Minute Manager 2 - Home | City of Fremantle PSC-Minutes.pdf · Ms Kathy Bonus Manager Development Services Mr Steve Sullivan Statutory Planning Coordinator Mr Harry Erasmus Compliance

City of Fremantle

MINUTES

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 3 February 2010 6.00 pm

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Mayor Brad Pettitt Cr Tim Grey-Smith City Ward Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward Cr John Dowson East Ward Cr Bill Massie Hilton Ward Cr Josh Wilson Beaconsfield Ward Cr Robert Fittock North Ward

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 1

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 1

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 2

LATE ITEMS NOTED 3

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3

TABLED DOCUMENTS 3

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 4

PSC1001-6 HICKORY STREET NO.10 (LOT 32), FREMANTLE - FRONT FENCE AND CARPORT TO SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0544/09) 4

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 11

PSC1002-17 MARINE TERRACE NO. 88 (LOT 3) FREMANTLE - STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MATTER - PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE, TOURIST ACCOMMODATION AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) (SS DA52/08) 11

PSC1002-18 SAMSON STREET NO. 64A (STRATA LOT 2), WHITE GUM VALLEY - UNAUTHORISED DEVELOPMENT C09/0804P (CHE) 23

PSC1002-21 LILLY STREET, NO. 48 (LOT 1) SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (JWJ DA0338/09) 28

PSC1002-22 FORREST STREET NO. 54 (LOT 1) FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO GROUPED DWELLING - (BC DA339/08) 37

PSC1002-25 KWONG ALLEY NO. 1/12 (STRATA LOT 1) NORTH FREMANTLE - THIRD FLOOR ADDITION TO EXISTING MIXED USE (OFFICE AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (BC DA0490/09) 48

PSC1002-27 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET NO.36 (LOTS1, 2, 52, 265, 266, 268, 303 & 304), FREMANTLE - VARIATION TO PLANNING APPROVAL DA202/08 (JL DA-V0037/09) 59

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 66

PSC1002-29 FREMANTLE PARK DRAFT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN - RELEASE FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION 66

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 72

PSC1002-26 RULE STREET NO. 18 (LOT 1) NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE -(BC DA0477/09) 72

PSC1002-19 NO.20 LEIGHTON BEACH BOULEVARD (PORT BEACH ROAD RESERVE), NORTH FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING COMMUNITY PURPOSE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STOREY COMMUNITY PURPOSE AND RESTAURANT BUILDING (JL DA605/09) 82

PSC1002-20 HIGH STREET NO 222 (LOT 725), FREMANTLE - NOTICE ISSUED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1960 - RMP09/0053 (CHE) 91

PSC1002-23 SWAN STREET NO.1 (LOT 104), NORTH FREMANTLE - VARIATION TO PLANNING APPROVAL DA507/08 (JL DA-V00033/09) 93

PSC1002-24 HIGH STREET NO.7 (LOT 220), FREMANTLE – RELOCATION OF AIR CONDITIONING UNIT ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING OFFICE (MS DA0562/09) 99

PSC1002-28 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 105

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 106

PSC1002-30 GILBERT FRASER RESERVE PRECINCT, DRAFT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN- RELEASE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 106

PSC1002-31 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 34 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 - INITIATION OF SCHEME AMENDMENT 113

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 116

CLOSURE OF MEETING 116

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION 117

CLOSURE OF MEETING

Minutes - Planning Services Committee 3 February 2010

Page 1

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE

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

on 3 February 2010 at 6.00 pm. DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 6.00 pm. NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." IN ATTENDANCE Brad Pettitt Mayor Cr Andrew Sullivan Presiding Member / South Ward Cr Robert Fittock Deputy Presiding Member / North Ward Cr John Dowson East Ward Cr Bill Massie Hilton Ward Mr Philip St John Director Planning and Development Services Ms Kathy Bonus Manager Development Services Mr Steve Sullivan Statutory Planning Coordinator Mr Harry Erasmus Compliance Coordinator Ms Agnieshka Kiera City Heritage Architect Mrs Tanya Toon-Poynton Minute Secretary There were approximately 26 members of the public and 2 members of the press in attendance. APOLOGIES Cr Josh Wilson LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil


Page 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE Nil PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Nil DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS The following member/s of the public spoke against item PSC1001-6: Michael Rowland Trent Woods The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1002-17: Kerry Parsons The following member/s of the public spoke against item PSC1002-17: Justin Wolfgang Phillip Bairstow Mary Bairstow Ian Molyneaux The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1002-18: Chris Hussey The following member/s of the public spoke against item PSC1002-18: Vincenzo La Mela The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1002-21: Robert Gordon The following member/s of the public spoke against item PSC1002-21: Colin Enderbury The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1002-22: Barten Hendrik The following member/s of the public spoke against item PSC1002-22: Robert Mutch The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1002-25: Sasha Ivanovich The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1002-27: Mary Connor (on behalf of the Planning and Heritage Committee of the Fremantle Society) Ray Fuller The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1002-29: Mary Connor (on behalf of the Planning and Heritage Committee of the Fremantle Society) The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of item PSC1002-26: Patricia Oldham DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS Cr J Dowson declared an impartiality interest in item number PSC1002-18 as he received a small gift from one of the interested parties.


Page 3

LATE ITEMS NOTED Nil CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the Minutes of the Planning Services Committee dated 13 January 2010 as listed in the Council Agenda dated 27 January 2010 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

TABLED DOCUMENTS Nil


Page 4

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause 1.1 and 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register PSC1001-6 HICKORY STREET NO.10 (LOT 32), FREMANTLE - FRONT FENCE

AND CARPORT TO SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0544/09) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Heritage Assessment Date Received: 13 October 2009 (revised plans 17 December 2009) Owner Name: Naomi Hill and Michael Rowland Submitted by: Officer Woods Architects Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: MHI - Management Category Level 3 Existing Landuse: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee as the proposed development is not considered to satisfy the requirements of the City’s local planning policy D.C.6 - Carports/Garages in front of Dwellings/Buildings. The application was originally listed for the agenda of the PSC meeting of 13 January 2010 where it was deferred at the request of the applicant who was unable to attend that meeting. Planning Approval is sought for a front fence and a carport at No. 10 (Lot 32) Hickory Street, South Fremantle. The carport is proposed to be built up to the Primary Street boundary, in front of the existing dwelling. The carport is not considered to satisfy the requirements of D.C.6 Carports/Garages in front of Dwellings/Buildings. However, the development is considered to satisfy the Acceptable Development criteria of the Residential Design Codes as well as the City of Fremantle’s (the City) local planning policies L.P.P2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development and L.P.P2.8 Fences Policy. Accordingly it is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the deletion of the carport. BACKGROUND The subject site at 10 Hickory Street, South Fremantle is zoned Residential under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R25 and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area 4 (LPA 4) as described in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The subject site is 455m2 and is located on the eastern side of Hickory Street, South Fremantle. The site is orientated in an east-west direction and slopes upwards from the front to the rear by approximately 1m. The site is improved by a single storey Single House that is setback approximately 6m from Hickory Street. The house has a timber deck verandah to the front that extends 1.4m towards the street. The property is listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a management category level 3. The property is also located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. There presently exists a 1.7m – 1.9m high front fence and old double entrance gates to the driveway approximately 1.9m high. Vehicle parking is provided in a tandem arrangement along the northern side of the dwelling. A review of the City’s property file has failed to find a Planning Approval for the existing front fence. The existing streetscape of Hickory Street is varied. The existing development on the eastern side of Hickory Street consists primarily of single storey houses setback between 3m and 7m from the street. The majority of front fences on the eastern side of the fence are low in height, up to approximately 1m with visually permeable material above. The highest front fence within the immediate vicinity of the subject site is the southern adjoining property at No. 12 which has a maximum height of approximately 1.4m.


Page 6

The existing front fence on the subject site is the highest fence along the eastern side of the street within close proximity of the subject site. The western side of Hickory Street displays quite different streetscape characteristics, largely due to Hickory Street being the rear access to the lots fronting South Terrace. There are numerous garages, carports and approximately 1.8m high fences along this side of the street. DETAIL The applicant seeks Planning Approval for a front fence and carport at 10 Hickory Street. The carport would be located along the northern side and in front of the dwelling, within in the Primary Street setback. The front fence and gate is to be located along the front (western) boundary of the site. The details of the proposed development are as follows: Front Fence (and Gate) • 1.8m high along the front boundary, matching the slope of the topography. • 0.76m high concrete block work with 1.04m high “perforated metal sheeting on hot

dip galvanised steel sub frame” above. • 1.8m high sliding entrance gate constructed of “perforated metal sheeting on hot dip

galvanised steel sub frame” material. Carport • Open sided tandem galvanised steel carport to be 13.18m in length and 3.31m in

width. • Roof constructed to 0.5m from front boundary. • Pillars setback 2m from front boundary and 0.175m from side (northern) boundary. Amended plans were submitted reducing the height of the fence and replacing the originally proposed solid fencing material with “visually permeable” metal sheeting. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Residential Design Codes 2008 (R-Codes) The proposed development has been assessed against and complies with the relevant ‘Acceptable Development’ requirements of the R-Codes, with the exception of boundary setbacks. 6.3.2 Buildings on boundary The northern pillars of the carport are within 0.75m of the boundary (northern boundary). Therefore the element of the carport is considered a wall on the boundary as per the City’s L.P.P2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development policy. This policy replaces the ‘Acceptable Development’ provisions of 6.3.2 Buildings on boundary. See Council Policies L.P.P2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development for the performance based assessment on the boundary wall.


Page 7

Council Policies The applicable Council polices to the assessment of the application are as follow:

• D.C.6 Garages/Carports in front of Dwellings/Buildings • L.P.P2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development • L.P.P2.8 Fences Policy

CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and L.P.P1.3 Public Notification of Planning Approvals. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 5 October 2009, the City had received no submissions. Furthermore, the applicant provided signed statements from the northern and southern adjoining property owners stating no objection to the proposed development. Heritage Heritage advice was received by the City on the 18 December 2009. The report states that the proposed development will not have any negative impact on the heritage significance of the site. The following comment was provided outlining the impacts of the proposed development upon the heritage significance of the place:

“The changes are acceptable in terms of impact on heritage value of the place. The proposed fence will be an improvement on the existing fence. There will be no permanent impact on the heritage significance of the place. All improvements are readily reversible without harm to the existing house. The proposed structures are acceptable in terms of scale, bulk and height. The new fence may be more visibly permeable than the fence it is replacing. This would be a positive change to the streetscape. The carport structure is lightweight and will have limited impact on the streetscape. The proposed new structures are clearly distinguishable from the existing heritage building in style and material. The change is an acceptable one. There will be no impact on views, vistas and the like.”

A copy of the heritage assessment is attached to this report (Attachment 2).


Page 8

PLANNING COMMENT D.C.6 Garages/Carports in front of Dwellings/Buildings The subject site’s house is setback approximately 6.65m and the carport will be in the primary setback area of the subject site’s house, up to 500mm of the front boundary. This policy establishes the criteria for the construction of garages and carports in the front setback so as to protect the existing streetscape and character of dwellings. This policy outlines that carports will not be allowed in the front setback unless:

(i) There is an existing pattern of carports/garages in the street; (ii) The topography of the land is such that the carport/garage can form a part of

the existing slope/cliff or retaining wall; (iii) The topography of the land is such that the existing house is significantly

below the street level; (iv) The house is located on a corner lot. In this case a carport/garage can be

built to the secondary street; (v) The existing house’s setback is significantly greater than other setbacks in

the street or (vi) The subject lot is irregular in shape and location

The proposed carport is not considered to comply with the requirements of the City’s D.C.6 Garages/Carports in front of Dwellings/Buildings policy. As previously mentioned, Hickory Street is considered to present two distinctly different streetscapes – one on the eastern side and the other on the western side. The development on the western side of the street is not regarded as suitable justification to support the proposed development on the eastern side. Whilst it is noted that there exist carports in front of the dwellings at No’s. 6 & 24 Hickory Street, these two carports are not considered to constitute an established streetscape pattern of carports in front of the dwelling. The lot is not considered irregular in shape and the topography of the site is relatively flat with no slope. The house is not located on a corner lot and does not have a significantly greater setback by comparison to other houses in the street. However, the carport is still located within the Primary Street setback and is inconsistent with the existing streetscape, thus does not comply with this policy. Accordingly the development is not considered to meet the requirements of this policy. Notwithstanding, if Council were granting approval for the carport component of the development, it is considered that the reduced northern boundary setback of 0.175m for the pillars is supportable.


Page 9

L.P.P2.8 Fences Policy 2.1 Fences within street setback areas of places on the Heritage List shall be

compatible with and complimentary to the heritage character of the listed place with respect to height, materials and heritage character.

As discussed earlier in this report (Heritage), the heritage assessment contends that the proposed front fence will be compatible and complimentary to the heritage character of the place with respect to its height, materials and heritage character. Furthermore, the front fence is consistent with this policy with regard to permissible front fence height and design. 2.2 Where a property is included on a heritage list Council may specify the type of

building materials to be consistent with the heritage character of the place. Further to the above, the heritage assessment considers the proposed building materials to be appropriate in this instance. It is therefore considered the proposed fence is appropriate to the heritage character of the place. CONCLUSION The proposed development has been assessed against and complies with the relevant provisions of the Residential Design Codes 2008 of WA (R-Codes) and City’s L.P.P2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development L.P.P2.8 Fences Policy. However the application for the carport does not meet the provisions of D.C.6 Garages/Carports in front of Dwellings/Buildings. Accordingly it is recommended that the proposed front fence be approved but that the carport is refused. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Front Fence to Single House at No. 10 (Lot 32) Hickory Street, South Fremantle subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans

dated 17 December 2009. It does not relate to any other development on this lot. 2. The proposed carport, as detailed on plans dated 17 December 2009, is hereby

deleted from this approval. 3. All stormwater shall be discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site.


Page 10

Cr A Sullivan MOVED the following alternative recommendation: COMMITTEE DECISION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Proposed Front Fence and Carport Additions to the Existing Single House at No. 10 (Lot 32) Hickory Street, South Fremantle subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 21 January 2010. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

1. The proposed carport shall be setback 1.5 metres from the primary street.

2. All stormwater shall be discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Revised development plans were received after the Agenda was prepared, and the Committee was of the view the revised development proposal could be approved.


Page 11

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 PSC1002-17 MARINE TERRACE NO. 88 (LOT 3) FREMANTLE - STATE

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MATTER - PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE, TOURIST ACCOMMODATION AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) (SS DA52/08)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: DA556/05 Attachments: 1 - Revised development plans – received 21 Dec 2009

2 – Submission on behalf of owner of 2A Russel Street Date Received: 29 August 2008 Owner Name: Kerry Investments Pty Ltd Submitted by: Kerry Investments Pty Ltd Scheme: Mixed Use – R35 Heritage Listing: Nil Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Office, Tourist Accommodation and Multiple Dwellings Use Permissibility: Office (P) Tourist Accommodation (A) Multiple Dwellings

(A)


Page 12

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council, at its meeting of 16 December 2009, resolved to refer the application for Planning Approval to the Planning Services Committee meeting of 3 February 2010 following a request from the owner. This would allow time for the owner to conduct further discussions with property owners that had originally objected to the proposed development. Further, the owner also requested the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) to reschedule the Direction hearing scheduled for 18 December 2009 to 5 February 2010. The request for review to SAT was based on a deemed refusal of the application, as a determination has not been made on the application within 90 days of lodgement. The application is for the demolition of the existing single storey single house located at No. 88 Marine Terrace, Fremantle and the construction of a three storey mixed use building containing one office tenancy, two multiple dwellings and one short stay accommodation unit. The subject site is zoned Mixed Use R35 and is within the Fremantle Local Planning Area as prescribed by the City of Fremantle (the City) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory. The proposed development requires the discretion of Council relating to the proposed Tourist Accommodation and Multiple Dwelling uses. Performance based assessments against the relevant Residential Design Code provisions relating to mixed use developments and overshadowing are also required. In addition, regard is to be had to the relevant policy provisions contained within D.G.F16: Marine Terrace Policy, D.G.F29: Suffolk to South Streets Local Area and L.P.P2.8: Fences Policy. The basis for the City recommending approval of the original application is found in item PSC0906-105 of the 19 August 2009 PSC Agenda. This report is an assessment of the latest set of revised plans submitted by the applicant. Having regard to the City’s original report to the 19 August 2009 PSC meeting, the additional information requested by Council at its 26 August 2009 meeting and the assessment undertaken of the revised plans, it is considered that the proposal is still consistent with the previous position taken by the City. Overall, the proposed development is considered to satisfy the relevant provisions within LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and relevant City of Fremantle policies. Consequently, the proposed development, based on the revised plans received on the 21 December 2009, is recommended for approval.


Page 13

BACKGROUND

This matter was referred to the 19 August 2009 PSC. The City recommended approval, subject to various conditions of approval and the PSC adopted the City’s recommendation at that meeting, which is shown below: 1 The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with the approved

plans dated 25 November 2008, incorporating the conditions listed in this approval. 2 All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3 The northern boundary fence shall be no higher than 1.8m above natural ground

level. 4 Prior to occupation, details of the “Lumisty” Directional Privacy Window Film

screening treatment to be installed on the upper level windows on the northern and southern elevations to be obscured to a height of 1.6m above the upper floor level are to be submitted for the approval of the Chief Executive Officer.

5 Prior to occupation, the screening treatment approved under Condition 4 shall be

implemented, maintained and the windows shall be fixed closed. 6 Prior to occupation, 80% solid surface area/obscured balustrading to a minimum

height of 1.6m above floor level shall be provided to the northern, eastern and southern elevations of the proposed balconies in accordance with Clause 6.8.1 of the Residential Design Codes.

7 Revised plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer,

such plans shall incorporate the following changes, the: a) minimum ground level shall be 1.7m above AHD; b) minimum floor level shall be 2.2m above AHD; c) proposed development shall not exceed 10m above ground level; d) proposed development, apart from the proposed boundary walls and front

setback, shall comply with the required setbacks in accordance with the Residential Design Codes 2008 – Variation 1; and

e) provision of a bike rack. The number of PSC Councillors voting in support of the City’s recommendation did not cross the threshold to allow the matter to be determined by the PSC under delegated authority from Council. Consequently, the matter with a recommendation of approval was referred to the Council meeting held on the 26 August 2009 where Council resolved as follows: The item be deferred to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee pending redrawn plans incorporating officer’s conditions and agreed amendments between the applicant and affected neighbours. Also streetscape elevation drawings are to be provided. On the 22 October 2009, the applicant submitted revised plans and documentation in response to Council’s resolution.


Page 14

The revised plans were referred to the PSC meeting of 2 December 2009 where the PSC recommended approval of the application subject to conditions. Due to a lack of voting numbers, the matter was referred to the Council meeting of 16 December. The applicant exercised his right to request the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) to review Council’s decision not to make a determination on the application within 90 days of receipt of the application. A Directions Hearing was held on 16 October 2009 and the SAT resolved to adjourn the matter until 18 December 2009 and requested Council to re-consider it decision (to defer consideration of the application) under Section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004. This would allow Council the time to make a determination on any revised plans submitted to Council, as per the 26 August 2009 resolution of Council. The applicant submitted a request to the Council meeting of 16 December 2009 that consideration of the matter be deferred to the PSC meeting of 3 February 2010 to allow for more time to progress a neighbour consultative process which could result in the submission of further revised plans. At the same time, the applicant requested the SAT to vacate the hearing scheduled for 18 December to a date after the 3 February 2010 PSC meeting. The SAT hearing has now been set for 5 February 2010. Following consultation with the neighbours, the applicant submitted several sets of revised plans. It is the latest set of plans that were submitted on 21 December 2009 that are being referred to the PSC for consideration. DETAILS Planning approval is sought to demolish the existing single storey single house located at No. 88 Marine Terrace, Fremantle and to construct a three storey mixed use building to contain one office tenancy, two multiple dwellings and one short stay accommodation unit. The ground floor level is to contain the office tenancy, car parking area for eight vehicles and storage units for the multiple dwellings. The first floor level is to contain a three bedroom multiple dwelling (Unit 1) and a two bedroom short stay accommodation unit (Unit 2) as well as one bedroom of Unit 3 (Multiple Dwelling). The third floor level of the building is to contain the remainder of Unit 3. Item PSC0906-105 of the 19 August 2009 PSC Agenda and PSC0912-220 of the 2 December 2009 PSC Agenda will provide the background to this application. This report will focus on the revised plans submitted on the 21 December 2009. The following major changes have been identified between the 22 October 2009 plans and the 21 December 2009 plans: Height of development ● height of building has been lowered from 10.0m to 9.725m; ● increase in the floor to ceiling height of the ground and first floor levels from 2.4m to

2.743m;


Page 15

Second Floor level ● reduced side setback of rear balcony to southern boundary from 2.4m to 1.5m; ● increased height of screen walls from 1.65m to 1.8m above the floor level of the

rear balcony; ● increased setback between the rear boundary and the face of the rear balcony –

from 2.6m to 3m; ● increased setback between the rear boundary and the roof to the balcony – from

3.6m to 4m; ● increased setback between the northern side boundary and face of the balcony –

from 1.9m to 3.8m; ● increased setback of northern walls of the building from 1.2m to 2.2m; ● increased setback of the front balcony to the northern boundary – from 1.7m to

3.8m; First floor level ● reduced side setback between the southern side boundary and face of the balcony

– from 2.4m to 1.5m; ● increased side setback between the northern side boundary and face of the balcony

– from 1.9m to 2.2m; ● increased setback of the front balcony to the northern boundary – from 1.7m to

2.2m; ● increased height of screen walls from 1.65m to 1.8m above the floor level of the

rear balcony; Ground Floor Level ● The boundary wall along the north boundary has been modified to reflect condition

3 of the PSC resolution of the 19 August 2009. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Item PSC0906-105 of the 19 August 2009 PSC Agenda provides the statutory background to this application under LPS4. The only variation to this section as a consequence of the revised plans relates to car parking. The proposed development requires seven car parking bays, one delivery bay and one bike rack. The proposed development provides eight parking bays and now includes a bike bay and therefore, the proposed development complies with the requirements of LPS4 and the Residential Design Codes with respect to car parking.


Page 16

State Administrative Tribunal Act On 6 November 2009 the SAT requested Council to re-consider its decision made in relation to this matter under section 31(1) of the Act. In this situation, it is a decision not to have made a determination of approval, approval with conditions or refusal on the application within 90 days. As such, the application is deemed to have been refused. Section 31 of the Act is reproduced below: 31. Tribunal may invite decision-maker to reconsider (1) At any stage of a proceeding for the review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal

may invite the decision-maker to reconsider the decision. (2) Upon being invited by the Tribunal to reconsider the reviewable decision, the

decision-maker may — (a) affirm the decision; (b) vary the decision; or (c) set aside the decision and substitute its new decision.

(3) If the decision-maker varies the decision or sets it aside and substitutes a new

decision, unless the proceeding for a review is withdrawn it is taken to be for the review of the decision as varied or the substituted decision

The SAT have agreed to reschedule the Directions Hearing to 5 February 2010 to allow Council the time to make a determination on the application. CONSULTATION

Community The development application was required under Clause 9.4 of LPS4 to be advertised. At the conclusion of the advertising period being 10 July 2008, five submissions were received. Item PSC0906-105 of the 19 August 2009 PSC Agenda contains more information on those submissions. The major points outlined within these submissions are highlighted below: ● Height ● Overshadowing ● Privacy ● Bulk and Scale ● Streetscape ● Demolition ● Use ● Precedent ● Noise In response to the concerns outlined by the submitters and the City, the applicant submitted amended development plans dated 29 August 2008 which reduced the overall height of the development and amended the boundary setbacks to satisfy the requirements of the Residential Design Codes. Subsequent amended plans were submitted on 25 November 2008 further addressing boundary setback distances.


Page 17

The amendments to the development plans were considered to reduce the impact of the proposed development. Accordingly, the amended development plans were not required to be advertised under City of Fremantle policy L.P.P1.3: Public notification of Planning Approvals. The City has arranged meetings with ● the applicant; ● the applicant and neighbours that had made submissions against the application; ● neighbours that had made submissions against the application; and ● individual meetings with neighbours that had made submissions against the

application. In addition, the City has now received a submission from the owner of 2A Russel Street during mid-December 2009 - refer to Attachment 2. This owner, who did not lodge a submission during the initial submission period in June 2008, has now expressed concern in relation to: ● bulk; ● overshadowing; and ● potential noise from the car parking area and balconies. PLANNING COMMENT

The following assessment is based on the revised plans received on the 21 December 2009 which replace the previously submitted plans. Redrawn plans incorporating Officer’s conditions The City’s recommendation to the 19 August 2009 PSC meeting on this matter included 7 proposed conditions of approval (Refer to Background Section of this report). Council’s resolution required the plans to be amended to incorporate the City’s proposed conditions of approval. The latest set of revised plans address the City’s proposed conditions as follow: ● Condition 1 is a standard condition of approval and will be amended to reflect the

date of the revised plans, if the application is approved. ● Condition 2 was not addressed and will still be included as a proposed condition of

approval. This is not seen as a major issue now that the proposed ground and floor levels have been raised to address condition 7.

● Condition 3 has now been met. ● Conditions 4 and 5 are now no longer relevant as the applicant has opted for

highlight windows in lieu of the use of the film to address privacy. ● Condition 6 is to be retained to ensure that the final detail of the screens meet the

R-Codes.


Page 18

● Condition 7a) – c) and e) have been met having regard to the revised plans. By

complying with conditions 7a) – c), the proposed development has addressed potential flooding issues by raising the proposed finished ground and floor levels, whilst still complying with the height restriction. By complying with these conditions, the application has also provided a much improved interface between the proposed development and the street.

● Condition 7 d) will be discussed separately below. The plans submitted to the PSC on the 2 December 2009 sought 9 setback variations. The latest revised plans now only have 7 setback variations which are highlighted below: Variation No.

Wall type Required Setback

Proposed Setback

Variation

Second Floor Plan

A Southern side - Kitchen/Dining 1.7 1.2 0.5 B Southern side – Family meals 3.8 3.1 0.7 C Northern side – Balcony 4.0m 3.8m 0.2m D Northern side – Study 4.1m 3m 1.1m First Floor Plan

E Southern side – rear balcony 1.7m 1.5m 0.2m F Northern side – front balcony 2.8m 2.3m 0.5m G Northern side - rear balcony 2.8m 2.2m 0.6m The Performance Criteria for the R-Codes in relation to setbacks from the side and rear boundary is shown below: P1 Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:

• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; • ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; • assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; • assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and • assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.

The proposed setback variations of the proposed development satisfies dot points 1, 3 and 6 of the above performance criteria. The exception relates to dot point 6 for setback variations identified in this report as Variation F, which is discussed in further detail below. Setback variations A and B These setback variations align with the non-residential development at No. 90 Marine Terrace and to a lesser extent No 2A Russel Street.


Page 19

The development at No. 90 Marine Terrace is a non-residential building, is built to the common boundary with a two level boundary wall and occupies most of the site. The existing development, due to its design, does not provide for dot points 2, 4 and 5. As such, it is considered that the proposed setback variation A would not result in any detrimental impact on the adjoining property. As such, it is considered that setback variation A would meet the Performance criteria of this design element. Setback variation B is considered a minor variation. If the overall length of the building was reduced by 0.62m, the required setback would be 3.1m, which is the actual setback. Further, the variation occurs at the intersection of No. 90 Marine Terrace (which has a boundary wall abutting half of this opening) and 2A Russell Street. It is considered that variation B meets dot points 2, 4 and 5 and as such, is supported. Setback Variations C and D The design of the proposed development along the northern boundary consists of a number of indentations to provide a break in the massing and bulk of the development. further, the building has been modified so that is steps back from the northern side boundary. The existing dwelling to the north (86 Marine Terrace) is built in very close proximity to the common boundary. As such, the bulk of the proposed development will only be readily perceptible from the front and rear courtyards of the adjoining property, which is further alleviated by the provision of balconies. Setback variations C is a minor setback variation (0.2m) and as it is a balcony, would be minimal in terms of building bulk. Variation D is located in the centre of the building and as such, meets performance criteria 1-4 and 6 of the Performance criteria. As stated earlier, the mass and bulk of the building is ameliorated by the breaking of the mass along each level as well as the stepping back of the building. It is considered that these two variations meet the Performance criteria of this design element. Setback Variation E The setback for this part of the building is based on the overall length of the building . However, half of the building is blocked form view of 2A Russell Street due toe the two storey boundary wall on No. 90 Marine Terrace. Having regard to this aspect and the minor variation, the variation is supported. Setback Variations F and G The comments made in relation to Setback variations C and D are applicable in this instance. As such, the variations are considered to meet the performance criteria of the R-Codes.


Page 20

Design for Climate The Acceptable Development criteria of the R-Codes allow developments to overshadow up to 35% of the site area of adjoining R30 coded property at 12pm, 21 June. The revised plans received on the 21 December 2009 will result in approximately 20.3% (previously 22%) overshadowing of 2A and 2B Russell Street and approximately 88% (previously 100%) of No. 90 Marine Terrace. Having regard to the further reductions in the overshadowing levels between the two development proposals, the comments made in item PSC0906-105 of the 19 August 2009 PSC Agenda are still applicable on this matter. L.P.P2.8: Fences Policy Side boundary fences are proposed for the northern and southern boundaries of the subject site. The boundary fence along the northern boundary has been amended to reflect the requirements of Condition 3. Further, the columns to support the development have been positioned so that they are not directly located outside one of the three windows of No. 86 Marine Terrace that face the common boundary. It is considered that this condition has now been met. CONCLUSION The revised plans submitted by the applicant have met the major conditions of planning approval recommended to the 19 August 2009 meeting of the PSC. Further, the applicants have also undertaken further changes to help address the concerns of the abutting owners directly to the north and east of the development site. In lowering the overall height of the proposed development, changing the setbacks to the development in various areas and the location/design of the roof to the top level balcony, the applicant has further reduced the impact of the proposed development on the adjoining properties. It is noted that the streetscape elevation submitted by the applicant provides a streetscape of different viewpoints/perspectives of the existing buildings. However, the change to the building form of the development and reduction of overall height provides for a development that is considered to be in keeping with the desired streetscape proposed under LPS4. Overall, the proposed development is considered to satisfy the relevant provisions within LPS4, the Residential Design Codes and relevant City of Fremantle policies. As a result the proposed development is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of standard and special conditions of approval. Having regard to this planning application now being the subject of the SAT process, the decision of Council should be sent to the SAT informing them of Council’s position in relation to this matter.


Page 21

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council, in response to the request by the State Administrative Tribunal be to review its decision under Section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, sets aside it previous decision under Section 31(2)(c) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act and substitutes the following decision: 1. That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Mixed Use Development (Office, Tourist Accommodation and Multiple Dwellings) at No. 88 (Lot 3) Marine Terrace, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

a) The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with the

approved plans dated 21 December 2009, incorporating the conditions listed in this approval.

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

minimum height of 1.8m above floor level shall be provided to the northern, eastern and southern elevations of the proposed balconies in accordance with Clause 6.8.1 of the Residential Design Codes.

Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following condition: d) The submission of revised plans for the approval of the Chief Executive

Officer, such plans showing the following walls being modified to comply with the Acceptable Development Standards of DE - 6.3.1 A1 – Buildings Setback from the Boundary of the Residential Design Codes for the southern facing wall of the Family/Meals room of Unit 3.

CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 22

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council, in response to the request by the State Administrative Tribunal be to review its decision under Section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, sets aside it previous decision under Section 31(2)(c) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act and substitutes the following decision: 1. That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme

and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Mixed Use Development (Office, Tourist Accommodation and Multiple Dwellings) at No. 88 (Lot 3) Marine Terrace, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

a) The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with

the approved plans dated 21 December 2009, and revised roof plan dated 2 February 2010 incorporating the conditions listed in this approval.

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

minimum height of 1.8m above floor level shall be provided to the northern, eastern and southern elevations of the proposed balconies in accordance with Clause 6.8.1 of the Residential Design Codes.

d) The submission of revised plans for the approval of the Chief Executive

Officer, such plans showing the following walls being modified to comply with the Acceptable Development Standards of DE - 6.3.1 A1 – Buildings Setback from the Boundary of the Residential Design Codes for the southern facing wall of the Family/Meals room of Unit 3.


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Committee was of the view that further modification of the proposal was necessary to ensure it complies with the Acceptable Development Standards of DE - 6.3.1 A1 – Buildings Setback from the Boundary of the Residential Design Codes. Mayor, Brad Pettitt requested the item be referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council. Seconded by Cr A Sullivan.


Page 23

Mayor, Brad Pettitt vacated the chamber at 7.19 pm during the following item and returned at 7.20 pm prior to determination of the item PSC1002-18 SAMSON STREET NO. 64A (STRATA LOT 2), WHITE GUM VALLEY -

UNAUTHORISED DEVELOPMENT C09/0804P (CHE) DataWorks Reference: 122/009 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Coordinator Development Compliance Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Numbers: PSC0911-192 Attachments: Nil Owner Name: Christopher & Antje Hussey Scheme: Residential R20


Page 24

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the meeting of 4 November 2009 the Planning Services Committee (PSC) consider a report on the construction of a driveway on 64A Samson Street, White Gum Valley (refer to PSC0911-192) and an allegation of excessive fill being placed on site. The PSC resolved to commission a Licensed Surveyor to ascertain the exact ground levels in the area of concern on 64A Samson Street, White Gum Valley. This report presents the findings of that survey and recommends a course of action. BACKGROUND

On 28 July 2004, the City investigated a complaint from the owner of 66 Samson Street about a new driveway at 64A Samson Street. The City advised the owner of 66 Samson Street that there appeared to be an insignificant change in the height of the new driveway serving 64A Samson Street and that the driveway has been properly retained. In January 2009 the owner of 66 Samson Street contacted the City regarding the alleged unauthorised development (driveway) on the eastern boundary of 64A Samson Street. A review of the City’s records revealed that an approval was granted as per (DA611/01) for the proposed residence, driveway and retaining wall at this property which included a site survey which had been completed by Licensed Surveyors dated 27 November 2001 as per DA611/11. This site survey indicated that the average height on the subject driveway was RL9.20 and next to the fence on 66 Samson Street Western side RL8.78 which would give a difference of 420 mm in height. The indicated height of RL9.20 would therefore be considered natural ground level as per State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes (Variation 1) that states-

The level on a site which precedes the proposed development, excluding any site works unless approved by the Council or established as part of subdivision of the land preceding development.

A report on these matters was presented to the PSC at its meeting held on 4 November 2009 where it was resolved to commission a Licensed Surveyor to ascertain the exact ground levels in the area of concern on 64A Samson Street, White Gum Valley. In mid December 2009, the City received the results of this Detail Survey stating that the datum had been able to be matched to the survey undertaken in 2001, using a peg found at the front corner and the floor level at 64 Samson Street. The site survey found that the floor level at 66 Samson Street does not fit by 130mm which could be due to a minor error in the previous survey as access to the adjoining properties is not easy in terms of line of site. The site survey also found a discrepancy of 110 mm on the datum point used by both the Surveying Firms. By evaluating the recent survey, it is noted that the height of the driveway has been found to be approximately 330 mm higher than indicated on the Detail Survey dated 27 November 2001 (which was included and approved as part of a previous development application).


Page 25

This however is less than 500 mm as indicated on the previously approved development and would therefore constitute permitted development under Claus 8.2 (f) of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No 4. DETAILS OF COMPLAINT The owner of 66 Samson Street is concerned about the loss of privacy with the higher driveway causing overlooking and considers that a dividing fence to combat this would also deprive him of natural light into the kitchen. The complainant expects that Council will require the owner of 64A Samson Street to lower the driveway to reinstate his privacy. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Section 218 of the Act states that:

A person who contravenes the provisions of a planning scheme commits an offence.

LPS 4 Clause 11.4.1 of the LPS 4 states:

A person must not contravene or fail to comply with the provisions of the Scheme. Clause 8.2(e) of the LPS 4 states that prior Planning Approval from the Council is not required for the minor filling or excavation of land provided there is no more than 500mm change to the natural ground level. Clause 8.2(l) of the LPS 4 states that the prior planning approval from the Council is not required for minor development as listed in Schedule 15. Local Planning Policy LPP1.5 Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance Policy The Council must be satisfied that there is an issue with compliance in an area within its jurisdiction in order to proceed with action under this policy. In circumstances where compliance may be uncertain, the policy provides criteria for Council to consider: 2.3 Uncertainty of Planning or Building Compliance Where, after reasonable investigation, 1. it is uncertain that a matter is compliant with planning or building requirements, or 2. it is uncertain whether it is capable of enforcement owing to;

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

development or the requirement to obtain approval. The Council may, having regard to any legal or technical advice received on the matter, determine that compliance procedures will not be proceeded with. In all other cases compliance action will proceed in accordance with this policy and without further referral to Council.


Page 26

PLANNING COMMENT

The primary issue faced by the City is determining the magnitude of any change to the natural ground level along the eastern side of the property in question, and whether or not planning enforcement is required in relation to the lifting of the driveway. The approved Detail Survey dated 27 November 2001 that accompanied Planning Approval (DA 611/01) shows the driveway height at approximately 420 mm higher than the natural ground level at 66 Samson Street. This may impact on privacy issues should the fence not be altered to accommodate this change in ground level. With this approval and the additional fill (330 mm), the height of the existing dividing fence on the common boundary between 64A and 66 Samson Street is only 1.02 metres as measured from the 64 A Samson side of the boundary. It is noted that in 2004, the City formed the opinion that any changes in ground level were not considered to be significant. The City’s records do not contain evidence to show that the height of the driveway at 64A Samson has changed after the 2001 Detail Survey. Information obtained through the recent survey shows a height difference of approximately 330 mm to the original approval dated 27 November 2001. A discrepancy on the Height Datum contributed to the height difference. Taking this into consideration, the change to the approved levels up to 500 mm would not require approval under LPS4. Dividing Fence The City’s Principal Building Surveyor inspected the subject site and formed the opinion that the entire dividing fence is dilapidated and is in need of immediate repair. A letter was forwarded to both the property owners on 13 October 2009 requesting them to remove the load behind the dividing fence and to ensure that the fence is safe. CONCLUSION In 2004 the City investigated the same issue and found that it was not necessary to take any further action. The owner of 66 Samson Street has advised that through bad health he could not pursue the matter further at that time. In 2009 he requested that the City revisit the matter again. The City’s Officers investigated the matter and consider that the privacy of the residence at 66 Samson Street has been impacted due to the height of the driveway at 64A Samson Street. The Detail Surveyor’s report show’s an approximate 330 mm height difference to the approved Detail Survey dated 27 November 2001. It is however acknowledged that a discrepancy on the height datum and floor level on 66 Samson Street has been found by the recent Detail Survey who state that this could be due to a minor error in the previous survey. The total height difference would therefore not exceed the 500 mm which would constitute development permitted without planning approval under LPS 4. The owner of 66 Samson Street is also opposed to the construction of a higher dividing fence as he considers that this would restrict natural light into the kitchen area of the dwelling.


Page 27

It is noted that the dividing fence between the two properties is considered to be in a dilapidated sate by the City’s Principal Building Surveyor who is of the view that the fence needs to be replaced or rectified. In light of the above, it is recommended that Council note the information contained in the recent Detail Survey and the comparison with the 2001 survey acknowledging that the fill introduced to the driveway area is within the parameters of development which is permitted without planning approval under LPS 4 and take no further action in this matter. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council: (1) Acknowledge the minor discrepancies relating to the site levels of the two

Detail Surveys; (2) acknowledge that the driveway has been raised approximately 330 mm higher

than the approved plans as per DA611/01 on the eastern lot boundary of 64A Samson Street which would constitute permitted development under clause 8.2 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4; and

(3) take no further action in relation to this matter. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 28

PSC1002-21 LILLY STREET, NO. 48 (LOT 1) SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY

ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (JWJ DA0338/09) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: DA343/05– Two Storey Additions to Existing Single Storey

House (PSC0604-53) DA457/05 – Survey Strata Subdivision

Attachment 1: Development Plans (amended 17 November 2009) Attachment 2: Heritage Assessment (December 2009) Date Received: 15 July 2009 Owner Name: Robert Gordon Submitted by: As above Local Planning Scheme 4: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Heritage Listed & MHI management category 3 Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Residential Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 29

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee as the City of Fremantle (the City) received submissions during the consultation period concerning various aspects of the proposal that cannot be resolved via conditions of Planning Approval. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for Two Storey Additions to the Existing Single House at No. 48 (Lot 1) Lilly Street, South Fremantle. The applicant is requesting discretionary decision of Council for the reduced northern boundary setback and external wall height variation of the proposed additions. The application is considered to satisfy the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), relevant provisions of the Residential Design Codes and Local Planning Policy. Therefore the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND The subject site (the site) is zoned Residential under the City of Fremantle’s (the City) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a density coding of R25. The site is located within Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle – Sub Area 4.3.4 under the provisions of Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a management category 3 and located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area which is designated under clause 7.2 of LPS4. The site is located at No. 48 (Lot 1) Lilly Street, South Fremantle. The site is 435m2 and is located on the eastern side of Lilly Street (Primary Street) with rear boundary and vehicular access from Wesley Street. The site has a crossfall of approximately 500mm from north to south at the street boundary and slopes from the north west corner of site to the south east corner by approximately 1.5m. The site is improved by an existing Single House which has an east west orientation and is attached as a duplex to the existing Single House on 50 Lilly Street, which adjoins to the south. On 26 April 2006, Planning Approval (DA343/05) was granted by Council under the City of Fremantle’s now superseded Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3), for two storey additions to the existing Single House at 48 Lilly Street, South Fremantle. The application was concurrently assessed with an application for two storey additions to the existing Single House at 50 Lilly Street, Fremantle (DA344/09). The original development applications proposed mirror image additions to the existing duplex dwellings. The approved development for 50 Lilly Street is near completion. Due to unforseen circumstances the applicant did not substantially commence development of the site within specified two year requirement of TPS3 at 48 Lilly Street and the approval has since lapsed. For unknown reasons the applicant did not apply for an extension of time within the required two years.


Page 30

The original application (DA343/05) was classed as additions to the existing dwelling at 48 Lilly Street. The applicant has provided floor plans which depict internal areas of the existing built form located on the Lilly Street portion of the lot and proposed development on the Wesley Street portion of the lot. In order to be consistent with Council’s previous assessment, the application has also been assessed as additions to the existing Single House. Conditional subdivision approval was granted 17 October 2005 by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for a two lot survey strata of 48 and 50 Lilly Street. The survey strata was endorsed by the WAPC on 26 October 2006. The northern adjacent property at 13 Wesley Street is a two storey Single House. The southern elevation of the northern adjacent property incorporates a solid boundary wall approximately 14m in length, approximately 3.4m high and extending from approximately 3m from the front setback of Wesley Street. The dwelling opposite the site at 20 Wesley Street is a single storey Single House with a west east orientation. The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and MHI as a management category 3. The dwelling has a reduced Primary Street setback of approximately 1.7m. The topography of the area results in 20 Wesley Street being approximately 1m lower than the subject site. DETAILS On 15 July 2009 the City received a development application seeking Planning Approval for a two storey addition to the existing Single House at 48 Lilly Street, South Fremantle. The applicant is proposing variations to the Residential Design Codes 2008 in relation to the northern boundary setback, southern boundary walls and building height. On 2 October 2009 the City requested further information and amended plans to the original application. Clarification was required from the applicant regarding whether if any works were proposed to the existing dwelling and to confirm that the proposed development was for additions to the existing dwelling only. On 17 November 2009 the City received amended plans and justification to the original application which contained: • Floor plans of the existing dwelling; • Confirmation that no internal works were proposed to the existing dwelling; • No changes were proposed to the new development between the original and

amended development plans. The applicant is proposing a southern boundary wall to abut an existing boundary wall of similar dimensions which satisfies the provisions of Counci’s LPP 2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development (LPP 2.4). The applicant proposes a carport to abut the rear boundary of the property on Wesley Street.


Page 31

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT LPS4 Clause 8.1 contains provisions requiring that all development on land zoned and reserved under LPS4 requires prior approval of Council. Clause 4.2.1 (a) of LPS4 contains objectives of the Residential zone. Clause 4.2.1 (iii) states:

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

Residential Design Codes 2008 The proposed development has been assessed against and considered to satisfy the relevant ‘Acceptable Development’ criteria of the R-Codes with the exception of Design Elements: • 6.3.1 Buildings setback from the boundary; and • 6.7.1 Building Height. Consequently performance based assessments are required for these elements of the development. Design Element 6.3.1 Buildings setback from the boundary (DE 6.3.1) The applicant is proposing a northern boundary setback of 1m for the upper and lower floors of the rear two storey addition with the requirement being 3m for the upper floor and 1.5m for the lower floor, in accordance with Table 2a and DE 6.3.1 of the R-Codes. Therefore, as the northern boundary setback does not meet the ‘Acceptable Development’ criteria for this element of the R-Codes, this aspect of the development is required to be assessed against DE 6.3.1 ‘Performance Criteria’ which states:

‘P1 Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:

• Provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; • Ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining

properties; • Provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open

spaces; • Assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; • Assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties;

and • Assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.’


Page 32

Design Element 6.7.1 Building Height (DE 6.7.1) The proposed development has been assessed against the ‘roof above’ requirements of Table 3 of the R-Codes in accordance with the ‘Acceptable Development’ criteria of DE 6.7.1. The applicant proposes an external wall height of 7.4m with the requirement being 6m. Therefore, as the proposed external wall height does not satisfy the ‘Acceptable Development’ criteria of DE 6.7.1 of the R-Codes, this aspect of the development is required to be assessed against the element’s ‘Performance Criteria’. The ‘Performance Criteria’ of DE 6.7.1 states:

‘P1 Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including where appropriate: • Adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • Adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and • Access to views of significance.

The roof ridge height of the development is proposed to be 7.4m with the requirement being 9m and therefore satisfies ‘Acceptable Development’ criteria of DE 6.7.1. Council’s Local Planning Policy The following Council Local Planning Policies are considered relevant to this application: • DBH 1 Urban Design and Streetscape Policy Guidelines • DGS 3 South and Attfield Streets, Hampton and Lefroy Roads Local Area • LPP 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Approvals, as the development was initially considered to propose an external wall height variation and carport located in front of the dwelling. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 7 August 2009, the City had received three submissions. The following issues were raised: • Potential of increased number of dwellings on site; • Proposed carport in street setback; • Proposed wall height leading to setback and privacy issues; • Potential further subdivision; • Potential overlooking from balcony; and • Proposed plot ratio. Further assessment and discussion is outlined in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.


Page 33

Heritage In accordance with LPP 1.6 Preparing Heritage Assessments policy, the City employed the services of an external Heritage Architect to undertake a Heritage Assessment. Please see ‘Attachment 2’ below for the detailed ‘Heritage Assessment’ of the property and the application. The assessment stated that the proposed changes were acceptable and that the ‘detached nature of the development allows for the minimum of interference with the historic house’. Furthermore, the development was considered to be setback adequately and detached so as to be read as a separate contemporary building. In terms of heritage this was considered to be ‘an acceptable heritage outcome in terms of scale, bulk and height.’ The impact on the Lilly Street streetscape was considered to be successfully minimised and that the ‘Wesley Street aspect will not look out of place in the mixture of fronts and backs and low and high developments that characterise the street.’ The heritage assessment states that there are proposed internal works to the existing dwelling. No internal works to the existing dwelling are proposed as part of this application. PLANNING COMMENT In determining this application, the key issues that require Council’s consideration relate to: • Reduced northern boundary setback variation; • Building Height; and • Submitter concerns. Northern Boundary Setback The applicant is proposing a reduced northern boundary setback of 1m for the upper and ground floors of the development. The proposed variation does not satisfy the ‘Acceptable Development’ criteria of DE 6.3.1 or Table 2a of the R-Codes and therefore requires an assessment against the ‘Performance Criteria’ of DE 6.3.1. The portion of the northern elevation which triggers the setback requirement is 15.8m long and 6.7m high. The rest of the elevation extends for 12.5m, is 7.4m high and is setback 2.5m from the northern boundary. The portion of the northern elevation that is setback 1m will be located directly adjacent the northern property’s existing southern boundary wall. As mentioned previously, the solid southern boundary wall of the northern adjacent property is at ground level and extends west approximately 3m from Wesley Street for approximately 14m and is approximately 3.4m high from natural ground level. Directly above the ground floor boundary wall, the upper level, being setback less than 1m, includes a minor opening from the bathroom/laundry. The applicant does not propose any major openings on the northern elevation of the development. All window openings on the upper floor are non-major openings as either having a sill height of 1.8m above floor level or being obscured.


Page 34

The proposed balcony facing Wesley Street is to be appropriately screened. It is therefore considered that privacy will be protected between the adjacent properties. The skillion roof design allows for direct sun access to the upper floor area through windows 3.2m above floor level. Furthermore, a north facing outdoor living area will provide for access to direct sunlight to the subject dwelling. The northern elevation of the development has numerous openings which provide relief from the overall impact of the building. This assists in ‘breaking up’ the development’s building bulk, and therefore its impact on the northern adjacent property. The middle component of the development has a flat roof which further breaks up the visual appearance of the northern elevation. The carport and rear entry to the dwelling from Wesley Street is open in design and lightweight in construction and therefore reduces the solid impact of the building from the street and surrounding properties. Therefore it is considered that the reduced northern boundary setback satisfies the ‘Performance Criteria’ of DE 6.3.1 of the R-Codes. Building Height The applicant is proposing an external wall height of 7.4m for the northern elevation of the Wesley Street portion of the dwelling. The proposed variation does not satisfy the ‘Acceptable Development’ criteria of DE 6.7.1 of the R-Codes and therefore requires an assessment against the ‘Performance Criteria’ of DE 6.7.1. The R-Codes does not specifically address skillion roof style design, particularly regarding building height. However, as the roof form of the proposed development is visible above the walls, the development is not considered a ‘concealed roof’ rather a ‘roof above’ for the purpose of this Design Element of the R-Codes. Schedule 12 of LPS4 sub area 4.3.4 requires development to be no more than two storeys. The proposed development is two storeys and thus consistent with the desired height of the area. The northern elevation of the development will be located adjacent the southern adjacent property’s solid boundary wall. No major openings are proposed for the northern elevation of the development and the northern elevation of the balcony at the rear of the addition facing Wesley Street will be screened in accordance with the R-Codes. It is preferable for a skillion roof design to have the highest point of the building located on the northern elevation of the dwelling which reduces overshadowing of the southern adjoining property. The proposed development will abut a mirror image development located on the southern lot, which has an abutting internal boundary wall. Therefore the proposed skillion roof design of the development will not restrict direct sun access to the southern adjacent property’s outdoor living area or major openings. Therefore the proposed external wall height is considered acceptable as the proposed variation satisfies the relevant ‘Performance Criteria’ of DE 6.7.1 of the R-Codes.


Page 35

Submitter Comments Three submitters raised concerns regarding the proposed development. The following issues were raised: • Potential of increased number of dwellings on site; • Proposed carport in street setback; • Proposed wall height leading to setback and privacy issues; • Potential further subdivision; • Potential overlooking from balcony; and • Proposed plot ratio. Increased Number of Dwellings on Site & Further Subdivision The development application is proposing additions to the existing dwelling on site. The development is considered as additions and not an entirely new dwelling. As mentioned previously, the WAPC endorsed the survey strata subdivision of the lots at 48 and 50 Lilly Street on 26 October 2006. Carport in Street Setback The proposed carport is to be setback 1.5m from Wesley Street. This is the rear boundary of the property and therefore the proposed carport is not required to be assessed against Council’s DC 6 Garages/Carports in Front of Dwellings/Buildings. Furthermore, the existing streetscape of Wesley Street has no established streetscape pattern with several reduced setbacks. As mentioned previously, the heritage assessment undertaken stated that the proposed additions would not look out of place in the Wesley Street streetscape. The carport is an open design and would not introduce bulk into the streetscape. The carport is provided with a 2.5m setback from the northern boundary which further adds to the openness of the streetscape. Wall Height Leading to Setback and Privacy Issues The external wall height of the development is proposed to be 7.4m. The potential impact of building height on adjoining properties has been discussed previously in the ‘Planning Comment’ section regarding the external wall height variation. As mentioned previously, the applicant does not propose any major openings on the northern elevation of the development. Furthermore, the balcony facing Wesley Street and verandah at the front of the dwelling are proposed to be appropriately screened. Potential overlooking from balcony The balcony facing Wesley Street is proposed to be appropriately screened on the northern elevation.


Page 36

The balcony is setback approximately 17m from the property at 20 Wesley Street, therefore providing sufficient setback requirements in relation to visual privacy in accordance with Design Element 6.8.1 of the R-Codes. CONCLUSION The proposed two storey additions to the existing Single House are supported on heritage grounds as the additions are considered to have minimal interference with the existing dwelling, as it would be read as a modern detached contemporary addition. Furthermore, the proposed additions are considered to have a minimal impact on both the Lilly and Wesley Street streetscapes. The proposed two storey additions to the existing Single House are considered to satisfy the ‘Performance Criteria’ of the R-Codes pertaining to the northern boundary setback and external building height. The proposed development has been assessed against and complies with the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Accordingly the proposal is recommended for conditional Approval. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Additions to Existing Single House at No. 48 (Lot 1) Lilly Street, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with the

approved plans dated 17 November 2009. 2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 37

PSC1002-22 FORREST STREET NO. 54 (LOT 1) FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY

ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO GROUPED DWELLING - (BC DA339/08)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: DA466/05 Attachment 1: Applicant submission and development plans dated 17

November 2009 Attachment 2: Site photographs Date Received: 2 July 2008 Owner Name: R & M Mutch Submitted by: R & M Mutch Scheme: Residential R25/R30 Heritage Listing: Not Listed Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 38

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination as submissions have been received which outline concerns which cannot be addressed via conditions of approval. Planning Approval is sought for two storey additions and alterations to the existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 54 Forrest Street, Fremantle. The proposed development is not considered to satisfy the performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (Variation 1) for the reduced primary street setback distance nor the provisions of City of Fremantle D.B.H1: Urban Design and Streetscape policy due to the following: - the reduced primary street setback distance is not consistent with the

established streetscape pattern; and - the proposed two storey additions are considered to dominate the existing

dwelling and to negatively impact on the existing streetscape. The proposed western boundary wall is not supported in accordance with the City’s L.P.P2.8: Boundary Walls policy as the wall is considered to impact upon the amenity of the adjoining property amenity by way of building bulk. Accordingly the development application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND Scheme Provisions and Previous Development The subject site is located at No. 54 Forrest Street, Fremantle. The site is zoned Residential with a density coding of R25/R30 and is located within the Fremantle Local Planning Area as prescribed in the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory. Planning Approval was granted on 15 October 1998 for the construction of a double width, open sided carport at the rear of the dwelling (DA649/98). The carport was setback 0.5m from the northern boundary for a length of 5.6m and setback from the western boundary by 1.7m. The constructed carport is 3.1m high. Planning Approval was granted for the construction of a single storey addition to the existing dwelling on 7 September 2005 (DA466/05). The development is setback 1.1 – 1.5m from the western boundary. Planning Approval was granted on 13 October 2006 for an extension to the carport structure at the rear of the existing dwelling (DA565/06). The proposed development extended to the western boundary and proposed a 2.2m high weatherboard wall on the boundary. However, as evidenced by the site photographs in Attachment 2, construction of the carport extension and associated boundary wall did not eventuate. The Planning Approval for this boundary wall has subsequently lapsed and it is worth noting that the City has since adopted local planning policy, LPP2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development.


Page 39

General Site and Area Description The subject site is improved by an existing single storey Grouped Dwelling with rear additions and a double width carport. The site is approximately 303sqm in area. A common property access leg is located to the eastern side of the dwelling providing access to the subject properties’ carport and No. 54A Forrest Street which is located to the rear of the site. The ground level of the subject site is elevated in relation to the adjoining properties. The ground level of the western adjoining property (No. 52 Forrest St) is approximately 0.3 lower than the ground level of the subject site. The ground level of the northern adjoining property (No. 54A Forrest St) is approximately 1m lower than the subject site. Existing development within close proximity to the subject site is predominantly single storey of different construction eras. The average setback of dwellings along the northern side of Forrest Street is approximately 4m, with the exception of the western adjoining property (No. 52 Forrest St) which is setback approximately 6.5m. DETAILS Planning Approval is sought for two storey additions and alterations to the existing Grouped Dwelling. The proposed development consists of the following:

- Two storey additions at the rear of the existing dwelling to provide for one bedroom with ensuite, walk in robes and a theatre room.

- Ground floor additions consisting of o Store room addition to the eastern elevation. o Enclosing part of the front verandah to provide for a living room addition. o Rear addition for stairwell to first floor. o Double width carport with boundary walls on the northern and western

boundaries. o Alfresco covering at rear (below first floor rear addition).

The applicant has submitted revised development plans (17 October 2008, 28 May 2009 and 17 November 2009). The plans received on the 17 November 2009 are the subject of this report and can be viewed in ‘Attachment 1’ of this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) The subject site is located within the Fremantle Local Planning Area as described in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The building height requirements for the Residential zone are as per the Residential Design Codes.


Page 40

Residential Design Codes 2008 (R-Codes) The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant Acceptable Development criteria contained within the Residential Design Codes for Residential – R25 properties. The proposed development satisfies all the relevant Acceptable Development provisions of the R-Codes with the exception of the following:

- Design Element 6.2 – Streetscape – reduced Primary Street setback, - Design Element 6.3 – Boundary Setbacks – western and northern boundary wall,

and - Design Element 6.4 – Open Space – outdoor living area.

It should be noted that not meeting any Acceptable Development criteria, in and of itself, is not a sound basis on which to refuse or require modifications to a proposal. Instead, the proposal must be considered in the context of the relevant performance criteria. Local Planning Policies D.B.H1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines The City’s local planning policy, D.B.H1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines aims to ‘conserve and enhance areas of architectural or historic character whilst encouraging harmonious development with the existing authentic character and appearance of the traditional residential areas of Fremantle.’ D.G.F3 Marmion, Forrest, Wood and Montreal Streets Local Area The property is located within area covered by local planning policy, D.G.F3: Marmion, Forrest, Wood and Montreal Streets Local Area. This policy is primarily concerned with the encouragement of new dwellings being constructed along the right of way that runs through the block. The subject site has frontage onto Forrest Street and therefore the provisions in this policy are not of relevance. CONSULTATION The development application has been advertised to the adjoining owners and occupiers on three occasions. The original development application was advertised on 4 July 2008 to the adjoining owners and occupiers under the now rescinded City of Fremantle policy D.A5: Advertising of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the adverting period being 21 July 2008, two submissions had been received. Upon the concerns outlined within these submissions, the applicant supplied amended development plans on 17 October 2008. These plans were re-advertised to the adjoining owners and occupiers. At the conclusion of this advertising period on 13 November 2008, two submissions had been received. The applicant submitted further revisions to the proposal on 28 May 2009. These plans were re-advertised to the adjoining owners and occupiers. At the conclusion of this advertising period on 5 August 2009, two submissions had been received.


Page 41

The submissions outlined the following concerns: Height The proposed second storey addition will tower over the submitter’s property. Noise Construction noise will impact amenity. Parking Increase in car parking demand along Forrest Street. Boundary Wall One submitter objects to the boundary wall being located only 1m from the submitter’s house due to impacts upon natural light, ventilation, quality of enjoyment. The submitter notes that the original plan showed the garage wall about a metre from the boundary which the submitter finds more acceptable. Visual Privacy It is noted by the submitter that the windows have raised sill levels so will retain the privacy to the adjoining site, however the submitter also requests that the stairwell window be frosted to maintain privacy.

PLANNING COMMENT As outlined above, the proposed development requires performance based assessments against the Residential Design Codes relating to streetscape, boundary setbacks and outdoor living space. Streetscape 6.2.1 Setback of buildings generally As previously mentioned the existing dwelling is setback 4.35m to the front wall of the dwelling from Forrest Street. The development proposes to ‘fill in’ part of the front verandah for a living room addition which will reduce the front setback to 2.25m, in line with the setback of the existing verandah. The proposal will also alter the existing form of the roof from a ridge line parallel to the street to one with gable type ends. It should be noted that the setback of buildings, as determined by the R-Codes, is to the wall of the building rather than the roof eave or verandah awning. The Acceptable Development provisions of the R-Codes require buildings to be setback 6m from the Primary Street. The Performance Criteria relating to street setback distances states:

Building setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they: • Contribute to the desired streetscape • Provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and • Allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.


Page 42

The applicant contends that the proposal ‘does not dominate the front and certainly adds to the colonial effect of the streetscape’. The applicant further states that ‘this lounge/verandah look is identical to many homes in the area and fits in beautifully with the Fremantle ambience’, (Attachment 1). As previously discussed the setback of the dwellings on the northern side of Forrest Street is reasonably consistent at approximately 4m, with the exception of No. 52 Forrest Street which is setback approximately 6.5m. The proposed enclosure of part of the front verandah to extend the living area will result in a solid wall element being located closer to the street boundary and accordingly the building bulk being located closer to the street. Taking this into account, as well as the existing streetscape pattern of setback distances, the proposed extension is not considered to contribute to the desired streetscape. Whilst the design of the proposal, with the gable roof form and partial front verandah, mimics the existing dwellings opposite the subject site, these dwellings are setback approximately 5m from the street. With respect to privacy and open space for the dwelling, it is acknowledged that the major opening into the living room will be located closer to the street boundary and therefore may have privacy impacts upon the users of the living room. However as the site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac street, this impact is anticipated to be minimal. The proposed development will be assessed below in terms of outdoor living space. Overall, the proposed reduced Primary Street setback distance from the street boundary for the living room extension is not considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria relating to the desired streetscape. Boundary Setbacks 6.3.2 Buildings on boundary The City’s Boundary Walls in Residential Development Policy provides alternative Acceptable Development standards to those contained within Element 6.3 of the R-Codes. The proposed northern and western boundary walls do not meet these replacement standards. In applying the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes regarding buildings on boundaries, the City’s policy states:

In considering any application under the performance criteria in clause 6.3.2 P2 of the Residential Design Codes, the Council will have particular regard to comments made by neighbouring owners / occupiers of adjoining properties, and will only consider these criteria to be met where it is satisfied that no adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring property will occur.

As previously stated, the City received submissions during the consultation periods raising concern about the proposed boundary walls.


Page 43

Submissions were received from both northern and western adjoining property owners. The content of the submission will be discussed below in relation to the proposed boundary walls. The Performance Criteria for boundary walls state:

Buildings built up to boundaries other that the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to:

• Make effective use of space; or • Enhance privacy; or • Otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; • Not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property;

and • Ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living

areas of adjoining properties is not restricted. The boundary walls are all associated with the proposed double carport. As mentioned above, the existing double carport was granted Planning Approval in 1998 (DA649/98) and is 3.1m high, setback 0.5m from the northern boundary and 1.7m from the western boundary. The proposed boundary walls are considered to make effective use of the available space on the site and enhance the amenity of the development through removing any redundant setback areas adjacent to the boundary. Northern boundary wall The proposed northern boundary wall measures 8.1m long and 2.6m high as measured from the ground level of the subject site. The northern adjoining property (No. 54A Forrest Street) is of lower topography than the subject site (approximately 1m). There exists a dividing fence along this common boundary approximately 1.6m high. The proposed garage wall is to be adjacent to the existing car parking area on this site and due to the site orientation and the boundary wall being up to the northern boundary little impact upon solar access is anticipated. It is acknowledged that the proposed northern boundary wall will pose some visual impact on the adjoining property by way of building bulk, an impact that is exacerbated by the difference in ground levels. However, given that the wall will not restrict light or ventilation, pose any shadow and is adjacent to the car parking area, the overall impact on the amenity of the adjoining property is considered acceptable. The submissions received from the northern adjoining property owner/occupier, whilst raising concern regarding the height and bulk of the two storey addition, have not specifically objected to the proposed boundary wall. The most recent submission from the adjoining property owner/occupier went so far as to state that, ‘we have no problems with the proposed development at ground floor level.’


Page 44

It is therefore considered that the proposed northern boundary wall poses an acceptable impact on the amenity of the northern adjoining property owner and is therefore considered to satisfy the performance criteria of the R-Codes and the local planning policy, LPP2.8 Boundary Walls in Residential Development. Western boundary wall The proposed western boundary wall measures 6m long and 2.5m high as measured from the ground level of the subject site. As outlined above, the adjoining property to the west (No. 52 Forrest Street) is also of lower topography and the dwelling on this site is located approximately 1m from the shared boundary. There exists a dividing fence along the common lot boundary that is approximately 1.8m high from the ground level of the adjoining property and approximately 1.6m high from the ground level on the subject site. The proposed boundary wall will measure approximately 0.9 higher than the existing dividing fence - up to 2.7m high when measured from the western adjoining property. The proposed boundary wall will be adjacent to a toilet window and glass sliding laundry door. These rooms are not considered ‘habitable rooms’ under the R-Codes and as such these rooms are not offered the same level of protection as habitable rooms. There are major openings to habitable rooms along the eastern elevation of the adjoining dwelling however as these openings are not directly adjacent to the boundary wall, the proposed boundary wall is not anticipated to pose a significant impact on the provision of daylight to these rooms. It is acknowledged that the overall development will impact on the provision of daylight to the eastern elevation of the adjoining dwelling during certain times of the day and year, however it is not considered that the proposed boundary wall will significantly contribute to this impact. It is also noted that the provided setback of the first floor addition from the western boundary is compliant with the Acceptable Development provision of the R-Codes as is the calculated overshadowing of the development. The proposed western boundary wall is anticipated to pose a visual impact on the amenity of the adjoining property by way of building bulk. However as the affected area is a narrow side setback area of the property and not an active habitable space, this impact could be considered acceptable. Nevertheless the western adjoining property owner/occupier has expressed explicit concern regarding the proposed boundary wall during each of the three consultation periods. The adjoining property owner/occupier states that the boundary wall will have an ‘adverse impact on my property’, and the development will result in poorer natural light and … could affect ventilation.’ In accordance with the local planning policy, Council are to pay ‘particular regard to comments’ made during the consultation period and shall only consider the performance criteria of the R-Codes to be met where it is satisfied that the development will pose ‘no adverse impacts’ on the amenity of the adjoining property. Whilst the impacts on the amenity of the adjoining property posed by the boundary wall could be considered acceptable, there is nevertheless some impact on the amenity of the adjoining property by way of building bulk. As such it is considered that the proposed boundary wall should not be supported as it does not satisfy the requirements of local planning policy, LPP2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development.


Page 45

Open Space 6.4.2 Outdoor living areas The Acceptable Development criteria require R25 coded properties to provide 30sqm of outdoor living space located behind the street setback area, accessible from a habitable room, with a minimum length and width of 4m and having at least two-thirds without permanent roof cover. The proposed alfresco area to the rear of the dwelling is greater than 30m² in area however more than two-thirds has permanent roof cover provided by the second floor level. The Performance Criteria for outdoor living area states:

An outdoor living area capable of use in conjunction with a habitable room of the dwelling, and if possible, open to winter sun. An outdoor area that takes the best advantage of the northern aspect of the site.

The proposed alfresco area will be directly accessible from the ground floor dining room. The eastern portion of the proposed alfresco area will be open to northern or winter sun however the majority of the alfresco area will be shaded by the second floor addition and proposed carport. Nevertheless the proposed alfresco area is considered to take best advantage of the northern aspect of the site given the location of the existing carport and the desire to construct a two storey addition near the rear of the existing dwelling. Overall, the proposed outdoor living area for the dwelling is considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes. Local Planning Policies D.B.H1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines The existing dwelling is best described as a traditional single storey Fremantle cottage of weatherboard and iron construction with a bull nose verandah. The original proposed development sought to construct two storey additions above the existing roof form of the dwelling which was considered to overwhelm the original dwelling. The revised development proposal has separated the two storey additions from the existing roof form of the dwelling. However the provided Primary Street setback of 1.8m is not considered sufficient to alleviate the potential dominance of the proposed additions on the streetscape. The policy suggests that, if an upper floor extension cannot be contained within the existing roof form, then the two storey addition should be built a ‘minimum of 4 metres behind the ridge line, so that its visual impact can be minimised’ (clause 6 (b)). The proposed two storey addition does not provide this required 4m separation from the existing roof ridge and therefore has the potential to dominate the existing dwelling and detract from the predominantly singe storey character of Forrest Street.


Page 46

Additionally, the revised development proposes to fill in the eastern part of the verandah to use as a living room extension as well as alter the roof form to provide a gabled end, rather than the roof ridge running parallel to the street. Whilst the gabled roof form mimics existing development on the other side of Forrest Street, this form is not regarded as retaining the character of the existing dwelling and is thus contrary to clause 6 (a) of the policy that seeks to retain and enhance the character and integrity of the existing house. Furthermore the proposed living room addition is not considered to satisfy clause 6.2.1 of the R-Codes pertaining to the setting back of buildings. The proposed two storey additions are to significantly alter the character of the existing dwelling within the streetscape. Therefore the proposed development is not considered to be consistent with the requirements of this City of Fremantle policy. Submissions The concerns outlined within the submissions not addressed above will be assessed below. Height The proposed development has an external wall height of 5.8m and a roof ridge height of 7.8. The Acceptable Development requirements of the R-Codes provide for an external wall height of 6m and a roof ridge height of 9m. The height of the proposed development therefore complies with the height requirements for the local planning area. Noise One submitter outlined concerns relating to construction noise. This is not considered to be a planning matter, rather is governed under the Environmental Protection Act 1997 and administered by the City’s Environmental Health Department. Parking Two parking bays are to be provided on site which is the required number for Grouped Dwellings under the Residential Design Codes. Boundary Wall The proposed northern and western boundary walls for the proposed carport have been addressed in detail above. The proposed western boundary wall is not considered to satisfy the City’s local planning policy, LPP2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development, as the wall is considered to pose an impact on the amenity of the western adjoining property owner/occupier by way of building bulk. Visual Privacy One of the submitters requests that the stairwell window be frosted to maintain privacy. The proposed development satisfies the Acceptable Development criteria contained within the Residential Design Codes for visual privacy. As a stairwell is not a habitable room, the window is not required to be obscured.


Page 47

CONCLUSION The proposed development does not satisfy the Performance Criteria for the reduced Primary Street setback distance nor the provisions of City’s local planning policy, D.B.H1 Urban Design and Streetscape, as the reduced Primary Street setback distance is not consistent with the established streetscape pattern and the proposed two storey additions are considered to dominate the existing dwelling and to negatively impact on the streetscape. The proposed western boundary wall is not considered to satisfy the requirements of the City’s local planing policy, LPP2.8 Boundary Walls in Residential Development, as the boundary wall is considered to impact on the amenity of the adjoining property owner/occupier by way of building bulk. Accordingly, the development application is recommended for refusal. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Additions and Alterations to Grouped Dwelling at No. 54 (Lot 1) Forrest Street, Fremantle for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of Design Element 6.2.1 of

the Residential Design Codes (Variation 1) with respect to the established streetscape pattern.

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

D.B.H1: Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines as the two storey additions are considered to dominate the existing dwelling and to negatively impact on the streetscape.

3. The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of Design Element 6.3.2 of

the Residential Design Codes (Variation 1) and City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy L.P.P2.8: Boundary Walls with respect to the western boundary wall due to the potential impact upon the amenity of the western property.

CARRIED: 3/2 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr Bill Massie Cr Robert Fittock

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


Page 48

PSC1002-25 KWONG ALLEY NO. 1/12 (STRATA LOT 1) NORTH FREMANTLE -

THIRD FLOOR ADDITION TO EXISTING MIXED USE (OFFICE AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) - (BC DA0490/09)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: DA51/01 – 3 Level Mixed Residential/Commercial

Dwelling Attachment 1: Development Plans Date Received: 23 September 2009 Owner Name: Sasha Ivanovich Submitted by: Sasha Ivanovich Scheme: Commercial R60 Heritage Listing: North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Office / Multiple Dwelling Use Class: Commercial / Residential Use Permissibility: P / X


Page 49

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination as submissions have been received which outline concerns which cannot be addressed via conditions of approval. Planning Approval is sought for a fourth floor addition to an existing mixed use building located at No. 1/12 Kwong Alley, North Fremantle. The proposed development is essentially an additional bedroom, ensuite and study/office to one of the two Multiple Dwellings extant within the building. The proposed third floor addition is considered to satisfy the matters to be considered by Council in varying the site and development requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) as detailed in clause 5.8.1 of LPS4. The proposed development is considered to meet the objectives of the Commercial zone under LPS4. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of the Residential Design Codes 2008 and relevant local planning policies. Accordingly the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND The subject site is approximately 204sqm in area and is located on the eastern side of Queen Victoria Street, North Fremantle. The site is orientated in an east-west direction and extends through to Kwong Alley at the rear. The site is improved by a three storey Mixed Use building (Office and Multiple Dwellings) with basement parking. The building fronts Queen Victoria Street, however vehicular access is gained via Kwong Alley to the east. The property consists of two strata lots with common property on the basement floor. Lot 1 consists of:

- Part lot for portion of basement level for car parking. - Part lot for entirety of ground floor for Office use – SIA Architects. - Part lot for entirety of second floor for Multiple Dwelling use.

Lot 2 consists of:

- Part lot for two portions of basement floor for car parking. - Part lot for entirety of first floor for Multiple Dwelling use.

The existing development on the northern adjoining property (No. 6 – 10 Kwong Alley) exhibits a height of 12.6m from Queen Victoria Street and 14m from Kwong Alley. The southern adjoining property (No. 14 Kwong Alley) is currently vacant and the City is not in receipt of any development proposals. The site further to the south (No. 16 – 18 Kwong Alley) was granted Planning Approval in 2005 (and extended in 2008) for a four storey Commercial building. The height of the approved development is 13.8m from Queen Victoria Street and 15.4m from Kwong Alley.


Page 50

Construction has commenced and is currently underway on this development. A similar four storey building is also under construction at No. 20 Kwong Alley which exhibits similar heights to those buildings constructed and under construction. The existing development on the eastern adjoining properties, on the opposite side of Kwong Alley, are two storey residential townhouses. DETAILS Planning Approval is sought for a fourth floor addition to the existing building at No. 1/12 Kwong Alley, North Fremantle. The proposed development consists of the following:

- Fourth floor addition to the existing Multiple Dwelling to provide for: o an addition bedroom and study/office area with ensuite, and o eastern facing balcony.

- Alterations to second floor to provide internal staircase access to fourth storey. The proposed development is essentially a bedroom addition to the existing Multiple Dwelling (Strata Lot 1) located on the second floor of the existing building. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) Zoning and Land Use The property is zoned Commercial. The existing approved land uses are Office and Multiple Dwelling. The nature of the Office land use is to remain unchanged and as such is not required to be assessed as part of this application. However, the proposed fourth storey is to be used as part of the Multiple Dwelling land use. The objectives of the Commercial zone, as described in clause 4.2.1 of LPS4, state: Development within the Commercial zone shall –

(i) provide for the development of offices and associated commercial and larger scale uses, including showrooms, and warehouses and uses requiring outdoor displays,

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

(iii) to conserve place of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development.

A Multiple Dwelling is an ’X’ use within a Commercial zone as described in Table 2 of LPS4. As such the use is ‘not permitted’. However as the Multiple Dwelling land use was granted Planning Approval prior to the adoption of LPS4, and the premises has continued to be used for the purpose of a Multiple Dwelling, the use is considered a non-conforming use, in accordance with clause 4.8 of LPS4.


Page 51

Clause 4.9.1 of LPS4 states: A person must not –

(a) alter or extend a non-conforming use, (b) erect, alter or extend a building used in conjunction with or in furtherance of a

non-conforming use, or (c) change the use of land from a non-conforming use to another non-conforming

use, without first having applied for and obtained planning approval under the Scheme. Clause 4.9.2 of LPS4 goes on to state that, ‘An application for planning approval under this clause is to be advertised in accordance with clause 9.4.’ As such, LPS4 provides Council with the discretion to consider the current application to extend a building used in conjunction with a non-conforming use subject to advertising in accordance with Clause 9.4. Council’s attention is also drawn to the proposed Scheme Amendment No. 27 (Amendment 27). Amendment No.27 proposes, amongst other things, to change the permissibility of a Multiple Dwelling within a Commercial zone as prescribed in Table 2 of LPS4 to be ‘A’ land use, meaning the use is permissible at the discretion of Council and following an advertising period. Amendment No.27 was adopted by Council at its Ordinary Meeting of Council on 26 August 2009 and forwarded to the Minister for Planning for approval on 15 September 2009. As such the proposed amendment is considered a seriously entertained proposal and at an advanced stage of implementation. Subsection (b) of clause 10.2.1 of LPS4 enables Council to consider a proposed Scheme Amendment when determining an application. Building Height Requirements Clause 6.4.2 of LPS4 enables Council to designate local planning areas. The planning requirements for the local planning areas are detailed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The maximum wall height for development within the Commercial zone of the North Fremantle LPA is 7.5m, as detailed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The development proposes a maximum external wall height of 15.4m for the third floor element, thus exceeding the above stated building heights requirements of LPS4. Clause 5.8 provides Council with the discretion to vary the site and development standards and requirements. Regarding height provisions, Clause 5.8.1 states:


Page 52

Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, 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 property 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 cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and (d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.

Clause 5.8.3 of LPS4 states that where Council is of the opinion that a variation sought under clause 5.8 would affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality or adjoining the site, Council may consult any affected parties as per clause 9.4 and pay regard to any comments expressed when determining the application. Clause 5.8.4 of LPS4 states: The power conferred by clauses 5.8.1 and 5.8.2 may only be exercised if the Council is satisfied that –

(a) approval of the proposed development would be appropriate having regard to the criteria set out in clause 10.2, 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.

Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) The proposed development does not satisfy the Acceptable Development provisions of the R-Codes pertaining to Mixed Use development requirements, namely the proposed plot ratio exceeding 0.7 and the height of the southern proposed boundary wall exceeding 6m. It should be noted that not meeting any Acceptable Development criteria, in and of itself, is not a sound basis on which to refuse or require modifications to a proposal. Instead, the proposal must be considered in the context of the relevant performance criteria. Local Planning Policies The following local planning policies are of relevance to the current application: - D.G.N6 Northbank Development Guidelines, and - D.G.N7 North Fremantle Foreshore Plan.


Page 53

CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals, as the proposal requires a discretionary decision of Council regarding the proposed building height and reagrdgin an extension to a building associated with a non-conforming use. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 14 October 2009, the City had received one submission. The following issues were raised:

- Overshadowing to residential properties to the east of the subject site, - Negative impact on the streetscape and residential properties by way of building

bulk. Fremantle Port Authority The application was referred to the Fremantle Port Authority for comment in accordance with clause 6.5.3.2 of LPS4. The Authority advised that as the proposed development is for an extension to an existing residential building, the development is exempt from the built form requirements for Area 2, as detailed in the local planning policy, LPP2.3 Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines. Nevertheless, the Authority has requested that the applicant be advised of the built form requirements for Area 2. An advice note has been included in the recommendation that is consistent with this request. PLANNING COMMENT Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) Zoning and Non-Conforming Land Use As previously discussed, the existing Multiple Dwelling use is currently a ‘non-conforming use’. Clause 4.9.1 of LPS4 provides Council with the discretion to ‘alter or extend a building’ used in conjunction with the non-conforming use. The proposed third floor addition is considered to satisfy the objectives of the Commercial zone as:

- The existing Multiple Dwelling land use, whilst currently a non-conforming use, is considered suitable to the locality, particularly in light of Council’s adoption of Amendment No.27. The proposed development is providing an additional bedroom and study/office to an existing land use rather than proposing additional Multiple Dwellings or alternate land uses.

- The proposed development is not considered to detrimentally impact on the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties given the relatively small scale of the development and the setting back of the proposed addition from Kwong Alley. The proposed height of the addition is considered to satisfy the matters to be considered by Council in granting a variation to the site and development standards of LPS4, as is discussed below.


Page 54

- The only place of heritage significance within a reasonable proximity to the subject site is the Swan Hotel on Queen Victoria Street. However given the distance of separation between the Hotel and the subject site, no impact on the significance of this place is anticipated.

Building Height As previously mentioned, clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 enables Council to vary the site and development standards and requirements contained within LPS4 subject to the development meeting specified criteria. The precluding sentence that must be addressed when considering an application under clause 5.8.1 is 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 12 …’ The existing dwelling demonstrates an external wall height of 12.2m which exceeds the 7.5m external wall height limit for the Commercial zone as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The existing development on the northern adjoining property (No. 6 – 10 Kwong Alley) exhibits an external wall height of approximately 14m. Furthermore, the approved development on the property to the south (No. 16 & 18 Kwong Alley) proposes an external wall height of 15.2m. As such the subject site contains and is adjacent to sites that depict a height greater than that specific in the general and specific requirements in Schedule 12, Council may considered varying the building height requirements of Schedule 12 subject to being satisfies to the matters outlined in the remainder of the clause.

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

The proposed fourth floor addition is not anticipated to impact on the amenity of the northern adjoining property given the consistent height of the proposal with the existing development and the location of the development on the adjoining property’s southern boundary. As the southern adjoining property is vacant and the City is not in receipt of any development proposals, no impact on the amenity of this property is anticipated. The proposed development is significantly larger in height and scale than the two storey townhouses to the east of the subject site. However the nature of the Commercial zone bounded by Kwong Alley and Queen Victoria Street (and Northbank area in general) is to present a key ‘gateway’ to Fremantle, as referenced in local planning policy, DGN6 Northbank Guidelines. The height and scale of the development along this Commercial strip will inevitably present some impact on the amenity of the residential properties to the east, by way of building bulk as well as overshadowing in the later afternoon hours of the day. The impact of the proposed fourth storey on overshadowing and building bulk has indeed been highlighted as areas of concern by the submitter to the proposal.


Page 55

However the applicant has attempted to minimise this impact by setting the fourth floor element back approximately 9.2m from Kwong Alley. Furthermore the applicant has demonstrated that the resultant shadow posed by the development is similar to that already presented by the extant development on the subject site and the northern adjoining site (No. 6 – 10 Kwong Alley). The resultant shadow is not anticipated to impact on the eastern adjacent properties until 3pm as calculated at the winter solstice (the winter solstice being the ‘worst case scenario’). Taking the existing developments into account the impact of the fourth floor addition on the adjoining properties, particularly the eastern adjoining properties, is considered acceptable and is not considered to amount to a ‘detrimental’ impact on the amenity of these properties.

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

The height and scale of the proposed fourth floor addition is consistent with the heights and scale of the existing development at No. 6 – 10 Kwong Alley and the approved development at No. 16 & 18 Kwong Alley. Whilst the height of the proposed development and extant development fronting Queen Victoria differs significantly from the residential development on the eastern adjacent properties, this variation is considered to be representative of the different zoning and intention for the area. As such the proposed fourth floor addition is considered to effectively graduate the scale between the buildings not only adjoining to the north and south, but is also effective in providing a distinct graduation in the scale from the buildings to the east.

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

There are no recognised heritage values of the subject site, adjoining sites to the north, south or adjacent sites to the east. The “Swan Hotel”, located on the western side of Queen Victoria Street has been recognised to be of heritage significance and is listed as a management category 1B on the City’s MHI. The proposed development is of a sufficient distance away from the Swan Hotel and will form one of a group of architecturally distinct commercial buildings that is considered to pose no impact on the heritage values of the building.

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

The proposed fourth floor addition is considered to satisfy the relevant matters outlined in Council’s local planning policies, as will be discussed in detail below. Accordingly the proposed fourth floor addition, consisting of an external wall height of 15.4m, is considered to satisfy the matters to be considered by Council in granting a variation to the maximum height requirements outlined in Schedule 12 of LPS4. Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) The proposed fourth floor addition to the existing Multiple Dwelling has been assessed against the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes pertaining to Dwellings in Mixed Use Developments.


Page 56

The Performance Criteria state: Dwellings combined with non-residential uses on the same site that provide comparable standards of amenity to other multiple dwellings taking account of the need to:

- satisfy streetscape objectives; - provide open space in accordance with resident needs; and - provide car parking to satisfy reciprocal requirements of residents and other users.

The proposed fourth floor addition is setback 1.8m from Queen Victoria Street and 9.2m from Kwong Alley. The provided setback from Queen Victoria Street is considered sufficiently close to provide Queen Victoria Street with the height associated with ‘entrance’ type development without imposing on the street by way of building bulk and mass. This is achieved by the minor setting back of the third floor element from the frontage of the existing building as well as providing varying treatments and materials to the street façade of the building. The provided setback from Kwong Alley is considered sufficient to alleviate visual impacts by way of building bulk on the Kwong Alley streetscape. This is demonstrated by the applicant’s “Shadow Diagram” which shows the viewpoints from pedestrians on the eastern side of the Kwong Alley footpath (Attachment 1). The overall height of the proposal is consistent with the adjoining development which is considered beneficial in presenting a continuous streetscape. The setting back of the fourth floor element from both streets is also considered consistent with the objectives of the local planning policy, D.G.N6, which encourages new development to ‘retain a notional 10-12m frontage in design and an articulated façade.’ As such the proposed addition is considered to satisfy the streetscape objectives for the site and area. The proposed addition provides additional open space in the form of a northern facing balcony and eastern facing terrace. These areas, in addition with the terrace provided on the second floor, are considered sufficient for the needs of the residents. The proposed addition does not result in an increase in the required car parking for the mixed use development as the addition is associated with the existing Multiple Dwelling. Overall, the proposed development is considered to provide a satisfactory standard of amenity for the existing users of the development and thereby satisfies the performance criteria of the R-Codes pertaining to Dwellings in Mixed Use Development.


Page 57

Submissions The concerns outlined within the submissions are addressed as follows:

- Overshadowing to residential properties to the east of the subject site The applicant has demonstrated that the resultant shadow cast by the fourth floor addition to the existing building is similar to that already presented by the development at No. 6-10 Kwong Alley and is comparable to that already presented by the existing development on the subject site. As discussed above, the impact of the shadow cast by the proposed fourth floor is not considered to detrimentally impact on the amenity of the eastern adjacent properties.

- Negative impact on the streetscape and residential properties by way of building bulk.

The provided setback of 9.2m from Kwong Alley is considered sufficient to alleviate potential negative impacts on the streetscape and amenity of the residential properties by way of building bulk. CONCLUSION The existing Multiple Dwelling land use is a non-conforming use under LPS4. Clause 4.9.1 of LPS4 provides Council with the discretion to alter or extend a building associated with an existing non-conforming use. The proposed fourth floor addition is considered to satisfy the matters of which need to be addressed by Council under clause 5.8.1 of LPS4, when considering a variation to the site and development standards of LPS4. Furthermore, the proposed development is considered to meet the objectives of the Commercial zone under LPS4. The development is also considered to satisfy the requirements of the R-Codes and relevant local planning policies. It is therefore recommended that Council approve the application, subject to appropriate conditions.


Page 58

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Fourth Floor Addition to an existing Mixed Use Development (Office and Multiple Dwellings) at No. 1/12 (Strata Lot 1) Kwong Alley, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 23 September 2009. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern boundary

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

Advisory Notes: (i) The applicant is advised of the built form requirements for residential

development within Buffer Area 2 of the Fremantle Port, as detailed in the City of Fremantle local planning policy, LPP2.3 Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines.



Page 59

PSC1002-27 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET NO.36 (LOTS1, 2, 52, 265, 266, 268, 303

& 304), FREMANTLE - VARIATION TO PLANNING APPROVAL DA202/08 (JL DA-V0037/09)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC 0808-221 (DA202/08) Attachments: Amended Development Plans Date Received: 7 December 2009 Owner Name: Match Securities Ltd Submitted by: Greg Rowe & Associates Scheme: Mixed Use – R60 Heritage Listing: State Register of Heritage Places, LPS4 Heritage List Existing Landuse: Storage Yard (Fort Knox Storage) & Showroom (Furniture

Shop) Use Class: Multiple Dwellings, Office and Restaurant Use Permissibility: A, P, A


Page 60

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This variation application is referred to Council for determination, as the original Planning Approval was a decision of Council. Council is requested to consider an application to vary a Planning Approval for the redevelopment of No.36 (Lots 1, 2, 52, 265, 266, 268, 303 & 304) Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle (Fort Knox Building). It is recommended that Council approve the variation subject to the same terms and conditions contained within the original Planning Approval. BACKGROUND At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 27 August 2008, a development proposal for 222 Multiple Dwellings, and a Restaurant (café) tenancy for the property located at 36 Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle was considered. At that meeting, Council resolved to provide ‘in principle’ support to the application, and delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to determine the application upon submission of amended plans and additional information. The additional information was provided in accordance with Council’s resolution, and Planning Approval was subsequently granted on 17 October 2008. On 23 June 2009 the City granted an extension of the term of approval for a period of two years from the date 17 October 2010 for DA202/08 (refer ET07/09). The City received an application to vary the approved development on 7 December 2009. DETAILS In accordance with Clause 8.3.1, the applicant has made a written application to vary the Planning Approval issued for DA202/08, which was granted on 17 October 2008 (ET07/09). The applicant has advised that as a result of the progressive design -development phase of the project, modifications to the original proposal are being proposed to enhance and simplify the design of the building. Additionally the applicant states that if approval of the proposed amendments is granted, then the proponent anticipates commencing works on site within 6 - 9 months from the approval variation date. The originally approved development consisted of a commercial and residential mixed use redevelopment of the Dalgety Wool Stores. The development encompasses 222 residential units, of various sizes (single, two and three bedroom configurations), and one ground level retail tenancy which will front Beach Street and which has indicatively been referenced as a café/art gallery on the Development Plans.


Page 61

As part of the redevelopment of the original structure, the approved development included an additional two upper levels upon the original four storey Dalgety Wool Store building, with an additional 5 storeys above the northern single storey annex building. All vehicular access to the property is to be from Beach Street, with the on-site car park being situated over two levels split levels at ground level as viewed from Beach Street. In summary, the variations sought are as follows: Increase in total number of apartments from 222 to 241 (Single Bedroom

dwellings from 82 to 135 units and Other Units from 140 to 106), Increased gross density of the development from R216 to R247, Increase in Plot ratio from 2.03:1 to 2.23:1, Reconfiguration of car parking and storage areas located within new and main

building. Reduction of on site car parking bays requirement from 355 to 314, Deletion of the upper floors that extend above the height of the parapet wall on

Beach Street façade of the main building, Deletion of the two Office Tenancy (Basement 2 level of existing Building) on site Deletion of rear carport additions of new building, Widening of the internal courtyards between the apartments in the main building, Reduction of floor to floor height of the new five storey building resulting in a

decrease to the height of this building by 1 metre (from 15.1 metres to 14 metres), Retention of significant number of internal timber columns within the original car

parking area of the existing main building, and Retention of the existing saw tooth roof of the existing building onsite.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) Pursuant to Clause 8.3 of LPS4 the Council may, on written application from the owner of land in respect of which planning approval has been granted, revoke or amend the planning approval, prior to the commencement of the use or development the subject of the planning approval. L.P.P1.1: Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals This policy sets out the provisions for assessing a proposed variation to development approval. This policy states:

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.


Page 62

CONSULTATION The application for the variation to Planning Approval is not required to be advertised under the provisions of LPS4 or City of Fremantle policy L.P.P1.3: Public Notification of Planning Proposals. PLANNING COMMENT The assessment of the request against the criteria contained in Clause 1.1 of L.P.P1.1 is discussed below: Can the proposal be considered as a variation?

The City’s L.P.P1.1- Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals states, that where amendments to an approval are proposed, these amendments shall result in the development remaining in substance the same as that previously approved. The proposed amendments are not considered to be substantial alterations to the development as approved on 17 October 2008. The building will have the same appearance when viewed from Queen Victoria Street and Beach Street, with no significant changes proposed to the original eastern and western façades of the original Dalgety Wool Stores building, or the approved new five storey building located to the north of the development site. Consequently, it is considered that the proposed works can be considered as variations. Assessment of the proposed variations

1. Dwelling Density LPS4 specifies an R60 density (R-Code) coding for the residential component of the development within this Mixed Use zone. In determining the previous application, Council exercised its discretion under clause 5.8.2 of LPS4 in granting a higher density coding of R216. The proposed amended design results in an increase of the gross density from R216 to R247. However, it must be noted that this does not include any density bonus applicable for Single Bedroom dwelling additions as per Clause 7.1.3 of the R-Codes. The applicant states that the previously approved development, with 82 Single Bedroom dwellings and 140 other dwellings required a site area of 32,315m2 to satisfy the R60 density. With the amended design now proposing 135 Single Bedroom dwellings and 106 other dwellings the required site area will only increase by 212m2, to equate to a total required site area of 32,527m2. Although this proposed variation requires a further discretionary decision of Council, the proposed increase in dwelling density of R31 (from R216 to R247) is not considered to be substantial increase in density and as such is not envisaged to significantly affect the amenity of the locality. Therefore this variation proses to increase the total number of dwellings by 19 apartments (an increase from 222 to 241), with the total residential floor area increasing by 2,210m2 over the development site. The plot ratio approved in 2008 has also increased from 2.03:1 to 2.23:1.


Page 63

It must be noted that the proposed development merely intends to conserve and adapt the existing ‘Dalgety Wool Stores’ building, which also currently has a floor area that significantly exceeds the maximum allowed plot ratio of 0.7:1 as per the R60 provisions of the R-Codes. With the deletion of the upper two floors of the approved development, the majority of the proposed amendments will be wholly contained within the existing building envelope on site. Therefore although the amendments will result in an increase in plot ratio, these amendments are supported as they would result in no excess building bulk and scale, and no adverse impact on the amenity of the locality. 2. Building Height In determining the original application the issue of building height was considered to be the primary discretionary decision required from Council. The proposed deletion of the two upper floor additions to the main existing building and reduction of the five storey residential building located on the north of site from 15.3 metres to 14 metres brings the development into compliance with the relevant provisions of LSP4. 3. Car Parking The previous approval development complied with the required number of onsite car parking bays. The application was required to provide 348 car parking bays under LPS4 and, and was approved with 355 bays provided on site. The current proposal includes a decrease in the number of bays required on site from 348 to 334, and a decrease in car bays provided from 355 to 314. This is demonstrated in the table below.

2008 Approval 2010 Variations Residential Bays Required

321 bays 317 bays

Residential Bays Provided

348 bays 311 bays (including 13 Visitor bays)

Restaurant Bays Required

16 Bays 1 Delivery bay

16 Bays 1 Delivery bay

Restaurant Bays Provided

1 Bay 1 Delivery bay

2 Bay 1 Delivery bays

Office Bays Required 9 Bays 1 Loading bay

N/A - Deleted from proposal

Office Bays Provided 4 Bays 1 Loading bay

N/A - Deleted from proposal

Total Car Parking Bays Required

348 334

Total Car Parking Bays Required

355 - Complied 314

As a result of the proposed increased number of dwellings on site, the development requires a further discretionary decision of Council relating to on site car parking. The submitted amended plans indicate only 314 on site car bays (Including a loading bay), and with the addition of the new apartments now requires the development to provide a total of 334 on site car bays in accordance with LPS4.


Page 64

Again this aspect of the proposal is not considered to substantially change the original approved development such that it warrants a new development application. The amendments will result in a 6% shortfall of required on site car bays, and in comparison to the scale of the approved development this is considered to be a minor variation. Additionally, taking into account that the subject site is within close proximity to the City Centre of Fremantle, public transport facilities and public car parking areas to the west of site, this variation is not anticipated to negatively impact the amenity of the locality. 4. Heritage Matters Prior to granting approval in 2008, the development was subjected to a thorough independent heritage assessment, including a referral to Heritage Council of Western Australia (HCWA), and the City of Fremantle’s Heritage and Special Places Advisory Committee. In general, the original proposal was conditionally supported on heritage grounds. Furthermore, as part of the assessment of this variation application, the proposal was again required to be referred to HCWA for further comment. HCWA responded by stating that the development referral was supported subject to the same conditions as previously recommended for DA202/08. It is considered that the two main areas of contention regarding heritage impacts and the original approved development was in relation to the removal of internal timber columns of the existing main building and the inclusion of the upper (5th and 6th floor additions) floor additions and the resulting change to the existing saw tooth roof element of the building. The proposed amendments to the development include:

- the significant increase of timber column retention within the existing building, - the removal of these upper floors of the original development, and - complete retention of the existing saw tooth roof of the building.

These modifications are considered minor, and the retention of the original saw tooth roof and increased retention of internal timber columns of the main building, is considered to result in a better heritage outcome. Overall, these variations will not have any additional impact on the heritage significance of the site. CONCLUSION Overall, the proposed variations are considered acceptable on planning grounds, and the modified proposal will not have any significant impact on the amenity of adjoining properties, or the locality. Therefore it is considered that the application can be assessed as an amendment and not as a new development application. Furthermore, the applicant has advised that the proposed increase in density is essential to ensure the marketability and viability of the project. For these reasons, it is recommended that Council resolve to grant approval for the variations to the Planning Approval granted in October 2008.


Page 65

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the variation to planning approval (DA202/08) be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for 222 Multiple Dwellings, two Office tenancies and a Restaurant (Café/Gallery) at No. 36 (Lots 1, 2, 52, 265, 266, 268, 303 & 304) Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle, subject to the amended development plans dated 7 December 2009, and subject to the same terms and conditions as those included within planning approval dated 17 October 2008, and with the exception of the following: A. Condition 1 of the approval dated 17 October 2008, be deleted and replaced

with the following condition.

1. The development and use hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with the approved plans dated 7 December 2009, and the approved ‘Interpretation Strategy’ and ‘Schedule of Projected Conservation and Adaptive Works’ contained within the document produced by Hocking Planning and Architecture titled ‘Heritage Commentary on items D2-5 of the City of Fremantle Council Resolution August 2008’, dated 6 October 2008.

B. Condition 7 of the approval dated 17 October 2008, be deleted from the

Planning Approval. C. Condition 8 of the approval dated 17 October 2008, be modified to read as

follows:

8. Prior to occupation of the development, no less than 314 on site car parking bays including 1 disabled bay shall be provided in accordance with Clause 5.7.6 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No.4



Page 66

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

PSC1002-29 FREMANTLE PARK DRAFT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN - RELEASE FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION

DataWorks Reference: 219/020 Disclosure of Interest: nil Previous Item: n/a Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: City Heritage Architect Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Fremantle Park Draft Conservation Management Plan,

2009 – Executive Summary, Heritage and Conservation Professionals Map of Urban Context and Boundaries Map of Heritage Significance Map of conservation/upgrade Policy Recommendations Fremantle Park Draft Conservation Management Plan, 2009 – Conservation Policy Recommendations.

PURPOSE

For Council to approve the release of Fremantle Park Draft Conservation Management Plan for public comment.


Page 67

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In response to the expressed community interest, the Council resolved to prioritise preparation of and subsequently allocated the corresponding budget to preparation of Fremantle Park Conservation and Management Plan Subsequently the City has commissioned Heritage Conservation Professionals to prepare the conservation management plan for the park. The consultants have completed the draft plan incorporating the expressed interests of major stakeholders, mainly Fremantle Society and Bowling and Tennis Clubs. The draft plan was also consulted internally to make sure the relevant Council’s units responsible for the aspects of the park’s use and maintenance are satisfied with the draft plan’s recommendations. The draft plan is in order to be released for public comment seeking input from the broader community. BACKGROUND

In response to the community’s actively expressed interest Council has allocated funding in its 2008/09 budget for preparation of Fremantle Park Conservation Management Plan (the plan). In July 2009 the officers prepared the project brief, sought expressions of interest from heritage experts and commissioned Heritage and Conservation Professionals to prepare the conservation management plan. The draft plan has undergone initial consultation with the relevant officers of the City representing Technical Services, Property Management, Community Development, Leisure Centre and Planning and has now been submitted to Council for its release for broader community’s comment. COMMENT

The project brief has been prepared in accordance with the Heritage Council of WA’s guidelines regarding specific conservation requirements for conservation of the buildings/elements/items representing the established heritage values of the reserve and its individual components. In addition the brief was expanded to provide guidelines for compatible upgrade of the reserve in response to the publicly expressed views of the interested community groups and users of the reserve. Introductory letter has been sent to major stakeholders advising them about the project and inviting expression of their views to consultants. Comments received to date have been reflected as much as practicable in formulation of the draft plan. In addition the draft plan was consulted with all relevant officers of the City representing Technical Services, Property Management, Community Development, Leisure Centre and Planning to ensure it complies with the Council’s current management and maintenance routines of the park. While the Council is reviewing terms of reference for all advisory committees and the Heritage & Special Places Advisory Committee (H&SPC) remains in recess, it had no opportunity to consider the draft plan. It is therefore assumed that the revived committee’s consideration of the draft plan will take place during the public consultation period.


Page 68

The draft Conservation Management Plan includes standard provisions i.e. assessment and determination of the park’s heritage values and its overall significance (attached). The report concludes that the park is as a whole is of some significance and as such meets the threshold of eligibility for listing on Municipal Heritage Inventory and the TPS4 Heritage List. Part of the park’s significance has been influenced by its broader urban context, which comprise places of considerably higher significance, including the State Heritage listed Arts Centre, formerly Fremantle Asylum and John Curtin College of the Arts, including the natural features of its grounds i.e. limestone ridge and native vegetation. Since both places were originally included within the 19th century boundaries of the town land designated to this park, the heritage significance of these places is relevant and adds to the historic values of the park as it survives to date. The conservation plan also identifies the broader urban context to the park as being of heritage value and as defined by a number of buildings and places of state and local heritage significance indirectly related to the park’s historical development. These include St Patrick’s Basilica, CBC Fremantle College, Park Hotel and a number of residential houses in Ellen, Barnett and Shuffrey Streets. The plan identifies Leisure Centre, which hasn’t been listed to date as having sufficient social values to deserve heritage listing on the MHI for Fremantle. Drawing on heritage assessment and its conclusions, the draft plan puts forward number of conservation policy recommendations (attached) related to the statutory obligations of Council to maintain and protect the established heritage values of the park and its components. In addition the policies specify conservation requirements, recommended maintenance routine and ongoing care for the park’s cultural landscape to sustain it all in good state into the future. The policy recommendations provide schedules of the required urgent, medium and long term works, which should assist the City in reviewing and upgrading its current maintenance routine and long term maintenance and budget planning. In making these recommendations the plan specifies requirements of all users of the reserve, including Bowling and Tennis clubs, how to be mindful of its cultural heritage values and conservation requirements when planning future modifications and upgrading works. The conservation policy chapter is followed by policy recommendations regarding potential upgrading works and suggestions for compatible uses of the park. While emphasising the overall priority for respecting its historic layout and landscape, the plan makes recommendations regarding desirable improvements based on heritage considerations such as strategy for new/replacement planting, improvements to signage, park furniture and public amenity in general (children playground, shaded seating areas, picnic settings and terraced viewing areas to turfed batters of Ord and Ellen Streets) and upgrade of the football field. It also makes recommendations regarding heritage interpretation. The plan recommends that any future needs for additional facilities should be primarily accommodated through the adoptive reuse and upgrade of the existing buildings of lesser significance, such as the club buildings and change/shower pavilion. However a small café or exhibition space could be added in the future to the change room pavilion. Finally the plan recommends that the underutilised land in the south east portion of Leisure Centre by integrated with Fremantle Park. The draft Fremantle Park Conservation Management Plan is in order to be released for public consultation. Considering the holiday period it is recommended that the standard consultation period of 28 days be extended to 35.


Page 69

CONCLUSION

In addition to standard considerations the project’s brief for Fremantle Park Conservation Management Plan has been expanded to take on the publicly expressed views of the community interest groups and major stakeholders. In addition to evaluation of its heritage significance the plan provides conservation policy recommendations, suggestions for heritage interpretation and the park’s broader urban context. Finally it includes the schedule of recommended urgent, medium and long term conservation works to assist Council in planning its ongoing maintenance and recommends future improvements to the park’s grounds, landscape and facilities. The draft plan has also been consulted with the City of Fremantle stakeholders, including officers representing Technical Services, Commercial Property Management, Community Development, Leisure Centre and Planning and it is in order to be released for public comments. Considering the holiday period it is recommended that the standard consultation period of 28 days be extended to 35. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The draft conservation plan complies with the Council plans for Fremantle Park. TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE IMPLICATIONS

Economic Economic investment in planning for conservation and future upgrade of Fremantle Park is consistent with the City’s strategic plans and economic strategy for this part of the city, particularly the East End along Queen Victoria Street. The park is likely to continue its role as a recreational reserve for the planned increase of residential population in the East End, which would make the re-development of the area more attractive to future owners/developers. Thus investment in conservation and upgrading of the park is likely to be an important attraction for new residents and businesses associated with the increased number of residents. Its location in the walking proximity to Fremantle’s major public transport hub and major tourist attractions of Fremantle, including the Arts Centre and Fremantle Prison elevates Fremantle Park as an additional recreational attraction to the visitors to the city. Environmental The item is concerned with environmental protection of Fremantle Park and its broader urban context as part of the city’s irreplaceable heritage resources. Social Community’s interest in Fremantle Park and the support for preparation of the conservation and master plans as an essential prerequisite to guide its future upgrading has demonstrated people’s strong attachment to the park and its role to the residents and uses of the area such as Christian Brothers College. The community’s association with the park’s history and evolving urban form of the surrounding residential and public areas helps to assert its shared sens of identity. The community support also demonstrates the personal attachment of many, whose descendants/relatives were directly involved with the former uses of and care for Fremantle Park.


Page 70

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

There are no budget implications associated with this item. Any future developments related to the planned upgrade of Fremantle Park will be subject of the standard budgetary process of the Council. LEGISLATIVE AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Nil PRECINCTS AND OTHER COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS PLUS OTHER CONSULTATION

This item seeks Council’s release of the draft plan for community feedback and recommendations. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required


Page 71

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

Council resolve that:

a) Fremantle Park draft Conservation Management Plan be advertised for a 35 day consultation period;

b) A report on any submissions received be prepared for further Council

consideration following the consultation period.

Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to increase the consultation period to 42 days. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council resolve that:

a) Fremantle Park draft Conservation Management Plan be advertised for a 42 day consultation period;

b) A report on any submissions received be prepared for further

Council consideration following the consultation period. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Committee felt the consultation period should be increased as there is a lot of public interest in the Fremantle Park draft Conservation Management Plan.


Page 72

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 PSC1002-26 RULE STREET NO. 18 (LOT 1) NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY

SINGLE HOUSE -(BC DA0477/09) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans and Streetscape Montage Attachment 2: Heritage Assessment Date Received: 15 September 2009 Owner Name: P. Oldham Submitted by: B. Brackenridge Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: MHI Level 3 (Lot 46) Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Residential Use Permissibility: P


Page 73

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (the Committee) as the City of Fremantle (the City) received submissions during the consultation period concerning various aspects of the proposal that cannot be resolved via conditions of Planning Approval. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for the Demolition of an Outbuilding and for the Construction of a two storey Single House at No. 18 (Lot 1) Rule Street, North Fremantle. The proposed development is considered to satisfy the relevant provisions of Local Planning Scheme No, 4 (LPS4) relating to the Council supporting variations to building height as per Schedule 12 and Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4. The proposed development is considered to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Residential Design Codes (Variation 1) as well as the City’s local planning policy D.B.H1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND The property addressed as No. 18 Rule Street, North Fremantle consists of two separate lots – Lot 46 and Lot 1. Lot 46 is located on the corner of Rule Street and Alfred Road and is improved by a single storey Single House that addresses Rule Street. Lot 1, the subject site and the subject of this application, is located at the rear of Lot 46 and addresses Alfred Road. Lot 1 is currently improved by a detached studio building used by the occupants at Lot 46. Lot 1 is approximately 425sqm in area and is located on the south eastern side of Alfred Road. The subject site is orientated generally in a north west to south east direction and slopes considerably upwards from the front to the rear by approximately 3.3 metres. The subject site exhibits a number of mature trees and large rocks and boulders, placed for landscaping purposes. The subject site is zoned Residential with a density coding of R25 and is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area as described in Schedule 12 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The property (No. 18 Rule St) is listed on the City’s Heritage List as well as being located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area. The single storey Single House on Lot 46 is listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a management category level 3. The detached studio building on Lot 1 is not specifically referred to in the MHI listing. The adjoining properties to the north east (No. 22 Alfred Road) and to the south west (No. 16 Rule Street) are improved by single storey Single Houses. The adjoining property to the south west (No. 4 Higham St) is improved by a Single House with a two storey rear addition. The ground level of the south western adjoining property, where the existing house is located, is approximately 1 – 2 metres higher than the subject site.


Page 74

The existing built form within reasonable proximity of Rule Street is varied, with some single storey development and some fairly prominent recent two storey development. There exists two storey houses further southwards along Rule Street (No’s. 12, 14 and 16 Rule Street) as well as westward (No. 35 Rule Street). Towards the north east along Alfred Street are two, two storey houses (No’s. 26 & 28 Alfred Street) as well as along Higham Street to the rear of the subject site (No. 2 Higham Street). It is also worth noting that of all the properties in Alfred Street that form what is considered the streetscape for the subject site (Alfred Street bound by Rule Street to the west and Corkhill Street to the east), only the existing Single House located on Lot 46 (lot fronting Rule Street) is listed on the City’s Heritage List. The construction period and styles of the dwellings along Alfred Street vary from the late 1960’s to the present. DETAILS Planning Approval is sought to demolish the detached studio building on Lot 1 and construct a two storey Single House in its place. The proposed house is of modern design – to be constructed mainly from colourbond corrugated steel cladding. The maximum wall height of the dwelling is 6.0m with no roof extending above this height. The dwelling has been designed to retain some of the mature trees and landscaping rocks and boulders on site, with voids and garden areas to provide for this. Additionally, the proposal includes the construction of seven (7) water tanks to be located along the north-eastern boundary. The applicant provided revised plans on 25 November 2009 reducing the maximum height from 6.4m to 6.0m and removing a first floor westward facing window. Further revised plans were submitted on 14 January 2010 providing screening to the north western elevation to the balcony, detailing the vegetation and landscaping to be retained and providing a streetscape perspective. The applicant is seeking discretionary decisions of Council in relation to the following matters: • building height; and • reduced north-eastern boundary setback. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Local Planning Scheme No. 4 The subject site is located within Local Planning Area 3 – North Fremantle as described in Schedule 12 of LPS4. Schedule 12 requires that building height shall be limited to a maximum of two storeys (maximum external wall height of 5.5 metres as measured from ground level with a maximum roof plain pitch of 33 degrees). Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 provides Council with the discretion to vary the height requirements of Schedule 12. Clause 5.8.1 states: ‘Where there is a variation in ground level over a development footprint of greater than one metre, Council may increase the standard applicable height limit by up to 0.5 metres subject to giving notice in accordance with Clause 9.4.’


Page 75

The proposed maximum external wall height of the dwelling is 6.0m, which exceeds the maximum external wall height of 5.5m as permitted in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The ground level varies approximately 2.2m over the development footprint. The applicant is seeking Council discretion to vary the development standard in accordance with Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4. Schedule 15 of LPS4 specifies the type of minor development permitted without Planning Approval. ‘Water tanks’ that are proposed ‘within or on the boundary of a property on the heritage list’ are permitted without Planning Approval, or require Planning Approval in the following circumstances: ‘Where: 1) fixed to a wall of a building which faces the rear or a side boundary (excluding

walls facing secondary streets) at a height not exceeding the eaves height, or 2) free standing within a side or rear setback area (excluding secondary street

setback areas), and no greater than 2.4m in height if more than 1.0m from any boundary, or 1.8m in height if less than 1m from any boundary.’

The seven (7) proposed rain water tanks located on the north eastern boundary are to be 2.5m in height and free standing, therefore a planning approval is required. Residential Design Codes 2008 The proposed development complies with all of the relevant Acceptable Development requirements of the R-Codes with the exception of Design Element 6.3 – Boundary Setbacks – setback of building from the north eastern boundary (No. 22 Alfred Road). It should be noted that not meeting any Acceptable Development criteria, in and of itself, is not a sound basis on which to refuse or require modifications to a proposal. Instead, the proposal must be considered in the context of the relevant performance criteria. Local Planning Policies The proposed development has been assessed against the objectives and requirements of the local planning policy, D.B.H1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines. The City’s local planning policy, LPP1.6 Preparing Heritage Assessments, requires a heritage assessment to be prepared where the application proposes the demolition of the primary structure on the site, even where the structure is not listed on the Heritage List. CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and local planning policy, LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 9 November 2009, the City had received 3 submissions. One submission stated ‘no objection’ to the proposal however two submissions raised the following issues:


Page 76

- Reduced setback from the western boundary - Objection to the 6.4m external wall height - Visual impact - Reflection from wall - Objection to removal of trees - Request that a 2m dividing fence be constructed to provide privacy to

western adjoining property - Potential overlooking into western property - Height of building will block northern views from south eastern adjoining

property (No. 4 Higham Road) - Overshadowing of south eastern adjoining property (No. 4 Higham Road)

These concerns will be address below in the ‘Planning Comment’ section. HERITAGE The application was referred to SIA Architects to undertake a heritage impact assessment of the proposed demolition and replacement development (refer to Attachment 2). Proposed Demolition The existing detached studio building is described as having ‘no cultural significance’ as the building is ‘one of numerous existing buildings of this period and this type.’ Furthermore the proposed demolition of the building is considered to have a ‘minimal impact on the existing setting of the place.’ Proposed Replacement Dwelling The heritage assessment expressed significant concern regarding the proposed replacement two storey dwelling. ‘The proposed two storey metal clad residence will however have an unsympathetic impact on the architectural character of the existing streetscape. The bulk and scale of the proposed building, its use of large blank surfaces and extensive colourbond cladding is not sympathetic to the adjoining buildings in scale, materiality and articulation of elevational elements.’ Furthermore the heritage assessment considers the development to have a ‘negative impact on the heritage significance of the place [on Lot 46].’ It is noted that revised plans were submitted following receipt of the heritage assessment which reduce the height of the proposed building by 400mm and increase the western boundary setback. The reduction in building height also contributes to a reduction in the building bulk and scale. PLANNING COMMENT Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Building Height


Page 77

As previously mentioned, Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 enables Council to vary the site and development standards and requirements contained within LPS4 subject to the development meeting specified criteria. The natural ground level of the development footprint varies in height by 2.2m. Accordingly Council may increase the maximum external wall height to 6.0 metres in accordance with Clause 5.8.1. The maximum external wall height of the proposed dwelling is 6.0 metres. Schedule 12 of LPS4 states that: ‘In granting consent to the maximum heights prescribed Council shall be satisfied in regard to all of the following – (a) that the proposal is consistent with predominant height patterns of adjoining

properties and the locality generally, As previously discussed, the height of the buildings within the immediate locality of the subject site varies somewhat and as such it is difficult to definitively state a ‘predominant height pattern’ of the adjoining properties and locality. However, recent development within the locality is predominantly two storeys in height as evidenced by a number of dwellings or additions to dwellings within close proximity to the subject site that are two storeys in height. The height of the proposed dwelling is therefore consistent with the height patterns of these recent developments and is thus considered consistent with the height patterns of adjoining properties and properties within the general locality. (b) the proposal would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the

locality, The proposed two storey Single House is considered acceptable in terms of size, scale and bulk to the area. The development complies with the relevant setback and overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes relating to the adjacent properties to the south east and south west. There are no major openings to habitable rooms near the adjacent boundaries of the adjoining properties and as such the proposed addition will not restrict adequate daylight to any habitable rooms. The height limits for the North Fremantle LPA allow for a roof with a pitch up to 33 degrees to be constructed as well as the standard 5.5m wall height. Thus a roof could be constructed to a height greater than the overall 6.0m height of the proposed dwelling and be within the height limits of LPS4. Furthermore, the ground level of the subject site is approximately 1 to 1.5 metres less than the south eastern adjoining properties that potentially could be affected by the development. Taking these factors into account it is considered that the 0.5m wall height variation from the requirements of Schedule 12 of LPS4 will have a relatively minor impact on the views of significance from these eastern adjoining properties. The development will not completely obscure the access to views from the south eastern adjoining properties and as such the impact is regarded as acceptable.


Page 78

The height of the development is considered generally consistent with the adjoining properties and locality and, for the reasons outlined above, no significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the area is anticipated to result from the proposed development. (c) the proposal would be consistent, if applicable, with conservation objectives for

the site and locality generally, and There are no specific conservation objectives for the site and locality generally. The development is considered compatible with the existing streetscape of Alfred Road and is not considered to pose a detrimental impact on the heritage values of the place on Lot 46 given the separation distance between the dwellings. This is further discussed below in the assessment against the requirements of the local planning policy, DBH1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines. (d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.’ The proposed development is considered to meet the objectives of the City’s local planning policy, DBH1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines, as will be discussed below. In conclusion, it is considered that the development satisfies the matters of which are to be considered by Council in applying the specific height requirements for the Residential zone of the North Fremantle LPA. Furthermore, as the ground level of the development footprint varies by more than 1m, it is recommended that Council increase the permitted maximum external wall height by 0.5m to 6.0m in accordance with Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4. Consequently the proposed external wall of the two storey Single House, at 6.0m, would therefore be consistent with the permitted external wall height of LPS4. Residential Design Codes 2008 Boundary Setbacks 6.3.1 Buildings Setback from the Boundary The required setback from the north eastern boundary (No. 22 Alfred Road) for the development is 1.8m. The development proposes a setback of 1.6m. The Performance Criteria of the R-Codes state:

Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: - provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; - ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining

properties; - provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; - assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; - assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and - assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.


Page 79

The proposed reduced setback from the north eastern boundary will be adjacent to the side setback area and rear garden area of the existing dwelling on the north eastern adjoining property. The setback of the proposed second floor element of the northern wall is considered sufficient to provide adequate ventilation and daylight to the adjoining dwelling and proposed dwelling. The provided setback is also considered sufficient to alleviate any impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwelling by way of building bulk. Additionally, the proposed development assessed against and complies with the visual privacy provisions of the R-Codes. It is also noted that no submission was received from the north eastern adjoining property owner/occupier during the consultation period. The proposed setback of 1.6m for the development from the north eastern boundary is considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes for the reasons outlined above. Local Planning Policies D.B.H1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines The City’s local planning policy, D.B.H1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines aims to ‘conserve and enhance areas of architectural or historic character whilst encouraging harmonious development with the existing authentic character and appearance of the traditional residential areas of Fremantle.’ The building alignment of the dwelling is consistent with the existing development fronting Alfred Road and traditional in the sense that the dwelling addresses the street, has direct access from the street and provides surveillance of the street from the front balcony and front major openings. As previously mentioned, the existing streetscape of Alfred Road varies according to construction eras and development styles. As such this section of Alfred Road is not considered to present a uniform or consistent streetscape pattern in terms of architectural style or character. In this regard the proposed dwelling, of contemporary and utilitarian features, is considered compatible with the existing streetscape of Alfred Road and is not anticipated to detrimentally impact the existing streetscape. It is acknowledged that this view differs from the view expressed in the heritage assessment. The heritage assessment considers the proposed dwelling unsympathetic to the existing streetscape and to impact negatively on the heritage values of the place on Lot 46. However, it is the view of Officers that the proposed dwelling is compatible with the streetscape, as discussed above, and is separated sufficiently from the heritage place on Lot 46 to provide a clear distinction between the ‘old and the new’, so to speak. The compatibility of the dwelling within the streetscape has been represented by the applicant in a streetscape montage (Attachment 1). It is further considered that the revised plans reducing the overall height and increasing the western boundary setback contributes to the reduction in bulk and scale of the building as presented to the street and neighbouring properties.


Page 80

It is therefore considered that the proposed dwelling is compatible with the existing streetscape and satisfies the general objectives of this local planning policy. Submissions

- Reduced setback from the western boundary The revised development proposal complies with the setback requirements of the R-Codes pertaining to the western property. The provided setback is 2.18m.

- Objection to the 6.4m external wall height and potential to block views from south

eastern adjoining property (No. 4 Higham Road) The revised development proposal reduced the maximum external wall height to 6m. As discussed above, the proposed height is considered to satisfy the requirements of LPS4. The impact on the northern views from the adjoining property are noted, however are considered acceptable given the development provisions applicable to the subject site. - Visual impact and potential reflection from the walls of the building The development is considered to satisfy the relevant planning requirements of the R-Codes and LPS4. The City has not adopted any specific local planning policy that limits the use of particular construction materials for the subject site. Furthermore, the City has taken the stance in previous instances when similar concerns relating to reflection have arisen, stating that such concerns will be ameliorated over time through the impacts of the weathering process. - Objection to removal of trees It is recognised that any development of this site will result in the loss of some vegetation particularly as currently, the front portion of the site does not contain any buildings. However, the revised plans do show the retention of a number of mature trees on site. Whilst the removal of vegetation on private land does not require the Planning Approval of Council unless the vegetation is listed on the Register of Significant Trees or Vegetation Areas (Clause 8.2 (k) of LPS4), clause 10.2 states that in considering an application for planning approval Council shall have due regard to and may attach conditions relating to matters which in the opinion of Council are relevant to the use or development of the land including clause 10.2 (ze) “whether adequate provision has been made for the landscaping of the land to which the planning application relates and whether any trees or other vegetation on the land should be preserved including adjacent verge trees.” In this case, it is considered that the revised plans address the issue of retention of trees on site in an appropriate manner so as to balance the proposed development and the retention of mature vegetation. - Request that a 2m dividing fence be constructed to provide privacy to western

adjoining property The provision of a dividing fence is the joint responsibility of the adjoining property owners. The City is unable to require the applicant to provide a fence that does not serve a valid planning purpose. The provision of a dividing fence in this instance is not required to serve a planning purpose.


Page 81

- Potential overlooking into western property The revised development satisfies the requirements of the R-Codes pertaining to visual privacy. Screening has been provided to the north western elevation of the front balcony and there are no major openings on the western elevation of the dwelling with the potential to overlook the western adjoining property. - Overshadowing of south eastern adjoining property (No. 4 Higham Road) The calculated shadow cast by the development complies with the requirements of the R-Codes. The shadow is calculated in accordance with Design Element 6.9.1 of the R-Codes to cover 7.6% of the lot area of No. 4 Higham Road – less than the 25% permitted by the R-Codes. CONCLUSION The proposed development is considered to satisfy the matters to be considered by Council in granting the building height requirements of LPS4 – as per Schedule 12 and Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4. The proposed development is also considered to satisfy the relevant requirements of the R-Codes as well as the City’s local planning policy D.B.H1 Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Demolition of the Outbuilding and the Construction of a Two Storey Single House at No. 18 (Lot 1) Rule Street, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 14 January 2010. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 82

PSC1002-19 NO.20 LEIGHTON BEACH BOULEVARD (PORT BEACH ROAD

RESERVE), NORTH FREMANTLE - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING COMMUNITY PURPOSE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STOREY COMMUNITY PURPOSE AND RESTAURANT BUILDING (JL DA605/09)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Heritage Report Date Received: 4 November 2010 Owner Name: Western Australian Planning Commission Submitted by: Mirvac Pty Ltd Scheme: MRS –Park and Recreation Reserve Heritage Listing: Not Listed


Page 83

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Development Approval is sought for the demolition of existing Community Purpose Building (North Fremantle Surf Life Saving Club Rooms) and replacement two storey community purpose/ restaurant building on the Port Beach Road Reserve, North Fremantle. The application is referred to the Planning Services Committee as the proposed development is unusual in terms of the proposed nature, use, design and location. The proposed development has been assessed against and complies with the provisions of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4. Furthermore, the proposed development is considered to facilitate the ongoing use of the site, as the replacement building will be purpose built for recreational activity and service. Consequently, the development is supported under State Planning Policy DC5.3: Use of Land Reserved for Parks and Recreation. Accordingly, it is recommended that the City advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that this proposal is supported. BACKGROUND The subject site is reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) as ‘Parks and Recreation’. As such the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is the determining body for this application. Therefore, Council is required to assess the proposed development on the basis of Local Policy requirements, and forward a recommendation to the WAPC for consideration to inform the decision making process. The subject site is located at No. 20 Leighton Beach Road and is currently occupied by the Fremantle Surf Life Saving Club Rooms. To the north of the subject site is the North Fremantle Kiosk and Public Change Rooms. These facilities are to remain in situ and no proposed development relating to these structures forms part of this application. The subject site is located on the western side of Leighton Beach Boulevard. The site is provided with approximately 140 on site car bays to the north and south of the proposed development area on site. DETAILS The proposed development consists of the following components:

• Demolition of the existing Surf Life Saving Club Rooms, and • Replacement two storey building, with the internal configuration as follows:

Ground Floor

- Community Purpose Use –Fremantle Surf Life Saving, - Members Bar and a Multi Purpose area, - Kitchen facilities, - Four training rooms, - Toilet facilities,


Page 84

- Members Gym, - Equipment Storage, - Three shade cloth additions (northern elevation of building) - Administration room, and - First Aid Room.

Upper floor

- Observation Post (North western corner of building), - Plant and equipment room and - Restaurant area with balconies.

The proposal includes a total of 1445m2 of gross lettable floor area for the Community Purpose use and 335m2 of gross lettable floor area for the Restaurant use on the upper level. The proposed replacement building is to compromise of a mixture of limestone coloured concrete block work, colour bond panelling with two colour bond skillion and curved skillion roofs.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Western Australian Planning Commission - DC5.3: Use of Land Reserved for Parks and Recreation The Commission’s Development Control policy outlines the circumstances under which the use and development of land reserved for parks and recreation for different purposes may be approved. Local government decisions and policies should not be inconsistent with requirements of state planning policies. Under Clause 13 of the Metropolitan Region Scheme, approval of the WAPC is required for any development on reserved land. Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 of policy DC5.3 are of relevance to the current application and state: 3.1 The use and development of land reserved for Parks and Recreation under the

MRS shall be restricted to that which is consistent with furthering the enhancement of the reserve and facilitating its use for recreational or conservation purposes.

3.2 The use and development of land reserved for Parks and Recreation for purposes

inconsistent with the purpose of the reserve will not be supported. These will be assessed below. Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) Land Use Clause 3.2.2 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme 4, in relation to development within MRS reserves, states as follows:


Page 85

The approval of Council is not required for the commencement or carrying out of any use or development on a regional reserve.

The City is required to consider development proposals on their merits and provide such advice to the Commission. Clause 10.2.1 of LPS4 outlines the matters to which the Council is required to afford due regard in considering a proposal and provides a useful guide in this situation. Included amongst these matters are:

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

a) The preservation of the amenity of the locality. These two matters are considered to be of particular relevance to the assessment of this application. Further discussion relating to these matters and the application is included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report Car parking For lack of other guidance with respect to car parking requirements, the proposed Community Purpose and Restaurant use will be assessed using the parking requirements set out within Table 3 of LPS4 as a guide. Table 3 of LPS4 prescribes vehicle parking provisions for a Club Premises use, but not for a Community Purpose use. Clause 5.7.1 (c) states that ‘where vehicle parking provisions are not prescribed for a particular use the requirement will be determined by Council.’ Council has previously adopted the Club Premises vehicle parking requirements for a Community Purpose development. Therefore this car parking provision has been used as guidance for assessing the car parking requirement for this application. LPS4 prescribes that 1 car bay is required per 50m2 of gross floor area and 1 service/ storage area per 500m2 of gross floor area for the proposed ‘Club Premises’ use and 1 car bay per 5 seats; or 5m² of dinning area, whichever is the greater and 1 service/ storage area for the proposed ‘Restaurant’ use. The proposal does not indicate the internal fit out for the proposed Restaurant and therefore the entire upper floor area indicated on the development plans for Restaurant use will be used. Accordingly, under this car parking ratio, the proposed Community Purpose use of the building would require 29 on-site car parking bays and the proposed Restaurant use of the building would require 67 on-site car parking bays giving a total of 96 car bays. No car parking is provided on site; however it is adjacent to public car parks containing approximately 140 parking bays located to the north and south of the subject site. Council’s Local Planning Policies The provisions contained within the following local planning policies are of relevance to the consideration of this application:


Page 86

D.G.N 12 – Leighton Marshalling Yards Land Use and Development Policy Clause 6 of this policy is of particular relevance to the assessment of this application as it provides the objective for recreational planning for this immediate area of North Fremantle. The objective of this policy is, to sustain opportunities for multi purpose use of beach and coastal foreshore in the planning and development of facilities and amenities within and alongside the coastal foreshore reserve. Furthermore Clause 6.2 provides Regional Guidelines for this area which is as follows:

(a) Recreational facilities should be located in nodes rather than being spread along the length of the coastline.

(b) Only those facilities that enhance the public’s use and enjoyment of the coast

should accommodate within the coastal foreshore reserve D.G.N14 - Leighton Design Guidelines The provisions contained within this policy are only of particular relevance to the ‘Leighton Development Area’, which is located to the east of the subject site. However the existing Surf Life Saving Club site is referred to on several occasions as to undergo future demolition and redevelopment an upgrade works. CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance the City’s L.P.P1.3: Public Notification of Planning Approvals policy as the proposed development was considered to be of an unusual use and design relative to the site and its immediate surroundings. The application was advertised by way of sign on site and at the conclusion of the advertising period being 7 December 2010 the City had received no submissions. Heritage In accordance with Council’s L.P.P1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessments policy, a Heritage Assessment (the report) was required to be undertaken. See ‘Attachment 2’ below for the complete ‘Heritage Report’ of this application. Overall, the consultants Heritage Report concluded that although the demolition of the existing building would result in an irreversible built fabric loss, the degree of change to the heritage value of the site would be minimised with the continued used of the site being a Community Surf Life Saving Club. Therefore it was considered that the strongest heritage value of the site being historic and social would be acceptably maintained. The report also acknowledged that the proposed building would increase the level of bulk in comparison to that of the existing development on site, and therefore may dominate the site. Additionally, it was noted that the change in orientation of the proposed building from the existing will change the relationship of the building to the beachfront.


Page 87

However the report also stating that the proposed replacement building would have more presence as viewed from the waters edge in comparison to that of the existing building. The heritage report also included an advice stating that if the development were to be approved an archival record of the buildings on site should be required to be submitted. The record should provide records of a brief social history of the place and buildings, copies of architectural buildings, photographs of the site and all elevations and each room. Accordingly a condition of approval will be recommended requiring the archival records. Fremantle Port Authority The application was not required to be referred to the Fremantle Port Authority this area has not been specifically identified as being impacted by port operations and this has been confirmed by Fremantle Ports. However, the applicant is advised to liaise with Fremantle Ports regarding the development. PLANNING COMMENT In considering this application, the two main issues that needs to be addressed, are as follows:

1) Is the proposed development and land uses consistent with furthering the enhancement of the reserve and facilitating its use for recreational or conservation purposes, and

2) Will the proposed uses and development of the land be compatible and

consistent with the purpose of the reserve and surrounding properties. Built Form and Design With regards to the proposed design of the development, the subject building is considered to portray that a stepped modern contemporary architectural building. The southern elevation of the building will resemble a single storey commercial building as seen from the southern approach to the site. This elevation of the building is to consist of ‘Off White’ colour bond metal cladding. This element of the building also will incorporate a rounded skillion roof line which will lean back up into the second storey middle portion of the building. It is acknowledged that the design of the development will result with the building ‘turning it’s back’ on the southern side and approach of the site, however this element of the design of the development is considered appropriate as this elevation not only presents to the proposed future car parking area for the reserve, but will also experience the majority of future wind and sand erosion weathering damage. The northern elevation of the building is considered to resemble built form consistent with that associated with a two storey commercial building. This second storey element of this elevation includes an uncovered balcony addition which will utilised as part of the Restaurant use proposed for the site.


Page 88

The proposed development steps from single storey design with rounded skillion roof to the south into a two storey concealed roof portion of building in the middle of site. The subject building incorporates several different building materials that are considered to be aesthetically pleasing for the immediate coastal surroundings. Additionally, the earth tone colour schemes (off white and limestone) that have been chosen for the building materials of then development area also considered sympathetic and compatible with the existing environmental surroundings. This elevation incorporates several Overall, the proposed modern contemporary design, building material choice and orientation of the development are considered appropriate and compatible with recent built form within the immediate vicinity and surrounding reserve areas. The proposed development is not anticipated to result in any negative impacts in terms of excess building bulk or visual amenity concerns on nearby future residents. Furthermore, the development is also considered to adequately provide for a high level of visual interaction between future users of the recreational reserve, future residential tenants of the adjacent eastern properties and the Port Beach Road and Boulevard streetscapes. Land Uses Overall, the proposed Community Purpose and Restaurant land uses are considered to meet the intent of the provision of WAPC’s DC5.3: Use of Land Reserved for Parks and Recreation policy as the proposed development involves new club rooms and facilities for the Fremantle Surf Life Saving Club. A community facility building such as this is considered necessary not only for the benefit of the immediate beach goers/ reserve users but also for the wider Fremantle community. This development on the site is considered appropriate and consistent with the provisions of the WAPC’s DC5.3 policy, as it will help enhance and facilitate the ongoing use of the site as a recreational reserve. With regards to the proposed Restaurant use, although it is not explicitly a recreational use, it is not uncommon for such land uses to be attached or associated with Parks and Recreation reserves along the Western Australian Coastline. Approximately 700 metres south of the site another Restaurant use (Salt Restaurant) exist also within the same Parks and Recreational regional reserve. Furthermore, it is envisaged that future residential tenants of the Leighton Beach Marshalling Yard redevelopment sites will demand and expect such land uses to be within close proximity of this area. Therefore, proposed Community Purpose and Restaurant uses to occupy this building are considered appropriate as they are consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses of the subject site. Car Parking Under LPS4, a combined total of 96 on site car parking bays would be required for the proposed ‘Community Purpose’ and ‘Restaurant’ use. The subject site consists of no onsite car parking bays, however there are approximately 140 public car parking bays located to the north and south of the subject site. Furthermore, it is anticipated that both proposed uses for this site will mainly operate at alternative hours of the day, resulting in the proposed public car parking area being either shared or required at different times of the day.


Page 89

The submitted development plans indicate a new modified public car parking area to the south and the removal of the public car park to the north of the subject site. The proposed car park is indicated to contain approximately 135 car bays. Ultimately, it is considered that the number of public car parking provision provided for this reserve will not significantly alter from that already provided. The City of Fremantle’s Technical Service Department is the responsible department regarding these future capital works, who have confirmed that these works will be undertaken during 2010. CONCLUSION In general it is considered that the proposed development and land uses of the site help to enhance and facilitate the ongoing use of the site as a Park and Recreational reserve. The proposed design and built form of the development is also considered to aesthetically pleasing and integrates appropriately with the desired built form and character of the immediate area. Overall, the proposed development is not anticipated to negatively impact the amenity of future adjacent residential tenants of the Leighton Marshalling Yard Redevelopment area nor future regional reserve occupiers. Furthermore, the development is not envisaged to have any significant impact on the physical or visual amenity of the area, particularly the Leighton Beach area itself. For the reasons outlined above, it is recommended that the WAPC be advised that there are no objections to the proposed demolition of existing Community Purpose Building (North Fremantle Surf Life Saving Club Rooms) and construction of a replacement two storey community purpose/ restaurant building on the Port Beach Road Reserve, North Fremantle.


Page 90

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for APPROVAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme for the Demolition of the existing Community Purpose Building and approval for the construction of a Two Storey Community Purpose and Restaurant building at No. 20 Leighton Beach Boulevard (Port Beach Road Reserve), North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. The development and uses hereby permitted shall take place in accordance

with development plans dated 4 November 2009. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 3. Prior to the commencement of development, detailed drainage plans shall be

submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 4. All air-conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any other plant and

equipment to the roof of the building shall be located to be not visible from the street, and where visible from other buildings or vantage points shall be suitably located, screened or housed, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Advisory Notes: (i) The applicant is advised of the built form requirements for residential

development within Buffer Area 3 of the Fremantle Port, as detailed in the City of Fremantle local planning policy, LPP2.3 Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines.



Page 91

PSC1002-20 HIGH STREET NO 222 (LOT 725), FREMANTLE - NOTICE ISSUED

UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1960 - RMP09/0053 (CHE)

DataWorks Reference: 122/009 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Coordinator Development Compliance Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Owner Name: Bernadette Maria Costa Scheme: Residential R 25


Page 92

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City has served a Notice under Section 403 (4) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 to the owner of No. 222 (Lot 725) High Street, Fremantle on 7 January 2010. This report is to inform the Council of this action in accordance with the requirements of section 3.20 of Council’s Delegated Authority Register as adopted in June 2009. COMMENT A site inspection by the City’s Coordinator Development Compliance and Acting Building Surveyor revealed that an elevated concrete slab links the residence with the outbuilding. This was determined under the provisions of the Act to be dangerous and the Notice requires the owner to remove the slab. OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the information is noted. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 93

PSC1002-23 SWAN STREET NO.1 (LOT 104), NORTH FREMANTLE - VARIATION

TO PLANNING APPROVAL DA507/08 (JL DA-V00033/09) DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Development Plans Date Received: 3 November 2009 Owner Name: Eileen Day Trustee for Kent Mercantile Trust Submitted by: Roger Gregson Architects Scheme: Commercial R60 Heritage Listing: Not Listed – North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Office Use Class: Commercial Use Permissibility: P


Page 94

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fremantle (the City) is in receipt of an application to vary the Planning Approval for DA507/08 granted in early 2009 The variation proposes to increase the external wall height for the south western portion of a three storey Office building at No.1 Swan Street, North Fremantle (the site). The application is referred to Planning Services Committee (PSC) as the proposal requires a discretionary decision of Council in relation to building height. The proposed external wall height consists of raising the south western corner of the roof by 800mm to facilitate an elevator shaft for the building. The proposed variation satisfies the relevant requirements of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS 4) and the relevant requirements of applicable Local Planning Policies. Overall, the development is considered to satisfy all of the requirements set out within LPS 4 and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Therefore the variation application is recommended for Approval. BACKGROUND On 9 February 2009 the City granted Planning Approval for a three storey Office building at No.1 Swan Street, North Fremantle (refer DA507/08). The approved development consists of a three storey Office complex comprising of a total 540m2 gross lettable floor area and an external wall height of 11.3 metres. The approved development included nil setbacks to the north, east and west boundaries and a setback that ranged from 2.5 metres to nil for the southern boundary of site. The development also included 19 on site car bays and a vehicle access point via Pensioner Guard Road. The original application required the discretion of the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for the following matters:

• External Wall height variation, and • No delivery bay provision on site.

The subject site is zoned ‘Commercial’ under the provisions of LPS4 and has a residential density coding of R60. The site is located at No.1 Swan Street, North Fremantle within the street block bounded by Queen Victoria Street, Swan Street, Tydeman Road and Pensioner Guard Road. The site is located on the corner of Queen Victoria and Swan Street, North Fremantle with Pensioner Guard Road forming the rear boundary. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List, but it is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Precinct which is included as a Heritage Area under the provisions of LPS4. The site is approximately 564m2 and is currently vacant. There is also a vehicle access easement running parallel with the eastern rear boundary of the site.


Page 95

The northern adjoining and southern adjacent lots are also zoned ‘Commercial’. The northern adjoining site is occupied by a two storey Mixed use development, which is occupied for Office and Residential use. The southern adjacent site is occupied by a three storey Office building (currently utilised by the Maritime Union of Australia). The eastern adjacent lots are zoned ‘Residential’ under the provisions of LPS4 and are occupied by two storey Grouped Dwellings. The western adjacent site is zoned ‘Industrial’ under LPS4 and is currently occupied by a two storey Hotel building (The Swan Hotel). DETAILS On 3 November 2009, the City received a written request for a variation to the Planning Approval for DA507/08. The current application is for an alteration to the roof above the existing approved elevator shaft. The applicant has stated that the elevator shaft is required to have an 800mm vacant space above the elevator to provide room for maintenance/service void. The applicant was unaware of this requirement when designing the building and thus no provision was made in the original plans. The proposed variation involves increasing the external wall height of the south western corner of the building from 11.3 metres to 12.1 metres in order to facilitate a service void above the proposed internal lift. The roof line of the building is to remain as a concealed roof as originally approved. The proposed variation would not result in any change to the land use of the building or the number of required car parking bays. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) Pursuant to Clause 8.3 of LPS4 the Council may, on written application from the owner of land in respect of which Planning Approval has been granted, revoke or amend the planning approval, prior to the commencement of the use or development the subject of the planning approval. Local Planning Policy L.P.P 1.1: Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals This policy sets out the provisions for assessing a proposed variation to development approval. This policy states:

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.


Page 96

CONSULTATION Community The proposed variation was required to be advertised in accordance with LPP 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals as the application involves amendments to the existing planning approval and public notice was previously given of the application. At the close of the advertising period, being 15 January 2010, the City had received one submission with the following concerns: • The building at 5/6 Pensioner Guard Road has been based on renewable energy

philosophy and clearly shows a roof clerestorey (sic) with ventilating glass louvers that are oriented for the prevailing south wind, any increase of building size to the south will be disastrous to the natural supply of air.

• The proposed building at No. 1 Swan Street is already grossly out of scale with the prevailing residential development adjacent, bounded by Pensioner Guard Road and Swan Street so that further height will exacerbate this imbalance.

• It also contradicts the original commercial that was issued by the Municipality that North Bank would be a low scale village.

• I strongly object to the development including installation of mechanical services to provide air conditioning that would discharge poisonous gases and pollutants to the atmosphere. Destruction of the environment should be avoided by any development.

Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) The variation application was not referred to FPA as the proposed variation does not alter the existing floor area of the approved development and will not ultimately result in a nett increase of personnel on site. Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) The application was referred to MRWA whose comments are as follows:

The proposed development is acceptable to Main Roads subject to the following conditions being imposed: 1. No earthworks shall encroach onto the Queen Victoria Street. 2. No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Queen Victoria Street

reserve. 3. The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge vegetation within

the Queen Victoria Street reservation. Advice to Applicant 1. All enquiries related to conditions 1-4 shall be directed to the Metropolitan Region

– Asset Manager.


Page 97

PLANNING COMMENT LPP 1.1: Amendment to and Extension to the Term of Planning Approvals The variation application includes a minor increase to the height of the building, however the remainder of the proposal remains unchanged from the original approval. The footprint of the building, land use and car-parking requirements have not changed as a result of the increase in the height and therefore it is considered that the application remains, in substance, the same and as such the variation application meets the provisions of LPP 1.1. With regard to the height of the building is should be noted that the original approval included a variation to the external wall height of the building and that the application was deemed to satisfy the provisions of Clause 5.8.1 – Variation to height requirements. It is considered that this additional increase in the building height would still satisfy the requirements of Clause 5.8.1 and therefore can be supported. SUBMISSIONS At the close of the advertising period, being 15 January 2010, the City had received one submission. With regard to the issues raised: • The proposed increase in wall height would be located on the southern and western

elevations of the site, more than 12 metres from the northern boundary. Furthermore, the increase would result in an additional 0.8m of wall height. Therefore it is considered that the separation between the proposed wall and the relatively small increase in the wall height would not cause a significant detrimental affect on the northern adjoining properties access to ventilation.

• The proposed wall height would be located on the western and southern elevations,

which when viewed in context to its surrounds would graduate the height between higher buildings located on southern adjacent lots and the lower buildings on the eastern adjoining lots. Furthermore, the subject site and properties located to the south are zoned ‘Commercial’ whilst the properties to the east are zoned ‘Residential’. As such, the different zones carry different height controls, thus the change between the building heights.

• The original ‘commercial’ would not have been part of the City’s processes. Any

advertisements would have been funded and displayed at the developers cost and would not have had any input from the City.

• The original development application that was received for this site was advertised

as required by LPP 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals. No submissions were received as part of the advertising process that was required for the original application.


Page 98

• The installation of mechanical services relates to providing access to the lift/elevator

shaft and not for the installation of any air-conditioning units. CONCLUSION Overall, the proposed development is considered to satisfy the relevant provisions within LPS 4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy. Furthermore, the proposed development is considered to provide an appropriate modern architectural Office complex which will positively contribute to the existing built form of the North Bank Development area. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the same terms and conditions as the Planning Approval granted for DA507/08. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Variations to Planning Approval for DA507/08 (Three Storey Office Development) granted 9 February 2009 at No. 1 (Lot 104) Swan Street, North Fremantle as detailed on plans dated 3 November 2009, subject to the same terms and conditions as those included within Planning Approval DA507/08. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 99

PSC1002-24 HIGH STREET NO.7 (LOT 220), FREMANTLE – RELOCATION OF AIR

CONDITIONING UNIT ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING OFFICE (MS DA0562/09)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: External Heritage Advice Date Received: 16 October 2009 Owner Name: Abrugiato Pty Ltd Submitted by: Greg Rowe and Associates Scheme: City Centre Heritage Listing: Management Category 2 Existing Landuse: Office Use Class: Commercial Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 100

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee due to the unauthorised nature of development and the heritage significance of the site. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for the removal of five unauthorised air conditioning units located on the northern and western facades and the installation of two air conditioning units to the roof of the existing Commercial building at 7 High Street, Fremantle. The proposal has been assessed against, and is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy. The removal of the five unauthorised units along with the relocation of two air conditioning units to the roof of the building is recommended for conditional Approval. BACKGROUND The subject site is zoned City Centre under the provisions of the City of Fremantle’s (the City) Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4). The site is located within the West End Sub Area under the provisions of Schedule 12 of LPS4, the site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Management Category 2. Furthermore the site is located within the West End Conservation Area. The subject site is located on the southern side of High Street, Fremantle and is approximately 554m2 in area. The site is improved by an existing single storey commercial building known as the former bank of New South Wales. The building located on the site is described as being of Federation Free Classical stylings, with elaborate stucco decorations. DETAIL The applicant submitted an application on the 16 October 2009 seeking retrospective approval for five unauthorised air conditioner additions to the northern and western façade of the existing building. The units are located above existing window openings on the northern and western facades of the building. (See attachment 2 for photos of the unauthorised works) Two units are located on the High Street elevation of the building (northern aspect) and three units are located on the Cliff Street elevation (western aspect). As the property is listed on the City of Fremantle’s heritage list as being of cultural heritage significance an external heritage assessment was required to be carried out accordance with L.P.P1.6. As a result of this assessment it was determined that the unauthorised units are detrimental to the heritage significance of the site.


Page 101

A meeting was held with the applicant and City Officers on the 2 December 2009 to discuss the aforementioned heritage concerns raised by the external heritage architect. After further correspondence with the applicant following the initial meeting, the applicant provided amended plans on the 12 January 2010 proposing the removal of the five unauthorised units located on site. Furthermore the applicant is now proposing to use timber boarding to reinstate the altered window arches were the unauthorised units are to be removed. Additionally the applicant is proposing the installation of two air-conditioning units to be located on top of the roof and an internal wall of the existing building. The proposed location of the units are positioned so they cannot be seen from the street. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) The aims of LPS4 are outlined in clause 1.6 and the following subsection is considered relevant to this application:

(f) protect and conserve Fremantle’s unique cultural heritage, The installation of an air conditioning unit constitutes development. Planning Approval is required for the air conditioner units as they are to be installed on a heritage listed property. Council Policies L.P.P1.6 Preparing Heritage Assessments (L.P.P1.6) In accordance with L.P.P1.6, this application was required to be assessed by an external heritage architect. The expert heritage advice provided to the City is discussed in the ‘Consultation’ section of this report, along with the full assessment being attached to this report (Attachment 2). D.B.H5 Satellite Dishes, Air conditioners and Antennas (D.B.H5) The proposed development has been assessed with regard to the provisions of the City’s Satellite Dishes, Air conditioners and Antennas Policy. The revised proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant requirements of this policy. D.G.F14 Fremantle West End Conservation Policy The five unauthorised air-conditioning units are being removed as part of this application and the proposed new air conditioning units are to be located on the roof of the existing building, not being visible from the adjoining streets. As a result, it is considered that there are no relevant requirements contained within this policy for the assessment of this application.


Page 102

CONSULTATION Heritage External heritage advice was provided to the City on 12 November 2009. Overall, the advice did not support the original proposal of retaining the unauthorised units in their current location (northern and western façade of building). The heritage expert provided the following reasons: “The air conditioning units inserted into the window openings (5 units) including the electrical conduit on the face of the buildings and electrical wiring and power points internally are intrusive on the significance of the place and on the very significant streetscape of the western end of High Street.” As mentioned previously, as a result of the advice provided, the applicant provided amended plans to the City on 12 January 2010 proposing the removal of the unit’s subject of the heritage advice. Accordingly the removal of these units will result in alleviating any impact on the heritage significance of the site as seen from the street, and is therefore supported on a heritage basis. The aspects of the revised plans not subject of the external heritage advice provided on 12 November 2009, specifically the relocated units and the refurbishment of the window arches, was determined through correspondence with the City’s heritage staff to ascertain a suitable location for the units and a suitable material to reinstate the window arches. The revised proposal is considered to be satisfactory in respect to the heritage significance of the site. Community The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals policy.

PLANNING COMMENT As discussed previously, the applicant has provided amended plans to the City depicting the removal of the five unauthorised units in accordance with the external heritage advice provided to the City. The removal of these units eliminates the negative impact on the heritage significance of the building and the streetscape, therefore bringing the building into compliance with the aims of LPS4 and the requirements of the City’s Local Planning Policy D.G.H5 Satellite Dishes, Air conditioners and Antennas. In respect to the proposed replacement material of timber panelling, the City’s heritage staff has indicated that the timber infill is a suitable material for the replacement of the window arches. At present, the City has no documentary evidence indicating what was located in the arches prior to the instillation of the air condition units. As the timber is lightweight it will be less complicated to remove the material in the event of further documentary evidence being located, so as to discern what was contained in the arches originally.


Page 103

It is noted that the plans do not indicate how the timber will be finished or fixed to the existing window arches, therefore a condition will be recommended subject to approval that the works be completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Fremantle, to ensure the works are completed to a satisfactory standard. The applicant has provided the following information regarding the revised location of the air conditioning unit on site: “The location of the outdoor air-conditioning plant units on the colourbond roof will allow for a level of screening from the Cliff and High Street frontages, given the masonry wall structure of the existing building”. The proposed relocation of two systems on to the colourbond roof of the building is considered to be a positive outcome in respect to the heritage significance of the building. As the plant units will not be visible from the street, it is considered that the revised plans comply with the aims of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy D.G.H5. Furthermore in respect to the location of the units to be fitted inside the building the applicant provided the following comment: “The location of the units on the wall of the Main Hall of the building meets the requirement for this area to be air-conditioned, whilst preventing any modifications to the ornate wooden ceiling; identified as an important element of the of the building within the Heritage Assessment prepared by the Heritage ad Conservation Professionals dated November 2009”. As the applicant is not proposing to disturb the significant ornate wooden ceiling, the location of the units will not have any negative, irreversible impact on the significant aspects of the interior of the building; as a result the location of the new units is supported on a heritage basis. Unauthorised Development The City has referred this matter to Council’s solicitors as the owner of the subject property lodged an application for Retrospective Approval after the expiry of the 28 day period stipulated in the City’s letter as per Local Planning Policy LPP1.5 Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance Policy. If Council grants Planning Approval for the subject application, it is recommended that Council also resolve to cease any further legal action relating to this matter. It is the City’s opinion that the unauthorised works are considered minor in nature and action against the owners would not be in the broader public interest. CONCLUSION The proposed air conditioners to be located at No.7 High Street, Fremantle are considered to satisfy the relevant requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 and Local Planning Policies. The application is recommended for conditional approval.


Page 104

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

A. APPROVE the application under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the removal of unauthorised air conditioners and installation of air conditioning units to an existing Office building at No. 7 (Lot 220) High Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

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

approved plans dated the 12 January 2010. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. The 5 existing unauthorised air conditioning units located on the High

Street and Cliff Street (north and western elevations) shall be removed within 60 days from the date of the Chief Executive Officer’s approval letter.

3. The 5 openings left in the windows arches after the removal of the air

conditioning units on the High Street and Cliff Street elevations shall be reinstated with timber panelling, to sit flush with the remnant surrounding panelling within 60 days from the date of the Chief Executive Officer’s approval letter and to be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which

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

B. RESOLVE not to take any further compliance action having regard to the

minor nature of the unauthorised works. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 105

PSC1002-28 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED

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

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the information is noted. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 106

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

PSC1002-30 GILBERT FRASER RESERVE PRECINCT, DRAFT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN- RELEASE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

DataWorks Reference: 219/020 Disclosure of Interest: nil Previous Item: na Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: City Heritage Architect Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Gilbert Fraser Reserve Precinct CMP draft 2009,

Hocking Planning and Architecture – executive summary Gilbert Fraser Reserve Precinct CMP draft 2009, Hocking Planning and Architecture – significance Gilbert Fraser Reserve Precinct CMP draft 2009 – landscape plan Gilbert Fraser Reserve Precinct CMP draft 2009 – landscape significance and management plan Gilbert Fraser Reserve Precinct CMP draft 2009 – conservation policy recommendations.

PURPOSE

For Council to approve the release of draft Gilbert Fraser Reserve Precinct Conservation Management Plan, 2009 for public comment.


Page 107

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In response to the rapidly degrading heritage listed grandstand and in response to the expressed community and lease holder interests, the Council had sought and received the Lotterywest grant and allocated the matching funding in the 2008/09 budget for urgent conservation works and preparation of Gilbert Fraser Reserve Precinct Conservation Management Plan. City officers have completed urgent conservation works using the City’s internal resources and commissioned consultants to prepare the conservation management plan for the reserve. The consultants have completed the draft plan incorporating the expressed interests of the major stakeholders, namely the lease holder and North Fremantle Community Association. The draft plan has also been consulted internally to make sure the relevant units responsible for the aspects of reserve’s operations and maintenance are satisfied with the plan’s recommendations. The draft plan is in order to be released for public comment seeking input from the broader community. BACKGROUND

A Lotterywest grant for $30,773 was received by Council on the 28th May 2008 for urgent conservation works to the Gilbert Fraser Reserve’s Grandstand and for the preparation of conservation management plan for the whole reserve. The urgent works to the grandstand were undertaken in May 2009 using in-house heritage advice to guide and oversee the contractor, Men Behaving Handy. The completed works included stripping off the western façade’s damaged timber and re-cladding with new timber cut to the original profile, so that the envelope was sealed from the elements to prevent further degradation. It was found that the structure had been termite eaten, so damaged timber was planed and solid timber inserts were put in place to maintain structural integrity. A plywood kickboard was also implemented to the inside face to prevent vandalism by kicking and the whole grandstand was sprayed for termites. While Lotterywest funding was allocated to urgent conservation works, it was conditional on Council’s adoption of the conservation plan to guide all required conservation works in the future to both, buildings and the oval. In February 2009 officers prepared a project brief, sought expressions of interest from heritage experts, and appointed Hocking Planning and Architecture to prepare a Conservation Management Plan for the Reserve and Grandstand. The draft plan has been prepared and submitted to the City for assessment and feedback, including putting the document out for public comment.


Page 108

COMMENT

The project brief has been prepared in accordance with the Heritage Council of WA’s guidelines regarding specific conservation requirements for conservation of the established heritage value of the reserve and its individual components. In addition the brief was expanded to provide guidelines for compatible upgrade of the reserve in response to the publicly expressed views of the interested community groups and users of the reserve. Introductory letter has been sent to major stakeholders advising them about the project and the officers arranged two meetings with the lease holder, North Fremantle Football Club, and representatives of the North Fremantle community to canvas their views and these have been reflected as much as practicable in formulation of the plan. In addition the draft plan was consulted with all relevant officers of the City representing Technical Services, Property Management, Community Development and Planning to ensure it complies with the Council’s current reserve management and maintenance routines. While the Council is reviewing terms of reference for all advisory committees and the Heritage & Special Places Advisory Committee (H&SPC) remains in recess, it had no opportunity to consider the draft plan. It is therefore assumed that the revived committee’s consideration of the draft plan will take place during the public consultation period. The draft Conservation Management Plan includes standard provisions i.e. assessment and determination of the reserve’s heritage values as well as its individual components (attached). The report concludes that the original Gilbert Fraser Grandstand is of considerable significance while the adjacent club rooms are of some significance. In addition the report concludes that the grandstand, the oval and the Swan River foreshore form an interrelated and coherent precinct, named Gilbert Fraser Reserve Precinct, which is of considerable significance as a whole. The report recommends that the whole precinct “be assessed for inclusion on the State register of heritage places with the grandstand identified of a higher level of significance”. In addition the report recommends that consideration be given to inclusion of the adjacent vacant lot 67 along the north-western boundary of the main Reserve 9317 to formalise its current status i.e. the already well established practice incorporating the vacant lot in the reserve’s maintenance and use. Drawing on the heritage assessment and its conclusions, the draft plan puts forward number of conservation policy recommendations (attached) related to the statutory obligations of Council to maintain and protect the established heritage values of the precinct and its components. In addition the policies specify conservation requirements, recommended maintenance routine and ongoing care for the building’s fabric and landscaping to sustain it all in good state into the future. The policy recommendations provide schedules of the required urgent, medium and long term works, which should assist the City in reviewing and upgrading its current maintenance routine and long term maintenance and budget planning. In making these recommendations the plan specifies requirements of all users of the reserve how to be mindful of its cultural heritage values and conservation requirements when planning any future modifications and upgrading works.


Page 109

Finally the plan includes policy recommendations regarding future development and compatible use of the precinct. While emphasising the overall priority for respecting the historic fabric, the plan makes recommendations regarding recommended upgrading of the precinct such as building signage, future fences, street furniture and any replacement planting. It also recommends that any future needs for additional facilities should be primarily accommodated through the adoptive reuse, refurbishment and/or compatible extensions to the existing buildings of lesser significance, such as the former stables and clubrooms. The policies 51-54 provide interpretation of what it means in relation to both, use and built form and their location, for example that all new buildings should be confined to the perimeter of the site, preferably on the John Street boundary. Finally the plan recommends that any future use of the Gilbert Fraser Reserve Precinct retains its public access through sport, community activity and as a performance venue. The draft Gilbert Fraser Reserve Precinct Conservation Management Plan has been prepared with due consideration for its heritage significance, stakeholders’ aspirations and Council’s requirements. It is in order to be released for public consultation. Considering the holiday season it is proposed that the standard consultation period of 28 days be extended to 35 days. CONCLUSION

City of Fremantle has completed urgent conservation works on the Gilbert Fraser Grandstand using City’s internal resources and had commissioned consultants to prepare the conservation management plan for the reserve. The draft plan provides evaluation and determination of the reserve’s heritage significance, a range of conservation and upgrade policies’ recommendations and the specific schedules of urgent, medium and long term works that will assist Council in reviewing its current maintenance routine as well as in strategic and budget planning of the recommended upgrading works. The consultants have completed the draft plan incorporating the expressed interests of the major stakeholders, namely the lease holders and North Fremantle Community Association. The draft plan has also been consulted internally to make sure the relevant units of the City responsible for different aspects of the reserve’s operations and maintenance are satisfied with the plan’s recommendations. The draft Fremantle Park Conservation Management Plan is therefore in order to be released for public consultation. Considering the holiday season it is proposed that the standard consultation period of 28 days be extended to 35 days. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil


Page 110

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE IMPLICATIONS

Economic Economic investment in planning for conservation and future upgrade the Gilbert Fraser Grandstand and Reserve is consistent with the City’s strategic plans and economic strategy for Fremantle. The park is likely to continue its role as public space and a recreational reserve to the community, however having the conservation management plan in place would assist the Council and the community in reviewing and improving its ongoing maintenance and in planning the long term, compatible upgrading of the reserve. The Western Australian Planning Commission plans to update zones and reservation in the MRS of all public land includes the reserves around the adjacent Johannah Street. While most of it aims to more accurately reflect the current use and purpose of the land, it includes a proposal that the part currently zoned as Public Purposes (Special Uses) be re-zoned Urban. When rezoning is ratified, it is likely to result in a substantial increase of residential population of North Fremantle. Thus the investment in the long term conservation and upgrading of Gilbert Fraser and the foreshore reserves will improve the residential amenity of North Fremantle and would render it more attractive not only to new residents but also to a wide range of commercial uses. In return, more local businesses associated with both, greater use of the reserve and the increased number of residents would help to improve economic viability and vibrancy of this part of Fremantle. Environmental The item is concerned with environmental protection of Gilbert Fraser Reserve and its broader foreshore and urban context as part of the city’s irreplaceable heritage resources. Social North Fremantle community’s long term association with Gilbert Fraser Reserve translates directly into the assumed and publicly expressed ownership and interest of individuals as well as the community groups in the reserve. The conservation management plan deals with the associated desire to ensure protection, long term conservation and upgrading of both, the reserve’s buildings and the whole recreational and foreshore precinct as a community asset. The community’s historical association with the reserve’s use, such as North Fremantle Football Club, reinforce shared sense of the community’s identity and belonging. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

Nil Any future developments related to the planned upgrade of Gilbert Fraser Reserve will be subject of the standard budgetary process of the Council. LEGISLATIVE AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Nil


Page 111

PRECINCTS AND OTHER COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS PLUS OTHER CONSULTATION

This item seeks Council’s release of the draft plan for community feedback and comments. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

Council resolve that:

a) Gilbert Fraser Reserve Precinct draft Conservation Management Plan be advertised for a 35 day consultation period;

b) A report on any submissions received be prepared for further Council

consideration following the consultation period. Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to increase the consultation period to 42 days. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 112

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council resolve that:

a) Gilbert Fraser Reserve Precinct draft Conservation Management Plan be advertised for a 42 day consultation period;

b) A report on any submissions received be prepared for further

Council consideration following the consultation period. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr John Dowson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Committee felt the consultation period should be increased as there is a lot of public interest in the Gilbert Fraser Reserve Precinct draft Conservation Management Plan.


Page 113

PSC1002-31 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 34 TO LOCAL PLANNING

SCHEME NO. 4 - INITIATION OF SCHEME AMENDMENT DataWorks Reference: 218/038 Disclosure of Interest: None Responsible Officer: Manager Projects and Policy Actioning Officer: Manager Projects and Policy Decision Making Authority: Council Attachments: Attachment 1 – Current LPS 4 Reserve provisions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A need to amend Local Planning Scheme 4 in relation to the provisions relating to Local Reserves has arisen. The Scheme currently contains a detailed use class table in relation to use permissibility on land identified as Local Reserves in the Scheme. Officers know of no other Local Planning Scheme in WA which has such provisions, the common approach being that the Scheme provides a broad flexibility in relation to determination of applications for planning approval for development and use of land in Local Reserves, having regard to the purpose of the reserve. This is also consistent with the approach in the Model Scheme Text, included in the Town Planning Regulations. The basis of this flexible approach is that reserved land is usually, or is intended to be, in the ownership of the Council or another public agency, so such specific land use control as is provided through a use class table is unnecessary. The recommended Scheme amendment doesn’t change the requirement obtain approvals on reserved land, but simply provides for greater flexibility as to which uses may be approved. On this basis it is recommended that an amendment to LPS4 to delete the current use table provisions be initiated. BACKGROUND

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) includes a detailed table and associated text relating to land use permissibility in relation to land comprising Local Reserves. This is an unusual, if not unique, provision for a Local Planning Scheme in WA. LPS4 has included this table since it was originally drafted, although there is no obvious reason as to why it was drafted in this manner. The common approach to this issue is that that the Scheme provides a broad flexibility in relation to permitted uses on reserved land, in recognition of the fact that reserved lands are usually in the ownership of the Council or another public agency. This is consistent with the approach in the Model Scheme Text, included in the Town Planning Regulations.


Page 114

COMMENT

The Local Planning Scheme provides for both the zoning and reservation of land. Zoning is a legal classification applied to land which determines the permissibility (or non-permissibility) of various land uses, and it can be used to differentiate various planning standards and requirements of the Scheme. The zoning of land is used on private lands within the Scheme area where there is no intention for public use or acquisition by the Council for its own purposes or on behalf of any other authority. Reserves are applied to land to be used for public purposes, either by the Council or other agencies. Local Reserves are those contained within the Local Scheme, and regional reserves are those within the Metropolitan Region Scheme. As their names suggest, Local Reserves are intend for local public purposes and regional reserves for regional public purposes (such as Roads, Railways, Port installations, Regional Open Space). The current LPS4 provisions and use class table in relation to reserved lands are shown in Attachment 1. The Local Reserves included in LPS4 are as follows;

• Open Space - To provide for recreational, community, beautification and conservation activities.

• Community Facilities - To provide for civic and community activities and facilities that are provided for the general community by public institutions and groups.

• Public Utilities - To provide for public infrastructure and services. These intention statements are included in clause 3.4 of the Scheme, and provide clear guidance to the Council as to the purpose of the reserve. Clause 3.4 further requires that the Council shall have due regard to the purpose intended for the reserve when determining applications for planning approval relating to Local Reserves. This report contends, therefore, that further land use control in relation to reserves is unnecessary and inflexible. Furthermore, the current inclusion in the Local Reserves Use Table of certain commercial uses as permissible uses on reserved lands (such as Restaurant or Health Studio on an Open Space Reserve) can create an apparent inconsistency with the clearly stated intended purpose of the reserve in the Scheme. On this basis, an amendment to LPS4 to delete the specific use class provisions is recommended. As examples of the inflexibility created by the current provisions, the Council would be precluded from granting permanent approvals to;

• The use of a Community Facilities reserve for Parks and Recreation purposes; • The use of any Scheme reserve for markets, or displays; • The use of a Public Utilities reserve for any purpose other than Public Utilities or

Parks and Recreation. Examples of significant lands within Local Reserves under LPS4 are as follows;

• Various Primary School sites are within the Community Facilities reserve • Fremantle Park, Monument Hill, Stevens Reserve, Gibson Park are within the

Open Space reserve,


Page 115

• The Western Power depot in Amherst Road is within the Public Utilities reserve. An amendment to the Scheme in relation to use permissibility on reserved land would not change the purpose and intent of the reserve, the land tenure of any reserve or the requirement to obtain approvals from the Council. The amendment will simply provide the Council with greater flexibility as to which uses it may wish to approve on reserved land, having regard to the intended purpose of the reserve, and provide greater internal consistency within the Scheme. CONCLUSION

This amendment is recommended to the Council on the basis that it would provide additional flexibility in relation to use approvals on reserved land, and greater internal consistency within the Scheme. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan

1. That Council resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, to amend Local Planning Scheme No. 4 by deleting clauses 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9 and the table titled ‘Table 1 – Local Reserves’ following clause 3.9.1 from the Scheme Text;

2. That the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute the

relevant Scheme Amendment documentation; 3. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the

Environmental Protection Authority requesting assessment prior to commencing public consultation;

4. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the

Western Australian Planning Commission for information; and 5. That upon receipt of the environmental assessment from the

Environmental Protection Authority, the amendment be advertised for a period of not less than 42 days in accordance with requirements of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and Council’s Local Planning Policy LPP 1.3 ‘Public Notification of Planning Approvals’.



Page 116

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS Nil. CLOSURE OF MEETING THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.26 PM.


Page 117

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION The Council adopted a Participation Policy in August 2001 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. The City values citizen participation and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective participation requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

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

Various participation opportunities 2.

The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via its Advisory Committees and Task Forces, its Community Precinct System, and targeted consultation processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3.

The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its annual Community Survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4.

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

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5.

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

All input is of equal value 6.

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

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7.

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


Page 118


clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.

Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8.

The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good Government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9.

The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10.

City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City Officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow procedures 11.

The City’s consultative processes must be clear, transparent, efficient and timely. City officers must ensure that policies and procedures are fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.

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

12.

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


Page 119


via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.

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

13.

The City will take initial responsibility, via ‘Consultation Process notifications’, for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting www.freofocus.com/projects/html/default.cfm, checking the Port City Column in the Fremantle Herald or inquiring at the Service and Information Desk by phone or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14.

In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a Schedule of Input received that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15.

Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on www.freofocus.com/projects/html/default.cfm

16.

Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at www.freofocus.com/projects/html/default.cfm or at the City Library or Service and Information counter.

http://www.freofocus.com/projects/html/default.cfm




Page 120

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has

been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government

and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing,

detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.


Page 121

City of Fremantle

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 3 February 2010

Minutes Attachments - Planning Services Committee 3 February 2010

Page 123

Documents

Minute Manager 2 - Home | City of Fremantle PSC-Minutes.pdf · Ms Kathy Bonus Manager Development Services Mr Steve Sullivan Statutory Planning Coordinator Mr Harry Erasmus Compliance