AGENDA - City of Fremantle › sites › default › files... · AGENDA DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS ... being of little cultural heritage significance for use

AGENDA

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 7 March 2018, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING Elected Members A Planning Committee meeting of the City of Fremantle will be held on Wednesday, 7

March 2018 in the North Fremantle Community Hall, located at 2 Thompson Road, North

Fremantle commencing at 6.00 pm.

Paul Garbett DIRECTOR STRATEGIC PLANNING & PROJECTS 2 March 2018

PLANNING 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 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS LATE ITEMS NOTED CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Planning Committee dated 7 February 2018 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PC1803 -1 HENDERSON STREET, NOS. 31-41 AND 45 (LOTS 2073 AND 535), FREMANTLE - FIVE (5) STOREY HOTEL, CHANGE OF USE TO TAVERN AND RESTAURANT, AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS - (NB DAP007/17) 1

PC1803 -2 SOUTH STREET, NO. 69 (LOT 18) BEACONSFIELD - MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (TWO (2) OFFICE AND NINE (9) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (CJ DA0603/15) 43

PC1803 -3 LEIGHTON BEACH BOULEVARD, NO. 29 (STRATA LOTS 2 AND 3), NORTH FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE TO SMALL BAR - (SM DA0570/17) 65

PC1803 -4 HAMPTON ROAD, NO. 16 (LOT 503), FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE AND ANCILLARY DWELLING ADDITION - (CJ DA0568/17) 74

PC1803 -5 THE CUTTING, NO. 36 (LOT 213), NORTH FREMANTLE - THIRD FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (NB DA0486/17) 84

PC1803 -6 PAGET STREET, NO. 77A (LOT 1186), HILTON - HOME OCCUPATION (BEAUTY THERAPY) - (SM DA0544/17) 92

PC1803 -7 CATTALINI LANE, NO.5 (LOT 103) NORTH FREMANTLE - MINOR AMENDMENTS TO APPROVED MULTIPLE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT (DAP80003/14 AND DAPV005/16) (JL DAPV002/18) 97

PC1803 -8 UPDATE ON METRO SOUTH-WEST JDAP DETERMINATIONS AND RELEVANT STATE ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW 109

PC1803 -9 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 110

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 111

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 111

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PC1803 -1 HENDERSON STREET, NOS. 31-41 AND 45 (LOTS 2073 AND 535), FREMANTLE - FIVE (5) STOREY HOTEL, CHANGE OF USE TO TAVERN AND RESTAURANT, AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS - (NB DAP007/17) 3

PC1803 -2 SOUTH STREET, NO. 69 (LOT 18) BEACONSFIELD - MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (TWO (2) OFFICE AND NINE (9) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (CJ DA0603/15) 67

PC1803 -3 LEIGHTON BEACH BOULEVARD, NO. 29 (STRATA LOTS 2 AND 3), NORTH FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE TO SMALL BAR - (SM DA0570/17) 101

PC1803 -4 HAMPTON ROAD, NO. 16 (LOT 503), FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE AND ANCILLARY DWELLING ADDITION - (CJ DA0568/17) 136

PC1803 -5 THE CUTTING, NO. 36 (LOT 213), NORTH FREMANTLE - THIRD FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (NB DA0486/17) 155

PC1803 -6 PAGET STREET, NO. 77A (LOT 1186), HILTON - HOME OCCUPATION (BEAUTY THERAPY) - (SM DA0544/17) 166

PC1803 -7 CATTALINI LANE, NO.5 (LOT 103) NORTH FREMANTLE - MINOR AMENDMENTS TO APPROVED MULTIPLE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT (DAP80003/14 AND DAPV005/16) (JL DAPV002/18) 174

PC1803 -9 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 208

Agenda - Planning Committee

7 March 2018

Page 1

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register Nil.

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register

PC1803 -1 HENDERSON STREET, NOS. 31-41 AND 45 (LOTS 2073 AND 535), FREMANTLE - FIVE (5) STOREY HOTEL, CHANGE OF USE TO TAVERN AND RESTAURANT, AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS - (NB DAP007/17)

Meeting Date: 7 March 2018 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Revised Development Plans and Elevations

2: Schedule of Submissions 3: DPLH [SHO] Referral Comments 4: Site Photos 5: Internal Heritage Comments

SUMMARY Approval is sought for a five (5) storey Hotel, change of use to Tavern, Restaurant, Shop and Offices, and additions and alterations to the former Police Station and Courthouse at 31-45 Henderson Street, Fremantle. The place is included on the State Register of Heritage Places. As the value of the proposal is $10 million, the application is required to be determined by the Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP). The City’s Responsible Authority Report (RAR) is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) for comment prior to being forwarded to JDAP. The resolution of the PC can be included in the RAR as the PC’s comment to the JDAP. The proposal includes the conservation and adaptive re-use of buildings on the subject site that have been identified as being of medium to high cultural heritage significance for Tavern, Shop and Office uses. The site is to be developed as an entertainment and tourism site with landscaped and activated pedestrian through site connections. In this regard the proposed use of the site will contribute to the activity in the city and complement existing surrounding land uses including the future Kings Square redevelopment and the Markets. It is proposed to alter and enlarge the one building on site which is identified as being of little cultural heritage significance for use as a five storey Hotel. The proposed height of this building as discussed in this report is supported under the


7 March 2018

Page 2

LPS4 and the Planning and Development Regulations and the application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL Detail Approval is sought for partial demolition of the existing buildings and additions and alterations consisting of:

five (5) storey Hotel

change of use to Tavern, Restaurant, Shop and Office

additions and alterations, including conservation works, to the existing heritage buildings

landscaping including a pedestrian thoroughfare. The original plans proposed a maximum building height of six (6) storeys, which was one storey beyond the maximum height permitted under discretionary criteria of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). In order to achieve this, the applicant applied to vary the scheme requirements under clause 12 of the Deemed provisions, which allows scheme requirements to be varied in order to conserve cultural heritage significance. City officers considered that several elements of the proposal represented a commendable approach to sympathetic adaptive reuse of this important group of buildings of high cultural heritage significance. However, on the key issue of whether the requirements under the deemed provisions to enable the local planning scheme height limits to be varied were satisfied, officers considered the original design (in terms of height) of the hotel building did not facilitate the built heritage conservation of the place and could not supported. City officers worked with the applicant to revise the plans, and amended plans were submitted proposing a maximum building height of five (5) storeys, which is consistent with the maximum discretionary height permitted under LPS4. The proposed building height can be considered in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 8 of the Scheme, however the proposed variation to the setback of the fifth floor level requires consideration under clause 12 of the Deemed provisions. City officers consider that the amended plans sufficiently preserve and enhance the cultural heritage significance of the site as to warrant the minor variation sought under the Deemed provisions to setback requirements associated with the maximum Scheme building height requirements. The full details of the proposal and City officers’ assessment are contained in the RAR reproduced in the second part of this report. Accordingly the City recommends that the JDAP conditionally approve the application. Site/application information Date received: 24 October 2017 Owner name: Silverleaf Investments Pty Ltd Submitted by: PTS Town Planning Pty Ltd Scheme: City Centre Heritage listing: Level 1A, West End Conservation Area, Convict Grant Existing land use: Vacant buildings, carpark Use class: Hotel, Tavern, Restaurant, Shop, Office Use permissibility: A, A, A, P, P


7 March 2018

Page 3

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: SUPPORT the Officers Recommendation contained in the Responsible Authority Report as follows: That the Metro South-West JDAP resolves to: APPROVE DAP Application reference DAP/17/01316 and accompanying plans DA4 – DA30, DA32, DA34, DA36, DA38, DA40, DA42, DA43, DWG FC-02, DWG FC-03 in accordance with Clause 68 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 22 February 2018. 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.

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. This approval does not relate to any works within the road reserves. Such

works will be the subject of a separate agreement between the applicant/owner and the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Services.

4. Prior to the issue of a building permit, detailed drawings and specifications

for all aspects of the conservation works; including the materials, colours


7 March 2018

Page 4

and finishes, are to be submitted and approved. These drawings are to be accompanied by a report justifying all aspects of the conservation processes. The above drawings and report are to be to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Where there is to be demolition of walls of primary/considerable significance

for new openings, a minimum of 450mm wall nibs and a substantial downstand is to be retained where practical to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, on advice from the State Heritage Office. Details of the wall nibs are to be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a building permit.

6. Any internal and external alterations and additions for the proposed

commercial/retail use of the Warders’ Cottages (Block B) do not form part of this application for approval and is subject to a separate application for Planning Approval.

7. The existing verandah and balustrade to the west elevation of Block D shall be retained and the proposed glazing be installed inside the balustrade to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, on advice from the State Heritage Office. Final details of the verandah and the balustrade are to be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a building permit.

8. The proposed openings to the south elevation of Block D are considered to have a negative impact on the significant fabric and are to be deleted from the proposal to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, on advice from the State Heritage Office.

9. The proposed glazed canopy that sits proud of the Courthouse shall be pulled back to be at a minimum in line with the building to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, on advice from the State Heritage Office. Final details of the canopy is to the submitted and approved prior to the issue of a building permit.

10. Prior to the issue of a building permit final details are to be provided of the location of ‘green walls’ and grassed areas that are proposed in close proximity to significant fabric, having regard for the potential impact of rising damp and biological damage. Details are to be provided that illustrate the proposed plantings being located sufficiently away from the buildings to minimise this impact, and provision should be made for the disposal of water away from the base of the buildings to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, on advice from the State Heritage Office.

11. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the following information is to be provided to the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, on advice from the State Heritage Office:

a. Further information on the construction and methodology for the

structural strengthening required to the 1978 police station, and any potential impact on adjacent structures including Blocks C and E.


7 March 2018

Page 5

b. A photographic archival record of the place prior to any works occurring, according to the Guide to Preparing an Archival Record.

c. Further information on compliance with the National Construction Code and the impact on heritage fabric as a result of compliance.

d. Further information on the impact on the fabric as a result of the installation of electrical, hydraulic and mechanical services.

e. Conservation works schedule, including information on materials and methodology.

f. Materials and colour schedule for new built structures. g. Signage strategy that provides for a coordinated approach to the

provision of signage within the development. h. Lighting strategy that provides for a coordinated approach to the

provision of lighting within the development, and ensures that installation is sensitive to the aesthetic value and physical fabric.

i. Archaeological Management Plan to provide for the appropriate documentation, excavation and monitoring of potential archaeological evidence across the site.

j. Interpretation Strategy for the overall site that communicates the former history and use of the place, and includes implementation timelines.

k. Landscape Plan including guidelines for future landscape work, detailing plantings and materials.

l. Arboricultural report including survey and recommendations for managing existing mature trees which are being retained.

12. Prior to the issue of a building permit, final details of the external materials,

colours and finishes of the proposed Hotel building, new infill buildings and hard landscaping areas, including a physical sample board or materials is to be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to the issue of a building permit a landscaping plan is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Prior to the occupation of the development approved, the approved landscaping shall be completed and maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

14. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the following information to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle having regard to advice from the Design Advisory Committee:

a. Revised details of the connection between the Court House building and

the proposed pavilion addition, with the connection being recessive rather than expressive at its south-east (internal) and north-western (Henderson Street) ends, in order to allow greater legibility of the architectural detail of the Court House.

b. Details of the pedestrian connection from Parry Street into the Hotel Reception including the ramp details and design and surface treatments.

c. Final details of the materials and finishes of the hard and soft landscaping of the pedestrian spaces throughout the site.


7 March 2018

Page 6

d. Details of the Parry Street loading/servicing area showing the area adequately screened from view.

15. Prior to the issue of a building permit, an updated environmental acoustic

report prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, which specifies the necessary attenuation measures required to achieve a compliant internal noise level for all the proposed Hotel rooms located within Blocks D, E and F is to be submitted and approved, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any recommendations of the approved acoustic report are to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

16. Prior to the issue of a building permit, an environmental acoustic report and noise management plan, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, which specifies the necessary attenuation measures required for Tenancies T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and Block A (Courthouse) to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 is to be submitted and approved, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any recommendations of the approved acoustic report are to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

17. Prior to occupation of the development, a Notification pursuant to Section

70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle and registered against the Certificate of Title(s) to notify owners and prospective purchasers the land may be affected by activities and noise from existing surrounding land uses, including the Fremantle Markets, Fremantle Oval and the Drill Hall. All costs and incidentals relating to the preparation of and registration of the Section 70A notification, including related City of Fremantle Solicitors’ costs, shall be met by the owner of the land.

18. Prior to occupation of the development, a Hotel Management Plan to be

submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The management plan is to including specific details as to how the hotel operator will inform guests about potential noise from activities and events at nearby sources including the Fremantle Markets, Fremantle Oval and the Drill Hall. The approved Management plan is to be implemented, thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

19. In addition to the lighting strategy required in Condition 11, prior to occupation of the development, the outdoor lighting plan is to be designed, baffled and located to prevent any increase in light spill onto the adjoining properties, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

20. The design and construction of the Hotel building (Block F) is to meet the 4 star green star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the


7 March 2018

Page 7

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 Chief Executive Officer, 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.

21. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the design and materials of the

development for any new buildings (Block F – Hotel, T1, T2, T3, T5, Courthouse Pavilion) shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy L.P.P2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

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

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

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

22. Prior to the issue of a building permit, details of the proposed on-site delivery

and loading area including vehicle sweep paths that demonstrate the safe entry and egress of vehicles using the area are to be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

23. Prior to occupation of the development, the car parking and loading area(s), and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance with Clause 4.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

24. All car parking and vehicle access and circulation areas shall be maintained

and available for car parking/loading, and vehicle access and circulation on an ongoing basis to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

25. New crossover(s) shall comply with the City’s standard for standard

crossovers, which are available on the City of Fremantle’s web site. Prior to commencing construction of the crossover(s), the developer is to contact the Engineering Project Officer on 9432 9999 to arrange an inspection or alternatively via [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]


7 March 2018

Page 8

26. Prior to the occupation of the development, any redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be removed and the verge reinstated at the expense of the applicant and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

27. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the plans hereby approved being

modified to include 13 class 1 or class 2, and 11 class 3 bicycle parking bays and associated end-of-trip facilities consisting of:

4 male and 4 female showers, OR

4 unisex showers in accordance with clause 5.16.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4. The bays and end-of-trip facilities shall be provided and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

28. Prior to issue of a building permit, the owner/developer is to submit a waste

management plan for approval detailing the storage and management of the waste generated by the development. The approved waste management plan is to be implemented and maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

29. Prior to occupation 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 consistent with the City’s LPP 2.19 and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $10 million the contribution to be made is $100,000.

30. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, No. 31-41 Henderson Street and No. 45

Henderson Street 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 ensure that the amalgamation is carried out and an application for a new Certificate of Title to the amalgamated lots is submitted to the Registrar of Titles within twelve (12) months of the issue of the Building Permit for the development, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

31. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit or Demolition Permit, a Construction

Management Plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle addressing the following matters:

a) The protective measures for significant fabric during construction b) Use of City car parking bays for construction related activities; c) Protection of infrastructure and street trees within the road reserve; d) Security fencing around construction sites;


7 March 2018

Page 9

e) Gantries; f) Access to site by construction vehicles; g) Contact details; h) Site offices; i) Noise - Construction work and deliveries; j) Sand drift and dust management; k) Waste management; l) Dewatering management plan; m) Traffic management; and n) Works affecting pedestrian areas.

32. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for compliance, if

any condition is not met by the time requirement within that condition, then the obligation to comply with the requirements of any such condition (other than the time limitation for compliance specified in that condition), continues whilst the approved development continues.

ADVICE NOTES: i. In relation 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 in Condition 10 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.

ii. With regard to the condition seeking an updated acoustic consultant report,

the applicant is advised that they are strongly encouraged to investigate methods of noise attenuation for the Hotel rooms that would achieve a higher level of attention above the minimum standard.

iii. Local Planning Policy 1.10 Construction Sites can be found on the City’s web

site via http://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/development/policies. The Infrastructure Engineering department can be contacted via [email protected] or 9432 9999.

iv. In regards to the wall nibs, the Heritage Council further resolves that any

variation to the minimum requirement of retention of wall nibs will be dealt with under delegation by the Department, following the submission of further information and perspectives where required.

v. The paving and landscaping depicted outside the boundaries of the subject

property do not form part of this approval. For further queries relating to verge infrastructure modifications please contact the Infrastructure Engineering department via [email protected] or 9432 9999.

http://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/development/policies


7 March 2018

Page 10

vi. The Restaurant premises must comply with the Food Act 2008, regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS 4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Detailed architectural plans and elevations must be submitted to Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For further information contact Environmental Health Services on 9432 9856 or via [email protected]

vii. The proponent must make application during the Building License application

stage to Environmental Health Services via Form 1 - Application to construct, alter or extend a public building as a requirement of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. For further information and a copy of the application form contact Environmental Health Services on 9432 9856 or via [email protected].

viii. Any removal of asbestos is to comply with the following –

Under ten (10) square metres of bonded (non-friable) asbestos can be removed without a license and in accordance with the Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 and the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2001. Over 10 square metres must be removed by a licensed person or business for asbestos removal. All asbestos removal is to be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 and accompanying regulations and the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos 2nd Edition [NOHSC: 2002 (2005)]; Note: Removal of any amount of friable asbestos must be done by a licensed person or business and an application submitted to WorkSafe, Department of Commerce. http://www.docep.wa.gov.au

ix. A demolition permit is required to be obtained for the proposed demolition

work. The demolition permit must be issued prior to the removal of any structures on site.

x. Work on construction sites shall be limited to between 7am and 7pm on any

day which is not a Sunday or Public Holiday. If work is to be done outside these hours a noise management plan must be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle prior to work commencing.

xi. Design and install all mechanical service systems, including air-conditioners,

pool filter motors, gym weight equipment, amplified music, kitchen exhaust ducts and refrigeration motors, etc. to prevent noise levels from exceeding the relevant assigned levels as set out in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (as amended). It is advised to seek the services of a competent acoustic consultant to assist the applicant to address the potential noise impacts on noise sensitive receivers.



http://www.docep.wa.gov.au/


7 March 2018

Page 11

xii. With regard to the condition relating to the Green Star and the Fremantle Port buffer area, LPP2.13 and LPP 2.3 recognises that it may not be possible to achieve compliance with these requirements in cases where an application involves the adaptive reuse of a heritage listed building. The requirement may be waived on the submission of evidence that compliance would be detrimental to the heritage significance of the building.

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 12)

Property Location: Nos. 31-41 (Lot 2073) and No. 45 (Lot 535) Henderson Street

Development Description: Five (5) storey Hotel, change of use to Tavern and Restaurant, and additions and alterations to existing buildings

DAP Name: Metro South-West JDAP

Applicant: PTS Town Planning Pty Ltd

Owner: Silverleaf Investments Pty Ltd

Value of Development: $10 million

LG Reference: DAP007/17

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

DAP File No: DAP/17/01316

Report Due Date: 12 February 2018

Application Received Date: 24 October 2017

Application Process Days: 90 Days

Attachment(s): 1: Amended Development Plans and Elevations 2: Schedule of Submissions 3: DPLH [SHO] Referral Comments 4: Applicant’s Justification 5: Site Photos

Officer Recommendation: That the Metro South-West JDAP resolves to: APPROVE DAP Application reference DAP/17/01316 and accompanying plans DA4 – DA30, DA32, DA34, DA36, DA38, DA40, DA42, DA43, DWG FC-01 – DWG FC-03, SK 22, SK 24 in accordance with Clause 68 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans

dated 22 February 2018. 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.


7 March 2018

Page 12


3. This approval does not relate to any works within the road reserves. Such works will

be the subject of a separate agreement between the applicant/owner and the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Services.

4. Prior to the issue of a building permit, detailed drawings and specifications for all

aspects of the conservation works; including the materials, colours and finishes, are to be submitted and approved. These drawings are to be accompanied by a report justifying all aspects of the conservation processes. The above drawings and report are to be to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Where there is to be demolition of walls of primary/considerable significance for

new openings, a minimum of 450mm wall nibs and a substantial downstand is to be retained where practical to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, on advice from the State Heritage Office. Details of the wall nibs are to be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a building permit.

6. Any internal and external alterations and additions for the proposed

commercial/retail use of the Warders’ Cottages (Block B) do not form part of this application for approval and is subject to a separate application for Planning Approval.

7. The existing verandah and balustrade to the west elevation of Block D shall be retained and the proposed glazing be installed inside the balustrade to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, on advice from the State Heritage Office. Final details of the verandah and the balustrade are to be submitted and approved prior to the issue of a building permit.

8. The proposed openings to the south elevation of Block D are considered to have a negative impact on the significant fabric and are to be deleted from the proposal to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, on advice from the State Heritage Office.

9. The proposed glazed canopy that sits proud of the Courthouse shall be pulled back to be at a minimum in line with the building to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, on advice from the State Heritage Office. Final details of the canopy is to the submitted and approved prior to the issue of a building permit.

10. Prior to the issue of a building permit final details are to be provided of the location of ‘green walls’ and grassed areas that are proposed in close proximity to significant fabric, having regard for the potential impact of rising damp and biological damage. Details are to be provided that illustrate the proposed plantings being located sufficiently away from the buildings to minimise this impact, and provision should be made for the disposal of water away from the base of the buildings to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, on advice from the State Heritage Office.


7 March 2018

Page 13

11. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the following information is to be provided to the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, on advice from the State Heritage Office:

a. Further information on the construction and methodology for the structural

strengthening required to the 1978 police station, and any potential impact on adjacent structures including Blocks C and E.

b. A photographic archival record of the place prior to any works occurring, according to the Guide to Preparing an Archival Record.

c. Further information on compliance with the National Construction Code and the impact on heritage fabric as a result of compliance.

d. Further information on the impact on the fabric as a result of the installation of electrical, hydraulic and mechanical services.

e. Conservation works schedule, including information on materials and methodology.

f. Materials and colour schedule for new built structures. g. Signage strategy that provides for a coordinated approach to the provision of

signage within the development. h. Lighting strategy that provides for a coordinated approach to the provision of

lighting within the development, and ensures that installation is sensitive to the aesthetic value and physical fabric.

i. Archaeological Management Plan to provide for the appropriate documentation, excavation and monitoring of potential archaeological evidence across the site.

j. Interpretation Strategy for the overall site that communicates the former history and use of the place, and includes implementation timelines.

k. Landscape Plan including guidelines for future landscape work, detailing plantings and materials.

l. Arboricultural report including survey and recommendations for managing existing mature trees which are being retained.

12. Prior to the issue of a building permit, final details of the external materials, colours

and finishes of the proposed Hotel building, new infill buildings and hard landscaping areas, including a physical sample board or materials is to be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to the issue of a building permit a landscaping is to be submitted and approved. Prior to the occupation of the development approved, the approved landscaping shall be completed and maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

14. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the following information to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle having regard to advice from the Design Advisory Committee:

a. Revised details of the connection between the Court House building and the

proposed pavilion addition, with the connection being recessive rather than expressive at its south-east (internal) and north-western (Henderson Street)


7 March 2018

Page 14

ends, in order to allow greater legibility of the architectural detail of the Court House.

b. Details of the pedestrian connection from Parry Street into the Hotel Reception including the ramp details and design and surface treatments.

c. Final details of the materials and finishes of the hard and soft landscaping of the pedestrian spaces throughout the site.

d. Details of the Parry Street loading/servicing area showing the area adequately screened from view.

15. Prior to the issue of a building permit, an updated environmental acoustic report

prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, which specifies the necessary attenuation measures required to achieve a compliant internal noise level for all the proposed Hotel rooms located within Blocks D, E and F is to be submitted and approved, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any recommendations of the approved acoustic report are to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

16. Prior to the issue of a building permit, an environmental acoustic report and noise management plan, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, which specifies the necessary attenuation measures required for Tenancies T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and Block A (Courthouse) to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 is to be submitted and approved, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any recommendations of the approved acoustic report are to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

17. Prior to occupation of the development, a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of

the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle and registered against the Certificate of Title(s) to notify owners and prospective purchasers the land may be affected by activities and noise from existing surrounding land uses, including the Fremantle Markets, Fremantle Oval and the Drill Hall. All costs and incidentals relating to the preparation of and registration of the Section 70A notification, including related City of Fremantle Solicitors’ costs, shall be met by the owner of the land.

18. Prior to occupation of the development, a Hotel Management Plan to be submitted

and approved to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The management plan is to including specific details as to how the hotel operator will inform guests about potential noise from activities and events at nearby sources including the Fremantle Markets, Fremantle Oval and the Drill Hall. The approved Management plan is to be implemented, thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

19. In addition to the lighting strategy required in Condition 11, prior to occupation of the development, the outdoor lighting plan is to be designed, baffled and located to prevent any increase in light spill onto the adjoining properties, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

20. The design and construction of the Hotel building (Block F) is to meet the 4 star

green star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an


7 March 2018

Page 15

equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, 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 Chief Executive Officer, 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. 21. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the design and materials of the development

for any new buildings (Block F – Hotel, T1, T2, T3, T5, Courthouse Pavilion) shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy L.P.P2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

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

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

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

22. Prior to the issue of a building permit, details of the proposed on-site delivery and

loading area including vehicle sweep paths that demonstrate the safe entry and egress of vehicles using the area are to be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

23. Prior to occupation of the development, the car parking and loading area(s), and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance with Clause 4.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

24. All car parking and vehicle access and circulation areas shall be maintained and

available for car parking/loading, and vehicle access and circulation on an ongoing basis to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

25. New crossover(s) shall comply with the City’s standard for standard crossovers,

which are available on the City of Fremantle’s web site. Prior to commencing construction of the crossover(s), the developer is to contact the Engineering Project Officer on 9432 9999 to arrange an inspection or alternatively via [email protected].



7 March 2018

Page 16

26. Prior to the occupation of the development, any redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be removed and the verge reinstated at the expense of the applicant and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

27. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the plans hereby approved being modified to

include 13 class 1 or class 2, and 11 class 3 bicycle parking bays and associated end-of-trip facilities consisting of:

4 male and 4 female showers, OR

4 unisex showers in accordance with clause 5.16.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4. The bays and end-of-trip facilities shall be provided and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

28. Prior to issue of a building permit, the owner/developer is to submit a waste

management plan for approval detailing the storage and management of the waste generated by the development. The approved waste management plan is to be implemented and maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

29. Prior to occupation 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 consistent with the City’s LPP 2.19 and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $10 million the contribution to be made is $100,000.

30. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, No. 31-41 Henderson Street and No. 45

Henderson Street 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 ensure that the amalgamation is carried out and an application for a new Certificate of Title to the amalgamated lots is submitted to the Registrar of Titles within twelve (12) months of the issue of the Building Permit for the development, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

31. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit or Demolition Permit, a Construction

Management Plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle addressing the following matters:

a) The protective measures for significant fabric during construction b) Use of City car parking bays for construction related activities; c) Protection of infrastructure and street trees within the road reserve; d) Security fencing around construction sites; e) Gantries; f) Access to site by construction vehicles; g) Contact details;


7 March 2018

Page 17

h) Site offices; i) Noise - Construction work and deliveries; j) Sand drift and dust management; k) Waste management; l) Dewatering management plan; m) Traffic management; and n) Works affecting pedestrian areas.

32. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for compliance, if any

condition is not met by the time requirement within that condition, then the obligation to comply with the requirements of any such condition (other than the time limitation for compliance specified in that condition), continues whilst the approved development continues.

ADVICE NOTES:

i. In relation 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 in Condition 10 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.

ii. With regard to Condition 15, for an updated acoustic consultant report, the

applicant is advised that they are strongly encouraged to investigate methods of noise attenuation for the Hotel rooms that would achieve a higher level of attention above the minimum standard.

iii. Local Planning Policy 1.10 Construction Sites can be found on the City’s web site

via http://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/development/policies. The Infrastructure Engineering department can be contacted via [email protected] or 9432 9999.

iv. In regards to the wall nibs, the Heritage Council further resolves that any variation

to the minimum requirement of retention of wall nibs will be dealt with under delegation by the Department, following the submission of further information and perspectives where required.

v. The paving and landscaping depicted outside the boundaries of the subject

property do not form part of this approval. For further queries relating to verge infrastructure modifications please contact the Infrastructure Engineering department via [email protected] or 9432 9999.

vi. The Restaurant premises must comply with the Food Act 2008, regulations and

the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS 4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Detailed architectural plans and elevations must be submitted to Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For further

http://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/development/policies


7 March 2018

Page 18

information contact Environmental Health Services on 9432 9856 or via [email protected]

vii. The proponent must make application during the Building License application

stage to Environmental Health Services via Form 1 - Application to construct, alter or extend a public building as a requirement of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. For further information and a copy of the application form contact Environmental Health Services on 9432 9856 or via [email protected].

viii. Any removal of asbestos is to comply with the following –

Under ten (10) square metres of bonded (non-friable) asbestos can be removed without a license and in accordance with the Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 and the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2001. Over 10 square metres must be removed by a licensed person or business for asbestos removal. All asbestos removal is to be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 and accompanying regulations and the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos 2nd Edition [NOHSC: 2002 (2005)];

Note: Removal of any amount of friable asbestos must be done by a licensed person or business and an application submitted to WorkSafe, Department of Commerce. http://www.docep.wa.gov.au

ix. A demolition permit is required to be obtained for the proposed demolition work.

The demolition permit must be issued prior to the removal of any structures on site.

x. Work on construction sites shall be limited to between 7am and 7pm on any day

which is not a Sunday or Public Holiday. If work is to be done outside these hours a noise management plan must be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle prior to work commencing.

xi. Design and install all mechanical service systems, including air-conditioners, pool

filter motors, gym weight equipment, amplified music, kitchen exhaust ducts and refrigeration motors, etc. to prevent noise levels from exceeding the relevant assigned levels as set out in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (as amended). It is advised to seek the services of a competent acoustic consultant to assist the applicant to address the potential noise impacts on noise sensitive receivers.

xii. With regard to the condition relating to the Green Star and the Fremantle Port

buffer area, LPP2.13 and LPP 2.3 recognises that it may not be possible to achieve compliance with these requirements in cases where an application involves the adaptive reuse of a heritage listed building. The requirement may be waived on the submission of evidence that compliance would be detrimental to the heritage significance of the building.

Details: outline of development application



http://www.docep.wa.gov.au/


7 March 2018

Page 19

Insert Zoning MRS: Central City Zone

TPS: City Centre Zone

Insert Use Class: Hotel ‘A’, Tavern ‘A’, Restaurant ‘A’, Shop ‘P’, Office ‘P’

Insert Development Scheme: Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4)

Insert Lot Size: 7819m2

Insert Existing Land Use: Vacant buildings

The application proposes changes to the use and additions and alterations of the former Courthouse, Police Station and Warders Cottages (W2) at 31-45 Henderson Street, Fremantle, comprising the following:

five (5) storey Hotel comprising 62 rooms

demolition of selected buildings and structures

conservation works to existing heritage buildings

additions and alterations to existing heritage buildings

change of use as follows:

o Hotel – ‘A’ use

o Tavern – ‘A’ use

o Restaurant – ‘A’ use

o Shops (exempt from development approval under Schedule A of LPS4)

o Offices (exempt from development approval under Schedule A of LPS4)

The submitted plans include an indicative landscaping plan which shows works to portions of the Parry/William Street and Henderson/Holdsworth Street road reserves adjacent to the site. Future landscaping of the road reserve will be subject to a separate agreement between the City and the applicant should the current application be approved. In the event of the City agreeing to such works, this road reserve landscaping will be integrated into the landscaping within the cadastral boundaries of the lot. As such, works within the road reserve do not form part of this application. Although a change of use to Shops is proposed for the Warders Cottages, the plans indicate no internal fitout or structural refitting. Such a change of use is likely to require upgrades to the building to bring it into compliance with the Building Codes of Australia (BCA). These works are therefore subject to a separate application for planning approval. The owner has already initiated the amalgamation process for the two lots, however, conditional approval has not been issued by the WAPC. A condition has been added requiring the amalgamation process to be completed within specified timeframes.


7 March 2018

Page 20

Background: The site consists of two separate lots, being Nos. 31-41 (Lot 2073) and No. 45 (Lot 535) Henderson Street, Fremantle. The lots are bound by Parry Street to the east and south-east, William Street directly to the south, Henderson Street to the west, and Holdsworth Street to the north. The site directly abuts the Artillery Drill Hall, an existing state heritage registered building approved as a live music venue that is proposed to be reactivated in late 2018. The subject site contains buildings that are listed in the State Register of Heritage Places as management category level 1A, meaning they contain places of exceptional cultural heritage significance. The site is also located within the City of Fremantle West End Conservation Area, the Convict Grant (or Convict Establishment Area as defined in policy DGF14) and within the buffer zone of the world heritage listed Fremantle Prison and has the potential to yield important archaeological finds. The Warders’ Cottages are on the National Heritage List as part of the Fremantle Prison. The Warders Cottages (W2 block) at No. 31 – 41 Henderson Street, along with the former Courthouse and Police Station at No. 45 Henderson Street, define the western boundary of the former Convict Grant precinct and form part of the vista from William Street up the Fairbairn Street ramp to Fremantle Prison. Because the site sits within the buffer zone of the Fremantle Prison, the applicant must obtain prior approval from the federal Department of Environment and Energy prior to commencement of works. Based on information from the State Heritage Register, the following table shows the cultural heritage significance of the existing buildings on site:

Building Name Label on Plans Heritage Significance

Courthouse Block A High

Warder’s Cottages Block B High

Lockup Block C High

Police Barracks Block D Medium

Police Barracks Block E Medium

Police Station Block F Low/None

Buildings on the William/Parry St

intersection boundary

Not labelled (East of Block B)

Low/None

There have been a number of Public Work applications for restoration and other works on the subject site since 2015. Of specific relevance, the Council considered its position in relation to the existing and future land tenure of the Warders Cottages and the likely impact this will have on the ongoing preservation and management of the buildings themselves at its meeting of 24 June 2015, where it was resolved, inter alia, to:

“authorise the Chief Executive Officer to write to the State Heritage Office advising that the City of Fremantle’s position in respect of future ownership and use of the Warders’ cottages is as follows, and that the Council remains committed to working collaboratively with the State Heritage Office to try to achieve an effective outcome for the long term conservation and reuse of the cottage consistent with the City’s position:


7 March 2018

Page 21

The Council is not supportive of a strata title subdivision of the Warders’ cottages, and instead the Council strongly supports the three blocks of cottages each remaining in a single ownership as this is considered most likely to ensure a consistent approach to property management and ongoing conservation of the integrity and other heritage values of the cottages.

In respect of the cottages in Block W2, future use should be considered as part of an integrated approach to adaptive re-use of the former Police Station/old Courthouse complex and the W2 cottages as a whole; this could potentially allow for a diverse range of uses compatible with the cultural heritage significance of both places, recognising the impacts of previous modifications to the original heritage fabric of both building groups. The Council would be most supportive of uses which help activate the eastern section of Henderson Street; however an element of residential use of some form (short and/or long term occupancy) may be supported if it forms part of a broader mix of compatible uses which reactivate the cottages and Police Station complex as a whole.”

The original plans for the subject application proposed a six storey Hotel building containing 58 rooms. The originally proposed building height was one storey beyond the discretionary height permissible (subject to meeting certain criteria) under LPS4 and the applicant sought to vary the height of the development utilising clause 12 of the Deemed provisions. The City did not support the height as it would have a detrimental impact on the cultural heritage significance of the area by adversely increasing the bulk and scale of the least historically significant building on-site and detract from the character of the Convict Grant area and the low scale buildings on-site. After discussions with the applicant, amended plans were submitted reducing the proposed Hotel building in height to five storeys containing 62 rooms. These amended plans are the subject of the current report. Legislation & policy: Legislation Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Schedule 2 – Deemed Provisions)

3.(5) Local planning policies

12. Variations to local planning scheme provisions for heritage purposes

60. Requirement for development approval

64. Advertising applications

66. Consultation with other authorities

67. Matters to be considered by local government Local Planning Scheme No. 4

3.2.1 (b) Objectives of the Zones – City Centre zone

Table 1 Zoning

4.7.1 (a) Construction of car parking

4.7.2 Table 2 Vehicle Parking

4.7.3.1 Relaxation of parking requirements


7 March 2018

Page 22

4.7.3.3 Waiving of bicycle rack requirements

4.7.6 Design and layout of parking areas

4.14 Demolition of buildings and structures

4.15 End of trip facilities

5.5 Fremantle Port Buffer

Schedule 8: Sub area 1 City Centre State Government Policies

SPP 3.5 – Historic heritage conservation Local Policies

LPP 1.3: Public Notification of Planning Proposals

LPP 1.9: Design Advisory Committee and Principles of Design

LPP 1.10 Construction sites

LPP 2.3: Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Requirements

LPP 2.13: Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements

LPP 2.14 Advertisement policy

LPP 2.19: Contributions For Public Art and/or Heritage Works

LPP 2.20: Discretion to vary local planning scheme site or development requirements for heritage purposes

DBU6: Late Night Entertainment Venues Serving Alcohol

DGF14: Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy Consultation: Public Consultation In accordance with LPP 1.3, the application was advertised as a significant application from 10 November 2017 to 11 December 2017. Advertising consisted of:

two newspaper notices

letters to owners and occupiers of lots within 100 m of the subject sites

signs on site facing each street

community information session on 30 November 2017

notice on the City’s website. At the conclusion of advertising, 14 submissions were received and the following issues were raised (summarised):

Issue Raised Officer’s comments

Building height Supported – See below

Tavern use is inappropriate Supported – see Land use discussion below

Don’t like the design Supported – DAC generally supports the design subject to conditions

Impact on heritage significance Supported – See heritage discussion below


7 March 2018

Page 23

After close of advertising, amended plans were submitting reducing the Hotel to five storeys. In accordance with LPP 1 3, the amended plans were not re-advertised as they reduced the extent of the planning variation without proposing any additional variations. Consultation with other Agencies or Consultants Department of Planning Lands and Heritage (DPLH) [State Heritage Office (SHO)] The application was referred to the DPLH, where it was presented to the Heritage Council for a recommendation. The Heritage Council advised that the proposed development “has been considered in the context of the identified cultural significance of Fremantle Courthouse and Police Station Complex (fmr) and Warders’ Cottages (fmr)”. The Heritage Council’s findings and advice is provided in full in Attachment 3. The Heritage Council’s advice states that the proposed development is supported subject to the following conditions:

1. Where there is to be demolition of walls of primary/considerable significance for new openings, a minimum of 450mm wall nibs and a substantial downstand is to be retained where practical.

2. The proposed use of the Warders’ Cottages (Block B) for commercial/retail

purposes is noted. Further information will be required at the Development Application stage for Block B, including any anticipated impact as a result of compliance with National Construction Code and the installation of services.

3. The existing verandah and balustrade to the west elevation of Block D shall be

retained and the proposed glazing be installed inside the balustrade.

4. The proposed openings to the south elevation of Block D will have a negative impact on the significant fabric and are to be deleted from the proposal.

5. The proposed glazed canopy that sits proud of the Courthouse shall be pulled

back either to the building line or further back.

6. Further consideration shall be given to the location of ‘green walls’ and grassed areas in close proximity to significant fabric, as these can have a negative impact by contributing to rising damp and biological damage. Plantings should be sufficiently away from the buildings to minimise this impact, and provision should be made for the disposal of water away from the base of the buildings.

7. The following information is to be provided to the satisfaction of the Assistant

Director General Heritage Services, Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage, prior to the application for a Building Permit:

a. Revised plans showing the required change as detailed above. b. Further information on the construction and methodology for the structural

strengthening required to the 1978 Police Station, and any potential impact on adjacent structures including Blocks C & E.


7 March 2018

Page 24

c. A photographic archival record of the place prior to any works occurring, according to the Guide to Preparing an Archival Record.

d. Further information on compliance with the National Construction Code and the impact on heritage fabric as a result of compliance.

e. Further information on the impact on the fabric as a result of the installation of electrical, hydraulic and mechanical services.

f. Conservation works schedule, including information on materials and methodology.

g. Materials and colour schedule for new built structures. h. Signage strategy that provides for a coordinated approach to the provision of

signage within the development. i. Lighting strategy that provides for a coordinated approach to the provision of

lighting within the development, and ensures that installation is sensitive to the aesthetic value and physical fabric.

j. Archaeological Management Plan to provide for the appropriate documentation, excavation and monitoring of potential archaeological evidence across the site.

k. Interpretation Strategy for the overall site that communicates the former history and use of the place, and includes implementation timelines.

l. Landscape Plan including guidelines for future landscape work, detailing plantings and materials.

m. Arboricultural report including survey and recommendations for managing existing mature trees which are being retained.

8. The Construction Management Plan is to include provisions on protective

measures for significant fabric during construction. Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) In accordance with LPP 2.3, the application was referred to the FPA as it is located within buffer area 2 of the Fremantle Port. The FPA recommends the following conditions be included on any approval:

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

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

Standard. It is noted that the policy exempts “refurbishment / renovations (not involving a nett increase in floor area) to existing buildings” and, therefore, the above conditions will only apply to the following buildings (as labelled on the plans): Block F (five storey Hotel), T1, T2, T3, T5, Courthouse Pavilion. An advice note should also be included to advise the applicant that requirements can be waived where it is demonstrated that by complying with the requirements there would be a detrimental impact on the heritage significance of the property.


7 March 2018

Page 25

Design Advisory Committee (DAC) The development was presented to the City’s DAC on 4 September 2017, 13 November 2017 and 8 January 2018. At its meeting in November 2017 the DAC supported the design of the proposed development subject to the submission of additional details including the materiality and form of the Hotel building to demonstrate the appropriateness of its height, the connection of the proposed pavilion to the existing courthouse building, pedestrian connections to the Hotel lobby and specific details of the limestone convict wall. These details are discussed further below. In its advice, the DAC supported the following:

The proposed combination of commercial uses.

The design approach to the building insertions, being lightweight steel architecture which demonstrates restrained care and is considered compatible with the heritage buildings on the site and offers an effective contrast to the stone.

The design of the proposed lightweight insertions which successfully distinguish the new from the old.

The main north south connection through the site which is clearly defined and legible. The DAC also acknowledged that the success of the spaces between the buildings as attractive and active spaces will be dependent on the surface treatments to the pedestrian links and the interaction of the buildings fronting these spaces. In this regard the submission of additional details of the materials and finishes of the hard and soft landscaping of the pedestrian spaces throughout the site is recommended as a condition of approval. The DAC advice below includes the five items requested at the November meeting (italicised) and the final DAC response from January after viewing the additional items (Note: At the most recent DAC meeting, the plans still showed the Hotel being six storeys high): 1. Further details of the form and materiality of the hotel addition to demonstrate that its

height and form is appropriate within the immediate context. DAC Response:

Although the DAC notes that in other settings the difference between the permitted four storeys and the proposed six storeys may not be of concern, in this instance, the heritage significance of the site and its surroundings demands a cautious approach to height. The end of the hotel facing Parry Street and the Fairbairn Street ramp needs special attention to avoid it being overwhelming in scale to the precinct. To help reduce the hotel height and allow its testing at four or five storeys, the DAC encourages the applicant to explore the relocation of the hotel rooms in the top floor to within the first floor level, and/or embedded in the roof form of the building. The guest amenities shown on the first floor could be relocated to a small pavilion building parallel to the hotel pool.

As discussed, the proposed Hotel building has been reduced in height to five storeys which is consistent with the discretionary building height permissible under LPS4. It


7 March 2018

Page 26

is noted that the amendment plans introduce Hotel rooms on the first floor and additional rooms per level to maintain the number of Hotel rooms originally proposed.

2. Revised details of the connection between the Court House building and the

proposed pavilion addition, with the connection being recessive rather than expressive at its south-east (internal) and north-western (Henderson Street) ends, in order to allow greater legibility of the architectural detail of the Court House.

DAC Response:

The direction illustrated in the revised perspective image for Henderson Street is supported, but the DAC encourages further definition of the separation of the new pavilion from the courthouse by reducing the width of the connections between the new and the old. Final details will be necessary to ensure the connection is recessive and does not appear as an entrance.

3. Details of the pedestrian connection from Parry Street into the Hotel Reception

including the ramp details and design. DAC Response:

The additional information does not adequately illustrate the edges within the proposed hotel entry forecourt or the porte-cochere.

The additional information does not include a section or other views that illustrate the height of the forecourt elements and treatments or the effect of ramping against wall of the Block C.

The plans do not illustrate the nature of the proposed Hotel entrance. Final details of all surface treatments will be required to illustrate the success of this entry.

4. Additional perspective images from the corner of Henderson Street and William

Street and from the northern approach along Parry Street to illustrate the height and form of the Hotel addition in the context of the surrounding locality.

DAC Response:

Perspective images are noted. See comments under 1 above. 5. Specific elevations of the limestone convict walls which clearly identify the original

sections of wall and the wall to be retained/removed. DAC Response:

Subject to the support of the City’s Heritage Coordinator, the additional information is acceptable.

It is noted that the wall along Parry Street is to be removed to provide vehicle access to the Hotel and servicing area. The proposal should not compromise pedestrian safety along Parry Street and the loading/servicing area should be adequately screened from view.

The additional information requested by DAC can be included as a condition of any approval. The matter of building height is further discussed below. Planning assessment:


7 March 2018

Page 27

Local Planning Scheme

Item Requirement Proposal Compliance

Building height 4 storeys (14 m wall height) 5 storeys (17 m wall height) subject to a number of criteria discussed below.

5 storeys (16.7 m wall height)

The application seeks a variation to setback associated with the height requirements of the scheme under Cl. 12 of the Deemed provisions. (see below)

Land use Hotel (‘A’), Tavern (‘A’), Restaurant (‘A’)

Hotel (‘A’), Tavern (‘A’), Restaurant (‘A’)

Supported – see below

Car parking 278 bays required 15 bays provided Supported – see below

LPP 1.10 - Construction Sites Construction sites can impact upon the amenity of the surrounding locality and must be properly managed to preserve a safe and healthy environment for residents, works and visitors to Fremantle. This policy recognises the need to balance the interest of the Fremantle public with that of the property development industry. A condition requiring the submission of a Demolition and Construction Management Plan is recommended on any approval. LPP 2.13: Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements The policy applies to all development with the exception of, inter alia, “Any development with a Gross Lettable Area (GLA) of less than 1000 m² GLA; [and] Refurbishments of existing buildings over 1000m² GLA not involving substantial structural or internal alteration and all refurbishments to buildings under 1000m²” Applicable development is to show that the proposal achieves a Green Star rating of at least 4 stars. For the subject development, only the five storey Hotel component is required to comply with the policy and the following condition is recommended on any approval:

The design and construction of the Hotel building (Block F) is to meet the 4 star green star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 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 Chief Executive Officer, 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


7 March 2018

Page 28

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

LPP 2.19: Contributions For Public Art and/or Heritage Works The development meets the requirements for a public art contribution. The following condition is recommended on any approval:

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, 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 consistent with the City’s LPP 2.19 and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $10 million the contribution to be made is $100,000.

OFFICER COMMENTS DGF14: Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy Development within the West End Conservation area is subject to assessment against the requirements of DGF14. The site is located within Zone 4 – Convict Establishment Area. The proposal is considered to meet the requirements of the policy as follows:

The pedestrian thoroughfare functions as a gateway from the city centre through to Fremantle Prison and the oval.

The proposal retains and enhances the buildings of most historical significance without removing significant fabric.

The layout and siting of the buildings retain the historic significance of the buildings on site.

Block F was constructed in 1977 to blend in with the scale and massing of the heritage buildings on the site. Increasing the height of the least significant building on site will preserve the siting and form of the more significant buildings.

The area has significance due to the general character created by a combined effect of the existing historic structures (including the Artillery Drill Hall, Warders Cottages (W1) and Fremantle Markets). The design of the new buildings on-site is consistent with the existing heritage built form.

Building Height The development is located within Local Planning Area 1 – City Centre. Schedule 8 of LPS4 sets out height requirements for this area as follows:

1.1 Building height shall be limited to a minimum of two storeys and a maximum of four storeys (maximum external wall height of 14.0* metres as measured from ground level).


7 March 2018

Page 29

Council may consent to an additional storey subject to— (a) the upper level being sufficiently setback from the street so as to not be

visible from the street (s) adjoining the subject site, (b) maximum external wall height of 17 metres, and (c) compliance with clause 1.2 below.

*Inclusive of parapet and spacing between floors

1.2 In granting consent to the maximum height prescribed, Council shall be satisfied in regard to all of the following—

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

(b) the proposal would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality,

(c) the proposal would be consistent, if applicable, with conservation objectives for the site and locality generally, and

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

Council may impose a lesser height in the event that the proposal does not satisfy any of the above requirements.

The proposed Hotel building is five storeys in height and includes a 16.7m wall height. An assessment against clauses 1.1 and 1.2 above is as follows:

1.1(a) fifth floor level being setback so as not to be visible from the street. The fifth floor of the Hotel building is not setback from Parry Street. The subject site is surrounded on nearly all sides by streets and low scale buildings, making it difficult or impossible to comply with the ‘not visible from the street’ requirement. See below for an assessment of this criteria against clause 4.8.1 of LPS4 and Clause 12 of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

1.1(b) maximum external wall height of 17 metres The Hotel proposes an external wall height of 16.7 m and is therefore compliant.

1.2 (a) that the proposal is consistent with predominant, height patterns of adjoining properties and the locality generally,

The proposed height is within the maximum discretionary height provided for in the scheme. The existing Block F building has a high pitched, angled roof with a ridge height of 13.7 m above natural ground level. The existing Block F roof has long eaves that exacerbate the impact of the roof on the building form, making it appear much more prominent than it otherwise would be.


7 March 2018

Page 30

Throughout most of its history Henderson Street was the boundary between the dense urban character of central Fremantle and the more open, landscaped, modestly scaled integrated character of the former Convict Grant. The contrast in character between the east and west sides of Henderson Street remains clearly legible and will be strengthened by the development currently taking place to the east of the Town Hall and the future development of the former Spicer’s site and the reinforced lower scale of the new insertions combined with the preservation of the open nature on the subject site within the Convict Grant area. In regard to the proposed height of the Hotel building, it is acknowledged that the Ferguson Building is currently the tallest building existing on site today. Although the proposal Hotel building is to be slightly higher than the existing building it is generally consistent with its existing height and the design approach will help neutralise any impact on the existing pattern of heights in the former Convict Grant, and on the views and vistas from within and beyond it.

In regard to the broader locality, the proposed height of the Hotel building is considered to be compatible with the scale of development to the west of Henderson Street towards the city centre. In this regard from a wider view of the development it is considered to be in keeping with the broader context. Having regard for the design of the Hotel building and the conservation of the remaining heritage buildings with only modest new insertions, the proposal is considered to be of an acceptable height, having regard for the surrounding height patterns.

1.2 (b) the proposal would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality,

The former Police Station building is currently seen from viewpoints around the fmr Convict Grant, particularly from Parry Street and from the approaches to the Prison. The design of the additional storeys to the former Police Station building has been achieved by, among other things, simplifying the bulk of the building’s roof form. It is considered that this design approach means that, despite the increase in height, the overall impact of the bulk of the redesigned building will not have a markedly detrimental impact either on the existing pattern of heights in the former Convict Grant, or on the views and vistas from within and beyond it. The site is surrounded by commercial properties, with any residential units being located further up Holdsworth Street to the north or down Henderson Street to the south and sufficiently far from the site so as to be minimally impacted from the development. (See below for further discussion on Land Use, height and heritage considerations.)

1.2 (c) the proposal would be consistent, if applicable, with conservation objectives for

the site and locality generally,

The proposal includes heritage restoration works to the existing significant heritage buildings on-site. These works are to be consistent with the SHO’s heritage agreement and are to be documented prior to commencement of works. The proposed demolition is for buildings that have little or no heritage significance and do not contribute to the heritage significance of the site or the area.


7 March 2018

Page 31

Construction of additional storeys on top of Block F permits the existing siting and placement of the significant heritage buildings to remain unaltered. These buildings have significance both in terms of their built form and in their physical relationship on-site with each other. The overall proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with the conservation objectives for the site and the locality. (See discussion of clause 1.1a and ‘Heritage works to existing buildings’ below for further assessment of conservation objectives.)

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

The proposal’s compliance with Council policy is discussed throughout this report. In relation to clause 1.1(a), above the requirement could be varied using clause 4.8.1 of LPS4 or if not applicable, Clause 12 of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Clause 4.8.1 of LPS4 allows variations to the specific height requirements of Schedule 8 as follows:

Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 8, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following—

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

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

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

(d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies. The site does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, a building of a height greater than that specified in Schedule 8 and, therefore, clause 4.8.1 cannot be “triggered” to vary height. The application therefore requires the use of Clause 12 of the Deemed provisions to vary the requirement of clause 1.1(a) above. As stated above, in this instance the variation sought is not for approval of a height exceeding the maximum specified in the Scheme, but for relaxation of a requirement for the top storey of the building to be set back from the facades of lower parts of the building which face the street. Clause 12 of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 states:

(1) The local government may vary any site or development requirement specified in this Scheme to — (a) facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the Register of

Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or listed in the heritage list; or

(b) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.


7 March 2018

Page 32

(2) A variation under subclause (1) may be unconditional or subject to any conditions the local government considers appropriate.

(3) If the local government is of the opinion that the variation of site or development

requirements is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality of the place or the heritage area the local government must — (a) consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions for

advertising uses under clause 64; and (b) have regard to any views expressed prior to making its determination to vary

the site or development requirements under this clause. Local Planning Policy 2.20 Discretion to vary local planning scheme site or development requirements for heritage purposes provides guidance on the assessment of applications where the use of clause 12 of the Regulations is being considered. It specifically requires the development to clearly demonstrate that it either (similar to above):

a) facilitates the built heritage conservation of a heritage listed place; or b) enhances or preserves heritage values in a heritage area.

City officers consider the correct approach to interpretation and application of the clause 12 provisions and LPP 2.20 involves two steps, as follows:

1. Recognition that a development proposal that conforms to Local Planning Scheme site or development requirements would have an impact that would be detrimental to the conservation of a heritage place, or the heritage values of a heritage area.

2. Consideration of whether variations to Scheme requirements could enable a proposal to avoid the impacts referred to in 1 above and thereby facilitate the heritage conservation of a heritage listed place.

In this instance, an assessment has been made against the Scheme requirement to set the top floor back from Parry Street and the impact this requirement would have on the conservation of the site and the value of the area. Although setting back the upper floor of the Hotel particularly from Henderson Street may reduce the impact that the additional height may have on Henderson Street, the top floor would remain visible (with or without setbacks) from viewing points, particularly from Parry Street. In this instance, as detailed early in the report it is difficult to comply with the requirement due to the multiple street frontages of the subject site. It is noted that the remaining heritage buildings on the subject site, identified as being of medium or high significance, all contain building and roof forms that are rectangular with strong, consistently set back ends. It is considered that the introduction of a setback to the top floor, would undermine the proposed simple massing of the building and its roof form to detrimentally increase its visual impact on the wider context, without making a corresponding improvement to Henderson Street. In this regard it is considered that a set back of the top floor, of any distance, would have a detrimental impact on the heritage conservation and value of the place and therefore this Scheme provision should not be imposed. It is therefore considered acceptable in this instance to apply clause 12 of the Regulations to vary this requirement.


7 March 2018

Page 33

In conclusion, the proposed height of the Hotel building is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the locality or the heritage conservation of the site. In this regard the proposed height, including a variation to the setback requirement of the top floor is supported under LPS4, clause 12 of the Regulations and LPP2.20. Heritage works to existing buildings The Fremantle Courthouse (1899), Lock-up (1898), and the two blocks of Police Barracks (1897 and 1903), are of cultural heritage significance, which is embodied, amongst other things, in their built fabric. These places are included on the State Register of Heritage Places and should therefore be conserved and where appropriate enhanced in order to retain their cultural significance. Allowing the built fabric of 19th and early 20th century buildings to perform as originally intended is an underlying principle in the care and conservation of these buildings. These buildings were constructed using what are now described as traditional construction techniques and materials and their use is preferred for the conservation of the significant fabric of heritage buildings of this era. This requirement is not simply based on a desire to match the original appearance of these buildings but also because they help minimise the deterioration of the significant original fabric of the buildings. Traditionally masonry walls were of solid construction (i.e. they did not have cavity walls) and the materials used in their contraction were lime-based mortars, plasters and renders and, if painted, a limewash was used. These materials are permeable and they allow the walls to ‘breathe’ and help moisture to evaporate from the walls. Allowing the walls to ‘breathe’ is an essential component of building conservation. It helps to diminish the likelihood of the build-up of damp and soluble salts in walls, which reduces the damage to heritage fabric caused by the expansive forces of salt crystallisation taking place within the pores of the masonry. It also prevents the severe problems that can result if excessive damp is allowed to penetrate to the inner face of the wall. Such problems include deterioration of internal wall plaster and decorative schemes and the likelihood of timbers being affected by wet or dry rot. Modern building materials, such as plastic paints or sealers, damp proof coatings, and strong cement renders and mortars typify the low permeability materials that can prevent the natural evaporation of moisture from solid masonry walls. If such materials have previously been applied to the walls of these buildings they should be removed. It follows that these materials should not be used in their repair and maintenance. The Courthouse, Lock-up, and the two blocks of Police Barracks have been ‘repaired’ in the past using inappropriate materials and techniques. Of particular concern is the cement based pointing that has been applied to the limestone walls of these buildings and which is causing the ongoing deterioration of the masonry walls. It is noted that conservation and repair works are urgently required to the walls of these buildings so as to retain their heritage values.


7 March 2018

Page 34

The new works are primarily the works required to replace a redundant use with a new use that is both beneficial and compatible. The new uses should allow the heritage buildings on the site to be used, enjoyed and benefitted from without compromising their heritage values. The design approach followed by the architects can demonstrably be seen to be based on the intention of avoiding or minimising the impact of the new work on the heritage values of heritage listed Courthouse, Warders’ Cottages and Police Quarters buildings and their settings. Typically the new works that will have an impact on the culturally significant buildings are contained within these buildings and will have little impact on their exteriors. There will be very little demolition of the exterior of the significant buildings and their exteriors will be carefully conserved. Where there is conflict, the chosen design outcome has sought to ameliorate any adverse impacts and has generally been guided by, and is proportionate to, the relative significance of the zones and elements that will be affected It is recognised that that the level of change proposed for the interior of the Courthouse is significant; however it is considered that a reasonable balance is achieved. The extent of the proposed demolition of walls and the method by which this is achieved, i.e. by expressing the areas of removed walling as new openings in the walls rather than by the walls being completely removed, allows the original internal layout of the rooms to remain legible. In addition, it will ensure that the shapes and volumes of the internal spaces maintain the recognisable relationship between their design and their intended function. As a result spaces such as the former courtrooms will continue to read as former courtrooms and should thus make a major contribution to understanding the building’s heritage values. Because of its siting, against the north east side of the courthouse, the proposed Courthouse Pavilion may have an impact on the building’s contribution to the streetscape of Henderson Street. It is considered that the proposed new additions will help the Courthouse building to perform functions that could not otherwise be met within the building, thus helping to ensure that it is used, enjoyed and benefitted from, while minimising the impact of the new additions on the heritage fabric of the building. It is considered that the proposed additions are sympathetic to the Courthouse Building and that they complement it through its siting, bulk, form, scale and character. The proposed lightweight construction and transparency of the pavilion will not obscure the cultural significance of the Courthouse; rather it should provide an appropriate transition between the solidity of the building and the openness associated with the park-like qualities of Barracks Square gardens. As a first step a physical inspection of the buildings should be undertaken by a suitably qualified professional to assess the condition of the building and its individual elements.


7 March 2018

Page 35

The resulting report should describe the original fabric of the buildings and include a description of their constituent materials and construction including how and why they have changed over time, their condition and the likely consequences of doing nothing. The original mortars should be analysed to provide the information needed for the specification of materials and techniques to ensure that the conservation and repair works match the originals as closely as possible, including their textures and colours. Provided it is justified by conclusive evidence, this documentation may be expanded and modified in detail during the early stages of work. The report should identify the extent of the proposed repairs and conservation works and rank them in order of priority to ensure that the significant fabric of the buildings is not lost or compromised. All conservation works should be fully specified. All decisions made by in the specifications regarding all aspects of the conservation of the heritage buildings must be justified on the basis of the evidence provided by detailed investigations, research and analysis of the original materials and the appearance of the remains. The evidence must be sufficient to inform and justify the decisions made. In some circumstances modern techniques and materials which offer substantial conservation benefits may be considered appropriate. Conditions have been added requiring the submission of detailed drawings and specifications for conservation works and a justification of the specified conservation processes. Land use The application proposes the following discretionary land uses:

Hotel (‘A’)

Tavern (‘A’) (including a distillery)

Restaurant (‘A’) The discretionary land uses are supported for the following reasons, having regard to the matters to be considered in the Regulations and the objectives of the zone:

Tavern and Restaurants

In accordance with the provisions of DBU6: Late night entertainment venues serving alcohol, the local area is well serviced by public streets to enable adequate safety and access for transportation. The adjoining footpaths and streets are well lit for patron safety. This will be enhanced by sufficient lighting provided through the site (specifics of which should be required as any condition of approval).

Concerns have been raised in regard to the potential for antisocial behaviour given the concentration of Tavern and bar uses proposed on-site and in close proximity to the site. This is an issue dealt with via the liquor licensing process and a Management Plan will be required as part any licence issued for the site.

Patron numbers and hours of operation for the Tavern and Restaurant will be restricted by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries.


7 March 2018

Page 36

The Tavern and Restaurant uses will complement the other on-site land uses and attract visitors and residents to the city centre, in line with the City’s strategic objectives.

The site is close to ample car parking and public transportation.

The built form and heritage conservation works of the Tavern and Restaurants are considered to comply with the relevant statutory provisions.

The applicant has submitted an acoustic report, which advises that the proposed development will be capable of meeting Noise Regulations provided a minimum 6mm thick laminated safety glass is installed throughout the site, with 10mm thick safety glass for the Hotel blocks closest to the Drill Hall (blocks D and E). This has taken into account the adjoining Drill Hall, roads and Tavern use noise.

Hotel

The Hotel will encourage visitors to stay in the City Centre and increase after hours activation of the area in line with the City’s strategic objectives and Council’s preferred use of the site.

The Hotel will be well served by public transportation and parking opportunities.

The land use and built form (except for the upper floor setback of the Hotel as discussed above) complies with statutory requirements.

The site is in close proximity to the Drill Hall, an existing live music venue that is proposed to be reactivated in late 2018. The Acoustic Report submitted requires that the windows of the blocks closest to the Drill Hall (Blocks D and E) be fitted with a minimum 10 mm safety glass and recommends that the operator consider 10 mm glass on all floors of the new Hotel.

Noise impacts An Acoustic Report, prepared by Lloyd George Acoustics has been submitted to support the proposed application. This report considers the potential noise impacts both from the site and to the site to a level of development appropriate for an application for Planning Approval. The report acknowledges that many aspects of the report will be further developed if the project is approved. With regard to noise emissions from this site, including such sources as patrons and music from the tavern and restaurant and mechanical plant (e.g. air conditioning), the report concludes that noise from music will need to be considered and assessed as each tenancy occupant becomes known having regard for their specific fit out requirements and the style of music to be played (bands, in house, background only etc).


7 March 2018

Page 37

The report states that whilst music hasn't been assessed in detail, it may be likely that music in outdoor, unenclosed areas, may not be permitted unless it is low level background music type. As the occupant of each tenancy becomes known, the report recommends that a requirement be imposed to require each operator to develop their own noise management plan with the view to comply with the Noise Regulations. It is recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring the submission of a Noise Assessment and Management Plan Report, prepared by a suitable qualified consultant be submitted for tenancies T1 to T5 and the Courthouse building (Block A). With regard to existing noise that may affect the proposed development, the Acoustic Report has taken into account existing noise sources such as road traffic, the proposed Drill Hall (future live music venue), Fremantle Oval and Fremantle Inner Harbour. The report concludes that the installation of 6mm (minimum) laminated glass, consistent with the Fremantle Port Authority requirements (as discussed earlier in this report) should be applied across the site to minimise noise intrusion to the development from traffic noise and the Fremantle Oval. In relation to the Drill Hall, which is located near the site and is proposed to be refurbished as a live music venue, the report notes that the control of noise from the venue will be the responsibility of the operator, however, given the building has heritage significance, there may be some limitations on the noise attenuation that can be provided. Furthermore, with such a venue there will always be some spillage of noise associated with patron movements outside the venue, particularly at closing time, which will be late in the night. As such the Acoustic Report recommends that 10mm thick glass (window and frame to achieve minimum Rw 33) be adopted to certain areas of the proposed development including:

Block D ‐ Accommodation room windows (impacted by Drill Hall);

Block E ‐ Accommodation room windows (impacted by Drill Hall). It is further recommended the upgraded glazing (or equivalent) apply to the new Block F hotel for consistency and to provide a high quality acoustic environment. In response to the Community Consultation period, a submission was received from the future operators of the Drill Hall which included a letter from Herring Storer Acoustics. The letter acknowledged that the proposed development has the potential to create a land use conflict between the live music venue and the Hotel building. As noted in the applicant’s Acoustic Report, the letter acknowledges that the proponent of the Drill Hall development is undertaking significant acoustic attenuation works to the Drill Hall building, however, these measures are subject to existing practical limitations created by heritage requirements for these historic premises. The letter concludes that the proposed 10mm (Rw 33 dB) glazing may be considered insufficient, with higher performing glazing in the order of Rw 46 dB being more appropriate. It also makes additional recommendations in regard to the material of the walls, doors and seals of the Hotel rooms identified as being impacted on by the Drill Hall.


7 March 2018

Page 38

On review of the Applicant’s Acoustic Report and the letter received as part of a public submission there could be preference to impose a requirement on the developer to achieve the higher noise attenuation rating over the minimum requirement to protect the amenity of future occupants of the development and ensure the adjoining land uses can operate without having a detrimental impact on each other. Given the Applicant’s Acoustic Report recognises that many aspects of the noise report and attenuation measures will need further development in the event of an approval being granted, it is recommended that a condition be imposed to require the submission of an updated Acoustic Report that details the final attenuation measures of the development. It is also recommended that the applicant be advised that the final attenuation measures should aim to achieve a higher standard than the minimum. In addition to the above requirement for an updated Acoustic Report it is also considered appropriate in this instance to require a notification be placed on the title of the site that advises of the potential noise impacts from activities and events in the immediate locality that may result from use of the Drill Hall, Fremantle Oval and the Fremantle Markets. As this notification will only serve to notify prospective purchasers or tenants (that may view the titles for the property) it is also recommended that the Hotel operator implement as part of its Premises Management Plan a way of notifying prospective guests of the hotel of the existing surrounding land uses and the potential noise impacts. Relevant conditions have been included in the recommendation. Car parking The car parking requirements have been assessed against Clause 4.7, Table 2 of LPS4 as follows:

Element Bays Required Bays Provided

Shortfall

Hotel 1: 2.5m2 of public bar area (50m2) = 10 1:1 bedroom (62 rooms) = 62

15 282

Tavern(s) 1: 2.5m2 of public bar area (50m2) = 20 1:5m2 of lounge/garden area (630m2 for Courthouse and T4) = 126

Restaurant 1:5 seats or 1:5m2 dining area, whichever is the greater (390m2) = 78

Shop 1:20m2 (30m2 for T7*) = 1

*Schedule A, Clause 61(q) of LPS4 exempts the need to obtain planning approval for a change of use to Shop or Office of an existing building in the City Centre zone, notwithstanding whether parking requirements of clause 4.7 are met. The Shop and/or Office uses proposed in the existing Warders Cottages and Block D buildings are therefore exempt from parking requirements and not included in the above calculations. Clause 4.7.3 of LPS4 permits variations to the parking requirements of the Scheme. The parking variations proposed are supported for the following reasons:

The site is located within the City Centre and in close proximity to a large number of public car parks, including the Queensgate complex directly across the street and the large long stay surface car park on Parry Street.


7 March 2018

Page 39

The site is located approximately 500 m from the Fremantle train station and near a number of different bus routes.

With the variety of uses on-site, there is likely to be a great deal of reciprocal car parking as visitors access multiple tenancies on the same trip.

The majority of visitors staying in the Hotel are unlikely to have their own private vehicle and will likely rely on alternate forms of transportation.

The site contains a large number of buildings of cultural heritage significance that must be retained, resulting in limited ability to add additional car parking.

The proposal involves the retention of existing landscaping and mature trees of significance.

Bicycle racks

Element Bay Calculation Bays Required

Bays Provided

Hotel Class 1 - 1:100m2 lounge area (50m2) Class 3 - 1:100m2 lounge area (50m2)

1 x Class 1 1 x Class 3

Not specified

Tavern(s) Class 1 – 1:25m2 bar floor area (50m2), and 1: 100m2 lounge and beer garden (630m2) Class 3 – 1:25m2 bar floor area (50m2), and 1: 100m2 lounge and beer garden (630m2)

8 x Class 1 8 x Class 3

Restaurant Class 1 or 2 – 1:100m2 public area (390m2) Class 3 - two

4 x Class 1/2 2 x Class 3

Shop (T7) Class 1 – 1:300m2 (30m2) Class 3 – 1:500m2 gla (over 1000 m2)

Nil Nil

A class 1 bicycle rack is required to be a fully closed individual locker, and a class 2 bicycle rack is required to be a lockable compound fitted with class 3 facilities with communal access using duplicated keys, under the requirements of LPS4. The applicant has included a bicycle, shower and locker facilities on the south-eastern corner of Block E. Specific details have not been provided. The applicant has also stated they intend to include bike racks (Class 3) throughout the site. LPS4 only allows variations to bicycle requirements for minor developments and it is therefore not appropriate to amend biking requirements for the subject development. The above provisions are recommended to be required as a condition of any approval and prior to the issue of a building permit.


7 March 2018

Page 40

Delivery bays

Element Bays Required Bays Provided

Hotel 1: service/storage area = 1

1 Tavern(s) 1: service/storage area = 1

Restaurant 1: service/storage area = 4

One service loading dock is provided for all tenancies on-site to be accessed via Parry Street which is considered suitable for the loading/unloading requirements of the site. Access to the loading dock is proposed via Parry Street adjacent to the Hotel drop off / pick up area. Concerns have been raised in regard to the safe manoeuvrability of trucks servicing the site with particular concern in regard to trucks being required to exit the site in reverse. A condition of approval is recommended to require the submission of final details of the loading dock area, including vehicle sweep paths to demonstrate the safe manoeuvring of trucks entering and exiting the site. It is noted that the plans show two additional loading bays, one on Holdsworth Street and one on William Street. These bays are located within the road reserve and are outside the scope of this approval. Further liaison with the City is required for the road reserves and integrated verge works, and provision for the additional loading bays will have to form part of those discussions. End of Trip Facilities Clause 4.15 of LPS4 sets out requirements for end of trip facilities as shown below:

No. of bicycle racks required

Ratio of number of showers required to the number of bicycle racks required

Number of showers required

Up to the first 10 bicycle racks required

One male and one female shower (or 2 unisex) required for every 10* Class 1 or 2 bicycle racks required

13 Class 1 and 2 = 2 showers

Bicycle racks required in excess of the first 10 bicycle racks required

One male and one female shower (or 2 unisex) required for every 20** Class 1 or 2 bicycle racks required

13 Class 1 and 2 = 2 showers

*Calculations rounded up to the nearest 10 **Calculations rounded up to the nearest 20 As the plans only show a general shower area, the specific requirements for four showers are included as a condition of approval. Matters to be considered Through the assessment above, the following matters have been given due regard in reviewing this application in accordance with clause 67 of the Regulations.

(a) The aims and provisions of this Scheme and any other local planning scheme operating within the Scheme area;


7 March 2018

Page 41

(c) Any approved State planning policy The development is supported under SPP 3.5 as discussed elsewhere in this report.

(g) any local planning policy for the Scheme area (k) the built heritage conservation of any place that is of cultural significance (l) the effect of the proposal on the cultural heritage significance 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, 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 impact of the development

(s) the adequacy of – (i) the proposed means of access to and egress from the site; and (ii) arrangements for the loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles

(t) the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the development, particularly in relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probably effect on traffic flow and safety A traffic impact statement has been provided by the applicant that concludes there will not be an unacceptable impact on the adjacent road network. This has been reviewed by the City’s officers who have not raised any concerns with this assessment.

(u) the availability and adequacy for the development of the following –

i. public transport services ii. public utility services iii. storage, management and collection of waste iv. access for pedestrians and cyclists (including end of trip storage, toilet and

shower facilities v. access by older people and people with disability

(y) any submissions received on the application


7 March 2018

Page 42

CITY OF FREMANTLE STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is considered to comply with the following strategic plans: Strategic Community Plan 2015-2025

Increase the number of people working in Fremantle

Increase the number of visitors to Fremantle

Character culture and heritage focus area – addresses outcome ‘Fremantle celebrates its history and heritage through active renewal’

Fremantle’s Economic Development Strategy 2015-2020

Place activation to increase commercial and social vibrancy

Attraction of business and investment Alcohol Management (SG50)

The proposal includes an appropriate mix of land uses including Hotel, Restaurant, Tavern, Office and Retail

Potential impacts of the proposed Licensed Premises can be appropriately managed

CONCLUSION: The proposed development demonstrates a mix of appropriate commercial land uses that will contribute to the activity in the city and complement surrounding uses including the future Kings Square redevelopment and the Markets. The conservation and adaption of the existing buildings, identified as being of medium to high cultural heritage significance for Retail, Office and Tavern uses is also supported. The proposed lightweight, small scale building additions clearly distinguish between the old and the new buildings in the development and they present a form and scale that is compatible with the retained heritage buildings and the broader heritage area. In this regard the proposal is considered to respond positively to the cultural heritage significance of the site and area and is supported. On the key issue of whether the requirements under the deemed provisions to enable the local planning scheme height limits to be varied are satisfied, officers consider the current design (in terms of height and ‘visible from the street setback’) of the hotel building does facilitate the built heritage conservation of the place, and would not be detrimental to the heritage significance of the other buildings on site and to the Convict Grant heritage area and Fremantle Prison Buffer Zone in which it is located. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval.


7 March 2018

Page 43

PC1803 -2 SOUTH STREET, NO. 69 (LOT 18) BEACONSFIELD - MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (TWO (2) OFFICE AND NINE (9) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (CJ DA0603/15)

Meeting Date: 7 March 2018 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Development plans

2: Site photographs 3: DAC Minutes 4: Schedule of submissions 5: Heritage comment

SUMMARY

Approval is sought for a mixed use development at No. 69 South Street, Beaconsfield. The development includes nine (9) Multiple dwellings and two (2) Office tenancies, and retains a portion of the existing heritage buildings on site. The application is presented to Planning Committee due to its significance, the level of discretion sought and due to a number of submissions received objecting to the proposal. The application seeks discretion against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) in respect to the following:

Building height

Demolition

Traffic and vehicle safety

Overshadowing

Lot boundary setbacks

Plot ratio

Visual privacy

Bicycle rack

Parking

Street setback

Land use

First floor level Officers acknowledge that in general built form terms the proposal reflects the sort of development outcome expected following a scheme amendment promoted by the City for this site and other nearby properties, and some elements of the proposal can be supported. However, there are a number of fundamental planning issues that are not supported under current provisions. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.


7 March 2018

Page 44

PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for nine (9) Multiple dwellings and two (2) Office tenancies at No. 69 South Street, Beaconsfield. The application for development was lodged with the City of Fremantle on 18 December 2015. The application was placed on hold pending the gazettal of Scheme Amendment 66 which rezoned the site to Mixed Use with a density coding of R80. The estimated construction cost is valued at under $10m by the applicant and therefore falls within the optional DAP threshold. The applicant has elected to not have the proposal determined by the JDAP, rather authority remains with the City of Fremantle to determine the application. The proposal includes the following:

Basement:

o Two (2) commercial car bays (including one ACROD bay)

o Two (2) commercial/visitor car bays

o Four (4) residential car bays

o Seven (7) bicycle racks

o Residential lobby

o Residential bin store

o Commercial bin store

Ground floor:

o Two (2) Office tenancies

o Communal courtyard

o Six (6) residential car bays accessed off ROW

o One (1) Multiple dwelling

o Eight (8) storerooms

First floor:

o Four (4) Multiple dwellings

Second floor

o Three (3) Multiple dwellings

Third floor

o One (1) Multiple dwelling

Revised plans were received (dated 13 February 2018), that indicate the relocation of the proposed ACROD bay from the Hampton Road street frontage into the basement. The basement level was also revised to improve the pedestrian environment to allow universal access directly to the lift.


7 March 2018

Page 45

Site/application information Date received: 18 December 2015 Owner name: Giselle and Luciano Pangiarella Submitted by: Mandy Leung (Hillam Architects) Scheme: Mixed Use R80 Heritage listing: Level 3 Existing land use: Office (Vacant) Use class: Multiple dwelling and Office Use permissibility: A and P

The existing site at No. 69 South Street, Beaconsfield is currently occupied by two (2), single storey buildings which were historically built as a Shop and house, however used more recently as an Office. Throughout the report, the building on the corner is referred to as the “shop” and the building on the South Street elevation as the “house”. The site has not been occupied by a tenant recently. CONSULTATION

External referrals Public transport authority (PTA) The application was referred to the PTA as it abuts a bus lane along Hampton Road. They have provided advice as follows-

Transperth does not have any fundamental objection with the proposed development as it uses existing crossovers and tenancy volumes are not seen to generate traffic levels that would impede the bus lane. However Transperth would request impact to the bus lane be minimised if possible during construction, and to notify [email protected] of any works that will affect bus services.



7 March 2018

Page 46

Notwithstanding this application being recommended for refusal, should the application be approved, an advice note is recommended to be applied. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations). The application was advertised as a significant application in accordance with LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals as follows:

Period of twenty eight (28) days

Local newspaper notices

Sign on site

Letters to owners and occupiers within a 100m radius

Plans available on the website for public viewing

Notification to precinct groups

Community information session held on the 28 September 2017 The advertising period concluded on 10 October 2017, and 16 submissions were received. One of the submissions was on behalf of four nearby residents. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Overshadowing

Increased traffic and access to right of way

Increase in traffic in local area

Pressure on on-street parking in surrounding narrow streets

Visual privacy

Height

Bulk and distinctiveness of design not being appropriate for the area

Pedestrian and vehicle safety A table of submissions is included as attachment 4. The schedule provides a summary of the issues raised in each submission and a brief response from officers. The following points are provided in response to the key themes raised in submissions:

Overshadowing is reviewed against specific scheme provisions which apply to this site and the design principles of the R-Codes in the report below and is not supported.

The subject site has legal rights to access the Right of Way.

Traffic is a matter to be considered in making a determination on this application and is discussed in the report below.

Parking is a discretion being sought by the development and is discussed in the report below.

Visual privacy is discussed in the report below where it does not meet deemed to comply requirements.

Height is a discretion being sought by the development and is discussed in the report below. It is not considered that the proposed development meets the required criteria to achieve the maximum heights allowable by LPS4.

The design of the development is considered by the DAC, as well as against heritage principles and is discussed in the report below.


7 March 2018

Page 47

Pedestrian and vehicle safety is a matter to be considered in the report below. The proposed access arrangements are not supported.

OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant 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 Scheme or R-Code Deemed-to-comply provisions and need to be assessed under the Scheme or Design principles:

Building height

Demolition

Traffic and vehicle safety

Overshadowing

Lot boundary setbacks

Plot ratio

Visual privacy

Bicycle rack

Parking

Street setback

Land use

First floor level The above matters are discussed in the report below. Background The subject site is located on the south eastern corner of the intersection of Hampton Road and South Street in Beaconsfield. The site is zoned Mixed Use and has a density of R80. The site is Level 3 on the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI), and is also on the City’s Heritage List. On 18 December 2015, the City received an application for a four storey building, including the partial retention of the heritage house and corner tenancy. The uses proposed were Multiple Dwelling and Office. Revised plans were lodged (dated 4 May 2016), that included an additional storey. The application was put on hold pending the gazettal of Scheme Amendment 66, which rezoned the site to be Mixed Use with a density of R80. This amendment was promoted by the City as an initiative to stimulate higher density mixed use redevelopment at a nodal point centred on the intersection of two high frequency public transport routes (South Street and Hampton Road). The amendment initially only applied to properties on the west side of the intersection, but as a modification to the amendment prior to its final approval by council the three lots comprising No. 69 South Street were also included in response to submissions on behalf of the landowner. At the same time other


7 March 2018

Page 48

modifications were made to building height controls under the amendment to moderate the potential impact of new development upon existing residential properties immediately adjoining the scheme amendment area. This resulted in quite specific maximum building height provisions applying to properties subject to the amendment, including 69 South Street. Upon gazettal of the amendment in June of 2017, officers recommenced assessing the application. The applicant was provided with the opportunity to address officers’ concerns, and have opted not to significantly amend plans from those lodged in 2015. A number of minor revisions were made with a final set of plans lodged for consideration dated 13 February 2018. Building height LPS4 specifies the following height requirements for the site:

i. 7 metres on the part of the lot within 5 metres of the southern lot boundary adjoining Lot 150 Hampton Road;

ii. 12 metres on all parts of the lot other than the parts referred to in (i) above; and iii. Notwithstanding (i) and (ii) above, Council may permit a maximum building height of

15 metres where Council is satisfied to all of the following: - The existing heritage buildings on site are to be retained as part of any

development on the lot/s; - The design of any new development is to appropriately address the scale, bulk,

materials and textures of the existing heritage listed buildings on site; - New development must demonstrate the design of any new development will

result in lesser overshadowing and/or more sunlight penetration to the outdoor living areas of Lot 150 Hampton Road compared with the setbacks described in (i) and (ii) above; and

- The height of the Hampton Road elevation is to be graduated in order to reduce the impact of building bulk on the adjoining southern boundary.

The development proposes a maximum building height of 15m, therefore the application is to be assessed under iii of the provision. The proposal is required to meet all of the following criteria:

The existing heritage buildings on site are to be retained as part of any development on the lot/s The amount of retention of the heritage buildings is not specified by the clause, but the assumption is that they should be retained sufficiently so as not to detrimentally impact their cultural heritage significance. Both buildings on site are listed as Level 3 on the Municipal Heritage Inventory, and are also included on the City’s Heritage List. In considering the amount of the existing house being retained, the following advice is provided by the City’s heritage officers: The extent of the proposed demolition of the house as shown on the current scheme is excessive. The proposed loss of heritage fabric would severely compromise the authenticity and legibility of the presentation of the house, particularly when it is viewed from northeast. The recommended alternative arrangement consisting of the complete retention of the front half of the house,


7 March 2018

Page 49

including its original roof, would overcome these shortcomings by allowing a much better understanding of the form of the house and its relationship with the shop and the street, thereby providing a comprehensible expression of the place’s streetscape values.

The design of any new development is to appropriately address the scale, bulk, materials and textures of the existing heritage listed buildings on site; While the materials and textures of the new additions are supported, the location of these multi-storey additions negatively impact on the heritage buildings by creating additions that overwhelm and dominate the existing heritage buildings. The heritage buildings should hold prominence at street level and not be overwhelmed by the bulk and scale of the additions. The following heritage advice is provided: The requirement that second storey additions to an existing single storey dwelling be set back behind the main roof ridge of the existing house a minimum distance of four metres (*note: refers to LPP 2.9, which is not applicable to this development, comment refers to the good heritage principles of the policy only), derives from the dimensions that are typical of the late 19th century, classically influenced houses in Fremantle. Usually the outcome from this policy is a two-storey addition set behind the main body the house resulting in a whole consisting of two clearly articulated parts, with the main body of the house continuing to benefit the streetscape. It is considered that this type of clear differentiation between old and new would improve the proposed development. Reinforcing this opinion is the fact that this design approach would produce an outcome consistent with the precedent set by the current arrangement of house and shop. Siting the new development behind the retained and conserved half of the existing house would provide a clear understanding of the original form of the house and its roof. Coincidentally, it would also demonstrate its similarities with the house at 150/152 Hampton Road and thus clearly link it to the early development of the area.

New development must demonstrate the design of any new development will result in lesser overshadowing and/or more sunlight penetration to the outdoor living areas of Lot 150 Hampton Road compared with the setbacks described in (i) and (ii) above; and The applicant has provided the following diagram that demonstrates that should a development be designed for the full extent of the block at 7m and 12m, that a greater amount of the rear yard will be overshadowed than their scheme.


7 March 2018

Page 50

The southern-most portion of the rear yard of No. 150 Hampton Road, shown in the second diagram to be free of shadow, is accessed by a double gate which appears to be intended for vehicle access. The remainder of the boundary against the ROW is occupied by a limestone fence, which does not allow for vehicle parking without substantial works to the fence. There is also not sufficient space for vehicle parking on the Hampton Road frontage of the property. Additionally, in order to address overlooking to the south, the shadow impact may increase in addition to that shown in the diagram, as there is no screening material shown on the balcony on the southern boundary. This will mean that the area shown to be free of shadow will be less if screening is required. Overshadowing is discussed further in this report.

The height of the Hampton Road elevation is to be graduated in order to reduce the impact of building bulk on the adjoining southern boundary It is considered that the height respectfully steps down toward the single storey Single house at No. 150 Hampton Road, with only the ground and first floors abutting the existing house at the street boundary. As the development increases in height, the setbacks increase, from both the southern site and the street, to reduce the impact on the streetscape.

In reviewing the proposal against the above criteria officers consider the proposal meets only the last of the four criteria. As it does not meet all of the requirements to obtain the maximum heights, the proposed height is not supported.


7 March 2018

Page 51

Demolition In addition to assessing the amount of building being retained as part of the building height requirements above, LPS4 includes a provision that protects buildings with some cultural heritage significance from demolition as follows (clause 4.14.1): Council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

(a) Has limited or no cultural heritage significance; and (b) Does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage

significance and character of the locality in which it is located. Both buildings on site are listed as Level 3 on the MHI, and are both included on the City’s Heritage List. Their significance is summarised by its entry in the MHI as follows -

The place is of aesthetic value as an Victorian Georgian style of architecture residence that contributes to the quality of its setting along Hampton Road and South Street;

The place has some historic value as late nineteenth century shop and attached residence that demonstrates the early settlement and development of the Beaconsfield area,

The place has social significance as it contributes to the community’s sense of place, and

It is representative of an early shop and attached residence in the Fremantle area. As detailed above in the discussion relating to building height it is considered that the proposed development does not sufficiently retain enough of the existing building (and significant fabric) to preserve the authenticity and legibility of the presentation of the house, particularly when it is viewed from northeast and is therefore in accordance with clause 4.14, the proposed extent of demolition is not supported. Traffic and vehicle safety In accordance with the deemed to comply criteria of the R-Codes, a Multiple dwelling development is to gain access from a right of way where available. Only where a right of way does not exist, should access be taken from a secondary street. Where a secondary street does not exist, access can only then be taken from the primary street. While some car parking is proposed to be accessed off the right of way, and is therefore deemed to comply, another access point is proposed off Hampton Road. As the residential lobby of the development is on Hampton Road, it is considered that this is the primary street for the development, and a design principle assessment is therefore required for the vehicle access to the development. The design principle for 6.3.5 of the R-Codes is as follows – P5 Vehicular access provided so as to minimise the number of crossovers, to be safe in use and not detract from the streetscape


7 March 2018

Page 52

While there is only one crossover on this frontage, and therefore the number of crossovers is minimised and is unlikely to detract from the streetscape, the safety of the access point is of concern. In reviewing this access point, the following advice from the City’s Traffic and Design Officer is provided for Councils consideration:

Hampton Road and South Street intersection is the worst performing local intersection in the local government area in terms of the number of crash incidents.

The crossover is within 35m of the intersection and close to an existing merge point.

Hampton Road, and South Street are both District Distributor A roads, which is the maximum classification before they come under the control of Main Roads WA.

Heavy vehicles use this road daily, including vehicles accessing the port.

Access at this location will add an extra risk to road users at this location.

An exit only from this location could be used if absolutely necessary; however the preference is for this access point to not be used at all.

Use of VMS warning signage at the proposed access is not an acceptable risk mitigation strategy, when there is an alternate option for access.

It is noted that the applicant has provided a ‘technical memorandum’ from a traffic engineer advising that entry to the site is safe subject to a number of measures. The above comments were provided after reviewing this advice. In addition to determining the location for access to a development, the R-Codes provide criteria for vehicle sightlines as follows:

Element Required Provided Extent of variation

Hampton Road Truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of where walls, fences, other structures adjoin vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street and where two streets intersect

Bin store screen setback 1.2m Nil setback or truncation (res lobby)

300mm 1.5m

Right of way Car bays setback 0.4m from right of way, solid walls on either end

1.1m

The proposed sightline arrangement is not supported for the following reasons:

The right of way at the rear is accessed by at least twelve (12) additional properties, meaning that reversing out into this narrow space requires a greater amount of visibility to ensure the safety of other vehicles.

The Hampton Road access point is an existing crossover which is obstructed on its northern side by a heritage wall. There is proposed to be an increase in traffic from this crossover, as well as it to be for entry and exit, whereas the current site has access through the site allowing for alternative entry and exit points.

The footpath is hard against the boundary line on the Hampton Road elevation.


7 March 2018

Page 53

The access point on Hampton Road is in close proximity to a busy intersection, as well as the beginning of a bus lane and a merge point immediately after exiting the intersection.

Overshadowing Schedule 8 of LPS4 advises of the following in relation to overshadowing: In assessing development against design elements 5.4.2 and 6.4.2 (solar access for adjoining sites) of the Residential Design Codes and irrespective of the dwelling or lot type on adjoining southern boundary, all development shall be assessed only against the design principles of design elements 5.4.2 and 6.4.2 and will not be assessed against C2.1 and C2.2 of the deemed to comply requirements Therefore, in assessing the overshadowing impact on the southern property, Council must be satisfied of the following design principles: Effective solar access for the proposed development Development designed to protect solar access for neighbouring properties taking into account the potential to overshadow existing:

Outdoor living areas

North facing major openings to habitable rooms, within 15 degrees of north in each direction or

Roof mounted solar collectors. In reviewing the proposal against the overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes, the following is advised:

The proposed development has unobstructed access to sunlight by virtue of South Street on its northern boundary.

The southern property is occupied by a single storey Single house.

A large proportion of the rear yard is proposed to be overshadowed by the proposed development, with an area in the south eastern corner of the site protected.

The portion of the site not affected by shadow, is accessed by a double gate and is occupied by a paved area shown on previous development plans to be vehicle parking.

The area overshadowed is the portion of yard abutting the house – i.e. directly accessible from indoor habitable spaces, which would be a compliant outdoor living area for the purposes of the R-Codes.

A major opening to the living room is located on the northern elevation of the southern property and is setback 1.4m from the boundary. It is not significantly impacted by the existing boundary fence. However, it is noted that even a building of the compliant 7m height with a 1m setback from the boundary on the subject site would likely affect this openings access to winter sun.

There are no roof mounted solar collectors on the southern property.

Should the development be approved, it is likely that screening would be required on the upper floor balconies. This screening has not been shown on the plans and would increase the amount of shadow thrown on the southern neighbour, reducing their anticipated access to northern sunlight.


7 March 2018

Page 54

The officer report to council in March 2016 which recommended final approval of scheme amendment 66 included the following comment in relation to building height controls for 69 South Street: ‘City officers agree with the comments made in relation to the ability for the design to respond to overshadowing of adjoining sites however, the intention of limiting the maximum building height to the southern boundary also relates to the overall impact of building bulk to the adjoining neighbour. The submission assists in demonstrating how overshadowing can be addressed through the design of the development however, it is considered that these design requirements relating to overshadowing will also be captured during the development application stage of a proposal for the site. The R-Codes specifically provide guidance for the assessment of overshadowing which are required to be met in addition to the permissible building heights.’ While an element of the southern site is protected by virtue of the stepped design on No. 69 South Street, it is considered that the level of overshadowing proposed is unacceptable. Lot boundary setbacks


South 1m Nil 1m

East 1m Nil 1m

In accordance with Schedule 8 lot boundary setbacks can be reduced to 1m. In assessing this variation, clause 4.8.2 can be used- 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 Councils local planning policies In determining the impact on the amenity of adjoining properties, the design principles of the R-Codes are useful:

Ensure adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation for buildings and the open space associated with them

Moderate the visual impact of building bulk on a neighbouring property

Ensure access to daylight and direct sun for adjoining properties and

Assist with the protection of privacy between adjoining properties

As discussed in the report above, overshadowing is a concern which has an increased impact by the reduced setback to the south. While a 1m setback is not significant, it may assist in providing a small corridor of additional light at different times of the day. Additionally, imposing the 1m setback will assist in reducing the visual impact of building bulk, particularly to the single storey southern property. The three floors of development hard against the boundary will have the effect of enclosing the rear yard, and while a 1m setback will not significantly improve the amenity for the neighbour it will go a modest way to improving it.


7 March 2018

Page 55

The right of way to the east is considered to provide sufficient separation between the subject site and the existing properties in relation to protecting their amenity. The lot boundary setback variation to the south and east, do not directly impact on the cultural heritage conservation of the subject site or adjoining properties. In summary, it is considered that the reduction to the eastern lot boundary setback can be supported due to the existing Right of Way, however the 1m setback to the south should be imposed to reduce the impact of building bulk on the southern neighbour. Plot ratio


Plot ratio 1.0 1.267 (778sqm) 0.267 (164sqm)

The proposed plot ratio exceeds the Deemed-to-comply level allocated to the R80 density in the R-Codes by 26%. In reviewing the proposal against the design principles, the level of plot ratio sought is not supported for the following reasons:

The level of discretion equates to the floorspace of approximately two (2) of the apartments. The removal of two of the apartments, or the reduction of some apartments’ floor area could provide the applicant with the opportunity to address outstanding concerns with the built form, especially the impact on the heritage listed original house.

The density allocated to the site is R80, whereas the plot ratio proposed reflects that of an R100 development. It is not considered that the proposed floor area reflects the intensity of development desired by the Scheme. In the council report recommending initiation of the scheme amendment in May 2015, part of the rationale for the selection of R80 as an appropriate density coding was that R80 development standards would be consistent with existing and recently approved built form in the area.

Visual privacy


Unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces

6m Balcony South elevation- 3rd floor, 4.45m Balcony west elevation – 2nd floor – 1.3m Balcony south elevation 1st floor – Nil (2x balconies)

1.55m 4.7m 6m

While the balconies on the southern portion of the proposed development have the effect of reducing building bulk to this elevation, this is at the expense of the privacy of the southern property. Screening these openings would add further building bulk. With the exception of the balcony on the second floor which directs its view to the front of the property and over the street, it is not considered that the balconies meet the design principles of the R-Codes.


7 March 2018

Page 56

Bicycle rack


Office Class 1 or 2 1 per 200m2 – one (1) rack

Nil One (1) class 1 or 2

Multiple dwelling One per three dwellings, one per 10 dwellings for visitors – 3 resident + 1 visitor

Seven (7) Three (3) additional

In accordance with LPS4, Class 1 or 2 bicycle racks are described as the following:

Class 1 – High security level – Fully enclosed individual locker

Class 2 – Medium security level – Lockable compound fitted with class 3 facilities with communal access using duplicated keys

LPS4 permits Council to waive the requirement for a class 1 or 2 bicycle rack, where it is considered to be a minor change of use. Given the substantial redevelopment of the buildings, it is not considered that the requirement should be waived and that the one rack could be comfortably accommodated within the development. Parking


Office 1:30sqm gla (6 bays required)

4 2 bay shortfall

Multiple dwelling (less than 110sqm or 1 or 2 bedrooms

1 per dwelling ( 9 required)

10 provided 1 additional bays

Visitor bays per dwelling

0.25 per dwelling = 2.25 (3 bays)

Nil provided 3 bays

Office (delivery) 1:500sqm 0 1 delivery bay

Parking for visitors and commercial (2 bays) is shown to be shared in the basement. As the visitor bays are behind a security gate, they are considered to be more appropriate to be allocated as the commercial bays. For the purposes of calculating the provided bays, the bays are hereby considered as the commercial bays. In considering the proposed reduction in parking and lack of delivery bay for the Office, at least one of the following criteria of clause 4.7.3.1 of LPS4: (i) The availability of car parking in the locality including street parking (ii) The availability of public transport in the locality (iii) Any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces by multiple

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

(iv) Any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing uses of the land


7 March 2018

Page 57

(v) Legal arrangements have been made in accordance with clause 4.7.5 for the parking or shared use of parking areas which are in the opinion of the Council satisfactory

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

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

(viii) Any other relevant considerations

While there are a number of local streets in the vicinity with street parking, many of these streets are narrow with existing parking issues. A number of residential properties in the local area are heritage listed with no off-street parking and rely on the existing on street parking.

The site is located within a high frequency bus route, meaning that for staff attending the Office, public transport is a viable option.

The applicant has indicated that two of the Office bays are intended to be shared with visitors – this may decrease the availability of these bays for the Office.

The existing land use for the site is Office, however the existing parking is being removed to make way for the development. The floor area is decreasing, but number of bays provided for the office has also decreased to not be compliant.

No information has been provided by the applicant to indicate a formal arrangement for parking on another site.

The parking requirement has not changed.

The proposal does include the restoration of a heritage building, however this is only partial with a significant amount of the building proposed to be removed.

There is one additional residential bay which could be reallocated for the use of the Office tenancies.

Offices are unlikely to have a significant number of deliveries by nature of their business type.

The site abuts a busy intersection, and a reduced number of cars entering and exiting the property is a better outcome for vehicle safety.

There are two scooter bays provided in the basement. For visitor bays for the Multiple dwellings, the design principle criteria are taken from the R-Codes, and the following is noted:

No dedicated visitor car bays are provided that do not require access through a security gate.

The two bays indicated for visitors on the plans, are proposed to be shared with the Office tenants. While this does have some sense to it, in that in the evening visitors to the Multiple dwelling should gain access to these bays, there may be conflict during business hours.

The site is within a high frequency bus route, with visitors to the Multiple dwellings able to easily access public transport to the site.

There are two scooter bays provided in the basement.

There is one (1) additional car bay for the Multiple dwellings provided.


7 March 2018

Page 58

In total, considering the Office, Multiple dwelling and visitor bay requirements, there is an overall shortfall of four (4) car bays and one (1) delivery bay. For the reasons discussed above, while there is some existing parking pressures in the locality, on balance the impacts of the parking shortfall are not considered as sufficient reasons to constitute a reason for refusal of the application. Street setback


Street setback to South St and Hampton Rd (minimum)

2m 0m (Hampton Rd) 5.8m (South St)

2m (Hampton Rd) Complies (South St)

Street setback to South St and Hampton Rd (maximum)

3m 2.3m (Hampton Rd) 7.8m (South St)

Complies (Hampton Rd) 4.8m (South St)

The above table describes the setbacks for the new section of the building as outlined by Schedule 8. As well as a minimum, there is also a maximum street setback requirement.

Hampton Road For the Hampton Road elevation, the ground and first floors of the development have a nil setback to the street and do therefore not meet the minimum setback requirement. Having regard to the existing “Shop” building, the requirement to set the new portion of the development back from the street is considered to have a detrimental impact on the significance of the place. Where such a discretion exists, Council have the ability to vary the requirement as follows – Variations to local planning scheme provisions for heritage purposes

(1) The local government may vary any site or development requirement specified in this Scheme to- a. Facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the Register of

Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or listed in the heritage list; or

b. Enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area. As imposing this condition would result in a negative impact to the built heritage conservation of the existing heritage place, it is considered that exercising discretion under clause 12 of Schedule 2 (Deemed provisions) of the Regulations, is appropriate for the Hampton Road elevation.

South Street

The South street setback meets the minimum requirement, but is greater than the 3m maximum. As discussed earlier in the report, the existing “house” on site, is of significance and the current proposal is not supported as the upper floor addition is not setback far enough. It again is considered appropriate to exercise discretion for the maximum setback using clause 12 of the deemed provisions, notwithstanding that the setback should be even greater than proposed.


7 March 2018

Page 59

Land use The proposed land use of Multiple dwelling is an ‘A’ use under Table 1 of LPS4. This means: That the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after giving special notice in accordance with clause 64 of the Regulations, Schedule 2. The proposed land use was advertised, with no submissions raising concern with the proposed land use, rather focusing on the impacts of the built form. In considering whether the use is appropriate, the following comments are provided against the objectives of the Mixed Use zone:

(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 good and services in small scale premises, including showrooms, where the uses would not be detrimental to the viability of retail activity and other functions of the City Centre, Local Centre and Neighbourhood Centre zones The proposed development includes a mix of uses, with Office at street level and residential above. The small scale office tenancies are considered to be appropriate for a more suburban, as opposed to City centre, locality.

(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 Multiple dwellings are proposed on the upper floors of the development, with Office tenancies at street level that present directly to the street. Both tenancies also have their main access points addressing the streets.

(iii) Ensure future development within each of the mixed use zones is sympathetic with the desired future character of each area The proposed land use of Multiple dwelling is considered to be appropriate for the character of the area, particularly given the mix of commercial uses, and the site abutting a residential zone.

(iv) Ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality, and Reviewing the property from a land use perspective, not considering the built form impacts, the use is unlikely to be detrimental to amenity of surrounding residential properties or commercial businesses.

(v) Conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development. The use of the site for Multiple dwelling does not have a detrimental impact on the significance of the place. Rather, the works required to accommodate the built form will.


7 March 2018

Page 60

Floor levels


First floor level 4m above adjacent footpath level (min)

3.5m 500mm

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 Councils local planning policies In the event of any approval, this variation could be considered acceptable as the area of non-compliance is located above the vehicle access point on Hampton Road (and not a portion of the active ground floor level) adjacent to the retained building. Design advisory committee In accordance with Clause 78B(6) of Schedule A, the Council shall not determine a development application that proposes a building with a building height of 11 metres or greater, without first referring the application to the Design Advisory Committee for advice and having regard to the advice provided by the Design Advisory Committee. The application was referred to the DAC, where matters were considered in accordance with LPP1.9 Design Advisory Committee and Principles of Design. At their last meeting on 11 September 2017, the DAC advised that they supported the application subject to the following being provided:

Specific details of the external materials and finishes of the proposed addition.

Consideration of the environmental efficiency of the development and the need for

sun shading devices to the north and west facing openings of the addition and the

uncovered roof outdoor living areas.

Improve the access arrangement from the car parking areas for people with a

disability, parents with prams, bicycle users etc.

Revise the internal layout of the apartments to ensure that no bathrooms are directly

accessed from the living/dining rooms

Provide confirmation of the location of air conditioning units to ensure they will not

have adverse impact of the appearance of the development or use of outdoor living

areas.

Revised plans have since been lodged that address much of the above. In the instance of an approval, a condition would be recommended to ensure final review of materials and finishes by the DAC. Apartment design codes


7 March 2018

Page 61

State Planning Policy 7 (Design of the built environment), has not yet been gazetted, however it has been released for public comment. The Department of Planning has advised that the Design WA stage one policies are expected to be finalised in early 2018. In reviewing this application, it is considered that the Apartment design codes (SPP 7.3), could be considered a seriously entertained document and should be given consideration in making a determination on this proposal. The proposal is considered to comply with a number of the requirements of the Apartment Design Codes with the exception of providing vehicle access from the lowest order access street (i.e. the Right of Way) and the adverse impacts on the existing heritage buildings on site. It is noted that a full assessment against the requirements of the policy have not been undertaken as the policy requires a significant amount more information to be provided. Matters to be considered In summarising the key considerations for this development, Council should consider the following Matters to be considered as outlined by Clause 67 of the Regulations:

(a) The aims provisions of the Scheme and any other local planning scheme operating within the Scheme area;

While the scheme seeks to promote the development of greater housing choice and new employment opportunities, it also seeks to “protect and conserve Fremantle’s unique cultural heritage”. Relevant provisions of the Scheme applicable to this application are discussed in further detail above.

(c) any approved State planning policy

The requirements of SPP 3.1 Residential Design Codes, are discussed in the report above. In addition to the R-Codes, SPP 3.5 Historic Heritage Conservation is also relevant, with the clause 66 outlining the principles to be focused on when considering works to a Heritage building (emphasis added)–

Development should conserve and protect the cultural significance of a heritage place based on respect for the existing building or structure, and should involve the least possible change to the significant fabric.

Alterations and additions to a heritage place should not detract from its significance and should be compatible with the siting, scale, architectural style and form, materials and external finishes of the place. Compatibility requires additions or alterations to sit well with the original fabric rather than simply copying or mimicking it.

Demolition approval should not be expected simply because redevelopment is a more attractive economic proposition, or because a building has been neglected. Consideration of a demolition proposal should be based upon the significance of the building or place; the feasibility of restoring or adapting it, or incorporating it into new development; the extent to which the community would benefit from the proposed redevelopment; and any local planning policies relating to the demolition of heritage places.


7 March 2018

Page 62

(k) the built heritage conservation of any place that is of cultural heritage

significance

As discussed in the report above, the extent of demolition of the house and the location of the additions on the South Street side of the development result in a negative impact on the cultural heritage significance of the place.

(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, 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

The proposed development will result in a significant change to the character of the area. While development potential is available on the subject site, this is not permitted to be at the expense of the existing heritage buildings or adjoining neighbours amenity.

(p) whether adequate provision has been made of the landscaping of the land to

which the application relates and whether any trees or other vegetation on the land should be preserved A small amount of landscaping is proposed in the front setback area along South Street.

(s) the adequacy of

(i) the proposed means of access to and egress from the site; and (ii) arrangements for the loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of

vehicles

(t) the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the development, particularly in relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probably effect on traffic flow and safety

As discussed in the report above, there are concerns with vehicle and pedestrian safety, particularly from the Hampton Road frontage.


7 March 2018

Page 63

CONCLUSION

Officers recognise that there are a number of complications with development on this site, particularly, but not limited to, the two heritage buildings, the orientation and topography of the lot, adjoining low density residential development and existing traffic and parking conditions. Notwithstanding this, the maximum building height in the scheme for the site is discretionary and is only allowable after meeting a number of criteria. These critera are designed to ensure that any development on site is suitable for the area and the heritage significance of the existing buildings, and considers the residential amenity of occupiers of the neighbouring property to the south, and may mean that the maximum height is not achievable across the whole site. It is not considered that the proposal has met all the required criteria to obtain approval for the maximum height. In addition to height, there are a number of other concerns with design elements such as extent of demolition, traffic and vehicle safety, overshadowing, lot boundary setbacks, plot ratio, visual privacy and bicycle racks. Taken cumulatively, officers consider that these factors mean the overall intensity and physical form of the proposed development ‘pushes the envelope’ beyond the development outcomes envisaged by the City at the time of the scheme amendment. The selection of an R80 density and commensurate design standards was intended to facilitate greater density and activation in the area, balanced against maintenance of neighbourhood amenity and existing streetscape and heritage character. Officers consider that because of the cumulative effect of the significant number of variations to scheme or R-Code deemed-to-comply development standards sought in the current proposal, it fails to achieve this balance satisfactorily. The application is therefore recommended for refusal. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle


Increase the net lettable areas of office space

Increase the net lettable area of retail space

Provide for and seek to increase the number and diversity of residential dwellings in the City of Fremantle

Green Plan 2020 Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land.

No mature vegetation is proposed to be removed as part of this development. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil


7 March 2018

Page 64

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

The Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: REFUSE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, mixed use development (Two (2) Offices and nine (9) Multiple dwellings) at No. 69 (Lot 17) South Street, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 13 February 2018, for the following reasons:

a) The maximum building height sought is inconsistent with the criteria of Sub Area 4.3.6 of Schedule 8 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

b) The extent of demolition would be detrimental to the heritage significance of the place having regard to clause 4.14.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

c) The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the Residential

Design Codes in respect to: a. 6.1.1 C1 and P1 Building size (Plot Ratio) b. 6.2.3 C3 and P3 Sight lines c. 6.3.5 C5.2 and P5 - Vehicular access d. 6.4.2 C2.1 and P2.1, P2.2 Solar access for adjoining sites

d) The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of Table 2 Vehicle

parking (bicycle racks).

e) The proposal is inconsistent with the lot boundary setback requirements of sub area 4.3.6 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the southern boundary.

f) The proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the area

and the heritage significance of the site under clause 67 (a), (c), (k), (m), (n), (p) and (s) of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes Regulations 2015.


7 March 2018

Page 65

PC1803 -3 LEIGHTON BEACH BOULEVARD, NO. 29 (STRATA LOTS 2 AND 3), NORTH FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE TO SMALL BAR - (SM DA0570/17)

Meeting Date: 7 March 2018 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Development Plans

2: Schedule of Submissions 3: Small Bar Business Plan 4: Acoustic Consultant Report 5: Site Photos

SUMMARY

Approval is sought for the change of use to a Small bar at No. 29 Leighton Beach Boulevard, North Fremantle. The application is presented to Planning Committee due to a number of submissions received against the proposal which cannot be addressed through conditions of planning approval. The application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL

Detail The subject site is located on the corner of Leighton Beach Boulevard and Freeman Loop. The application entails the following: Amalgamation of two existing ground floor commercial tenancies (units 2 and 3)

within the existing mixed-use building. The proposed business is to be split into two operations –a ‘café/deli’ during the day

and a ‘small bar’ at night:

o The ‘café/deli’ component of the business is to operate from 6.30am – 6.30pm

Monday to Friday and 7.00am – 4.00pm Saturday and Sunday. During these hours coffee and a selection of ready-made meals and grocery items will be available for dine-in or take-away purchase.

o The ‘small bar’ component is to operate from 4.00pm every day and will close

at 11.00pm Monday to Thursday, 12.00pm (midnight) on Friday and Saturday and 10.00pm on Sundays.

o The Small bar use will accommodate a maximum of 75 patrons at any one time

with food to be served during operating hours. The small bar will also offer take away food options and meal delivery within the local area.

Anticipated staff numbers for the business is eight staff during summer and five staff during winter.

A total of two on-site car parking spaces are available for the use of the business.


7 March 2018

Page 66

Site/application information Date received: 21 November 2017 Owner name: Mirvac (WA) Pty Ltd Submitted by: TPG + Place Match Scheme: Development Zone Heritage listing: North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing land use: Shop Use class: Small bar Use permissibility: Not listed – Development Zone

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required.


7 March 2018

Page 67

Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as the use of ‘Small bar’ is a use not listed within the Development Zone under Table 1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). Furthermore, the use of ‘Small bar’ is a use not listed within Development Plan 17 – Leighton North Fremantle, which applies to the subject site. At the time of advertising, the subject and surrounding sites were still in the ownership of Mirvac (WA) Pty Ltd and details of the future owners of the individual apartments was not available as settlement on these apartments had not yet commenced. In this instance in lieu of sending letters a sign was erected on site advising details of the proposal and how a submission could be made for the City’s consideration. As the advertising period was undertaken over the Christmas/New Year period, the extended period for submissions concluded on 16 January 2018. 24 submissions were received, with 3 in support of and 21 objecting to the proposal. A schedule of submissions and an officer response is included as Attachment 2; however a summary of the comments made is as follows:

Support expressed for a café/deli/take-away use, however concern raised in respect to the service of alcohol generally within the subject tenancy.

There are already too many licenced premises within the vicinity of the site.

Proposed hours of operation are excessive and should be restricted. Some submissions suggested 11pm as a possible close time with a 10pm lock-out, likewise an opening time of 7am or later.

Concern in relation to late night noise in this residential area, particularly if outdoor seating is available and music is played. Noise from delivery vehicle and emptying of bottles was also raised as an issue. Noise will extend long beyond the operating hours of the business.

Comprehensive discussions regarding the use should be considered once the Council of Owners/Body Corporate is fully operational. Many residents have not moved into the complex and therefore are not aware of the proposal.

‘Take-away’ concept for food and drink will encourage street drinking and anti-social activity.

Existing car parking issues will worsen with demand for the new café/deli/small bar.

In response to the submissions received, the applicant submitted additional information including reduced operating hours for the café/deli and small bar (originally proposed to operate from 6.30am – 12.00pm Monday to Sunday), a detailed plan outlining the proposed operation of the business and an acoustic consultant’s report. OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 most significantly in relation to land use and car parking on the site. The relevant assessment criteria are discussed as follows.


7 March 2018

Page 68

Background The subject site is located on the corner of Leighton Beach Boulevard and Freeman Loop, North Fremantle. The two tenancies the subject of this application are located on the ground floor (northern corner) of the site with frontages to both streets. Both tenancies when empty have a combined area of 209m2. The site is situated approximately 170 metres from the North Fremantle Railway Station and 210 metres from Leighton Beach. At its meeting of 14 October 2014, the Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) approved an application on the subject site for four, five storey mixed-use buildings comprising a total of 207 multiple dwellings and three commercial tenancies (DAP80003/14). The three ground floor tenancies were shown on the approved plans as being ‘Retail’ in use, however with potential for future changes in use over time. Two of these retail tenancies, located on the corner of Leighton Beach Boulevard and Freeman Loop, are the subject of this change of use application. In addition to the relevant planning application background for the subject site it is noted that on 16 December 2010, the City determined an application under delegated authority for a change of use to ‘Small bar’ within a ground floor commercial tenancy at No. 1 Freeman Loop, North Fremantle, to the north of the subject site (DA0520/10). It is noted that this approval was not acted upon, and the tenancy is currently operating under a ‘Restaurant’ use. Land Use Land use provisions are outlined under Development Plan 17 of LPS4. In general terms, the development plan encourages a mixture of commercial and residential land uses within the Leighton Beach area, with specific design standards that aim to promote active uses at ground level to strengthen the connection between the railway station and the beach. There are no specific use provisions for a ‘Small bar’ under this development area. A Small bar was not a land use defined under the City’s Local Planning Scheme during the planning of this area (circa 2004) as a Small bar category of liquor licence was only introduced in 2007 when the Liquor Control Act was amended. The City’s Local Planning Scheme was subsequently amended in 2009 to include a ‘Small bar’ land use definition and relevant provisions. It is noted however that the subject site is specifically located within an area noted as DP3A on the precinct development plan, which includes preferred uses of ‘Restaurant’ and ‘Shop’ as well as potential uses which include ‘Tavern’, ‘Amusement Parlour’ and ‘Fast Food Outlet’. With regard to considering a use not listed within this development area, Clause 5.2 of Development Plan 17 states that uses which are not listed as ‘preferred’ or ‘potential’ uses can be considered at the discretion of the City. The City has previously considered and approved an application for a ‘Small bar’ within the Leighton Beach precinct, as previously noted above.


7 March 2018

Page 69

Whilst the proposal has been considered a ‘Small bar’ land use for the purposes of the assessment, it is acknowledged that its daytime function will be more consistent with the ‘Shop’ and ‘Restaurant’ land uses which, as noted, are both listed as preferred uses for this site under the Development Plan. This function as a shop/café during the day, with the intent to service local residents and beach goers, will ensure that the establishment will not function as a business that primarily focusses on the sale of liquor at all hours of the day or is only operational in the evenings. Given that the subject tenancies were approved for retail use with the original development approval, the proposed day time function of the business is supported. Regarding the Small bar aspect of the proposal specifically, which will operate after 4.00pm on trading days, the City requested additional information from the applicant to better demonstrate the envisaged business operating model. In response to this request for information, the applicant submitted a Business Plan in February 2018 which provided specific detail in relation to trading hours and the specific operation of the small bar. The small bar will support a maximum of 75 patrons and will only comprise half the floor area of the subject tenancy. In response to submissions received during consultation, hours of operation for the small bar have been adjusted so that a midnight (12pm) closing time will occur only on Friday and Saturday nights. Food will also be served during the hours of operation of the small bar. In this regard, the Small bar use is considered similar in nature to a ‘Restaurant’ use, and the business will have a lesser impact than other uses which can potentially be considered for the site, such as ‘Tavern’, which have less restrictive operating conditions than a ‘Small bar’ under liquor licencing regulations. It is also noted that State Government reforms to liquor licencing rules have recently been announced that will allow small restaurants (with less than 120 persons) to serve liquor without a meal. Furthermore, in accordance with the general provisions of DBU6 (Late night entertainment venues serving alcohol), it is considered the local area is well serviced by public streets to allow for safe transport to and from the site without significantly disrupting through traffic. Leighton Beach Boulevard and Freeman Loop are well lit to allow for adequate safety for patrons late at night. Taking into account the above, the proposed use of Small bar is supported. Conditions are included within the recommendation in respect to number of patrons and operating hours, to ensure that the proposed business operates in accordance with the information detailed in the applicant’s submission (refer attachments). Car Parking Two car parking spaces are provided within the basement area of the subject site for the use of the subject tenancies. Given the location of these bays, it is presumed that these bays will be utilised by staff of the business. Table 2 of LPS4 contains provisions for car parking, however there is no use class listed for ‘Small bar’. This means that the parking requirement is determined by the Council as per Clause 4.7.Given this, the previous approval for small bar within the Leighton Beach Development Area (DA0520/10) is referenced for consistency. This assessment considered the car parking requirements based on the lounge area for a hotel/tavern use, being one bay per 5sqm of lounge area. In addition, the car parking requirement for the daytime uses of shop and café has also been calculated, as per the table below.


7 March 2018

Page 70

Land Use Bays Required Bays Provided

Shortfall

Proposed Land Uses

Café/Deli (i.e. Restaurant and Shop)

13 – based on 43.6m2 of café seating area and 67.2m2 of shop net lettable area

2 11 bays

Small Bar (i.e. Tavern)

11 – based on 3.5m2 of public bar area and 45.3m2 of seating area.

2 9 bays

Approved Land Use

Retail (i.e. Shop)

11 – based on combined net lettable area of 212m2 for tenancies 2 and 3

2 9 bays

As detailed in the table above, a car parking shortfall of approximately 9 bays was approved with the original development application in 2014. It is noted that the same shortfall is proposed when taking into consideration the proposed small bar use, with an additional two bay shortfall for the daytime café/deli component of the business. This demonstrates that the net increase in car parking requirements from the proposed change of use will be minimal. It is noted that clause 5.7 of the Leighton Beach Development Plan states that resident or employee parking is to be provided within basement or under croft parking areas and customer parking is encouraged to be provided on street. In addition, Clause 2.1.4 of Development Plan 17 states that in relation to transportation, reduced on-site parking requirements are to be encouraged as an incentive for the use of the available public transport services within the locality. Whilst it is acknowledged that there have been car parking concerns within the Leighton Beach area, this is in part due to the ongoing construction works which have been in progress over recent months. In order to alleviate the parking situation during peak times, the City has recently approved the development of additional car parking bays at Leighton Beach to Car Park 48. In saying this, the Small bar component of the business is to operate from 4.00pm onwards, outside of the peak beach user period when additional bays will be available. It is considered that the café/deli component of the business will be geared towards local residents and beach goers and can reasonably be considered to offset the additional shortfall of car parking proposed for those land uses. The subject tenancy is located in close proximity to the Fremantle train line, and public car parking at Leighton Beach. As such there will be opportunity for staff and users of the Small bar to utilise off-site car parking, or alternative transport methods. This offsets the previously approved shortfall of car parking on site. It is further anticipated that a portion of the clientele will be from the residential dwellings within the immediate area, further reducing the need for vehicle parking within the locality. Taking into account the above information, and given that the existing parking shortfall is not significantly increasing, the proposal is supported without additional car parking requirements.


7 March 2018

Page 71

Furthermore, public bike spaces were accounted for within the original JDAP development approval for the site, and were provided by the developer. There are also public cycle facilities located within the public open space reserve immediately to the west of the site, in close proximity to the duel-use path. These existing cycle facilities are considered sufficient to support the proposed change of use.

Noise During consultation for the application, a number of submissions raised noise as being a concern given the proximity of the tenancies to the residential apartments. In response to these concerns, the applicant submitted an Acoustic Report prepared by Herring Storer Acoustics which provides an assessment of the premises and relevant recommendations relating to the management of noise emissions from the tenancy and associated alfresco area. The report has been reviewed by the City’s Environmental Health Officers.

The assessment considered noise emissions associated with both patrons and music from the proposed venue and the potential impacts on neighbouring properties which included apartments adjacent on the ground floor, apartments above and neighbouring properties.

The report concludes that noise emissions received at the neighbouring premises from patron voices (day and night) would comply with the Regulatory requirements; however any background music during the night period would exceed the requirements and potentially affect the amenity of neighbouring residents. In this regard, the Acoustic Consultant report recommends the following:

Internal music being limited to background music only, to a maximum internal levelof 75dB(A);

External music (for example in the alfresco dining area) being limited to backgroundmusic only during the day time period to a maximum level of 65dB(A);

No external music being permitted before 7.00 am, Monday to Saturday and before9.00 am Sunday and on a Public Holiday or after 7.00 pm every day.

Having regard for the above, it is considered that, subject to the recommendations of the Acoustic Consultants report, the proposed use can appropriately manage any noise emissions so that it does not adversely impact on the amenity of nearby residents particularly those located adjacent to or above of the subject tenancy. These conditions are included in the officer’s recommendation.

Waste Management

Concerns were also raised in submissions regarding noise from waste disposal and collection. The proposed fitout of the tenancy includes an internal bin store which will facilitate waste disposal and storage until the pick-up day. This will ensure that noise associated with waste disposal, such as emptying of bottles, will be contained within the bin store located within the building. In addition, the applicant has advised that it is anticipated the City will be undertaking waste collection for the business, as opposed to a private contractor. The City’s Waste Services section has advised that collection within this area is usually undertaken mid-to-late morning, meaning there will not be any significant disruptions from waste collection. There is also a dedicated loading bay on Leighton Beach Boulevard, in front of the subject tenancy, which will facilitate waste collection and deliveries to the premises.


7 March 2018

Page 72

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle


Increase the number of visitors to Fremantle Alcohol Management (SG50) The immediate area includes an appropriate mix of non-residential land uses including existing Restaurants and future Retail and Office tenancies Potential impacts of the proposed Small bar can be appropriately managed FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS


The Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the change of use to Small bar at No. 29 (Strata Lots 2 and 3) Leighton Beach Boulevard, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 21 November 2017. 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. Hours of opening shall be limited to between 6.30am – 11.00pm Monday to

Thursday, 6.30am – 12 midnight Friday, 7.00am – 12 midnight Saturday and 7.00am – 10pm Sunday.

3. The premise is to comply with the requirements of the Environmental

Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Specifically, the premises is to comply with the recommendations of the Environmental Noise Assessment report prepared by Herring Storer Acoustics dated February 2018 which includes the following:

Internal music being limited to background music only, to a maximum internal level of 75dB(A);

External music being limited to background music only during the day time period to a maximum level of 65dB(A); and

No external music being permitted before 7.00 am, Monday to Saturday and before 9.00 am Sunday and on a Public Holiday or after 7.00 pm every day.


7 March 2018

Page 73

Advice Notes:

i. It is recommended that the applicant engages the City’s Environmental Health department to determine their obligations in obtaining an alfresco dining permit. The City’s Environmental Health department can be contacted on 9432 9999 or alternatively via email at [email protected].

ii. The proponent must make application during the Building License application stage to Environmental Health Services via Form 1 - Application to construct, alter or extend a public building as a requirement of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. For further information and a copy of the application form contact Environmental Health Services on 9432 9856 or via [email protected]




7 March 2018

Page 74

PC1803 -4 HAMPTON ROAD, NO. 16 (LOT 503), FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE AND ANCILLARY DWELLING ADDITION - (CJ DA0568/17)

Meeting Date: 7 March 2018 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Development plans

2: Site photos 3: Heritage comment

SUMMARY

Approval is sought for partial demolition, additions and alterations to an existing Single house, including the addition of an Ancillary dwelling at No. 16 Hampton Road, Fremantle. The application is presented to Planning Committee (PC) due to submissions received that cannot be addressed through a condition of development approval. The application seeks discretion against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) in respect to the following:

Demolition

Lot boundary setback

Building height (external wall)

Primary street fence

Sightlines

Visual privacy The application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for additions and alterations to an existing single storey Single house on the subject site. The proposed development comprises of the following:

Retention of the front living room and entry porch and demolition of the rear portion of the existing Single house.

Two (2) storey, plus loft rear additions.

Basement car park.

Ancillary dwelling.

Primary street fence.


7 March 2018

Page 75

Site/application information Date received: 17 November 2017 Owner name: Jason Christofis Submitted by: Adam Butcher (Dark Light Design) Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage listing: Not listed Existing land use: Single house Use class: Single house Use permissibility: P

CONSULTATION

External referrals Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) The application was referred to DPLH due to the site’s proximity to Fremantle Prison. There was no concern raised with the proposed development. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as discretions were sought. The advertising period concluded on 12 January 2018, and eight (8) submissions were received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Scale of the building is significantly greater than neighbouring buildings

Overshadowing will impact on amenity

Loss of views

New portion of building will impact on heritage streetscape

Cottage should remain unaltered

Reduced setbacks will impact by way of building bulk

Overlooking

Site works and neighbouring site stability


7 March 2018

Page 76

Site management and construction disruptions In response to the comments received during neighbour notification, the following officer comments are provided:

Building height, visual privacy and lot boundary setbacks are discussed in the report below.

Overshadowing meets the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes.

Demolition is assessed in the report below as the site is within a Heritage Area, and the work is not exempt from the need to obtain development approval. The site is not on the Heritage List.

Site level changes are excavation only and comply.

Construction noise and management is regulated by other statutory requirements and is not a relevant planning consideration.

OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant 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 or policy provisions and need to be assessed under the Design principles:

Demolition

Lot boundary setback



Sightlines

Visual privacy The above matters are discussed below. Background The subject site is located on the eastern side of Hampton Road in the Fremantle Local Planning Area. To the west of the site is the Fremantle Prison, which is a Civic and Cultural Reserve under the MRS. The site is zoned Residential with a density of R25. In 2010, an application for demolition of all structures on site was refused by the Planning Services Committee. The applicant lodged a review with the State Administrative Tribunal, however this was subsequently withdrawn prior to a final determination being made.


7 March 2018

Page 77

After the conclusion of the advertising period, the applicant was advised of City planning and heritage officers’ and submitters’ concerns especially in regard to the retention of heritage and the potential impacts of the proposed three storey building height. In response to these concerns, the applicant lodged revised plans that demonstrated greater retention of original fabric and a reduction in the overall building height to two storeys and a loft. This has resulted in these plans before PC, being significantly lower in their building height and no longer seeking a design principle assessment for the overall roof pitch. Heritage and Demolition As the site is located within a Heritage area, development approval is required for the demolition works proposed by the applicant. The subject site is not included on the City of Fremantle Heritage List or on the Municipal Heritage Inventory. It is however in the Fremantle West End Conservation Area – Zone 4 – Convict Establishment. The existing dwelling is a single storey brick and tile house dating from 1933. It is a representative example of the typical building stock located within the residential areas of Fremantle. It is historically significant as a representation of typical workers' houses in the Fremantle area. The place is considered to have aesthetic value for its contribution to the streetscape and the surrounding area. It is a single storey brick and tile house designed in the Inter-War Californian Bungalow style of architecture. The front façade of the house consists of a projecting wing and a verandah. The front walls have been rendered and the verandah is under a tiled roof that is continuous with the main roof, supported by pairs of steel poles and a decorative steel balustrade. The side walls of the building are face brickwork. The walls are supported on limestone foundations. The tiled roof is a combination of hipped and gabled with terracotta finials. The house has been changed over time. The extent of the changes, particularly to the walls and windows, is not clear because evidence of change is likely to have been concealed by the render that has been applied to the front walls. In addition the evidence provided by the neighbouring Inter-War Californian Bungalow style houses at 18 and 20 Hampton Road is not conclusive. It is proposed to demolish the rear portions of the existing dwelling, whilst retaining the front living room, the wall and window of the front bedroom and the existing porch. The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed demolition: The sections building to be demolished have no heritage under the categories of aesthetic, historic, technological or social significance. It is not a rare building. It has lost its representative significance through unsympathetic renovation, especially to its key street facing façade and by further incremental changes and dilapidation. There are no surviving elements of the original front garden. There are no significant plantings on site. Demolition will not result in the loss of any significant fabric.


7 March 2018

Page 78

Clause 4.14.1 outlines the ability of Council to grant approval for demolition in the following circumstances:

(a) Has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and (b) Does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage

significance and character of the locality in which is it located. The distance the house is set back from Hampton Road and the siting of the neighbouring building means that only restricted views are possible of the south side of the house. As a result, the house’s contribution to the streetscape is primarily attributable to its front façade and the contribution made by the side façade is of little significance. Therefore, as the place is considered to have aesthetic value for its contribution to the streetscape and the surrounding area, the proposal to demolish the rear portion of the dwelling is supported as the rear of the dwelling, which does not contribute to the streetscape is considered to be of little significance, in context of its contribution. In regard to the proposed retention of the front façade, living room and porch the proposal includes the render being removed from the front façade and the resulting exposed brickwork being tuck–pointed. This is based on the reasonable assumption that these walls were originally tuck-pointed and then rendered. However the lack of compelling evidence means that the proposal should be taken as a demonstration of design intent, rather than a definite proposal. The design intent is to enhance the existing, based on reinstating the original appearance of the front face of the building. A similar view should be taken of the proposed changes to the windows and verandah balustrading. The final outcome should be a reconstruction based on the evidence provided by detailed and targeted investigations and evaluation. It is considered that by this process the proposed works will, as near as possible, reveal and restore the house, and will provide the potential for a distinction to be made between the existing and the new which will allow the new to complement the existing house’s contribution to the streetscape without either pretending to be part of the old or asserting itself as a new object. This should create a new whole which will provide a coherent layering of old and new and an appropriate interpretation of the house’s significance. Having regard to the above, the proposed works allow the retained portion of the dwelling to be returned to its original state, allowing for interpretation of the original form of the house and suitable presentation to the streetscape and is supported. A condition of approval relating to the restoration of the retained portion of the dwelling is included in the officers recommendation. DGF14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area The subject site is located within Zone 4 of the West End, otherwise known as the “Convict Establishment”. Much of the focus of this zone is Fremantle Prison which is not materially affected by the proposed development. It is considered that by locating the additions to the rear of the existing house, which is not on the City’s Heritage List, that they do not have a significant impact on the streetscape or the West End as a heritage area. In supporting this assessment, the following excerpt is taken from the City’s heritage comments –


7 March 2018

Page 79

It is considered that the proposed restoration of the front of the house is consistent with the intent of Section 4.4.2 of the Policy and will not undermine the significance of the Prison and its role as an important component of Fremantle’s townscape. Lot boundary setbacks

Element Required Provided Extent of Variation

South (upper floor) 4.7m 1.2-2.1m 2.6-3.5m

North (upper floor) 2.8m (family room) 1.5m 1.3m

South The proposed lot boundary setback to the southern site is supported for the following reasons:

The site to the south is higher in topography which assists in reducing building bulk of the proposed development.

The part of the affected site abutting the proposed development is occupied by vehicle driveway. The adjacent Grouped dwelling is setback by approximately 5.8m.

The proposed development has sufficient separation from its lot boundaries to ensure access to sun and ventilation.

The neighbouring property will not be significantly impacted by restrictions to sunlight or ventilation due to its existing setback.

Privacy is assessed further in the report below and where not supported against the design principles of the R-Codes it is recommended to be screened to protect the privacy of neighbouring occupants.

North The proposed lot boundary setback to the northern site is supported for the following reasons:

The reduced setback will effectively abut the roof space of the adjoining single storey site.

No major openings are affected by the reduced setback

The adjoining property is setback by approximately 1m, ensuring that ventilation is still provided to any existing openings.

Given the width of the setback area on the adjoining property it is not suitable as an outdoor living area.

The proposed development has sufficient setbacks to allow for sunlight and ventilation.

The remainder of this elevation is articulated, with portions having a greater setback to reduce the impact of building bulk on the affected neighbour.

Privacy is assessed further in the report below, and where not supported against design principles is recommended to be screened to protect the privacy of neighbouring property occupiers.



Maximum external wall height

6m 6.8m 0.8m

Maximum roof pitch height

9m 9m Complies


7 March 2018

Page 80

The proposed additions comply with the deemed-to-comply requirements for building height for the majority of its bulk, including the rear of the dwelling, with the exception being a section toward the front of the site. The height variation is supported against design principles for the following reasons:

Much of the variation is by virtue of the sloping site – i.e. is located at the area of the lowest topography, with the remainder of the proposed development abutting rear yards of adjoining properties complying.

The portion that does not comply is the roof for the upper floor terrace, which is proposed to be open on each side elevation. If the roof was removed from this space, the proposed development could in theory comply.

It is not considered the area of variation will result in significant obstructions to views of significance from neighbouring properties. If the portion that did not meet deemed to comply was amended to be no greater than 6m, any views or sightlines are unlikely to be improved.

Sufficient setbacks are provided to adjoining properties to ensure that access to sunlight and ventilation are still reasonably accessed.

The site to the rear is substantially higher in topography, and while the area of non-compliance is to the front of the site and not visible, much of what is seen by the rear properties will appear as a single storey with loft.

The additions are setback a substantial distance from the street, limiting their impact on the streetscape.



Visual permeability Above 1m (Heritage Area)

Solid above 1m (1.2-1.5m)

200-300mm solid element

The level of visual permeability proposed in is not supported, for the following reasons against the criteria of LPP 2.8:

The solid element is not required to provide screening to an outdoor living area, as these are located to the rear of the house or on upper floors

There are no examples of fences of similar height in the prevailing streetscape as defined by the policy.

A condition of approval is recommended to ensure the fence is reduced in height or altered to be visually permeable above 1m. Sight lines


Primary street fence Truncated or reduced in height to 0.75m within 1.5m of access

Solid to 1.3-1.5m, immediately adjacent to vehicle access

0.55-0.75m

The current fence design is not supported as it does not allow for appropriate sightlines to the adjoining footpath and Hampton Road. A condition of approval is recommended to be applied.


7 March 2018

Page 81

Visual privacy


Roof terrace (south) 7.5m 3.15m 4.35m

Upper floor terrace (south)

7.5m 1.2m 6.3m

Kitchen (south) 6m 1.2m 4.8m

Master suite (east) 4.5m 2.5m 2m

Loft attic (east) 6m 3.2m 2.8m

Roof terrace, upper floor terrace and Kitchen (south) A condition of approval is recommended to protect the privacy of the southern neighbour, as while much of this area is front setback and vehicle driveway, there is potential to overlook an opening and a portion of yard that may be used for outdoor living. Master suite (east) There is an existing boundary fence on the neighbouring property that in effect screens the development. As this is on the neighbouring property and not the subject site, the level of control over the screening is limited, notwithstanding that the fence also drops in height on the northern section, which is the location of the Master suite and the most sensitive area of overlooking. As the adjoining properties have major openings and outdoor living in this area of the site, it is recommended that the eastern master suite openings be conditioned to comply with the requirements of the R-Codes. Loft attic (east) The proposed windows for the loft are proposed by the applicant to be obscured but not fixed which does not meet the deemed to comply requirements. To protect the privacy of the adjoining neighbours’ outdoor living areas and major openings, it is recommended that these openings be conditioned to comply. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle Green Plan 2020 Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land.

There is no mature vegetation proposed to be removed as part of this development.

The applicant has indicated additional landscaping on their plans. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS


Nil


7 March 2018

Page 82

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

The Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, partial demolition, alterations and addition to existing Single house and Ancillary dwelling addition at No. 16 (Lot 503) Hampton Road, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 6 February 2018. 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. This development approval does not relate to any works within the road

reserve of Hampton Road.

3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, a detailed schedule of the restoration works proposed to the retained dwelling, including a methodology report, shall be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The proposed restoration works shall be based on evidence from detailed and targeted investigations and evaluations with the intention of closely matching the original dwelling. The approved works shall be completed prior to occupation.

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

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

5. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the roof terrace (south), upper floor terrace (south), kitchen (south), master suite (east), loft attic (east), 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 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.

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

6. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the primary street fence 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 5.2.5 C5 of the Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


7 March 2018

Page 83

7. Prior to the issue of a building permit, all fencing within the Primary Street

setback area shall be visually permeable above 1 metre above natural ground level as per LPP 2.8 Fences Policy to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for compliance,

if any condition is not met by the time requirement within that condition, then the obligation to comply with the requirements of any such condition (other than the time limitation for compliance specified in that condition), continues whilst the approved development continues.

Advice notes:

i. The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

ii. In regards to condition 7 visually permeable is defined by LPP 2.8 Fences Policy as:

Means, in reference to a wall, gate, door or fence that the vertical surface has:

Continuous vertical or horizontal gaps of at least 50mm width occupying not less than one half of its face in aggregate of the entire surface or where narrower than 50mm, occupying at least two thirds of the face in aggregate, as viewed directly from the street; or

A surface offering equal or lesser obstruction to view.


7 March 2018

Page 84

PC1803 -5 THE CUTTING, NO. 36 (LOT 213), NORTH FREMANTLE - THIRD FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (NB DA0486/17)

Meeting Date: 7 March 2018 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Development Plans

2: Site Photos SUMMARY

Approval is sought for a third floor addition to an existing two storey Single house. The application is presented to Planning Committee due to submissions received that cannot be satisfied through a condition of planning approval. The application seeks discretion to vary the building height requirements of Schedule 8 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for a third floor addition to an existing Single storey house consisting of an extension of the existing lift and the addition of a bedroom, bathroom and storage space. Amended plans were received on 9 February 2018, which reduced the wall and ridge building height of the proposed addition, which is discussed below. A copy of the revised development plans is provided as Attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 29 September 2017 Owner name: David Murphy Submitted by: Dale Alcock Homes Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage listing: North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing land use: Single house Use class: Single house Use permissibility: P


7 March 2018

Page 85

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as discretion was sought against the building height requirements of Schedule 8 of LPS4. The advertising period concluded on 31 October 2017, and three submissions were received. The following issues were raised:

The proposed height, bulk and scale of the development will negatively impact existing residents in relation to overshadowing and loss of views.

Proposal presents overlooking issues that have not been addressed resulting from the excessive height.

Height exceeds the limits.

The proposal will increase the issue of stormwater dispersal.

The wall height is reflective of a high density site, is not compatible with the established housing stock of two storey houses, and is not sympathetic to the character of the area.

Wall height should be taken from the natural ground level shown in LPP 3.13: Minim Cove.

In response to submissions received and feedback from the City, the applicant submitted revised plans reducing the proposed wall height from 8.9 m to 7 m high, with the exception of a portion of the wall height comprising the lift shaft and part of the hallway being reduced to 8.115 m high. The variation to wall height is discussed below. The revised wall height subsequently reduced the proposed roof ridge height from 10.55 m to 9.9 m which is compliant with the height requirements of Schedule 8 of LPS4.


7 March 2018

Page 86

The proposed bedroom openings on the third floor are set back in accordance with the visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes and is compliant in that respect. Additionally, stormwater is required to be retained on-site and guttering and downpipe requirements are typically addressed at the building permit stage. LPP 3.13 does set out the natural ground levels for the sites; however, this was for the purposes of establishing the new subdivision ground levels when the sites were vacant. Additionally, the R-Codes defines natural ground level as “The levels on a site which precede the proposed development, excluding any site works unless approved by the decision-maker or established as part of subdivision of the land preceding development.” As a two storey development has been approved on the site with a natural ground level of 27.314 it is appropriate that this approved ground level be considered the existing natural ground level as it precedes the subject proposal. The remaining comments are discussed below. OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and relevant Council local planning policies. In this particular application, approval is sought for a variation to the height requirements of Schedule 8 of LPS4 and policy DGN9: Rocky Bay Estate (Formerly State Engineering Works Site). The above matter is discussed below. Background The site is located on the corner where The Cutting curves around north of Mathieson Avenue in North Fremantle and five lots to the west of the border of Mosman Park. The site is within Sub Area 3.3.1 – Rocky Bay of the North Fremantle Local Planning Area and is zoned Residential ‘R25’. The lot is not individually heritage listed but is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area. The site is relatively flat but is approximately 5 metres higher than the lots directly to the south and contains an existing 5 metre high retaining wall. The ground level and retaining wall were constructed as part of the original subdivision of the Rocky Bay sub-area. The site is improved by a two storey Single house. Building height

Element Required Provided Variation

Wall height 7 m (max.) 8.115 m (lift shaft), 7 m (remaining level)

Nil - 1.115 m

Roof ridge height 10 m (max.) 9.9 m Complies


7 March 2018

Page 87

As the wall heights are specified in Schedule 8 of LPS4, the variation requires an assessment under clause 4.8.1 of LPS4, which states:

Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 8, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following— (a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or

the locality generally, (b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the

scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality, (c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining,

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

The heights of the adjoining properties are provided in the following table:

Address Wall Height Roof Ridge Height

30 The Cutting 7.6 m 10.4 m

32 The Cutting 7.2 m 7.2 m (flat roof)

34 The Cutting 6.9 m 7.8 m (front façade)

9.8 m

Subject site 8.115 m 9.9 m

Table 1: Existing heights of adjoining houses Clause 4.8.1 can be “triggered” due to the wall height of the adjacent house and the other houses within the block, which present as a single streetscape. The specific requirements of clause 4.8.1 are discussed in turn below.

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

The portion of building exceeding the 7 m wall height consists of the lift shaft and the stairs. The variation is only visible from, and only potentially impacts, the primary streetscape. The wall height facing the side and rear lots is a maximum of 7 m and are consistent with the maximum height requirements of LPS4. The site to the rear, No. 40 The Cutting, is separated from the subject site by a 4 metre wide access leg that provides vehicle access to No. 38 The Cutting. Further, the proposed upper floor is set further back from the rear of the subject lot than the lower floors and behind the existing roofed balcony. These two factors result in a reduction of the impact of building bulk to the adjoining southern lot. The proposed overshadowing from the third floor mostly overlaps the existing overshadowing, with the additional shadow falling on the street as measured by the R-Codes and shown in the figure below.


7 March 2018

Page 88

Figure 1: Existing house (green), retaining wall (blue), and proposed upper floor (yellow)

overshadowing to rear lot. The portion of wall exceeding the permitted height and facing the street will be predominantly surrounded by various roof forms, which will diminish the impact of the solid wall on the streetscape. The size and scale of the wall height variation is minimal and the wall will present as a minor projection, similar to the façade of the house immediately to the east (see figure and photo below).

Figure 2: Comparison between front elevations of proposed development and adjoining

development as measured from natural ground level (NGL).


7 March 2018

Page 89

Photo 1: Existing streetscape

The adjoining lot has a higher natural ground level than the subject site, giving the adjoining dwelling the appearance of additional height relative to the proposed development. Given all of the above, the proposed upper floor additions will not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or the locality.

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

The heights of houses within the streetscape of the subject site are shown in Table 1 above. The natural ground levels of these adjoining sites are higher than the natural ground level of the subject site, which further exacerbates the perceived heights of those houses. Additionally, the site is located across from 1 Tyrone Street, which is a multiple dwelling development with a flat roof and a 10 m wall height, and near the five storey multiple dwelling development at 6 Tasker Place. The result is that the wall height variation effectively graduates the scale between buildings of various heights within the locality.

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

Though the lot is within a heritage area, all the surrounding developments are new and have no cultural heritage significance. The proposed additions are considered to have no impact on the cultural heritage values of adjoining buildings.

(d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies. Council’s policy DGN9: Rocky Bay Estate (Formerly State Engineering Works Site) provides several relevant design and development guideline, which are discussed in turns below:


7 March 2018

Page 90

7.1 (iii) [the objectives of the policy are to] ensure that the overall residential development is unobtrusive and complementary to the river setting; that site planning ensures each dwelling has adequate sunlight; daylight and privacy from overlooking.

The upper floor is setback in accordance with the visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes. Notwithstanding, the only major opening to a habitable room of the house on the southern lot is the bedroom window, which is located on the eastern side of the north elevation. Views from the proposed third floor down to this major opening will be blocked by the roof of the balcony. The majority of views will be towards the river and the adjoining dwellings will be protected from overlooking. (see also the ‘Overshadowing’ discussion and figure above.)

7.3 (d) [Scale -] The Development Plan outlines a 7.0m wall height or 10.0m roof height limit and therefore a two-storey limit will be generally applied to the design of houses. Development of residences of more than two storeys is not generally supported unless particular site characteristics or the individual design indicate that this form of development can be constructed in a manner that will have no unacceptable impact upon the amenity of the locality and adjoining properties, and within the indicated height limits.

The third floor is predominantly contained within the wall and ridge height limitations, with the wall height variation occurring on the primary street elevation. As discussed in this report, the design indicates that the development will have no unacceptable impact on the amenity of the locality.

7.5 Amenity In assessing the impact of development the Council will pay particular attention to: (a) light, sunshine and natural ventilation enjoyed by surrounding properties; (b) intrusion upon the visual privacy enjoyed by surrounding properties; (c) whether the proposed development is sympathetic with the streetscape and the

scale and character of the locality; and, (d) the amenity of the locality.

The subject site is immediately adjacent to three tall, flat-roofed two storey dwellings, each with a successively higher natural ground level. The subject proposal will be in keeping with the scale of adjoining development and sympathetic to the streetscape with the wall height variation presenting no detrimental impact to the amenity of surrounding properties. The application is recommended for conditional approval. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil


7 March 2018

Page 91

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS


Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1:

APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the third floor additions to an existing Single house at No. 36 (Lot 213) The Cutting, North Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 9 February 2018, subject to the following condition(s):

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

approved plans, dated 9 February 2018. 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.



7 March 2018

Page 92

PC1803 -6 PAGET STREET, NO. 77A (LOT 1186), HILTON - HOME OCCUPATION (BEAUTY THERAPY) - (SM DA0544/17)

Meeting Date: 7 March 2018 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Development Plans and Cover Letter

2: Site Photos SUMMARY

Approval is sought for a home occupation (beauty therapy) at No. 77A Paget Street, Hilton. The application is presented to Planning Committee due to a submission being received during the consultation period expressing car parking and amenity concerns which cannot be addressed through conditions of planning approval. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions restricting the hours of operation of the home occupation to weekdays only. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for a home occupation to be conducted from within a small secondary dwelling on the subject site. More specifically, the proposal involves the following:

It is proposed to operate a beauty therapy business by the occupier of the small secondary dwelling. Services offered to clients are to include spray tanning, general beauty, as well as hair and makeup.

The business will be conducted within an area that does not exceed 20m2. The spray tanning is to be conducted within the semi-enclosed porch area of the small secondary dwelling, whilst the remainder of the business setup will be within the building.

No more than three clients per day are anticipated and no more than one client at any one time.

Hours of operation are to be 9.00am – 4.00pm Monday to Friday.

Car parking for clients will be facilitated within the existing hardstand area immediately to the south of the small secondary dwelling. The carport to the single house can also facilitate a parked car.

A temporary sign of approximately 0.5m2 in size will be displayed on the site to indicate the location of the business and the designated client parking area.

No skin penetration procedures are proposed and as such additional approvals from the City’s Environmental Health Department are not required.

No internal or external modifications to the existing small secondary dwelling are proposed as part of this application.

The applicant has acknowledged this clause in their application and will not be selling beauty products from the premises. A condition is included to this effect.


7 March 2018

Page 93

Site/application information Date received: 8 November 2017 Owner name: Ms Sheryl Lynette Duplessis Submitted by: Ms Naomi Duplessis Scheme: Residential R20 Heritage listing: Not listed Existing land use: Single House and Small secondary dwelling Use class: Home Occupation Use permissibility: D

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required.


7 March 2018

Page 94

Community The applicant included signatures from some surrounding owners and occupiers with their original application, however not all of the required signatures were obtained. The application was advertised to owners and occupiers of surrounding properties in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3: Public Notification of Planning Proposals. The advertising period concluded on 8 December 2017, and one submission was received. Issues raised in the submission related to noise, fumes and car parking and access impacts. More specifically, concerns were noted in relation to the spray tanning procedure and client car parking on the verge of No. 77 Paget Street. In response to the neighbour’s concerns, the applicant provided additional information and an amended submission in February 2018. This included a reduction in operating hours to be on weekdays only, a proposal to move the spray tanning machine indoors to reduce noise, as well as clarification of client parking arrangements. OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and a discretionary assessment is sought in regard to the following:

Land use The above matter is discussed below. Background In March 2016, the City approved a development application for a single storey ‘small secondary dwelling addition’ to the existing single house on the subject site (DA0054/16). The site is a rear battle-axe property and contains a two storey single house toward the rear/eastern boundary, with the approved single storey ‘small secondary dwelling’ situated toward the western boundary. Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Land Use It is noted that the application was originally submitted as a ‘Home Business’ use due to the original plans showing that the business would utilise an internal area exceeding 20m2. Subsequent to a site visit by officers in February 2018, it has been ascertained that the business will comprise a small area of approximately 12.5m2 (i.e. less than 20m2), therefore the proposal now satisfies the less-intensive definition in Schedule 1, for a ‘Home Occupation’.


7 March 2018

Page 95

A ‘Home Occupation’ is a ‘D’ use in the Residential Zone which means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion in accordance with the matters to be considered in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. In this regard the following matters have been considered:

(a) The aims and provisions of this Scheme and any other local planning scheme operating within the Scheme area. (m) The compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the 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 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

(s) The adequacy of-

(i) the proposed means of access to and egress from the site; (ii) arrangements for the loading, unloading, minoring and parking of vehicles.

(y) Any submissions received on the application.

The proposal is considered to address the above matters for the following reasons:

The nature of the business is considered to be low-intensity, given its minimal operating footprint within the site (being less than 20m2), small number of envisaged clients (maximum 3 per day) and restricted operating hours on weekdays only during normal business hours.

In relation to the home occupation’s compatibility with surrounding properties, the applicant is to set up the spray tanning machine inside the dwelling, and the spray tanning procedure is to be undertaken within an enclosed porch area. The remainder of the occupation will be conducted within the dwelling. This responds to a key concern raised in the submission received during consultation, and will ensure that any noise or fumes will be contained within the subject site.

It is noted the application has been assessed by the City’s Environmental Health Services section and no concerns have been raised, or conditions recommended, in respect to noise or fumes. As such, the proposal will not adversely affect the established residential amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

The low-scale nature of the business will not result in a significant number of vehicle movements per day, and no more than what would reasonably be expected from a residential property particularly one containing an approved small secondary dwelling.

There is provision on site to facilitate the parking of an additional vehicle for customers/clients. The site contains a large hardstand area in front of the two dwellings, in which there is ample space for parking of an additional vehicle, however covered parking space is also available within the carport of the single house. The on-site parking area will be denoted by a temporary sign which will be erected before each appointment. This business will not involve the servicing of, or deliveries from, heavy vehicles.


7 March 2018

Page 96

Signage The applicant’s covering letter states that a small sticker will be affixed to the front window of the dwelling, which will be less than 0.2sqm in size. In addition, the applicant is to display a sign on the site which will exceed 0.2m2. A ‘chalk board’ sign of approximately 0.5m2 in size will be displayed, however only when clients visit the property, in order to indicate the location of the business and the designated client parking area at the end of the battle-axe access leg. The sign will be taken down after each appointment and as such is assessed as a sign which is not permanently attached to the dwelling. Given the temporary nature of the sign and its intended purpose to assist with client parking, the size of the sign is supported. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS



The Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, the home occupation (beauty therapy) at No. 77A (Lot 1186) Paget Street, Hilton, as detailed on plans dated 13 February 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 13 February 2018. 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. The Home Occupation (Beauty Therapy) hereby permitted shall have hours of

operation that do not exceed 9.00 am to 4:00 pm on Monday to Friday. 3. This approval allows the Home Business (Beauty Therapy) hereby permitted to

be conducted by Ms Naomi Duplessis (applicant). If the applicant ceases to operate the Home Occupation (Beauty Therapy) hereby permitted or occupy the subject site, this approval will expire.

4. The sign on site shall only be displayed wholly within the subject lot. No signage shall be displayed on the verge or neighbouring properties.


7 March 2018

Page 97

PC1803 -7 CATTALINI LANE, NO.5 (LOT 103) NORTH FREMANTLE - MINOR AMENDMENTS TO APPROVED MULTIPLE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT (DAP80003/14 AND DAPV005/16) (JL DAPV002/18)

Meeting Date: 7 March 2018 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Original Determination Notice

2: Variation Development Plans 3: Department of Water and Environmental Regulations response letter

SUMMARY

Approval is sought for variations to the two Multiple dwelling buildings to be constructed on No.5 Cattalini Lane, North Fremantle. As the original approval was determined by the Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) the application is submitted as a Form 2 application. The City’s Responsible Authority Report (RAR) is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) for comment prior to being forwarded to JDAP. The resolution of the PC can be included in the RAR as the PC’s comment to the JDAP. For the reasons outlined below the development is considered to remain, in substance the same as the original approval. Accordingly, the application to vary the previous DAP approvals is supported against Clause 77 of the Deemed Provisions of the Local Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and LPP 1.1 Amendment and Extension to the Term of Planning Approval. PROPOSAL

Detail The amendments propose the following changes to the previously approved plans for Buildings C and D only with Buildings A and B remaining as per the original approved plans dated 8 September 2014:

The addition of a communal roof terrace to Building C. The roof terrace comprises a covered dining area located centrally on the roof of Building C, and associated outdoor seating areas.

The outdoor terrace is to be enclosed with raised planter boxes, glass balustrading and palisade fencing,

The inclusion of an additional slot window to the northern elevation of bedroom one for ground floor unit D.106,

Increasing the height of the roof pop-ups and feature louvres at the southwest corner of Building C,


7 March 2018

Page 98

The expansion and enclosure of rooftop plant infrastructure to both Buildings C and D, and

Increasing the height of the lift overrun to service the proposed roof terrace on Building C.

Site/application information Date received: 31 January 2018 Owner name: Mirvac (WA) Pty Ltd Submitted by: TPG Town Planning and Urban Design Scheme: Development Zone Area 5 – Development Area

Development Plan 17 Heritage listing: Nil / North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing land use: Multiple Dwelling Use class: Multiple Dwelling Use permissibility: -


Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: SUPPORT the Officers Recommendation contained in the Responsible Authority Report as follows:

1. Approve the DAP Application reference DAP/14/00558 as detailed on the DAP Form 2 dated 31 January 2018 and accompanying DA-01 (Rev A), DA-003 (Rev H), DA-004 (Rev F), DA-005 (Rev D), DA-006 (Rev D), DA-007 (Rev D), DA-008 (Rev D), DA-010 (Rev A), DA-011 (Rev A), DA-024 (Rev E), DA-025 (Rev D), DA-030 (Rev A), DA-031 (Rev A), DA-032 (rev A), DA-033 (Rev A), DA-040 (Rev E), DA-041 (rev D), DA-050 (Rev B), DA-051 (Rev B), DA-052 (Rev A), DA-0053 (Rev A), DA-0054 (Rev A), DA-0055 (Rev A), DA-056 (Rev A) and DA-057 (Rev A), L-8420 (Rev D), L 8421 (Rev D), L 8425 (Rev D), in


7 March 2018

Page 99

accordance with the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, for the proposed minor amendments to the approved Multiple dwelling development at No. 5 (Lot 3) Cattalini Lane, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

Amended Conditions

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 8 September 2014 for buildings A and B only, and on the approved Stage 2B plans dated 21 February 2018 for buildings C and D only.

Advice Notes:

i. If the proposed development changes so that soil at or below the groundwater table will be disturbed, a site site-specific health and safety plan should be developed and implemented to address the risks to the health of any workers undertaking intrusive works.

ii. All other conditions and requirements detailed on the previous Form 1

approval letter dated 28 October 2014 and the previous Form 2 approval letter dated 8 November 2016 shall remain unless altered by this application. Due to the deletion of any conditions, the remaining conditions are to be renumbered accordingly.

Form 2 - Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 17)

Property Location: No.5 (Lot 103) Cattalini Lane, North Fremantle

Application Details: Minor amendments to approved Multiple dwelling development (DAP80003/14 and DAPV005/16)

DAP Name: JDAP Metro South-West

Applicant: TPG Town Planning & Urban Design

Owner: Mirvac (WA) Pty Ltd

LG Reference: DAPV002/18

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

Department of Planning File No: DAP/14/00558

Report Date: 7 March 2018

Application Receipt Date: 31 January 2018

Application Process Days: 50 Days


7 March 2018

Page 100

Attachment(s): 1: Original Determination Notice and Plans 2: Variation Development Plans and DA-01 (Rev A), DA-003 (Rev H), DA-004 (Rev F), DA-005 (Rev D), DA-006 (Rev D), DA-007 (Rev D), DA-008 (Rev D), DA-010 (Rev A), DA-011 (Rev A), DA-024 (Rev E), DA-025 (Rev D), DA-030 (Rev A), DA-031 (Rev A), DA-032 (rev A), DA-033 (Rev A), DA-040 (Rev E), DA-041 (rev D), DA-050 (Rev B), DA-051 (Rev B), DA-052 (Rev A), DA-0053 (Rev A), DA-0054 (Rev A), DA-0055 (Rev A), DA-056 (Rev A) and DA-057 (Rev A), L-8420 (Rev D), L 8421 (Rev D), L 8425 (Rev D). 3:Department of Water and Environmental Regulations response letter

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the DAP Metro South-West JDAP resolves to:

1. Accept that the DAP Application reference DAP/14/00558 as detailed on the DAP Form 2 dated 31 January 2018 is appropriate for consideration in accordance with regulation 17 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011.

2. Approve the DAP Application reference DAP/14/00558 as detailed on the DAP

Form 2 dated 31 January 2018 and accompanying DA-01 (Rev A), DA-003 (Rev H), DA-004 (Rev F), DA-005 (Rev D), DA-006 (Rev D), DA-007 (Rev D), DA-008 (Rev D), DA-010 (Rev A), DA-011 (Rev A), DA-024 (Rev E), DA-025 (Rev D), DA-030 (Rev A), DA-031 (Rev A), DA-032 (rev A), DA-033 (Rev A), DA-040 (Rev E), DA-041 (rev D), DA-050 (Rev B), DA-051 (Rev B), DA-052 (Rev A), DA-0053 (Rev A), DA-0054 (Rev A), DA-0055 (Rev A), DA-056 (Rev A) and DA-057 (Rev A), L-8420 (Rev D), L 8421 (Rev D), L 8425 (Rev D), in accordance with the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, for the proposed minor amendments to the approved Multiple dwelling development at No. 5 (Lot 3) Cattalini Lane, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

Amended Conditions

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 8 September 2014 for buildings A and B only, and on the approved Stage 2B plans dated 21 February 2018 for buildings C and D only.

Advice Notes:

i. If the proposed development changes so that soil at or below the groundwater table will be disturbed, a site site-specific health and safety plan should be


7 March 2018

Page 101

developed and implemented to address the risks to the health of any workers undertaking intrusive works.

ii. All other conditions and requirements detailed on the previous Form 1 approval

letter dated 28 October 2014 and the previous Form 2 approval letter dated 8 November 2016 shall remain unless altered by this application. Due to the deletion of any conditions, the remaining conditions are to be renumbered accordingly.

Background:

Insert Property Address: No.5 (Lot 103) Cattalini Lane, North Fremantle

Insert Zoning MRS: Urban Zone

TPS: Development Zone Area 5 – Development Area Development Plan 17

Insert Use Class: Multiple Dwellings

Insert Strategy Policy: n/a

Insert Development Scheme: Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4)

Insert Lot Size: 4,856 m2

Insert Existing Land Use: Multiple Dwellings

Value of Development: $75 million (original cost)

The development site is located within and subject to the North Fremantle Local Planning Area of Schedule 8 of LPS4. Additionally, the subject site is zoned Development Area 5, Development Plan 17 under the provisions of LPS4. The subject site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List but is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area, which is a prescribed Heritage Area under LPS4. On 28 October 2014, the Metro South-West JDAP conditionally approved four, five storey buildings (207 Multiple Dwellings and Shop) with Basement Car Park on the subject and surrounding lots. On 8 November 2016 the Metro South-West JDAP conditionally approved variations to buildings C and D. The approved variations to building C and D for this application include:

Increase from 98 dwellings to 108 dwellings (48 x Single bedroom, 56 x Two bedroom, and 4 x Three bedroom)

Reduction in basement car parking from 142 bays to 135 bays

Balconies modified to be angled

Internal layout modifications

Nominal 200mm increase in building height

Amendments to façade treatments

Adjustments to the southern private road including the addition of a turning circle

Addition of rooftop solar panels

Eastern and southern setback modifications

Reduced plot ratio area


7 March 2018

Page 102

The proposed amendment seeks modifications to the two buildings fronting the southern boundary, being buildings C and D. These two buildings consist of Multiple Dwellings. Buildings as depicted in areas ‘Stage 2a)’ do not form part of this variation application and are substantially constructed on site today. Details: outline of development application The amendments propose the following changes to the previously approved plans for Buildings C and D only with Buildings A and B remaining as per the original approved plans dated 8 September 2014:

The addition of a communal roof terrace to Building C. The roof terrace comprises a covered dining area located centrally on the roof of Building C, and associated outdoor seating areas.

The outdoor terrace is to be enclosed with raised planter boxes, glass balustrading and palisade fencing,

The inclusion of an additional slot window to the northern elevation of bedroom one for ground floor unit D.106,

Increasing the height of the roof pop-ups and feature louvres at the southwest corner of Building C,

The expansion and enclosure of rooftop plant infrastructure to both Buildings C and D, and

Increasing the height of the lift overrun to service the proposed roof terrace on Building C.

A complete set of revised plans for Building C and D were submitted 21 February 2018. Legislation & policy: The following legislation and policies are applicable to the development (only includes legislation and policies impacted by the proposed amendments): Legislation City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 provisions:

• Schedule 10 – Development plan 17 (DP3B) State Government Policies

• State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) Local Policies The site is subject to the following relevant Local Planning Policies:

• LPP1.1 – Amendment and Extension to the Term of Planning Approval • DGN14 – Leighton Design Guidelines


7 March 2018

Page 103

Consultation: Public Consultation The proposed amendments were required to be advertised in accordance with the provisions with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Council’s Local Planning Policy LPP1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3). The application was advertised for a period of 14 days with completion of advertising period being 9 March 2018. Due to time constraints associated with the responsible authority report lodgement date being 19 March 2018 and available Council meetings, at the time of writing this report no submissions had been received by the City. However any submissions received prior to the Planning Committee meeting will be made available in a scheduled table to the Committee members on the night of the meeting to be taken into consideration in the determination of the proposal. Details of any submissions will be considered against the assessment below and included in the final responsible authority report. Consultation with other Agencies or Consultants Department of Water and Environmental Regulations (DWER) The City referred the proposal to DWER as the site is on the contaminated sites register as the site is classified as Remediated for restricted use. DWER provided a response 13 February 2018 requiring advice note 2 below to be included in the Officer Recommendation. See Attachment 3 below for copy of DWER’s response. Main Roads (MRWA) Main Roads had no additional comments for the amended plans. Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) The site is located within Port Buffer Area 2 of Councils LPP2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer policy. The application was referred to FPA who responded with no additional comments as provided in the determination of the original application. Planning assessment: The following assessment refers to any new considerations raised as part of these revised plans. All other matters are as per the Form 1 Responsible Authority Report (RAR) from original 28 October 2014 DAP approval and Form 2 RAR 8 November 2016 approval. The proposed amendments alter the following guidelines whilst remaining within the requirements of Schedule 10 – DP17 of LPS4, LPP1.1 and DGN14:


7 March 2018

Page 104

LPP1.1 – Amendment and Extension to the Term of Planning Approval In accordance with Clause 77 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, an applicant can apply to amend a development application, provided the changes do not substantially alter the development approved. Additionally, the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.1 - Amendment and Extension to the Term of Planning Approval sets out requirements for consideration when reviewing a variation application as follows –

In determining whether to allow the amendment of a planning approval, Council will consider whether the nature and extent of the proposal amendment is such that the use or development the subject of the planning approval:

(a) Remains, in substance, the same; or (b) Is changed so a new and different use or development is proposed.

Although the proposed amendment introduces a new discretionary matter relating to additional building and visual permeability the development is considered to be substantially the same as the approved development and can therefore be considered as an amendment. Building height

Maximum Approved Amended Compliance

5 Storeys (26.5 AHD)

Building C 5 Storeys (23.95 AHD) DAPV005/16

Building C 6 Storeys (27.15 AHD)

Discretion

Building D 5 Storeys (23.95 AHD)

Building D 5 Storeys (26.725 AHD)

Discretion

Building Height for the subject site is prescribed in Schedule 10 of LPS4. The sixth storey, which exceeds the permitted building height, results from the following proposed amendments:

a solid roof and columns to the rooftop terrace space (previous approval had a shade cloth roof);

lift tower; and

outdoor kitchen

The proposed building height has been considered in relation to the elements of the proposed building being the lift and stair (including overrun) and roof top plant (as minor projections) and the proposed covered dining and BBQ area.


7 March 2018

Page 105

The proposed stair, lift and plant can be considered in accordance with Clause 4.8.1.3 of LPS4 which permits an increase in building height for minor projections subject to the following:

a) The minor projection being no more than 4 metres above the highest part of

the main building structure; and b) The cumulative area of the minor projection being no more than 10 per cent of

the total roof area of the building. For the purpose of this clause, ‘minor’ projection will be interpreted as including plant and equipment such as air conditioning units, lift overrun rooms, flagpoles, aerials and decorative architectural features, but not rooms or other facilities intended for regular human use such as roof top deck or swimming pools

For purposes of this clause, only the indoor and outdoor plant rooms and the lift overruns over 26.5 AHD can be considered minor projections. Further, the clause includes the “total roof area of the building”. Therefore, the proposed minor projections occupy a combined total of 360m2 equalling 7.4 per cent of the total roof area of buildings C and D (Attachment 2) which complies with the maximum 10 per cent requirement of Clause 4.8.1.3. The remaining building elements of the roof terrace area (ie: function space, patio, toilets, BBQ, lift lobby, etc.), can be considered in accordance with clause 4.8.2 which permits variations to requirements of the Scheme (other than building height specified in Schedule 8) subject to the following criteria:

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 proposed development is considered to meet the requirements of 4.8.2 in regards to building height for the following reasons:

DP17 notes that while rooftops should not be habitable, it is encouraged that they be used as rooftop terraces for the benefit of occupants of the developments in addition to areas of private outdoor living.

The increased height does not cause a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and does not significantly decrease visual permeability as previously approved.

The increased building height includes a function space, toilet facilities, lifts, stairs and plant equipment, kitchen and outdoor dining facilities for future occupants of buildings C and D. The proposed area is considered to be acceptable in size being approximately 16.1% of the rooftop, or 187m2 of the 1160m2 rooftop area of Building C.

The location of the outdoor dining terrace space acts as a form of screening for the plant equipment, minimising any view from the street and upper floor apartments on the western side of Leighton Beach Boulevard and western approaches along Port Beach Road.


7 March 2018

Page 106

The tallest structures on the roof are located towards the centre of the building, making them difficult to view from the street when the two adjoining sites (currently vacant) are developed.

There are no buildings of cultural heritage value on site or adjoining that will be impacted by the increased building height.

Figure 1: East elevation of Building C (Current Approval)

Figure 2: East elevation of Building C (Proposed amendments to roof top)


7 March 2018

Page 107

Visual Permeability

Required Approved Amended Extent of variation

40-50% east-west visual permeability above a three storey height

38% DAPV005/16

34% Discretion - 4%

Discretion is sought regarding the visual permeability provision of Schedule 10 of LPS4. Due to the proposed modification to the rooftop plant and rooftop terrace of building C, the east west visual permeability is reduced by 4%. This variation can be considered in accordance with clause 4.8.2 of LPS4. The proposed development is considered to meet the requirements of 4.8.2 for the following reasons:

Whilst the approved visual permeability is reduced the impact on the key view corridors both north of site, protected by Freeman Loop and to the south, protected by the building setback in line with Cattalini Lane remain protected and uninterrupted by the proposed amendments,

any future development on the adjoining site at no.11 Freeman Loop is also considered to be capable of preserving the existing east-west visual permeability,

The proposed amendments are considered to achieve an appropriate outcome with respect to east-west visual permeability, in accordance with what’s considered the key intent of maintaining appropriate view corridors for the immediate locality.

In addition to clause 4.8.2.1 assessments for the building height and visual permeability discretionary matters, the Council must consider the following requirements in clause 4.8.3: 4.8.3 In considering an application for planning approval under this clause, where, in

the opinion of Council, the variation is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality or adjoin the site that is the subject of consideration for the variation, the Council shall –

a) consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions for

advertising applications under clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Schedule 2, and

b) have regard to any expressed views prior to making its determination to grant the variation.

As mentioned previously the amended plans are currently undergoing community consultation but due to time constraints with Planning Committee meeting dates and the due date of the RAR, specific content of any submissions is currently not available, however it will be detailed in a separate submission at Planning Committee and included in the final RAR. In lieu of the details of any submissions in response to the proposed amendments it is noted that the original application (subsequently approved) was advertised in accordance with LPP 1.3, and 18 submissions were received. The submissions that raised building height as concern, comments raised were largely to do


7 March 2018

Page 108

with the proposed number of storeys and the setback of the upper floors of buildings A and B, which don’t form part of the application. Similar to the assessment of the original application, it is considered that it will be difficult to view the upper floor addition from lower levels of adjoining properties, and the overall development retains the appearance of five storey development. With regards to the visual permeability discretion, no submissions were received during the original application consultation period. Lastly, in addition to the assessment against cl 4.8.2 and 4.8.3, Council must consider the following in clause 4.8.4:

a) Approval of the proposed development would be appropriate having regard to the criteria set out in clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Schedule 2, and

b) The non-compliance will not have an adverse effect upon the occupiers or users of the development, the inhabitants of the locality or the likely future development of the locality

Buildings adjacent to the subject site have been approved and/or constructed to five storeys. Though the footprint of all the structures above the main roof of the building has increased, this increase is largely towards the centre of the building and generally not visible from the street and lower levels of adjacent buildings. The proposed variation as a result of the rooftop terrace addition is considered minor and any perceived building bulk impacts are minimal, as the element above 26.5 AHD being, being the upper 650mm of the rooftop addition, is generally compact and open in its design, located in the centre of the roof where it will generally not be visible from the street. The reduced percentage of east west visual permeability may impact sky views particular for the higher topography properties to the east of North Fremantle. But given the limited size of the rooftop additions the level of impact is considered to be minimal. Taking into consideration the key north (Freeman Loop) and south (Cattalini Lane) view corridors will be maintained allowing clear uninterrupted views towards the ocean, the overall level of impact is considered acceptable. Having regard to the above, the additional building height and reduced percentage of east west visual permeability are not considered to have a significant adverse impact on occupiers of the development or the residents in the locality generally. Conclusion: The proposed variations to the previously approved Multiple dwelling development are considered supportable for the reasons outlined above and the application is recommended for conditional approval.


7 March 2018

Page 109

PC1803 -8 UPDATE ON METRO SOUTH-WEST JDAP DETERMINATIONS AND RELEVANT STATE ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW

The following applications have been determined by the Metro South-West JDAP and/or are JDAP/Planning Committee determinations that are subject to an application for review at the State Administrative Tribunal.

Application Reference

DAP003/17

Site Address and Proposal

11-13 Wray Avenue, Fremantle – Proposed upper floor additions and alterations and change of use to Restaurant and Multiple Dwellings to two existing Single houses

Planning Committee Consideration/Decision

Council refused the application at its meeting held on 22 November 2017.

Current Status

Currently subject to an Application for Review by the State Administrative Tribunal.

A mediation session was held in February 2018.

A further Directions Hearing has been scheduled for April 2018.


That the information is noted.


7 March 2018

Page 110

PC1803 -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.


7 March 2018

Page 111

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

Nil.

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.

Documents

AGENDA - City of Fremantle › sites › default › files... · AGENDA DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS ... being of little cultural heritage significance for use