MINUTES - City of Fremantle · 2018-03-08 · Minutes - Planning Committee 7 September 2016 Page 1 PLANNING COMMITTEE Minutes of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chambers,

MINUTES

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 7 September 2016, 6.00pm

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 3

LATE ITEMS NOTED 3

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4

TABLED DOCUMENTS 4

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 5

PC1609-01 DEFERRED ITEM - ONSLOW STREET, NO.5 (LOT 1119), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (BP DA0287/16) 5

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 15

PC1609-02 NO. 52 (LOT 2) ADELAIDE STREET, FREMANTLE -DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN EIGHT (8) STOREY (PLUS BASEMENT) MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (72 X MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, 7 X COMMERCIAL TENANCIES) 15

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 48

PC1609-03 SNOOK CRESCENT, NO.19 (LOT 1303), HILTON - SECOND STOREY, ANCILLARY DWELLING AND SMALL SECONDARY DWELLING ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0275/16) 48

PC1609-04 PEARSE STREET, NO. 42 (LOT 501), NORTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO HEALTH STUDIO (GYM) - (AD DA0187/16) 59

PC1609-05 GREY STREET NO.8 (LOT 100), FREMANTLE - ANCILLARY DWELLING AND CARPORT ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (SP DA0314/16) 73

PC1609-06 WARREN STREET, NO.8 (LOT 60), BEACONSFIELD - TWO, SINGLE STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS - (BP DA0257/16) 80

PC1609-07 HINES ROAD, NO. 53A (LOT 2), HILTON - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (AD DA0285/16) 89

PC1609-08 JOSLIN STREET, NO.40 (LOT 1665), HILTON - TWO GROUPED DWELLING ADDITION (SINGLE STOREY WITH LOFT AND TWO STOREY DWELLING) & ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (SP DA0339/16) 98

PC1609-09 PHILLIMORE STREET, NO. 2 (LOT 1846), FREMANTLE - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS AND CHANGE OF USE TO SMALL BAR - (CJ DA0002/16) 112

PC1609-10 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - 136

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 137

PC1609-11 SCHEME AMENDMENT 68 - MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS - MIXED USE ZONE HAMPTON ROAD & BROCKMAN PLACE, SOUTH FREMANTLE - REVIEW OF BOUNDARY OPTIONS AND SCHEME AMENDMENT INITIATION 137

PC1609-12 CONSIDERATION OF PRINCIPLES FOR PLANNING CONTROLS TO LIMIT OVERCONCENTRATION OF FAST FOOD AND RESTAURANT USES IN FREMANTLE CITY CENTRE 155

PC1609-13 JOINT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL DECISIONS UPDATE -INFORMATION REPORT 163

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 170

CLOSURE OF MEETING 170

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Planning Committee 7 September 2016

Page 1

PLANNING COMMITTEE

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

on 7 September 2016 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Presiding Member declared the meeting open at 6.04pm.

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

Dr Brad Pettitt Mayor (arrived 6.09pm) Cr Jon Strachan Presiding Member / South Ward Cr Bryn Jones North Ward Cr Simon Naber City Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham Deputy Presiding Member / East Ward Cr Jeff McDonald Hilton Ward Cr Dave Hume Beaconsfield Ward / Deputy Mayor Mr Paul Trotman Director Strategic Planning & Projects Mr Graham Tattersall Director Infrastructure and Project Delivery Mr Justin Lawrence Acting Manager Development Approvals Mr Paul Garbett Manager Strategic Planning Mr Phillip Adams Manager Infrastructure Projects Ms Tahnee Bunting Strategic Planning Officer Ms Michelle Gibson Minute Secretary There were approximately 30 members of the public and 1 member of the press in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Nil

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 the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609-01: Mark Summerville Ben McManus The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609-02: John Dowson The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609-02: Luke Montgomery Belinda Moharich The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609-03: Alex Hyndman The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609-04: Rebecca Russell Tom Holt The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609-04: Brian Africh Janet Stephenson Caroline Robberechts Michael Patroni


Page 3

The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609-05: Kelly Terry The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609-06: Reg Boston The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609-07: Nick Monzu The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609-08: Paul Maton The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609-09: John Dowson The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1609-10: Robert Boston

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Cr Jon Strachan declared an proximity interest in item number PC1609-02. He owns property directly across the road. Cr Jeff MacDonald declared an impartiality interest in item number PC1609-08. He is friends of the owner. Mayor, Brad Pettitt declared a financial Interest in item PC1609-09. Applicant provided and election donation.

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Nil


Page 4

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the minutes of the Planning Committee dated 8 August 2016 as listed in the Council agenda dated 24 August 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr Dave Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Item PC1609-01 : additional plans - Ventura Homes Item PC1609-02 : commentary by Ian Molyneux Item PC1609-04 : letter from Empire Rose Item PC1609-04 : letter from Brian Africh


Page 5

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

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

PC1609-01 DEFERRED ITEM - ONSLOW STREET, NO.5 (LOT 1119), FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (BP DA0287/16)

Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 September 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: PC1608-4 Attachments: 1: Development Plans 2: Site Visit Photos 3: Previous Planning Committee Report 4: Additional justification from applicant Date Received: 13 June 2016 Owner Name: A. Stewart & M. Ryan Submitted by: Ventura Homes Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential R25/R30 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single storey Single House Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling. The application was previously presented to Planning Committee (PC) on 3 August 2016, where PC resolved to:

defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that increases the setback of the southern garage boundary wall and reduce overshadowing on the adjoining southern properties.

On 23 August 2016, the applicant provided further justification which, in summary, outlines that the shadow cast from the southern boundary wall in insolation is minor when considering the overshadowing from the second storey of the proposed Grouped Dwelling. It is noted that there have been no changes made to the plans. In relation to the justification provided, the ‘Background’ section of this report also details that there was an administrative error with the calculation of overshadowing in the previous report and that the overshadowing complies with the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). While the overshadowing complies with the R-Codes, the overshadowing impact from the boundary wall must be considered through Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development. The overshadowing from the boundary wall alone is not considered to have an adverse impact, however there is still considered to be a building bulk impact on the southern adjoining property as a result of the boundary wall. Furthermore, the southern boundary wall would be abutting the predominant outdoor living area for the affected property, which is considered to be a particularly sensitive space. Having regard to the building bulk impact, the application is recommended for on balance refusal; however if PC are of a differing view, an alternative recommendation for approval is provided in the Conclusion section of this report. BACKGROUND Further background relating to the subject site and proposed development is contained in the ‘Background’ section of the previous PC report, which can be viewed at Attachment 3. The application was previously presented to Planning Committee (PC) on 3 August 2016, where the PC resolved to:

defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that increases the setback of the southern garage boundary wall and reduce overshadowing on the adjoining southern properties.


Page 7

On 23 August 2016, the applicant provided further information which outlines that that the shadow cast from the boundary wall in insolation is minor when considering the overshadowing from the second storey of the proposed grouped dwelling. There have been no changes made to the plans. For the purpose of clarity, it should be noted that in the assessment of overshadowing in the previous PC report, there was an administrative error with respect to the calculation of the total shadow cast to the affected southern properties as per the requirements of the R-Codes. The overshadowing cast to the southern adjoining properties does comply with the deemed-to-comply criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). While overshadowing meets the requirements of the R-Codes, the overshadowing impact as a result of the proposed southern boundary wall is still required to be assessed through the design principles of the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development and the R-Codes. In considering the justification provided by the applicant, the outcome of removing the boundary wall or conditioning a setback to the southern boundary must be contemplated, particularly in respect to the difference of overshadowing on the southern adjoining property. By requiring an increased setback to the garage on the southern boundary, it is considered that the overshadowing impact would largely remain similar to the current proposal, given the shadow cast from the second storey. Refer to Attachment 4 for the additional justification provided by the applicant. DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Single House and includes the following: Three bedrooms; Two bathrooms; Kitchen, dining and living rooms; Laundry; Sitting room; Alfresco; and Garage.

Refer to Attachment 1 for the development plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes relevant local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the relevant ‘deemed to comply’ requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. The following elements seek design principle assessments:

Garage width.


Page 8

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

Primary street setback (ground and upper floors); Boundary wall (south).

The above matters will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the report below. CONSULTATION Advertising was not conducted again as there were no alterations made to the plans. Refer to Attachment 3 for the discussion relating to the previous community consultation. PLANNING COMMENT Residential Design Codes Garage Width

Element Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

Garage width 5.5m in width (50%) 5.8m (52%) 0.3m

The proposed garage width is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: It is considered that visual connectivity between the dwelling and the streetscape

would be maintained, given that the upper floor of the proposed grouped dwelling that is located over the garage below would reduce the perception of the garage dominating the street;

The 30cm difference to the deemed-to-comply is considered minor and, in this regard,

the change is considered to be minimal to the extent that it would not be significantly noticeable as viewed from the street.

Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Primary Street Setback

Element Required Provided Discretion

Ground floor 5m 4.5m 0.5m

Upper floor 7m 5.4m 1.6m


Page 9

Clause 1.2 of LPP 2.9 entertains variations to the prescribed primary street setback, subject to meeting one of the criteria outlined in the clause. This clause is as follows: Variations to the requirements of clause 1.1 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to the proposed development meeting at least one of the following criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

The primary street setbacks to the ground floor and upper floors are considered to, on balance, meet clause 1.2 (ii) of LPP 2.9 for the following reasons: The proposed setbacks are not considered to result in a projecting element due to the

topography of the site, which is a downward slope from east to west of approx. 1.0m (see picture below). In this regard, it is considered that the dominance of the building on the streetscape would be ameliorated by the gradient of the property.

There are only two other properties located within the prevailing streetscape to the

north. In this regard, reduced primary street setbacks of 0.5m and 1.6m are not


Page 10

considered to be of detriment to the amenity of the surrounding area, given the lack of dwellings to form an ‘established’ streetscape.

The upper floor setback of 5.4m only occupies 55% of the main front line of the upper

floor, whereas the remainder of the upper floor is setback at 6.4m. In this regard, the impact of the reduced upper floor primary street setback is considered to be lessened, given the separation between the lounge room and bedroom 3 (refer to below).

It is also noted that a portion of the northern adjoining property at 5 Onslow Street is

setback at a similar distance to the primary street (approximately 5.2m). Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development Boundary Walls

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Discretion

South 1m 0m 1m

The proposed boundary wall is not considered to be supportable under LPP 2.4 for the following reasons: It is considered that the length and height of the southern boundary wall, being 5.99m

and 2.8m respectively, would restrict direct sun to the outdoor living areas of adjoining properties, particularly 86 Forrest Street directly to the south.

As noted previously, the proposal as a whole complies with the R-Codes with respect to overshadowing. Having said and separate to this, the design principles within LPP 2.4 require an assessment of the impact a boundary wall would have on maintaining direct sun to sensitive spaces, such as outdoor living areas. The applicant has provided an additional plan (shown below) displaying the component of shadow that would be cast from the boundary wall in insolation, in comparison to the shadow from the upper floor and existing dividing fence. The boundary wall would, of course,


Page 11

overshadow further to the west on the affected property, however the upper floor shadow encompasses most of the overshadowing from the boundary wall. Put simply, the majority of the shadow cast by the proposed boundary wall is exceeded and contained within the shadow cast by the proposed upper floor. The only portion that doesn’t is ‘B’ as shown below, which is approximately 1.5m2 which is considered negligible and should be supported.

Given that the southern boundary wall would occupy approximately 40% (5.99m/15m)

of the length of the northern boundary for 86 Forrest Street, it is considered that the southern adjoining property would be adversely impacted by way of building bulk.

Furthermore, the height of the boundary wall would be approximately one (1) metre higher than the current dividing fence. Taking into account that this wall would directly abut the only outdoor living area of this southern adjoining property the additional building bulk would be evident particularly from this external habitable space of the adjoining property.


Page 12

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25:

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle;

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

Green Plan 2020: It is noted that two trees on site are proposed to be removed to allow for the construction of the grouped dwelling. It is also recognised that planning approval is generally not required for the removal of trees on private property. CONCLUSION The application is recommended for refusal given the boundary wall discretion is not considered to meet the applicable design principles. Notwithstanding, Planning Committee (PC) may be of the view that the impact of the discretions proposed is negligible and that the application could be supported. In the instance that PC views the proposal favourably, an alternative recommendation for approval is provided below. It is noted that a condition of approval to reduce the width of the garage, or to reconfigure the front half of the grouped dwelling to increase the setback to the southern boundary, could result in the house being impractically narrow to the effect that the garage may not comply with Australian Standard 2890.1 (vehicle manoeuvring) if it is reduced in width by greater than 0.4m. It is not considered unreasonable to effectively shift the design of the front of the dwelling to the extent that the garage is situated to the north, rather than on the southern boundary. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No.5 (Lot 1119) Onslow Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans,

dated 13 June 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. The new vehicle crossover shall be separated a minimum of one (1) metre from the

power pole situated in the road reserve, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0287/16, on plans

dated 13 June 2016, vehicle crossovers shall be constructed in either paving block,


Page 13

concrete, or bitumen to service both grouped dwellings onsite and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0287/16, on plans

dated 13 June 2016, the redundant crossover and kerb located to the northern verge area shall be removed and the verge reinstated to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle and at the expense of the applicant.

6. The northern grouped dwelling on site is to comply with the requirements of the

Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), specifically in relation to the provision of onsite vehicle parking as per clause 5.3.3 of the R-Codes, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to use of the garage, the boundary wall located on the southern boundary shall

be of a clean finish in either;

a. coloured sand render; b. face brick; c. painted surface; or, d. other approved finish

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

Advisory Notes (i) The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered, contain

a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

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

plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;

a. submit amended plans to the City of Fremantle for consideration, or b. submit a request to the City for removal or modification of the infrastructure. This request will be considered independently of any Planning Approval granted, and this Planning Approval should not be taken as approval for removal or modification of any infrastructure within the road reserve.

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

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


Page 14

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No.5 (Lot 1119) Onslow Street, Fremantle, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal would be detrimental to the amenity of the area under clauses 67 (g),

(m) and (y) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 by reason of the adverse building bulk impact and loss of sunlight to the outdoor living area at the southern adjoining property.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 2.4 –

Boundary Walls in Residential Development. COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan To defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that increases the setback of the southern garage boundary wall and reduce overshadowing on the adjoining southern properties. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald


Page 15

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

Cr J Strachan vacated the chamber at 6.14pm and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. Cr J Strachan returned to the meeting at 6.47pm. At 6.15pm the Deputy Presiding Member assumed the chair.

PC1609-02 NO. 52 (LOT 2) ADELAIDE STREET, FREMANTLE -DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN EIGHT (8) STOREY (PLUS BASEMENT) MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (72 X MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, 7 X COMMERCIAL TENANCIES)

Form 1 -

Property Location: No. 52 (Lot 2) Adelaide Street, Fremantle

Application Details: Demolition of existing building and construction of an eight (8) storey (plus basement) mixed use development (72 x Multiple Dwellings, 7 x commercial tenancies)

DAP Name: Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel

Applicant: Taylor Burrell Barnett

Owner: Glenwaye Pty Ltd

LG Reference: DAP004/16

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: A/Manager Development Approvals

Department of Planning File No: DAP/16/01060

Report Date: 9 September 2016

Application Receipt Date: 10 June 2016

Application Process Days: 90 days

Attachment(s): 1: Locality Plans 2: Development Plans 3: Applicants Planning Report 4: Schedule of submission 5. Applicants Legal Advice 6: City’s Legal Advice

Officer Recommendation: That the Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel resolves to: REFUSE DAP Application reference DAP/16/01060 and accompanying plans 10 June 2016 (Plan reference: SK00; SK01; SK02 (site section CC); SK03 (Basement Floor Plan); SK04 (Ground Floor Plan); SK05 (First Floor Plan); SK06 (Second, Fourth, Sixth Floor Plan); SK07 (Third, Fifth, Seventh Floor Plan); SK08 (Roof Plan); SK09 (East Elevation); SK10 (South Elevation – Westgate Mall); SK11 (West Elevation – Westgate Mall); SK12 (North Elevation); SK13 (Section AA); SK14 (Section BB); SK15 (Westgate Mall Conceptual Plan) in accordance with Clause 10.3.1(b) of the City of Local Planning Scheme No. 4, for the following reasons:


Page 16

1. The proposal is inappropriate having regard Clause 1.3.2(e) of Schedule 12 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme 4 which relates to building height.

2. The proposal would be detrimental to the amenity of the area under clause 67(a), (b), (m), (n), (x) and (y) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Background:

Insert Property Address: No. 52 (Lot 2) Adelaide Street, Fremantle

Insert Zoning MRS: Central City

TPS: City Centre

Insert Use Class: Residential: Multiple Dwelling ‘D’ Commercial: Office ‘P’; Shop ‘P’

Insert Strategy Policy: N/A

Insert Development Scheme: City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4

Insert Lot Size: 1,492m2

Insert Existing Land Use: Shop (currently vacant)

Value of Development: $15,840,000

At its meeting of 10 January 2014, the Metro South-West JDAP granted conditional planning approval for the demolition of existing building and construction of seven (7) storey hotel (151 rooms) and ground floor restaurant at No. 52 (Lot 2) Adelaide Street, Fremantle (refer DAP80004/13; DP/13/00823). This approval has not been acted upon, however it remains valid until 16 January 2018 should the approved works be substantially commenced by that date. Details: outline of development application The proposal is for the demolition of the existing building and construction of an eight (8) storey (plus basement) mixed use development (72 x Multiple Dwellings, 7 x commercial tenancies) at No. 52 (Lot 2) Adelaide Street, Fremantle. Specifically, the proposed development comprises of the following: Demolition:

Demolition of the existing building Basement level:

48 car bays (16 tandem, 16 single)

Store rooms;

Incidental amenities/plant equipment. Ground Floor:

19 car bays;

42 bicycle racks;

Store rooms;

Bin storage;

5 x commercial tenancies First Floor:

31 car bays;

2 x commercial tenancies


Page 17

Store rooms

Mechanical plant room Second Floor:

12 x multiple dwellings (4 x 1 bedroom; 7 x 2 bedroom; 1 x 3 bedroom) Third Floor:

12 x multiple dwellings (4 x 1 bedroom; 7 x 2 bedroom; 1 x 3 bedroom) Fourth Floor:

12 x multiple dwellings (4 x 1 bedroom; 7 x 2 bedroom; 1 x 3 bedroom) Fifth Floor:

12 x multiple dwellings (4 x 1 bedroom; 7 x 2 bedroom; 1 x 3 bedroom) Sixth Floor:

12 x multiple dwellings (4 x 1 bedroom; 7 x 2 bedroom; 1 x 3 bedroom) Seventh Floor:

12 x multiple dwellings (4 x 1 bedroom; 7 x 2 bedroom; 1 x 3 bedroom) Overview of proposal:

72 x multiple dwellings (24 x 1 bedroom; 42 x 2 bedroom; 6 x 3 bedroom)

5 x commercial tenancies (634m2)

98 x on-site car parking bays

42 x on-site bicycle racks The development plans are contained as Attachment 2 of this report, and the applicants planning report is contained as Attachment 3. Legislation & policy: The legislative framework and policy base providing for the assessment and determination of the subject application is as follows: 1. Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulation 2015 (WA); 2. City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) – application for development on the

site is to be determined in accordance with provisions of Part 10 of LPS4. Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulation 2015 (WA):

Clause 67 – Matters to be considered by local government; and City of Fremantle LPS4 Provisions: The following Scheme provisions are considered the most relevant in the consideration of the planning application:

Clause 4.2.1(b) - Objectives of the City Centre Zone;

Table 3 – Vehicle parking requirements;

Table 2 – Zoning;

Schedule 12 – Local Planning Area 1 City Centre – Sub Area 1.3.2;

Clause 5.15 - Demolition of Buildings and Structures;

Clause 5.8.1 – Variation to height requirements;


Page 18

Clause 5.8.2 - Variation to other requirements;

Schedule 1 – Dictionary of defined words and expressions;

Clause 11.8 – Design Advisory Committee; State Government Policies:

State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) Local Planning Policies The site is subject to the following relevant Local Planning Policies:

Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3);

Local Planning Policy 1.9 – Design Advisory Committee & Principles Of Design (LPP1.9;

Local Planning Policy 2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines (LPP2.3);

Local Planning Policy 2.13 – Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements (LPP2.13);

Local Planning Policy 2.18 - New Residential Developments in the City Centre Zone - Noise from an Existing Source (LPP2.18);

Local Planning Policy 2.19 – Contribution for Public Art and/or Heritage Works (LPP2.19); and

Local Planning Policy 3.1.5 – Precinct 5 (LPP3.1.5). Consultation: Public Consultation

The planning application was identified as a “Significant Application” as set out in Local Planning Policy LPP1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3). The application was advertised for a period of 28 days. The advertising within this period included:

Sign on site was erected to the frontage of the existing building;

Letter to owners and occupiers within 100 metres of the site;

Advertising of the application occurred on the City’s website;

the Fremantle Inner City Residents Association were informed of the proposal;

Two notices relating to the proposal were placed in the Fremantle Gazette on the 25 June and 2 July 2016.

A Community Information session was held on the 5 July 2016 for a half hour period. Land owners/occupiers within a 100 metre radius of the site and elected members of the City’s Council were invited to attend the Community Information Session. The session was attended by 4-5 members of the public, the applicant and a City of Fremantle Councillor. A total of 5 submissions were received. Specific comments about each submission are included in Attachment 4.

Consultation with State Heritage Office (SHO) Whilst the site is not on the City’s Heritage List or on the State Heritage Register, in accordance with Section 11 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, the application was required to be referred to the State Heritage Office (SHO) as the proposal may affect the following nearby State Registered Heritage Places, being the:

No. 3 Adelaide Street, Fremantle (St John’s Anglican Church);

No. 92 Adelaide Street, Fremantle (Film & Television Institute);

No. 38 Cantonment Street, Fremantle (Elders Woolstores);

No. 47 Adelaide Street, Fremantle (St Patricks Basilica & St Patricks Presbytery);

No. 8 William Street, Fremantle (Fremantle Town Hall);

Cnr Market Street & Cantonment Street, Fremantle (Wesley Church);


Page 19

Cnr Market Street & Elder Place (Taylor Memorial Drinking Fountain & Horse Trough); and

No. 28 Phillimore Street, Fremantle (Fremantle Railway Station). The SHO provided the following comments in relation to the proposal on 23 June 2016:

“Findings

The development is in the block bound by Point, Adelaide, Queen and Cantonment Streets, and there are no registered places in the immediate vicinity.

Princess May Reserve is significant for its role in the development of education, and has high aesthetic value in relation to the design and use of construction materials, and is a landmark of significant value to the community.

St John’s Anglican Church has been an important place of worship from 1843, and its elegant proportions contribute to its aesthetic characteristics and landmark value within the Fremantle civic precinct.

St Patrick’s Basilica and Presbytery has a close association with the Oblate order, and is a landmark in the northern approach to the City as well as contributing to the streetscape qualities of Adelaide Street.

The Fremantle Town Hall is a fine example of Victorian Free Classical civic architecture, and being strategically located at the intersection of William and High Streets it makes a major contribution to the streetscape.

An analysis of street views indicates that the development will not impact the setting of nearby registered places.

Advice

The proposed development does not impact on the identified cultural significance of any registered place in the vicinity.

This advice is given from a heritage perspective to assist the City of Fremantle in its determination of this proposed development. There has been no assessment on the merits or otherwise of the development, which is required to be determined by the decision-making authority.”

Consultation with Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) The site is located within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port buffer area. In accordance with LPP2.3, the Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) was advised of the development proposal. The FPA provided the following comments in relation to the proposal on 23 June 2016:

“The site is located within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port Buffer. The requirements of the City’s local planning policy LPP2.3 Port Buffer Area Design Guidelines (LPP2.3) for Area 2 are applicable. It would be appreciated if these requirements could be included as conditions of approval.”

The guidelines contain specific conditions of approval that are to be applied to developments within Area 2, of which it is recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiring the development comply with those requirements. It is considered the proposed land use, would be a sensitive land use as prescribed by LPP2.3. On this basis is it recommended that a condition be imposed requiring a Section 70A notification be imposed on the Certificate of Title notifying the owner and future owners of the potential amenity impacts associated with the sites proximity to the port. Consultation with the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC)


Page 20

The proposal has been presented to the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) on 2 occasions:

14 March 2016 – Concept designs only; and

18 July 2016 – same plans as submitted as part of this JDAP application. A summary of the comments from those DAC meetings are reproduced below: DAC meeting of 14 March 2016:

“CABE DESIGN PRINCIPLES CHARACTER

To help inform the building and façade design there needs to be a contextual analysis of the surrounding precinct and streetscape.

EASE OF MOVEMENT, ADAPTABILITY & DIVERSITY, APPROPRIATENESS OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES

The above issues did not arise during the presentation. QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM

What is the proposed permanent use of the ground floor “commercial” tenancies? While the intent to trial short term food and beverage pop up uses is acknowledged, any planning application lodged should include active ground floor commercial uses (for example office use does not offer a high level of activation).

There should be studies done in section that explore the quality of the contained spaces that form the mall and the outlook from the apartments, with appropriate consideration given to the height and bulk of likely future development on the opposite and adjacent sites.

LEGIBILITY & CONTINUITY AND ENCLOSURE

As above, an analysis is needed to test how the proposal will be affected by the development of the adjoining sites with zero lot setbacks.

It is recommended that an investigation be conducted that explores how this project may act as a catalyst to unlock the future potential of Westgate Mall and encourage higher pedestrian movement.

OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY The design matters below need further consideration:

Location of store rooms along internal access corridors

Very long corridor length

Some ill-considered apartment entry door locations

The car park located on the first floor overlooking the pedestrian access way does not offer any opportunity for casual surveillance of an area known for antisocial behavior. There was encouragement to sleeve the first floor car park facing the mall with small apartments

Resolution of potential privacy issues between the communal terrace and adjoining apartments


Page 21

GENERAL COMMENTS

From a statutory planning perspective it is understood that the lack of a front street setback of the upper floor as required by the scheme is not likely to be supported.

DESIGN ASSESSMENT WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS

The significant majority of apartments have access to direct sunlight and there are no internalised rooms

The design of the façade is promising in terms of proposed materials and modulation.

HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED

Location and length of corridor access to the northern fire stair compromises the development.

The reduction in car parking numbers and/or the use of car stackers would reduce the current poor outcome in which the first floor car parking forms the edge to Westgate Mall

The apartment internal planning needs further refinement, for example, reconsider the location of awkward nib walls.

Matters raised in the overall design quality and functionality section above. RECOMMENDATION The design is at concept stage only and the Committee is not in a position to recommended support or not.”

DAC meeting of 18 July 2016:

“The Committee acknowledges that the applicant has taken into account some of the previous comments made by the Committee and made improvements to the design specifically relating to: 1. Increasing access to natural light from the central access corridor; 2. Introduction of commercial spaces on the first floor fronting the mall to improve activation

and casual surveillance; 3. Internal apartment design have been improved by the removal of awkward (delete) nib

walls; 4. Ground floor tenancies now incorporate more active uses; 5. Privacy of the apartments adjacent to the landscape communal terrace has been

improved through 1.8m high privacy screens. CABE DESIGN PRINCIPLES CHARACTER The requested contextual analysis of the surrounding streetscape to help inform the building and façade design has not been completed. Nevertheless, the façade design is considered acceptable subject to some minor changes as detailed further below. LEGIBILITY & CONTINUITY AND ENCLOSURE


Page 22

The incorporation of more active uses on the ground floor and the addition of more commercial space on the first floor fronting the mall is supported. OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY The majority of the design matters previous raised have been adequately addressed. DESIGN ASSESSMENT

HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED

Further improvements could be made to the design however, that include:

1. Additional articulation to the mall façade. Previous elevations indicated planter box protrusions to bedroom windows. Whilst it’s not possible to retain these to the bedrooms, the approach could be applied to the living room balconies that front the mall.

2. Increased height of the ground floor to ceiling heights from 3.8m to closer to 4.5m as required by the scheme.

3. Further consideration of the landscape terrace on the second floor regards arrangements and plant types i.e. how to better address privacy to ground floor units and which species will best tolerate shade.

4. The reintroduction of planting into the facade design is strongly encouraged. 5. Reconsideration of the location/access to the bike store with a view to making access

to the store more direct and practical. 6. Reconsideration of the design of the fire escape stairs on the ground floor having

regard to designing out crime principles, whilst ensuring the residential entry remains legible and attractive.

7. The provision of continuous weather protection in the form of more substantial awnings to the ground floor tenancies.

RECOMMENDATION

The proposal is supported subject to the following condition:

Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit the following information to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle having regard to advice from the Design Advisory Committee:

1. Additional detail relating to colour, texture and material arrangement for final facade finishes.

2. Additional articulation to the mall façades, for example planter box protrusions could be applied living space balconies that front the mall.

3. Increased height of the ground floor to ceiling heights from 3.8m to closer to 4.5m as required by the scheme.

4. Further consideration of the landscape terrace on the second floor regards privacy arrangements and plant types.

5. The reintroduction of planting into the facade design is strongly encouraged.

6. Reconsideration of the location/access to the bike store with a view to making access to the store more direct and practical.

7. Reconsideration of the design of the fire escape stairs on the ground floor having regard to designing out crime principles, whilst ensuring the residential entry remains legible and attractive.

8. The provision of continuous weather protection in the form of more substantial awnings to the ground floor tenancies.”


Page 23

Internal Referral comments City’s Parks and Landscape Department The following comments were raised by the City’s Parks and Gardens Department:

1) Adelaide, Point and Queens Streets are part of the current City’s Streetscape Development Project.

2) Fire Cabinet /booster – as per FESA requirement – developer is to ensure free access to

fire cabinet by emergency services from the street. No trees, furniture etc to be removed or installed within FESA clearance access.

3) City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 2.1.13 Sustainable Buildings and 5.4:

Proposed building needs to be designed to allow circulation of cooling sea breezes throughout corridors and common areas to be optimised to minimise heat retention, air conditioner use reduced and higher comfort of residents ensured;

Storm water runoff treatment and containment within the development.

Where treated storm water runoff is drained into the proposed terrace gardens and landscaped areas, these shall be maintained by the building owners.

The reminder of storm water runoff is not to be connected to the City’s drainage network;

Retain existing mature trees in the Mall; (in particularly (Cussonia sp.)

No vegetation to be removed without prior approval of the Parks Manager.

During construction works retained trees to be protected in accordance with AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees in development sites.

4) The cost of provision of upgrades for public realm needs to include the cost of removal of

all existing structures, including but not limited to trees, seating, planter boxes, bins in communication with the City’s Parks Team.

5) Upgrades need to include installation of appropriate lighting for the Mall 6) Entry banner ‘West Gate Mall’ is to be reinstated and integrated with the cultural context.

7) Developer must ensure removal of the existing Mall roof, doesn’t detrimentally impact

other premises in the Mall. Many of the comments above are not considered to fall within to scope of the application being considered, that being that no development within the Westgate Mall forms part of this planning approval. Other comments relating to architecture are considered to have been addressed by Council’s DAC in their consideration of the architectural merit and design of the proposal. It will be recommended that an advice note be imposed regarding protection of existing trees during construction. City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Department The following comments were raised by the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Department:

1. Width of driveway does not comply with AS/NZS 2890.1 off street parking (5.5m

minimum) 2. Pedestrian safety sight lines at Point St. With the extra trips generated by this

development, this aspect should be improved. 3. Waste/rubbish management plan to be provided. Show collection point for 14

1100L bins.


Page 24

In relation to point 1 above, the proposal shows that vehicle entry to the site off the Point Place Right of Way (ROW) as being 4.8m in width. The City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Department have stated that this is insufficient as it is required to be a minimum of 5.5m. It will be recommended in the alternative recommendation that a condition of approval require this to be addressed prior to issue of a building permit. In relation to point 2 above, it is noted that the Point Place Right of Way (ROW) which provides vehicle access from the subject site to Point Street is managed by the City of Fremantle. It is considered unreasonable to require the applicant to upgrade Point Place as it currently exists and is the responsibility of the City, not the applicant. It will be recommended an advice note be placed on any approval encouraging the applicant to liaise with the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Department to come up with suitable arrangements regarding this issue. In relation to point 3 above, it will be recommended that a condition of approval in the alternative recommendation requires the submission of a waste management plan.

City’s Heritage Department

In accordance with Clause 5.15 of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessments (LPP1.6), a Heritage Assessment was required to be undertaken as the proposal includes the demolition of the existing building on site. The heritage assessment from the previous JDAP in 2013 application is still considered relevant, of which found the place to be of ‘limited’ cultural heritage significance. This is discussed further in detail in the ‘Planning Assessment: Demolition’ section of this report.

Planning assessment: Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) Demolition Under the provisions of Clause 5.15.1 of LPS4, Council will only grant Planning Approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

“(a) Has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and

(b) Does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality in which it is located.”

The Heritage Assessment from 2013 concluded that:

“Although maybe considered as an example of 1960s commercial development in Fremantle, overall the building at 52 Adelaide Street is of no particular architectural merit and is considered to be below threshold to warrant inclusion on the Heritage List and is of Limited Significance.

The building has been determined of limited significance and there is no significant fabric that will be lost due to its demolition.”

In this regard, the proposed demolition of the existing building should be supported as the Heritage Assessment findings satisfy Clause 5.15.1 (a) and (b). Land use


Page 25

Clause 4.2.1 of LPS4 provides objectives for each zone, with Clause 4.2.1(b) stating that the objectives of the ‘City Centre’ zone are:

“Development within the city centre zone shall—

(i) provide for a full range of shopping, office, administrative, social, recreation, entertainment and community services, consistent with the region-serving role of the centre and including residential uses, and

(ii) comply with the objectives of local planning area 1 of schedule 12,

(iii) conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by development.” As will be discussed throughout the remaining ‘Planning Comment’ section, the proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the City Centre zone, specifically in relation to (i) and (iii) above. In relation to (ii) above, it is noted that there are no ‘objectives’ specified for local planning area 1 of Schedule 12 of LPS4. Height Height is the biggest issue associated with this proposal and warrants the most consideration by JDAP. The subject site is located within Local Planning Area 1 – City Centre (sub area 1.3.2) of Schedule 12 of the City’s LPS4. Within this sub area 1.3.2, the subject site is located within ‘site 4’. There are 18 sites within sub area 1.3.2, all of which have unique development standards, specifically in relation to height. Sub area 1.3.2 effectively provides for (1) ‘permitted building heights’; (2) ‘discretionary building heights’ (which have to satisfy two specific criteria); and (3) ‘maximum building heights’ (which have to meet a variety of specific criteria). For the subject site, being ‘site 4’, the following heights are contemplated:

Permitted Building Height (Metres)

Building Height (Metres) which may be permitted subject to the development satisfying both of the following criteria–

Maximum Building Height (Metres) which may be permitted in accordance with clause (f)

(i) The portion of building exceeding the Permitted Building Height being sufficiently set back from the street facade so as to not be visible from the street(s) and/or public open space(s) adjoining the site; and

(ii) The design of the portion of building exceeding the Permitted Building Height being integrated with the design of the overall building.

21 24.5* 35.3**


Page 26

Notes: * This is not available for this proposal, as the proposal doesn’t meet (i) and (ii) ** This is not available for this proposal, as one of the requirements requires the site to be at least 3,000m2 in area as a prerequisite Given the above, the following outlines how the proposed height fits in with the available building heights, granted that both its height and design do no lend itself to the 24.5m contemplated above.

Permitted Proposed Discretion

21.00m 25.90m 4.90m

As the proposal exceeds the maximum permitted height of sub area 1.3.2 of schedule 12 of LPS4, the proposal is required to be assessed against clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 which states:

“Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 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 properties or the locality generally,

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

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

(d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.” Importantly, for discretion of clause 5.8.1 to be ‘triggered’ one the following must occur:

1) The subject site must contain a building that depicts a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12; or

2) The subject site must be adjacent to a building that depicts a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12

Should neither of the above occur, the discretion afforded by clause 5.8.1 to vary the height requirements as set out in schedule 12 are not available, in which case the proposal does not comply and must legally be refused. Any approval issued without the above clauses being satisfied, may be beyond legal power i.e. an ultra vires decision. The subject site is currently improved by predominantly two storey building (approximate building height between 11m and 14.7m), with a four storey element in the northern portion of the site (approximate building height 18.2m). The proposal therefore fails to ‘trigger’ one of the options to apply the discretionary criteria. The property across the road being No. 23 Adelaide Street (otherwise known as ‘Johnson Court’) is one of the tallest buildings in the City Centre zone with a building height of 26.748m. Importantly, for the purposes of considering 5.8.1, Johnson Court is considered to be an ‘adjacent’ building. This alone does not mean that this ‘triggers’ clause 5.8.1, rather that it enables investigation as to whether it depicts a height greater than that prescribed by clause 1.3.2 of Schedule 12 of LPS4. In this regard, Johnson Court is located within ‘site 6a’ as prescribed by clause 1.3.2 of Schedule 12 of LPS4, where the following heights are contemplated:


Page 27

Permitted Building Height (Metres)

Building Height (Metres) which may be permitted subject to the development satisfying both of the following criteria–

Maximum Building Height (Metres) which may be permitted in accordance with clause (f)

(i) The portion of building exceeding the Permitted Building Height being sufficiently set back from the street facade so as to not be visible from the street(s) and/or public open space(s) adjoining the site; and

(ii) The design of the portion of building exceeding the Permitted Building Height being integrated with the design of the overall building.

21 24.5 31.7

It is noted that Johnson Court existed well before the height provisions detailed above came into effect when Amendment 49 to LPS4 was gazetted on 18 January 2013. The key issue in considering this application, and one where there has been legal advice provided by solicitors acting on behalf of the applicant and the City’s solicitors, providing contradictory legal positions, is whether Johnson Court depicts a height greater depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12. The applicant’s legal advice is contained as Attachment 4; whilst the City’s legal advice is contained as Attachment 5 of this report. Essentially, the two opposing legal positions are that:

The applicants legal advice contends that a 5.8.1 assessment can be legally triggered;

The City’s legal advice contends that a 5.8.1 assessment cannot be legally triggered. Applicant’s Legal Advice The following excerpt is from the Applicant’s legal advice (underlined for emphasis):

“15 In summary, it would appear, on a reading of LPS4 as a whole, the following can be said about height restrictions in Precinct 4 -

15.1 The as of right position is that development can be 21 metres;

15.2 That can be extended to 24.5 metres where the criteria set out in column 3 of Schedule 12 are satisfied;

15.3 That can be extended to 35.3 metres where the criteria set out in column 4 and paragraph (f) of Schedule 12 are satisfied;

15.4 The only circumstances where a variation may be applied that does not satisfy the criteria set out in either column 3 or 4 is where -

15.4.1 the site contains or is adjacent to a building which is higher than those heights imposed in Schedule 12; or

15.4.2 the site is listed on Heritage List under LPS4 or the State Register, and the development proposes the enhancement and preservation of that place (see clause 7.5).


Page 28

16 You have advised that there is in fact an adjacent over-height building (Johnson Court) which is immediately across the road from 52 Adelaide Street. The purpose behind allowing a variation where there is a building with a higher height is presumably the fact that the existing amenity of the area already includes buildings of a certain height, and therefore the existing amenity will not be adversely affected by any other buildings of similar height.

17 In determining whether to exercise the variation in clause 5.8.1.1., the following criteria must be satisfied -

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

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

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

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

18 On the basis of the existence of Johnson Court, on my assessment it appears that there is a power of variation available, pursuant to clause 5.8.1.1.”

The applicants legal advice does not specify whether they are stating that Johnson Court (at 26.748m) exceeds the (1) ‘permitted building heights’; (2) ‘discretionary building heights’ (which have to satisfy two specific criteria); and (3) ‘maximum building heights’ (which have to meet a variety of specific criteria) applicable either to the subject site (52 Adelaide Street) or to Johnson Court. It is assumed however, that as both sites have the same (1) ‘permitted building heights’ (21m); and (2) ‘discretionary building heights’ (24.5m - which have to satisfy two specific criteria) that the advice caters for both sites. Put simply, the applicant’s legal advice is merely stating that Johnson Court exceeds either 21m or 24.5m (or both). It is noted that both sites have different (3) ‘maximum building heights’ (which have to meet a variety of specific criteria), being 35.3m for the subject site and 31.7m for Johnson Court. Importantly, the existing Johnson Court at only 26.748m does not exceed the maximum permitted on either of the two sites. City’s Legal Advice The following excerpt is from the City’s legal advice (underlined for emphasis):

“The final matter arising with respect to clause 5.8.1.1 is to which of the specific height requirements in the table included in clause 1.3.2 of Schedule 12 does the variation power apply? The power in clause 5.8.1.1 is to vary ‘maximum height requirements’. The table in clause 1.3.2 prescribes a ‘maximum building height’ of 35.3m. The two other heights referred in the table are both permitted building heights. Consequently, it is consistent with the language of clause 5.8.1.1 for the power in clause 5.8.1.1 to only apply to variations of the maximum building height in column 4 (35.3m) and not to the two permitted building heights of 21m and 24.5m, respectively.

This interpretation is supported by the provisions of clause 1.3.2 itself. The starting point is that column 2 specifies permitted building height of 21m. The second permitted building height of 24.5m in column 3 specifies 2 criteria which must be satisfied in relation to ‘the portion of the building exceeding the Permitted Building Height’, which is plainly a reference back to the permitted building height in column 2. This height could be exceeded by any height between 21m to the limit of 24.5m in column 3. The effect of column 3 is to enable buildings to exceed 21m up to a permitted height of no more than 24.5m if the two criteria in column 3 are met.


Page 29

The relationship between column 3 (24.5m) and column 4 (maximum building height of 35.3m) works in a similar way. For a building with a height between 24.6m and 35.3m, the requirements of column 4 must be satisfied. This is evident from the beginning sentence of paragraph (f) which states that ‘the Council may, at its discretion, permit up to the maximum building height as set out in clause (e)’. The clear function of column 4 and paragraph (f) to which it refers is to allow buildings to exceed the permitted building height of 24.5m referred to in column 3 up to a maximum of 35.3m.

The role of clause 5.8.1.1 is to enable heights above the maximum building height of 35.3m to be achieved if the criteria in paragraphs (a) to (d) are met. This is consistent with the reference in clause 5.8.1.1 to Council’s ability to vary the maximum height requirements.

For these reasons, the discretion in clause 5.8.1.1 is only available where building height is proposed above a maximum of 35.3m, which is not the case in this instance. It follows that clause 5.8.1.1 cannot be used to approve a building height of 25.9m on the Development Site. The only means by which the proposed building could be approved with this height is if it satisfied the maximum building height requirements referred to in column 4 (ie those in paragraph (f)). As the first of these requirements (site area of at least 3,000m2) is not satisfied, the building cannot be approved.”

It is clear from the City’s legal advice above, that clause 5.8.1, where it states (underlined for emphasis):

“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.”

The most prudent matter contended in the City’s legal advice in relation to the above is that:

“The power in clause 5.8.1.1 is to vary ‘maximum height requirements’. The table in clause 1.3.2 prescribes a ‘maximum building height’ of 35.3m. The two other heights referred in the table are both permitted building heights. Consequently, it is consistent with the language of clause 5.8.1.1 for the power in clause 5.8.1.1 to only apply to variations of the maximum building height in column 4 (35.3m) and not to the two permitted building heights of 21m and 24.5m, respectively.”

The City’s position therefore is that clause 5.8.1 which provides discretion to the maximum building heights on-site as prescribed by clause 1.3.2 of Schedule 12 of LPS4 is not legally available, and the application must therefore be refused. Notwithstanding this , given that JDAP has legal advice providing two opposing positions on the ability to ‘trigger’ and therefore contemplate a clause 5.8.1 assessment, an assessment will also be undertaken should JDAP consider that a clause 5.8.1 assessment can indeed be triggered – in accordance with the legal advice from the applicant. Clause 5.8.1 of the scheme states:

“Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 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 properties or the locality generally,

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


Page 30

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

(d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.” With regards to (a) above, the height variation is not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties for the reasons to be outlined below. As noted earlier in this report, the site is located 30m west of Johnson Court, which has a building height of 26.748m, which is taller than what is proposed. The proximity of Johnson Court to the subject site, whereby it is only separated by the Adelaide Street road reserve, coupled with the orientation of Johnson Court itself, means that the bulk and scale of Johnson Court is effectively carried to the west by the proposed building. If Johnson Court wasn’t in such close proximity to the site, it would be considered difficult to contemplate how the proposal wouldn’t be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties, particularly in how graduation of height occurs to adjoining buildings. To the north, it is noted that the proposed 8 storeys does not extend for the full width of the northern boundary which itself is 36m in length. Only 10.5m (29%) is comprised of the 8 storey element, with the balance no greater than 2 storeys (landscape terrace), with any 8 storey element setback 4.25m from the boundary 25.5m (71%). This is considered to significantly assist in ameliorating any perceived building bulk impacts upon the northern adjoining property. The site abuts Westgate Mall to the north-west and the south, of which is approximately 9.13m wide. This is considered serve and act as a natural ‘buffer’ to adjoining properties on the other side of the mall to the site, which reduces perceived impacts by way of building bulk. It is also noted that the abutting property to the north, depending upon the type of future development and land use may have nil setbacks to the common boundary, potentially up to 24.5m as permitted by the Scheme. This may further reduce any building bulk issues presented from the northern elevation of the proposed development as it will effectively be blocked out by any future building. In considering the above, it is important to note that on the subject site, clause 1.3.2(h) of schedule 12 of LPS4 requires all development to have to have minimum nil setbacks to all boundaries. It is therefore assumed that if one was to propose a development fully compliant with permitted heights (21m or 24.5m) on the subject site, that in combination with nil setbacks that building bulk issues are assumed to be deemed acceptable. The proposal is fully compliant with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements as they apply for visual privacy. There are no specified ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements for solar access/overshadowing in areas coded R-AC3. Notwithstanding, any shadow cast extending beyond the Westgate Mall will only affect a commercial property, one that is not improved by any residential dwellings. In this regard, the proposal would meet the ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes. In light of the above, it is considered that the circumstances of the site, particularly its proximity to Johnson Court and how the site abuts Westgate Mall on multiple lot boundary interfaces, that these factors significantly contribute to satisfying (a). In relation to (b), this assessment needs to be considered as the development is viewed from various aspects. It is noted that the predominant scale of the tallest building in the immediate locality, being Johnson Court is predominantly east-west as is demonstrated in Figure 1 below. Johnson Court is a relatively narrow building in its north-south cross section but is considered to be of considerable scale when viewed from south or north of the site. Johnson Court is considered to be an anomaly in terms of the existing built form patterns within the immediate locality of the site, in terms of both its height and scale. The lack of other buildings commensurate with the scale and height of Johnson Court are considered to exacerbate the buildings’ current dominating visual impact within the locality. In this regard, it could be


Page 31

considered that introducing a lower height building, of similar scale and within close proximity (30m west) could serve to improve how Johnson Court graduates its scale in the locality.

Figure 1

The proposed additional height of 1.4m over what is permitted, specifically at the rear (western elevation), equates to an extra 45.12m2 of ‘building bulk’ based on the width of the lot as it presents to that aspect of the Westgate Mall. It is noted that the applicant has proposed the upper level to be finished with an alternative material to the predominant external finish, which does serve to break up the bulk and scale. The development incorporates a number of window openings and balcony openings. The balcony openings on the upper most floor on the western elevation account for 39% of the width of the building, with the balconies between 2.625m and 3.7m in depth from the external face of the building. When combined with the similar characteristics of the floors immediately below it, in terms of bulk and scale, the proposal may present less physical bulk and scale than a compliant 24.5m high western elevation on this site. The table below depicts a number of tall buildings within the locality (approximately 200m) of the subject site. It is considered that the buildings below could be read in the same context of the subject site when considering the locality, notably when Adelaide Street is the reference point, where the subject site would be likely visible from.

Address Building height Relative direction Distance from site

23 Adelaide Street 26.748m East 30m

22 Queen Street ~18.1m South 50m

8 Point Street* 24.5m North 60m

1 Goldsborough Street ~18.9m North 130m

2 Newman Court ~19.00m South 175m

68 Elder Place ~18.7m North 175m

47 Adelaide Street 20.5m North 190m


Page 32

185 High Street ~20.1m South-east 200m

10-14 William Street ~22.2m South 205m

120 High Street 18.42m South-west 210m

Queensgate Carpark ~22.5m South 220m

Average ~20.88m - 149.5m

*Based on approved DA, approval has been substantially commenced – construction yet to commence It is considered that in the context of the locality as detailed above, that the proposal could be seen to effectively graduate the scale between buildings of varying heights in the locality. Therefore, it is considered that (b) could be considered supportable, on balance. Notwithstanding the above, JDAP may wish to consider the diagrams below which have been prepared by the City to provide a visual context to portray:

How the building on-site reads today in a broader context (Figure 2); and

How the proposed building fits in with the broader locality as it exists today (Figure 3); and

How the proposed building fits in with the broader locality based on the approximate heights contemplated on different sites in this sub area 1.3.2 (Figure 4). Figure 4 should be viewed as an approximation only, as heights are dependent on a range of criteria and in some cases site-specific requirements. There are minimum prescribed setbacks to side and rear boundaries, but not maximums. In this regard, it is possible that the ultimate ‘building envelopes’ may not be maximised as is detailed in Figure 4.

Figure 2


Page 33

Figure 3

Figure 4

In relation to (c), it is not considered to present any detrimental impact in terms of heritage as the site is not individually listed and there are not any heritage listed places in the street block or in close proximity to the site. In relation to (d), as will be discussed later in this report, the proposal is considered to either comply with, is generally consistent with, or will otherwise be recommended to be appropriately conditioned so as to comply with relevant Local Planning Policies.. It is considered that if JDAP were of the mind that clause 5.8.1 was able to be triggered legally, that there the proposal could be supported, on-balance for the reasons outlined above. Minor Projection It is common for ‘minor projections’ such as plant, air conditioning units and lift overruns to extend above the external wall or roof ridge height of a multi storey development such as this. Clause 5.8.1.3 of LPS4 relates to minor projections


Page 34

“Excluding development within the Residential zone, Council may permit a minor projection above the highest part of a development, subject to the development satisfying both of the following criteria–

(a) The minor projection being no more than 4 metres above the highest part of the main building structure; and

(b) The cumulative area of the minor projection being no more than 10 per cent of the total roof area of the building.

For the purpose of this clause, ‘minor projection’ will be interpreted as including plant and equipment such as air conditioning units, lift overrun rooms, flagpoles, aerials and decorative architectural features, but not rooms or other facilities intended for regular human use such as rooftop decks or swimming pools.”

The City is mindful that should this proposal be approved in its current form, that once the applicant begins working drawings it may be necessary to place some plant and lift overruns extending above the external wall or roof ridge height. As there was no such detail provided for in the plans submitted, owing to the applicant providing alternative design solutions, the City sought clarification from the applicant if they wanted the flexibility afforded by clause 5.8.1.3 as a condition of any approval. The applicant provided the following response:

“With regard to the plant room and elevator overrun, the project Architect has advised that this can typically be provided beneath the roof, however, to allow some flexibility we agree to an appropriately worded condition. This is obviously detail, so will be resolved when the working drawings are prepared.”

As the clause says that Council ‘may’ permit this, it is discretionary, even if the design satisfies (a) and (b). Nevertheless, a condition of approval to this effect has been prepared as part of the alternative recommendation for approval. First level height Clause 1.3.2(g) of Schedule 12 of LPS4 states:

“In the front elevation of all new development the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath and the first floor level must be at least 4.5 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.”

Whilst the proposed ground floor level is less than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath which is consistent with the above provisions, the first floor level does not meet the minimum 4.5m requirement, with 3.8m proposed. The proposal is therefore seeking discretion and requires assessment against clause 5.8.2 of LPS4 which states:

“The Council may vary other requirements of the Scheme subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following: (a) the variation will not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or with

the locality generally; (b) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining; and (c) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.”

The applicant provided the following justification as to why this discretion should be supported:

“The Westgate Mall / Adelaide Street corner presents to the street as a single floor exceeding the required height in order to provide a prominent entry to the building. This corner represents as an impressive front entry to the building which is clearly identifiable. The remainder of the Adelaide Street frontage is of a high standard consistent with the scale of adjoining development.”


Page 35

In relation to (a), discussion will be broken into two elements:

Whether the variation will be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties; or

Whether the variation will be detrimental to the amenity of locality generally. In terms of whether the variation will be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties, it is considered that for the purposes of this discussion, that the adjoining properties are those either side of the site, fronting the same street – as these two buildings can be read in the same context of the subject site. These properties are No. 2 (Lot 1) Queen Street (to the south of Westgate Mall); and No. 54 (Lot 3) Adelaide Street.

No. 2 (Lot 1) Queen Street is a two storey commercial building with approximately 4.25m for its ground floor;

No. 54 (Lot 3) Adelaide Street is a single storey commercial building with approximately 4.00m for its ground level;

In light of the above, JDAP may consider that imposing the 4.5m ground floor requirement would not be consistent with the existing built form on the adjoining properties as neither of them reach 4.5m. It could therefore be argued that 4.5m would be out of keeping with the ground floor heights with adjoining properties and that 3.8m could be considered more appropriate in this context. It would be considered that the first floor height should not be any less than on adjoining properties however, to ensure that it is compatible with existing built form, and therefore this would necessitate the proposal have at least 4.00m in lieu of the 3.80m currently proposed. In terms of whether the variation will be detrimental to the amenity of locality generally, the minimum 4.5m above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site requirement is a requirement that is applicable to all of the 18 sites within sub area 1.3.2 of schedule 12 of LPS4. There have been approximately five planning approvals issued for large scale developments within these 18 sites, all of which have been able to provide for the 4.5m first floor requirement. Only one of these approvals has been substantially commenced. In this regard, the City considers that allowing 3.8m may be detrimental to the amenity of the locality generally given that all planning approvals within this sub area to date have been able to achieve the 4.5m requirement. It is acknowledged that there is no guarantee when those planning approvals will be acted upon, or if they will. It can be said however though, if they are that it is reasonable to expect that there will be a number of new developments and buildings which will meet the 4.5m requirement and represent the future built form of the locality. In this regard, it is probable that by not meeting the 4.5m requirement that it would be detrimental to the locality generally, should the other approved developments be ultimately constructed. Recently developments at No. 1 Beach Street and No. 51 Queen Victoria Street were approved by JDAP with a reduced first floor level of 4.1m, and 4.0 to 4.3m respectively. It is acknowledged that the development on this site is in a different streetscape and will therefore have minimal contribution to the development at No. 1 Beach Street and No. 51 Queen Victoria Street, however this JDAP decision is considered to be a precedent for supporting a minor reduction in ground floor ceiling heights. In relation to (b), it is not considered to present any detrimental impact in terms of heritage as the site is not individually listed and there are not any heritage listed places in the street block or in close proximity to the site. It is also clear that the minimum 4.5m above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site requirement is desirable from both an urban design and architectural perspective as well, as one of the conditions recommended by DAC was that prior to the issue of a building permit that the proposal be modified so as to propose an “Increased height of the ground floor to ceiling heights from 3.8m to closer to 4.5m as required by the scheme.” It is noted that the wording of the DAC’s


Page 36

comments did not explicitly specify an increase to 4.5m; rather that the current 3.8m be pushed ‘closer’ to 4.5m. This could be taken a number of ways and could potentially include:

A nominal increase (ie 3.81m);

A mediated approach – ‘meet halfway’ (ie 4.15m);

An averaged approach based on heights on the two adjoining properties (ie 4.25m or 4.00m or averaged 4.125m)

A complete approach (ie 4.50m). It is considered that the applicant has effectively attempted to squeeze another ‘half’ of a storey (effectively being the 8th storey) into the development, and that this has been greatly assisted by not providing 4.5m from the ground to the first level. If there was a requirement to increase to 4.5m from the ground to the first level the overall building height will likely increase from 25.9m by 700mm up to 26.6m. It is considered that the inability of the proposal to meet the 4.5m requirement exacerbates the overall building height discretion, given the number of storeys that the development proposes in its current form. In this regard, requiring changes as per the draft condition discussed below, allowing the applicant to retain the current heights and ‘lifting’ the design by 700mm will likely result in a further exacerbation of the height issue discussed earlier in this report. It must therefore be appreciated that should there be a requirement to lift the 3.8m to anything closer to 4.5m will likely result in some increase in the overall height, unless the applicant can make other design changes to ensure that the overall height as currently proposed at 25.9m remains unaltered. In relation to (c), as will be discussed later in this report, the proposal is considered to either comply with, is generally consistent with, or will otherwise be recommended to be appropriately conditioned so as to comply with relevant Local Planning Policies, including LPP3.1.5. On balance, it is considered that this discretion warrants approval subject to modifications being made to the first floor height increasing it from 3.80m closer to 4.50m, which is consistent with the advice received by the DAC. The ultimate amount within this range will be at the discretion of the JDAP, given the advice provided for above. It is noted that the development already approved by the Metro South-West JDAP (demolition of existing building and construction of seven (7) storey hotel (151 rooms) and ground floor restaurant at No. 52 (Lot 2) Adelaide Street, Fremantle (refer DAP80004/13; DP/13/00823)) complied with the 24.5m permitted as it satisfied (i) and (ii) in order to access the ‘bonus’ 3.5m above the permitted 21m. This also achieved the minimum required 4.5m first floor height, and then had floor to floor heights of 3.1m. If JDAP was of the view to require the plans be modified so as to comply with the requirement for the first floor to be a minimum 4.5m above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site, this may result in the following issues:

Likely increase the overall building height by 700mm up to 26.60m, which, whilst is still less than Johnson Court across the road (26.748m) it will further reduce any perceived ‘graduation’ between the two buildings and therefore make it more difficult to support if JDAP were to consider approving the discretionary height assessment under clause 5.8.1 of LPS4; and

It may substantially change the design of the development, requiring substantial design and construction changes to things such as the car parking layout and ramps internally.

Notwithstanding this, if JDAP were happy with the above, a condition of approval could be imposed, to be read as follows:


Page 37

“Prior to issue of a Building Permit, the development approved as part of DAP/16/01060, on plans dated 10 June 2016 be amended so that the first floor level must be at least 4.5 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site in accordance with clause 1.3.2(g) of schedule 12 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, whilst ensuring that overall building height not exceed 26.60m (AHD 30.70m), to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.”

Taking into consideration DAC’s advice as discussed earlier in this section, JDAP could specify the minimum requirement for the first floor level, whether it is 4.5m or anything from above 3.8m up to 4.5m. Whatever JDAP may decide upon, would require that the figures underlined above to be addressed the desired figures. Car Parking The proposal complies in terms of car parking, as outlined in the table below.

Required Proposed Discretion

Residential (multiple dwellings) 73.5* 88 Nil

Commercial (office/shop) 24.25 10 Nil

Total 97.75 (98) 98 Nil

*Note: R-Codes requires an 18 on-site visitor bays, however 1.3.2 of Schedule 12 of LPS4 exempts this requirement. Bicycle parking The proposal complies in terms of on-site bicycle parking, as outlined in the table below.


Residential (multiple dwellings) 32 - Nil

Commercial (office/shop) 3* - Nil

Total 35 42 Nil

*Note: class 3 bicycle racks required Notwithstanding the proposal complying with the relevant on-site bicycle parking requirements, it will be recommended that it be imposed as a condition of approval to ensure compliance. Residential Design Codes The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the R-Codes and is considered to meet the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements where applicable. Local Planning Policies LPP2.13 – Sustainable Building Design Requirements

The applicant has advised that in relation to sustainable building design:

“With the incorporation of proposed environmental sustainability features the development will be designed to the required Green Star rating.”

This is consistent with the wording of the standard planning approval conditions that allows a 4 star green star equivalent. On this basis it is recommended that a condition of Planning Approval be imposed requiring the development to adhere to the requirements of Clause 3.1 of Council’s LPP2.13 in the alternative recommendation.


Page 38

LPP2.18 - New Residential Developments in the City Centre Zone - Noise from an existing source

The applicant has advised that they acknowledge the requirements of LPP 2.18 and that:

“Any proposed development shall demonstrate it meets the design measure requirements for external openings (windows and doors), external walls and floors and ceilings. Variation to these requirements may be considered at the discretion of Council subject to an acoustic assessment being undertaken. It is also likely that a Section 70A notification be imposed on the Certificate of Title. These requirements will be satisfactorily addressed at the detailed design building permit stage.”

On this basis it is recommended that a condition of Planning Approval be imposed requiring the development to adhere to the requirements of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 of Council’s LPP2.18 in the alternative recommendation. LPP2.19 – Contributions for Public Art and/or Heritage Works

The applicant has advised that:

“Council may waive the requirement for the public art/heritage work contribution in accordance with clause 6 of L.P.P2.19 where the development incorporates public art in the development to the same value as required by the above clause that is located in a position clearly visible to the general public on the site of the development. The proposed development will act as a catalyst for the rejuvenation of the Westgate Mall. It is proposed that this space is activated through the provision of hard and soft landscaping and public art installation(s). Conceptual designs for the reactivation of Westgate Mall are to be discussed in further detail with the City of Fremantle.”

Given that there are no immediate plans for the wholesale redevelopment or revitalisation of the Westgate Mall, it is not considered appropriate to use clause 6 of LPP2.19. It is therefore recommended that a condition of Planning Approval be imposed requiring the development to adhere to the requirements of Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of Council’s LPP2.19, which would require a contribution of a monetary amount equal in value to one per cent of the estimated development cost. It is common for the applicant to liaise with the relevant departments at the City to discuss options going forward. Options going forward may include public art installations in the Westgate Mall; however that will be determined at a later date. LPP3.1.5 – Precinct 5

Clause 5.1.1 of LPP3.1.5 states:

“Lower levels of the development should be designed to reinforce the significance of the primary streets with an appropriate scale and high standard of details, materials and finishes.”

As discussed earlier in this report in relation to the ‘first floor height’, LPS4 requires a minimum first floor level of 4.5m from ground level. As only 3.8m is proposed, it could be considered that clause 5.1.1 of LPP3.1.5 is not satisfied insofar that it does not provide for appropriate scale. Given that the two adjoining properties have first floor heights of 4.25m and 4.00m it could also be considered that 3.8m will not be significantly noticeable to the naked eye. Notwithstanding this, it is still recommended that the proposal be increased from 3.80m closer to 4.50m, which is consistent with the advice received by the DAC.


Page 39

Clause 5.1.3 of LPP3.1.5 states:

“Residential uses and on-site vehicle parking are not permitted at ground level adjacent to primary streets.”

The proposal includes car parking on the ground floor. It is considered that the intent of this requirement is to not restrict the capacity of ground floor ‘active’ commercial uses from having their exposure to the abutting streets compromised. The proposed ground floor car parking area is located behind commercial tenancies which wrap around the sites’ Adelaide Street and two Westgate Mall frontages. In this respect, the car parking area will not be readily visible from the primary street (Adelaide Street) nor from the two other street frontages. In this regard this is considered supportable. Clause 5.1.7 of LPP3.1.5 states:

“Weather protection along footpaths for pedestrians shall be provided, either in the form of awnings or first floor balconies, and satisfy all of the following: a) Shelter to be continuous along all primary street frontages; b) The weather protection shall be integrated with the building design, appropriately

scaled and designed to reinforce the importance of primary streets while still providing shelter and a sense of enclosure for pedestrians;

c) The weather protection shall be permanently fixed and shall be constructed of materials that provide sun and rain protection (i.e. a high degree of sun shading and water impenetrability);

d) The weather protection shall project a minimum horizontal distance of 2.4 metres over the adjacent footpath; and

e) Awnings shall have a consistent clear height from footpath level of between 3m and 3.5m.”

The proposal in its current form does not provide for continuous weather protection along all frontages to Adelaide Street and Westgate Mall. It is noted that the plans depict a number of awnings to each frontage; however they are separated from one another and therefore not considered to be continuous. Given that the DAC has stated that they will require amended plans prior to issue of any building permit which will need to address “The provision of continuous weather protection in the form of more substantial awnings to the ground floor tenancies”, it is considered that this will be addressed as part of the DAC refinement process and is included as a condition in the alternative recommendation. Alternate Recommendation: That the Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel resolves to: APPROVE DAP Application reference DAP/16/01060 and accompanying plans 10 June 2016 (Plan reference: SK00; SK01; SK02 (site section CC); SK03 (Basement Floor Plan); SK04 (Ground Floor Plan); SK05 (First Floor Plan); SK06 (Second, Fourth, Sixth Floor Plan); SK07 (Third, Fifth, Seventh Floor Plan); SK08 (Roof Plan); SK09 (East Elevation); SK10 (South Elevation – Westgate Mall); SK11 (West Elevation – Westgate Mall); SK12 (North Elevation); SK13 (Section AA); SK14 (Section BB); SK15 (Westgate Mall Conceptual Plan) in accordance with Clause 10.3.1(a) of the City of Local Planning Scheme No. 4, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 10

June 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. This approval does not relate to any works within the Westgate Mall.


Page 40

3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit the following information to

the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle having regard to advice from the Design Advisory Committee: (a) Additional detail relating to colour, texture and material arrangement for final facade

finishes. (b) Additional articulation to the mall façades, for example planter box protrusions could be

applied living space balconies that front the mall. (c) Increased height of the ground floor to ceiling heights from 3.8m to closer to 4.5m as

required by the scheme. (d) Further consideration of the landscape terrace on the second floor regards privacy

arrangements and plant types. (e) The reintroduction of planting into the facade design is strongly encouraged. (f) Reconsideration of the location/access to the bike store with a view to making access to

the store more direct and practical. (g) Reconsideration of the design of the fire escape stairs on the ground floor having


(h) The provision of continuous weather protection in the form of more substantial awnings to the ground floor tenancies.

4. Prior to issue of a building permit, the vehicle entry point off Point Place Right of Way (ROW)

shall be modified so as to be a minimum of 5.50m in width in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the western, eastern, northern and southern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;

coloured sand render;

face brick;

painted surface; or,

other approved finish


6. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the design and materials of the development shall

adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy LPP2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following: a) Glazing to windows and other openings shall be laminated safety glass of minimum

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

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

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

7. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP/16/01060, on plans dated 10

June 2016, a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land:

(a) of the potentiality of the enclosure of the balconies located along the northern boundary by future development on the adjacent site; and


Page 41

(b) that the subject site is located in close proximity to the Fremantle Port and may be subject to noise, odour and activity not normally associated with residential use; and

(c) of the potential for future development on adjoining land to be constructed in accordance with the building height and setback requirements applicable to City Centre Local Planning Area 1 - Sub Area 1.3.2 as prescribed in Schedule 12 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4, which includes zero minimum side and rear setbacks; and

(d) to notify owners and prospective purchasers of any dwelling that the land is located in or adjacent to, an area where non-residential uses may exist or be approved and, as a result, the land may be affected by activities and noise not normally associated with residential development. and

The notifications are to be prepared by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties prior to occupation of the development hereby approved.

8. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, a minimum of:

(a) 32 bicycle racks shall be provided for the proposed Multiple Dwellings; and (b) 3 class 2 bicycle racks shall be provided (comprised of 1 x for office; 2 x for the

shop/hospitality land uses); and be thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP/16/01060, on plans dated 10

June 2016, the design and materials of the development shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 2.18 – New Residential Developments in the City Centre Zone – Noise from an Existing Source. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

a) to all external openings (windows and doors):

i) airtight rubber seals to provide acoustic protection; and

ii) sliding windows shall be substituted with awning windows as they are able to achieve a positive compression seal; and

iii) standard 6mm glass shall be substituted with sealed thickened laminated glass (no less than 10mm); or

iv) standard 6mm glass shall be substituted with acoustic double glazing incorporating a 12mm thick pane of laminated glass set in a sealed metal frame with a 100mm air gap to the other pane of glass;

b) to all external walls:

i) shall achieve a sound rating of Rw 45 dB or greater;

c) to all floors and ceilings:

i) A 150mm thick concrete slab with either carpet or acoustically installed timber

flooring or tiles; or

ii) Installing high density insulation batts into the cavity of a lightweight, suspended

and floating ceilings or floors to absorb sound; or

iii) Building components are isolated using resilient compounds such as rubber,

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

10. The design and construction of the development is to meet the 4 star green star standard as

per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of


Page 42

the development site. Twelve (12) months after practical completion of the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle

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

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

11. Prior to occupation, the owner shall contribute a monetary amount equal in value to one

percent of the estimated development cost, as indicated on the Form of Application for Planning Approval, to the City of Fremantle for development of public art works and/or heritage works to enhance the public realm. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $14,400,000 (estimated cost disclosed on the City of Fremantle application for planning approval form) the contribution to be made is $144,400.

12. Prior to issue of a Building Permit, and in the event that the applicant seeks to integrate

‘minor projections’ into the design, they shall submit amended plans which conform to the following criteria:


(b) The cumulative area of the minor projection being no more than 10 per cent of the total roof area of the building,

In accordance with clause 5.8.1.3 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the owner is to submit a waste management plan for

approval detailing the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

14. Any signage shall be the subject of a separate planning application.

15. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or otherwise approved

by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

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

Advice Notes:

i) A Building permit is required for the proposed Building Works. A certified BA1 application

form must be submitted and a Certificate of Design Compliance (issued by a Registered Building Surveyor Contractor in the private sector) must be submitted with the BA1.

ii) In relation to condition 12 above:

“For the purpose of this clause, ‘minor projection’ will be interpreted as including plant and equipment such as air conditioning units, lift overrun rooms, flagpoles, aerials and decorative architectural features, but not rooms or other facilities intended for regular human use such as rooftop decks or swimming pools.”

iii) During construction works retained trees to be protected in accordance with AS 4970-2009

Protection of trees in development sites.


Page 43

iv) The applicant is encouraged to liaise with the City Infrastructure and Project Delivery

Department on 9432 9999 regarding possible upgrades to Point Place that may improve safety levels, such as convex mirrors.

Conclusion: The proposed demolition of existing building and construction of an eight (8) storey (plus basement) mixed use development (72 x Multiple Dwellings, 7 x commercial tenancies) at No. 52 (Lot 2) Adelaide Street, Fremantle has been assessed against the relevant planning legislation. The key issue with the proposal was the development’s compliance with the height requirements set out in schedule 12 of LPS4, and any ability to consider a variation under clause 5.8.1 of LPS4. Based on the City’s legal advice, in relation to the ability to vary the height requirements as set out in LPS4, the proposal cannot be supported. JDAP however, has legal advice from the applicant which contradicts the City’s advice and may be of the mind that the proposal can legally be supported. In accordance with the City’s legal advice on the matter, the proposal has been recommended for refusal, however an alternative recommendation and assessment has been prepared in the event JDAP concurs with the legal advice received from the applicant.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr I Waltham That Council recommends to the Metropolitan South-West Joint Development

Assessment Panel that, subject to the JDAP being satisfied that it has legal ability

to grant approval for the development, the JDAP:

APPROVE DAP Application reference DAP/16/01060 and accompanying plans 10

June 2016 (Plan reference: SK00; SK01; SK02 (site section CC); SK03 (Basement

Floor Plan); SK04 (Ground Floor Plan); SK05 (First Floor Plan); SK06 (Second,

Fourth, Sixth Floor Plan); SK07 (Third, Fifth, Seventh Floor Plan); SK08 (Roof

Plan); SK09 (East Elevation); SK10 (South Elevation – Westgate Mall); SK11 (West

Elevation – Westgate Mall); SK12 (North Elevation); SK13 (Section AA); SK14

(Section BB); SK15 (Westgate Mall Conceptual Plan) in accordance with Clause

10.3.1(a) of the City of Local Planning Scheme No. 4, subject to the following

conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 10 June 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. This approval does not relate to any works within the Westgate Mall.

3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit the following information to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle having regard to advice from the Design Advisory Committee: (i) Additional detail relating to colour, texture and material arrangement for final

facade finishes.


Page 44

(a) Additional articulation to the mall façades, for example planter box protrusions could be applied living space balconies that front the mall.

(b) Increased height of the ground floor to ceiling heights from 3.8m to closer to 4.5m as required by the scheme.

(c) Further consideration of the landscape terrace on the second floor regards privacy arrangements and plant types.

(d) The reintroduction of planting into the facade design is strongly encouraged. (e) Reconsideration of the location/access to the bike store with a view to making

access to the store more direct and practical. (f) Reconsideration of the design of the fire escape stairs on the ground floor having


(g) The provision of continuous weather protection in the form of more substantial awnings to the ground floor tenancies.

4. Prior to issue of a building permit, the vehicle entry point off Point Place Right of Way

(ROW) shall be modified so as to be a minimum of 5.50m in width in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation, the boundary walls located on the western, eastern, northern and southern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;


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

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

shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy LPP2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following: a) Glazing to windows and other openings shall be laminated safety glass of

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

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

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

7. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP/16/01060, on plans

dated 10 June 2016, a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land:

(a) of the potentiality of the enclosure of the balconies located along the northern boundary by future development on the adjacent site; and

(b) that the subject site is located in close proximity to the Fremantle Port and may be subject to noise, odour and activity not normally associated with residential use; and

(c) of the potential for future development on adjoining land to be constructed in accordance with the building height and setback requirements applicable to City


Page 45

Centre Local Planning Area 1 - Sub Area 1.3.2 as prescribed in Schedule 12 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4, which includes zero minimum side and rear setbacks; and

(d) to notify owners and prospective purchasers of any dwelling that the land is located in or adjacent to, an area where non-residential uses may exist or be approved and, as a result, the land may be affected by activities and noise not normally associated with residential development. and

The notifications are to be prepared by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties prior to occupation of the development hereby approved.

8. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, a minimum of:

(a) 32 bicycle racks shall be provided for the proposed Multiple Dwellings; and (b) 3 class 2 bicycle racks shall be provided (comprised of 1 x for office; 2 x for the

shop/hospitality land uses); and be thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP/16/01060, on plans

dated 10 June 2016, the design and materials of the development shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 2.18 – New Residential Developments in the City Centre Zone – Noise from an Existing Source. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

a) to all external openings (windows and doors):

i) airtight rubber seals to provide acoustic protection; and

ii) sliding windows shall be substituted with awning windows as they are able to achieve a positive compression seal; and

iii) standard 6mm glass shall be substituted with sealed thickened laminated glass (no less than 10mm); or

iv) standard 6mm glass shall be substituted with acoustic double glazing incorporating a 12mm thick pane of laminated glass set in a sealed metal frame with a 100mm air gap to the other pane of glass;

b) to all external walls:

i) shall achieve a sound rating of Rw 45 dB or greater;

c) to all floors and ceilings:

i) A 150mm thick concrete slab with either carpet or acoustically installed timber flooring or tiles; or

ii) Installing high density insulation batts into the cavity of a lightweight, suspended and floating ceilings or floors to absorb sound; or

iii) Building components are isolated using resilient compounds such as rubber, neoprene or silicone for the purpose of reducing the transfer of noise.

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

standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Twelve (12) months after practical


Page 46

completion of the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle

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

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

11. Prior to occupation, the owner shall contribute a monetary amount equal in value to

one percent of the estimated development cost, as indicated on the Form of Application for Planning Approval, to the City of Fremantle for development of public art works and/or heritage works to enhance the public realm. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $14,400,000 (estimated cost disclosed on the City of Fremantle application for planning approval form) the contribution to be made is $144,400.

12. Prior to issue of a Building Permit, and in the event that the applicant seeks to

integrate ‘minor projections’ into the design, they shall submit amended plans which conform to the following criteria:


(b) The cumulative area of the minor projection being no more than 10 per cent of the total roof area of the building,

In accordance with clause 5.8.1.3 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the owner is to submit a waste management

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


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

approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

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

Advice Notes:

i) A Building permit is required for the proposed Building Works. A certified BA1 application form must be submitted and a Certificate of Design Compliance (issued by a Registered Building Surveyor Contractor in the private sector) must be submitted with the BA1.

ii) In relation to condition 12 above:

“For the purpose of this clause, ‘minor projection’ will be interpreted as including plant and equipment such as air conditioning units, lift overrun rooms, flagpoles, aerials and decorative architectural features, but not rooms or other facilities intended for regular human use such as rooftop decks or swimming pools.”


Page 47

iii) During construction works retained trees to be protected in accordance with AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees in development sites.

iv) The applicant is encouraged to liaise with the City Infrastructure and Project Delivery

Department on 9432 9999 regarding possible upgrades to Point Place that may improve safety levels, such as convex mirrors.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald


Page 48

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

PC1609-03 SNOOK CRESCENT, NO.19 (LOT 1303), HILTON - SECOND STOREY, ANCILLARY DWELLING AND SMALL SECONDARY DWELLING ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (BP DA0275/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 September 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1: Development Plans 2: Site Visit Photos 3: Small secondary dwelling plans 4: Streetscape Montage Date Received: 9 June 2016 Owner Name: R. Hiller Submitted by: R-Code Residential Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential R20 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single storey Single House & Small Secondary Dwelling Use Class: Single House & Small Secondary Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘P’ & ‘P’


Page 49

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for second storey, ancillary dwelling and small secondary dwelling addition to the existing Single House. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to submissions that are unable to be addressed through the imposition of relevant planning conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbour. In addition, the level of discretion being sought in relation to the second storey proposed is considered to warrant referral to PC. The applicant seeks discretionary assessments against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and relevant Local Planning Policies (LPPs). These discretionary and Design Principle assessments include the following:

Design of car parking spaces; Vehicular access; Visual Privacy (east); Building height (external wall and roof ridge);

The above discretionary assessments are considered to be supportable and accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. BACKGROUND The subject site is located east of Paget Street, west of Grigg Place, south of Snook Crescent and north of Oldham Crescent. The site has a land area of approximately 858m² and currently has a single storey Single House on site with a small secondary dwelling situated at the rear. The site is zoned Residential under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R20. The subject site is not adopted under the City’s Heritage List, although is located within a heritage area, being the Hilton Heritage Area. A search of the property file revealed the following relevant planning history for the site:

On 8 March 2012, the City granted planning approval for additions and alterations to the existing Single House (ref. DA0051/12).

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a second storey, ancillary dwelling and small secondary dwelling addition to the existing Single House and includes the following: Two additional bedrooms; An additional bathroom; An ancillary dwelling (marked as “teenagers retreat on the ground floor and

mezzanine on the upper floor) containing the following;

o One bedroom;


Page 50

o Living, dining and kitchen facilities;

o Ensuite;

o Courtyard; and

o Access to laundry facilities.

A small secondary dwelling (marked as “existing workshop”) containing the following:

o One bedroom;

o Kitchen and living areas;

o Ensuite; and

o Verandah.

Refer to Attachment 1 for the development plans and Attachment 3 for the small secondary dwelling plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT


Design of car parking spaces; Vehicular access; Visual privacy (east).


Building height (external wall and roof ridge); The above matters will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the report below. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Council’s LPP1.3 – Public notification of planning proposals as design principle assessments and policy discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 1 July 2016, the City had received 2 submissions, with both objecting to the proposal. The following planning issues were raised during the notification period (summarised):

The proposed window on the upper floor of the western elevation would have an adverse impact by way of detriment to visual privacy;

The parking configuration, being 3 tandem bays, would be impractical for day to day usage and would result in residents parking on the street.


Page 51

The window to Bedroom 2 on the upper floor to the southern elevation would facilitate overlooking to the eastern adjoining properties. Privacy screening should be provided to protect the privacy of adjoining neighbours.

The above concerns are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Residential Design Codes Vehicular Access


Driveway design

Turning bay to allow vehicles to exit in a forward gear

No turning bay provided most southern tandem bay

The proposed vehicle access is considered to be supportable against the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The configuration is considered to allow for vehicle access safety by providing

sufficient sight lines for ingress and egress. There is only one access point for the site, thereby minimising the impact of

numerous crossovers on the streetscape. There is landscaping features proposed in close proximity to the access way. The access way is clearly defined and legible to vehicle drivers, as well as to

pedestrians. The current vehicular access is greater than 15 metres from the primary street and no

vehicle turning bay is provided. The car parking facility located on site is designed to be consistent with the

streetscape Visual Privacy


Visual privacy setback (east)

4.5m (Bedroom 2) 3.4m Up to 1.1m

Visual Privacy setback (east)

6m (ground floor kitchen)

5.7m – 6.3m Up to 300mm

The proposed eastern visual privacy setback from Bedroom 2 is considered to be supportable against the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: The overlooking onto the eastern adjoining property at 19B Snook Crescent is toward

windows which are not classified as major openings as per the definition in the R-Codes. As displayed in the image below, the cone of vision from bedroom 2 would be overlooking the laundry and bathroom windows, where there is considered to be a negligible visual privacy impact.


Page 52

The visual privacy setback also does not impact an outdoor living area of the

adjoining eastern property. It is noted that the visual privacy setback to 9A Grigg Place to the south-east is

greater than 4.5m and, in this regard, the setback is compliant with the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes to this particular property.

The eastern visual privacy setback from the kitchen window would facilitate overlooking toward the living area on the eastern adjoining property, which is considered to have a more adverse impact on visual privacy. For this reason, a condition of approval is recommended so as to ensure that an appropriate form of screening is applied to this particular major opening. Ancillary Dwellings This particular design element is not seeking a design principle assessment from the R-Codes, however there are unique circumstances afforded to this site which warrant a discussion regarding the inclusion of both an ancillary dwelling and small secondary dwelling (SSD) on the same lot. On a site inspection to the property through the assessment process of the application, it was revealed that the rear building of the site (marked on plans as “existing workshop”) is being used as a SSD. Plans of this building were submitted by the applicant (refer to Attachment 3) that confirm the building meets the definition of a SSD as defined in the City’s LPS4. The SSD also meets the applicable criteria for assessment of a SSD located in clause 5.3.5 of LPS4 and therefore does not require planning approval. The building would likely require a building permit but this a separate matter to the planning approval process and is not discussed further for this reason.


Page 53

It is of course noted that the application would, therefore, propose both an ancillary dwelling and SSD. The following clause of LPS4 is considered to be of relevance to this particular scenario;

cl. 5.3.5.6 The development of more than one small secondary dwelling on a lot is prohibited.

The above clause makes a clear distinction in that the provision precludes two SSDs, and not a SSD and ancillary dwelling on the same lot. While an assumption could be made that the intent of the clause is to restrict the development of two buildings which could be independently occupied, the wording of the clause demonstrates that this is clearly not the case given that a SSD and ancillary dwelling are not synonymous. To elaborate upon this further, the definitions of a SSD and ancillary dwelling are provided for below: Small secondary dwelling:

means a dwelling on the same lot as an existing Single House where:

(a) the total floor area of the dwelling including any areas above the ground floor level, such as a loft or mezzanine level, does not exceed 55 square metres on a lot with an area of 600 square metres or less;

(b) the area of the ground floor level of the dwelling does not exceed 65 square metres and the total of all floor areas does not exceed 70 square metres on a lot with an area greater than 600 square metres;

(c) the height of any external wall of the dwelling, except an external gable end wall, does not exceed 3.0 metres;

(d) the height of any external gable end wall of the dwelling does not exceed 5.5 metres to the apex of the roof; and

(e) the building height of the dwelling does not exceed 5.5 metres. Ancillary Dwelling Ancillary dwelling associated with a single house and on the same lot where:

i. the lot is not less than 450m2 in area; ii. there is a maximum plot ratio area of 70m2 ; iii. parking provided in accordance with clause 5.3.3 C3.1; and iv. complies with all other R-Code provisions, only as they apply to single

houses, with the exception of clauses: a) 5.1.1 Site area; b) 5.2.3 Street surveillance (except where located on a lot with secondary

street or right-of-way access); and c) 5.3.1 Outdoor living areas

It is also noted that a SSD is a separate land use as defined in LPS4, whereas an ancillary dwelling is considered to be appurtenant to a Single House and, consequently, is not an individual land use. The wording of the definitions above also clarifies this, as a SSD means a dwelling on the same lot as an existing Single House, but rather an ancillary dwelling is specifically defined as being ‘associated with a Single House.’ Having regard to the above, it is therefore considered that both a SSD and ancillary dwelling can be entertained on one lot and as such, the proposed configuration in this application is deemed to be supportable.


Page 54

Local Planning Policy 3.7– Hilton Heritage Area Wall Height


External Wall 3.5m 5.6m - 6.9m Up to 3.4m

Roof Ridge 6.5m 5.8m - 7.1m Up to 0.6m

A variation to the prescribed external wall and roof ridge height in LPP 3.7 must be assessed against the following clause of the policy: Council may, at its discretion, allow a greater external wall height and/or greater roof ridge height where it is satisfied that the development meets one of the following criteria:

a) The development is on a rear survey strata lot, battleaxe lot or the equivalent and has minimal presentation to the streetscape and the development complies with the Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes regarding: i. Design Element 6.3.1 – Buildings setback from the boundary; and ii. Design Element 6.4.1 – Open Space; and iii. Design Element 6.9.1 – Design for Climate. or

b) Excluding development on a rear survey strata lot, battleaxe lot or the equivalent, the front and side elevations of the development present generally as a single storey dwelling when viewed from the street with the predominant bulk of the element exceeding the prescribed maximum building height located at the rear of the dwelling; or

c) Excluding development on a rear survey strata lot, battleaxe lot or the equivalent, the proposed building height is consistent with the building height of development within the prevailing streetscape.

The proposed second storey is considered to be supportable against point b) above for the following reasons: The front and side elevations of the dwelling are considered to generally present as a

single storey dwelling, having regard to the streetscape montage provided by the applicant, which can be viewed at Attachment 4 in this report. A perspective is displayed below for reference:


Page 55

A side on perspective is also shown in the streetscape montage, as the clause above

refers to the view from both the front and side elevations (refer to below). In this respect, regard is given to the terminology of ‘generally’ in clause 2.2 b) of LPP 3.7. Evidently, there is a degree of subjectivity and discretion in considering the intent of ‘generally’ and its application to clause b). It is considered that the second storey generally results in the building maintaining its single storey presence as viewed from the street, and therefore the additional height being sought is considered to be supportable under LPP 3.7.


Page 56

As can be seen in the side elevation below, the predominant bulk of the element exceeding the prescribed height limit is situated towards the rear of the property. In this regard, the angle of the skillion roof of the second storey addition attempts reduce its visibility from the street and improve the compatibility of the second storey addition with the current building.




Green Plan 2020: One tree is proposed to be removed on site as part of the works; however the application also proposes a number of trees to be planted along the boundary as a form of screening. It is noted that planning approval is generally not required for the removal of trees on private property. OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the second storey, ancillary dwelling and small secondary dwelling additions to the existing Single House at No. 19 (Lot 1303), Snook Crescent, Hilton, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 7 June 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


Page 57

2. All stormwater discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to use of the carport hereby approved, the boundary wall located on the western boundary shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;




Advisory Notes (i) The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered,

contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.


Page 58

COMMITTEE RECOMENDATION To delete Condition 3

COMMITTEE DECISION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the second storey, ancillary dwelling and small secondary dwelling additions to the existing Single House at No. 19 (Lot 1303), Snook Crescent, Hilton, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans,

dated 7 June 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Advisory Notes

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

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against



Page 59

Cr J McDonald vacated the chamber at 7.26pm during the following item and returned at 7.23pm prior to determination.

PC1609-04 PEARSE STREET, NO. 42 (LOT 501), NORTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO HEALTH STUDIO (GYM) - (AD DA0187/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 September 2016 Responsible Officer: A/Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1. Development Plans 2. Applicants Noise Level Assessment (Herring Storer

Acoustics) 3. Noise Management Plan 4. Site Photos Date Received: 18 April 2016 Owner Name: Holt Beta Trust Submitted by: Daniel Argent & Rebecca Russell Scheme: Mixed Use (R25) Heritage Listing: Not individually listed; North Fremantle heritage area Existing Landuse: Showroom Use Class: Health Studio Use Permissibility: A


Page 60

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a partial change of use to health studio (gym) at No. 42 (Lot 501) Pearse Street, North Fremantle. The application is presented to the Planning Committee (PC) on the basis of objections received during the community consultation period that cannot be resolved through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of neighbours. The proposed development has been assessed against relevant clauses of Local Planning Scheme No 4 (LPS4), local planning policies with the following discretions sought:

Car parking;

Land use. The proposal is considered to meet the discretionary criteria and is supportable in relation to car parking. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to warrant on-balance support in terms of land use. The application is recommended for on-balance, conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Mixed Use’ with a density coding of R25 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area 3 (LPA 3) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by Pearse Street to the west, Jackson Street to the South and Queen Victoria Street/Stirling Highway to the east. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List; however it is located within North Fremantle Heritage Area, which is a prescribed heritage area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is approximately 1,369m2, has a predominantly north-south orientation; is currently improved by an industrial building and is relatively flat in terms of its topography. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and/or to this application:

On 3 December 2010, the City granted conditional planning approval for a change of use from warehouse and store to exhibition centre, office and cottage industry at No. 42 (Lot 501) Pearse Street, North Fremantle (DA0602/10);

At its meeting of 2 May 2012, the PSC resolved to grant conditional planning approval for a partial change of use to showroom at No. 42 (Lot 501) Pearse Street, North Fremantle (DA0069/12).

DETAIL

On 18 April 2016, the City received an application seeking planning approval for a partial change of use to Health Studio (Gym) at No. 42 (Lot 501) Pearse Street, North Fremantle.


Page 61

It is proposed that the type of gym to be operated is an ‘F45’ training centre. The applicant has provided the following description of an ‘F45’ training centre as:

“F45 is a small group training type facility which offers high intense circuit based training. The product does not include the use of heavy barbell style training or heavier plates and heavy dumbbells. The product is based around high intense functional training and as such heavy resistance is not required. The class duration is 45 minutes with a 15-minute interval between classes for changeover of equipment and patrons. There will be a 6:00am class running until 6:45am before the next class commences at 7:00am. This will conclude at 7:45 and then there will be a gap before our 9:00am class commences, with finishing time 9:45 am. The facility will then be unused until the evening when we will commence classes at 5:30pm with conclusion of the last class at 7:15pm. This will occur Monday through Friday, although at this stage we are unsure if there will be any Friday afternoon classes as this will be based on demand. We plan on offering Saturday morning classes from 7:00am until 9:00am.

Unlike many other group styles training F45 is built around the concept that members get continual instruction and guidance from trainers throughout the class. As such music is kept to a background noise level with output at 70dB as ambience rather than motivation. The product is about offering members quality instruction with qualified trainers to work on technique and proper coaching whilst still training in a group environment. This is not a 24 hour weight training facility!”

Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. On 13 July 2016, the City received a Noise Assessment Level (NAL) report from the applicant, prepared by Hering Storer Acoustics. This is contained as Attachment 2 of this report. This will be discussed in further detail later in this report. On 17 July 2016, the City received a Noise Management Plan from the applicant, which is contained as Attachment 3 of this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The development has been assessed in accordance with provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4), Council’s Local Planning Policies (Council’s Policies).

Car parking;

Land use. Detailed assessment is included in the Planning Comment section of the report below. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 due to policy discretions and R Codes design principles assessment being sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 18 May 2016, the City had received 2 submissions. The main planning issues that were raised related to:


Page 62

Parking;

Land use;

Noise. External Agency Referrals Fremantle Port Authority (FPA)

The proposal was required to be referred to the FPA as the site is located within Fremantle Port Buffer Referral Area 2 and has the capacity to accommodate 20 or more persons on a full or part-time basis. The FPA provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:

“I had a look at the proposal. If you could please include the standard buffer requirements that would be appreciated.”

Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC)

The application was required to be referred to the WAPC as the site is adjacent to proposed Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment 1210/41 for the Stirling Highway/Curtin Avenue realignment. The WAPC provided the following comments:

“As discussed, the subject lot is considerable distance from the existing and proposed Primary Regional Roads (PRR) reservation over Stirling Highway. Stirling Highway, North Fremantle, is currently the subject of an amendment to rationalise the existing PRR reservation. The amendment has been tabled in Parliament however is yet to be approved: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/8318.asp Notice of Delegation DEL2015/02 refers to requirements for Primary and Other Regional Roads reservations and maybe viewed at: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/1212.asp Planning Control Area 113 does not appear to affect this site. If it did, the proposal would be determined by the WAPC: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/pca.asp Neither requirement appears to relate to the subject lot.”

Internal Referrals Environmental Health

The City’s Environmental Health Department has provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:

“I have not been to a F45 training session however from what I have been able to see it seems to be a high intensity type exercise system incorporating exercises that could include dropping of weights and loud music for motivation during the classes. The Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 cover all noise related issues in Western Australia. The regulations are not specific in relation to gym activity however loud music early in the morning ie: before 7am and the potential for

http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/8318.asp

http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/1212.asp

http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/pca.asp


Page 63

thumping weights would likely lead to noise levels being produced that would exceed those prescribed in the regulations. The proponent should provide a noise management plan prepared by a qualified person that indicates likely noise levels produced by the gym and how it is controlled so as not to adversely impact nearby neighbours or breach the Regulations.

It is also possible that cars arriving at the gym at 5am would also cause a noise nuisance however vehicles are generally not covered under the noise regulations.

The gym would also likely be classified as a Public Building. This will require an application to and assessment by the Environmental Health team to determine the maximum number of people that the venue could hold.”

The above comments were passed onto the applicant, whom ultimately provided a Noise Assessment Level (NAL) report, and a Noise Management Plan – both of which were reviewed by the Environmental Health Department, which is discussed later in this report under ‘noise’. PLANNING COMMENT

Land use Clause 4.2.1(e) of LPS4 sets out the objectives of the mixed use zone and states:

“Development within the mixed use zone shall— (i) provide for a mix of compatible land uses including light, services and cottage

industry, wholesaling, trade and professional services, entertainment, recreation and retailing of goods and services in small scale premises, including showrooms, where the uses would not be detrimental to the viability of retail activity and other functions of the City Centre, Local Centre and Neighbourhood Centre zones;

(ii) provide for residential at upper level, and also at ground level providing the residential component is designed to contribute positively to an active public domain;

(iii) ensure future development within each of the mixed used zones is sympathetic with the desired future character of each area;

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

(v) conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development.”

Being a Mixed Use zone, it cannot be reasonably expected that nearby residents can anticipate the same level or degree of amenity as they otherwise would if it was purely a Residential zone. This is because the Mixed Use zone contemplates a significantly higher amount of commercial and industrial land uses than a Residential zone, and typically results in a combination of different and sometime conflicting land uses – often adjoining one another or nearby. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed land use is a discretionary land use that requires advertising, so are all of the residential use classes (ie single house, grouped dwelling, and multiple dwelling) that either exists on adjoining or nearby properties.


Page 64

It is also acknowledged that residential land uses are considered ‘sensitive’ land uses, and that many of the nearby residential uses have existed for some time. This said, a common issue with the mixed use zone is whenever new applications that propose residential use classes are approved, it sometimes degrades that zones ability to carry and support non-residential land uses as the level of amenity expectation is inherently increased, often to a point where parity with levels expected in a purely residential zone. Figure 1 below outlines the existing land uses in the immediate locality, with the subject site highlighted in red. This is not to suggest that adjoining or nearby residential dwellings in the mixed use zone should not have their expectation of amenity levels compromised, rather that there should be an expectation from existing nearby residential dwellings in mixed use zones that there is potential for non-residential land uses to coexist nearby or in close proximity.

Figure 5 - Existing land uses in immediate locality

As will be outlined in this report, it is considered that the proposal will be compatible with the objectives of the mixed use zone, provided that certain measures such as noise attenuation are addressed and integrated into the building design to ensure compliance with noise regulations. Car Parking As there is no car parking requirement specified for a ‘health studio’ the city has applied the car parking requirements associated with the ‘private recreation’ land use as follows:

Land use Car parking bays Delivery bays Bicycle racks

Private recreation 1: 5 seats or 1: 5 people accommodated

1: service/storage area

class 1 or 2: 1 per 4 employees class 3: 1 per 200 m2 gla


Parking bays 5.8 (6) 5 1

Delivery bays Nil (0) - -


Page 65

Bicycle racks Class 1: 0** Nil (0) Nil (0) Class 3: 1.67 (2) Nil (0) 2

*Based on ultimate capacity of maximum of 29 people (27 clients, 2 staff) **Based on 2 employees Clause 5.7.3 of LPS4 outlines circumstances may waive or reduce the standard parking requirement specified in Table 3, and states:

“Council may—

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

(i) the availability of car parking in the locality including street parking,

(ii) the availability of public transport in the locality,

(iii) any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces,

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

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

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

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

(viii) any other relevant considerations.

Note: *In some sub areas identified in Schedule 12 reduction of parking bays is not permitted. The requirements of Schedule 12 prevail over this clause.

(b) Council may require an applicant to submit a report completed by a suitably qualified person or persons justifying any of the points cited above.

Note: Provides greater flexibility to vary car-parking requirements based upon alternative transport opportunities.”

There is not considered to be significant provision of on street parking within the adjoining streets, and the locality generally (i), however this section of Pearse Street is used informally for on-street parking. In relation to (ii), the site is located approximately 400m from the North Fremantle Train Station which provides rail services to and from the Fremantle and the Perth Central Business District (CBD) and connecting rail network. Further, it is also located within 80m of the Stirling Highway, which provides bus services on routes 103, 107 and two high frequency bus routes being 998 and 999 (refer Figure 2 below).


Page 66

Figure 6 - Transperth network map

In relation to (iv), the subject site actually has 16 on-site bays fronting onto Pearse Street. The applicant has advised that the current use of the balance of the building not occupied by the proposed health studio (gym) means that there is no demand for bays that would compete with the proposed use:

“The landlord has advised that those units are currently being used as storage facilities and therefore no continual use of their allocated bays.”

It can therefore be reasonably expected that up to 16 bays will be available on-site, notwithstanding this units allocation of just 5 of those bays. Further, it is also reasonable to anticipate that given the proposed opening hours, that there will not be any direct competition as they have different peak periods for their respective levels of demand for parking. The proposed car parking discretion of 1 bay is therefore supported. Further, it will be recommended that bike racks be provided in accordance with the requirements of LPS4. Noise

The City has received a number of submissions from residents regarding potential noise issues. It is acknowledged that noise is an important amenity indicator and factor to be considered when assessing and determining applications for planning approval. The applicant has submitted a Noise Level Assessment (NLA) report, which contemplated: a) noise compliance of the proposed use with the no modifications to the building; and b) noise compliance of the proposed use with modifications to the building, in the form of

an ‘air-lock/locker room’ located at the entrance of the building. In relation to the proposed ‘air-lock/locker room’, the NLA report stated that it is based on an:

“Assumed construction of the of the locker room area internally are listed below (or approved equivalent):


Page 67

Ceiling of locker room area:

1 layer of 13mm thick plasterboard.

Walls of locker room area:

64mm thick stud (or wider if height of wall necessitates).

1 layer of 13mm thick plasterboard to one side of the stud. 2 layers of 13mm thick

plasterboard to the other.

50mm thick, glasswool insulation, 11kg/m3.

The locker room is envisaged to be built across from the existing internal wall of the office (approximately 3 metres in from the external large sliding door), with the ceiling height to be above the top of the large sliding door.”

These measurements indicate the ability to comply with the relevant legislation, provided that the recommended ‘air-lock/locker room’ be constructed. On this basis, it is shown that noise can indeed comply on this site. In this regard, it is considered that there are appropriate mechanisms to ensure that noise complies through the noise regulations. The City’s Environmental Health Department has reviewed the NAL report and has provided the following comments:

“The applicant has tried to address the EH comments in the noise management plan provided to you yesterday and their acoustic consultant believes their recommendations will work.

The EH services has no further comment at this time. So we now wait for them to install the proposed changes after they receive a planning decision from the City.”

It is therefore recommended that the above noise mitigation measures be implements prior to use of the premises as a health studio (gym). In addition to the above, it is noted that the site is located between an active suburban passenger railway line (30m to the west) and one of Perth’s busiest roads (non-freeway), Stirling Highway (80m to the east), which can both emit substantial noise in their own right. Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) traffic data states that in May 2016, the average daily vehicle volume was 37,492 which is considerable and would likely be associated with some amenity impacts, particularly by way of noise for nearby properties. As detailed earlier in this report, the subject site is in close proximity to the proposed Stirling Highway extension/link through to Curtin Avenue. A concept plan for this alignment which was obtained from the WAPC relative to the subject site is shown in Figure 3 below. It is clear that the locality is either already compromised by noise amenity issues, and is likely to experience further exacerbation of these issues and that this is not as a result of land use planning in the control of the local government.


Page 68

Figure 7 - concept plan for Stirling Highway - Curtin Avenue realignment

In relation to the passenger railway line, a review of the Transperth timetables reveals that the following scheduled morning train movements on the adjoining Perth-Fremantle railway line, specifically when trains move past the subject site (ie moving through North Fremantle station) between 5:00am and 7:00am, Monday to Friday are as follows:

Train movements going past subject site (North Fremantle station) (am) (between 5:00am-7:00am)*

To Perth To Fremantle Train movements

5:25 - 1

5:44 - 1

- 5:51 1

6:00 - 1

6:16 - 1

- 6:21 1

6:27 - 1

6:41 - 1

6:51 6:51 2

Total train movements 10

Average train movements hour 5

*Based on typical Monday to Friday services The table above demonstrates that there at least 4 train movements past the subject site, between 5:00am and 6:00am, with the figure likely to be 5 movements given that these train sets are stored in East Perth and have to travel through to Fremantle station to commence services from Fremantle to Perth commencing at 5:25am. Train movements past the subject site increase after 6:00am where there are 5 movements from 6:00am until 7:00am. The purpose of this table is to demonstrate there is an existing source of noise that would likely already affect the amenity of nearby properties commencing from at least 5:25am. It is not the purpose of this report to compare noise emissions of passenger rail services with the land use proposed, rather that there are existing sources of noise that may occur at similar times to the proposed hours of operation be outlined.


Page 69

Possible measures to reduce amenity impacts

Notwithstanding the above, if the Council considers that the proposed use will present unreasonable impacts on the amenity of nearby properties, particularly by way of noise, it may consider a number of options to mitigate or control the issues, such options may include:

Limiting the opening hours , particularly in the morning times;

Limiting the number of people on the premises at any given time; These may be achieved independently or in used in conjunction with one another. The City has prepared draft conditions which may be modified to suit Council’s requirements (such as number of people on site; opening hours). Opening hours

Council may feel that allowing the business to commence morning operations from 6:00am is too early and that this may have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the nearby properties, particularly the adjoining residential land uses. Should this be the case, it may look to delay the commencement of morning class operations from the proposed 6:00am on Monday to Fridays, until 6:30am or 7:00am. Such a condition is set out below:

The health studio (gym) hereby permitted shall have opening hours that do not exceed the following:

a) Monday to Friday (inclusive) – 6:30am OR 7:00am to 7:30pm; b) Saturdays – 7:00am to 9:00am; c) Sunday - not permitted.

It is noted that the opening hours as requested by the applicant have been recommended as a condition of approval to ensure compliance enforcement. Number of people on-site

It is noted by the applicant that “visitation to the premises will be groups of approximately 10-15 clients, per hour in the initial moments with potential growth to a max of 27 clients in any given hour.” Council may consider that it is appropriate to limit the number of persons on-site at any given time to be limited to the number of car bays on-site. Given that the subject site has 16 car bays, it may consider limiting the number of persons on-site to 16. Such a planning approval condition would read:

The health studio (gym) hereby permitted shall have no more than 16 persons on-site at any given time, inclusive of employees, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

It is noted that the number of people on-site in any given hour of 29 (27 clients & 2 employees) as requested by the applicant have been recommended as a condition of approval to ensure compliance enforcement. Limiting the number of people on-site may present impacts on the commercial viability of the business, and given that the City has supported the variation of 1 on-site car parking bay, this is not recommended. It is considered that of the two options above (limiting opening hours and limiting number of people on-site) that the most effective way to mitigate any concerns that Council may have, particularly in relation to noise, would be to limit the opening hours.


Page 70

Local Planning Policies Local Planning Policy 2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines Built Form Requirements

As detailed earlier in this report, the proposal was required to be referred to the FPA for comment as the site is located within Fremantle Port Buffer Referral Area 2 and has the capacity to accommodate 20 or more persons on a full or part-time basis. Notwithstanding the referral comments from the FPA recommending the built form requirements for Area 2 be imposed, it is noted that clause 4.2 of LPP2.3 states:

“The following built form requirements shall apply to the following categories of development: a) All residential development other than alterations and additions to existing

dwellings. b) All non-residential development other than refurbishment / renovations (not

involving a nett increase in floor area) to existing buildings and non-residential change of use proposals.”

It is considered that as the proposal fits within (b) above, that imposition of the built form requirements not be imposed as part of any planning approval issued for this proposal. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people working in Fremantle.

Increase the number of visitors to Fremantle. Alternative Recommendation

The following alternative recommendation for refusal of the application is provided should Council not be satisfied that the proposal should be supported.

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial change of use to Health Studio (gym) at No. 42 (Lot 501) Pearse Street, North Fremantle, on plans dated 18 April 2016, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inappropriate having regard to the purposes for which the land is

zoned and clause 67(a), (b), (n), (t), (y) of the deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

2. The proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the area under

clause 67 of the deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. 4 by reasons of noise.

3. The intensity and nature of the proposed use is incompatible with the existing and

future character of the area as envisaged by Council.


Page 71

Notwithstanding the above alternative recommendation, Council may also wish to consider granting a time-limited period on any planning approval. Should this be the case, Council may choose a time period which it considers appropriate (eg 2 years) and impose a condition of planning approval. This still permits the applicant to apply again in the future for an extension on that term – achieved through a new application for planning approval; should Council be satisfied that the operation of the use has occurred in a manner that does not detrimentally impact the amenity of nearby residential land uses.

“This planning approval authorises the health studio (gym) to operate from the site for 2 years from the date of this planning approval. Any continued use of the premises for this purpose beyond this period shall require further planning approval from the City of Fremantle.”

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial change of use to Health Studio (gym) at No. 42 (Lot 501) Pearse Street, North Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans

dated 18 April 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

2. The health studio (gym) hereby permitted shall have opening hours that do not

exceed the following: a) Monday to Friday (inclusive) – 6:00am to 7:30pm; b) Saturdays – 7:00am to 9:00am; c) Sunday – not permitted.

3. The health studio (gym) hereby permitted shall have no more than 29 persons on-site

at any given time, inclusive of employees, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to use of the premises hereby approved as health studio (gym), an ‘air-

lock/locker room’ be constructed to the specifications outlined in the Noise Assessment Level (NAL) report prepared by Hering Storer Acoustics dated 13 July 2016, or an alternative solution that achieves the same level of compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 as approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, and be thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to the use of the premises as a health studio (gym) subject of this planning

approval, a minimum of 2 ‘class 3’ bicycle racks be provided and be thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.



Page 72

Advice Note:

i. In relation to condition 4 above, the applicant is advised that the specifications should accord to those as recommended by Hering Storer Acoustics in their Noise Assessment Level report as outlined below:

Assumed construction of the of the locker room area internally are listed below (or approved equivalent): Ceiling of locker room area:

1 layer of 13mm thick plasterboard.

Walls of locker room area:

64mm thick stud (or wider if height of wall necessitates).

1 layer of 13mm thick plasterboard to one side of the stud. 2 layers of 13mm thick

plasterboard to the other.

50mm thick, glasswool insulation, 11kg/m3.

The locker room is envisaged to be built across from the existing internal wall of the office (approximately 3 metres in from the external large sliding door), with the ceiling height to be above the top of the large sliding door.

ii. In relation to condition 5 above, the applicant is advised to refer to Clause 5.7.1 of the

City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) for further guidance on what is required by this condition.

The proposed land use, all mechanical service systems, and associated incidental works and equipment are to be designed and installed to prevent emitted noise levels from exceeding the relevant decibel levels as set out in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (as amended). COMMITTEE DECISION

To defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit a parking management plan and additional noise mitigation measures. CARRIED: 5/2

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Jeff McDonald


Page 73

PC1609-05 GREY STREET NO.8 (LOT 100), FREMANTLE - ANCILLARY DWELLING AND CARPORT ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (SP DA0314/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 September 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Statutory Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1: Development Plans

2: Site Photos 3: Eastern Adjoining Lot Site Photos

Date Received: 27 June 2016 Owner Name: Kelly Terry & Scott McAllister Submitted by: As Above Scheme: MRS: Urban Zone

LPS4: Residential Zone Heritage Listing: N/A Existing Landuse: N/A Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 74

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City has received an application for a single storey Ancillary dwelling and a carport addition to an existing Single House at No. 8 Grey Street, Fremantle (the site). The application is referred to the Planning Committee due to a submission being received raising concerns to the discretion sought that cannot be resolved through the imposition of relevant planning conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbour. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the City’s Local Planning Policies (Council Policies) and seeks Design Principle and discretionary decisions in relation to the following:

Boundary Walls (North & East),

The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R35. The subject site is not on the City’s Heritage List, nor located within a designated Heritage Area of the City’s under LPS4. The subject site currently consists of an existing two storey Single house and a garage, on a site that is 607m2 in area and has a south/north lot orientation. The adjoining northern property known as 21Aa Russell Street, comprises of a two storey Grouped dwelling and is also zoned Residential and comprises of an R35 density coding under the provisions of LPS4. The adjoining eastern properties consist of a two Grouped dwellings 10A (single storey construction) and 10B (Two storey construction) Grey Street, Fremantle, which are also zoned Residential and comprises of an R35 density coding under the provisions of LPS4. DETAIL

On 27 June 2016, the City received an application for the addition of an Ancillary dwelling and Carport additions to the existing single storey Single House at No. 8 Grey Street, Fremantle. The proposed Ancillary dwelling addition is:

- to be located to the rear north eastern corner of the lot, - It will include boundary walls to the northern and eastern lot boundaries. The

northern boundary wall is 4m long and 2.9m high. The eastern boundary wall is 9m long and 2.85m high, and

- This addition includes a total plot ratio floor area of 52m2 once completed, with the 36.55m2 addition utilising 15.5m2 of the existing garage floor area.


Page 75

The proposed carport addition includes:

- tandem configuration, - Is to located on the eastern elevation of the existing Single house and will be

setback to be in line with the front wall of the existing Single house , - Includes a boundary wall to the eastern common boundary which is 16m long and

2.5m high consisting of pillar construction, and - Comprises of 43m2 in total area.

The proposed additions are to be attached to an existing outbuilding located in the middle section of the eastern common boundary on site. This existing outbuilding also incorporates a boundary wall to the eastern boundary which is currently 10m long and 3.6m high. See photo below:

In total, this existing outbuilding and the proposed two additions will result with an eastern boundary wall that is 35m in total length ranging from 2.5m (carport), 2.85m (Ancillary dwelling) and 3.6m (Outbuilding) in overall building height. See Attachment 1 for development plans provided.


Page 76

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant Local Planning Policies.

Where a proposal does not meet the Deemed to Comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R-Codes & Local Planning Policies. Not meeting the Deemed to Comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the Deemed to Comply provisions and need to be assessed under the Design Principles & Local Planning Policies:

Boundary Walls The above matter is discussed in detail in the ‘Planning Comment’ section below. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with the City’s LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals policy as the Boundary Walls proposed were seeking a Design Principle assessment. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 21 July 2016, the City had received 1 submission including two objections, which raised the following relevant planning concerns (summarised):

Concerns against the perceived building bulk the proposal would portray abutting an existing rear open space area of the eastern adjoining lots.

The loss of solar access in afternoons to the existing small open space area on the eastern lot, and

Potential loss of sunlight to facilitate the growth of existing trees on the lot to the east.

PLANNING COMMENT

Residential Design Codes Lot boundary Setbacks (Boundary Walls)

Element Deemed to Comply

Proposed Discretion

Ancillary Dwelling Boundary Wall (North)

1m 0.45m 0.55m

Ancillary Dwelling Boundary Wall (East) 1.5m 0m 1.5m

Carport Boundary Wall (East) 1.5m 0m 1.5m

The proposed boundary walls are considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes DE 5.1.3 and the additional performance based criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways; Ancillary Dwelling Addition:


Page 77

North Wall: • The northern face of the boundary wall is 2.9m wide, proposes a setback of 450mm

and occupies a minor percentage of the northern boundary; therefore building bulk impact is considered only a minor increase and considered to have minimal impact on sense of confinement to the northern lot.

• The boundary wall is minor in length and maintains a large portion of the northern and western boundary open to a light corridor and ventilation penetration.

• The northern boundary wall maintains a substantial amount of the boundary without development and for that reason; ventilation and solar access to the northern allotment and open spaces are considered largely intact.

• Given the northern boundary wall has no openings and finished floor level is not above 500mm above natural ground level, privacy impacts to the north is considered negligible.

• The ancillary addition would be considered to make effective use of the space by providing an additional area of habitable indoor space, however does result in a lesser open space percentage than previous.

• The size of the northern boundary wall and orientation of the lot would demonstrate the shadow to be cast mostly on the subject site itself and having little to no influence on the northern lots direct solar access to the major openings and open space.

East Wall: • It is acknowledged that building bulk impacts to neighbouring allotments to the east

are considered marginally amplified by the ancillary dwelling boundary wall, due to the addition extending the length of the existing eastern boundary wall;

• The proposed ancillary dwelling’s height at the eastern boundary is 2.85m, below the sill level of existing western elevation opening of the eastern allotment, and is not considered to result in a significant loss of access to daylight or direct sunlight owing to its location of the eastern boundary.

• Eastern boundary wall proposed is considered to impact ventilation access to the eastern property’s rear to an extent.

• No openings for the ancillary dwelling are proposed to the east, as the building has a 0m eastern lot setback, therefore visual privacy to the eastern dwelling remains largely unaffected.

• The ancillary addition is considered to make effective use of existing open space by providing an alternative residential option to the existing dwelling.

• Privacy and separation of the subject site’s open space and outdoor living area is enhanced through the proposed boundary wall;

• The neighbouring eastern lot at the rear does not provide outdoor living area/habitable space on its affected north/western boundary (see site photos indicating a washing line and pool pump) , therefore amenity and privacy is considered largely unaffected.

• The proposed boundary wall to the east would only spill shadow for a small amount of time in the late afternoon on an existing two storey wall and a service area in which consists of a pool pump.

• The shadow, as stated above, would not affect the opening on the western elevation of No. 10B Grey Street, due to the smaller size of the ancillary dwelling in comparison to the greater height of the opening.


Page 78

Carport Addition: East Wall • The carport addition not only makes effective use of space, it also improved the

level of amenity for future occupiers of the subject dwelling by providing sheltered onsite car bays,

• Building bulk is considered minor due to the carports open nature and lightweight constructed design and overall is not considered to contribute significantly to any sense of confinement for the existing dwelling onsite nor the eastern adjoining property;

• This particular design allows light and ventilation to penetrate through the structure as it incorporates an eave setback of 450mm from this common boundary and the respective adjoining eastern dwelling;

• Its acknowledged the adjoining eastern dwelling incorporates a window opening to this elevation, however given the limited height of the carport addition (being 2.5m), the 450mm eave setback and the pillar lightweight construction, the level of amenity impact in terms of loss of direct sun and ventilation is negligible,

• Given the addition is to be setback in line with the front wall of the existing dwelling onsite and again is open in design the impacts the addition will have on the Grey Street prevailing streetscape is also considered minimal.

For these reasons, whilst the boundary walls impact eastern and northern adjoining lots to a degree, the level is not considered significant and therefore the proposal is supported. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25


Increase the number of additional dwellings provided in the city centre. Green Plan 2020

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land: one small tree is proposed to be removed however no planning application is required for the removal of trees on private land.


Page 79


MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for an Ancillary Dwelling & Carport additions to an existing Single House at No. 8 (Lot 100) Grey Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 27 June 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

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

3. Prior to occupation of the Ancillary Dwelling, the boundary walls located on the northern and eastern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;



ADVICE NOTE The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Crj Jeff MacDonald


Page 80

PC1609-06 WARREN STREET, NO.8 (LOT 60), BEACONSFIELD - TWO, SINGLE STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS - (BP DA0257/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 September 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1: Development Plans 2: Site Visit Photos 3: Additional justification from applicant Date Received: 27 May 2016 Owner Name: D. Cutri Submitted by: R-Code Residential Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential R20/R25 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single storey Single House Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 81

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for two, single storey Grouped Dwellings. The proposal is referred to the Planning Committee (PC) due to a submission that is unable to be addressed through the imposition of relevant planning conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbour. The applicant seeks discretionary assessments against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and relevant Local Planning Policies (LPPs). These discretionary and Design Principle assessments include the following:

1. Lot boundary setback (north) 2. Open space; 3. Garage width; 4. Setback of Retaining walls (east); 5. Visual Privacy (west); 6. Boundary wall (east).

The above discretionary assessments are considered to be supportable and accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. BACKGROUND The subject site is located east of York Street, west of Shepherd Street, south of Morris Street and north of Warren Street. The site has a land area of approximately 809m² and currently has a single storey Single House on site. The site is zoned Residential under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R20/R25. The subject site is not adopted under the City’s Heritage List and is not located within a heritage area. A search of the property file revealed no relevant planning history for the site. DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for two, single storey Grouped Dwellings, with the two houses proposed to include the following: Three bedrooms; Two bathrooms; Kitchen, dining and family rooms; Laundry; Home theatre; Study; Alfresco; and Garage.

Refer to Attachment 1 for the development plans.


Page 82

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT


Lot boundary setback (north); Open space; Garage width; Setback of Retaining walls(east); Visual privacy (west).


Boundary wall (east). The above matters will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of the report below. CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Council’s LPP1.3 – Public notification of planning proposals as design principle assessments and policy discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 1 July 2016, the City had received 1 submission, which objected to the proposal. The following planning issues were raised during the notification period (summarised):

We have concern in relation to the boundary wall for the garage, in that it will diminish our street view and will block the sea breeze as well as reduce the amount of natural light into our house.

The above concerns are discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.


Page 83

PLANNING COMMENT

Residential Design Codes Lot boundary setback


Provided Design Principle Assessment

Northern lot boundary setback to alfresco area (Both Dwelling 1 & 2)

1.5m 1m 0.5m

The northern lot boundary setbacks proposed are considered to meet the applicable design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: Due to the orientation of the site and location of the alfresco areas, there would not be

an overshadowing impact on the northern adjoining properties as per the measurement of shadow in the R-Codes;

The height of the alfresco area, being 2.7m, is not considered to result in an adverse building bulk impact on the northern adjoining properties.

It is considered that there would be necessary sunlight and ventilation afforded to the northern adjoining properties, having regard to the reasonable setback of one metre from the property boundaries.

The setback would allow for the infiltration of sunlight into the proposed dwellings at 8 Warren Street.

Open space


Provided Design Principle Assessment

Proposed Dwelling 1

202.36m² (50%) 175.27m² (43.3%) 27.09m² (6.7%)

Proposed Dwelling 2

202.36m² (50%) 175.39m² (43.3%) 26.97m² (6.7%)

The open space proposed in the application is considered to meet the applicable design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: The open space is considered to reflect the existing streetscape as outlined under the

local planning framework, having regard to the development being in accordance with the street setback stipulated in Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes;

There is natural sunlight provided to the dwelling, particularly through the location of the alfresco rooms being situated at the northern aspect of the sites;

The development and subsequent open space is considered to provide an attractive setting for the buildings, landscape, vegetation and streetscape. Specifically, there are a number of trees proposed to be retained on site which are considered to contribute to an attractive setting.

The open space proposed is considered to provide opportunities for residents to use space external the dwelling for outdoor pursuits;

There is sufficient space on site for external fixtures and essential facilities such as a clotheslines and rainwater tank.


Page 84

Garage Width


Garage Width 4.99m (50%) 5.99m (60%) 1.00m (10%)

The proposed garage width for the two dwellings is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: The garage width is considered to maintain visual connectivity between the dwelling

and the street, and vice versa, by articulating the front elevation to the street. In particular, the study room extends 900mm in front of the garage which assists in lessening its dominance to the street.

Further to the above, the effect of the garage door on the streetscape is considered to be minimised through this design approach. It is also recognised that the narrow lots, coupled with the prescribed requirement for garage widths as per the Australian Standard 2890.1, results in design constraints to allow the garage to meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes.

The garage doors are setback a considerable distance from the front boundary at 7.84m

Setback of Retaining walls


Setback of retaining wall (east)

1m (up to 640mm high wall)

Nil 1.5m

The proposed setback for the eastern retaining walls is considered to meet the applicable design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: The retaining walls proposed are considered to result in land that can be effectively

used for the benefit of residents by levelling out the site accordingly for the development;

There is not considered to be a detrimental impact through the retaining proposed, given that only a small portion at the rear of the site has retaining in excessive of 500mm.

The retaining is designed, engineered and landscaped having due regard to the level of site works proposed, which are compliant with the R-Codes.

Visual Privacy


Western visual privacy setback

4.5m setback from Bedroom 2 of Dwelling 1

1.6m 2.9m

The proposed visual privacy setback is considered to meet the applicable design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: The overlooking is predominantly towards a driveway on the western adjoining

property, which is not considered to be a sensitive area with respect to visual privacy.


Page 85

There are two windows on the eastern elevation of 6 Warren Street that would potentially be impacted, however, as shown in the image below, one window has a minimum sill height greater than 1.6m and the other has roller screening. Further, the width of the window with roller screening is relatively narrow, which, due to the dimensions, is not considered to facilitate overlooking that would have an adverse impact on visual privacy.

Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development Boundary Walls


East - garage 1m 0m 1m

The proposed boundary wall is considered to be supportable under LPP 2.4 for the following reasons: It is considered that the height and length of the proposed boundary wall, being a

maximum of 3.2m and 5.7m respectively, would not result in an adverse building bulk impact on the affected property.

Due to the orientation of the site, there would not be an overshadowing impact as per the measurement of shadow provided for in the R-Codes;

The eastern boundary wall would not be abutting the primary outdoor living area for the adjacent property at 10 Warren Street. As can be seen in the images below, the area at the rear of the site is the main outdoor living space for the site.


Page 86

Typically, outdoor living areas are provided at the rear of the site as per the deemed-to-comply criteria provided for in clause 5.3.1 of the R-Codes:

o An outdoor living area to be provided:

Behind the street setback area… In this regard, the pool is not considered to be the predominant outdoor living area for

the site given that it is situated in the front setback area of 10 Warren Street and, as such, the eastern boundary wall to the garage would not be abutting the more sensitive outdoor living area.

There would be necessary sunlight and ventilation afforded to the affected property, having regard to the relatively minor length (5.7m) of the boundary wall in relation to the overall length of the boundary.

Overall, the boundary wall is not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property for the abovementioned reasons.





Page 87

Green Plan 2020: It is noted that two trees on site are proposed to be removed to allow for the construction of the grouped dwelling. It is also recognised that planning approval is generally not required for the removal of trees on private property.


MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two, single storey Grouped Dwellings at No.8 (Lot 60) Warren Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the

approved plans, dated 22 June 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 3. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0257/16,

on plans dated 22 June 2016, vehicle crossovers shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0257/16,

on plans dated 22 June 2016), any redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be removed and the verge reinstated to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle and at the expense of the applicant.

5. That the Grouped dwellings achieve a NatHERS accredited energy

efficiency star rating of 7 stars that is certified by a NatHERS energy assessor to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0257/16, on

plans dated 22 June 2016, a minimum 1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel system shall be installed to both Grouped dwellings and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0257/16, on

plans dated 22 June 2016, a 3000L rainwater tank plumber to a toilet and/or laundry, or an approved grey-water reuse system that collects grey water from the laundry and bathroom and re-directs it for garden irrigation/ground water recharge, shall be installed to both Grouped dwellings and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 88

8. Prior to occupation of both Grouped dwellings, the boundary walls located

on the eastern and western boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;




Advisory Notes (i) The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be

uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

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

the plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;

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

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

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

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

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

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against



Page 89

PC1609-07 HINES ROAD, NO. 53A (LOT 2), HILTON - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (AD DA0285/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 September 2016 Responsible Officer: A/Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: PC1604-7 (6 April 2016) Attachments: 1. Development Plans 2. Planning Committee report for PC1604-7 (6 April 2016) 3. Site Photos Date Received: 13 June 2016 Owner Name: Dongni Fan and Hongfeng Shen Submitted by: APG Homes Pty Ltd Scheme: Residential (R20) Heritage Listing: Not individually listed; Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 53A (Lot 2) Hines Road, Hilton. The application is presented to the Planning Committee (PC) on the basis of objections received during the community consultation period that cannot be resolved through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of neighbours. At its meeting of 6 April 2016, the PC resolved to refuse an application for planning approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 53A (Lot 2) Hines Road, Hilton (refer DA0024/16; PC1604-7), despite the City recommending that the proposal be supported on-balance. The applicant has since modified the proposal previously considered and refused by PC in an attempt to improve one of the issues with the


Page 90

design, being in relation to overshadowing which is inherently linked to the discretionary criteria for building height under the provisions of Council’s Local Planning Policy 3.7 – “Hilton Garden Suburb” Heritage Area Local Planning Policy (LPP3.7). The proposed development has been assessed against relevant clauses of Local Planning Scheme No 4 (LPS4), local planning policies and the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), with the following discretions and/or design principle assessments sought:

Building height;

Lot boundary setbacks (north boundary wall); and

Solar access for adjoining sites. The application is recommended for on-balance, conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R20 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the Hilton Local Planning Area 7 (LPA 7) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by South Street to the north, Lee Avenue to the west, Hines Road to the east and Rennie Crescent to the south. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List; however it is located within Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct Heritage Area, which is a prescribed heritage area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is approximately 398m2, has a predominantly east-west orientation; is currently vacant and is relatively flat in terms of its topography. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and/or to this application:

On 26 November 2013, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted conditional approval for a two lot survey strata subdivision of No. 53 (Lot 14) Hines Road, Hilton (WAPC1086-13). This ultimately resulted in the creation of the subject site;

At its meeting of 6 May 2015, the then Planning Services Committee (PSC) granted conditional planning approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 53A (Lot 2) Hines Road, Hilton (refer DA0114/15). This proposal met all discretionary requirements of LPP3.7 to allow the two storey building height;

At its meeting of 6 April 2016, the Planning Committee resolved to refuse an application for planning approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 53A (Lot 2) Hines Road, Hilton (refer DA0024/16; PC1604-7) for the following reason:

“The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy LPP 3.7 ‘Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct’ Heritage Area Local Planning Policy in regard to maximum building height.”


Page 91

It is noted that whilst the PC ultimately resolved to refuse planning approval DA0024/16, the City’s officers recommendation was that the application be conditionally approved, on balance.

DETAIL

On 13 June 2016, the City received an application seeking planning approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 53A (Lot 2) Hines Road, Hilton. Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. The proposal is almost identical to the one previously considered, and ultimately refused by PC at its meeting of 6 April 2016 (refer DA0024/16; PC1604-7), however the applicant has made some changes to the design in an effort to ameliorate some of the impacts previously considered. The table below outlines the changes between the previously refused DA0024/16 and what is now proposed:

Element DA0024/16 DA0285/16 Change

Southern boundary setback

1.589m 1.789m +0.200m

Northern boundary setback

2.659m 2.459m -0.200m

Overshadowing* 14%* (124m2) 11.96% (107.10m2) -2.04% (16.9m2)

*This is based on the proportionate share of the lot boundary lengths between No. 53 & 53A Hines Road, Hilton The key changes made by the applicant have been to:

increase the southern boundary setback from 1.589m by 0.2m up to 1.789m in order to lessen the overshadowing affecting the southern adjoining property; and

‘cut off’ the eaves located on the upper floor on the southern elevation (refer ‘E4 Side Elevation’); and

drop the Finished Floor Level (FFL) from 11.74 down to 11.64. The cumulative effect of the above changes has served to assist the overall reduction of overshadowing of the southern adjoining property. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The development has been assessed in accordance with provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Council’s Local Planning Policies (Council’s Policies). Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions and need to be assessed under the relevant design principles:

Building height (LPP3.7);

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall) – (R-Codes, LPP2.4); and

Solar access for adjoining sites (R-Codes).


Page 92

Detailed assessment is included in the Planning Comment section of the report below. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 due to policy discretions and R Codes design principles assessment being sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 1 July 2016, the City had received 4 submissions, 1 of which raised no objection to the proposal. The main planning issues that were raised related to:

Building Height;

Boundary walls;

Overshadowing; There were also concerns relating to the following, of which are considered to meet the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements of the R-Codes and as such cannot be refused or conditioned to comply on that basis:

Visual privacy

PLANNING COMMENT

Building height

Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

External wall height – 3.5m 5.6m 2.1m

Roof ridge height – 6.5m 7.3m 0.80m

In accordance with LPP 3.7 – Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct Heritage Area Local Planning Policy, variations to the prescribed building height may be granted as follows –

“The development is on a rear survey strata lot, battle axe lot or the equivalent and has minimal presentation to the streetscape and the development complies with the Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes regarding:

i. Design Element 6.3.1 – Building setback from the boundary; and

ii. Design Element 6.4.1 – Open Space; and

iii. Design Element 6.9.1 – Design for Climate” The proposal at No. 53a Hines Road meets the following aspects of the policy –

The proposal is on a rear survey strata lot and is considered to have minimal presentation to the streetscape therefore the discretionary criteria can be considered.

The two storey portion of the building is located on the opposite side of the lot to the vehicle access leg, with the single storey garage being the predominate feature visible (which is setback some 38m from the front boundary), resulting in a two storey development that has minimal presentation to the streetscape;

The proposal meets the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements in relation to lot boundary setbacks. It is noted that whilst a boundary wall is proposed to the north, this is not part of a lot boundary setback assessment;


Page 93

Open space meets the Deemed to Comply (previously referred to as Acceptable Development provisions) requirements of the R-Codes.

While the proposed development meets criteria (i) and (ii) above, the level of shadow (iii) does not meet Acceptable Development (or Deemed to Comply) requirements for an R20 site. As discussed below, however, it is considered that the site meets the Design Principles of the R-Codes for the proposed shadow and does not result in a significant negative impact on the adjoining site. In relation to solar access/overshadowing, LPP3.7 refers to design element 6.9.1, which is based on the 2010 version of the R-Codes. It is further noted that in 2010, this development would have actually met the ‘acceptable development’ (now known as the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards) as it did not provide for ‘proportionate overshadowing’ as is the case with the current version of the R-Codes. This development therefore, is permitted to overshadow 11% of the southern adjoining property, whilst the property in front being No. 53 Hines Road, can overshadow the southern adjoining property by 14% - combining for 25%. In other words in 2010, the proposal would have been permitted to overshadow 25% (223.75m2) of the southern adjoining property, as would the dwelling at the front – potentially resulting in 50% (447.5m2) of the southern adjoining property being overshadow and it being deemed to be ‘acceptable development’. As is outlined in the diagram later in this report in relation to solar access for adjoining sites, the southern adjoining property’s outdoor living area will remain largely unaffected by the proposed shadow cast by the proposal. Any shadow cast that may affect that dwellings outdoor living area will be from a standard 1.80m high fence which is permitted as of right and given the east-west orientation of the lots, will always result in a shadow such as this being cast. As demonstrated in the applicants overshadowing diagram, the actual shadow cast by the dwelling occurs approximately 5.5m from the lots eastern boundary. This 5.5m ensures that no overshadowing of the southern adjoining property’s outdoor living area occurs. The shadow cast therefore affects rear back yard area, which is not considered a sensitive or protected area under the ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes. Should the property to the south be developed with a rear grouped dwelling in the future, it is considered that its outdoor living area would remain largely unaffected if it were to utilise a similar design to what is proposed. The proposed dwelling incorporates a single storey element at its rear to ensure that overshadowing is generally consistent with that a 1.8m high fence would be. This is considered to be a sound example of an applicant considering the design in the context of the site and locality in that it does not significantly prejudice the ability of future development on adjoining sites to be severely compromised. Should PC be of the view that simply not meeting the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements in relation to solar access for adjoining sites contributes to the adverse impact of the additional building height on neighbouring properties, the application could be refused on these grounds. An alternative recommendation is provided for to that effect later in this report. It is recommended however, that the proposal be supported for the reasons outlined above.


Page 94

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)

Deemed to Comply Proposed Design Principle Assessment

Garage (North) – 1m Nil 1m

In relation to the proposed northern boundary wall, it is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways;

The proposed boundary wall does not result in a loss of access to daylight or direct sunlight as measured by the R Codes owing to its location of the northern boundary.

The boundary wall is not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or building bulk as it affects only a small portion of the boundary, is not adjacent to the outdoor living area of the adjoining property and the rest of the development is sufficiently setback from this boundary. It is approximately 2.75m high at its maximum as viewed from the northern adjoining property, and extends for a length of 6.09m (24.08% of total boundary length).

Furthermore the boundary wall is not considered to impact on any views of significance or existing significant vegetation.

Solar access for adjoining sites

Deemed to Comply Proposed Design Principle Assessment

11% - 98.45sqm (proportionate share of 25% total allowable)

11.96% (107.10m2) 0.96% (8.65m2)

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

The area of southern adjoining site directly affected is highly vegetated, with what is considered to be limited access to sunlight currently;

The overshadowing will not impact existing major openings of the dwelling or the exclusive outdoor living area of this property;

The overshadowing will not impact on any existing solar collectors on the adjoining site;

The amount of shadow under the deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes is reduced due to the southern lot sharing its northern boundary with another property. The front property, being No. 53 Hines Road however is only single storey construction, and given it is setback of approximately 3m from the southern common boundary, the percentage of shadow thrown, is estimated to be around 8% (71.6m2), much less than its allowable 14% (125.3m2).

For further discussion, this issue has been discussed in-depth earlier in this report in the building height section of the planning comments above.


Page 95


Increase the number of people living in Fremantle.

Protect current tree canopy cover in Fremantle.


Green Plan 2020

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land: there are no trees proposed to be removed or added to the subject site as part of this development.

ALTERNATIVE OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION As the proposal does not meet all discretionary criteria for additional building height in Hilton in accordance with LPP3.7, an alternate recommendation for refusal is provided for PC’s consideration:

“That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 53a (Lot 2) Hines Road, Hilton, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy LPP 3.7 ‘Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct’ Heritage Area Local Planning Policy in regard to maximum building height.”


Page 96


MOVED: Cr J Strachan

THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED UNDER THE METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AND LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 FOR THE TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING AT NO. 53A (LOT 2) HINES ROAD, HILTON, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

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

plans, dated 13 June 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;



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

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 4. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0285/16, on

plans dated 13 June 2016, vehicle crossovers shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0285/16, on

plans dated 13 June 2016, any redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be removed and the verge reinstated to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle and at the expense of the applicant.

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

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

Advice note:

i. The dwelling is approved for the purposes of human habitation on a permanent basis by a single person, a single family, or no more than six persons who do not comprise a single family.


Page 97

ii. The approval of the new / revised vehicle access has been granted based on the plans as submitted by the applicant to the City of Fremantle showing existing infrastructure and trees within the road verge and road. Should it transpire that this existing infrastructure was not accurately depicted on the plan it is the responsibility of the applicant to either;


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

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

iv. In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority prior to the commencement of this development, this planning approval will be incapable of implementation.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr Josh Wilson Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald


Page 98

Cr J McDonald vacated the chamber at 7.26pm and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. Cr J McDonald returned to the meeting at 7.51pm.

PC1609-08 JOSLIN STREET, NO.40 (LOT 1665), HILTON - TWO GROUPED DWELLING ADDITION (SINGLE STOREY WITH LOFT AND TWO STOREY DWELLING) & ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (SP DA0339/16)

ECM Reference: DA0339/16 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 September 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Statutory Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1 - Development Plans 2 – Site Photo’s Date Received: 8 July 2016 Owner Name: Troy Blizard Submitted by: SIDI Constructions Scheme: Residential Zone R20/25 Heritage Listing: Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Existing Single House Use Class: ‘Grouped Dwellings’ Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 99

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received a development application proposing two additional Grouped Dwellings and additions and alteration to the existing Single house located at No.40 (Lot 1665) Joslin Street, Hilton (the site). The application is referred to the Planning Committee due to two submissions being received raising relevant planning concerns which cannot be addressed via the imposition of relevant planning conditions. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4), Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the City’s relevant Local Planning Policies and seeks either Design Principle or discretionary decisions in relation to the following: Residential Design Codes

Boundary Walls (Ground floor) west boundary and (Garage) southern internal (Proposed Dwelling’s 2 & 3),

Local Planning Policies

LPP3.7 – Hilton Garden Precinct Policy - Primary Street Setback (Dwelling 3), - Minimum wall height (Dwelling 2 & 3),


Page 100

- Maximum wall height (Dwelling 2 & 3), - Maximum Roof Ridge Height (Dwelling 3), - Building form (front door fronting the street) (Dwelling 3), and - Subdivision Configuration (Dwelling 3).

LPP2.12 - Verge Infrastructure Proximity to proposed Crossover (LPP 2.12). The application is recommended for on balance conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the provisions of LPS4 and has a split density coding of R20/R25. The subject site is not on the City’s Heritage List, but is located within the prescribed Heritage area known as ‘Hilton Garden Suburb Heritage Precinct.’ The site is a corner allotment currently occupied by a single storey Single house fronting the splay of Joslin Street and Snook Crescent, and comprises of 1098m2. The site has several existing mature trees onsite of which two are proposed to be removed as part of this proposed redevelopment onsite. DETAIL

On 8 July 2016, the City received plans for an application for the additional development of a Two Storey Grouped Dwelling, a Single Storey with loft Grouped Dwelling, and alterations and additions to the existing Single house onsite. On 9 June 2016, the applicant requested preliminary advice for concept plans, in which the City advised that it could not support the proposal and discretionary issues relating to the R-Codes & Local Planning Policies. The City has since received four sets of amended plans from the applicant since preliminary discussions, accommodating the advice the City has relayed to them in relation to discretions sought. For simplicity reasons in reading this report, the existing Single house has been identified as ‘House 1’ in plans below, whilst the rear battleaxe Two Storey Grouped Dwelling to be referred to as ‘House 2,’ and finally, the proposed Single Storey Grouped Dwelling with a Loft being identified as ‘House 3’ as depicted below.


Page 101

‘House 1’ is located in the centre of the allotment, addressing the corner of Joslin Street & Snook Crescent. ‘House 2’ is the rear battleaxe located in the north western corner of the allotment and addresses Snook Crescent. Both House’s 1 & 2 are proposed to share an access leg running the length of the northern boundary of the site. Lastly, ‘House 3’ addressed Joslin Street and is located on the south western corner of the lot, between existing House 1 and the western adjoining allotment. See ‘Attachment 1 for the latest amended plans provided on 18 August 2016. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, R-Codes and Council’s Local Planning Policies. Policy discretions and assessment against the R Codes design principles sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the deemed-to-comply or policy provisions and need to be assessed under the Design Principles:

Residential Design Codes

Boundary Walls: (Ground floor) west boundary and (Garage) southern internal (Proposed Dwelling’s 2 & 3),


Page 102

Local Planning Policies

LPP3.7 – Hilton Garden Precinct Policy - Primary Street Setback (Dwelling 3), - Minimum wall height (Dwelling 3), - Maximum wall height (Dwelling 2 and 3), - Maximum Roof Ridge Height (Dwelling 2 and 3); - Building form (front door fronting the street) (Dwelling 3), and - Subdivision Configuration (Dwelling 3).

LPP2.2 – Split Density and Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Policy

LPP2.12 - Verge Infrastructure Proximity to proposed Crossover (LPP 2.12). The above matters are discussed in detail in the ‘Planning Comment’ section below. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3), as the applicant is seeking assessment against the relevant R Codes design principles and discretions to Council’s Local Planning Policies. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 29 July 2016, the City had received 1 submission, which raised the following relevant planning concerns (summarised):

Compromised Streetscape Amplified Building Bulk, and Over development of the lot.

Internal Heritage Comments

Infrastructure and Project Delivery Department The application was referred to the Infrastructure and Project Delivery Department due to the application proposing a second crossover who advised that the proposal could be supported subject to several conditions of approval. A summary of conditions recommended include the following:

Costs associated with verge infrastructure modification to be provided by applicant;

Crossover proposed to be include a finish satisfactory to the City;

Replant three verge trees as a result of the existing verge tree lost from the crossover addition.

Crossover to incorporate minimum distance from existing power pole. These are included as conditions of approval.


Page 103

PLANNING COMMENT

Residential Design Codes

Boundary Walls (In Conjunction with LPP 2.4)

House Required Proposed Discretion

1 2 Western Ground Floor Wall (Kitchen/Dining) – 1m setback required (9m long x 3m high)

0.00m (nil) 1.00m

2 2 South/East Internal Ground Floor Wall (Garage) – 1m setback required (5.9m long x 2.5m)

0.00m (nil) 1.00m

3 3 Western Ground Floor Wall (Laundry) – 1m setback required (2.35m long x 2.6m high)

0.00m (nil) 1.00m

These discretionary decisions are considered supportable under the discretionary criteria of LPP2.4 for the following reasons:

The perception of building bulk as a result of all three boundary walls are considered marginal given the limited length (3.6 -9m) and all are single storey in height (2.35m –3m), but not to an extent which would be considered to significantly contribute to a sense of confinement for the neighbouring allotments affected;

The proposed boundary walls that are located on the western boundary but are not abutting any outdoor living areas All three proposed dwellings do not have their respective northern located outdoor living areas compromised by a proposed boundary wall and therefore considered to be open to winter sun;

The orientation of the lot and layout of proposed dwellings would create a majority of shadow internally within the subject site or towards the Joslin Street road reserve.

Overall the proposed boundary walls to the external boundaries in particular are not considered to have a significant adverse impact in terms of restricted solar access (as a direct cause), building bulk or loss of visual amenity, which is demonstrated above;

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

Notwithstanding the above, Clause 3.1 of LPP3.7 - “Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct” Heritage Area Local Planning Policy also states that:

“When considering an application under the performance criteria in clause 6.3.2P2 of the Residential Design Codes, in addition to the factors detailed in LPP2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development, Council shall only approve a boundary wall where it is satisfied that the boundary wall is located a significant distance from the front boundary of the property to maintain a streetscape of separated single residences separated by open space.”

In relation to Clause 3.1 above, it is noted that the proposed boundary walls to proposed House 2 are considered to address LPP2.4 and are not assessed under the criteria of


Page 104

Clause 3.1 LPP3.7, due to being a rear battleaxe development and therefore not visible from neither Joslin Street nor Snook Crescent. However the western boundary wall on House 3 whilst potentially visible its level of impact is considered negligible as the wall will be setback some 12m from the edge of front boundary having minimal presentation to the streetscape views

Outdoor Living Area (House 3)

Cl 5.3.1 Element Required Proposed Discretion

Outdoor Living Area 4m minimum width and length

3.715m 0.285m

These discretionary decisions are supportable under the design principles for the following reasons:

Area to the rear of House 3 within the indicative boundaries is accessible and capable of use in conjunction with a habitable room (Living Dining) of the proposed dwelling.

Outdoor living area is a larger square meterage than the deemed-to-comply requirement (30m2 required, 45m2 provided).

Winter solar access would not be compromised due to lot boundary setback discretion of northern dwelling.

Ventilation from the eastern and western prevailing winds is facilitated by setbacks surrounding the outdoor living area.

For these reasons, the outdoor living area discretion is to be supported. Council’s Local Planning Policies LPP 2.12 – Planning Applications Impacting on Verge Infrastructure & Verge Trees

All new vehicle driveways are required to be separated from any verge infrastructure by:

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

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

signs.

Council may grant approval to a lesser dimension in cases where written a) Justification is provided by the applicant, and Council is satisfied that: b) No practical alternative location is available for the crossover, and c) The infrastructure/tree is not damaged by the proposal, and d) Safe and adequate traffic sight distances are maintained.

The policy allows for discretion for a lesser dimension when a justification report has been provided with the planning application stating no logical alternatives to where a proposed crossover is located.


Page 105

The applicant provided reasoning, believing there was no practical alternative for the placement of the second proposed crossover. Based upon a justification being received by the City for a proposed crossover likely to impact the existing verge infrastructure, as outlined in the requirements of Clause 1.3, the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Department have supported the street tree removal subject to conditions which are included in the Officers Recommendation. LPP 3.7 – Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct Heritage Area Clause 1.1 – Setback of buildings including Garages/Carports where under the main roof of development

Dwelling Primary Street Setback Required

Proposed Primary Street Setback

Discretion

Proposed House 3 7m 6m – 8.7m up to 1m

The discretionary criteria for Clause 1.1 of LPP3.7 states:

“Council may, at its discretion, allow a lesser setback of the building from the primary street where it is satisfied that the development meets one of the following criteria:

a) Where the proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of buildings within the prevailing streetscape; or

b) Where due to the nature of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land, the proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element into an established streetscape vista; or

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

The variation is supportable against discretionary criterion (b) for the following reasons:

The sloping topography of the site from the primary street setback to the proposed building envelope of proposed House 3, with spot levels lowering from 34m to 32.5m, softens the impact of a lesser setback and would not be considered to project into the streetscape;

Only one third of the proposed front wall (5m length) to House 3 is seeking discretion, which is understood to minimally impact the existing streetscape vista.

Clause 2.1 – Minimum External Wall Height

Dwelling Minimum External Wall Height Required

Proposed External Wall Height

Discretion

Proposed House 3 3.2m 2.8m 0.4m

“Where satisfied that the proposed external wall height is consistent with the external wall height of development within the prevailing streetscape and the development meets one of the following criteria:

a) The development incorporates design elements that give the development a greater, more traditional presence to the street such as gable ends greater than


Page 106

the minimum external wall height or a steeper roof pitch (within the maximum roof pitch requirement of 35 degrees); or

b) The natural ground level of the site is higher than the street so the development maintains a greater, more traditional presence to the street

The proposal demonstrates external wall heights which are considered to be consistent with the existing Grouped Dwelling development on the western adjoining allotment as both of these dwellings incorporate external wall heights of 2.8m, and the proposal itself also meeting the criteria of a maximum roof pitch below 35 degrees of incorporating degrees, therefore can be supported. Clause 2.2 – Maximum External Wall Height & Maximum Roof Ridge Height

Dwelling Maximum External Wall Height Allowed

Proposed External Wall Height

Discretion

Proposed House 2 3.5m 5.9m 2.4m

The discretionary criteria for Clause 2.2 of LPP3.7 states that:

“Council may, at its discretion, allow a greater external wall height and/or greater roof ridge height where it is satisfied that the development meets one of the following criteria: a) The development is on a rear survey strata lot, battleaxe lot or the equivalent

and has minimal presentation to the streetscape and the development complies with the Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes regarding: i. Design Element 6.3.1 – Buildings setback from the boundary; and ii. Design Element 6.4.1 – Open Space; and iii. Design Element 6.9.1 – Design for Climate.

Or b) Excluding development on a rear survey strata lot, battleaxe lot or the

equivalent, the front and side elevations of the development present generally as a single storey dwelling when viewed from the street with the predominant bulk of the element exceeding the prescribed maximum building height located at the rear of the dwelling; or

c) Excluding development on a rear survey strata lot, battleaxe lot or the equivalent, the proposed building height is consistent with the building height of development within the prevailing streetscape.”

As per (a), the proposed layout of Lot 2 and location of House 2 is considered to be of a rear battleaxe or the equivalent. The upper floor component does comply with LPP 3.7 Clause 2.2 and demonstrates to be compliant with the provisions of ‘Design Elements’ (i) Buildings setback from the boundary, (ii) Open Space, and (iii) Design for Climate. For the reasons above, the maximum external wall height should be supported.

Dwelling Maximum Roof Ridge Height

Allowed

Proposed Roof Ridge Height

Discretion

Proposed House 2 6.5m 6.1m Complies


Page 107

Proposed House 3 6.5m 5.9m – 6.81m up to 0.31m

The proposal is supportable against discretionary criteria for the following reasons:

Proposed design of House 3 presents generally as a Single Storey with a Loft when viewed from the primary street (Joslin Street);

Side elevations of proposed House 3 are considered screened by existing development on the western adjoining site (No.38 Joslin Street) and the retained dwelling identified as House 1 on this site;

The predominant bulk of the element exceeding the prescribed maximum building height is located to the rear of House 3.

For the reasons above, the maximum roof ridge height should be supported. Clause 4.2 – Building Form & Proportion

Dwelling Front Door Location Requirement

Proposed Front Door Location

Discretion

Proposed House 3 Face the street & be clearly visible from street

Facing side on to hardstand car bays, not facing the street

Yes

The discretionary criteria for Clause 4.2 of LPP3.7 states:

“Council may, at its discretion vary the building form and proportion requirements of clauses 4.2.2 where it is satisfied that the development provides for surveillance from a habitable room or active outdoor habitable space between the dwelling and the street.”

The variation should be supported against the discretionary criteria for the following reasons:

The development provides surveillance between the dwelling and street from a habitable room (bedroom 1).

The front door is visible from the west. For the reasons above, the discretion should be supported. Clause 8.1 – Subdivision Configuration

The subdivision is in the form of battleaxe or survey strata (with or without common property) with one lot behind the other. The proposed front lot shall have a minimum frontage of 16 metres. In the case of corner lots, the minimum frontage of 16 metres shall apply to the primary street. Access legs for battleaxe or survey strata subdivision shall provide reciprocal access to both the front and rear lots. Where such an arrangement is proposed, Council shall recommend the following condition of subdivision to be applied:

“The applicant is to make suitable arrangements to ensure reciprocal rights of access exist over adjoining battleaxe access legs


Page 108

Council may, at its discretion, vary the subdivision requirements above where it is satisfied that the proposed subdivision will be consistent with the form of subdivision within the prevailing streetscape.

House 1 & House 2 demonstrates a battleaxe subdivision, with common property access leg ensuring reciprocal vehicle use to both of these dwellings. The front lots (House 1 & 3) are side by side configuration but does meet the minimum requirements of 16m street frontage of LPP3.7. The proposal in its entirety, for three Grouped Dwellings, is not consistent with subdivision types within the prevailing streetscape, but is similar to other corner lot subdivision of the Hilton area with the closest being adjacent to the site in question (No. 17 Joslin St, Hilton). A dual crossover with one crossover addressing one street frontage each on the corner lot is considered to maintain a consistency of 1 crossover per street frontage, as per the prevailing streetscape. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25:

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle.


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

The applicant is proposing to remove two mature onsite trees to allow for the development footprint for house 3 on the site. No DA is required for the removal of trees on private land as such works are exempt from the need to obtain council’s prior planning approval under clause 8.2 of LPS4.

The applicant is also proposing to retain 4 mature trees onsite as part of the overall development and the proposal includes three landscaping zones to the three dwelling’s future allotments. Accordingly the Green Plan advice note has been included encouraging a deep planting zone


Page 109


MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for development of a two additional Grouped Dwellings (Single Storey with loft and a Two Storey Grouped Dwelling) and additions and alterations to the existing Single House at No. 40 (Lot 1665) Joslin Street, Hilton, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 18 August 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

3. That the dwellings indicated as House 2 and House 3 on plan marked DA.1 dated 18 August 2016, shall achieve a NatHERS accredited energy efficiency star rating of 7 stars that are certified by a NatHERS energy assessor to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to occupation of the two additional Grouped Dwellings, on plans dated 18

August 2016, a minimum 1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel system shall be installed on both Grouped Dwellings as indicated as ‘House 2’ and ‘House 3’ and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation of the two additional Grouped Dwellings, on plans dated 18

August 2016, a minimum 3000L rainwater tank to both Grouped Dwellings as indicated as ‘House 2’ and ‘House 3’ shall be plumbed to a toilet and/or laundry, shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation of the Grouped Dwellings as indicated as House 2 and House

3 on approved plans dated 18 August 2016, the boundary walls located on the western and southern common boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;





plans dated 18 August 2016, vehicle crossovers shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 110

8. Prior to occupation of the Grouped Dwellings 2 and 3 as indicated on the

development approved as part of DA0339/16, on plans dated 18 August 2016, the applicant shall:

a. remove the existing verge tree marked in red on approved plans and its

stump to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, and

b. replant three Jacaranda mimosifolia trees with a minimum pot size of 150 in the verge area in front of the subject site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. The new/ modified vehicle crossover shall be separated from any verge

infrastructure by:

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

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

directional signs.

Advice Note(s):

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

ii) The approval of the new vehicle access has been granted based on the plans

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


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

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

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

iv) In the event that such an approval is not forthcoming from the relevant City of Fremantle department or relevant service authority prior to the commencement


Page 111

of this development, this planning approval will be incapable of implementation.

v) With regards to planning condition No.7 - 9 above, the applicant/ owner is

advised to contact the City Parks and Gardens Department regarding suitable verge tree replanting locations within Joslin Street and Snook Crescent road verge.

vi) The city advises of the following street numbering/addresses:

House 1 address is ’40 Joslin Street, HILTON 6163;

House 2 address is ’78 Snook Crescent, HILTON 6163;

House 3 address is ‘40A Joslin Street, HILTON 6163;

As in accordance with Australian Standard NZS4819-2011: Rural and urban addressing.

COMMITTEE DECISION

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for development of a two additional Grouped Dwellings (Single Storey with loft and a Two Storey Grouped Dwelling) and additions and alterations to the existing Single House at No. 40 (Lot 1665) Joslin Street, Hilton, for the following reasons:

i. The development is considered to be inconsistent with the provisions of

Council Local Planning Policy LPP3.7, particularly with regard to external

wall height, roof ridge height and setback.

ii. The development does not provide for the retention of existing mature

vegetation on site.

iii. The development incorporates excessive areas of hard stand surfaces.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham


Page 112

Mayor, Brad Pettitt vacated the chamber at 7.53pm and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. Mayor, Brad Pettitt returned to the meeting at 8.16pm.

PC1609-09 PHILLIMORE STREET, NO. 2 (LOT 1846), FREMANTLE - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS AND CHANGE OF USE TO SMALL BAR - (CJ DA0002/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 September 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1 – Development Plans

2 – Site Photographs 3 – Heritage Assessment 4 – Fremantle Ports’ submission 5 – Correspondence from the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator 6 – Independent Transport review

Date Received: 5 January 2016 Owner Name: City of Fremantle Submitted by: Alexander Gillam and David Anthony Scheme: City Centre Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Small Bar Use Permissibility: A


Page 113

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City is in receipt of an application for works to an existing building at No. 2 Phillimore Street, Fremantle (former weighbridge) for the purposes of a Small Bar. Due to the size of the building, works are required to provide essential facilities such as toilets, as well as extending a covered area for seating. The application has been assessed against relevant statutory planning requirements, as well as Heritage and Traffic, by internal and external departments. It is considered that a number of issues raised can be resolved through the imposition of conditions, or are not relevant planning concerns. On review of the issues raised by internal and external agencies in relation to parking and safety risks associated with the proposed land uses, the application is recommended for on balance conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

No. 2 Phillimore Street, Fremantle, also known as the “Former Weighbridge”, is located to the north of Phillimore Street, Fremantle. The site is zoned City Centre under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located in the West End Conservation Area Heritage Area. It is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI). The site is currently has a weighbridge and associated building, and is not presently occupied by a tenant. Planning history for the site is as follows –

18 November 1999 – DA720/99 – Trading in public places (retailing other: Scoot car Hire)

28 January 2015 – Essential terms and conditions of draft lease approved by Council and Minister for Lands, however both parties are awaiting development approval before executing the final lease. The City’s Commercial Properties department has advised that it is not uncommon for lease applicants to finalise a development application prior to signing a lease, to ensure they can fulfil all requirements. It is noted that the definition of Small Bar in the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) limits the number of people on site to 120 persons.

Site photographs are included as Attachment 2. DETAIL

On 5 January 2016, the City received an application for additions and alterations to an existing building for the purposes of operating a Small Bar. Since lodgement of the original plans, a number of revisions have been presented by the applicant in an attempt to rectify Heritage concerns. The revised set of plans (dated 13 May 2016) presented to Planning Committee propose the following works for the Small Bar -

Removal of parking infrastructure (sign and meter) and street light;

Planter boxes and landscaping;

Single storey additions;


Page 114

Protection of existing weighbridge and scales.

Internal fit out Development plans have been provided as Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the relevant provisions of LPS4 and local planning policies. In this particular application the areas outlined below seek discretions:

Land use; and

Car parking;

A detailed discussion regarding the above is provided in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the application is proposing discretionary land use and car parking. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 8 March 2016, the City had received three (3) submissions. The following issues were raised:

Location is unsafe for pedestrians and motorists;

Access to other locations around the City will result in disturbance to residents;

Area will require more monitoring and cleaning;

Shipping containers will not complement west end architecture – should be limestone or brick;

Building too high;

Barrier suggested around road and zebra crossings;

Additional activity and enjoyment on this site welcomed;

Noise is a major concern particularly from cool room and bar equipment;

Changes to onsite parking;

Security risks in having licensed premises near building.

State Heritage Office (SHO)

Due to the subject site’s location within the West End Conservation Area, and being in the vicinity of places on the State Register of Heritage Places, the application was referred to the State Heritage Office for comment.

SHO has reviewed the proposed plan and has provided the following advice –


Page 115

The proposal will not impact on the state registered places in the vicinity, or on the identified significance of the West End, Fremantle area. As such there is no objection to the proposed development.

Heritage

The City’s Heritage department has reviewed the proposal, and has provided the following recommendation –

That the current proposal be supported on heritage grounds with the following conditions:

Further detail is required on the colour and texture of zinc cladding and bin storage screen.

Further detailed information is required describing how the weighing equipment will be conserved and incorporated into the design in its original location.

That good conservation practice is employed when repairing the original masonry structure and that cement is not used in the mortar for these repairs.

Advice Note: Traditional building techniques and materials are recommended for the conservation of traditionally constructed buildings. The works should be on a like for like basis informed by inspections, including materials analysis if required, undertaken by skilled tradespeople with experience in using these materials and techniques.

Conditions of approval have been recommended in accordance with the above. Full assessment is included as attachment 3.

Infrastructure and Project Delivery

The City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery team has reviewed the proposal and provides the following comments –

Infrastructure

Infrastructure Comment Applicant Response Planning Officer Comment

Metered ticket machine needs to be relocated to within carpark if remaining in CoF ownership.

The comments from the Infrastructure Dept. are valid concerns, some of which appear to be general comments that require further input from the COF. As such we request any of those items which require detailed input, be located by the COF on a drawing or be made conditional on the

See response from parking below.

Streetlight column shown to be relocated but no indication of where. Light serves ticket machine but also junction.

Condition of approval for lighting plan (that includes replacement of the streetlight) for the site. It is not the applicants’ responsibility to light surrounding public spaces.


Page 116

All stormwater to be retained on premises.

approval. Standard condition.

Need to indicate access points for pedestrians across Phillimore Street, Cliff Street, Customs Place to the development

Condition of approval, for clear entry points to be indicated (i.e. through signage) on site.

Maintain one way access

Maintain 5.8m width throughout for access lane

This is not provided today for the entirety of the access through the carpark. Width of access has been improved with the removal of some bays. Additionally, it is not reasonable to require the applicant make changes to CoF outside of their lease area.

2 bays on the east (right) side north of the loading area will not be able to remain

These bays have been altered to become small, motorcycle bays and are no longer shown on plans.

Demarcate or construct (preferable) entrance area to clearly show aisle through area.

Provided on plans.

Liaise with parking over loss of bays

See parking comments below.

Lighting engineer should design compliant lighting for the development

Condition of approval for lighting plan for the development.

In addition to the above comments, the City commissioned an independent traffic safety audit of the proposal and existing intersection (see Attachment 6). The following table outlines the issues currently existing with the site and its associated car park –

FINDING RECOMMENDATION

Existing Conflicting Movements: The proposed development site is located within the central island of a semi-roundabout arrangement with a large number of conflicting turning movements immediately surrounding the site due to the number of intersecting side roads and as well as

Ban the existing practice of permitting access to/from the central island of the roundabout by vehicles for parking.


Page 117

roads within the central island.

Pavement Markings: The Stop line for southbound vehicles approaching Phillimore Street from the circulatory carriageway is worn and faded making it difficult to observe. Drivers may be unaware of the need to stop at this intersection and not come to a complete halt prior to making a turning movement, potentially resulting in a right angle collision with an opposing vehicle

Re-mark the Stop line

The above issues have been raised with the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery directorate, and will be actioned where possible. The following table relates to issues with the proposal. A condition of approval has been included in the Officers Recommendation to address the findings.

FINDING RECOMMENDATION

1. Vehicle Movements: Weighbridge Laneway The closure of the weighbridge laneway at the southern side of the roundabout is to be effected by planter boxes, storage blocks and furniture which may not be observed by road users (for instance at night). Without more conventional means to delineate the closure of the laneway, drivers may still attempt to enter the laneway and collide with patrons.

Ensure the proposed closure of the existing weighbridge laneway at either end is adequately designed/delineated to ensure vehicles do not mistakenly use the access, for instance at night when the closure may not be readily apparent to approaching drivers.

2. Pedestrian Access Arrangements: No pedestrian facilities such as kerb ramps have been proposed to allow access for the mobility impaired between the central roundabout island and the footpath network surrounding the site on the outside of the roundabout. Such, pedestrians will need to share the entrance/exit to the central island with vehicles potentially resulting in conflicts between the two road users.

Determine pedestrian desire lines to/from the site as part of a Transport Statement or Transport Impact Assessment for the development. Appropriate pedestrian crossing facilities such as kerb ramps should subsequently be provided within both the central roundabout island and the surrounding footpath on the outside of the roundabout to enable safe and direct access. Treatments such as pedestrian fencing to guide pedestrians to appropriate crossing points and hence encourage their use should be installed. Any new proposed pedestrian facilities should have an independent design stage road safety audit undertaken with the audit findings adopted.

3. Interaction with Passing Vehicles: Provide a suitable form of fence/chain to


Page 118

The design shows outdoor tables/furniture located immediately adjacent to the kerb line on the eastern side of the site with no fence/barrier to separate the road from the alfresco dining/drinking area. Patrons sitting close to the edge of the kerb may inadvertently get struck by passing vehicles (e.g. by wing mirrors or vehicle overhangs). The new amenities storage block/bin store area (and new zinc panel roof allowing access to the above areas) are located immediately adjacent to the proposed kerb line of the access road. The wing mirrors of vehicles passing too close to the kerb line may accidentally collide with these structures.

prevent alfresco patrons from sitting/standing too close to the kerb. Ensure the edge of the structures are located sufficiently away from the access road kerb line. Australian Standard guidance with regards to the lateral placement of traffic signs (taken as a proxy for the above structures) indicate that the edge of the sign should be a minimum of 300mm from the kerb face (or 500mm where the mountable or semi mountable kerbs are used.

4. Vehicle Movements: Car Park Access Increasing numbers of vehicles searching for parking spaces in the public parking area adjacent to the proposed development may result in vehicles queuing back up into the roundabout whilst waiting for a parking space and/or vehicles reversing out into the roundabout from the spaces adjacent to the circulatory carriageway. This may potentially cause rear-end collisions with following vehicles on the roundabout carriageway. Vehicles may accidentally use the access road increasing the exposure to risk of any pedestrians/vehicles generated by the proposed development.

Close two parking spaces immediately adjacent to the circulatory carriageway within the car park to allow at least one vehicle to wait clear of the circulatory carriageway within the car park. Provide a different road surface colour/texture or threshold treatment at the car park access to denote that the road serves a different purpose to the surrounding circulatory carriageway.

A full copy of the report is included in Attachment 6.

Parks and Gardens

Parks Comment Applicant Response Planning Officer Comment

Safety concern – no pram ramps connecting pedestrians to the island and the area is completely surrounded by roads

The comments from the Parks and Gardens Dept. are valid concerns, some of which appear to be general comments that require further input from the COF.

Kerb ramps have been shown on the site plan to access the site. Also as a result of the independent traffic safety audit, pedestrian desire lines will


Page 119

As such we request any of those items which require detailed input, be located by the COF on a drawing or be made conditional on the approval.

be marked. This is included as a condition of approval.

CoF infrastructure relocation required

Condition of approval to relocate sign, streetlight and parking meter to appropriate location.

Footpaths should be 1.2m wide

The footpath proposed on the edge of the lease area (adjoining the car bays), is shown to be 1.2m on the plan.

600mm offset from the edge of the road required for infrastructure

Condition of approval.

Bin collection needs to be confirmed

No comments were received from the City’s Waste Department. Condition a waste management plan.

In small area such as this, road side planting is not encouraged

Given the City’s commitment to the Green Plan, planting on the site is encouraged. However, to ensure safety of pedestrians and motorists, confirmation from the Infrastructure department is recommended when choosing species. A condition of approval to provide a landscaping plan is provided in the Officers Recommendation.

Loss of 6 car bays, but addition of 1 disabled bay

18 bays previously, now 12 plus a loading bay, disabled bay, two motorcycle bays and bicycle racks.

Parking

Parking comment Applicant response Planning Officer comment

Ticket machine will need to be relocated to the nib at the other end of the car park. Approximate cost of $2500. Who is paying for this?

- The expression of interest for the site, offered the premises “as is”, with both the lease draft and applicants expression of interest documentation


Page 120

Main car park sign will need to be shifted. Approx. cost of $300

acknowledging that costs are to be covered by the applicant.

Where is main car park light being relocated to? Not only necessary for the lighting of the car park but provides addition security for pedestrians in the area.

Lighting of subject site to be conditioned. Lighting of the City car park should be undertaken by the City.

Loss of 5 parking bays. Lost revenue approximately $23, 800. There is a shortage of bays in this area and it is expected that those parking in this location would move to the Fremantle Port parking area and hence the income would be lost.

Revenue for the City is not a relevant planning consideration. The City’s Commercial Properties department has confirmed that this was not considered as part of the lease.

Shortage of parking in the area. New business moving into the building across road, and it is expected their presence will increase the parking demand in this area.

This is discussed in the parking assessment below.

The proposed concerns raised by internal departments, relate largely to the movement of vehicles and pedestrians around an existing building, car park and intersection. The safety of pedestrians on the development site is something that should be considered, and a number of conditions of approval have been recommended to improve lighting and pedestrian access to the site, as well as relocating City infrastructure. Environmental Health

The Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the proposal, and has requested the following advice notes be applied–

The proponent must make application to establish the food business so that the premises comply with the Food Act, Regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Submit detailed architectural plans and elevations to the City’s Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

The proponent must make application during the Building Permit application stage to the City’s Environmental Health Services via Form 1 - Application to construct, alter or extend a public building as a requirement of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the

mailto:[email protected]


Page 121

City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

Any person proposing to alter, demolish or remove materials containing asbestos in buildings or fences must comply with the regulations that prescribe:

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

The proponent must make application to establish the alfresco dining area so that the premises comply with the City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Alfresco Dining Areas 2014. Submit detailed plans to the City’s Licensing officer for approval prior to construction. The alfresco dining area is required to be licensed under the City’s Local Laws. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

Fremantle Ports

Fremantle Ports has reviewed the application and have raised the following concerns –

Freight rail impacts – i.e. noise and vibration impacts, and possible constraints on inner harbour operations

Pedestrian safety – Increased pedestrian activity in area with multiple vehicle access, turning and merging points increases the risk of injury or fatality.

Car parking – Site unlikely to comply with LPS4. Cumulative impacts arising over time if multiple car parking variations in West End approved.

Additionally, they have requested information on the following –

How the proposal (land use and physical development) will interface with the freight rail line to ensure that the rail line and the operations of the inner harbour are not adversely impacted;

How pedestrian safety throughout this locality will be protected given the location of the subject site within the centre of a traffic island and adjacent to the three freight rail crossings; and

How the City of Fremantle will manage any cumulative impacts in the area associated with the potential continued approval of car parking variations.

In response to the above, City officers provide the following comments –

To mitigate the impacts of the existing Freight Rail on the proposed Small Bar, a standard condition of approval for a noise management plan is recommended as per SPP 5.4 (Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning);


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



Page 122

Pedestrian safety is only partially the applicants responsibility for the subject site as the land is owned by the City as is the surrounding land, however the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery team have reviewed the proposal and an independent traffic safety audit has been undertaken and recommended changes to the subject site that will improve this. Conditions of approval have been recommended to address these concerns. Additional parking demand is noted, however as an objective of LPS4 is to “reduce reliance on, and the impact of, private motor vehicles”, the lack of parking on site is considered to be appropriate. Also, given the prominence of heritage listed buildings in the West End, the full provision of car parking is not always appropriate as it would require demolition of heritage fabric. The alternative is refuse all change of use applications that do not meet the minimum parking requirement.

Public parking bays, street bays and multistorey car parks are also located within walking distance of the proposed land use.

Public Transport Authority

The application was referred to the Public Transport Authority, due to the subject site’s proximity to an operating railway line. The following comments were provided –

Please be advised that while the Public Transport Authority (PTA) has no objections to the building extension per se, the proposed use of ‘small bar’ is unacceptable for safety reasons. It is concerning that intoxicated bar patrons could enter the rail reserve, which may result in serious injury if not death.

Furthermore, a small bar will bring an increasing amount of people to the area which will cause additional traffic in the vicinity and at the level crossing. As such, can you please provide information regarding how the City intends to manage this issue, including the provision for additional parking bays?

These matters are addressed in the Risk section of the report below. Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (ONRSR) The application has been forwarded to the ONRSR on request of Fremantle Ports as there is no statutory requirement to refer the proposal to the ONRSR. A response was received on 18th February 2016, advising that they had no comment on the proposal. Further to this response, on 26 May 2016, the City received an email from the Chief Executive Officer of the ONRSR noting that while they had provided a “no comment” response, that this did not infer a “non-objection”. It was furthermore requested, that if the rail managers (PTA and Fremantle Ports), raised safety concerns, that on request, the ONRSR could provide comment on the safety concerns.

The application was re-referred to the WA Branch Director for comment on these safety concerns, who provided comment. In this comment the following was received (summarised) –

A reiteration that the ONRSR did not believe it should comment on development applications in regards to a position or level of support or objection, and only wished to make comment if the Rail Manager had safety concerns as a result of the DA;


Page 123

Noted that the PTA had raised concerns about safety, and included their comments;

Comments are on safety only;

Existing risks include night operations, limited visibility around bend and level crossing;

PTA would need to consider increased risk to train operations. Potentially would need to reduce train speeds or invest in higher levels of risk controls at considerable expense.

Comment is included as Attachment 5. PLANNING COMMENT

Phillimore Street Integrated Master Plan The Phillimore Street Integrated Master Plan was developed by Fremantle Ports and the City of Fremantle in 2005.

It is noted the Weighbridge is envisaged to be upgraded for a compatible use, with the car parking area surrounded to be for an “interpretive reconstruction of the former Phillimore Gardens”. There is no elaboration on what a compatible use is, however it is considered that guidance on this should be taken by the provisions of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (see land use discussion below). None of the works to upgrade the public area or consolidate the intersection have been undertaken, and the proposed additions are not considered to prevent this happening in the future. The proposed additions to the weighbridge would not require substantial change if the works to the adjoining public spaces went ahead, with only the alfresco area on the


Page 124

eastern side (occupied by minor and/or temporary structures such as bike racks and tables and chairs) likely to have to move. This could be easily accommodated within the proposed gardens on the western/northern side of the weighbridge. Land use The proposed land use of Small Bar is an ‘A’ use in the City Centre under LPS4 meaning – That the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after fiving special notice (advertising) in accordance with clause 9.4 Clause 8.2 of LPS4 includes provision for a change of use to Small Bar to be exempt from requiring planning approval in the City Centre zone. This is, however only for existing buildings, and in this instance new buildings are being constructed on site. The application is therefore required to be assessed against the objectives of the City Centre zone as follows –

i) Provide for a full range of shopping, office, administrative, social, recreation, entertainment and community services, consistent with the region-serving role of the centre and including residential uses, and

Small Bar is included in the ‘Entertainment Use Classes’ section of the Zoning Table of LPS4, and is considered to be an appropriate contributor to the mix of land uses for a regional centre. Additionally, given the Weighbridge’s separation from existing buildings, its impact on adjoining properties by way of noise or other amenity impacts, are considered to be limited.

ii) Comply with the objectives of local planning area 1 of schedule 12,

There are no specific objectives for this site in Schedule 12.

iii) Conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by

development

The application has been reviewed by the City’s Heritage department, who support the proposal with conditions, having regard to the existing building as well as the West End as a heritage area.

Car parking

Required Provided Merit based assessment

8 bays Nil 8 bays

*The parking table of LPS4 does not include a calculation for Small Bar. In this instance, in accordance with Clause 5.7.1c), the calculation for Hotel/Tavern has been used (1:2.5 sqm public bar area) The car parking calculation has been done on the extension only, as a change of use to an existing building is exempt from requiring planning approval under Clause 8.2 of


Page 125

LPS4.Technically, this means that the existing weighbridge structure is exempt from requiring car parking (i.e. if there were no additions proposed, no car parking would be required). To accommodate the Small Bar land use, further structures are required on site for storage and toilet facilities. Additional covered areas have also been proposed, which is the portion being assessed for car parking. Car parking is supported for the following reasons against 5.7.3.1 of LPS4 –

There is street parking in the vicinity of the development;

There is a train station and bus stops within reasonable walking distance of the development;

The previous land use of the site was approved with no car parking on site (previously required 3), reducing the discretion to five (5) car bays;

The proposal includes the restoration of a building that is considered to have some significance, and it retention limits the ability to provide parking on the small site;

Bicycle racks are proposed in the verge. Notwithstanding the above, in a number of the referral comments received back, both external and internal agencies have raised concerns with car parking in the West End. Should Planning Committee identify that this is an issue, the lack of parking provided on site could be used as reason for refusal. An alternative recommendation is provided for Committee’s consideration. Risk As outlined in the consultation section of the report an independent Transport Review was undertaken to identify potential traffic and road safety issues associated with the proposal. The report identifies several conditions of planning approval that could mitigate any safety issues as a result of the development in terms of pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. The majority of these findings can be encompassed into a condition of planning approval that generally requires a Traffic Impact Statement to be submitted that would 1. Remark faded stop lines to improve the legibility of the current traffic controls in the

area; 2. Ensure closure of the weighbridge at both ends by the installation of appropriate

physical barriers; 3. Determine and mark desired pedestrian lines to and from the site (eg kerb ramps,

fencing, bollards); 4. Provide a different road surface colour/texture at the car park access to improve

legibility 5. Potentially close 2 parking spaces immediately adjacent to the circulatory

carriageway. The report also states that (summarised):

The site is located within the central island of a semi-roundabout arrangement with a large number of conflicting turning movements immediately surrounding the site due to the number of intersecting side roads and as well as roads within the central island.

This results in an existing undesirable situation, regardless of the type of proposed development.


Page 126

Zero crashed involving road users travelling to and from the central island appear to have occurred over the past 5 years which reflects the previous safety performance of the intersection arrangement despite the large number of permitted conflicting movements.

Concerns raised with the City with regards to intoxicated pedestrians inadvertently walking along or crossing the railway tracks are noted. As part of this, specific pedestrian crossing facilities of the railway line to the south of the site that are formally controlled and prevent access when trains are approaching are known to exist. Whilst this may be the case for when trains are running, the pedestrian crossings remain open for the remainder of time. Intoxicated pedestrians wishing to cross the railway line at these alternative sites outside of train movements can potentially walk down the railway track, potentially resulting in similar concerns to those expressed for the site at Phillimore Street.

Furthermore, whilst separate pedestrian crossing facilities over the railway line exist at Wardan Lane off Mews Road to the south of the site, pedestrians can still cross underneath the barrier when it was lowered if they wished to attempt to cross the railway line. Such a location is also much closer to a higher number of restaurants and cafes selling alcohol.

Given the above, the concern that drunken pedestrians may access the railway line at the Phillimore Street site and are more at risk than elsewhere appear to be over exaggerated. In addition, whilst drivers of vehicles have a better chance to swerve or stop their vehicle prior to any collision compared to a train driver, safety concerns relating to intoxicated patrons leaving the site and walking along/crossing the rail line when a train is coming are just as valid with respect to walking in or crossing the road when vehicles are in the vicinity of the site. Accordingly, such a matter and risk is considered to be potentially more relevant for any assessment of a liquor licensing application.

Based on the above comments from the independent traffic safety audit, it is considered that the risk issues associated with potential intoxicated patrons can be addressed through the recommendations of the report which are recommended as conditions of planning approval. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25:

Increase the number of people working in Fremantle.

Increase the number of visitors to Fremantle.

Increase in commercial and retail development within 800m of Fremantle train station.

Green Plan 2020:

No trees are proposed to be removed as part of this application.


Page 127

CONCLUSION AND ALTERNATIVE OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION The proposed Small Bar at No. 2 Phillimore Street, Fremantle is a suitable land use, given its location within the City Centre. Additionally, it makes use of a building that is currently vacant and provides additional activation in an area of the City Centre that lacks activity. However, there are a number of outstanding issues regarding traffic and safety concerns, as well as infrastructure removal and ongoing waiving of parking requirements in the West End. These issues have been raised by internal departments, as well as external referral agencies. It is not considered that a different land use would necessarily significantly reduce any of the concerns raised. Should Planning Committee consider the safety issues raised to not be capable of resolution by imposition of relevant conditions recommended by Officers below, an alternative recommendation has been provided for refusal. That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations and change of use to Small Bar at No. 2 (Lot 1846) Phillimore Street, Fremantle, for the following reasons:

1. The application does not meet the minimum car parking requirement of Table 2 – Vehicle Parking of Local Planning Scheme No. 4;

2. The site is not suitable for the land use of Small Bar, having regard to traffic and

pedestrian safety as per clause 67s) and u) of the Deemed Provisions in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations and change of use to Small Bar at No. 2 (Lot 1846) Phillimore Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 13 May 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0002/16, the

recommendations outlined for the proposed development in the report by Opus International Consultants (Australia) Pty Ltd dated 20 June 2016, shall implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The matters to be addressed include (but not limited to):

a. Ensure closure of the weighbridge at both ends by the installation of

appropriate physical barriers; b. Addressing of pedestrian safety through-


Page 128

i. Submission of a Transport Statement or Transport Impact Assessment to determine desired pedestrian lines to and from the site;

ii. Undertaking of an independent design stage road safety audit of the statement and/or assessment and adoption of findings;

iii. Installation of recommended facilities and markings in accordance with the audit.

c. Installation of fencing and/or barrier to protect alfresco patrons; d. Ensure edge of structures separated from kerb face in accordance relevant

Australian Standard; e. Potentially close 2 parking spaces immediately adjacent to the circulatory

carriageway. f. Provide a different road surface colour/texture at the car park access to

improve legibility

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

4. Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed landscaping plan, including information relating to species selection, reticulation, details of existing vegetation to be retained, and treatment of landscaped surfaces (i.e. mulch, lawn, synthetic grass etc), shall be submitted to and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


plans dated 13 May 2016, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans or any approved modifications thereto to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All landscaped areas are to be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to commencement of development, the owner is to submit a waste management plan for approval detailing the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle

7. Prior to commencement of development, an outdoor lighting plan (including the relocation of the streetlight) must be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The outdoor lighting is to be designed by a qualified person, so as to assist in providing a safe approach and exit for pedestrians accessing and occupying the site.

8. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0002/16 on plans

dated 13 May 2016, the recommendations of an approved outdoor lighting plan shall be implemented. All lighting shall be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not irreparably damage any original or significant fabric of the building. Should the


Page 129

works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

10. Prior to the issue of a building permit further detail is required to be provided

regarding the colour and texture of zinc cladding and the bin storage screen to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

11. Prior to the issue of a building permit, detailed information is required describing how the weighing equipment will be conserved and incorporated into the design in its original location to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

12. Prior to commencement of development, documentation detailing the repair of the

original masonry structure and type of mortar to be used in this repair is to be submitted and approved by the City’s Heritage Department, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with this documentation, unless otherwise approved by the City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to commencement of development, a detailed Noise Management Plan must

be submitted to and approved by the City of Fremantle which demonstrates that the development has been designed to meet the relevant requirements of State Planning Policy 5.4 ‘Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning (SPP 5.4). The report must be prepared by a suitably qualified and competent person in accordance with the SPP 5.4 Guidelines to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

14. Prior to commencement of development, the applicant is to relocate the existing

parking sign, parking meter and streetlight to a suitable location as determined by the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery directorate, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Advice notes

i. The proponent must make application to establish the food business so that the premises comply with the Food Act, Regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Submit detailed architectural plans and elevations to the City’s Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

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

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




Page 130

iii. Any person proposing to alter, demolish or remove materials containing asbestos in buildings or fences must comply with the regulations that prescribe:


iv. The proponent must make application to establish the alfresco dining area so that

the premises comply with the City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Alfresco Dining Areas 2014. Submit detailed plans to the City’s Licensing officer for approval prior to construction. The alfresco dining area is required to be licensed under the City’s Local Laws. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

v. In relation to the Noise Management Plan, the City acknowledges that there may need to be concessions granted for the existing Weighbridge Building to protect existing heritage fabric.

vi. Traditional building techniques and materials are recommended for the

conservation of traditionally constructed buildings. The works should be on a like for like basis informed by inspections, including materials analysis if required, undertaken by skilled tradespeople with experience in using these materials and techniques. Cement mortar is not generally appropriate for these buildings. For further advice, please contact the City’s Heritage Department on 9432 9999.

vii. The plans indicate the removal of City of Fremantle infrastructure (ie. parking

meter, street light, signage). The applicant should liaise directly with the relevant department (ie. Infrastructure and Project Delivery and Commercial Parking) prior to removing this infrastructure, to negotiate costs and relocation requirements.

In relation to the Traffic Impact Statement, the applicant is advised to contact the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery directorate to discuss a program of works and costings required to implement the strategies outlined in the statement.




Page 131

LOST 3/4 Cr J Strachan used his casting vote AGAINST the recommendation resulting in it being LOST.

For Against

Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Jeff McDonald

Cr J Strachan put an alternative Recommendation as follows: That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations and change of use to Small Bar at No. 2 (Lot 1846) Phillimore Street, Fremantle, for the following reasons:

1. The application does not meet the minimum car parking requirement of Table 2 – Vehicle Parking of Local Planning Scheme No. 4;

LOST 2/4

For Against


Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr J Strachan put an alternative Recommendation as follows: That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations and change of use to Small Bar at No. 2 (Lot 1846) Phillimore Street, Fremantle, for the following reasons:

2. The site is not suitable for the land use of Small Bar, having regard to traffic and pedestrian safety as per clause 67s) and u) of the Deemed Provisions in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

LOST 2/4

For Against


Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham


Page 132

OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations and change of use to Small Bar at No. 2 (Lot 1846) Phillimore Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 13 May 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0002/16, the

recommendations outlined for the proposed development in the report by Opus International Consultants (Australia) Pty Ltd dated 20 June 2016, shall implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The matters to be addressed include (but not limited to):

a. Ensure closure of the weighbridge at both ends by the installation of

appropriate physical barriers; b. Addressing of pedestrian safety through-

i. Submission of a Transport Statement or Transport Impact Assessment to determine desired pedestrian lines to and from the site;

ii. Undertaking of an independent design stage road safety audit of the statement and/or assessment and adoption of findings;

iii. Installation of recommended facilities and markings in accordance with the audit.

c. Installation of fencing and/or barrier to protect alfresco patrons; d. Ensure edge of structures separated from kerb face in accordance relevant

Australian Standard; e. Potentially close 2 parking spaces immediately adjacent to the circulatory

carriageway. f. Provide a different road surface colour/texture at the car park access to

improve legibility

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

4. Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed landscaping plan, including information relating to species selection, reticulation, details of existing vegetation to be retained, and treatment of landscaped surfaces (i.e. mulch, lawn, synthetic grass etc), shall be submitted to and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


plans dated 13 May 2016, landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans or any approved modifications thereto to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All landscaped areas are to be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 133

6. Prior to commencement of development, the owner is to submit a waste

management plan for approval detailing the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle

7. Prior to commencement of development, an outdoor lighting plan (including the relocation of the streetlight) must be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The outdoor lighting is to be designed by a qualified person, so as to assist in providing a safe approach and exit for pedestrians accessing and occupying the site.

8. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0002/16 on plans

dated 13 May 2016, the recommendations of an approved outdoor lighting plan shall be implemented. All lighting shall be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not irreparably damage any original or significant fabric of the building. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

10. Prior to the issue of a building permit further detail is required to be provided

regarding the colour and texture of zinc cladding and the bin storage screen to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

11. Prior to the issue of a building permit, detailed information is required describing how the weighing equipment will be conserved and incorporated into the design in its original location to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

12. Prior to commencement of development, documentation detailing the repair of the

original masonry structure and type of mortar to be used in this repair is to be submitted and approved by the City’s Heritage Department, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with this documentation, unless otherwise approved by the City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to commencement of development, a detailed Noise Management Plan must

be submitted to and approved by the City of Fremantle which demonstrates that the development has been designed to meet the relevant requirements of State Planning Policy 5.4 ‘Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning (SPP 5.4). The report must be prepared by a suitably qualified and competent person in accordance with the SPP 5.4 Guidelines to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

14. Prior to commencement of development, the applicant is to relocate the existing

parking sign, parking meter and streetlight to a suitable location as determined by the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery directorate, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 134

Advice notes

i. The proponent must make application to establish the food business so that the premises comply with the Food Act, Regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Submit detailed architectural plans and elevations to the City’s Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

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

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

iii. Any person proposing to alter, demolish or remove materials containing asbestos

in buildings or fences must comply with the regulations that prescribe:


iv. The proponent must make application to establish the alfresco dining area so that

the premises comply with the City of Fremantle Local Laws Relating to Alfresco Dining Areas 2014. Submit detailed plans to the City’s Licensing officer for approval prior to construction. The alfresco dining area is required to be licensed under the City’s Local Laws. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

v. In relation to the Noise Management Plan, the City acknowledges that there may need to be concessions granted for the existing Weighbridge Building to protect existing heritage fabric.

vi. Traditional building techniques and materials are recommended for the

conservation of traditionally constructed buildings. The works should be on a like for like basis informed by inspections, including materials analysis if required, undertaken by skilled tradespeople with experience in using these materials and






Page 135

techniques. Cement mortar is not generally appropriate for these buildings. For further advice, please contact the City’s Heritage Department on 9432 9999.

vii. The plans indicate the removal of City of Fremantle infrastructure (ie. parking

meter, street light, signage). The applicant should liaise directly with the relevant department (ie. Infrastructure and Project Delivery and Commercial Parking) prior to removing this infrastructure, to negotiate costs and relocation requirements.

In relation to the Traffic Impact Statement, the applicant is advised to contact the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery directorate to discuss a program of works and costings required to implement the strategies outlined in the statement.

COMMITTEE DECISION

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 136

PC1609-10 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY -

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

COMMITTEE DECISION/OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the information is noted. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against



Page 137

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

PC1609-11 SCHEME AMENDMENT 68 - MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS - MIXED USE ZONE HAMPTON ROAD & BROCKMAN PLACE, SOUTH FREMANTLE - REVIEW OF BOUNDARY OPTIONS AND SCHEME AMENDMENT INITIATION

ECM Reference: 218/075 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 September 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PC1603-9 and PC1605-8 Attachments: 1. Previous item PC1603-9 – minutes of OCM 23 March

2016 2. Previous item PC1605-8 – minutes of OCM 25 May

2016 3. Schedule of submissions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to report back to Council on the submissions received on the Brockman Place and Hampton Road boundary of the area proposed to be subject to amendment no. 68 to Local Planning Scheme 4 and recommend that Council reconsider the initiation of the scheme amendment.


Page 138

On 25 May 2016 Council resolved to revoke a previous resolution to initiate scheme amendment 68 (PC1603-9) after legal advice raised concerns about the procedure and validity of the resolution made under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. As part of the 25 May 2016 resolution Council resolved to seek landowner comment on two options for the boundary of the scheme amendment area that Council had considered previously:

Option 1: Original Officer and Planning Committee Recommendation - includes all of the mixed use zone lots within Brockman Place and Hampton Road in the amendment area.

Option 2: Previous March 2016 Council resolution – includes only the lots in the southern portion of the Brockman Place and Hampton Road mixed use zone in the amendment area.

Comments were sought from affected landowners in June and July. The City received six submissions on the boundary options: five from private landowners and one from Main Roads WA. All five private landowner submissions stated a preference for the option 1 scheme amendment area. It is recommended that Council resolve to initiate an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) in line with Council’s previous resolution, which excludes those lots on the northern side of Brockman Place. However, if having regard to the submissions received Council now considers it would be preferable to include the entire Brockman Place/ Hampton Road area in the scheme amendment area as originally proposed, wording for an alternative recommendation to this effect is included in the Conclusion section of this item. BACKGROUND On 2 March 2016 Planning Committee considered a report relating to a proposed amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) to apply revised development controls under Schedule 12 of LPS4 to properties in the Mixed Use zoned area adjoining Hampton Road and Brockman Place, South Fremantle (item PC1603-9). The intent of the proposed amendment would be to introduce new development provisions into LPS4 to enable redevelopment of the area. The planning requirements proposed in the amendment are summarised in the table 1 below. Table 1. Scheme amendment No. 68 proposed planning requirements

Provisions Current LPS4 requirements Proposed planning requirements

Zoning Mixed use Mixed use - No change

Density R25 R25 to remain as the ‘base’ coding. Up to R100, R160 and R-AC3 depending on development site area and where certain development standards are met.

Sub area Within South Fremantle LPA in Schedule 12 – no specific sub area applicable

Specific sub area within the South Fremantle LPA in Schedule 12 with specific development standards applicable.


Page 139

Height 7.0m external wall height A range of building heights (up to 15m, 17.5m and 24.5m) depending on development site size and where certain development standards are met.

Setback Not prescribed Properties fronting Hampton Road to be setback a minimum of 15m Nil setback to all other boundaries.

Planning Committee resolved to support the amendment in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. As the Planning Committee does not have delegated authority to make decisions on scheme amendments, the item was subsequently considered at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 23 March 2016. Prior to consideration of the item by Council, an elected member gave notice of a proposed amendment to the Committee and Officer’s recommendation. The proposed amendment made changes to the boundary of the area to be subject to the development provisions in Scheme Amendment No. 68 and as a consequence removed the following properties from the scheme amendment area:

No. 223 (Lot 304) Hampton Road



No. 7 (Lot 49) Brockman Place

No. 8 (Lot 47) Brockman Place

No. 9 (Lot 48) Brockman Place Reason for change to officer's recommendation:

To exclude certain key areas that require a more coordinated approach to planning than can be achieved through this scheme amendment. This will allow for further investigation into these larger sites to the north of Brockman Place and the opportunity to consider further the road linkages, Public Open Space and potential green links.

On 23 March 2016 Council resolved to initiate Amendment No. 68 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 on the basis of the amended recommendation described above (refer to attachment 1). The City subsequently received correspondence on behalf of one of the affected landowners which raised concerns about the validity of the resolution passed by Council on 23 March 2016. As a result Council revoked the 23 March 2016 Council decision on scheme amendment 68 at the 25 May 2016 Ordinary meeting of Council (refer to attachment 2). At the same time Council resolved to reconsider the amendment following consultation with landowners regarding options for the boundary of the area to be covered by the scheme amendment. CONSULTATION Landowner Consultation

As resolved on 25 May 2016 all landowners within the proposed scheme amendment area were contacted after the revocation resolution. Comments were sought from landowners to determine their view on the two boundary options for the scheme


Page 140

amendment area that had been before Planning Committee and Council in March 2016. A request for submissions was sent to landowners on 7 June 2016 and closed on 26 July 2016. During this period a total of 5 submissions from private landowners within the area and one from Main Roads WA were received. The private landowner submissions were generally supportive of the original boundary as recommend by officers to Planning Committee, which includes all lots zoned Mixed Use in the Brockman Place/Hampton Road area. Additional comments were made in relation to the primary street setback to Hampton Road and minimum lot size requirements. These comments along with the two boundary options are discussed in the planning comments section of this report. Refer to attachment 3 for the full schedule of submissions. Public Notification

Should Council resolve to initiate this amendment to the Scheme, the amendment will be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for assessment, prior to the commencement of advertising. Assuming the EPA does not require an environmental assessment the amendment will be publicly advertised for not less than 42 days in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005, the Town Planning (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for a standard amendment and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Approvals.

PLANNING COMMENT The comments provided within this section of the report specifically detail the two boundary options for proposed scheme amendment 68. Discussion on the proposed amendment provisions is contained within the previous 23 March 2016 report to Council (refer to attachment 1). The proposed provisions of the scheme amendment also comprise the officer recommendation for this item. As part of the 25 May 2016 resolution Council resolved to seek landowner comment on two options for the boundary of the amendment area previously considered by Council:

Option 1: Original Officer and Planning Committee Recommendation - Includes all of the mixed use zone lots within Brockman Place and Hampton Road in the amendment area

Option 2: Previous (now revoked) Council resolution – Includes only the lots in the southern part of the Brockman Place and Hampton Road mixed use zone in the amendment area.

A comparison of these two options is provided in the table below (Table 2).


Page 141

Table 2. Comparison of boundary options for the Scheme amendment area

Option 1 – Original recommendation Option 2 – March 2016 Council resolution

Area: Option 1 scheme amendment area includes all 14 of the mixed use zoned lots in the Brockman Place/Hampton Road area.

Area: Option 2 scheme amendment area is reduced in size compared to option 1. It includes seven lots located in the southern part of the mixed use zone area adjoining Brockman Place/Hampton Road.

Purpose: The additional development requirements of this option would allow for comprehensive redevelopment of the Brockman Place Mixed Use zoned area. The approach reflects a similar approach taken on the opposite side of Hampton Road in Scheme amendment No. 43 - the Strang Street area. Scheme amendment 43 introduced into LPS4 provisions to revitalise and redevelop the Strang Street locality by rezoning the properties and providing additional development requirements up to a density of R-AC3.

Purpose: The additional development requirements of this option would allow for redevelopment in the southern part of the mixed use zone only. A separate planning exercise, probably culminating in another scheme amendment would be required for the northern part of the original amendment area and could additionally include the South Fremantle shopping centre lots to the north. The purpose of this separate amendment process would be to coordinate development and access in the area including consideration of possible new/revised road connections.


Page 142


Reason for the approach: Landowners in Brockman Place approached the City in 2014 and expressed interest in possible revitalisation opportunities for the area. Initial discussions occurred with several landowners on Brockman Place and the west side of Hampton Road as well as some interested land owners to the east of Hampton Road. Due to the large interest expressed by those in the area west of Hampton Road, the original recommended boundary accounted for all of the existing Mixed Used zoned lots in this area.

Reason for the approach: To allow for development in a more restricted area of Brockman Place in the short to medium-term. Through a separate planning exercise further investigation can then be undertaken into the development opportunity of the remainder of the Brockman Place mixed use zone and also the South Fremantle shopping centre Local centre zoned area. Consideration of additional road linkages, potential Public Open Space and additional green links can also be included in the exercise, which might ultimately result in a separate scheme amendment.

Development outcomes: The scheme amendment provisions will enable redevelopment opportunities to occur consistently across the mixed use zoned lots in the short to medium-term [once gazetted]. Depending on site area and access development could occur at a density of R100, R160 or RAC-3 and heights of 15m, 17.5m or 24.5m respectively.

Development outcomes: Redevelopment of those lots in the southern part of Brockman Place will be able to develop in the short to medium-term [once gazetted]. Depending on site area and access development could occur at a density of R100, R160 or RAC-3 and heights of 15m, 17.5m or 24.5m, respectively. An uncertain timeframe would apply to the northern lots as further studies, investigation and landowner coordination and engagement would be required. It would be premature to comment now on the development outcomes for the northern lots that might eventuate from such a planning exercise.

Potential consequences: This option may compromise longer term comprehensive redevelopment of a broader area.

Potential consequences: The option removes the certainty of future potential redevelopment of the northern lots in Brockman Place in the short to medium term future under the proposed amendment. Redevelopment of the lots north of Brockman Place would be uncertain until more work including extensive landowner consultation and probably an additional scheme amendment can be completed.


Page 143


Landowner views: All five of the submissions received from private landowners on the amendment’s boundary options stated a preference for option 1.

Landowner views: In the submissions received on the amendment’s boundary options no submission showed a preference for option 2.

Resources required: The amendment is straightforward and can be accommodated within current officer workload and resources.

Resources required: The current amendment is straightforward and can be accommodated within current officer workload and resources. The additional planning work involved in preparation of a ‘masterplan’ or similar document to guide a potential future scheme amendment to facilitate a more comprehensive redevelopment of a larger area including the northern part of Brockman Place and other land to the north is not provided for in the 2016/2017 budget or strategic planning work program. A provisional project to undertake this work has been listed for consideration as part of the 2017/18 budget, subject to further clarification of the scale and extent of required community engagement.

The proposed development controls (applicable to both options) respond to the differing lot sizes and potential access arrangements through the use of specific development standards (e.g. sites larger than 4000 sq m and/or with acceptable access arrangements have the opportunity for higher density development). The development controls are considered to be flexible enough to allow for comprehensive development to occur while still ensuring minimum standards are achieved. The original recommendation (Option 1) boundary would allow for redevelopment of all of the lots in the Mixed Use zoned area. The option is supported by the landowners that responded to the City’s request for comment on the options. Conversely, option 1 may reduce opportunities to secure broader planning outcomes across a larger area, as landowners who might redevelop under the proposed scheme amendment provisions may have little interest or incentive to participate in a broader planning exercise. Option 2 which omits the northern lots in Brockman Place from the amendment area (as shown in the map and discussion above), would preserve the opportunity for a more comprehensive approach to future redevelopment of the wider area including possibly the South Fremantle shopping centre and could consider the potential for revised road layouts, the provision of Public Open Space and potential green links. However these outcomes would require more extensive support from a greater number of landowners and potentially the use of statutory mechanisms such as a developer contribution scheme to equitably fund outcomes such as new public open space or acquisition of land to accommodate new road connections. As stated in the table above this further work


Page 144

beyond the scope of the current scheme amendment would require additional resources and could not realistically be started until the 2017-2018 year at the earliest, subject to budget and other resource requirements. For consistency with Council’s previous (although subsequently revoked) March 2016 resolution, officers recommend initiation of scheme amendment 68 on the basis that the area subject to the amendment should be limited to the area defined by the ‘option 2’ boundary. However, all the landowner submissions strongly support the scheme amendment applying to the area defined by the ‘option 1’ boundary. If having regard to these submissions Council now considers it would be preferable to include the entire Brockman Place/ Hampton Road area in the scheme amendment area as originally proposed, wording for an alternative recommendation to this effect is included in the Conclusion section of this item below. Other points raised in submissions Primary street setback requirements for Hampton Road The amendment (regardless of boundary option) proposes a 15m setback from Hampton Road. Vehicle parking within this setback area is not mandated in the amendment. All five of the landowner submissions questioned the need for the proposed minimum 15m primary street setback requirement. Rowe Group on behalf of their client provided the following comment - Application of a 15m setback to Hampton Road for development at the subject site is considered inappropriate and unnecessary for the following reasons:

The proposed 15m setback is excessive and unnecessary as a BRT could be located in the existing road reservation;

Hampton Road is to become a key arterial route and therefore development along Hampton Road should be more compact to create a more interactive urban interface;

It is premature to resolve to impose a 15m setback to the subject site as the mode and route for any proposed public transport network alterations remain unresolved between the interfacing local authorities of the City of Fremantle and the City of Cockburn; and

Hampton Road has not been earmarked for future road widening by Main Roads Western Australia.

The reason officers propose the 15m setback from Hampton Road is twofold - 1. To respond to the potential bulk of development by including a setback distance

for buildings viewed from Hampton Road. 2. To provide consistency with the setbacks required introduced on the opposite side

of Hampton Road in the Strang Street area.


Page 145

Additionally, the setback would ensure that any new development as a result of scheme amendment 68 does not undermine or compromise the future use of Hampton Road as a Bus Rapid Transit Corridor and as a key north-south connection to Fremantle and Cockburn. Main Roads WA stated in their submission: As Council is aware this precinct will be impacted by future widening of Hampton Road and Cockburn Road and to accommodate the proposed Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) alignment which is still in the early planning stages. The State Government’s draft Perth Transport Plan which is currently the subject of public consultation identifies Fremantle to Cockburn Coast as a planned high priority public transit corridor which could be served by either bus rapid transit or light rapid transit. Accordingly, it is considered the scheme amendment provisions as currently recommended provide enough flexibility for any future redevelopment to be compatible with any upgrades to Hampton Road, which the Department of Transport may ultimately implement. Consequently no change to the proposed 15m setback requirement is recommended at this stage. Minimum lot sizes The amendment proposes additional density and height where certain criteria can be met. These are summarised in table 3 below. Table 3. Proposed amendment provisions

Density height Proposed criteria to be met

R100 15m Applicable to development sites fronting Hampton Road with access from Hampton Road and below ground or rear parking provided

R160

17.5m Applicable where development is accessed from an alternative public road to Hampton Road and below ground or rear parking provided

RAC-3 24.5m 4000 sqm development site Development accessed from alternative public road other than Hampton Road and below ground or rear parking provided

One landowner submission suggested that smaller lots should have the same or similar redevelopment potential so that redevelopment can appear consistent within the adjoining larger lots, in density and height. The intent of requiring minimum lot sizes for development is to ensure that the uniquely smaller sized lots are appropriately developed depending on their size. The larger sized lots have a greater capacity to incorporate additional heights and density without resulting in overdevelopment of the lot. For this reason the larger lots within the area have been provided with additional development height and density. Additionally the minimum lot size requirements may encourage coordination between lots and the opportunity for amalgamation and shared visioning for future redevelopment.


Page 146

CONCLUSION It is recommended that Council resolve to initiate amendment 68 to LPS4 with the option 2 scheme amendment boundary. The introduction of development standards to trigger density increases are intended to work similarly to the adjacent mixed use area along Hampton Road. The amendment will allow for redevelopment at increased density when specific development standards are met, to assist in the delivery of a southern gateway into Fremantle along the Hampton Road corridor. If however Council prefers on balance to initiate this amendment to apply to the larger area defined by the option 1 boundary (i.e. the entire mixed use zone area as originally recommended by officers and Planning Committee in March 2016), wording for an alternative recommendation has also been provided below. Alternative Recommendation:

Should Council now consider that it would be preferable to include the entire Brockman Place/ Hampton Road area in the scheme amendment area as originally proposed, the following map and setback table would be applicable to replace those contained in part 1 (a) of the Officer’s recommendation:

Site Frontage to: Minimum Street Setback (metres)

Minimum side and rear setbacks

No. 223 Hampton Road Hampton Road 15 Nil



Page 147


No. 229A Hampton Road Hampton Road 15 Nil

No. 229A Hampton Road Brockman Place Nil Nil

No. 229B Hampton Road Hampton Road 15 Nil

No. 229B Hampton Road Brockman Place Nil Nil


No. 233-235 Hampton Road Hampton Road 15 Nil


Council resolves that:

1. Pursuant to regulation 35(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, to prepare the following amendment to City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

a) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle by inserting the following:

4.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR SUB AREAS

Sub Area 4.3.7


Page 148

Within sub area 4.3.7, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and Investigation of potential site contamination to the satisfaction of the DEC. Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning, residential land use will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level fronting Hampton Road. In the part of all new buildings with frontage to Hampton Road, the ground floor level must be no more than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site. Buildings shall incorporate active ground level frontages to Hampton Road, South Fremantle. Setbacks Building setbacks shall be in accordance with the requirements set out in the table below:









No. 233-235 Hampton Road

Hampton Road 15 Nil

A minimum street setback of nil metres to developments fronting Brockman Place, South Fremantle. To prevent excessive breaks in building frontages to Hampton Road, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to Hampton Road is no more than 8 metres. Vehicle parking shall not be provided for in the street setback area of any Lot. Additional development standards In applying (k) Additional Development Standards within Sub Area 4.3.7; Clause 4.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ does not apply;


Page 149

A portion of lot area of 229B Hampton Road, not less than 6m in width, to be provided for the length of the lot only where the common boundary of 1/6 Brockman Place is shared. This portion of the land shall be transferred at no cost to the City of Fremantle to provide an east west linkage between Brockman Place and the Former South Fremantle Landfill site for the purpose of a landscaped dual use path; and Additional development standards shall be in accordance with the criteria and standards set out in the table below:

Criteria to be met in order for additional development standards to apply

Additional development standards

For development fronting Hampton Road, vehicle parking shall be provided below ground level or at the rear of the development.

Residential density of R100 Permitted building height of 15 metres On development sites fronting Hampton Road and notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.



Where vehicle Access of the Development site can be obtained directly from a public road other than Hampton Road For development fronting Hampton Road, vehicle parking shall be provided below ground level or at the rear of the development.

Residential density of R160 Permitted building height of 17.5 metres On development sites fronting Hampton Road and notwithstanding the


Page 150

provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.



The development site comprises of a minimum land area of 4,000 square metres. Where vehicle Access of the Development site can be obtained directly from a public road other than Hampton Road For development fronting Hampton Road, vehicle parking shall be provided below ground level or at the rear of the development.

Residential density of R-AC3. Permitted building height of 24.5 metres. On development sites fronting Hampton Road and notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.

Note: Where the above criteria are not met, the height requirements in 4.1 above apply.

2. In its opinion, the Amendment is a standard amendment for the following

reasons: (a) this scheme amendment is an amendment that would have minimal

impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment;

(b) this scheme amendment is an amendment that does not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the scheme area;

(c) this scheme amendment is an amendment that is not a complex or basic amendment.

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

relevant Scheme Amendment documentation.

4. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Environmental Protection Authority requesting assessment prior to commencing public consultation.

5. That the amendment be advertised for a period of not less than 42 days

commencing on the day on which the notice is published in a newspaper circulating in the scheme area.

6. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Western

Australian Planning Commission for information.


Page 151

COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Council resolves that:

1. Pursuant to regulation 35(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, to prepare the following amendment to City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

a) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle by inserting the following:

4.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR SUB AREAS

Sub Area 4.3.7


Page 152

Within sub area 4.3.7, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and Investigation of potential site contamination to the satisfaction of the DEC. Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 1 – Zoning, residential land use will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level fronting Hampton Road. In the part of all new buildings with frontage to Hampton Road, the ground floor level must be no more than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site. Buildings shall incorporate active ground level frontages to Hampton Road, South Fremantle. Setbacks Building setbacks shall be in accordance with the requirements set out in the table below:











No. 233-235 Hampton Road Hampton Road 15 Nil

A minimum street setback of nil metres to developments fronting Brockman Place, South Fremantle. To prevent excessive breaks in building frontages to Hampton Road, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to Hampton Road is no more than 8 metres. Vehicle parking shall not be provided for in the street setback area of any Lot. Additional development standards In applying (k) Additional Development Standards within Sub Area 4.3.7; Clause 4.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ does not apply;


Page 153

A portion of lot area of 229B Hampton Road, not less than 6m in width, to be provided for the length of the lot only where the common boundary of 1/6 Brockman Place is shared. This portion of the land shall be transferred at no cost to the City of Fremantle to provide an east west linkage between Brockman Place and the Former South Fremantle Landfill site for the purpose of a landscaped dual use path; and Additional development standards shall be in accordance with the criteria and standards set out in the table below:



For development fronting Hampton Road, vehicle parking shall be provided below ground level or at the rear of the development.

Residential density of R100 Permitted building height of 15 metres On development sites fronting Hampton Road and notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.



Where vehicle Access of the Development site can be obtained directly from a public road other than Hampton Road For development fronting Hampton Road, vehicle parking shall be provided below ground level or at the rear of the development.

Residential density of R160 Permitted building height of 17.5 metres On development sites fronting Hampton Road and notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.




Page 154

The development site comprises of a minimum land area of 4,000 square metres. Where vehicle Access of the Development site can be obtained directly from a public road other than Hampton Road For development fronting Hampton Road, vehicle parking shall be provided below ground level or at the rear of the development.

Residential density of R-AC3. Permitted building height of 24.5 metres. On development sites fronting Hampton Road and notwithstanding the provisions of clause 5.7.3, parking requirements for non-residential development may be reduced by 50%.

Note: Where the above criteria are not met, the height requirements in 4.1 above apply.

2. In its opinion, the Amendment is a standard amendment for the following reasons: (a) this scheme amendment is an amendment that would have minimal

impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment;

(b) this scheme amendment is an amendment that does not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the scheme area;

(c) this scheme amendment is an amendment that is not a complex or basic amendment.

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

relevant Scheme Amendment documentation.

4. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Environmental Protection Authority requesting assessment prior to commencing public consultation.

5. That the amendment be advertised for a period of not less than 42 days

commencing on the day on which the notice is published in a newspaper circulating in the scheme area.

6. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Western

Australian Planning Commission for information. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against



Page 155

PC1609-12 CONSIDERATION OF PRINCIPLES FOR PLANNING CONTROLS TO LIMIT OVERCONCENTRATION OF FAST FOOD AND RESTAURANT USES IN FREMANTLE CITY CENTRE

ECM Reference: 117/010 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 September 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: None Attachments: None

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present for Council’s consideration some key principles which could form the basis of an amendment to the local planning scheme and a local planning policy to address the potential negative impacts of an overconcentration of Fast Food Outlet and/or Restaurant land uses upon the character and vitality of Fremantle city centre. On several occasions recently some elected members have expressed concern to officers regarding this issue. Should Council wish to direct officers to undertake further work on this issue, the principles set out in this report will be used to guide the drafting of local planning scheme and policy provisions which will subsequently be reported back to Council for further consideration. BACKGROUND

On several occasions recently some elected members have expressed concern to officers regarding the potential negative effects of a high concentration of certain land uses upon the character and vitality of Fremantle city centre, especially in the city’s primary commercial streets. In particular, concern has been expressed about the possible impacts of a large number of fast food outlet uses, including uses which may function as a dual takeaway and dine-in (i.e. restaurant) operation, concentrating their location in relatively few streets. This report outlines some of the key planning and economic development policy considerations associated with this issue. It also identifies, in principle, an approach to amending the current statutory planning framework controlling changes of land use in the city centre which could be adopted in the event that elected members do wish to exercise a greater degree of control over certain uses. Should Council wish to direct officers to undertake further work on this issue, the principles set out in this report will be used to guide the drafting of local planning scheme and policy provisions which will be reported back to Council for further consideration. Like traditional town and city centres in many parts of the world, Fremantle is facing the challenge of significant changes in the role of the ‘high street’ as a result of a range of social and economic trends, including alternative forms of retailing. A common theme of


Page 156

many studies which have been undertaken in the last few years into strategies to revitalise traditional high streets is the importance of differentiation from other centres, building on the unique attributes and character of a particular place to attract people to visit. A related issue is the importance of providing a diversity of offerings in terms of retail, leisure and other services. Uses other than traditional shops have for a long time been an important part of Fremantle’s attraction ‘mix’ – the prime example being the clustering of food and drink hospitality uses along the ‘Cappuccino Strip’ section of South Terrace. Whilst clusters of similar uses such as this can undoubtedly act as a positive feature which attracts people and consequently expenditure into a centre, if taken to extremes an over-concentration of a single use or narrow range of similar uses can have the opposite effect. This was highlighted in submissions made to the Economy Committee of the London Assembly in the preparation of its report ‘Open for Business: Empty shops on London’s high streets’ published in March 2013: ‘The Committee has heard that reduced diversity has an impact on footfall, because fewer people will be attracted to the high street. Jenefer Greenwood, former Director of Sales and Lettings at property firm Grosvenor, explained the impact of over-concentration: “People stop coming. People stop visiting. It is driving down value to the community because you do not have, yet again, another offer. It is a replication. Actually, it does not matter whether it is a betting shop or a mobile phone shop. It is the users. You just do not want six out of ten shops the same. It is the variety and it is the palette that you are offering that brings people to the high streets”.’ In the context of Fremantle city centre as a whole, a replication of the level of concentration of food and drink uses that exists along the Cappuccino Strip in other streets might therefore be seen as detrimental to the overall diversity of uses within the centre which is important to the vitality and attractiveness of Fremantle CBD and its ability to service the full range of needs of residents and visitors. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The basis of statutory planning control over land uses is the level of permissibility granted to a particular use in any specified zone through the zoning table in the local planning scheme – Table 1 in the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). Each land use class defined in the Scheme is designated as falling within one of the following categories of permissibility, on a zone-by-zone basis: Permitted (‘P’) – the use is permitted without planning approval (however ‘works’ associated with the use, e.g. a new shopfront, may require approval even if the use does not); Discretionary (‘D’ or ‘A’) – the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval (the difference between a ‘D’ and ‘A’ use is that an application for approval of an ‘A’ use must be advertised for comment prior to determination); Not permitted (‘X’) – the use is not permitted in the zone in question under any circumstances.


Page 157

The land uses (as defined in LPS4) which are relevant to the subject matter of this report are: Fast food outlet: means premises used for the preparation, sale and serving of food to customers in a form ready to be eaten without further preparation, primarily off the premises, but does not include a lunch bar or restaurant. Restaurant: means premises where the predominant use is the sale and consumption of food and drinks on the premises and where seating is provided for patrons, and includes a restaurant licensed under the Liquor Control Act 1988 but does not include Hotel, Tavern, Small Bar, Licensed Premises-Other or Night Club. Lunch bar: means premises or part of premises used for the sale of takeaway food (in a form ready to be consumed without further preparation) within industrial or commercial areas. ‘Lunch bar’ is a land use intended to be applicable to industrial areas, not main activity centres. However, currently this land use is permissible in the City Centre zone and therefore recommendations later in this report are proposed to apply to lunch bar as well as fast food uses to avoid any anomalies. These land use definitions are taken from the Model Scheme Text produced by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and are expected to be used in all local planning schemes without modification. In the zoning table in LPS4, within the City Centre zone the land uses ‘Fast Food Outlet’ and ‘Lunch Bar’ are currently ‘P’ uses and Restaurant is an ‘A’ use. However, notwithstanding the effect of the zoning table which would ordinarily require planning approval to be obtained for any proposal to use a property as a restaurant (by virtue of its designation as an ‘A’ use), under current clause 8.2(s) of LPS4 a change of use of an existing building in the City Centre zone to a Restaurant (or alternatively to a Shop, Small Bar, Office or Consulting Rooms) may occur without planning approval being required. This provision was introduced into LPS4 by Council in 2013 (scheme amendment no. 52) in order to streamline the planning process for certain changes of use in the city centre. Consequently under the current provisions of LPS4 the use of any property in the City Centre zone as either a Fast Food Outlet (or Lunch Bar) or a Restaurant could commence without planning approval being required (subject to no associated physical works to the building which in themselves require planning approval being involved). LPS4 defines objectives for each zone. The objectives for the City Centre zone are as follows: Development within the city centre zone shall –

(i) Provide for a full range of shopping, office, administrative, social, recreation, entertainment and community uses, consistent with the region-serving role of the centre and including residential uses, and

(ii) Comply with the objectives of local planning area 1 of schedule 12,


Page 158

(iii) Conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by development.

The aims of the Scheme (clause 1.6.1 of LPS4) include:

(i) Develop a diverse and attractive city centre that functions as a town centre and a regional centre.

CONSULTATION

None applicable at this time. Should Council resolve at a future date to amend the local planning scheme and/or prepare a local planning policy to address the issues discussed in this report, appropriate consultation would need to be carried out which might include stakeholder engagement prior to or in addition to formal statutory consultation processes. PLANNING COMMENT

It is generally accepted that the planning system has a legitimate and useful role to play in managing the functioning and wellbeing of town and city centres through regulation of the location of particular land uses. However a challenging issue for planning authorities is how to determine what degree of regulation is appropriate – how to provide reasonable flexibility to accommodate changes resulting from normal market forces and at the same time ensure sufficient diversity of land uses is maintained to provide a vibrant, interesting centre with sufficient choice of uses and facilities to serve the needs of all sectors of the community. Takeaway food, and restaurant, uses have a role to play in contributing to the overall mix of uses, particularly at street level, which enliven town centres and help attract people to them. However in some planning jurisdictions (more commonly in the UK than in Australia) it is recognised that an overabundance of the same use, especially when concentrated into a small area e.g. a single section of the same street, can detract from the vitality of the centre. An overconcentration of a single use in one location is likely to mean that only people who are consumers of the product or service offered by that use are likely to visit that part of the centre, rather than the street attracting a range of visitors for different purposes. A further factor with takeaway food and restaurant uses is that they tend to have different opening hours to retail shops or high street service uses such as banks – generally opening later in the morning and staying open into the evening. Whilst this can have night time place activation benefits, the downside is that streets with high concentrations of takeaway food and restaurant uses can feel ‘dead’ in the earlier part of mornings, especially on week days. A balanced mix of uses can help optimise the sense of activation in a street because different types of businesses may operate different trading hours which in combination cover an extended portion of each day. In response to these issues some planning authorities have adopted policies which seek to limit the overall quantity and/or the clustering and concentration of specific land uses in centres, especially in what are deemed to be key commercial streets, in order to maintain the vitality, viability and amenity of the centre. Examples of such policies vary in their detail, but a common feature is the use of some form of control to limit the clustering of the same specified use(s) in close proximity – e.g. no more than ‘x’ number of the same use will be permitted in adjoining premises, no more than ‘x’% of the total number


Page 159

of properties in a street frontage shall be approved for the same use, no more than ‘x’ metres of frontage in the same use. If elected members are minded to support the introduction of a similar form of control in Fremantle city centre, a local planning policy would be the most appropriate planning instrument through which to exercise such control. Further comment on this matter is provided below under the heading ‘Local planning policy considerations’. Local planning scheme considerations A local planning policy can only be applied to the assessment of changes of use which require planning approval. Under current provisions of the local planning scheme, as explained in the previous Statutory and Policy Assessment section of this report, the use (as distinct from any physical works such as a new shopfront) of any property in the City Centre zone as either a Fast Food Outlet or a Restaurant can occur without planning approval being required. If the Council wishes to exercise greater control over the location of either or both of these uses, as a first step LPS4 will need to be amended to require planning approval to be obtained for these uses. This would involve the following:

In the case of Fast Food Outlet (and Lunch Bar) uses, amending the zoning table (Table 1) to make these land uses a ‘D’ or ‘A’ use instead of a ‘P’ use in the City Centre zone (officers consider ‘A’, meaning all applications would be required to be advertised, would be most appropriate);

If Council also wished to exercise greater control over the location of Restaurant uses, delete ‘Restaurant’ from the list of uses referred to in clause 8.2(s). Because Restaurant is already designated an ‘A’ use in the City Centre zone in the zoning table, planning approval would then be required for all proposed restaurant uses in this zone.

It should be noted that because of the wording of the land use definition of ‘Restaurant’ (see Statutory and Policy Assessment section above), businesses which might give an initial impression of being a Fast Food Outlet actually operate in manner consistent with the definition of a Restaurant because they provide seating for customers. A further complication is the existence of businesses which effectively operate as a dual use of Fast Food Outlet and Restaurant, i.e. the trade of the business is split almost equally between food and drink consumed on the premises and off the premises. In order to avoid complex interpretation and compliance issues, officers recommend that if Council does wish to exercise greater locational control over food and drink-related uses the approach should apply to both of the above land uses. A scheme amendment incorporating both of the dot points above would achieve this by requiring planning approval to be obtained for the commencement of any Fast Food Outlet and/or Restaurant use in the City Centre zone, unless the subject property already has a current planning approval for such use. Local planning policy considerations If Council does support amending LPS4 to make both Fast Food/Lunch Bar and Restaurant discretionary (‘A’) uses in the City Centre zone, it would be appropriate to also adopt a local planning policy to guide the Council in exercising its discretionary power to approve such uses.


Page 160

As a starting point for drafting such a policy, officers suggest that it should be based on the principles outlined below. It would be helpful to obtain Council’s preliminary direction on these principles prior to undertaking further work on this issue.

1. The purpose of the policy is not to prevent the establishment of new Fast Food Outlet and/or Restaurant uses in the city centre, but rather to prevent excessive concentrations of such uses in particular locations e.g. in a single section of the same street frontage.

2. The policy should apply to all uses which fall within the land use definitions of Fast Food Outlet, Lunch Bar and/or Restaurant contained in Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

3. The policy measure used to avoid over-concentration of similar uses should be expressed in a quantitative manner, but must be easily understood and capable of assessment without reliance on complex calculations and/or data which requires regular updating. Best practice examples of similar policies already used in other planning jurisdictions should be considered in preparing the draft policy.

4. The policy measure referred to in 3 above should not apply to defined street frontages which constitute the existing ‘Cappuccino Strip’, in recognition that this area performs a unique function as part of Fremantle city centre’s overall retail, hospitality and tourism ‘offer’.

5. With the exception of defined street frontages referred to in 4 above, the policy should apply to all land zoned City Centre in Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

6. The policy should include guidance on exceptional circumstances in which proposals that do not comply with the policy measure to limit over-concentration referred to in 3 above may nevertheless be approved, e.g. premises which have remained vacant for a long period despite active marketing at a realistic market value, or forced relocation of an existing business at the end of a lease period where relocation options are limited.

7. The policy should include guidance on design matters relating to physical alterations to premises associated with a proposed Fast Food Outlet or Restaurant use, to encourage development which is compatible with Fremantle city centre’s distinctive architectural character and cultural heritage significance rather than generic, brand-related design approaches.

Subject to Council’s feedback on the above matters at this stage, officers will prepare a further report setting out the details of a recommended local planning scheme amendment and local planning policy for Council’s further consideration. CONCLUSION This report outlines a possible approach to stricter control through the planning system over the location of Fast Food Outlet and/or Restaurant uses in Fremantle city centre, which the Council may wish to adopt in response to concern which has been informally expressed by some elected members regarding the potential negative impacts of an overconcentration of such land uses upon the character and vitality of the city centre. If Council do wish to support further work on this issue, the principles set out in this report and in the recommendation below will be used to guide the drafting of local planning scheme and policy provisions which will be reported back to Council for further consideration.


Page 161


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

1. Resolves that, in principle, it does wish to exercise a greater degree of control than currently applies through the local planning scheme over the location of new Fast Food Outlet, Lunch Bar and/or Restaurant uses in Fremantle city centre, in order to safeguard against the potential negative impacts of an overconcentration of such land uses upon the character and vitality of the city centre.

2. Subject to adoption of recommendation 1 above, authorises officers to

prepare an amendment to Local Planning scheme No. 4 to:

Amend the zoning table (Table 1) to make the land uses ‘Fast Food Outlet’ and ‘Lunch Bar’ both ‘A’ uses instead of a ‘P’ use in the City Centre zone; and

Delete ‘Restaurant’ from the list of land uses referred to in clause 8.2(s).

3. Subject to recommendation 1 above, authorises officers to prepare a draft local planning policy to provide guidance on the determination of development applications for changes of use to Fast Food Outlet (and Lunch Bar) and Restaurant uses in the City centre zone. The draft policy shall be based on the following principles:

i. The purpose of the policy is not to prevent the establishment of new Fast

Food Outlet/Lunch Bar and/or Restaurant uses in the city centre, but rather to prevent excessive concentrations of such uses in particular locations e.g. in a single section of the same street frontage.

ii. The policy should apply to all uses which fall within the land use definitions of Fast Food Outlet, Lunch Bar and/or Restaurant contained in Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

iii. The policy measure used to avoid over-concentration of similar uses should be expressed in a quantitative manner, but must be easily understood and capable of assessment without reliance on complex calculations and/or data which requires regular updating. Best practice examples of similar policies already used in other planning jurisdictions should be considered in preparing the draft policy.

iv. The policy measure referred to in (iii) above should not apply to defined street frontages which constitute the existing ‘Cappuccino Strip’, in recognition that this area performs a unique function as part of Fremantle city centre’s overall retail, hospitality and tourism ‘offer’.

v. With the exception of defined street frontages referred to in (iv) above, the policy should apply to all land zoned City Centre in Local Planning Scheme No. 4.


Page 162

vi. The policy should include guidance on exceptional circumstances in which proposals that do not comply with the policy measure to limit over-concentration referred to in (iii) above may nevertheless be approved, e.g. premises which have remained vacant for a long period despite active marketing at a realistic market value, or forced relocation of an existing business at the end of a lease period where relocation options are limited.

vii. The policy should include guidance on design matters relating to physical alterations to premises associated with a proposed Fast Food Outlet or Restaurant use, to encourage development which is compatible with Fremantle city centre’s distinctive architectural character and cultural heritage significance rather than generic, brand-related design approaches.

4. Requests officers to present the draft local planning scheme amendment and

draft local planning policy referred to in 2 and 3 above to the next appropriate meeting of the Planning Committee.

CARRIED: 4/3

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald


Page 163

PC1609-13 JOINT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL DECISIONS UPDATE -INFORMATION REPORT

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 September 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Attachments: Nil EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following applications were recently determined by the Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel: 1. 11 McCabe Street, North Fremantle: Seven Storey Multiple Dwelling

Development (51 Multiple Dwellings) and two storey health studio (gymnasium) ;

2. 324 Stock Road, O’Connor: Demolition of existing Motor Vehicle Sales building,

construction of four (4) Showrooms with signage and change of use to ‘Showroom’;

3. 11 Freeman Loop, North Fremantle: variation to a previously approved Six

Storey (and basement) Hotel; and 4. 12 Parry Street, Fremantle: Variation to a previous JDAP Planning Approval for

Five storey Mixed Use development (40 Multiple Dwellings and Restaurant). The purpose of this report is to report on these recent Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) decisions. BACKGROUND

11 McCabe The Planning Committee considered a planning application for a Seven Storey Multiple Dwelling Development (51 Multiple Dwellings) and two storey health studio (gymnasium) on 3 August 2016 and resolved to recommend to the JDAP refusal for the application for the following reasons: 1. The discretionary additional height sought is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s

Local Planning Policy 3.11 – McCabe Street Area, North Fremantle – Height of New Buildings clause 4.1.5 for area D2 that requires “distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design, meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design”.

2. The development is inconsistent with clauses 67 (g) and (m) of the Planning and

Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, in that the building height proposed is not in accordance with an applicable Local Planning Policy for the site.


Page 164

The JDAP resolved on 11 August 2016 to approve the application subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 18 May 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter. 2. Notwithstanding condition 1 above, the vehicle parking bay described as ‘Visitors 4’ on the approved plans is hereby deleted and does not form part of this approval. 3. The design and construction of the development is to meet the 5 star green star standard as per the discretionary criteria of Local Planning Policy 3.11 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of Building Compliance for the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle;

i. a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 5 Stars, or

ii. a copy of agreed equivalent documentation certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 5 Stars.

4. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 5. Prior to occupation, all air-conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any other plant and equipment to the roof of the building shall be located or screened so as not to be highly visible from beyond the boundaries of the development site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 6. All landscaped areas are to be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle 7. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP002/16 on plans dated 18 May 2016, the car parking and loading area(s), and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance with Clause 5.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 8. All car parking, and vehicle access and circulation areas shall be maintained and available for car parking/loading, and vehicle access and circulation on an ongoing basis to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 9. Prior to the submission of a Building Permit application, the owner is to submit further details on the storage and management of the waste generated by the development to the satisfaction of and approval by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 165

10. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP002/16 on plans dated 18 May 2016, a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land of the potentiality of the enclosure of the balconies located along the eastern boundary by future development on the adjacent site. The notification is to be prepared by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties prior to occupation. 11. The outer walls of the internal bedrooms are to be glazed full height with switchable glass, able to change from obscure to clear. Advisory Notes (i) It is recommended that the applicant provides a verge landscaping plan outlining the planting plan and set out, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The reason given by JDAP for supporting the alternative recommendation was that: “The majority of panel members did not consider the reasons given were sufficient to sustain a refusal under the provisions of the Local Planning Policy (3.11) and Local Planning Scheme (specifically clause 11.8.6.3, referred to in LPP 3.11). In particular, it was considered that the reasons given in the RAR for the internalised bedrooms not satisfying the remaining criterion (b. design excellence) could not be fully substantiated when assessed against the matters listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of the scheme as assisting in determining design quality (as required by the policy).” 324 Stock Road The Planning Committee considered a planning application for the Demolition of existing Motor Vehicle Sales building, construction of four (4) showrooms with signage and change of use to ‘Showroom’ and recommended refusal to JDAP for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the Australian Standard for access lanes and does not provide adequate vehicle access point safety under clause 5.7.6 (i) and (ix) of LPS4, and clause 67(s)(i) of the deemed provisions for local planning schemes.

2. The proposal does not supply adequate vehicle access to the site and therefore is

considered contrary to the requirements of clause 10.2(x) of LPS4. Approval for the application was granted by JDAP on 18 August 2016 subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 14 July 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.


Page 166

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. 3. Notwithstanding approval of the development as indicated above, the free standing pylon sign facing Stock Road is deleted and does not form part of this application. 4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, No. 324 (Lots 33 and 35) Stock Road are to be legally amalgamated or alternatively the owner may enter into a legal agreement with the City of Fremantle, drafted by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties concerned prior to the commencement of the works. The legal agreement will specify measures to allow the development approval to operate having regard to the subject site consisting of two separate lots, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 5. Prior to the occupation of the development, the redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be removed and the verge reinstated to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle and at the expense of the applicant. 6. Prior to the occupation of the development, vehicle crossovers and a deceleration and turn lane on Stock Road shall be constructed at the applicant’s expense and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 7. The signage herby permitted shall not contain any flashing or moving light or radio; animation or movement in its design or structure; reflective, retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design structure. 8. The design and construction of the development is to meet the 4 star green star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of Building Compliance for the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the city to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle:

a. Submit to the Council a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars, or b. Submit to the Council a copy of agreed equivalent documentation certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars.

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


Page 167

ii. Due to the historical use of the site and the former removal of asbestos-containing materials (ACM), development works may intercept potentially contaminated soils. If potentially contaminated soil (such as odorous or stained soil, or the presence of ACM fragments mixed in soil) is identified during site works, the site should be reported in accordance with section 11 of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003, and development works appropriately managed to ensure that potential risks to human health and the environment are addressed. For further information, please contact Contaminated Sites at the Department of Environment Regulation on 1300 762 982. iii. Future signage within the areas marked ‘sign’, ‘signage’, ‘logo’ or ‘life poster’ on the approved plans will not require further planning approval. Any other future signage contrary to the requirements of Schedule 5 or Clause 8.2(d) of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 will require a planning application. iv. Notwithstanding approval of the development as indicated above, should the Stock Road widening proceed, amended plans will be required for the parking and landscaping layout prior to future development. The reasons given by JDAP for supporting the alternative recommendations was: “The JDAP noted the lack of agreement of the engineers on the matter of the suitability of the site access and deceleration lane. On the evidence presented, the JDAP considered that the proposed 38 metre long deceleration lane to access the subject site from Stock Road complied with the 35 metre minimum requirement within the Austroads Guidelines for constrained brownfields sites. Further, the JDAP considered the proposed site access complies with DC 5.1 which seeks to rationalise existing crossovers onto regional roads.” 11 Freeman Loop The Planning Committee considered an amended planning application on 3 August 2016 for a variation to a previously approved Six storey (and basement) Hotel. The amendments from the previously approved DAP are as follows:-

1. Basement

Basement footprint has been increased and reconfigured to accommodate most of the building services in the basement to minimise the plant room footprint on the roof.

Number of car bays increased from 18 to 20 with the introduction of car hoists.

10 bike racks and 10 bike lockers added.

2. Ground Floor

Entrance canopy moved 600mm north and 4 supporting columns added.

Windows and doors reconfigured.

Meeting Room replaced with expanded bar seating and external wall relocated further south.

Internal layout changes.

Pool alfresco roofed and enclosed with bi-fold doors and windows.

3. Roof


Page 168

Fence plant reoriented, reduced in size and roofed.

Fence plant screen walls increased 780mm higher than original DA to improve acoustic separation.

Cooling towers added.

Toilets relocated.

Office and food prep rooms added.

Parapet wall height increased 400mm above original.

Additional indoor roof plant room added.

Shade sail of roof top function space replaced with solid roof and bi-fold windows/doors.

Solar panels added to roof.

Area of the roof expanded slightly to the southern boundary and to the connection between the two buildings. (1016 m2 of rooftop area compared to 950m2 of rooftop in original approval)

4. External Cladding

Matt black decorative external cladding added to external wall of western rooms.

The Planning Committee on 3 August 2016 recommended to JDAP that the application be approved subject to conditions. Approval for the variation application was granted by JDAP on 18 August 2016 subject to the same conditions. 12 Parry On 18 August 2016 the JDAP approved an application for Variation to a previous JDAP Planning Approval for Five storey mixed use development (40 Multiple Dwellings and Restaurant). A summary of the amendments included:

1. Increase in onsite car bays from 51 to 59, 2. Increase in storerooms from 25 to 41, 3. Increase in bicycle racks from 40 to 50, 4. One way vehicle access ramp, 5. Increase setbacks to northern elevation for the third and fourth floor, and 6. Increase in balcony sizes for units 10, 20, 30 and 40 by 2.5m2 (21m2 increased

to 23.5m2) The amendment application was not referred to the Planning Committee as the changes were considered minor and reduced several discretions approved in the original application. The JDAP approved the application on 18 August 2015 subject to the same conditions.


Page 169


MOVED: Cr J Strachan The information be noted CARRIED: 7/0

For Against



Page 170

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE PRESIDING MEMBER DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 9.00 PM.


Page 171

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

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

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1.

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

Various participation opportunities 2.

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

Objective processes also used 3.

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

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4.

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

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5.

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

All input is of equal value 6.

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

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7.

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


Page 172


limitations associated with the issue.

Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8.

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

Diversity of view on most issues 9.

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

City officers must be impartial 10.

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

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11.

The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.


Page 173


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

12.

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

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

13.

The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14.

In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15.

Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16.

Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


Page 174

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 175

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 7 September 2016, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Planning Committee

7 September 2016

Page 2

Documents

MINUTES - City of Fremantle · 2018-03-08 · Minutes - Planning Committee 7 September 2016 Page 1 PLANNING COMMITTEE Minutes of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chambers,