1 (b) of LPS4 contains objectives for the City Centre zone. The ‘Medical Centre (Needle Exchange)’ use is supported for the following reasons: • The Medical Centre use is considered a community service that would be consistent

with the region-service role of the City Centre; • The use is considered consistent with the land use character of the surrounding area

of the site.


Page 27

Car Parking Use Required Provided Variation Previous – Office Car parking - 1:30m² gla – 2 bays 0 2

Delivery bays – 1:500m² - 1 bay 0 1 Bicycle racks – 1:200m² - 1 0 1

Total 0 4 Use Required Provided Variation Proposed – Medical Centre

Car parking - 5:1 consulting room – 10 bays Bicycle racks: 1:400m² gla employees – 1 1:200m² gla visitors - 1

0 10 0 1 0 1 0 1

Total 0 13 As mentioned previously the premises offers no on site car parking. Clause 5.7.3 of LPS4 contains provisions for the relaxation of car parking requirements. The variation to parking requirements is supported for the reasons: • The subject site is considered to be within appropriate walking distance to existing

public transport and public car parking facilities within the City: o Regular bus services on High Street and South Terrace; o Fremantle Train Station; o Queensgate car parking complex.

• The car parking bay shortfall is not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on amenity of the surrounding area given the function of the City Centre as a location for community uses which in many instances do not provide private car parking facilities for customers/patrons.

DBM 7 Cash-in-lieu of car parking policy (DBM7) contains provisions where a portion or the entire car parking requirement is: • Not proposed to be provided on site; or • Is deemed by Council to be inappropriate (having regard to clause 60) of the

rescinded Town Planning Scheme 3 (TPS3). As mentioned previously, the effect of the proposed change of use is not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality in relation to variation to car parking requirements. There is a significant amount of alternative parking available within direct proximity to site. There is no change to the existing building or streetscape. Due to the amount of alternative car parking available it is not considered there will be a significant impact on the amenity of the locality. DBM 7 contains further provisions whereby when a change of use is proposed and a car parking requirement for five or fewer bays is identified, Council may waive the requirement of provision of cash-in-lieu of car parking.


Page 28

Given the minor variation to the car parking requirements, existing car parking shortfall and the minimal expected impact on the locality, a cash in lieu for car parking contribution is recommended not to be included as a condition of Planning Approval in this instance. Submitter Concerns Submissions received during advertising were from business operators and owners located on Queen and Adelaide Streets. The applicant was provided copies of submissions received in accordance with Clause 15 of Council policy LPP 1.3 policy in order to allow the applicant an opportunity to respond (refer Attachment 2 of this report). As mentioned previously, the Medical Centre use is considered a community service which is consistent with the region serving role of the City Centre. The central location of the Medical Centre improves access for members of the community for this type of use such as increased availability of public transport. Furthermore the proposed use is considered compatible with the objectives of the City Centre zone in relation to operation hours and intensity. CONCLUSION

The application for change of use to Medical Centre (Needle Exchange) at No. 13A Queen Street, Fremantle has been assessed against and is considered to satisfy the relevant provisions of LPS4. The application for change of use is recommended for approval subject to conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Change of Use to Medical Centre (Needle Exchange) at No. 13A (Lot 3) Queen Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 8 August 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. Signage does not form part of this approval. Any future proposed signage shall form part of a separate planning application, except where compliant with parts (d) or (e) of clause 8.2 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4.


Page 29

PSC1109-165 STATUS REPORT - NEIGHBOUR MEDIATION PROCESS – NO. 6

AMELING RISE, FREMANTLE VA0018/11 DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Meeting Date 13 September 2011 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Acting Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Coordinator Planning Mediation Decision Making Level: PSC Previous Item Number/s: PSC1107-121 (6 July 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This matter is referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) in order to report on the mediation process approved by the PSC at its meeting held on the 6 July 2011. At that meeting, Council granted approval for the City to facilitate a neighbour mediation process in order to assist addressing issues relating to various matters concerning No. 6 Ameling Rise. The resolution also provided a time frame of 2 months for the mediation process. The affected property owners have voluntarily met with the professional mediator. There have been separate and joint meetings between the parties and at this stage, most of the issues have been agreed to between the parties. The last issue has yet to be resolved, however further time is required to determine whether this matter can also be agreed to between the parties. Having regard to the progress that has been made, it is recommended that an extension of time be granted for the continuation of the mediation process. CONCLUSION At is 6 July 2011 meeting, the PSC resolved as follows: 1. That Planning Services Committee invite the owners of 7/13 Stevens Street, 11/13

Stevens Street and 6 Ameling Rise to attend professional mediation in relation to the planning applications for No. 6 Ameling Rise and the building matter of the structural integrity of the soil/limestone wall below the northern retaining wall.

2. The matter be referred back to the Planning Services Committee in 2 months to report on the outcome of any mediation process in conjunction with the report on the request to vary (VA0018/11) of planning approval DA0612/09.

Since then the various parties have met and have agreed on outcomes for various matters at this stage. There is still one further issue that has not resulted in an agreed outcome and further time is required to see if agreement can be reached on this point. The decision of the PSC required that the matter be referred back to the PSC after 2 months. Whilst this has now passed, support is sought from the PSC to allow further time in this mediation process. In this regard, it is requested that this matter be deferred to the next appropriate meeting of the PSC. The timeframe for reporting back is made


Page 30

having regard to the forthcoming elections and the determination of future PSC meeting dates being determined at the Special Council meeting to be held after the elections. OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION 1. The matter of reporting back to the Planning Services Committee on the

progress of the neighbour mediation process be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow further time for the mediation process.


Page 31

PSC1109-166 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED

AUTHORITY Acting under authority delegated by the Council the Manager Development Services determined, in some cases subject to conditions, each of the applications listed in the Attachments and relating to the places and proposal listed. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the information is noted.


Page 32

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) PSC1109-167 MUNICIPAL HERITAGE INVENTORY REVIEW -

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 PLACES DataWorks Reference: 215/006 Disclosure of Interest: None Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Heritage Planner Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: LPP 2.6 Procedure for Amending the Municipal Heritage

Inventory (MHI) and Heritage List Previous Items: PSC1007 - 141 Municipal Heritage Inventory Review –

Summary of Recommendations and Outline of the Process PSC1010 - 204 Municipal Heritage Inventory Review –Level 1 and 2 places – VC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is for Council to make a determination on the recommendations for amending and/or adopting places for the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and/or Heritage List (HL) as part of the review for categories Level 1 and Level 2 places. Community comments were invited on the completed draft review of the categories 1 and 2 places. The consultation process has been carried out in accordance with Local Planning Scheme 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policy 2.6 Procedure for amending the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and Heritage List (2009). Letters were sent to the owners and occupiers of the relevant properties seeking comment on the proposed amendment/s and/or heritage listing. As well as seeking comment on the proposed recommendations further information was sought for adding to the MHI. Following the initial response as part of the community engagement in the form of meetings, emails and phone calls the City received 39 formal submissions. The formal submissions on the amendment/s or proposed heritage listing included:

• 12 objections to heritage listing • 12 supportive of heritage listing • 15 provided comment and/or heritage information that can be added to the

MHI The Heritage Council of Western Australia have recently included two places on the Register of Heritage Places on an Interim basis these are Warehouse, 22-26 Pakenham Street, Fremantle and Electricity Substation Fremantle (Fmr), 12 Parry Street Fremantle. It is therefore recommended that these places be included on the MHI as Level 1A and that the Warehouse, 22-26 Pakenham Street, Fremantle be added to the Heritage List.


Page 33

Overall it is recommended that Council resolve as follows;

• That the final recommendations for upgrading/downgrading/amendment of the current listing of the 187 places already listed on the MHI and the HL be accepted.

• That the final recommendations for inclusion/deletion of the 35 places that

are currently not adopted on the MHI and the HL be accepted (i.e. adopt 34 places and not adopt 1 of the previously recommended).

BACKGROUND The Heritage of Western Australia Act, 1990 obliges local governments to develop and maintain a municipal inventory and, once established, to update it annually and review it every 5 years. The City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) obliges Council to establish and maintain a Heritage List to identify those places within the Scheme which are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of conservation under the provisions of the Scheme. The City of Fremantle adopted the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) for Fremantle in September 2000 subject to the MHI Management Strategy (the strategy). There have been 7 stages of specific area reviews of the MHI that have been completed. During 2009 these reviews were updated and consolidated to provide a comprehensive, clear and concise list of recommendations for the current MHI in accordance with the Heritage Act and the Heritage List under provisions of LPS4 for Council’s consideration. In September 2009 the Council adopted Local Planning Policy 2.6 Procedure for Amending the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and Heritage List which provides the specific procedural and operational guidance for the process. During July 2010 Council received the MHI Review report prepared jointly by Council officers and the expert consultants, and endorsed its use as the guiding document for additions and amendments to the MHI and HL (refer Item PSC1007-141). During October 2010 Council supported the commencement of the community consultation for the recommendations for Level 1 and 2 listings on the MHI and the amendments and listing of places on the HL (refer Item PSC1010-204). In July 2011 the Heritage Council of Western Australia included two places on the Register of Heritage Places on an Interim basis these are Warehouse, 22-26 Pakenham Street, Fremantle and Electricity Substation Fremantle (Fmr), 12 Parry Street Fremantle. It is recommended that these places be included on the MHI as Level 1A and that the Warehouse, 22-26 Pakenham Street, Fremantle also be added to the Heritage List to identify the state heritage listing of these properties.


Page 34

COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY CONSULTATION Heritage listing information is crucial for the effective understanding and management of the cultural heritage of Fremantle and is recognised as a valuable community resource. The community consultation process has provided the City with the opportunity to inform the community, seek feedback and provide an understanding of the MHI and the Heritage List, as well as promote available assistance to owners of heritage properties. The MHI as defined under the Heritage Act does not have any statutory obligations and is an ongoing heritage survey of places of cultural heritage significance which continually needs updating and adding to with relevant information. The Heritage List established under the provisions of the LPS4 is a statutory list of places which are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of conservation under provisions of the scheme. The list comprises only of names and addresses and does not include any other data. The community consultation process has been undertaken in accordance with LPS4 and Policy 2.6 and the attached submissions have been assessed and considered by the officers in order to provide informed recommendations to Council on the proposed updates/amendments to the MHI. Submission extensions for the closing date were provided as requested. All the submissions received are attached as part of this report and summary of comments are included in the recommendations table. The officers’ assessment of the submission and recommendations are included in the right hand column of the table. Places with objections are summarized and included in the body of this report. The Heritage of Western Australia Act of WA, 1990 specifies that the basis for inclusion or removal on the MHI or Heritage List shall be cultural heritage significance as defined by the Burra Charter. The criteria for assessing heritage value of places are identified as being of historic, aesthetic, scientific, spiritual or social values for present and future generations. In determining the places to be included on the Heritage List the provisions of LPS4 state that Council is to; Consider any submissions made and resolve to enter the place on the Heritage List with or without modification or reject the proposal after consideration of the submissions. Issues such as the future development of a place or its state of repair are not considered relevant to the process of the review for inclusion of a place in the Municipal Heritage Inventory or the Heritage List. A place being listed does not mean that development cannot occur and that heritage is only one of the issues taken into account with any development application. Managing and conserving places is about ensuring that places retain their cultural heritage significance and their redevelopment is compatible with the heritage values of the place. Conservation is considered an important aspect of ongoing evolution of the city and has been integrated into Fremantle’s planning procedures to ensure that conservation of the city’s heritage is dealt with as part of the development application process. The other issue commonly raised was the preference for listing the façade only of a building. This practice of listing only the façade was popular during the 1970s and is no


Page 35

longer accepted and in conflict with the Burra Charter principles except when the façade is all that remains. A heritage assessment determines what is significant and although listing involves the whole site this does not mean that everything on the site is of heritage significance. These principles and statutory requirements are understood and acknowledged as they informed the expert consultants’ advice and officers recommendations presented to Council. Overall, the community’s response has shown a balance of support and objections for heritage listing with some responses only concerned with the amendments to the management level on the MHI. There is a summary of the ranging views in the attached table. The recommendations on the supportive responses and clarifications have been straightforward. Council’s decision is required on the objecting submissions in order to reconcile disparity between the officers’ recommendations and the submitters’ objections as specifically summarized below: Music School 21 Parry Street – This place is currently included on HL and MHI as level 2 and the draft recommendation was to upgrade it to Level 1B. The submission does not provide reasons for objecting. Further heritage assessment determined that the building is borderline between considerable/exceptional significance and can be retained on the HL and the MHI as a Level 2. Duplex, 89 South Terrace - This place is currently included on HL and MHI as level 2 and the draft recommendation was to upgrade it to Level 1B. The owner objects for reasons of difficulties with insurance and restriction of their decision making. These issues are not relevant to the heritage values as defined by MHI and HL Review. Further assessment of this Victorian Georgian terrace determined the place as being of exceptional significance so recommendation remains for the place to be retained on the HL and be amended to a Level 1B on the MHI. Former Atkinson’s Jockey’s Quarters & Stables, Brockman Place also known as 229 Hampton Road, South Fremantle - This place is currently included on HL and MHI as level 3 and the draft recommendation is to upgrade it to Level 2. The owners are objecting on the grounds of the perceived restrictions on the future development. These issues are not relevant to the heritage values as defined by MHI and HL Review, further assessment of the stables and quarters have determined the place as being of considerable significance so the recommendation is for the place to be retained on the HL and be amended to a Level 2 on the MHI. Elders Woolstores, 38 Cantonment Street Fremantle – It is recommended that this place be deferred due to current negotiations including with the State Administrative Tribunal and therefore Council determination of HL and MHI status is not deemed appropriate at this time. Mills & Co Building, 19-21 Essex Street Fremantle – This place is currently included on HL and MHI as level 3 and the draft recommendation is to upgrade it to Level 2. The owners submit that its significance was lost due to alterations and additions undertaken to the place in the past. Further assessment of the building has determined that the alterations are compatible with the place’s considerable significance. It is therefore recommended for the place to be retained on the HL and be amended to a Level 2 on the MHI.


Page 36

Duplex, 29 Wray Avenue - This place is currently included on HL and MHI as level 3 and and the draft recommendation was to upgrade it to Level 2. The owners submit that the place’s significance was lost due to alterations of the place. Further assessment of the building has determined that the alterations are compatible with the place’s considerable significance. It is therefore recommended for the place to be retained on the HL and be amended to a Level 2 on the MHI. Warehouse, 8 Pakenham Street - This place is not currently included on MHI or HL and the draft recommendation was to list the place as Level 1B. The owner submits that the place’s significance was lost due to alterations of the building. Further assessment of the building has determined that the alterations are compatible with the place’s exceptional significance. It is therefore recommended for the place to be added on the HL and be included as a Level 1B on the MHI. Commercial Building, 8 Elder Place - This place is not currently included on MHI or HL and the draft recommendation was to list it as a Level 2. The owners argue that the place’s significance was lost due to alterations of the place. Further assessment of the building has determined that the alterations are compatible with the place’s considerable significance. It is therefore recommended for the place to be added on the HL and be included as a Level 2 on the MHI. Commercial Building 75 High Street –This place is not currently included on MHI or HL and the draft recommendation is to list it as Level 2. The owners object on the basis that the place’s significance was lost due to alterations of the place. Further assessment of the building has determined that the alterations are compatible with the place’s considerable significance. It is therefore recommended for the place to be added on the HL and be included as a Level 2 on the MHI. Jaylu Flats, 34 Queen Street - This place is not currently included on MHI or HL and the draft recommendation is to list it as a Level 2. Owner does not support heritage listing due to previously undertaken major alterations to the place and provided further supportive information. The revised heritage assessment determined on the basis of the additional information that the extent of incompatible and irreversible alterations has indeed reduced the heritage value of the place. It is therefore recommended not to include it on the HL and to include on the MHI as a level 2. Following the heritage assessment and consultation procedures completed and outlined above, the Council may resolve to;

1) for places to be amended on Municipal Heritage Inventory (places already included on HL and MHI and being amended, either by description or management category)

a) retain the existing management MHI level, or; b) adopt the recommended management MHI level


Page 37

2) for places considered for inclusion as new heritage listings on the Heritage List

and the Municipal Heritage Inventory; a) Adopt on the MHI only, or; b) Adopt on the MHI and the Heritage List c) Not adopt on either the MHI or Heritage List

In summary the management levels include: Level 1A comprise places which have been included on the Heritage Council of WA’s Register of Heritage Places. Level 1B are places recommended for consideration by the Heritage Council of Western Australia (HCWA) for inclusion on the Register of Heritage Places. Level 2 on the MHI means that the City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of considerable cultural heritage significance in its own right within the context of Fremantle. Level 3 on the MHI means that the City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of some cultural heritage significance for its contribution to the heritage of Fremantle in terms of its individual or collective aesthetic, historic, social or scientific significance, and / or its contribution to the streetscape, local area and Fremantle. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendations are based on compliance with the following, major documents: • Heritage of Western Australia Act, 1990. • The City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (Part 7 - Heritage and

Conservation Protection) (2007). • Local Planning Policy 2.6 Procedure for amending the Municipal Heritage Inventory

(MHI) and Heritage List (2009).

CONCLUSION

The overarching goal is to finalise the major review of the MHI and Heritage List for Fremantle as required in the Heritage Act and LPS4. Improved, updated and consolidated information on the MHI database will further assist with understanding and appreciating the heritage values of the included places and management of Fremantle’s heritage for the community, statutory authorities, stakeholders and the City of Fremantle. The conservation of places identified as having cultural heritage significance is well recognised in Fremantle. The community consultation demonstrated although there are some objections to heritage listing by some property owners, overall the response has been positive. In accomplishing this review the City has followed all statutory and otherwise appropriate processes and submissions have been assessed taking into account the cultural heritage significance of the places identified by the review. Therefore it is recommended that Council accept the recommendations shown in the recommendations’ column, below for amending and/or adopting places for the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and/or Heritage List (HL) as part of the review for Level 1 and Level 2 places.


Page 38


That Council:

Resolve to amend the Municipal Heritage Inventory and Heritage List under the LPS4 by adopting the recommendations for the following places included in the list below;

1. That the listing on the Municipal Heritage Inventory for the places listed below

be modified in accordance with the final recommendations of the assessment table:

PLACE NAME Existing MHI Level

Proposed draft MHI level and Heritage List

Submissions / comments

Final recommendation

Electricity Substation Fremantle, (Fmr) Also known as Former SECWA Substation , 12 Parry Street Fremantle.

1B - Included on the HCWA’s Register of Heritage Places July 2011 on Interim basis.

Amend MHI to reflect Level 1A listing on Interim basis and retain on Heritage List.

RIFLE HOUSE, 62 TUCKFIELD STREET Fremantle

Level 1A Retain as a separate listing at level 1A on MHI and HL

New owners acknowledged that the place is already heritage listed.

Retain as a separate listing at level 1A on MHI and HL

GUN HOUSE, 64 TUCKFIELD STREET Fremantle

Level 1A Retain as a separate listing at level 1A on MHI and HL

No submission received.


NAVAL STORES, 141 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET Fremantle

1A Retain as a separate listing at level 1A on MHI and HL



FMR MARRIED QUARTERS, 2 BURT STREET Fremantle




FMR MARRIED QUARTERS , 105 - 121 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET Fremantle




HOUSE (FORMER BARNETT’S HOUSE), 13 BARNETT STREET, Fremantle

2 Amend to level 1B and retain on Heritage List



COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 32 Marine Terrace, Fremantle



Amend to level 1B and retain on Heritage List

FORMER OCEANIC HOTEL, 8 Collie Street Fremantle




WAREHOUSE, (FMR TIMOTHY'S TOYS), LOT 11, 1 CROKE LANE Fremantle




SOUTH MOLE 2 Amend to level 1B Letter received Amend MHI to include


Page 39





LIGHTHOUSE, Fleet Street Fremantle

and retain on Heritage List

noting South Mole Lighthouse already included on HCWA’s Register of Heritage Places as part of Victoria Quay.

lighthouse as part of the listing for Victoria Quay. Delete separate entry for the lighthouse.

CHURCH MANSE, 162 HAMPTON ROAD, Beaconsfield

2 Amend to level 1B and retain on Heritage List 1B


Amend to level 1B and retain on Heritage List 1B

FORMER BATEMAN BUILDINGS, 47 Henry Street Fremantle




QUARTERMAINE'S BUILDING, 3-5 HENRY STREET Fremantle




MERCANTILE STEVEDORE'S WAREHOUSE, 25-29 Henry Street Fremantle




FORMER SADLIER'S CUSTOMS AGENCY, 34-36 Henry Street Fremantle




FORMER FREMANTLE MUNICIPAL TRAMWAYS CAR BARN FAÇADE, 1 High Street Fremantle




COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 12 HIGH STREET Fremantle




BANK OF NSW (FMR), 7 High Street Fremantle


Heritage Listing supported. Provided further information.

Amend to level 1B and retain on Heritage List 1B Update MHI with relevant information.

FORMER COMMONWEALTH BANK, 82 High Street Fremantle


Owner generally supportive of heritage listing and amendments but requests façade only. Noted. In accordance with Council policy there are no means to listing facades only to a building. The site is already listed and any issues for development can be dealt with during the DA process.


OWSTON'S BUILDINGS, 9-23 High Street Fremantle


Heritage Listing supported.



Page 40





Provided further information.

Update MHI with relevant information.

FOTHERGILL’S BUILDING, 32 HIGH STREET Fremantle Previously known as Adelec Buildings




FORMER BANK OF ADELAIDE, 60-64 High Street Fremantle

2 Amend to Level 1B An owner has issue that internal alterations and additions result in façade only that is significant. Noted, although the additions are substantial the value of surviving heritage fabric is of considerable significance. Other comment not relevant to MHI review.

Retain as level 2 and retain on Heritage List.

RSL CLUB, 81-83 High Street Fremantle




COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 97-99 HIGH STREET Fremantle




MARICH BUILDINGS, 36-44 High Street Fremantle




COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 49-59 HIGH STREET Fremantle




ATWELL BUILDINGS, 120 High Street Fremantle

2 Amend to Level 1B No submission received.


CORKHILL HOUSE, 12 John Street North Fremantle




HOUSE, 37 JOHN STREET (BENNINGFIELD), 37 John Street North Fremantle




FORMER GRESHAM HOTEL, 20 John Street North Fremantle




HOUSE, 46 JOHN STREET (Holmdene) North Fremantle


Owner has no objection to current heritage listing but wants to be retained Level 2 i.e. not



Page 41





upgraded to Level 1B due to state level issues. Noted. State listing process can work in conjunction with CoF and place is of exceptional significance and meets the threshold established by HCWA for the Register of Heritage Places.

WAREHOUSE, 26 MOUAT STREET Fremantle, also known as site of Strelitz Brothers Warehouse


Heritage Listing supported. Provided further information.

Amend to level 1B and retain on Heritage List Update MHI with relevant information.

GRIEVE AND PIPER BUILDINGS, 28 Mouat Street Fremantle




FORMER BATEMAN'S WAREHOUSE, 34 MOUAT STREET also known as 47 Henry Street Fremantle




COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 14 MOUAT STREET Fremantle


Owners do not support proposed amendment to MHI due to alterations to the place Noted. Due the substantial and non compatible additions the further assessment determined that the building’s values should remain as being of considerable significance and should be retained as a level 2.

Retain at Level 2 and retain on Heritage List.

EUREKA MILL & WAREHOUSE, 6 Nairn

2 Amend to level 1B and retain on


Amend to level 1B and retain on Heritage


Page 42





Street Fremantle Heritage List List SEPPELTS BUILDING FAÇADE, 5 Pakenham Street also known as 2 Henry Street Fremantle




SEPPELTS WAREHOUSE FAÇADE, 7 Pakenham Street also known as 2 Henry Street Fremantle




MARINE HOUSE FAÇADE, 9 also known as 2 Henry Street Fremantle




JOHN CHURCH BULK STORES, 21-23 Pakenham Street Fremantle




MUSIC SCHOOL, 21 Parry Street Fremantle


Owners do not support heritage listing as a personal preference. Noted. No supporting evidence for lesser degree of significance has been provided. Under further heritage assessment building is determined to be of considerable significance and can be retained as Level 2.

Retain as level 2

HUDSON BUILDING, 14 PHILLIMORE STREET, Fremantle




HORSE TROUGH, PHILLIMORE STREET Fremantle




INNER HARBOUR, Port of Fremantle




NORTH MOLE LIGHTHOUSE, Rous Head Road North Fremantle




COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 1 SHORT STREET, Fremantle


Building no on state register but is already on HCWA’s assessment program so is technically Level lB


COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 14 SOUTH

2 Amend to level 1B and retain on


Retain as level 2


Page 43





TERRACE, Fremantle Heritage List Under further heritage assessment building is determined to be of considerable significance and can be retained as Level 2.

DUPLEX, 89 SOUTH TERRACE, Fremantle


Owners do not support upgrading of the heritage listing. Strata co objects due to difficulties with insurance and restriction of their decision making. Noted. The issues raised are irrelevant to the significance of the place. Terrace (1893) already on HL and assessed as being of exceptional significance.

Amend to level 1B and retain on Heritage List.

DUPLEX, 91 SOUTH TERRACE, Fremantle




HOUSE AND FORMER STABLES, 111 SOUTH TERRACE, Fremantle


Issue within the strata development that only 1/111 is significant and is worthy of listing. Stables demolished. Owner of heritage building provided further historical information. Noted. Development approved during 2000 for six new dwellings. Original residence only retained on site.

Amend to level 1B and retain on Heritage List Amend name to House 1/111 South Tce. Update MHI with relevant information.

SEAVIEW HOTEL, 282 South Terrace South Fremantle




WORKERS TERRACE, 448 SOUTH TERRACE, South




WORKERS TERRACE, 450 SOUTH TERRACE South Fremantle





Page 44





















COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 4-12 SOUTH TERRACE, Fremantle








FORMER DALKEITH OPERA HOUSE, 52-62 South Terrace Fremantle




SHOP & TERRACES, 79-85 SOUTH TERRACE, Fremantle




HOUSE, 32 ARUNDEL STREET, Fremantle

3 Amend to Level 2 and retain on Heritage List


Amend to Level 2 and retain on Heritage List

DUPLEX, 54 ATTFIELD STREET, Fremantle




DUPLEX, 56 ATTFIELD STREET, Fremantle




CHURCH (FMR), 12 BAKER STREET, Fremantle




FREMANTLE CLUB, 7-15 BANNISTER STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 18 BARNETT STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 20 BARNETT STREET, Fremantle




FORMER ATKINSON JOCKEYS QUARTERS & STABLES, Brockman Place also known as 229 Hampton Road, South Fremantle


The owners object to amendment of MHI level due to the perceived restrictions on the future development . Noted. Development considerations

Amend to Level 2 and retain on Heritage List Update MHI with relevant information.


Page 45





are not relevant to the heritage values of the place and can be addressed by the planning application process. Further heritage assessment supports that the place is of considerable significance.

HOUSE, 11 CANTONMENT STREET, Fremantle

1B Amend to Level 2 and retain on Heritage List



ELDERS WOOLSTORES, 38 CANTONMENT STREET

1A Entry does not reflect 1947 section which is not included in state registered curtilage

1A – (c.1929 section) 1B – (c.1947) And Retain on Heritage List

Recommend this place to be deferred due to current legal negotiations.

Recommended to be deferred.

DUPLEX , 14 CARNAC STREET, Fremantle












DUPLEX, 20 CARNAC STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 29 CARNAC STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 33 CARNAC STREET, Fremantle
















DUPLEX , 41 CARNAC 3 Amend to Level No submission Amend to Level 2 and


Page 46





STREET, Fremantle 2 and retain on Heritage List

received. retain on Heritage List

HOUSE, 16 COLLIE STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 18 COLLIE STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 6 CORAL STREET, South Fremantle




TERRACE, 23 ELLEN STREET, Fremantle Owner wants to stay at 1B




TERRACE, 25 ELLEN STREET, Fremantle




TERRACE, 27 ELLEN STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 37 ELLEN STREET, Fremantle


Owner requests to be retained at Level 1B Noted. Place is worthy of consideration by HCWA for inclusion on the Register of Heritage Places.

Retain as Level 1B and retain on the Heritage List.

MILLS & CO BUILDING, 19-21 Essex Street Fremantle


Owner states that the place has no heritage value due to the past alterations and additions. Noted. Heritage assessment revealed that the alterations and additions are compatible to place’s considerable heritage significance.


HOUSE, 18 FINNERTY STREET, Fremantle



Amend to Level 2 and retain on Heritage List.










Page 47





HOUSE, 25 FOTHERGILL STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 1 GOLD STREET, South Fremantle




DUPLEX , 2 GOLD STREET, South Fremantle




HOUSE, 3 GOLD STREET, South Fremantle




DUPLEX , 4 GOLD STREET, South Fremantle




TERRACE, 25 GOLD STREET, South Fremantle




TERRACE, 27 GOLD STREET




TERRACE, 29 GOLD STREET, South Fremantle


Owner supports heritage listing and future conservation of the place. Noted.


HOUSE, 15 GREY STREET, Fremantle




DUPLEX , 17 GREY STREET, Fremantle




DUPLEX , 19 GREY STREET, Fremantle




DUPLEX, 21 GREY STREET, Fremantle




DUPLEX, 23 GREY STREET, Fremantle




DUPLEX, 4 HAMPTON ROAD (4-6), Fremantle




DUPLEX, 6 HAMPTON ROAD (4-6), Fremantle




HOUSE, 1/94 HAMPTON ROAD, Fremantle




SKYE HOSPITAL (FMR), 13 /13 Stevens Street Fremantle




FORMER BEACON THEATRE, 91 Hampton

1B Amend to Level 2 and retain on




Page 48





Road Fremantle Heritage List COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 54 HENRY STREET, Fremantle




FREMANTLE CHURCH OF CHRIST, 219 HIGH STREET, Fremantle


Amendments to the address as Church is 217 and Manse 219.

Amend to Level 2 and retain on Heritage List Amend name and address to Church of Christ and Manse, 217 - 219 High Street.

SHOP & HOUSE, 42 HOLDSWORTH STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 3 HOWARD STREET, Fremantle


Owner supportive of heritage listing. Concerns raised regarding recent loss of heritage in the City. Noted, not relevant to the MHI review.


TERRACE, 2 JENKIN STREET, South Fremantle




TERRACE , 4 JENKIN STREET, South Fremantle








TERRACE, 8 JENKIN STREET, South Fremantle








TERRACE, 1 LITTLE HOWARD, STREET, Fremantle


Owner supports the heritage listing and raises issue with approved development at 14 Wray Ave and impact on heritage Noted. Not relevant to MHI review.


TERRACE, 3 LITTLE HOWARD STREET, Fremantle





Page 49













HOUSE & SHEDS, 9 LITTLE HOWARD STREET, Fremantle




BAKEHOUSE, 11 LITTLE HOWARD STREET, Fremantle




DUPLEX , 13 LITTLE HOWARD STREET, Fremantle











Amend to Level 2 and retain on Heritage List.









HOUSE, 5 MALCOLM STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 28 MALCOLM STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 2 MANNING STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 4 MANNING STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 82 MARINE TERRACE, Fremantle




COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 34-36 MARKET STREET, Fremantle

3 Amend to Level 2 - Note other address as 110 High St and retain on Heritage list



COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 3 PAKENHAM STREET, Fremantle




COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 6 PARRY STREET, Fremantle




COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 237 QUEEN

3 Amend to Level 2 and retain on




Page 50





VICTORIA STREET, North Fremantle

Heritage List

COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 239 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, North Fremantle




















COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 219-221 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, North Fremantle




COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 257-261 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, North Fremantle Sent incorrectly to 261A which is B Gare at the church




TERRACE , 5 ROSE STREET, South Fremantle


Provided further historical information. Noted.

Amend to Level 2 and retain on Heritage List. Update MHI with relevant information..









HOUSE, 1 SHUFFREY STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 3 SHUFFREY STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 21 SOUTH STREET, South Fremantle


Provided further historical information.

Amend to Level 2 and retain on Heritage List Amend MHI with relevant information.


Page 51





Noted. TERRACE , 27 SOUTH STREET, South Fremantle




TERRACE, 29 SOUTH STREET, South Fremantle




TERRACE, 31 SOUTH STREET, South Fremantle




TERRACE , 33 SOUTH STREET, South Fremantle




TERRACE, 131 SOUTH TERRACE, Fremantle












SHOP & HOUSE, 138 SOUTH TERRACE, Fremantle








DUPLEX, 1 SUFFOLK STREET, Fremantle




DUPLEX, 3 SUFFOLK STREET, Fremantle




DUPLEX , 5 SUFFOLK STREET, Fremantle




DUPLEX , 7 SUFFOLK STREET, Fremantle


Provided further information. Noted. MHI to be updated.

Amend to Level 2 and retain on Heritage List Update MHI with relevant information.

HOUSE, 13 SUFFOLK STREET




COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 11 SUFFOLK STREET




HOUSE, 24 SWANBOURNE STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 69 TUCKFIELD STREET, Fremantle




HOUSE, 71 3 Amend to Level No submission Amend to Level 2 and


Page 52





TUCKFIELD STREET, Fremantle

2 and retain on Heritage List

received. retain on Heritage List

HOUSE, 21 WRAY AVENUE, Fremantle




23 WRAY AVE




DUPLEX , 25 WRAY AVENUE, Fremantle








DUPLEX, 29 WRAY AVENUE, Fremantle


The owner does not support upgrade of heritage listing on personal preference (no supportive argument presented). Owner stated that the restoration proposed for his property falls within the City of Fremantle’s guidelines. Noted. Heritage assessment support the upgrade of listing level on both, individual and streetscape values reflecting the consistency and intactness of this section of Wray Avenue..
















Refer submission below.

Amend to Level 2 and retain on Heritage List Update MHI with relevant information


Page 53





Amend name to House, 38 Wray Avenue



Provided further information including that the 38 and 40 are detached.

As recommended. Update MHI with relevant information Amend name to House, 40 Wray Avenue





HOUSE , 44 WRAY AVENUE, Fremantle
















BEACONSFIELD HOTEL, 69 -73 Wray Ave Fremantle Submission via email








2. That the following places be included on the Municipal Heritage Inventory

and that these new heritage listings be added onto the Heritage List as per the final recommendations of the table below:

PLACE NAME Proposed

draft MHI level and Heritage List

Issue Final recommendation

COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 34 ADELAIDE STREET, Fremantle

Add to MHI at level 1B and add to Heritage List

Owner supports heritage listing at level 2 but does not support level 1B on the basis of their objections to the potential for it being listed on State Register. On the basis of additional information provided in the owner’s heritage assessment as appendix to his submission, it is

Add to MHI at Level 2 and Heritage List.


Page 54

PLACE NAME Proposed draft MHI level and Heritage List


recommended that level 2 is adequate and reflects the considerable significance of the place

COMMERCIAL BUILDING 18-22 ADELAIDE STREET, Fremantle


Late letter received requesting further info from Frichot & Fricihot on behalf of the owner. The requested information has been provided.

Add to MHI at level 1B and add to Heritage List.

COMMERCIAL BUILDING 28 ADELAIDE STREET, Fremantle


No submission received. Add to MHI at level 1B and add to Heritage List.

COMMERCIAL BUILDING 30-32 ADELAIDE STREET, Fremantle


No submission received. Add to MHI at level 1B and add to Heritage List

COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 3 CANTONMENT STREET, Fremantle



COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 6-8 CLIFF STREET, Fremantle



FORMER PUMPING STATION, 1 ELDER PLACE, Fremantle


Support for heritage listing. Issue that ongoing use is vital to ensuring the significance of the place. Noted and supported in principle.


COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 48 HIGH STREET, Fremantle



COMMERCIAL BUILDING, (WATSON'S FMR), 71 HIGH STREET, Fremantle

Add building at Level 1B Limestone Feature already adopted. Retain on Heritage List include building

Late letter received requesting further info from Frichot & Fricihot on behalf of the owner. The requested information has been provided.

Add to MHI at level 1B and add to Heritage List Amend MHI with relevant information

WAREHOUSE, 2 LEAKE STREET, Fremantle



COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 85 MARKET STREET, Fremantle

Add to MHI at level 1B and



Page 55



add to Heritage List

WAREHOUSE, 8 PAKENHAM STREET, Fremantle


Owner doesn’t support the listing. Heritage assessment determined that past alterations have been compatible and enhance the exceptional heritage value of the place .


FORMER VICTORIA COFFEE PALACE, 11 Pakenham Street Fremantle



WILLSHIRE AND FEELY BUILDING, 15 Pakenham Street Fremantle


Non owner - Listing supported.


FORMER TERMINUS HOTEL, 18 Pakenham Street Fremantle



D & J FOWLER BAG STORE (fmr), 33 Pakenham Street Fremantle



FLAG AND WHISTLE HOTEL, 2 - 4 PARRY STREET, Fremantle



DOCK BUILDINGS, 13-15 PHILLIMORE STREET, Fremantle






HOUSE, 7D AMHERST STREET, Fremantle

Add to MHI at level 2 and add to Heritage List

No submission received. Add to MHI at level 2 and add to Heritage List

BEACH STREET PUMPING STATION, Beach Street Fremantle



FORMER WESLEY MANSE AND FREMANTLE GAS & COKE, 8 CANTONMENT STREET, Fremantle need to ADD buildings and move to not listed places

Adopted as Limestone Feature. Add buildings to HL and MHI at Level 2

No submission received. Add to MHI at level 2 and add to Heritage List. Amend name to FORMER WESLEY MANSE AND FREMANTLE GAS & COKE, 8 CANTONMENT STREET,

WOODSONS, 13 CANTONMENT STREET, Fremantle

Adopted as Limestone Feature. Add buildings

No submission received. Add to MHI at level 2 and add to Heritage List Amend to include buildings


Page 56



to entry Add buildings at Level 2 Retain on Heritage List amend name to include buildings

COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 8 ELDER PLACE, Fremantle


Owner does not support heritage listing as the building has undergone alterations. Heritage assessment determined that past alterations have been compatible and add to the exceptional heritage value of the place.


FREMANTLE PARK, Fremantle bordered by Ellen, Ord & Parry Streets






FREMANTLE BUFFALO CLUB, 54 High Street Fremantle








Owner does not support heritage listing as the building has undergone alterations and will prevent future development Heritage assessment determined that past alterations have been compatible to the exceptional heritage value of the place. Future development not relevant to the MHI review and can be address during the planning application process. .


HOUSE, 15 HOLDSWORTH Add to MHI at No submission received. Add to MHI at level 2 and add to


Page 57



STREET, Fremantle level 2 and add to Heritage List

Heritage List

COMMERCIAL BUILDING, 31 PAKENHAM STREET, Fremantle






Owner supports heritage listing. Included on the HCWA’s Register of Heritage Places July 2011 on Interim basis.

Amend MHI to reflect Level 1A listing on Interim basis and add to Heritage List.







3. That the following place/s be included on the Municipal Heritage Inventory and not be added onto the Heritage List as per the final recommendations of the table below:

JAYLU FLATS, 34 Queen Street Fremantle letters removed from post request from tenant for reposting


Owner does not support heritage listing due to major alterations to the place and provided further supportive information. Noted. The revised heritage assessment determined on the basis of the additional information that the extent of incompatible and irreversible alterations has reduced the heritage value of the place.

Recommended to add to MHI as a level 2 and do not add to the Heritage List. Amend MHI with relevant information.


Page 58

PSC1109-168 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 32 - HILTON COMMERCIAL CENTRE REZONING AND AMENDED DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS LOT 888 SOUTH STREET, HILTON - ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 218/036 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 September 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects and Policy Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1102-43 (23 February 2011)

PSC1104-85 (27 April 2011) PSC1105-97 (25 May 2011)

Attachments: 1. Schedule of Submissions 2. Scheme Amendment No. 32 Initiation Report 3. Table 2 – Zoning of Local Planning Scheme No. 4


Page 59

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend Council adopt an amendment (scheme amendment no. 32) to the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to:

• Rezone the Hilton commercial centre from ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ to ‘Local Centre’; and

• Modify and include new provisions into Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 7 – Hilton – Specific Development Controls for Sub Area 7.3.1 in relation to Lot 888 South Street (No. 273), Hilton.

The amendment was placed out for comment and seven submissions were received (including one late submission): four from state agencies, one on behalf of the owner of a commercial property within the Hilton commercial centre and two from owner/occupiers adjacent to the Hilton commercial centre. Three objections were received. The remaining submissions stated no objection or no comment. All submissions have been noted. It is recommended that Council resolves to adopt the amendment with one minor modification and that the Minister for Planning is requested to grant final consent to the amendment. BACKGROUND

In late 2010 the City was requested to consider supporting a scheme amendment to rezone the Hilton commercial centre from ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ to ‘Local Centre’ and to modify and include new provisions into Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 7 – Hilton – Specific Development Controls for Sub Area 7.3.1 in relation to Lot 888 South Street (No. 273), Hilton. This amendment was initiated by the landowner of Lot 888 South Street and the proposed specific development provisions developed in collaboration between the City and the planning consultant acting on behalf of the landowner. Following ‘in principle’ support of the proposed amendment, Council resolved to initiate Scheme Amendment No. 32 at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 25 May 2011. For further information on the background of the scheme amendment please refer to Attachment 2 – Scheme Amendment No. 32 Initiation Report and previous items PSC1102-43 (23 February 2011) and PSC1104-85 (27 April 2011). CONSULTATION

Following referral from the Environmental Protection Authority advertising was undertaken in accordance with regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967. The proposed scheme amendment was advertised for comment from 12 July 2011 until 26 August 2011, with advertisements placed in the Fremantle Herald and West Australian newspapers. The City’s precinct groups, utility companies, adjoining neighbours and other interested parties and key agencies were also specifically notified and copies of the amendment documents were made available for viewing at the Service and Information Counter at the Town Hall Centre and on the City’s website. Additionally, a one page information sheet was also provided with the letter of notification to the above mentioned stakeholders and agencies.


Page 60

Seven submissions were received (including one late submission): four from state agencies, one on behalf of the owner of a commercial property within the Hilton commercial centre and two from owner/occupiers adjacent to the Hilton commercial centre. Two submissions stated no objection with technical comments, one stated no comment, one stated no objection with comment and three submissions (inclusive of the late submission) objected to elements of the proposed scheme amendment 32. The main issues as presented in the submissions are outlined below. The Schedule of Submissions can be found at Attachment 1. Local Centre zoning – Compatibility with existing Neighbourhood Centre land uses One submission had no objection to the amendment but commented that, depending on the intentions of the landowner of Lot 888 of the amendment, it may be more appropriate for an additional use to be sought for this Lot as opposed to the rezoning of the Hilton commercial centre from ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ to ‘Local Centre’. The submitter suggested this alternative option would ensure the site remains relatively consistent with the surrounding properties. One submission supported the rezoning of the Hilton commercial centre as justified by the City, noting the proposed rezoning “will assist in improving the service provision and range of retail and commercial outlets in conjunction with increased residential development” and that “as new services and residential units locate within the Hilton Centre, the amenity of the precinct will improve.” Additionally, this submission objected to the specific development controls of the proposed Area A1 of the amendment as summarised below. One submission objects to the rezoning of the Hilton commercial centre from ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ to ‘Local Centre’, specifically those properties adjoining Lee Avenue, in that the proposed rezoning will increase the intensity of land uses subsequently impacting the amenity of the adjacent low density residential land use on the eastern side of Lee Avenue and increasing traffic flow and congestion on South Street. To negate the impact of the land uses as allowed under the proposed ‘Local Centre’ zoning, the submitter recommends the following;

• Rezoning of 3 and 3A Lee Avenue, Hilton from ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ to ‘Residential’ and from a residential coding of R20 to R60 in order to provide a buffer between the Hilton commercial centre at the west of Lee Avenue and the low density residential area to the east of Lee Avenue.

• Alternatively the submitter recommends an increase to the existing residential density of R20 to that of R60 for the properties adjoining Lee Avenue, specifically those contained within, and adjacent to, the proposed Local Centre. The increase in residential density is recommended by the submitter to compensate for the impacts on amenity the proposed rezoning of the amendment will have on the adjacent residential area.

‘Criteria to be met in order for specific development controls to apply’ for proposed Area A1 of sub area 7.3.1 of Local Planning Area 7 – Hilton One submission objected to elements of the ‘Criteria to be met in order for specific development controls to apply’ for proposed Area A1 of sub area 7.3.1 of Local Planning Area 7 – Hilton in relation to vehicular access. Specifically, the submitter objected to the development controls that “no vehicle access is obtained directly from South Street” and vehicle parking “…is coordinated with existing or future parking on adjoining lots”.


Page 61

The submitter, on behalf of the owner of a commercial property within the Hilton commercial centre, provides the following reasons for the objection:

• Imposing shared access via neighbouring lots is detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners in that a restriction is now enforced upon neighbouring redevelopment.

• It is not necessary to limit development potential by removing direct site access by way of Scheme provision. Such detail is best addressed as part of a Development Application.

• Main Roads WA is the appropriate mechanism to review a Traffic Assessment lodged as part of a Development Application.

• Residential densities may not be developed if future redevelopment cannot have individual and unfettered direct access. To limit existing site access puts at risk the ability for redevelopment.

• The built form and fabric of future development (including active frontage) will not be adversely affected by the maintenance of existing access.

The submitter recommends the removal of limitations to vehicular access as applied to Area A1 or the application of development controls to Area A1 similar to those proposed to be applied to Area A2 of sub area 7.3.1. In view of this objection, the submitter requests Council consider the following ‘Criteria to be met in order for specific development controls to apply’ for application to Area A1:

• Buildings incorporate active ground level frontages to South Street; • The maximum aggregate width of space between or to the side of building(s) at

ground floor level with frontage to South Street is no more than eight metres; • A Traffic Impact Assessment be undertaken by a suitably qualified traffic engineer

for review by Main Roads WA to assess the proposed arrangement of vehicle access to South Street; and

• The maximum building setback to South Street is zero metres to encourage active frontage, unless Council at its discretion has varied the prescribed setback in order to achieve an improved design outcome or potential road widening.

Late Submission – Compatibility of Local Centre zoning with adjacent residential local area A late submission was received from an owner/occupier adjacent to the Hilton commercial centre objecting to elements of the amendment, and as summarised below, the submitter provided the following reasons for the objection:

• The submitter notes a side effect of the amendment to the development provisions of Lot 888 is that a height allowance of four storeys can be applied to existing residential properties within Area A of the Sub area 7.3.1 of the Hilton commercial centre;

• Views the encroachment of the rezoning onto the existing residential areas within the Hilton commercial centre as a negative outcome;

• Objects to the development provisions which could potentially allow a four storey development to be permitted on the property directly adjoining the submitter’s property. The submitter also objects to the potential for a ‘Tavern’ land use to occur in a residential street;

• States the amendment should remain specific to Lot 888 and not be allowed to spill over into residential areas including Lee Avenue.


Page 62

The compatibility of land uses of a Local Centre, such as a Tavern use, with the existing Neighbourhood Centre land uses and adjacent residential local area is addressed by officers in Planning Comment below. The possible maximum building height of four storeys in Area A of Sub area 7.3.1is an existing development provision of LPS4 and applies to existing properties (both residential and commercial land uses) within this section of the Hilton commercial centre. Although Area A is proposed to be renamed as Area A1as part of this amendment, the existing development provisions which apply to properties in this area are retained without alteration. Additionally, the impact of the four storey height allowance in this area on the adjoining residential area to the south of the Hilton commercial centre was considered by the Western Australia Planning Commission (WAPC) and addressed by the City prior to the WAPC approval of Scheme Amendment 13 in 2009. As the primary objection of this late submission relates to existing Scheme provisions which are not subject to the proposed amendment, this objection is not addressed in the Planning Comment section below, however officers provide further comment on this submission in the Schedule of Submissions (Attachment 1). PLANNING COMMENT

The scheme amendment as adopted by Council on 25 May 2011 proposes to rezone the Hilton commercial centre from ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ to ‘Local Centre’ and to modify and include new provisions into Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 7 – Hilton – Specific Development Controls for Sub area 7.3.1 in relation to Lot 888 South Street (No. 273), Hilton. Some issues raised in submissions, as set out in Attachment 1 (Schedule of Submissions) and outlined in the Consultation section of this report, require further discussion as follows. Local Centre Zoning– Compatibility with existing Neighbourhood Centre land uses As discussed in the Initiation Report for Scheme Amendment No. 32 (please see Attachment 2), in having regard to the objectives of zones set out in Clause 4.2 of LPS4, and to the size of the Hilton commercial centre and the range of land uses and activities contained within the centre by comparison with other suburban centres in the City of Fremantle, it is considered a ‘Local Centre’ zoning would be more consistent with other centres such as the South Fremantle, North Fremantle and O’Connor centres, which are all zoned ‘Local Centre’. The functions performed by the Hilton commercial centre are considered to be more consistent with the objectives of the ‘Local Centre’ zone (the ‘higher order’ of the two types of centre in hierarchy terms) of LPS4 rather than the ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ zone. It is acknowledged that the re-zoning of the Hilton commercial centre to ‘Local Centre’ would allow for more land uses to potentially occur, by comparison to the current zoning of ‘Neighbourhood Centre’, as per Table 2 - Zoning of LPS4 (see Attachment 3). However, it is considered the proposed rezoning would be unlikely to make a significant difference in practice to the range of present and future land uses occupying premises in the centre due to the limited differences between the permissible and discretionary land uses that can be considered in these two zones under clause 4.3 and Table 2 – Zoning of LPS4.


Page 63

Specifically, the proposed re-zoning would allow an additional eleven land uses to occur, including Showroom, Motor Vehicle Sales, Motor Vehicle Wash, Hotel, Motel, Public Amusement, Small Bar and Tavern. These additional land uses are not permitted as of right, but are ‘D’ or ‘A’ land uses of Table 2 - Zoning, and as such, would require application for planning approval and would only be approved at Council’s discretion. In assessing a planning application for a ‘D’ or ‘A’ land use, Council will have consideration of the matters set out in clause 10.2 of LPS4; including amenity, traffic generation and parking, compatibility, intensity and nature of proposed use. Development applications received for properties adjoining the primary regional road of South Street will also be referred to Main Roads for comment and recommendation and a traffic impact assessment may be requested at this time. Additionally, development in the ‘Local Centre’ zone must fulfil the objectives of the zone as set out in clause 4.2.1(c) of the LPS4 to: “ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties.” Additionally, the current specific development controls for Area A and B of sub area 7.3.1 of Local Planning Area 7 – Hilton (proposed Area A1 and B) encourage redevelopment with vehicular access and parking to the rear of the lots (and not from South Street) to alleviate traffic impacts to South Street. Therefore, while more land uses may potentially occur, they would still have to be assessed as part of a planning application for approval and satisfy the requirements of LPS4, including compatibility with the surrounding area. Consequently officers recommend that no modification should be made to the scheme amendment in response to this submission. Lee Avenue – Increase residential density from R20 to R60 One submitter recommends the rezoning of 3 and 3A Lee Avenue, Hilton from ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ to ‘Residential’ and from a residential coding of R20 to R60 in order to provide a buffer between the Hilton commercial centre at the west of Lee Avenue and the low density residential area to the east of Lee Avenue, or alternatively, an increase in the existing residential density of R20 to that of R60 for those properties adjoining Lee Avenue and that are contained within, or adjacent to, the proposed ‘Local Centre’. Officers do not consider the rezoning of 3 and 3A Lee Avenue to ‘Residential’ with a density of R60 applicable as the submitter’s recommendation for these properties can be achieved under the current provisions of the Scheme. The current and proposed zoning of the subject property (Neighbourhood Centre to Local centre) allows residential land uses, including grouped and multiple dwellings, as an ‘A’ use under Table 2 – Zoning of LPS4. Additionally, clause 5.2.5 of the Scheme may allow the residential density to be increased up to R60 in a Neighbourhood Centre or Local Centre “where residential development is part of a proposed mixed use development and where, in the opinion of Council the proposal is not detrimental to the amenity of the area.” The submitter’s recommendation to increase the residential density of the existing residential properties adjacent to the Neighbourhood Centre and located on the east side of Lee Avenue from R20 to R60 is considered by officers a significant increase in density. The current land uses directly opposite the submitter’s properties are considered moderate in intensity and include residential properties and car parking bays servicing the longstanding land use of Child Care centre at 299 South Street. In view of the type


Page 64

and intensity of the current land uses of the Neighbourhood Centre adjacent to the residential properties to the east of Lee Avenue, officers do not consider it appropriate to increase the residential density of 305 South Street and 2, 4, 4A, 6, 6A and 8 Lee Avenue at this time. Additionally, due to the nature of the submitter’s recommendation and the location of the abovementioned properties outside of the subject area of the proposed scheme amendment no. 32, a separate scheme amendment by the landowners requesting an increase to the residential density of these properties would be required by the City for consideration by Council and community consultation if supported. ‘Criteria to be met in order for specific development controls to apply’ for proposed Area A1 of sub area 7.3.1 of Local Planning Area 7 - Hilton One submission received supported the City’s proposed rezoning of the Hilton commercial centre (as outlined previously in Consultation) but objected to elements of the ‘Criteria to be met in order for specific development controls to apply’ for proposed Area A1 of sub area 7.3.1 of Local Planning Area 7 – Hilton in relation to vehicular access. Specifically, the submitter objected to the development controls that “no vehicle access is obtained directly from South Street” and vehicle parking “…is coordinated with existing or future parking on adjoining lots”. The amendments to the current Scheme provisions in relation to Lot 888 South Street are considered supportable due to the special characteristics of the site, in particular, the location and relatively large size of the lot. At 2428 sq m, and with two existing vehicle crossovers to South Street (which could potentially be rationalised as a requirement of redevelopment of the lot) and a lot frontage of approximately 40m, Lot 888 is capable of achieving positive urban design outcomes (eg. rear parking) and complete redevelopment in its own right and without the development incentives of Sub area 7.3.1. The specific development provisions referred to in this objection are existing provisions of the Scheme for Area A of Sub area 7.3.1, which in the creation of the proposed Area A2 (Lot 888) as part of this amendment, has been renamed as Area A1 with the existing Scheme provisions for Area A retained and unaltered. Officers do not consider other lots within proposed Area A1 (including the submitter’s property) meet the special characteristics of Lot 888 in that their land area and lot frontage is substantially smaller and therefore do not realize the same considerations as given to Lot 888. On this basis, officers do not recommend the replacement of the ‘Criteria to be met in order for specific development controls to apply’ of Area A1 with the criteria as proposed for Area A2 of this amendment. Application of the provisions of Area A2 to all of Area A1 (currently Area A of sub area 7.3.1) undermines the objective of the specific development controls for Area A in the Scheme to regulate vehicular access in order to mitigate traffic intensification and congestion on South Street, provide improved traffic safety, as well as positive urban design outcomes. Additionally, these provisions would allow a more intensive development throughout the area “as of right”, rather than it being an incentive to encourage a more coordinated approach to redevelopment across smaller lots in separate ownerships. Consequently officers recommend that no modification should be made to the Scheme amendment in response to this submission.


Page 65

Minor Modification – Amendment to Schedule 2: Additional Uses Although not an issue raised in submissions, in the course of reviewing the current amendment officers have noted that Schedule 2 – Additional Uses of LPS4 permits the additional use of ‘Tavern’ as an ‘A’ use to No. 277 (Lot 303 on Diagram 71696) South Street, Hilton. This provision was included in LPS4 at an earlier date to reflect the long standing use of this property as a Tavern despite normal Scheme provisions which make a Tavern use ‘Not Permitted’ in the Neighbourhood Centre zone. This property is contained within the Hilton commercial centre and is subject to the proposed rezoning from ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ to ‘Local Centre’ as part of this amendment. Under the proposed re-zoning to ‘Local Centre’, a Tavern is an ‘A’ use and therefore the additional use provisions would no longer be relevant. Therefore officers recommend 277 South Street (Lot 303), Hilton be removed from Schedule 2 – Additional Uses as the additional use of Tavern afforded to this property will be consistent with Table 2 – Zoning of LPS4 under the proposed rezoning of the amendment. Officers propose this amendment to Schedule 2 of LPS4 as a minor modification to scheme amendment no.32. CONCLUSION The proposed rezoning of the Hilton commercial centre from ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ to ‘Local Centre’ would be consistent with other centres in the City which perform broadly similar roles in providing day-to-day retail and other services to surrounding residential areas e.g. South Fremantle. The proposed provisions that would apply specifically to Lot 888 South Street (No. 273), Hilton are considered appropriate and should remain limited in their application to this Lot only. Lot 888 is capable of achieving positive urban design outcomes and complete redevelopment in its own right and without the development incentives afforded for Sub area 7.3.1 due to its large lot size and wide frontage to South Street. The proposed provisions for Lot 888 South Street provide the opportunity to redevelop the site utilising the development incentives for Sub area 7.3.1 of Local Planning Area 7 – Hilton. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submissions received be noted, that Council resolves to adopt the amendment with one minor modification relating to deletion of current Additional Use provisions applying to No. 277 South Street, and that the Minister for Planning is requested to grant final consent to the amendment. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and

Attachment 1:

2. Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, resolve to adopt with one minor modification the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:


Page 66

i. Amending the Scheme map to replace the current ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ zoning with a ‘Local Centre’ zoning as shown on the Scheme map below:

ii. Amending Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 7 – Hilton – Specific

Development Controls for Sub area 7.3.1 to the following: LOCAL PLANNING AREA 7 - HILTON

7.1 HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS Zone (Within LPA Only) Maximum External Wall Height

Local Centre 5.5 m Commercial 7.5 m Residential All requirements as per the Residential Design

Codes and special applications under clause 5.4.

7.2 MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN APPLYING SPECIFIC AND GENERAL HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS

In granting consent to the maximum heights prescribed Council shall be satisfied in regard to all of the following— (a) that the proposal is consistent with predominant height patterns of adjoining properties and the locality generally, (b) the proposal would not be detrimental to the amenity of the area, (c) the proposal would be consistent, if applicable, with conservation objectives for the site and locality generally, and (d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies. Council may impose a lesser height in the event that the proposal does not satisfy any one or all of the above requirements.

7.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR SUB AREA


Page 67

Sub area 7.3.1

Within Sub area 7.3.1 the provisions of clause 5.2.5 do not apply Locations where specific controls may apply

Criteria to be met in order for specific controls to apply

Specific development controls

Properties in Area A1 as shown on the above plan

Where: No vehicle access is obtained directly from South Street; and Vehicle parking is provided below ground level or at the rear of buildings and is coordinated with existing or future parking on adjoining lots; and

Maximum building height of four storeys (maximum external wall height of 14 metres as measured from ground level with a maximum roof plane pitch of 33 degrees).


Page 68

In the case of development with a frontage to South Street, buildings incorporate active ground floor level frontages to South Street.

Residential density may be increased up to R100, subject to residential uses being restricted to the first floor and above. Notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.

Properties in Area A2 as shown on the above plan (Lot 888 South Street)

Where: Buildings incorporate active ground level frontages to South Street; and The maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to South Street is no more than 8 metres; and A Traffic Impact Assessment been undertaken by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and Main Roads WA has no objections to the proposed arrangement of vehicular access to South Street; and The maximum building setback from the lot boundary with South Street is 5 metres, unless Council at its discretion has varied the prescribed setback in order to achieve an improved design outcome or due to road widening.

Maximum building height of four storeys (maximum external wall height of 14 metres as measured from ground level with a maximum roof plane pitch of 33 degrees). Residential density may be increased up to R100, subject to residential uses being restricted to the first floor and above. Notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.

Properties in Area B as shown on the above plan

Where: No vehicle access is obtained directly from Carrington Street; and Vehicle parking is provided below ground level or at the rear of buildings and is coordinated with existing or future parking on adjoining lots.

Maximum building height of three storeys (maximum external wall height of 11 metres as measured from ground level with a maximum roof plane pitch of 33 degrees). Residential development at a density of up to R60 may take place including residential uses at ground floor level. Notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.

Note: Where the above criteria are not met, the general height requirements in 7.1 above apply.

iii. Amending Clause 12.2 Schedule 2 – Additional Uses to remove the

additional use No. 1 at 277 (Lot 303 on Diagram 71696) South Street,


Page 69

Hilton and renumber additional use No.2 at 120 (Lot 13 on Plan 4335 Certificate of Title 1072-743) Hampton Road, Fremantle as additional use No. 1 as follows:

12.2 Schedule 2 – Additional Uses No. Description of Land Additional Use Conditions

1 120 (Lot 13 on Plan 4335 Certificate of Title 1072-743) Hampton Road, Fremantle

Office 1. The additional use of ‘Office’ is an ‘A’ use.

2. No office use shall be undertaken on the land which entails clients or customers travelling to and from the land.

3. Any office use undertaken on the land shall not occupy more than 100 square metres of gross lettable area.


Page 70

PSC1109-169 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 44 - ADVERTISING OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - FINAL ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 218/048 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 September 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Policy and Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1102-28 Attachments: 1. Summary of Submissions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council final adoption of Scheme Amendment No. 44 to the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The scheme amendment will enable the City to provide copies of development application information to members of the public upon request as part of the community consultation process. The amendment was placed out for comment and 1 submission was received. In light of the submission the City proposes a minor modification to the scheme amendment that will include a clause that clarifies that public inspection of planning applications at the City offices is permissible upon request. It is therefore recommended that Council resolves to adopt the amendment with minor modification. BACKGROUND

Clause 9.4 of the City’s LPS4 requires the Council to give notice of/advertise a wide variety of development applications, where a discretionary decision of Council is required. Clause 9.4 of LPS4 details the procedure and requirements for the advertising of planning applications, complemented by local planning policy LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3). Under the current provisions of LPS4 and LPP1.3, development application plans are available for inspection at the City’s Town Hall offices during the advertising period, or on the website in the case of ‘significant applications’ (as defined in LPP1.3). However, City officers regularly receive requests for copies of the plans to be provided to interested parties for various reasons, including:

- they are unable to attend the City offices during business hours due to work, travel or other commitments, ill health, disabilities or lack of transport;

- they would like to discuss the development proposal with other persons who are unable to attend the City offices.

Due to the possible infringement of copyright, in the past the provisions of LPP1.3 have prevented officers from providing copies of development application plans to third parties such as neighbours. This can lead to frustration amongst the notified parties that they are unable to submit an informed comment on the advertised development proposal without being able to view and consider the development plans.


Page 71

Recently LPP1.3 was amended to allow for copies of the development plans to be provided to members of the public during the advertising period without the express consent of the owner of the plans (architect, draftsperson etc). Whilst the policy is sufficient to provide the City with the authority to give out copies of plans, the inclusion of such provisions in the Scheme provides stronger statutory authority for the City’s approach. For more information on the background of this scheme amendment please see 23 February 2011 Council minutes, item PSC1102-28. CONSULTATION

Following referral from the Environmental Protection Authority and approval to advertise from the Western Australian Planning Commission, advertising of the scheme amendment was undertaken in accordance with regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967. The proposed scheme amendment was advertised for comment from 28 June 2011 to 12 August 2011, with advertisements being placed in the Fremantle Herald and West Australian newspapers. The City’s precinct groups, utility companies, and other interested parties and key agencies were also specifically notified and copies of the amendment documents were made available for viewing at the Service and Information Counter at the Town Hall Centre and on the City’s website. One submission was received (refer to Attachment 1 – schedule of submissions for further information). The submission is summarised below:

The submitter feels that the amendment to clause 9.4.5 introduces a restriction on the period in which the planning application and accompanying material may be inspected which isn’t present in the existing clause.

The submitter goes on to request this restriction be removed as there may be a legitimate reason for someone wishing to inspect the planning application and accompanying material on or after the specified due date for submissions under clause 9.4.3 (for example, to gather evidence for a representation under Section 211 of the Planning and Development Act 2005) which may result in a refusal under the amended clause on the grounds that the request wasn’t made “before the specified due date for submissions under clause 9.4.3.” PLANNING COMMENT

In the interest of providing notified parties with the opportunity to make an informed comment on an advertised development application, it is considered appropriate that copies of the development plans should be made available to members of the public in cases where they are unable to attend the City offices. The City has sought legal advice on this matter, particularly in regard to the copyright implications, and the recommended approach to enable the City provide the copies to notified parties is to include specific provisions in LPS4 requiring the City to provide copies of development plans and documents upon written request. A member of the public would not only have a right to inspect the development application information (as is the case now) but would also have a legal right to be given a copy of the information upon request.


Page 72

Currently clause 9.4.5 of LPS4 states: 9.4.5 Any person may inspect the application for planning approval referred to in the

notice and material accompanying that application at the offices of the Council. It is proposed to replace clause 9.4.5 of LPS4 with the following: 9.4.5 A person who wishes to inspect the application for planning approval referred to in

the notice and material accompanying that application may, before the specified due date for submissions under clause 9.4.3 –

(a) inspect the application and that material at the offices of the City; and/or (b) request a copy of the application and/or that material, and the City must

comply with that request within 5 business days. 9.4.6 In complying with a request under clause 9.4.5(b), the City may, at its option –

(a) provide an electronic version of the requested document (such as by email or publication on the City’s website); or

(b) provide a hard copy of the requested documents – in which case the person requesting the documents must pay the City’s reasonable costs of providing the copy.

The proposed clauses 9.4.5 and 9.4.6 provide the legislative authority for the City to provide copies of the development plans to members of the public as part of the planning approval process. In addition to the above provisions, it is proposed to amend Schedule 6 – Form of Application of Planning Approval of LPS4 to require the applicant to sign a declaration upon submission of a planning application that acknowledges the rights of the City to provide copies of the application documentation in accordance with the above clauses of LPS4. The wording to be included in Schedule 6 is as follows:

‘I acknowledge that additional fees may be charged by the City for advertising and consultation, and that copies of this application (including all materials accompanying this application) must be given by the City, on request, to any member of the public under clauses 9.4.5 and 9.4.6 of the Scheme.’

According to the City’s legal advice, these amendments to LPS4 would be sufficient to effectively eliminate the risk of a breach of copyright. The proposed amendment is not anticipated to impact on the processing times of development applications as any request for development plans needs to be made within the advertising period stipulated under clause 9.4.3 of LPS4 and LPP1.3 and does not allow for an extended submission period. Nevertheless, clause 14 of LPP1.3 states that, ‘Staff will make every reasonable effort to make the Council aware of any submissions received after closure of notice periods’, and thus submissions received within a reasonable time period after the close of the advertising period will most likely be addressed as part of the assessment process.


Page 73

Submitter comments The submitter appears to have misunderstood the intent of the amendment. The scheme amendment does not change what can be requested or given under the Western Australian Freedom of Information Act 1992 or any other Act. Instead it allows for an added benefit to customers to request copies of plans that are currently out for public advertising to view at their convenience, in cases where they cannot attend the City’s offices to view the plans. This provision is currently not afforded under the current scheme provisions, however has recently been included in LPP1.3. The issue raised by the submitter appears to be a slightly different one. The submitter appears to be referring to circumstances in which a person might wish to view plans of a development proposal for reasons other than making a submission during the advertising period. This is not the primary issue the current amendment was intended to address but nonetheless in light of the submitter’s comments, officers consider it is reasonable and consistent with principles of open government to enable a member of the public to be able to view details of an application for planning approval regardless of their reason for doing so. This provision could apply to the viewing of plans after an application has been determined as well as current applications. In order to clarify this right to inspect any application for planning approval, the following modification to the scheme amendment text is proposed to be included after proposed clause 9.4.6. 9.5 Public inspection of applications 9.5.1 Any person may inspect any application for planning approval and material accompanying that application at the offices of the City. It is pertinent to also note that it is already Council policy to allow owners, or a person with the owner’s permission, to request copies of planning approval plans for a property. These plans are provided if there is such information on the file and may be subject to an administration fee. CONCLUSION

The Scheme Amendment proposes to create a legal authority within LPS4 to provide copies of development application plans and related documentation to members of the public upon written request. The amendment is considered to enhance the existing process of public notification of planning proposals by assisting members of the public to provide informed comments on development applications, particularly in circumstances where they may have difficulty in attending the City’s offices to view the plans. In light of the submission received a modification to the amendment is recommended to clarify that all planning applications, including those already determined, can be viewed at the City’s offices upon request. Accordingly it is recommended Council note the submission received and adopt scheme amendment No. 44 with modification.


Page 74

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and

attachment 1. 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 with modification the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

i) Amending clause 9.4.5, as follows:

9.4.5 A person who wishes to inspect the application for planning approval referred to in the notice and material accompanying that application may, before the specified due date for submissions under clause 9.4.3-

(a) inspect the application and that material at the offices of the

City; and/or (b) request a copy of the application and/or that material, and the

City must comply with that request within 5 business days. 9.4.6 In complying with a request under clause 9.4.5(b), the City may, at

its option –

(a) provide an electronic version of the requested document (such as by email or publication on the City’s website); or

(b) provide a hard copy of the request documents – in which case the person requesting the documents must pay the City’s reasonable costs of providing the copy.

ii) Renumbering clause 9.4.6 to 9.4.7. iii) Amend clause 12.6 Schedule 6 by inserting the following wording under

the ‘Applicant Details’ section, above the ‘Contact person for correspondence’ line:

“I acknowledge that additional fees may be charged by the City for advertising and consultation, and that copies of this application (including all materials accompanying this application) must be given by the City, on request, to any member of the public under clauses 9.4.5 and 9.4.6 of the Scheme.”

iv) Insert after 9.4.6

9.5 Public inspection of applications

9.5.1 Any person may inspect any application for planning approval and material accompanying that application at the offices of the City.


Page 75

PSC1109-170 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 47 - PUBLIC ART CONTRIBUTION AREAS - FINAL ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 218/053 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 September 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1105-96 Attachments: 1. Schedule of submissions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council final adoption of Scheme Amendment No. 47 to the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The scheme amendment will include the creation of a new special control area, Public Art Contribution Areas, in Part 6 of LPS4 with a map of the specific areas in Schedule 17. Part 6 will include provisions outlining what type of development is subject to the one percent public art contribution, how the contribution will be applied and an option under which Council can waive the public art contribution where a developer proposes public art to the same value as part of the development. The amendment was placed out for comment and three submissions were received. All of the submissions were in support of the aims of the scheme. One submission suggested a boundary change to the contribution area maps so as to exclude Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) reserve land in relation to which the City is not the determining authority. This suggestion is considered reasonable. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council resolves to adopt scheme amendment No. 47 with a minor modification.


Page 76

BACKGROUND

The WA state government and several local governments and redevelopment authorities operate a form of percent for art schemes. These schemes generally require a one percent contribution of the total cost of development to public art. The City of Fremantle currently has no percent for art scheme, however the City’s Strategic Plan 2010 – 2015 has identified the development of such a scheme as an imperative action:

• ‘Stronger focus on public art, particularly sculpture – including developing a policy for percentage for art in developments.’

Accordingly in 2010 Council adopted the Public Art Policy Making Space Creating Place 2010. This policy outlines the management processes for public art in the City and establishes an approval process which includes a Public Art Advisory Group. The proposed amendment will provide the framework for when the percent for art requirement is triggered (e.g. developments of a certain size in a certain area). The policy Making Space Creating Place 2010 will be used to assess any applications. For more information please see the initiation report from the ordinary meeting of Council 25 May 2011, PSC1105-96. CONSULTATION

Following referral from the Environmental Protection Authority, advertising of the scheme amendment was undertaken in accordance with regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967. The proposed scheme amendment was advertised for comment from 12 July 2011 to 26 August 2011, with advertisements being placed in the Fremantle Herald and West Australian newspapers. The City’s precinct groups, utility companies, and other interested parties and key agencies were also specifically notified and copies of the amendment and policy documents were made available for viewing at the Service and Information Counter at the Town Hall Centre and on the City’s website. Three submissions were received (refer to Attachment 1 – schedule of submissions for further information). All submissions were in support of the amendment. One submission, from Fremantle Ports, suggested a change to the mapped contribution areas by excluding land with a reservation under the MRS (specifically Victoria Quay Waterfront). The City is not the determining body for any development application on this land and Fremantle Ports would prefer the land be removed from consideration in this scheme amendment. Fremantle Ports note that it is their intent to introduce public art as part of the urban design for Victoria Quay.


Page 77

PLANNING COMMENT

The proposed scheme amendment would introduce specific ‘public art contribution areas’ into Schedule 17 of the Scheme (see areas below), and introduce into Part 6 (Special Control Areas) provisions that require a payment equivalent to one percent of the total cost of a relevant development in any of these areas to be paid to the City as a contribution to be used towards the public artwork in the locality. These ‘public art contribution areas’ have come about because it is recognised the percent for public art requirements should only apply to development occurring within locations that service a wider geographical area, rather than apply to development anywhere within the City of Fremantle. The areas identified include the city centre and adjacent area and larger district centres of North Fremantle, South Fremantle and Hilton.

It was further recognised that the percent for art requirement should not apply to smaller scale and lower value development, including any single houses or group dwelling developments, on the grounds that requiring contributions from such developments might be regarded as unduly onerous. Development types excluded from the one percent public art contribution are as follows:

(a) Single houses and grouped dwellings; (b) Buildings used for any industrial use class in Table 2 of LPS4; (c) Any development with a gross lettable area of less than 1000 sq m; (d) Refurbishments and change of use of existing buildings larger than 1000 sq

m gross lettable area not involving substantial structural alteration, and all refurbishments to buildings with a gross lettable area of less than 1000 sq m;

(e) Any other type of development with an estimated total cost of less than $1,000,000.

Public Art contribution areas The proposed public art contribution areas are identified on the plans below: North Fremantle Centre


Page 78

City Centre and Surrounds In light of Fremantle Ports’ submission it is recommended that the City Centre and Surrounds public art contribution area map be modified so as to exclude MRS Reserve land around the Inner Harbour and Fishing Boat Harbour. It is acknowledged that the City is only a referral body, not the decision-making authority, in relation to applications for development approval on land in MRS Reserves. It is therefore considered appropriate to limit the public art contribution provisions in LPS4 to apply only to development on land for which the City is the decision-making planning authority. Nevertheless, in cases where the City makes a recommendation to the WAPC in relation to proposed development on MRS reserve land, the City could still recommend that a percent for art contribution be sought on the same basis as if the proposed public art provisions of LPS4 applied. It would then be up to the determining authority to consider whether to impose this as a condition of planning approval.


Page 79

Hilton centre

South Fremantle centre

Where applicable the percent public art contribution requirement will be imposed as a condition on the Planning Approval and the contribution will go in a special fund to be used by the City for the purpose of providing public art within the locality of the subject site. There is provision for individual contributed funds to be accrued for more comprehensive or detailed art projects in the locality where such works are planned for by Council. The funds will be used to meet any costs reasonably associated with the production, installation and documentation/identification of an artwork.

Council may waive the requirement for the public art contribution in cases where a development incorporates public art work(s) to the same value in a location clearly visible to the general public, either on the site of the development or within a crown reserve adjoining or near to the development site. Where a developer takes this option the art work will still need to be submitted to Council as part of the development application for


Page 80

approval and the appropriateness and artistic merit of the proposed art work will be considered as part of the approval. CONCLUSION

This scheme amendment is considered to provide an appropriate level of percent for art contributions without being too onerous on new development. It is thought reasonable for major developers to contribute to the amenity of the surrounding public realm, including contributions to public art. The scheme amendment is consistent with an objective of the City’s Strategic Plan and could help reinforce Fremantle’s status as a unique place of cultural significance. Accordingly it is recommended Council note the submissions received and adopt scheme amendment No. 47 with minor modification to one of the public art contribution area maps. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council: A. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and

attachment 1;

B. 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 with modification the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

1. Inserting into Part 6 Special Control Areas, after clause 6.6.5, the following text:

6.7 PUBLIC ART CONTRIBUTION AREAS 6.7.1 Development on land as depicted in Schedule 17 – Public Art Contribution

Areas, except as specified below in clause 6.7.2, is required to contribute a cash amount equal in value to one per cent of the estimated total project cost for the development of public art works.

6.7.2 Clause 6.7.1 applies to all development with the exception of

(f) Single houses and grouped dwellings; (g) Buildings used for any industrial use class in Table 2 of LPS4; (h) Any development with a gross lettable area of less than 1000 sq m; (i) Refurbishments and change of use of existing buildings larger than

1000 sq m gross lettable area not involving substantial structural alteration, and all refurbishments to buildings with a gross lettable area of less than 1000 sq m;

(j) Any other type of development with an estimated total cost of less than $1,000,000.


Page 81

6.7.3 The public art contribution requirement shall be imposed on applicable

development as a condition on the Planning Approval. The condition shall specify that the contribution must be made prior to the commencement of the development.

6.7.4 A contribution made under clause 6.7.1 shall be paid into a special fund to

be used by the City for the purpose of providing public art within the locality or area of the subject site. Individual funds contributed may be accrued for more comprehensive or detailed art projects in the locality or area as outlined in a plan adopted by the Council. Funds contributed may be used to meet any costs reasonably associated with the production, installation and documentation/identification of an artwork.

6.7.5 The Council may waive the requirement for the public art contribution in

cases where a development incorporates public art work(s) to the same value as specified in clause 6.7.1 and the art is located in a position clearly visible to the general public, either on the site of the development or within a crown reserve adjoining or near to the development site, subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following:

(a) The details of the proposed art work shall be set out as part of the

application for Planning Approval. Prior to determining the application, Council shall seek relevant professional advice with regard to the appropriateness and artistic merit of the proposed art work.

(b) Where the public art work is to be located on private land, the art work

shall be maintained by the owner(s) of the land to the satisfaction of the Council.

(c) Where the public art work is to be located within a crown reserve, the

owner of the subject development is required to enter into a legal agreement with the City undertaking to maintain the work to a standard specified by the City and, if required, to temporarily remove the art work and to reinstate it (thereafter) should it be necessary to allow a public utility or service authority to carry out necessary/essential works.


Page 82

2. Inserting a new Schedule after 12.16 Schedule 16 Development Contribution

Areas: 12.17 Schedule 17 – Public Art Contribution Areas


Page 83


Page 84


Page 85

PSC1109-171 RE-NAME PROPOSED PUBLIC ROAD NAME (DECK LANE) -

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

DataWorks Reference: 164/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 September 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Land Administrator Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1103-63, PSC1106-118 Attachment 1: Un-lodged Deposited Plan No. 66940


Page 86

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks Council's approval to name the proposed new public road linking Mews Road Railway Crossing with Marine Terrace, Fremantle as shown in un-lodged deposited Plan No. 66940 (see attachment 1). Council has considered several names for the proposed new road in previous reports. The former names are;

• "Cray Street" - adopted by Council on 23 March 2011 (PSC1103-63) with conditional approval provided by the Geographic Names Committee (GNC). The City's road naming application to the GNC dated 01 April 2011 was rejected on the grounds that the name sounded too similar to Wray Avenue and Grey Street. The GNC requested that the City select a completely new road name.

• "Boat Lane" - selected by Council Officers and approved by the GNC subject

to Council approval. Council's decision was to defer the item and investigate an alternative road name as "Boat Lane" was not supported.

The GNC has provided the City with written confirmation that the proposed name of "Deck" is an unduplicated and suitable short road name for mapping purposes in preference to other names such as "Prawn" and Sardine". The Technical Services Director has expressed a desire to have the road named for the Blessing of the Fleet ceremony in October 2011. As this date is nearly upon us, Council is asked to consider the name "Deck Lane" representing the decks of fishing vessels associated with Fremantle Fishing Boat Harbour. BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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


Page 87

On 17 February 2011 the GNC provided conditional approval for the proposed names of "Cray Street" and "Boat Street" and rejecting the names of "Port" and "Fisher". On 25 March 2011 (PSC1103-63) Council resolved to; "ADVISE the Geographic Names Committee that it has selected "Cray Street" as the new road name to be applied to the 493m2 parcel of land described as "road" on un-lodged Deposited Plan No. 66940 linking the Mews Road Rail link and Marine Terrace, Fremantle." On 01 April 2011 the City wrote to the GNC advising them of Council's decision and requesting the name to be applied to the area marked as "road" on un-lodged Deposited Plan No. 66940. On 27 April 2011 the GNC expressed concerns that the proposed name of "Cray Street" may be confused, in the case of an emergency, with Wray Avenue, Grey Street or Gray Court in Hamilton Hill less than 10 kilometres away. The GNC requested that a new name be selected. Consideration was given to a change of suffix from "Street" to Link" while still keeping the prefix "Cray" which would still be consistent with the GNC's March 2011 resolution. On 13 May 2011 the City received an email from the GNC whereby the City's road naming application was reviewed with the proposed name of "Cray Link" completely rejected. The GNC stated that: "In regards to the above, the use of names the same as or similar sounding to existing names within a locality, adjoining locality or local government area will not be considered for approval." The GNC suggested that; "if Council wishes to recognise the lobster/Cray industry in the area, we suggest the naming of a park or reserve or some other suitable feature". On 30 May 2011 the City contacted the Manager of the GNC requesting a written assessment of the City's proposed name of "Boat Street" prior to the item going back to Council - the GNC agreed to provide a formal reply. On 01 June 2011 the Geographic Names Team provided written support for the use of the name "Boat Lane". On 22 June 2011 (PSC1106-118) Council's decision was to defer the item and investigate an alternative road name as Boat Lane was not supported. On 16 August 2011 an alternative road name of "Deck Lane" was submitted by Technical Services. The City requested that the GNC provide a written assessment with regard to the proposed name of "Deck Lane" prior to submitting the name to Council. On 31 August 2011 the GNC provided the City with written confirmation, that the proposed name of "Deck" was unduplicated - the name is supported by the GNC in preference to other names such as "Prawn" or "Sardine" which are considered too long for the application to a short street. COMMENTS


Page 88

The proposed name for the roadway linking Mews Road and Marine Terrace, Fremantle has met with a number of setbacks during the last five months. Now that we are drawing closer to Fremantle events such as the Blessing of the Fleet, the Fremantle Festival and the Perth 2011 World Sailing Championships the selection of a new road name is becoming urgent. An internal check for road naming compliancy has been carried out with the following findings;

• The name "Deck" is not duplicated or even listed in the Street Smart directory. • The proposed name of "Deck Lane" may sound similar to Bick Lane, located in

North Fremantle - therefore an alternative suffix of "Way" could be applied. The proposed name of "Deck" is selected for its association with the decks on fishing vessels being a link to the Fremantle Fishing Boat Harbour. The GNC has checked the suitability of the proposed name of "Deck Lane" and concluded that there are no duplications of the name. The GNC provided their support for the use of "Deck" being a short name suitable for mapping purposes. EXTERNAL SUBMISSIONS Neighbour Notification: Nil. The selection of names for roads is at local government discretion subject to the approval of the GNC. Consultation is only required by the GNC when naming Ovals, Pavilions, the naming or renaming of Parks and Reserves or the naming of Towns and Localities. CONCLUSION

The proposed name of "Deck Lane" or "Deck Way" complies with the Geographic Names Committee Guidelines when checked against the Street Smart Directory 2011. The GNC has confirmed compliancy of the proposed name of "Deck" in writing to the City on 31 August 2011. Subject to Council approval, the name requires final approval from the GNC. It is recommended that Council approve "Deck" with a suffix of "Lane or Way" as the new road name linking Mews Road Railway Crossing and Marine Terrace, Fremantle as shown on Deposited Plan No. 66940. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

ADVISE the Geographic Names Committee that it has selected "Deck" with the suffix of "Lane" in the first instance or "Way" as the new road name to be applied to the parcel of land described as "road" on un-lodged Deposited Plan No. 66940 linking the Mews Road Rail Link and Marine Terrace, Fremantle.


Page 89

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS Nil.


Page 90

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

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

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1.

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

Various participation opportunities 2.

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

Objective processes also used 3.

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

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4.

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

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5.

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

All input is of equal value 6.

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

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7.

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


Page 91


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.

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.


Page 92


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 93

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 94


Page 95

Wednesday, 21 September 2011,6.00 pm - City of Fremantle · 2018. 3. 8. · CITY OF FREMANTLE ....

Documents

Transcript of Wednesday, 21 September 2011,6.00 pm - City of Fremantle · 2018. 3. 8. · CITY OF FREMANTLE ....