AGENDA - City of Fremantle · 2018. 3. 8. · Agenda - Planning Services Committee 2 December 2015 Page 1 REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject

AGENDA

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 2 December 2015, 6.00pm

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, 2 December 2015 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8 William

Street, Fremantle (access via stairs, next to the playground in Kings Square)

commencing at 6.00 pm.

Paul Trotman DIRECTOR STRATEGIC PLANNING & PROJECTS 27 November 2015

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 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 4 November 2015 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PSC1512-1 BEACH STREET, NO. 1, 1A AND 1B (LOT 1, 170 & 171), FREMANTLE - SIX STOREY BUILDING AND SEVEN STOREY BUILDING (SEVENTY ONE (71) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND COMMERCIAL TENANCY (OFFICE, SHOP, RESTAURANT AND SMALL BAR) - (CJ DAP011/15) 1

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 32

PSC1512-2 DEFERRED ITEM SUMPTON STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 88), HILTON ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0195/15) 32

PSC1512-3 DEFERRED ITEM - HICKORY STREET, NO. 4 (LOT 26), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0329/15) 40

PSC1512-4 PAKENHAM STREET, NO 1 (LOT 123), FREMANTLE - PROPOSED LEGAL ACTION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING AND BUILDING LEGISLATION - (SS DA0043/15) 48

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 51

PSC1512-5 AMHERST STREET, NO. 3C (LOT 52) FREMANTLE PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO FAMILY DAY CARE (TB DA0441/15) 51

PSC1512-6 MAXWELL STREET, NO. 17 (LOT 156), BEACONSFIELD TWO STOREY ANCILLARY DWELLING ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (BP DA0461/15) 56

PSC1512-7 CLARKE STREET, NO. 25 (LOT 91), HILTON - PATIO ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0445/15) 65

PSC1512-8 SOUTH TERRACE NO.226 (LOT 8), FREMANTLE SAT RECONSIDERATION: RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR AIR CONDITIONING UNIT ADDITION TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING (JL DA0314/14) 69

PSC1512-9 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 76

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 77

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 77

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION 78

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PSC1512-1 BEACH STREET, NO. 1, 1A AND 1B (LOT 1, 170 & 171), FREMANTLE - SIX STOREY BUILDING AND SEVEN STOREY BUILDING (SEVENTY ONE (71) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND COMMERCIAL TENANCY (OFFICE, SHOP, RESTAURANT AND SMALL BAR) - (CJ DAP011/15) 3

PSC1512-2 DEFERRED ITEM SUMPTON STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 88), HILTON ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0195/15) 82

PSC1512-3 DEFERRED ITEM - HICKORY STREET, NO. 4 (LOT 26), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0329/15) 116

PSC1512-4 PAKENHAM STREET, NO 1 (LOT 123), FREMANTLE - PROPOSED LEGAL ACTION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING AND BUILDING LEGISLATION - (SS DA0043/15) 142

PSC1512-5 AMHERST STREET, NO. 3C (LOT 52) FREMANTLE PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO FAMILY DAY CARE (TB DA0441/15) 155

PSC1512-6 MAXWELL STREET, NO. 17 (LOT 156), BEACONSFIELD TWO STOREY ANCILLARY DWELLING ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (BP DA0461/15) 164

PSC1512-7 CLARKE STREET, NO. 25 (LOT 91), HILTON - PATIO ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0445/15) 177

PSC1512-8 SOUTH TERRACE NO.226 (LOT 8), FREMANTLE SAT RECONSIDERATION: RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR AIR CONDITIONING UNIT ADDITION TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING (JL DA0314/14) 182

PSC1512-9 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 200

Agenda - Planning Services Committee 2 December 2015

Page 1

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

PSC1512-1 BEACH STREET, NO. 1, 1A AND 1B (LOT 1, 170 & 171), FREMANTLE - SIX STOREY BUILDING AND SEVEN STOREY BUILDING (SEVENTY ONE (71) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND COMMERCIAL TENANCY (OFFICE, SHOP, RESTAURANT AND SMALL BAR) - (CJ DAP011/15)

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 12)

Property Location: No. 1, 1a and 1b Beach Street, Fremantle

Application Details: Six – Seven Storey Mixed Use Development (Seventy one Multiple Dwellings and Commercial Tenancy)

DAP Name: Metro South West JDAP

Applicant: Whelans Town Planning

Owner: Fremantle Foundry and Engineering Pty Ltd

LG Reference: DAP011/15

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

Department of Planning File No: DAP/15/00889

Report Date: 16 November 2015

Application Receipt Date: 14 September 2015

Application Process Days: 90 Days

Attachment(s): 1: Development Plans –(Cover page DA00, Site & Ground Floor Plans DA01, First Floor Plan DA02, Second Floor Plan DA03, Third Floor Plan DA04, Fourth Floor Plan DA05, Fifth Floor Plan DA06, Sixth Floor Plan DA07, Typical Section DA08, Elevations DA09, Elevations DA10, Elevations DA11, Elevations DA12, Elevation Perspectives DA13, External Perspectives DA14, External Perspectives DA15, External perspectives DA16, Roof Plan DA17, Atrium Plan SK01-E, Rooftop Plan SK02-E) 2: Site photographs 3: DAC Minutes 4: Schedule of submissions 5: Risk report and Fremantle Ports referral 6: Heritage Comment


Page 2

Officer Recommendation: That the Metro South West JDAP resolves to: Approve DAP Application reference DAP/15/00889 and accompanying plans (Cover page DA00, Site & Ground Floor Plans DA01, First Floor Plan DA02, Second Floor Plan DA03, Third Floor Plan DA04, Fourth Floor Plan DA05, Fifth Floor Plan DA06, Sixth Floor Plan DA07, Typical Section DA08, Elevations DA09, Elevations DA10, Elevations DA11, Elevations DA12, Elevation Perspectives DA13, External Perspectives DA14, External Perspectives DA15, External perspectives DA16, Roof Plan DA17, Atrium Plan SK01-E, Rooftop Plan SK02-E) in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, subject to the following conditions: Conditions

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 6 October 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year prior, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or otherwise approved by the City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation of the development, No. 1 (Lot 171), No. 1a (Lot 170) and No.1b (Lot1) Beach Street, Fremantle are to be legally amalgamated or alternatively the owner may enter into a legal agreement with the City of Fremantle, drafted by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties concerned prior to the commencement of the works. The legal agreement will specify measures to allow the development approval to operate having regard to the subject site consisting of two separate lots, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of

DAP011/15, on plans dated 6 October 2015, vehicle crossovers shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the building shall be truncated or

reduced to 0.75m height within 1.5m of vehicle access points and street corners in order to provide adequate sight lines or otherwise comply with Clause 6.2.3 C3 of the Residential Design Codes, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP011/15, on

plans dated 6 October 2015, all air conditioning systems installed in the development shall comply with the built form requirements for Area 1 of the Fremantle Port Buffer to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.


Page 3

7. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP011/15, on plans dated 6 October 2015, a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land that the subject site is located in close proximity to the Fremantle Port and may be subject to noise, odour and activity not normally associated with residential use. The notification is to be prepared by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties prior to occupation.

8. The design and construction of the development is to meet the 4 star

green star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Twelve (12) months after practical completion of the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the City to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle

a) a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia

certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars, or

b) a copy of agreed equivalent documentation certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars.

9. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit the

following information to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

a) To lessen the appearance of building bulk as viewed from the street, and to enable a reading of the building as a five-storey block with a setback sixth floor, change the cladding colour and/or material to the setback sixth floor and the roof terrace above.

b) A reduction of the sharp contrast between the dark grey alucobond cladding material and the white front balustrade edges by lightening the dark grey and/or darkening the white edges.

10. Prior to commencement of the development the owner shall contribute a

monetary amount equal in value to one percent of the estimated development cost, as indicated on the Form of Application for Planning Approval, to the City of Fremantle for development of public art works and/or heritage works to enhance the public realm. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $20 million the contribution to be made is $200,000.

11. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP011/15, on

plans dated 6 October 2015, a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development prior to occupation advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land of the potential for future development on adjoining land to be constructed in accordance with the building height and setback requirements applicable


Page 4

to Sub Area 1, which include zero minimum side and rear setbacks.. The notification is to be prepared by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties prior to occupation.

12. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the two western-most storerooms

abutting the pedestrian walkway on the ground floor are to be deleted to ensure sightlines for pedestrians to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to commencement of works, investigation for soil and groundwater

contamination is to be carried out to determine if remediation is required. If required, remediation, including validation of remediation, of any contamination identified shall be completed prior to the issuing of titles to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle on advice from the Department of Environment Regulation, to ensure that the lots created are suitable for the proposed use. Investigations and remediation are to be carried out in compliance with the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 and current Department of Environment Regulation Contaminated Site Guidelines.

14. Prior to occupation, four (4) Class 3 bicycle racks are to be provided on

site to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

15. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant is to provide confirmation of the results of the acoustic assessment relating to all external walls. The applicant has proposed a steel frame construction method for the external walls as opposed to the masonry cavity construction requirement specified within LPP 2.3. The results are to be reviewed by Fremantle Ports, and any recommendations implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

16. Prior to occupation, the applicant is to provide a revised Waste

Management Plan that reflects the servicing capabilities of the City or a commercial waste provider, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

Advice Notes

i. In relation to the revised Waste Management Plan, the applicant is advised that the proposal to have 1100L bins collected four times per week and recycling twice a week is not supported by the City. It is suggested to have 1100L collected once per week and recycling once per fortnight. Increased services may be able to be provided during peak times. The applicant should contact City Works on 9432 9999 to determine the City’s waste servicing capabilities.

ii. Construction related activates are to meet the requirements of Local Planning Policy 1.10 Construction Sites unless otherwise approved by the City.

iii. The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on the plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road


Page 5

verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;

submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration, or

submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the infrastructure.

This request will be considered independently of any Planning Approval granted, and this Planning Approval should not be taken as approval for removal or modification of any infrastructure within the road reserve.

iv. This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences. Please refer to the City’s Tree Planting and Vehicle Crossings Policies (SG28 and MD0015) for further information.

v. In relation to the condition relating to the public art contribution, the applicant is advised that Council may waive the requirement for the public art/heritage work contribution in accordance with clause 6 of LPP 2.19 where the development incorporates public art in the development to the same value as that specified that is located in a position clearly visible to the general public on the site of the development. In determining the appropriateness and artistic merit of the public art, council shall seek relevant professional advice.

vi. In relation to Condition 13, and in accordance with regulation 31 (1) c

of the Contaminated Sites Regulations 2006, a Mandatory Auditors Report, prepared by an accredited contaminated sites auditor, will need to be submitted to the Department of Environment and Conservation as evidence of compliance with Condition 13.

vii. The applicant is advised that there are several elements of the Risk

Assessment report (in regards to the development’s proximity to the Fremantle Port), and that Fremantle Ports does not endorse the content of this report. For further information, please contact Fremantle Ports.

viii. The applicant is advised that the City may accept alternative solutions

for sightlines which include, but are not exclusive to, convex mirrors, speed humps and warning lights. For further information, the applicant should contact the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery department.


Page 6

ix. In regards to Condition 9, the applicant is advised that the City will consider this condition satisfied upon advice of the Design Advisory Committee (DAC). Comments from the DAC on the façade design include:

The façade design will necessitate a change to the treatment of the windows to the top floor of the northern right-of-way and the expression of a defined edge to the top of the five stories.

It is understood that, while the defined edge could be expressed by stepping back the sixth floor, this will be difficult in a system-built project as proposed, therefore other strategies will need to be tested, such as introducing a shadow line break between the two planes of different materials. Comments from the City’s heritage staff regarding the façade design include:

A more robust, utilitarian design, with greater influence taken from the former Dalgety’s Woolstores;

The use of brick (smooth face, red coloured) in combination with rendered lintels and sills, rather than timber features and grey cladding;

Greater emphasis on vertical elements that terminate in some form of strongly expressed horizontal element – i.e. These should be more prominent that the horizontal, white features of the façade. DAC’s requirement to reduce contrast between colours of the white and grey materials may improve this;

The rear elevation of the building better demonstrates an emphasis on vertical elements than the street elevation.

Background:

Insert Property Address: No. 1, 1a and 1b Beach Street, Fremantle

Insert Zoning MRS: Central City

TPS: Mixed Use

Insert Use Class: Multiple Dwelling “D” Commercial tenancy (Small Bar “A”, Restaurant “A”, Office “P”, Shop “P”)

Insert Strategy Policy: N/A

Insert Development Scheme: Local Planning Scheme No. 4

Insert Lot Size: 807sqm, 782sqm and 421sqm (2010sqm)

Insert Existing Land Use: Vacant

Value of Development: $20m

No. 1, 1a and 1b Beach Street, Fremantle are located on the eastern side of Beach Street, Fremantle. The street block is bound by Beach Street to the West, Parry Street to the South, Queen Victoria Street to the East and James Street to the North. The site is


Page 7

located within sub area 2.3.1 (sub area 8) – Fremantle Local Planning Area of Local Planning Scheme No. 4. (LPS4) and is zoned Mixed Use, R-AC3. The site is on the City’s Heritage List, and is not located in a Heritage Area. The Heritage Listing refers to a previous building on the site which has now been demolished. Planning history for the site is as follows:

July 2013- DA0155/13 – Demolition of Office and Industrial General buildings and structures. An archival record was provided for historical purposes.

October 2014- No. 1 Beach Street (Fremantle Foundry and Engineering Co) removed from Heritage List (LPS4), but remains on MHI for historic purposes.

August 2015 - DA0285/15 – Site works and retaining walls (majority of fill to centre of site where there is an existing depression, creating a gradual slope between existing levels at the street boundary and rear of the site, with a range of 0m to 2.3m of fill).

Details: outline of development application On 17 September 2015, the City received an application for the addition of sixty nine (69) Multiple Dwellings at No. 1, 1a and 1b Beach Street, Fremantle. As a result of DAC comments, the applicant chose to amend the plans, with a revised set provided 6 October 2015. The plans proposed additional storeys and a change to the proposed floor plan of the front building, including an increase to seventy one (71) Multiple Dwellings. The development proposed consists of the following:

Seventy one (71) Multiple Dwellings in two buildings;

o 29 x 1 bedroom apartments; + studios

o 36 x 2 bedroom apartments; and

o 6 x 3 bedroom apartments.

Commercial tenancy - 107sqm (multiple land uses proposed for flexibility- Office, Shop, Small Bar and Restaurant);

Rooftop terrace and storerooms;

Ground floor parking area (42 car stackers – 84 bays) with storerooms and bicycle parking; and

Awning over road reserve. Revised development plans are included as attachment 1. Legislation & policy: Statutory planning instruments relevant to this application are as follows: Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4)

Clause 4.2.1 (e) Objectives for Mixed use zone;

Table 1 – Zoning;

Table 2 – Car parking;

Clause 5.4.5 – Dwelling Mix;

Clause 5.8 Variations to site and development standards and requirements:


Page 8

Clause 9.4 – Advertising of Applications, and

Clause 12.12 - Schedule 12 Development requirements - Local Planning Area 2 Fremantle – Sub area 2.3.1.

State Government Policies State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes Local Planning Policies Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals; Local Planning Policy 1.9 - Design Advisory Committee and Principles of Design; Local Planning Policy 1.10 – Construction Sites; Local Planning Policy 2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines; Local Planning Policy 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements; Local Planning Policy 2.19 - Contribution for Public Art/and or Heritage Works; and Local Planning Policy 3.1.3 - Precinct 3. Consultation: Public Consultation In accordance with LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals, the application was advertised for twenty eight (28) days in the following manner –

2 x newspaper notices;

Sign on site;

Notice to owners and occupiers in 100m radius;

Notice on the City’s website;

Notice to precinct groups; and

Community information session (attended by seven members of the public and two Elected Members).

At the close of the advertising period, being 13 November 2015, eight (8) submissions had been received by the City that raised the following issues:

The proposal is aesthetically unpleasing;

Privacy will be compromised by upper floor units;

Building height is excessive; and

Required number of parking bays should be provided. A full schedule of submissions received is included as attachment 4. Internal Department Consultation Design Advisory Committee The City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) is established and maintained under Clause 11.8.6 of LPS4. Clause 11.8.6.2 requires development to be determined with due regard to advice from the DAC and states- Notwithstanding the provisions of any Local Planning Policy prepared under clause 11.8.6.1, the Council shall not determine a development application that proposes a


Page 9

building with a building height of 11 metres or greater in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones without first referring the application to the Design Advisory Committee for advice and having regard to the advice provided by the Design Advisory Committee. Clause 11.8.6.3 details the matters that DAC should have due regard to when determining the design quality of the development –

a) Character – whether the development promotes character in townscape and landscape by responding to and reinforcing locally distinctive patterns of development, landscape and culture

b) Continuity and enclosure – whether the development promotes the continuity of street frontages and the enclosure of space by development which clearly defines private and public areas

c) Quality of the public realm- whether the development promotes public spaces and routes that are attractive, safe, uncluttered and work effectively for all in society including disabled and elderly people

d) Ease of movement – whether the development promotes accessibility and local permeability by making places that connect with each other and are easy to move through, putting people before traffic and integrating land uses and transport

e) Legibility – whether the development promotes legibility through development that provides recognisable routes, intersections and landmarks to help people find their way around;

f) Adaptability – whether the development promotes adaptability through development that can respond to changing social, technological and economic conditions

g) Diversity – whether the development promotes diversity and choice through a mix of compatible developments and uses that work together to create viable places that respond to local needs

The applicant presented to the (DAC) over a number of months (see minutes in attachment 3), achieving significant changes to their design. In the final presentation to DAC (the plans the subject of this report), DAC conceded that while a number of positive amendments had been made however there were still issues with the proposal as follows:

“Over a series of meetings and workshops the DAC has raised a large number of concerns about this project, relating to a wide range of amenity and architectural issues. The applicants have responded to these concerns and have addressed the majority of them in a satisfactory manner. In some instances, however, the solutions proposed have resulted in the creation of other problems – for example, the requested widening of the interior court has been compromised by the addition of two extra storeys to the Beach Street block, thereby reducing solar access to the court and views to the harbour for the rear block. The DAC retains concerns about the design of the Beach Street façade and how it relates to its setting. As a result, it recommends that the following condition be included on any planning approval: Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the plans hereby approved shall be modified and/or additional details provided that address the following matters to the


Page 10

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, having regard to further advice from the Design Advisory Committee:

i) To lessen the appearance of building bulk as viewed from the street, and to enable a reading of the building as a five-storey block with a set back sixth floor, change the cladding colour and/or material to the set back sixth floor and the roof terrace above. This will necessitate a change to the treatment of the windows to the top floor of the northern right-of-way and the expression of a defined edge to the top of the five stories. It is understood that, while the defined edge could be expressed by stepping back the sixth floor, this will be difficult in a system-built project as proposed, therefore other strategies will need to be tested, such as introducing a shadow line break between the two planes of different materials.

i) A reduction of the sharp contrast between the dark grey alucobond cladding material and the white front balustrade edges by lightening the dark grey and/or darkening the white edges.

As noted in the condition, further design development is recommended to lessen the building bulk and tie the development in with the streetscape. The proposed condition requested by DAC has been included in the officers recommendation. Infrastructure and project delivery The application was referred to the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery team for comment with the following advice received (planning officer response is included after each comment):

Standard stormwater condition to apply;

o A condition of approval has been recommended and is in accordance with

6.3.8C8 of the R-Codes.

Truncations on the exit to the parking are needed;

o Sightlines are assessed in greater detail in the Planning Assessment

section of the report below, however a condition of approval has been recommended to improve sightlines.

Visitor and commercial parking based off site on a location that is leased by the City is not a good idea;

o Further discussion with the City’s Traffic Engineer has indicated that the

City’s infrastructure and projects team support the development overall, but are cautious of reduced car parking for the commercial portion and lack of visitors bays on site, particularly given the trend to vary this on a number of larger applications in the City Centre. The provision of visitor and commercial parking is discussed in the Planning Assessment section of the report below.

Are we sure that the long term plan for the parking area will be for parking (PTA car park is only leased by the City currently);

o This is something that is considered in the discussion relating to vehicle

parking in the Planning Assessment of the report.


Page 11

The stores flanking the crosswalk area from Lobby A to Lobby B create an internal sight line issue. These should be removed to allow this busy primary corridor good sight lines for pedestrians and vehicles or reduced in height;

o A condition of approval is recommended, to relocate the two stores to a

more suitable location that improves sightlines for pedestrians and vehicles.

Proposal to have 1100L bins collected four times per week and recycling twice a week is not supported by City Works. Suggestion to have 1100L collected once per week and recycling once per fortnight.

o A condition of approval is recommended to ensure the Waste Management

Plan accurately reflects the City’s (or a commercial providers) servicing capabilities. An advice note is also recommended to advise the applicant of these requirements and to liaise with City Works to ensure appropriate waste servicing of the development.

Heritage The application was referred to the City’s Heritage Coordinator for comment, particularly in relation to how the building interacts with the heritage listed Flag and Whistle Hotel to the south. The building’s bulk and height are supported, and there are no concerns regarding how the building will be viewed from Parry Street (i.e over the vacant car park), or how it interacts with the Heritage Listed (Flag and Whistle Hotel) building in this regard. Regardless of this, the Heritage Coordinator did agree with the DAC, in that the façade design required work to improve the buildings interaction with its streetscape and better reflect the port history of the area, by reducing the dominance of the white horizontal elements of the façade in particular. While the Heritage Coordinator acknowledges that a design statement has been provided, the design is not considered to be reflective of the robust, industrial character of the precinct. Suggestions to improve the building’s façade and improve its presence in the streetscape include:


Page 12

A more robust, utilitarian design, with greater influence taken from the former Dalgety’s Woolstores;

The use of brick (smooth face, red coloured) in combination with rendered lintels and sills, rather than timber features and grey cladding;

Greater emphasis on vertical elements that terminate in some form of strongly expressed horizontal element – i.e. These should be more prominent that the horizontal, white features of the façade. DAC’s requirement to reduce contrast between colours of the white and grey materials may improve this;

The rear elevation of the building better demonstrates an emphasis on vertical elements than the street elevation.

Consultation with other Agencies or Consultants Fremantle Port Authority Buffer areas have been established around Fremantle Port to ensure risk and amenity of developments is well considered, and the operations of the Port can continue unobstructed. The applicant has proposed a number of alternative solutions to the requirements of LPP 2.3 Fremantle Port Buffer Area Design Guidelines (Area 1), including balconies that face the port and steel frame construction as opposed to masonry cavity construction. As per LPP 2.3, the applicant was required to provide a risk assessment a for the assessment of the Fremantle Port Authority. Fremantle Ports has advised that they do not endorse the report provided by the applicant, and believe there are a number of errors included. However, they do support the development overall and believe that notwithstanding the errors in the report, that it provides sufficient support, subject to:

1. Confirmation of the results of the acoustic assessment relating to the external wall. The applicant has proposed a steel frame construction method for the external walls as opposed to the masonry cavity construction requirement specified in the Local Planning Policy.

2. Confirmation that the wording of the memorials on titles will be in accordance with Appendix B of City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 2.3.

Conditions of approval have been recommended in accordance with the above.


Page 13

Department of Environment Regulation As the site is listed as Contaminated- Restricted Use, the development plans were forwarded to the Department of Environment Regulation for comment. In summary, the following comments were received:

Recommendation that contaminated condition EN9 and advice ENa2 should be applied to the approval (as per Model Conditions Schedule – WAPC)

An accredited contaminated sites auditor has been engaged to assist with the redevelopment of the site for residential use.

Conditions of approval have been recommended as requested by DER, in the Officers Recommendation. Planning assessment: The following relevant planning issues were raised during the neighbour consultation period:

Comment raised in submission

Officer Response

Onsite parking provision

Visitor and commercial parking do not meet Deemed to Comply requirements. Parking is assessed further in the report below.

Building height Building height is subject to discretionary criteria and is assessed in the report below.

Visual privacy Visual privacy meets the deemed to comply requirements of the R Codes.

A table of all submissions and Officer’s response is included as attachment 4. Building height – permitted and minimum façade height

Permitted Provided Discretion

Permitted Building Height (metres) – 18m* 22m 4 m

Additional building height – 22m^ Complies

Minimum façade height (m) – 10m 17.5m Complies

*subject to meeting a)-d) criteria (discussed further below) ^subject to to meeting i) – (ii) criteria (discussed further below)

The proposed development is located within Area 8 of sub area 2.3.1 of the Fremantle Local Planning Area. In granting consent to the maximum 18 metre height prescribed for Area 8 Council shall be satisfied in regard to all of the following, and could impose a lesser height if not satisfied the proposal meets objectives –

a) That the proposal is consistent with predominant height patterns of adjoining properties and the locality generally, The height patterns of the immediate and general locality vary between 6.3m and 24.535m.


Page 14

Maximum building heights of adjoining properties and the locality generally are as follows -

11 Queen Victoria Street – 22.15m;

70-80 Cantonment Street- 21.46m;

48-68 Cantonment (Elders Woolstores) – approximately 14m;

70 Elder Place- 24.535m;

68 Elder Place- 23.24m;

2-4 Parry Street (Flag and Whistle Hotel) – three (3) stories and approximately 14-15m;

3 Beach Street – 6.3m;

5 Beach Street - approximately 10m.

It is considered there are sufficient examples to consider a maximum height of 18m supportable for this particular site.

b) The proposal would not be detrimental to the amenity of the area; The proposed development is not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of the area for the following reasons:

The additional building height is occupied by a residential land use which is expected to result in minimal noise and activity that will disrupt neighbors;

The additional building height will not result in overshadowing of residential properties;

The proposed Multiple Dwellings are sufficiently setback from other residential properties to minimize any overlooking;

The roof top deck on the upper floor is screened by storerooms to either side, to ensure the height in this portion will have a minimal impact on the amenity of surrounding properties;

The building bulk is considered to be consistent with the vision for the area as outlined in the local planning policy;

It could be considered, that concerns raised by DAC in their final recommendation regarding limited views to the harbour for the rear block of Multiple Dwellings, the façade design and the restricted solar access for the interior court of the proposed development could have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the area and the proposed development. However, as DAC has supported the proposal with conditions to rectify the façade design, it is difficult to say the proposed development is detrimental the amenity of the area.

c) The proposal would be consistent, if applicable with conservation objectives for

the site and locality generally, and The proposed development adjoins a heritage listed property being the Flag and Whistle Hotel. The development has not attempted to achieve the maximum 18m at street level however, which results in a frontage not significantly higher than the existing Hotel. The higher portion of the development is to the rear of the site which abuts an open car park. The proposed development includes a 1.6m setback to this boundary.


Page 15

A The City’s Heritage Department did not raise concerns regarding the buildings bulk and scale, rather the façade design (see discussion in Heritage Referral section above). The proposed development’s influence on the Flag and Whistle Hotel is minimal from Parry Street, and with DAC’s design changes to the façade it is considered the buildings position in relation to the greater area will be improved. No other heritage listed properties are affected by this proposed development.

d) Any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies. The proposed development has been assessed against relevant local planning policies and is supported. Further discussion is included below.

Should Council or JDAP not consider that criteria a) to d) have been satisfied and therefore an 18m height should not be supported and want to reduce the maximum building height, please note the following:

A minimum 10m façade height is required, and this is considered by City Officers to be the minimum height that could be imposed on the development. This would result in a loss of three (3) floors of apartments (fifteen apartments) on the front building. The rear building would also need to be reduced in height to meet the “visible from street” requirement”.

Floor to ceiling heights for the apartments are currently 2.65m. Each floor could be slightly reduced in height to reduce the overall building height, however this would compromise the internal amenity of the units. Concerns raised by the City’s Heritage staff, are largely related to façade design and construction materials, which are recommended to be addressed, in part, by the DAC condition no. 9. Given the subject site is not in a Heritage Area, the Dalgety Woolstores is separated by a number of other properties, and the building bulk and height is supported by Heritage, the reasons for refusal are not considered to be strong on the grounds of the height impact on heritage conservation.

If a determination for refusal was preferred by Council/JDAP should they disagree with the above assessment and not be satisfied that the permitted building height criteria were met, the following could be applied – That the Metro South West JDAP resolves to: Refuse DAP Application reference DAP/15/00889 and accompanying plans (Cover page DA00, Site & Ground Floor Plans DA01, First Floor Plan DA02, Second Floor Plan DA03, Third Floor Plan DA04, Fourth Floor Plan DA05, Fifth Floor Plan DA06, Sixth Floor Plan DA07, Typical Section DA08, Elevations DA09, Elevations DA10, Elevations DA11, Elevations DA12, Elevation Perspectives DA13, External Perspectives DA14, External Perspectives DA15, External perspectives DA16, Roof Plan DA17, Atrium Plan SK01-E, Rooftop Plan SK02-E) in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for the following reason:

1. The proposed development does not satisfactorily meet criteria a-d for the permitted building height of area 8, sub area 2.3.1 of City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4.


Page 16

The additional height proposed in the rear building (excluding the architectural features and minor projections), is proposed to be the maximum four (4) additional metres as permitted by Schedule 12 when the following criteria are met: The additional level being sufficiently set back from the street façade so as to not be visible from the street (s) adjoining the subject site; and

The portion that exceeds the 18m height is setback sufficiently as per the defined requirements of “visible from street” in the scheme

The design being integrated with the design of the overall building.

The additional height is considered to be integrated, and will further be developed as per recommendation by DAC

The proposed building height is supported against the requirements of Schedule 12, LPS4. Minimum Ground Floor level

Required Provided Discretion

No more than 600mm above level of adjacent footpath (GF)

Ground floor at footpath level

Complies

4.5m above level of adjacent footpath (1st F) 4.1m 400mm

In sub area 2.3.1 the first floor level is required to be 4.5m from the foot path level. It is considered that this requirement may have been intended to be applied predominantly to primary streets, where commercial development is required on ground floors. The commercial tenancy provided on the ground floor is not a scheme requirement for this property, however has been provided to improve activation at street level on this section of Beach Street. Given the proposed design, which includes floor to ceiling windows on one elevation only and the tenancy’s location immediately abutting the high traffic area of the main lobby of the development, this space is unlikely to be converted to residential. The City is not of the opinion that the reduced footpath to first floor level height will restrict the tenancies commercial use. Recently development at No. 51 Queen Victoria Street was approved by JDAP with a reduced first floor level of 4.0 to 4.3m. It is acknowledged that the development on this site is in a different streetscape and will therefore have minimal contribution to the development at No. 1 Beach Street however this JDAP decision is considered to be a precedent for supporting a minor reduction in ground floor ceiling heights. Additionally, the streetscape the proposed development is location within is currently not consistent in terms of floor to ceiling heights nor overall built form. However, it should be noted that there is only one heritage listed property in the immediate streetscape, being the Flag and Whistle Hotel, and that other properties in the area could be demolished without the need for planning approval, allowing for the creation of a consistent streetscape., .


Page 17

It is therefore considered that the variation to this requirement is supportable against clause 5.8.2 of LPS4 – The Council may vary other requirements of the Scheme subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following:

a) The variation will not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or with the locality generally;

b) Conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining; and c) Any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.

The applicant has proposed that the awning of No. 1 Beach Street, could be raised to be consistent with the level of the adjoining property (being the Flag and Whistle Hotel), which is at 4.2m to the underside of the awning from footpath level. Should Council/JDAP believe this is a suitable solution, the following condition could be applied: Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the awning of the ground floor shall be raised to be consistent in height with that of the adjoining development (No. 2-4 Parry Street, Fremantle), to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle. If Council/JDAP wishes to enforce the 4.5m height requirement, the building height of the front building would be raised and may cause issues with the overall building height, due to the storerooms and roof top deck cover. The roof top deck cover could also be removed, however would result in a reduction in amenity of the roof top deck, which considering the reduced balcony sizes for a number of the smaller apartments, could impact on the amount of effective outdoor living areas for apartments. The a minor variation to overall building height to accommodation an increased ground floor height from 4.1 to 4.5m could be supported using clause 5.8.1 Variation to height requirements of LPS4 as follows: 5.8.1.1 Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following – The three properties in the area that could be considered “adjacent” are – No. 11 Queen Victoria Street to the rear of the development) at 22.15m, No. 68 Elder Place at 23.24m (to the south of the development) and No. 70 Elder Place at 24.535m (to the south of the development).

a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally,

The 400mm of additional height would be on the front building and be for the rooftop deck cover only. It is considered that this will not add significant building bulk due to the minor portion of the roof it occupies, and the minimal view it will present to the street.

b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality;

Given the properties at No. 68 and 70 Elder have heights of over 23m, the additional 400mm (raising the front building to be a maximum of 22.4m), would


Page 18

assist in graduating the scale. The Flag and Whistle Hotel between the subject site and the Elder Street properties, may reduce the ability to trigger this however.

c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining,

The additional height will not impact on the conservation of heritage values of the buildings on site and adjoining, particularly as the portion that will exceed the 22m height will be setback from the street elevation.

d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.

Nil Alternatively, the applicant could reduce the floor to ceiling heights of each Multiple Dwelling in the front building by 80mm, which given the existing proposed heights of 2.65m, would reduce the internal heights to 2.57m. Should Council/JDAP wish to enforce the 4.5m ground floor height, the following condition could be applied – Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the first floor level of the front building, shall be raised to be 4.5m from the adjoining footpath level, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle. Design Sub area 2.3.1 of LPS4’s Fremantle Local Planning Area requires: j) New buildings in the area should embody contemporary and innovative architecture which is sensitive to Fremantle’s sense of place and satisfies any relevant planning and design policy adopted for the area. The proposed development has had significant time in the City’s Design Advisory Committee in formal and informal meetings. The development has undergone significant changes throughout this process, and has been recommended for minor changes to improve the façade, and concerns have been raised regarding the lack of views to the harbour for the rear building and restriction of light to internal courtyard. DAC’s comments are in support, but do still require design changes to the façade to improve its streetscape presentation. In this regard, and in relation to the other concerns raised by DAC, it could be considered by PSC/JDAP that the design has not successfully embodied contemporary and innovative architecture sensitive to Fremantle’s sense of place. The streetscape the development occupies is inconsistent in its design with no unifying character. It is considered the building bulk and architecture proposed by the development is suitable for it location abutting the port. The applicant has provided the following design discussion –


Page 19

The design successfully interprets the defined language of adjacent buildings through the strong expression of piers, horizontal and vertical structural elements in a post and beam arrangement. The strong definition of light and shadow on the highly articulated façade endemically links the design to the existing built form cues within the precinct. The material palette has been influence by the strong port related influences nearby with robust timber features that echo the tapestry of columns and beams beneath the Queen Victoria Street bridge – left to weather and age in the strong coastal conditions. Surrounding future development The surrounding lots are subject to the same development requirements as the subject site. As such, LPS4 Schedule 12 provides provisions for Council to remind future owners of the development that development may occur on surrounding lots. o) The Council may impose a condition on planning approval for any new development in Sub Area 1 requiring a memorial to be placed on the property title advising of the potential for future development on adjoining land to be constructed in accordance with the building height and setback requirements applicable to Sub Area 1, which include m, which include zero minimum side and rear setbacks. This is recommended by City officers, particularly in relation to the southern boundary where the development is only setback 1.6m and a portion of the adjoining site is currently vacant (i.e. Australia Hotel car park), as amenity of major openings (including sole bedroom windows) could be compromised in the future. Land use

Land use Permissibility (Table 1) Discretion

Multiple Dwelling A Required

Office P car parking only

Shop A Required

Small Bar A Required

Restaurant A Required

The applicant is requesting multiple land use approvals for the commercial tenancy as a tenant has not yet been chosen. Office is the only land use proposed by the applicant that is a P use in the Mixed Use zone under LPS4 – P – means that the use is permitted by the Scheme providing the use complies with the relevant development standards and requirements of the Scheme Shop, Small Bar and Restaurant are A uses in the Mixed Use zone – A – means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after giving special notice (advertising) in accordance with clause 9.4


Page 20

In accordance with LPS4, the development was advertised, with no submissions received in relation to proposed land uses. The proposed land uses can be supported against the objectives of the Mixed Use zone as follows (Cl 4.2.1 e)) - i. Provide for a mix of compatible land uses including light, services and cottage

industry, wholesaling, trade and professional services, entertainment, recreation and retailing of goods and services in small scale premises, including showrooms, where the uses would not be detrimental to the viability of retail activity and other function of the City Centre, Local Centre and Neighbourhood Centre zones This portion of Beach Street is characterised by a mix of land uses currently, including takeaway outlet (Captain Munchies), offices/consulting rooms (corner of Beach and Parry Street), Multiple Dwellings, Hotel and Market (The Mantle). The proposed land uses would contribute to an improved streetscape and more activity during the day or evening.

ii. Provide for residential at upper level, and also at ground level providing the residential component is designed to contribute positively to an active public domain; The development successfully proposes residential land uses (Multiple Dwellings) on upper levels, however proposes a commercial or entertainment tenancy on the ground floor to contribute to an active public domain, that would otherwise be characterised only by a vehicle entrance and lobby. The proposal of Multiple Dwellings, as opposed to Single Houses or Grouped Dwellings, is considered to create a significantly greater contribution to an active public domain, by increasing population in the area and encouraging further regeneration and development in the east end.

iii. Ensure future development within each of the mixed use zones is sympathetic with the desired future character of each area; The development has been assessed against Schedule 12 and LPP 3.1.3 which discusses the desired character of the area and is supported.

iv. Ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality, and The proposed land uses are not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners, particularly given the adjoining properties(ground floor) are currently a Public Bar (Hotel) and Shop. It is considered that the addition of a commercial tenancy will further contribute to the amenity of the area by linking commercial land uses in a more continuous frontage.

v. Conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development The proposed land uses are considered to have a minimal impact on adjoining heritage listed properties, and may assist in improving pedestrian traffic to the existing Hotel.


Page 21

The applicant has noted in their covering letter – The use of the commercial unit is unknown at this stage and therefore it is proposed to gain approval for a number of different uses in order to provide flexibility. The uses considered suitable for the size and location of the commercial unit are office, shop, small bar and restaurant. Under LPS4 an office is a P use, which means that the use is permitted by the Scheme providing the use complies with the relevant development standards and requirements of the Scheme, whilst a shop, small bar and restaurant are A uses. LPP 2.3- Fremantle Port Buffer Area Design Guidelines A risk assessment report was provided to the Fremantle Port Authority by the applicant as per requirements of LPP 2.3. The report details that the proposed development has provided satisfactory solutions for risk mitigation for the development, however Fremantle Ports have identified a number of errors in the report and are not prepared to endorse it. In spite of these errors, they are satisfied that the proposed development can be constructed with sufficient risk mitigation solutions, subject to conditions of approval. For further detail, please see the consultation section of the report Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements Larger scale developments in the City of Fremantle (i.e. over 1000sqm floor area) are required to be developed to a minimum rating of 4 star Green Star (as assessed by a relevant Green Building Council of Australia Green Star rating tool) or an equivalent measure as agreed by a qualified sustainability consultant. As the proposed development has a total gross lettable floor area of over 1000sqm, LPP 2.13- Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements applies. The applicant has acknowledged this requirement in the documentation lodged with their application and understands that a condition of approval will be applied to ensure compliance. LPP 2.19 Contributions for Public Art and/or Heritage Works LPP 2.19 requires that developments on land in areas specified by the policy, are required to provide public art on the site (or an equivalent monetary amount) worth 1% of the total estimated development cost. The applicant has elected to provide the monetary value and has acknowledged this in their lodgement documentation. A condition of approval is therefore recommended. Precinct 3 Design Requirements (LPP 3.1.3)

Desired Character The proposed development is located within Area B of the sub area. The policy notes that the existing built form is characterised by the following: Area B exhibits no strong unifying character. Rather the area is comprised of a mix of buildings of differing scales, massing and architectural styles and while the buildings are


Page 22

generally of medium to high quality, they do not combine to form strongly legible streetscapes or a coherent area overall. A unifying, robust, industrial character does not however derive generally from the buildings port-related uses. This character is expressed most prominently in the former Dalgety’s Woolstores building. The development has been reviewed against the policy and is considered to meet the Desired Character elements as expressed by the policy as follows: Sympathetic to the area’s retained heritage buildings and places.

The subject site abuts only one Heritage Listed property facing Beach Street, with others in the wider area. The frontage of the proposed development at No. 1 Beach Street, has referenced the adjoining heritage listed property (being the Flag and Whistle Hotel), in its form and has minimised building height immediately adjoining this development. Specifically the adjoining Flag and Whistle Hotel sits between 14-15m on the street boundary, with the front elevation of the Multiple Dwellings at No. 1 Beach Street at 16.5m on the street boundary, gradually increasing the maximum 22m about 8m into the site.

While the development will be visible from Parry Street due to the existing open air car park to the rear of the Flag and Whistle Hotel, this may be mitigated in the future by development in this portion of the site.

It is considered that the bulk of the development is sufficiently setback to ensure it remains sympathetic to the area’s retained heritage buildings and places.

Built on the building line to accentuate the edge of the street to reinforce the distinct urban wall fronting the port

The proposed development is built up to the street elevation to present directly to the port, and continuing the distinct urban wall that characterises Beach Street.

Respond to the massing of existing buildings along the west side of Precincts 3 and 5 to enhance the existing distinctive skyline of the city’s harbour side edge.

The proposed development contributes to the distinctive skyline abutting the harbour.

Reflect the area’s robust, industrial character by being functional and working purpose, rather than being over-refined or decorative with a strong definition of light and shadow on highly articulated facades and use of face brickwork

The proposed frontage of the development is highly articulated and not overly decorative. A condition recommended, requires the applicant to return to DAC to refine the design of this elevation to reflect its setting.

Comments from the City’s Heritage Coordinator, suggest amendments be made to the façade, to improve this (see referrals section above). City Officers recommend that DAC’s amendments (condition 9) will satisfy this requirement.

Secondary street requirements


Page 23

Beach Street is nominated as a secondary street in LPP 3.1.3, and the proposed development is considered to meet the relevant secondary street requirements outlined by the policy as follows: Ground level frontages to secondary streets may incorporate a mix of land uses and must incorporate design measures and passive surveillance to contribute to an interesting, safe and diverse public realm. Blank walls to secondary street frontages should be minimised to no more than 3m in width.

While not a requirement, the applicant has provided a commercial tenancy at ground level to assist in creating interest and surveillance at ground level. The remainder of the frontage is broken up by the lobby area and vehicle entrance. A number of services are provided in this area however are screened and articulated to reduce blank walls in this area.

Commercial floor space shall provide major pedestrian entries directly from and level with from the street.

The commercial tenancy is at ground level and the entrance will be clearly visible and accessible directly from the street.

Vehicle entrance points and services areas are to be integrated into the overall building design and shall minimise detraction from the pedestrian environment and street vitality. Vehicle crossovers are to be minimised, consolidated and shared where possible.

A sole vehicle entrance point is provided and is considered to be integrated into the building successfully, and does not detract from the pedestrian environment or street vitality, particularly as the security door is setback from the frontage of the building.

On-site vehicle parking at ground level adjacent to a secondary street should be screened and incorporate design measures to contribute to an interesting and safe public realm.

While the onsite vehicle parking is at ground level, it is setback behind the lobby and commercial tenancy, with only the entrance point/driveway visible from the street.

Views and glimpses of Fremantle landmarks, particularly to the port and of port infrastructure, the Arts Centre and the former Army Barracks, are encouraged wherever possible at ground level along secondary streets and via off-street pedestrian links and other openings between buildings, and from upper levels of new buildings.

Given the sites’ orientation, views to landmarks are limited by existing built form and topography. The rear of site is oriented towards landmarks such as the Arts Centre; however it is likely the development of the vacant site at No. 8 Queen Victoria Street would limit this in the future. Views to the port at ground level are limited by the existing railway line and associated infrastructure, however from upper levels, views to the port and other land marks are unrestricted to the west.


Page 24

Passive surveillance of streets and other public spaces is to be provided by frequent upper floor windows, terraces and balconies overlooking the public space.

All Multiple Dwellings in the western-most building face Beach Street, and further openings are provided on all elevations to provide passive surveillance to all directions.

As redevelopment of the precinct is likely to be carried out over a number of years, consideration should be given to the appropriate treatment of all walls and parapets that will be visible or remain semi-permanently exposed.

The building is setback on all elevations from lot boundaries (or separated from adjoining properties by a right of way), and the treatment of walls is detailed to ensure those walls that remain exposed incorporate numerous openings which does not result in large expanses of blank walls.

Consider the impact of new development in long views from approach routes by vehicle and rail, from Cantonment Hill, Victoria Quay and Fremantle Harbour, particularly with regard to the arrangement and bulk of taller buildings and to the design of roofs and screening of rooftop service elements. New development shall contribute positively to these views.

The applicant has proposed a roof top terrace that will be landscaped, on the lower front building (which will be overlooked by existing apartments and from wider view points), to assist in ensuring roofscapes are not dominated by rooftop equipment or reflective roofing materials. The rear building may be seen from a distance (i.e. from Cantonment Hill), but has a relatively simple roof form which is unlikely to contribute to detrimental impacts on views.

Sight lines

Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

Truncation or 0.75m height within 1.5m of vehicle access point

Not provided

Required

The proposed ground floor parking area includes solid walls to either side of the vehicle entry point at the site boundary. It is not considered that the current arrangement meets the Design Principles of the R-Codes as follows – P3 Unobstructed sight lines provided at vehicle access points to ensures safety and visibility along vehicle access ways, streets, rights of way, communal streets, crossovers and footpaths. The City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery team has also reviewed the plans, and has recommended truncations be provided. A condition of approval is recommended to ensure compliance with this requirement. The condition provides sufficient flexibility for the applicant to provide alternatives to meet the Design Principles.


Page 25

Outdoor living areas

Deemed to Comply

Provided Design Principle Assessment

10sqm 10sqm or greater provided for 61 of the 71 units (10 Multiple Dwellings with less than 10sqm - 5 x 7.3sqm and 5 x 8.94sqm)

1.06-2.7sqm

The applicant has provided the following justification in regards to their reduced balcony sizes: Approval for the outdoor living areas in accordance with the design principles of 6.3.1P1 of the R Codes is requested on the basis that 5 of the balconies do not meet the 2.4m minimum dimension and 11 of the balconies do not meet the 10m2 minimum area of the Deemed to Comply provisions. The balconies are considered to meet the design principles in that they vary the Deemed to Comply provision only slightly being 1.83m and 7.3/8.94m2 in area. These 11 balconies are for use by 1 bedroom dwellings and are therefore considered sufficient in size given the size of the dwelling. In addition the residents of these dwellings will have access to the communal roof top outdoor living area. The balcony sizes proposed are supported against the Design Principles of the R Codes for the following reasons:

Each Multiple Dwelling is provided with a balcony of a reasonable size that are capable of use with a habitable room, with smaller balconies proposed for smaller units.

In addition to a balcony, the residents of the apartments will be able to use the communal rooftop area of the front building which will have access to northern sunlight and access to views of significance.

Some of the larger Multiple Dwellings, are provided with larger balconies (ie. 22- 25sqm), and ground floor units to the rear of the development also have large courtyards (ie. 35sqm)

Council and JDAP have previously supported reduced balcony sizes in developments in the general locality, which for studio and one (1) bedroom apartments varied from 5.3 - 7sqm at No. 11 Queen Victoria Street and 8sqm for single bedroom apartments at No. 81 Queen Victoria Street.

Car parking - residential


Less than 110sqm and/or 1 or 2 bedrooms – 1 (65) 84 Nil (11 additional)

110sqm or greater and/or 3 or more bedrooms – 1.25 (8) 73 TOTAL FOR APARTMENTS

Visitor 0.25 per dwelling (18) Nil 18 bays

TOTAL – 91 bays 84 bays 7 bays (visitors bays only)

The proposed Multiple Dwellings are in location A as assessed by the R-Codes, which means that the site is within:


Page 26

800m of a train station on a high frequency rail route, measured in a straight line from the pedestrian entry to the train station platform to any part of a lot; or

250m of a high frequency bus route, measured in a straight line from along any part of the route to any part of a lot.

While there are sufficient bays provided for residents (there is an 11 bays surplus), there are no allocated visitor bays on site. While there are eighty four (84) bays on site, only 73 are required to meet Deemed to Comply requirements for residents, leaving 11 that could be used for visitors. This would then leave the development 7 bays short overall for the residential component. The amount of parking provided on site for the Multiple Dwellings and visitors is supported for the following reasons:

The streets surrounding the development have street bays available, as well as there being number of public car parks in the vicinity of the development on Beach Street, at the Leisure Centre and closer to the City Centre.

Public transport in the form of train and buses (including the CAT) service is available in close proximity.

There are two scooter bays provided on site, and all apartments are provided with a bicycle rack, as well as having provision for visitor bicycle racks.

Car parking – commercial


Office – 1:30sqm gla (min 3 bays) + Delivery Bay – 1:500sqm (4 + 1)

Nil 4 bays + delivery bay

Shop – 1:20sqm nla (min 2 bays) (6) Nil 6 bays

Small Bar* 1:2.5sqm public bar area + 1 delivery bay per service area (38 + 1)


Restaurant 1:5sqm dining area + 1 delivery bay per service area (19 +1)


* No calculation in LPS4 Table 2 Vehicle Parking for Small Bar land use. As per 5.7.1c) – Where vehicle parking provisions are not prescribed for a particular use the requirement will be determined by the Council. In this regard, the parking requirement for Hotel/Tavern (public bar area) is considered appropriate. Clause m) of Sub Area 4.3.1 (Schedule 12 LPS4), states - Council may waive car parking requirements in accordance with clause 5.7.3 for ground level non-residential uses anywhere in Sub Area 1 subject to the development/use being able to generate interest and activity within the adjacent public domain The proposal to have a non-residential land use on the ground floor is not required in the section of the sub area as Beach Street is considered to be a Secondary Street in accordance with LPP 3.1.3. The tenancy is provided as a design solution to increase activity and interest at pedestrian level, and the proposed land uses of Office, Shop, Small Bar and/or Restaurant are considered to be suitable uses for the area that will generate additional activity outside traditional residential activity. Relevant clauses 5.7.3 of LPS 4 are –


Page 27

i) the availability of car parking in the locality including street parking Street parking is available on streets adjoining the development and within the immediate area. ii) the availability of public transport in the locality, The Fremantle Train Station is approximately 450m from the development, and bus routes service Beach Street and Queen Victoria Street regularly. Bicycle parking – commercial


Office – Class 1 or 2 (1 per 200sqm gla - 1) Nil One (1) class 1 or 2

Shop – Class 1 ( 1 per 200sqm gla - 1) One (1) class 1

Small Bar – Class 1 (1 per 25sqm bar floor area - 4), Class 3 (1 per 25sqm bar floor area - 4)

Four (4) class 1 and four (4) class 3

Restaurant – Class 1 or 2 (1 per 100sqm public area - 1), Class 3 (2).

One (1) class 1 or 2 and two (2) class 3

The maximum number of bicycle racks required for a land use is for a Small Bar –

Four (4) class 1 – high security level – fully enclosed individual locker;

Four (4) class 3 – low security level – rails or racks to which both the bicycle frame and wheels can be locked

The number of bicycle racks provided in the parking area is thirty two (32) which is the exact amount required to meet Deemed to Comply for the Multiple Dwellings (resident and visitor). No additional racks are provided on the plans for the commercial tenancy. LPS4 provides discretionary criteria to waive the bicycle rack requirements as follows: 5.7.3.3 Council may waive the class 1 or 2 bicycle rack requirements of Table 2, where, in the opinion of the Council, the development application is for a minor change of use. 5.7.3.4 Council may waive the class 3 bicycle rack requirements of Table 2, where:

i) The provision of such bicycle racks would be incompatible with the overall design of the development; and

ii) The required number of class 3 racks to be provided can adequately be provided on public land in the immediate vicinity of the development; and

iii) A cash contribution, equivalent to the cost of installation of the required class 3 bicycle racks is negotiated and made to the City of Fremantle for provision of bicycle racks in the immediate vicinity of the development

It is not considered that the development meets the above discretionary criteria, which would generally be more suited to retrofitted buildings that have physical restrictions to providing racks or minor changes of use with no physical works, rather than developments on vacant sites. Given the amount of space required for class 3 bicycle racks (i.e. a rail), it is considered that four racks (i.e. for a Small Bar) could be comfortably provided in the parking area and it is recommended that this be conditioned to be provided.


Page 28

Design of car parking spaces – visitor car spaces


Visitor car parking spaces:

Marked and clearly signposted as dedicated for visitor use only, and located close to or visible from the point of entry to the development and outside any security barrier;

Not marked and located behind security gate/door

Required

There are no proposed visitor bays within the proposed development site, however there are eleven (11) bays surplus to Deemed to Comply requirements fro residents. These bays are however not marked, nor are they accessible without access being granted by a resident. While this may service the existing residents who require additional parking (i.e. overflow bays), it will be difficult for visitors to access. All bays internally are in a car stacker configuration, and would need to be operated by a resident (in addition to access being granted). As such it is considered that visitors are likely to utilise street and off street public parking or public transport, rather than park inside, unless staying for an extended period. It is therefore not recommended to mark bays internally for the sole use of visitors. There are a number of studio apartments provided within the development. To further place these at an affordable price point, it could be feasible to have no allocated parking for these units, increasing the bays available for visitors. There are five (5) studio apartments in the development, which would increase the number of visitors bays provided in the stackers (if marked and allocated) to sixteen (16). It is not considered that marking the bays will have any benefit to visitors, and given their location within the development and in car stackers, that the additional bays are more suitable to be allocated to individual units, and used for visitors at owners/occupiers discretion. If PSC/JDAP wish for visitor bays to be marked within the development, the following condition could be applied – Prior to occupation of the development, eleven (11) bays are to be marked as visitor and maintained for the life of the development, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.


Page 29

Utilities and facilities


71 x Enclosed, lockable storage area, within minimum dimension of 1.5m and internal area of at least 4sqm for each multiple dwelling

67 provided, none to full dimension (range in size from 1.2sqm to 1.8sqm)

4

Clothes-drying areas screened from view from the primary or secondary street

Not provided Required

While each unit is provided with a store room, no storerooms are provided that are of correct dimensions (i.e. are all under 4sqm). The store rooms are located on a number of floors, including the ground floor and roof top. While the store rooms are smaller than required, bicycle racks are provided for each residents, as well as internal storage space (i.e. wardrobes, cabinets), which will reduce the amount put in storage units. In accordance with the Design Principles of the R-Codes, the reduced size of the storerooms is supported on balance for the following reasons:

Each unit is provided with some secure storage for their sole use;

The storerooms are mostly in the ground floor parking area and within closed off areas on other floors that don't impact on the amenity of residents or neighbouring properties.

Should PSC/JDAP wish to require the provision of full size storerooms (or even minor increases for all storerooms to be 2sqm for example), the following should be considered:

Storeroom sizes could be increased in the parking area, however this would result in the loss of car bays. This could be supported, given there are excess resident bays provided, with no visitor bays marked or allocated (and supported not to be provided);

The storerooms provided on balconies could be increased to comply, however this would result in smaller outdoor living space for residents. The balcony area would still comply however, as the balconies with stores are greater in size;

The storerooms on the roof could be increased in area, however this would result in reduced communal area on the terrace. This area is large however, and the storerooms could still be oriented to have minimal impact on the street;

In some developments, over car bay storage is proposed, however as the applicant is proposing car stackers this would be difficult to achieve.

A condition of approval could be applied as follows (with options for minimum floor area): Prior to the issue of the Building Permit, all storerooms are to be a minimum internal floor area of 2sqm to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle. Due to the apartment configuration, no private clothes drying area is provided for each unit, nor is a communal clothes drying area provided. The applicant has advised: Clothes drying areas have not been provided as it is proposed to have mechanical clothes drying within each unit.


Page 30

It is considered that each occupant could provide a clothes dryer within their unit and there are several alternative methods for clothes drying that would not be visible from the street such as internal clothes horses or a communal ground floor laundromat, however, if PSC or JDAP consider that this should be provided with each unit, a condition of approval could be applied - Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP011/15, clothes dryers are to be installed in each unit to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle. Conclusion: The application has been assessed against relevant statutory planning instruments and is supported for conditional planning approval, however there are a number of matters for Council’s /JDAP’s consideration. Since the inception of DAC, this is the first example of development, where there is not a decisive recommendation for support of the development. The City’s DAC has reviewed the proposal a number of times, and has not provided a resounding level of support for the development’s architectural merit. Nevertheless, it is support for the development, as opposed to a recommendation for refusal, which does not create sufficient grounds in officers opinion, to warrant refusal on architectural grounds. Additionally, while the City’s Heritage Coordinator has reservations about the façade, it is considered that through the final DAC review, this could be resolved (through condition 9), and is not a strong reason to recommend refusal particularly, as there are no significant concerns in relation to immediately abutting Heritage Listed building, and the wider streetscape does not form part of a Heritage Area under LPS4. It is considered unlikely, based on relevant statutory instruments, that a determination of refusal of the development on the architectural design, or planning variations, could be successfully defended in SAT. It should be noted however, that this specific matter has not been tested in the City of Fremantle. In this particular sub area (2.3.1 area 8) of the LPS4, there are no significant ‘design excellence’ measures that could be used to strengthen a recommendation for refusal, such as there are for other areas within the sub area such as area 1a which refers to “exceptional design quality and distinctive architecture befitting its location”. Or as in the City Centre sub are 1.3.2, which refers to “distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design quality meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design”. While the specific site requirements of the Scheme and policies have resulted in a recommendation for approval, LPS4 (deemed provisions from the Planning and Development Regulations) does include more general matters for consideration (clause 10.2) , which Council/JDAP could use to form an alternate opinion to the Officers Recommendation if concerned about the amenity or appearance of the proposal such as: l) the effect of the proposal on the cultural heritage significant of the area in which the development is located; m) the compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including,


Page 31

but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development; n) the amenity of the locality including the following- i. environmental impacts of the development ii. the character of the locality iii. social impacts of the development In summary, there are a number of conditions of approval included throughout the report that could provide minor improvements to the development that JDAP/Council could apply. Regardless of possible design flaws, officers have assessed the development and have concluded that the development meets statutory requirements to a satisfactory standard and have therefore recommended approval.


Page 32

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)


PSC1512-2 DEFERRED ITEM SUMPTON STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 88), HILTON ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0195/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 December 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1508-12 (5 August 2015) PSC1510-3 (7 October 2015) Attachment 1: Development Plans (as amended) Attachment 2: PSC report for 1510-3 Attachment 3: PSC report for 1508-12 Attachment 4: Site photos Date Received: 24 April 2015

9 September 2015 (amended plans) 26 October 2015 (amended plans)

Owner Name: Dominic Manganaro Submitted by: Tom Godden Scheme: Residential (R20) Heritage Listing: Not individually listed;

Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 33

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 7 October 2015, the PSC resolved to:

“defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that; 1. either delete or modify the carport to be closer to compliance and 2. for clearer plans to be provided 3. roof pitch and form to be corrected on the plans”

It is noted that the applicant has addressed the three reasons for the deferral as detailed above. It is acknowledged that the design has been revised, however it is still not considered that the amended proposal satisfies the 5 August 2015 PSC reasons for deferral namely the concerns raised by the City in relation to LPP3.7. Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

At its meeting held 5 August 2015, the PSC resolved to:

“defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that address the matters raised in the report that relate to the appearance of the dwelling as viewed from the street.”

Further background information is included in the report previously considered by PSC on 5 August 2015 which is included in Attachment 2. At its meeting held 7 October 2015, the PSC resolved to:

“defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that; 1. either delete or modify the carport to be closer to compliance and 2. for clearer plans to be provided 3. roof pitch and form to be corrected on the plans”

Further background information is included in the report previously considered by PSC on 7 October 2015 which is included in Attachment 3. On 26 October 2015, the City received amended plans from the applicant (refer Attachment 1). STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Refer to the previous PSC report from the meeting held 5 July 2015 (PSC1508-12) and 7 October 2015 (PSC1510-3) for further detail, which is contained as ‘Attachment 2’ and ‘Attachment 3’ of this report respectively. Policy discretions and assessment against the


Page 34

R Codes design principles sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community

The amended plans were not required to be readvertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4.

PLANNING COMMENT

LPP 3.7 - Hilton Garden Suburbs Precinct Policy

Clause Required Proposed Discretion

5.1.1 – Conservation of external form

External alterations shall conserve the overall architectural style and the original external form of the dwelling as viewed from the street but may include modern and/or contrasting materials

Enclosure of front porch/balcony; Changes to existing openings

Refer below

5.1.2 - Conservation of size and position of opening

The original size and position of openings (doors and windows) visible from the street shall be conserved. Non-traditional materials may be used in the replacement of the doors or windows, subject to the appearance of the replacement doors or windows reflecting the styles of original Hilton dwellings

Changes to existing openings (ie doors and windows existing not conserved)

Refer below

5.1.3 - Conservation of verandahs

The original size and position of verandahs and porches visible from the street shall be conserved

Original size and position of front porch/balcony visible from the street not conserved (enclosed, change roof pitch)

Refer below

5.1.4 - Verandah not to be enclosed

Front verandahs and porches are not to be enclosed

Enclosure of front porch/balcony

Refer below

5.1.5 - Conservation of original roof form

The original form of the roof of the dwelling shall be retained as viewed from the street

Existing – 3 hipped roof elements visible from intersection of Sumpton Street and Oldham Crescent Proposed – 2 hipped roof elements visible from intersection of Sumpton Street and Oldham Crescent

Refer below


Page 35

The proposal therefore, is required to be assessed against the following discretionary criteria in relation to the above discretions of LPP3.7, which states:

“Council may, at its discretion, vary the requirements of clauses 5.1.1 – 5.1.5 where it is satisfied that the development meets one of the following criteria: a) The proposed development involves minor variations and is specifically

designed according to solar passive design principles to achieve a significantly higher level of energy efficiency than could otherwise be achieved by complying with clauses 5.1.1 to 5.1.5 above; or

b) The original dwelling is not an original timber framed or brick dwelling constructed during the establishment of the Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct (dwellings constructed prior to 1965)”

No evidence has been provided by the applicant to demonstrate compliance, or possible compliance with (a). Notwithstanding this, it is not considered the proposed development involves ‘minor variations’ to the requirements of 5.1.1. The dwelling is an original timber framed dwelling constructed during the establishment of the Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct (dwellings constructed prior to 1965) and as such, (b) is not considered to be met. Accordingly the proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant discretionary criteria of LPP3.7.

Clause Required Proposed Discretion

5.2.3 - External roof form

The external form of the front of the conserved dwelling is to be retained

Complete change to roof form (hipped to gable) Enclosure of front porch/balcony; Changes to existing openings

Refer below

The proposal therefore, is required to be assessed against the following discretionary criteria in relation to clause 5.2.3 of LPP3.7, which states:

“Council may, at its discretion, vary the requirements of clauses 5.2.1 – 5.2.3 where it is satisfied that the development meets one of the following criteria: a) The front and side elevations of the development present generally as a single

storey dwelling when viewed from the street; or b) The original dwelling is not an original timber framed or brick dwelling

constructed during the establishment of the Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct (dwellings constructed prior to 1965).”

The proposed front and side elevations of the development do present generally as a single storey dwelling when viewed from the street, so the proposal could be supported under (a) above.


Page 36

Visual privacy

Required Proposed

1 4.50m setback from lot boundary to bedroom 2 (southern elevation)

4.35m from south-eastern boundary

2 7.50m setback from lot boundary to rear deck (southern and eastern elevations)

5.68m from south-eastern boundary

3 7.50m setback from lot boundary to rear deck (southern and western elevations)

2.42m from western boundary

The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ for the following reasons:

In relation to (1) and (2) above, these are supportable as there is not considered to be any direct overlooking of major openings to habitable rooms or the outdoor living area of that dwelling, based upon development plans approved for that south-eastern adjoining property (DA198/06).

In relation to (3) above, this is not supportable as the property to the west, whilst currently vacant, it can be reasonably anticipated that there will be major openings to habitable rooms and/or outdoor living area located towards the rear of the lot that may be directly overlooked. In this regard, should Council be of the mind to support the proposal, it would be recommended that the southern and western elevations of the proposed rear deck be screened appropriately to prevent direct overlooking of that western adjoining property, of which could be imposed as a condition of approval and be read as:

“Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0195/15, on plans dated 26 October 2015 the southern and western elevations of the rear deck shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

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

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

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

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

d) an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

Scheme

Clause 10.2.1 of LPS4 outlines the matters to be considered by the Council. For the reasons outlined above, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the following matters of clause 10.2.1 of LPS4:


Page 37

“(a) the aims, zoning objectives and provisions of this Scheme and any other relevant planning Scheme(s) operating within the Scheme area, including the Metropolitan Region Scheme,

(f) any planning policy adopted by the Council under clause 2.4, any heritage policy statement for any designated heritage area adopted under clause 7.2.2 and any other plan, strategy or guideline adopted by the Council under the Scheme,

(i) the compatibility of a use or development within its setting,

(o) the preservation of the amenity of the locality,

(s) the way in which buildings relate to the street and adjoining lots, including their effects on landmarks, vistas, the landscape or the traditional streetscape, and on the privacy, daylight and sunlight available to private open space and buildings,

(w) the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal,”

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents:

1. Economic Development Strategy 2011-15: the proposal potentially increases the number of residents in the area;

CONCLUSION

The proposed additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 14 (Lot 88) Sumpton Street, Hilton, has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes. The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes pertaining to visual privacy. However, the proposal is not considered to comply with LPP3.7 in relation to clauses pertaining to upgrading of existing dwelling; and for extensions and additions. It is noted that the City is generally supportive of the rear additions as currently proposed, however the main reasons for refusal relate to the front additions and the detrimental impact it is considered to have upon the streetscape and broader Hilton locality. It is not considered appropriate to recommend a condition of approval deleting the proposed front additions as they constitute the majority of the proposed works, and as such this has not been recommended. Moreover, the changes made to the plans since the previous consideration by PSC have not resulted in the proposal addressing the matters previously raised. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal. Alternative recommendation


Page 38

Should Council be willing to support the proposal in its current form, the following alternative recommendation is provided:

That the application be APPROVED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 14 (Lot 88) Sumpton Street, Hilton, subject to the following conditions:

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

dated 26 October 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year prior, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0195/15, on plans

dated 26 October 2015 the southern and western elevations of the rear deck shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

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


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

of Fremantle. The required screening shall be provided and maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. The new/ modified vehicle crossover shall be separated from any verge

infrastructure by:

a) a minimum of 2.0 metres in the case of verge trees b) a minimum of 1.2 metres (in the case of bus shelters, traffic management devices,

parking embayment’s or street furniture), and c) a minimum of 1.0 metre in the case of power poles, road name and directional

signs.

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


Page 39

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 14 (Lot 88) Sumpton Street, Hilton, as detailed on plans dated 26 October 2015, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the area

under clause 10.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4. 2. The proposal is inconsistent with Clauses 1.2; 5.1.1; 5.1.2; 5.1.3; 5.1.4; and

5.1.5 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 3.7 – “Hilton Garden Suburbs Precinct” Heritage Area Local Planning Policy.


Page 40

PSC1512-3 DEFERRED ITEM - HICKORY STREET, NO. 4 (LOT 26), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0329/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 December 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1509-7 (2 September 2015) Attachments: 1 – Amended development plans (28 October 2015)

2 – Previous officers report (PSC1509-7) Date Received: 15 July 2015 (amended plans 28 October 2015) Owner Name: R & S Backhouse Submitted by: Mikasa Designs Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for the partial demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two storey alterations and additions to existing Single House. The application was previously presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) on 2 September 2015, where the PSC resolved to:


Page 41

“defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow the applicant to submit amended plans to increase the upper floor front setback and decrease overshadowing.”

On 28 October 2015, the applicant submitted amended development plans which incorporated the following changes based on PSC’s reasons for deferral:

Element Original plans Amended plans Change

Upper floor setback

4.2m - 4.9m 5.2m - 5.8m + 0.9m to 1.0m

Overshadowing 34% (155m2) 29.4% (134m2) -5% (-21m2)

The overshadowing has been reduced from what was previously proposed, however it still exceeds the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes and is still not considered to be supportable against the design principles. Whilst it is noted that the applicant has made an effort to address the concerns raised by PSC at its meeting of 2 September 2015, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the discretionary criteria of LPP2.9 in terms of upper floor setback. This element of the proposal is not considered to be supportable, and is therefore recommended to be refused, on-balance. BACKGROUND Further background relating to the subject site and proposed development is contained in the ‘Background’ section of Attachment 2. The application was previously presented to the PSC on 2 September 2015, where the PSC resolved to;

“defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow the applicant to submit amended plans to increase the upper floor front setback and decrease overshadowing.”

On 28 October 2015 the applicant submitted amended plans seeking to address that resolution (see Attachment 1). DETAIL Discussion of the proposed development is made in the ‘Details’ section of Attachment 2. The amended plans, submitted by the applicant on 28 October 2015, incorporated the following changes based on PSC’s reasons for deferral:

Element Original plans Amended plans Change

Upper floor setback 4.2m - 4.9m 5.2m - 5.8m +1.0m - 0.9m

Overshadowing 34% (155m2) 29.4% (134m2) -5% (-21m2)

More specific changes included:

The layout of the upper floor was modified to reduce the extent of shadow cast to the southern adjoining site including modification to the form of the south-eastern corner of the upper floor to reduce the shadow cast to an adjoining patio area; and,


Page 42

The minimum setback of upper floor walls to the southern boundary remains unchanged, but portions of the wall are setback up to 3.6m further than previously proposed.

Amended development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within, LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions and seek policy discretions:

Street setback (upper floor)

Building height (external wall)

Visual privacy (north)

Lot boundary setbacks (south); and,

Solar access for adjoining sites. Discussion of these elements is included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION Community The City previously advertised the proposal to adjoining landowners and received objections. A full summary of the previous advertising outcome is included in the ‘Consultation’ section of Attachment 2. The previously received submissions are still considered valid despite the amendments to the proposal. Following submission of the amended plans, the City referred these plans to the landowner of the southern adjoining property at No. 6 Hickory Street (which had recently changed ownership) for comment. The planning concerns raised in this submission related to:

Overshadowing;

Building bulk;

Visual privacy;

Ventilation


Page 43

PLANNING COMMENT Street setback

Element Required Previously proposed

Provided Discretion

Upper floor (wall height greater than 4m)

10m

4.2-4.9m 5.2-5.8m 4.2-4.80m

The setback of the upper floor has been increase by approximately 1.0m from 4.2-4.9m to 5.2-5.8m since it was last considered by PSC at its meeting of 2 September 2015. The applicant in submitting the amended plans included further diagrams demonstrating how the proposed setback reflects the line of buildings within the adjoining streetscape and that the height of the proposal is of a similar height to main roof, wall and gable elements on select sites on the same side of Hickory Street. Extracts from this diagram are provided below;

Despite provision of the additional information the upper floor of the development is not considered to meet the discretionary criteria of LPP2.9. Clause 1.2 of LPP2.9 specifies the following discretionary criteria;

‘(i) The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of buildings of comparable height within the prevailing streetscape; or

(ii) The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element

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

(iii) The proposed setback of the building will facilitate the retention of a mature,

significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthy of retention; or


Page 44

(iv) Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or, (v) Where the proposed development is on a lot directly adjoining a corner lot,

Council will consider a reduced setback that considers the setback of the corner lot in addition to buildings in the prevailing streetscape.’

The proposal includes an upper floor addition fronting Hickory Street. Buildings contained within the ‘prevailing streetscape’ (No. 2, 6, 8 & 10) are all single storey dwellings with limited wall heights; or in the case of 10 Hickory Street, have an upper floor setback beyond the prescribed criteria (ie setback beyond 10m). Whilst it is acknowledged that the applicant has improved the previous design by increasing the upper floor setback, on-balance, the proposal is not considered to meet the discretionary criteria of clause 1.2 of LPP2.9 for the following reasons:

It is not consistent with the setback of buildings of comparable height within the prevailing streetscape (i); and

It is considered to result in a projecting element into an established streetscape vista.

In light of the above, the proposal is required to be assessed against the ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes for design element 5.1.2 – street setback. The proposal is not considered to contribute to, and is not consistent with an established streetscape and as such should not be supported. Furthermore, the amended proposal which pushed back the upper floor setback 1.0m more from the street than the original proposal is not considered to be sufficient given that there is plenty of space on the lot to accommodate an increased setback. Notwithstanding the above, should Council consider that the development has sufficient regard to context of the site; an alternative recommendation is provided in the ‘Conclusion’ section of this report. Solar access for adjoining sites

Deemed-to-comply Provided Previously provided

Design Principle Assessment

25% (113.5m2) 29.4% (134m2) 34% (155m2) 4.4% (20.5m2)

The amended plans submitted by the applicant reduce the overall area of shadow cast by the proposal. The extent of shadow cast is considered to be improved, however the proposal, on-balance, is not considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

The proposal results in a shadow cast to southern adjoining site including over a portion of roofing. This shadow will affect existing major openings on the adjoining site (6 Hickory Street). These rooms currently consist the main living, dining and kitchen areas as well as a bedroom. It is noted that the shadow does not affect existing solar panels on the adjoining site;

The majority of shadow cast effects a side access area but this also includes an outdoor living area at the rear of the site.


Page 45

It is recognised that the orientation of the land means the achieving the deemed-to-comply criteria may be difficult when an upper floor is proposed. However the wall has a direct impact on existing openings and outdoor areas on the adjoining site and is not supported as a result. It is noted that the overshadowing of the rear outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property (6 Hickory Street) is improved, specifically the area immediately east of the covered alfresco area and that this is due to the applicant increasing the setback of the upper floor for its eastern-most portion. Council may be of the opinion that this addresses their concerns as one of their reasons for deferral of the application at its meeting on 2 September 2015. Should this be the case, and in the event that Council is now satisfied with the amended proposal as a whole, an alternative recommendation has been provided as part of the Conclusion. Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall), building height & visual privacy

These matters are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of Attachment 2. The amended plans do not affect the comments previously made by officers regarding these elements. It is also noted that these elements are not raised in the reason for deferral by the PSC at its previous meeting. No further discussion is provided as a result. Scheme

Clause 10.2.1 of LPS4 outlines the matters to be considered by the Council. For the reasons outlined above, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the following matters of clause 10.2.1 of LPS4:

“(a) the aims, zoning objectives and provisions of this Scheme and any other relevant planning Scheme(s) operating within the Scheme area, including the Metropolitan Region Scheme,

(f) any planning policy adopted by the Council under clause 2.4, any heritage policy statement for any designated heritage area adopted under clause 7.2.2 and any other plan, strategy or guideline adopted by the Council under the Scheme,

(i) the compatibility of a use or development within its setting,

(o) the preservation of the amenity of the locality,

(s) the way in which buildings relate to the street and adjoining lots, including their effects on landmarks, vistas, the landscape or the traditional streetscape, and on the privacy, daylight and sunlight available to private open space and buildings,

(w) the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal,”

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is inconsistent with the City’s following strategic documents;

Strategic Plan 2010 – 15;

o Improve physical presentation of the City’s streetscapes.

o Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage.


Page 46

CONCLUSION The overshadowing has been reduced from what was previously proposed, however it still exceeds the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes and is still not considered to be supportable against the design principles. Whilst it is noted that the applicant has made an effort to address the concerns raised by PSC at its meeting of 2 September 2015, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the discretionary criteria of LPP2.9 in terms of upper floor setback. This element of the proposal is not considered to be supportable, and is therefore recommended to be refused, on-balance. Alternative recommendation Should Council be willing to support the proposal in its current form, the following alternative recommendation is provided:

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two storey alterations and additions to existing Single House at No. 4 (Lot 26) Hickory Street, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 28 October 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern boundary shall

be of a clean finish in either;

coloured sand render;

face brick;

painted surface; or,

other approved finish

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

4. Prior to use of the development approved as part of DA0329/15, on plans

dated 28 October 2015, the north and east elevations of the roof deck and all other screening depicted on the plans hereby approved shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either;

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

level, or ii. fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a



Page 47

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

iv. an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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


That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two storey alterations and additions to existing Single House at No. 4 (Lot 26) Hickory Street, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 28 October 2015, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the area under clause 10.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

2. The upper floor setback of the proposal is inconsistent with the pattern of

development within the prevailing streetscape and represents a projecting element into the streetscape pattern. The proposal is therefore inconsistent with clause 1.2 (i) and (ii) of Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential streetscapes.

3. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the design principles of Design

Element 5.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes pertaining to street setback.

4. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the design principles of Design Element 5.4.2 of the Residential Design Codes pertaining to solar access.


Page 48

PSC1512-4 PAKENHAM STREET, NO 1 (LOT 123), FREMANTLE - PROPOSED LEGAL ACTION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING AND BUILDING LEGISLATION - (SS DA0043/15)

DataWorks Reference: 122/009; 122/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 December 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Field Services Actioning Officer: Coordinator Planning Mediation Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1510-16 Attachment 1: 7 October PSC Report Attachment 2: Overview of planning/building compliance action taken

since 2012 Owner Name: Tintedoils Pty Ltd Heritage Listing: Heritage List (LPS4); Category 1B (MHI), West End

Conservation Area

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Consideration of this matter was deferred at the Planning Services Committee (PSC) meeting held on 7 October 2015. Legal action under the Building Act 2011 (the Building Act) was recommended to be taken by the City against Tintedoils Pty Ltd (the Company) that owns the heritage listed property for undertaking unauthorised works without the relevant Building Permits. The building approval process is designed to ensure that construction work complies with relevant construction standards and buildings will be safe for the public to occupy and use. In relation to 1 Pakenham Street there have been multiple breaches of planning and building legislation and, having regard to the facts related to this matter, it is recommended that the City is authorised to


Page 49

commence legal action against Tintedoils Pty Ltd for breaching the provisions of the Building Act 2011.

BACKGROUND

Refer to Attachment 1 for a copy of the City’s report to the 7 October 2014 Planning Services Committee meeting. COMMENT The breaches of the Building Act by the owner, who is also a registered builder, included the construction of building structures without a Building Permit (first floor office, balcony, patio roof and outbuilding), works within the basement and occupation of the basement without approval. Multiple breaches occurred over a number of years, contrary to advice and instructions from City of Fremantle officers. The safety of tenants and their customers was place at risk. Unlike the Planning and Development Act, where a $500 Planning Infringement Notice can be issued under Local Planning Policy 1.5 – Planning Compliance for minor breaches of planning legislation, there is no provision under the Building Act to issue modified penalties. The breaches of the Building Act are not considered minor as the safety of tenants and their customers was place at risk. The building compliance process involves the following series of steps: 1) Investigate the alleged breach or non-compliance to ascertain the facts and

determine the significance of the matter; 2) Liaise with the relevant parties; 3) Provide direction in relation to what needs to be done; 4) Issue letters of intention or notices; 5) Undertake legal action if the :

a) Compliance is not achieved; or b) Circumstances surrounding the breach are considered significant enough that

the matter should be referred to the courts for determination of an appropriate penalty.

As can be seen from the table in Attachment 2, there has been only 2 building matters that have been taken to the local court for determination since 2012. The decision to recommend legal action is not taken lightly and is generally at the end of a lengthy mediation process where cooperation is not forthcoming from the offending party and/or the significance of the offence warrants more than the matter being dismissed following retrospective approval. The City made contact with the Company’s representative and informed them of the matter being referred to the December 2015 PSC meeting and the opportunity to make a submission on behalf of the owner. At the finalisation of this report, correspondence had not been received from the Company. The recommendation to the 7 October 2015 PSC meeting is reproduced below.


Page 50


That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to institute legal action against Tintedoils Pty Ltd for breaching the provisions of the Building Act 2011.


Page 51

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)


PSC1512-5 AMHERST STREET, NO. 3C (LOT 52) FREMANTLE PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO FAMILY DAY CARE (TB DA0441/15)

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

Attachment 2 – Site and Streetscape photos Date Received: 10 September 2015 Owner Name: Tracey Carli, Gregory John Carli Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Existing Single House Use Class: Family Day Care Use Permissibility: A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fremantle (the City) is in receipt of an application for Planning Approval for the partial change of use to Family Day Care at No. 3C Amherst Street, Fremantle (the site). The application is presented before the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to submissions being received that cannot be resolved via the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satiation of neighbours.


Page 52

The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND The subject site is located at No. 3C Amherst Street, Fremantle and is zoned ‘Residential’ with a coding of R25. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI). The subject site is located on the western side of Amherst Street and north of Holland Street, Fremantle. The site is currently used for residential use as a Single House. DETAIL

On 10 September 2015, the City received a development application for partial change of use to Family Day Care at No. 3C Amherst Street, Fremantle. The portion of the premises being operated as a Family Day Care is accessed via the front entrance of the dwelling and occupies the ground floor of the dwelling, including the front and rear outdoor areas. The occupied area has been indicated on plans provided as part of this application. The application proposes to use the ground floor level with the existing upper floor portion of the dwelling to be used for residential purposes by the owners. The applicant states that a maximum of 4 children, under school age, (5 years and under) will be cared for at the proposed Family Day Care at any one time. This includes the applicants 2 children within this calculation. The applicant is proposing to operate on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday between 7:30am to 5:30pm. Children will arrive at 7:30am and collected again at 5:30pm. CONSULTATION Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the proposed change of use to a Family Day Care is classified as ‘A’ use in the residential zone. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 16 October 2015, the City had received 2 submissions. The following issues were raised during the advertising period and are considered to relate to amenity concerns of for the proposal:

1. Normal play and activity noise of 4 additional children on the applicant’s property would impact our daily enjoyment of our property.

2. Houses are close together, sharing multiple boundaries. These issues are discussed further in relation to appropriateness of the land use within the residential zone. The following issues were raised that did not relate to relevant planning issues, and consequently are not discussed further in this report:


Page 53

1. Safety concerns regarding; internal staircase, swimming pool, size of outdoor area, traffic within the area and the adjacent off leash Dog Park.

The above issues relating to the sites safety for the children being cared for are outlined, governed and enforced under the Education and Care Services National Law and the Education and Care Services National Regulations 2011. This legislation relates specifically to:

Assessments of family day care residences and venues

Register of family day care educators It is considered on these grounds that this issue is addressed under separate legislation and regulatory mechanisms and therefore will not be discussed further throughout the report. It is additionally noted that the applicant has also provided response to the submissions received. This response is contained within this report as Attachment 3. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4). The application seeks discretion relating to:

● Land Use The above matter is discussed in the “Planning Comment” section below.

PLANNING COMMENT Land Use The proposal is considered to meet the definition of Family Day Care as outlined in LPS4, which states; Family Day Care means a premise used to provide a family day care service. The expression “family day care service” has the same meaning as in the Children and Community Services Act 2004.” It is noted that the Children and Community Services Act 2004 has now been superseded by the Education and Care Services National Law (Western Australia). The proposal is considered to be consistent with the Education and Care Services National Law (Western Australia) definitions as the applicant will be working as a family day care educator as defined by the Law and will be using the dwelling as a family day care residence as part of a family day care service. In addition to the above, the proposed Family Child Care is considered to meet the objectives of the residential zone which outline the following objectives; Development within the residential zone shall—


Page 54

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

ii. safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas and ensure that

development, including alterations and additions, are sympathetic with the character of the area,

iii. encourage high standards of innovative housing design which recognise the need

for privacy, energy efficient design and bulk and scale compatible with adjoining sites,

iv. recognise the importance of traditional streetscape elements to existing and new

development,

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

vi. safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas by ensuring that land use

is compatible with the character of the area. It is acknowledged that a Family Day Care use does have the potential to impact the amenity of surrounding residential properties and therefore the proposal is considered in relation to the potential risks to the amenity of the neighbourhood. Typically residential amenity impacts arise when such a use becomes frequented by a high number of clients and as a result of busy operations, significant increased vehicle activity, increased noise not normally associated with residential areas and/ or car parking issues are the most common resultants that are not consistent with residential scale and amenity of the area. In addition to the above, the Family Day Care and number of children proposed to be cared for each day are considered relevant in determining the potential impact that operation of the Family Day Care will have on the surrounding amenity of the area, specifically in relation to vehicle traffic and movement. The number of children cared for on a daily basis is 4, including the owners own child. Children are dropped off at the dwelling in the morning around 7.30am and are collected again at 5.30pm. For the reasons outlined above the Family Day Care is not considered to result in an unreasonable increase in demand to traffic during operating hours and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the residential amenity of the area. Additionally, the number of children cared for at the site is not considered to be greater than a typical household or larger family that could reside on site. It is not unreasonable to consider that the amenity impact would be no greater than regular use of a dwelling. In addition to the potential impact increased traffic can have on the residential area, the impact of noise is also considered to have the potential of impact what is considered to be a noise-sensitive zone. Noise related regulations are governed under the Environmental Protection Noise Regulations, with some noise exemptions. In relation to the noise impact of a Family Day Care, noise generated by children is exempt under the Environmental Protection Noise Regulations. As noted above, the proposed Family Day Care will accommodate an additional 2 children, to those already


Page 55

residing at the residents. The noise generated by the 4 children on site is not considered to be inconsistent with noise typically associated with a residential area. The number of children cared for at the site is not considered to be greater than a typical household or family of 6 that could potentially reside on site. It is not unreasonable to consider that the amenity impact would be no greater than intended use of a dwelling. Car Parking

Required Provided Merit based assessment

1:1 employee + 1:10 children under maximum occupancy

2 See comments

Table 3 of LPS4 does not contain a vehicle parking requirement for the Family Dar Care use. In accordance with clause 5.7.1(c) of LPS4, the parking requirement has been determined in accordance with the ‘Child Care Premises’ land use. The application proposes the use of the dwelling on specified days, during certain hours, as a Family Day Care. The dwelling is to be utilised as a Single House at other times. In accordance with c5.7.5(a) (Joint Use of Car Parking Facilities) the dual use of bays available for the Single House land use (currently +2 bays on-site), during times when the Family Day Care use is not in use, can be considered. In this regard, the proposed land use is considered to comply with the parking requirement of LPS4. Notwithstanding the parking provided on site, it is considered that the access to parking within the area provides additional parking during the drop off and collection of children attending the Family Day Care as seen in the site photos contained within attachment 2. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial change of use to Family Day Care at No. 3C(Lot 52) Amherst Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 11 September 2015, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 25 November 2015 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


Page 56

PSC1512-6 MAXWELL STREET, NO. 17 (LOT 156), BEACONSFIELD TWO STOREY ANCILLARY DWELLING ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (BP DA0461/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 December 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1: Revised development plans

Attachment 2: Site visit photos Date Received: 23 September 2015 Owner Name: J. Rae Submitted by: Builton Corp Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential Zone R25 Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 57

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a two storey ancillary dwelling addition to the existing Single House. The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to the nature of the proposal, being a large two storey ancillary dwelling seeking significant variation to the Residential Design Codes and the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy (LPP 2.9). In particular, the proposed ancillary dwelling has a plot ratio area of approximately 120m², whereas the deemed-to-comply plot ratio area for an ancillary dwelling is 70m². Further, the proposal seeks a variation to LPP 2.9 in respect to the primary street setback. Due to the discretion sought from LPP 2.9, the application is not considered to be supportable and is recommended on-balance for refusal. Notwithstanding, Council may be of the view that the ancillary dwelling meets the applicable Design Principles in the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the discretionary criteria in LPP 2.9 and as such, should be granted planning approval subject to the conditions outlined in an alternative recommendation. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located at the south eastern corner of Scott and Maxwell Streets. The site measures approximately 647m² and currently has a Single House on site. The site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R25. The subject site not adopted under the City’s Heritage List, nor is it located within a designated heritage area. A review of the property file revealed no relevant planning history for the site. DETAIL

On 23 September 2015, the City received a development application (DA0461/15) for a two storey ancillary dwelling. Revised plans were received on 10 November 2015, detailing minor variations in respect to the shared living space and access. The proposal includes the following:

Three bedrooms;

Two bathrooms;

Kitchen, dining and living rooms;

Laundry;

Garage; and

Courtyard.

Refer to Attachment 1 for revised development plans.


Page 58

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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

Building height (external wall);

Ancillary dwelling (plot ratio area). Some of the City’s policies replace or augment the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. In this application Council has the ability, through its policy provisions, to apply discretion in the following areas when determining the application:

Primary street setback (ground and upper floor).

The above matters will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the report below. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with clause 9.4 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 or Council’s LPP 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals, as letters of consent were provided from all affected neighbours. Parks and Landscape Management

The application was referred to the City’s Parks and Landscape Management department due to the crossover being situated within approximately 400mm of a significant tree in the road reserve. Parks and Gardens advised that the applicant would need to be come to a suitable arrangement so as to achieve a setback of 1m from the existing tree, which may involve angling the access-way or reducing the width of the crossover. A condition of approval is recommended to reflect this advice in the instance the application is approved.

PLANNING COMMENT

Building Height

Element Deemed-to-comply

Proposed Design Principle Assessment

External Wall 6m 3.7m - 6.5m Nil - 0.5m

The proposed building height is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:


Page 59

The design of the building allows for adequate access to direct sun into the building, as well as appurtenant open spaces.

Adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms is provided, with a number of rooms incorporating large and well positioned windows so as to maximise the infiltration of sunlight.

There are not considered to be any views of significance disrupted through the additional building height being sought.

Only a small portion of the building exceeds the 6m external wall height (the street facing portion of bedroom 2).

The proposed wall height has significantly less building compared with a roof ridge height of 9m, which is permitted as of right.

Ancillary Dwelling


Proposed Design Principle Assessment

Plot ratio area 70m² 123m² 53m²

The proposed plot ratio area is, on balance, not considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The ancillary dwelling is considered to impact on the amenity of the surrounding properties, owing to the size and scale of the development, and the prominence of the ancillary dwelling in the primary street setback area. This prominence is considered to be further exacerbated by the topography of the site, which is downward sloping from east to west, thereby resulting in a presentation to the streetscape that is out of scale with the immediate context of the property.

It should be noted that, while the plot ratio area being sought is significantly more than what the deemed-to-comply permits, there have been previous occasions where the Planning Committee have supported a substantial variation to this particular component of the deemed-to-comply criteria for ancillary dwellings. For example, the City has previously approved an application for a two storey ancillary dwelling addition on 2 King William Street, Fremantle (ref. DA0096/13), which had a plot ratio area of 112.25m² (variation of 52.25m² from deemed-to-comply at the time). However it is acknowledged that a recent application presented to PSC, being an ancillary dwelling addition at 19 McLaren Street, South Fremantle (ref. VA0020/15), was refused with a plot ratio area of 87.6m².


Page 60

Primary Street Setback


Proposed Discretion

Ground floor 7m 2.9m (garage) 4.4m (living room)

4.1m (2.6m)

Upper floor 10m 1.8m 8.2m

Garage In line with, or behind, the front wall of the dwelling

Positioned in front of the dwelling

As the proposal does not meet the setback requirements above, it is required to be assessed against the following provisions of clause 1.2 of the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes (LPP 2.9), which states:

“1.2 Variations to the requirements of clause 1.1 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to the proposed development meeting at least one of the following criteria:

i. The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of buildings of comparable height within the prevailing streetscape; or

ii. The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land; or

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

iv. Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or v. Where the proposed development is on a lot directly adjoining a corner lot,

Council will consider a reduced setback that considers the setback of the corner lot in addition to buildings in the prevailing streetscape.

It should be noted that a previous development application on 13 Amherst Street, Fremantle (ref. DA0393/13 determined by PSC on 30 November 2013) comprised a similar proposal to this application. The proposal involved a two storey ancillary dwelling addition on a corner lot, in which the addition was to be situated on the western portion of the subject site, as shown in the image below.


Page 61

The application for 13 Amherst Street had a primary street setback to the upper floor of 2.55m, which was approved on the basis that there was no established streetscape and as such the proposal met clause 1.2 (ii) of LPP 2.9. Notwithstanding the above non-compliance with LPP 2.9, it is considered that, whilst the proposal for 17 Maxwell Street would not meet clause 1.2 (ii) of LPP 2.9 in a similar manner to 13 Amherst Street, primarily due to the difference in topography and scale between the two applications, the primary street setback of the proposal for 17 Maxwell Street would meet clause 1.2 (iv) of LPP 2.9 for the following reasons:

There is not deemed to be a prevailing streetscape, as the adjoining property to the west is oriented towards Hampton Road, and, in addition, there are no other adjoining properties within the same street block that front Scott Street. This interpretation is considered to be consistent with the explanatory note of prevailing streetscape contained in LPP 2.9, which is as follows:

No prevailing streetscape applies to, but is not limited to, instances where development is proposed on a lot where there are no other Grouped Dwellings or Single Houses adjoining the lot (three either side) that front the same street.

Given that the ancillary dwelling would be fronting Scott Street, it is considered that this would be effectively establishing a new streetscape for this portion of Scott Street. As such, the primary street setback to the ground floor is considered to be supportable, taking into account the existing setbacks to Scott Street on 48 Scott Street.

CONCLUSION The application proposes a two storey ancillary dwelling addition to the existing Single House, which is not considered to be supportable in its current form due to the excessive plot ratio area proposed and a resultant impact on the amenity of surrounding properties for reasons outlined earlier in the report. These reasons are considered to reflect inconsistencies with clauses 10.2 (b), (q) and (s) of Local Planning Scheme No. 4. These clauses state:


Page 62

(b) the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any relevant proposed

new local planning Scheme or amendment, or region Scheme or amendment, which has been granted consent for public submissions to be sought,

(q) the plot ratio, site coverage, setbacks, height, landscaped area and parking

accommodation, (s) the way in which buildings relate to the street and adjoining lots, including their

effects on landmarks, vistas, the landscape or the traditional streetscape, and on the privacy, daylight and sunlight available to private open space and buildings,

Notwithstanding this, PSC may be of the view that the plot ratio area afforded meets the applicable design principles, and should be supported subject to conditions. Essentially, PSC needs to decide whether the proposed plot ratio area would compromise the amenity of surrounding neighbours. In the event that PSC supports the application, an alternative recommendation is provided below. Alternative Recommendation That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the ancillary dwelling addition to the existing Single House at No. 17 (Lot 156) Maxwell Street, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 10 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 10 November 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0461/15, on plans dated 10 November 2015, a vehicle crossover shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0461/15, on plans

dated 10 November 2015, any new or modified crossover and/or tree removal associated with the hereby approved development must receive separate approval from the City of Fremantle’s Infrastructure and Parks Department.

Advisory Notes

(i) All new vehicle driveways are required to be separated a minimum of 2.0 metres from verge trees.

(ii) The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on the

plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing


Page 63

infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;

submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration, or

submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the infrastructure.

This request will be considered independently of any Planning Approval granted, and this Planning Approval should not be taken as approval for removal or modification of any infrastructure within the road reserve.

(i) This approval relates to the subject site and does not authorise the removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area. Written approval is to be obtained for removal or modification of verge infrastructure and/or verge trees within the verge area from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority, before construction commences. Please refer to the City’s Tree Planting and Vehicle Crossings Policies (SG28 and MD0015) for further information.

(ii) In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the relevant City of

Fremantle department or relevant service authority prior to the commencement of this development, this planning approval will be incapable of implementation.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Diverse and Affordable Housing Policy:

Provision of housing which is diverse and affordable to meet the current and future needs of the City’s residents to increase the amount of affordable and diverse housing options.

Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

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


Page 64

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey ancillary dwelling addition to the existing Single House at No. 17 (Lot 156) Maxwell Street, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 10 November 2015, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes in respect to the plot ratio area afforded to the ancillary dwelling. Specifically, the plot ratio area is not considered to meet the applicable design principles by way of an impact on the amenity of surrounding properties.

2. The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with clauses 10.2 (b), (q) and

(s) of Local Planning Scheme No. 4, having regard to the size and scale of the ancillary dwelling, in addition to its presentation towards to the streetscape.


Page 65

PSC1512-7 CLARKE STREET, NO. 25 (LOT 91), HILTON - PATIO ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0445/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 December 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site Photographs Date Received: 14 September 2015 Owner Name: Antonio Sticca Submitted by: Outdoor World Wangara Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 66

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for the addition of a Patio to an existing Single House at No. 25 Clarke Street, Hilton. The Patio is proposed on the western side of an existing Patio at the rear of the property. As the neighbouring landowner has objected to the proposal, the application is presented to the Planning Services Committee for determination. The application has been assessed against the requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Local Planning Policy 2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development. The proposal is considered to satisfy Design Principle and discretionary criteria and is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

No. 25 Clarke Street, Hilton is located on the southern side of Clarke Street in Hilton. The street block is bound by Ethelwyn Street to the west, Marimont Street to the south and Noel Street to the east. The site is 516sqm and is currently occupied by a Single House. The rear of the site is occupied by an existing Patio and Outbuilding (garage). The site is not heritage listed, nor is it in a Heritage Area. Planning history for the site includes:

April 2015 - DA0115/15- Patio addition to existing Single House (constructed); and

February 1996 - DA7/96 – Brick and zincalume garage (constructed). DETAIL

On 14 September 2015, the City received an application for the addition of a Patio to an existing Single House at No. 25 Clarke Street, Hilton. The proposed Patio is to be located on the western boundary and measures 6.7m in length, 1.62m in width and 2.1m in height on the side boundary sloping up to 2.6m in height a distance of 1.62m from the side boundary . Development plans are included as attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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

Boundary wall (west).


Page 67

The above matter will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of the report below. CONSULTATION

Building

The application has been reviewed by the City’s Building Surveyor who has advised the applicant should ensure they demonstrate how they will comply with Part 3.7.1 of the Building Code of Australia with regards to fire separation.

An advice note has been added to remind the applicant of the requirements under the Building Codes.

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the application is seeking Design Principle and discretions against the following design element:

Boundary wall (west). At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 7 October 2015, the City had received one submission. The following issues were raised:

Object to building on boundary; Already occupied by large awnings which are too close to fence; Rainwater appears to overflow into our property; Query whether boundary fence is in right place; Object to height of 2.6m as total height would be 3.5m above our property.

PLANNING COMMENT

Boundary wall

Required Setback Provided Design Principle Assessment

1m 0m 1m

The proposed boundary wall of the patio is supported for the following reasons:

The open patio, will not create significant building bulk for the neighbouring property;

The proposed patio will cover a setback area (i.e.is only 1.62m wide);

The patio will not restrict access to northern sunlight for the subject site’s outdoor living area, as the existing house blocks this access currently;\

The proposed patio is to the east of the adjoining site, and will therefore not impact on access to winter sun;

The open sided patio will not restrict access to ventilation;

The patio will abut an area of open space and will not result in significantly more building bulk than currently existing on site;


Page 68

A setback of 1m, would only allow a patio width of 600mm for a portion of the site due to existing structures on site;

As the proposed patio is to the rear of the existing house, it is considered to have minimal impact on the prevailing development context and streetscape;

The proposed patio will partially abut an existing clothes line, rather than active area of open space;

A 1.8m boundary fence, plus an additional 500mm of screening (total height of 2.3m) does not require planning approval and could be constructed on site. This would be higher than the proposed 2.1m high patio.

Overall the proposed patio is considered to have minimal impact on the amenity of the adjoining neighbour. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Patio addition to existing Single House at No. 25 (Lot 91) Clarke Street, Hilton, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 14 September 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

Advice note:

i. The applicant is advised to liaise with a Private Building Surveyor in relation to compliance with Part 3.7.1 of the Building Code of Australia in regards to fire separation. Further information can found on the Building Commission - https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/building-commission

https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/building-commission


Page 69

PSC1512-8 SOUTH TERRACE NO.226 (LOT 8), FREMANTLE SAT RECONSIDERATION: RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR AIR CONDITIONING UNIT ADDITION TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING (JL DA0314/14)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 December 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Allerding and Associates Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1503-1 (4 March 2015); PSC1409-145 (3 September

2014) Attachments: Attachment 1 – Amended Plans

Attachment 2 – Indicative Elevation Attachment 3 – Site photos Attachment 4 – PSC1503-1 Report Attachment 5 – PSC1409-145 Report

Date Received: 7 April 2015 (SAT application) 5 October 2015 (Amended plans)

Owner Name: Giovani DeBari Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: Nil Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwellings Use Class: ‘Grouped Dwellings’ Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 70

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its meeting of 4 March 2015 the Planning Services Committee (PSC) considered an application for retrospective approval for two air conditioner units at No. 226 South Terrace, Fremantle (the site). At that meeting, the PSC resolved to refuse the application (refer to Attachment 4). Subsequently, on 7 April 2015, the Applicant made an application to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) for review of the PSC’s decision. As part of the SAT’s proceedings, mediation was held on 3 August 2015 at the subject site and again on 22 October 2015 at the SAT’s Perth office. In response to the SAT’s mediation process, the Applicant prepared amended plans demonstrating how the air conditioning units could be appropriately screened to protect the visual amenity of neighbouring properties and to meet the provisions and objectives of the Residential Design Codes. In summary, the amended plans incorporate the following changes:

1. Setback the air conditioner units an additional 100mm from the southern boundary line;

2. Screen the air conditioner units on all sides with a 30mm thick aluminium “sandwich panel” with colorbond cladding to match and integrate with the existing colorbond roof upon which the air conditioners are located;

3. Line the aluminium panel with a high density synthetic soundproofing membrane; and

4. Install two air conditioner grills on the southern elevation of the units, with louvers to face skyward to assist in reducing any foreseeable noise nuisance for the adjoining neighbour.

On review of those amended plans, the SAT extended an invitation to the PSC to reconsider its earlier decision of 4 March 2015. As a result of the mediation, and having regard to planning merits of the Applicant’s amended plans, it is recommended that the revised application be approved subject to conditions. BACKGROUND The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ in accordance with the City of Fremantle’s (the City) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and has a density coding of R30. The site is located within Sub Area 4.3.3 of the South Fremantle Local Planning Area in accordance with Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List and is not located within a designated Heritage Area. The site area measures approximately 225m² and is located on the eastern side of South Terrace, Fremantle. The site includes an existing single storey terraced dwelling which shares a parapet wall with the southern adjoining dwelling at No. 228 South Terrace; which extends for the length of the dwelling. The site also includes a detached two storey addition located towards the rear (east) of the site that comprises a single bedroom on the upper floor. That addition has been built up to the northern, eastern and southern boundaries.


Page 71

On 6 May 2014 the City’s compliance department received a written complaint regarding the installation of two unauthorised air conditioning units on the southern roof plane of the two storey dwelling on the site, facing the neighbouring property at No. 228 South Terrace. In June 2014 the City wrote to the landowner requesting they either remove the air conditioners from the site, relocate them on-site to comply with clause 8.2 –Permitted Development provision of LPS4, or alternatively lodge a retrospective planning application for the structures to remain where they currently exist. In response to the City’s request, the owner submitted a planning application to the City on 27 June 2014 seeking retrospective approval for the units to be maintained in their current location. The Planning Services Committee (PSC) first considered the application at its meeting on 3 September 2014 where it was resolved to defer the item to the next appropriate PSC meeting (refer to Attachment 5). This was to allow for further consultation with adjoining neighbours. The application was later considered by the PSC at its meeting of 4 March 2015 (refer to Attachment 4), where it resolved to refuse the application for the following reason:

“1) The development is inconsistent with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes 2013 in so far as it is considered to be visually intrusive.”

In addition to refusing the application, the PSC also resolved to:

“B) Authorise the City to undertake appropriate compliance action for the removal of the two unauthorised air conditioning units from the roof of the existing Grouped Dwelling.

C) In addition to part (B), invite the owners of No. 226 (Lot 4) South Terrace,

Fremantle to lodge a development application proposing the relocation of the two air-conditioning units to another suitable location on the property of No, 226 South Terrace, Fremantle or alternatively relocate the air-conditioning units to comply with the provision of clause 8.2(m) of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4).”

Subsequently, on 7 April 2015, the Applicant made an application to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) for review of the PSC’s decision. As part of the SAT proceedings, mediation was held on 3 August 2015 at the subject site, No. 226 South Terrace, and the neighbouring property to the south at No. 228 South Terrace. The Applicant, the agent of the adjoining southern neighbour, the City’s planning consultant, a Councillor and the SAT’s mediator were in attendance. The following matters were agreed upon following discussions at the mediation:

On the basis that the dwelling is developed up to the northern, eastern and southern boundaries of the site, the air-conditioning units could not reasonably be relocated to avoid issues of visual amenity for neighbouring properties; and

Sufficient screening would likely reduce the visual dominance of the air-conditioners and redress issues of visual amenity previously raised by adjoining neighbours. Accordingly it was agreed that the Applicant would prepare amended drawings to that effect.


Page 72

The applicant subsequently prepared amended plans demonstrating how the air-conditioner units could be appropriately screened and sound insulated. A further mediation was later held on 8 October 2015 where the SAT, having considered the amended plans, extended an invitation to the PSC to reconsider its earlier decision of 4 March 2015. DETAIL The application includes two unauthorised air conditioning compressor units. These units are located on the southern roof plane of the two storey component of the dwelling facing the neighbouring property at No. 228 South Terrace, Fremantle. In response to the SAT’s mediation process, the Applicant has prepared amended plans demonstrating how the air conditioning units will be screened and insulated to protect the visual amenity of neighbouring properties. In summary, the amended plans incorporate the following changes:

1. Setback the air conditioner units an additional 100mm from the southern boundary line;

2. Screen the air conditioner units on all sides with a 30mm thick aluminium

“sandwich panel” with colorbond cladding to match and integrate with the existing colorbond roof upon which the air conditioners are located;

3. Line the aluminium panel with a high density synthetic soundproofing membrane;

and

4. Install two air conditioner grills on the southern elevation of the units, with louvers to face skyward to assist in reducing any foreseeable noise nuisance for the adjoining neighbour.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The plans have been reconsidered against the provisions of the relevant statutory planning instruments and are considered to generally meet the requirement of the Residential Design Codes. See ‘Planning Comment’ section below for a more detailed assessment. CONSULTATION Community The application was advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. The City received one submission from the adjoining southern neighbour at No. 228 South Terrace, raising the following concerns regarding the application:

Overall amenity – The two air conditioning units are dominant and impact upon the amenity of useable yard space and views from the house.

Visual impact – The air conditioning units’ encasement will add to the bulk and scale of the development and make the yard feel more enclosed. The indicative


Page 73

sketch suggests clean lined presentation, but no solution is proposed for the messy brackets and fixtures, which project forward of the air conditioning units.

Overshadowing – The air conditioning units’ encasement will add to the amount of overshadowing at the ground plane and the air space above it, impacting upon gardens, clothes drying and other functions. As the sun’s path changes a deeper and longer shadow will be cast over the rest of the yard. This is a real problem for the yard, given the amount of overshadowing it now experiences, and, due to the building’s lack of northern aspect, reliance on the yard for access to sunlight.

Noise – The air conditioning units’ encasement will not achieve significant noise buffering. The grills are likely to exacerbate noise reverberation. The noise mitigating material proposed requires it to be bonded across materials for effectiveness. The encasement is not fully enclosed and sound reverberation off the roof may also be aggravated.”

A detailed consideration of the planning merits of the above comments is provided below under ‘Planning Comment’. PLANNING COMMENT This application is required to be assessed against the provisions of clause 5.4.4 – External fixtures of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). Under provision C4.3 of said clause, external fixtures, including air-conditioning units, are deemed to comply with the R-Codes where they have been “designed to integrate with the existing building”. In their present form, the air conditioning additions are located on the southern roof plane of the two storey component of the dwelling. The units have been constructed on a purpose built bracket, facing the southern common boundary of the site. See ‘Attachment 3’ for development photos. Having regard to deemed-to-comply provision C4.3 above, the additions in their current form, which are not screened, are not considered to be “integrated” into the design of the building and do not protect the visual amenity of surrounding properties. Whilst it is acknowledged that the development is not visible from the primary street (South Terrace), the un-screened additions are clearly visible when viewed form adjoining properties; particularly from the outdoor living area of No. 228 South Terrace (refer to Attachment 3). The Applicant now proposes to construct an aluminium “sandwich panel” screen to these fixtures, which will comprise of 30mm thick colorbond cladding to match the existing roof finish of the two storey building. The screening will enclose the air-conditioners at each elevation on top of the southern roof plane. The units will therefore not be visible from neighbouring properties and the screening will appear as an extension to, or part of, the existing roof cover. It is also proposed to setback the air conditioners a further 100mm from the southern boundary and to install ventilation grills on the southern elevation. The Applicant has prepared an indicative elevation (refer to Attachment 2) demonstrating the likely visual appearance of the screening when viewed from the rear outdoor living area of the southern neighbour at No. 228 South Terrace. On balance, it is considered that the addition of the proposed screening will reasonably ensure that the air conditioners are appropriately integrated with the established building in accordance with the expectations and objectives of the R-Codes and in a manner that will protect the visual amenity of surrounding neighbours. Moreover, the Applicant’s


Page 74

amended proposal is considered to be consistent with the Council’s general approach to external fixtures, by requiring screening to be constructed to prevent or redress issues of visual amenity. Having regard to the retrospective nature of this application and the period that has elapsed since the fixtures were first constructed, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following condition:

Within 60 days of receiving notice of this planning approval, the air conditioning units shall be fitted with the approved screening treatments and be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Finally, it is recognised that mechanical service systems, such as air conditioners, are required to be designed and installed to prevent emitted noise levels from exceeding the relevant decibel levels set out in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA). In this respect, the Applicant has proposed to line the 30mm thick aluminium screening with a high density synthetic soundproofing membrane to absorb vibration and noise emissions (refer to Attachment 1). The Applicant also proposes to fix the ventilation louvers of the air conditioner grills so they face skyward to assist in reducing noise nuisance for the adjoining southern neighbour. Although these measures are likely to redress foreseeable issues of noise, the Applicant will be required to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA), irrespective of any planning approval issued. An appropriate advice note is included as per the officer’s recommendation alerting the Applicant of his ongoing obligations under these statutory health requirements. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil


Page 75

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION A) That the Planning Committee, in response to the invitation of the State

Administrative Tribunal to review its decision under s 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), set aside its previous decision of 4 March 2015 under s 31(2)(c) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) and substitute it with the following new decision:

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the retrospective approval for two air-conditioning additions and screening to the existing grouped dwelling at No. 226 (Lot 4) South Terrace, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 2 October 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. Within 60 days of receiving notice of this planning approval, the air conditioning units shall be fitted with the approved screening treatments and be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. All brackets and appurtenant mount fixtures for the air conditioners are to be located within the confines of the approved screening.

B) That the Applicant, the State Administrative Tribunal and those who made submissions be advised of point (A) above.

Advice Notes(s):

(i) All mechanical service systems including air conditioners are to be designed and installed to prevent emitted noise levels from exceeding the relevant decibel levels as set out in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA) (as amended).


Page 76

PSC1512-9 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

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


That the information is noted.


Page 77

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

Nil.

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.


Page 78

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND 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 79


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 80


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 81

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.

Documents

AGENDA - City of Fremantle · 2018. 3. 8. · Agenda - Planning Services Committee 2 December 2015 Page 1 REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject