Strategy and Project Development Committee - City of Fremantle · ensure a resultant scheme amendment achieves the purpose of providing diverse and affordable housing types in the

AGENDA

Strategy and Project Development Committee

Wednesday, 10 February 2016, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

Elected Members A Strategy and Project Development Committee meeting of the City of Fremantle will be

held on Wednesday, 10 February 2016 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8

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

commencing at 6.00 pm.

Paul Trotman DIRECTOR STRATEGIC PLANNING & PROJECTS 5 February 2016

STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

AGENDA

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS LATE ITEMS NOTED CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Strategy and Project Development Committee dated 9 September 2015 be confirmed as a true and accurate record.

TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 1

SPD1602-1 INFORMATION REPORT - STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - GREEN PLAN 2020 PROJECTS 1

SPD1602-2 PRINCIPLES OF A SCHEME AMENDMENT TO FACILITATE GREATER HOUSING DIVERSITY - UPDATE ON DRAFT CONTENT 2

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 16

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

SPD1602-1 INFORMATION REPORT - STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - GREEN PLAN 2020 PROJECTS 3

SPD1602-2 PRINCIPLES OF A SCHEME AMENDMENT TO FACILITATE GREATER HOUSING DIVERSITY - UPDATE ON DRAFT CONTENT 6

Agenda – Strategy and Project Development Committee 10 February 2016

Page 1

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

SPD1602-1 INFORMATION REPORT - STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - GREEN PLAN 2020 PROJECTS

ECM REFERENCE: 078/003

Author: Manager Strategic Projects Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1- Project Update The Council, at its meeting of 16 December 2015 (reference C1512-4) resolved to adopt the final Green Plan 2020. The Green Plan 2020 (the ‘plan’) will help meet the community’s vision of “…a City that values its environment and heritage and the protection and enhancing of the natural environment, green spaces and heritage features”- Fremantle Vision 2029. The plan identifies 19 actions, to be implemented over five years, culminating in a review in 2020. Since the plan’s adoption officers have assembled into cross-business project teams and prepared a programme to deliver the first stage projects i.e. over the next 18 months. A project update report detailing the plan’s first stage projects is attached for your information.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

The project update report as shown in Attachment 1 of the Strategy and Project Development Committee agenda 10 February 2016 be received.


Page 2

SPD1602-2 PRINCIPLES OF A SCHEME AMENDMENT TO FACILITATE GREATER HOUSING DIVERSITY - UPDATE ON DRAFT CONTENT

ECM Reference: 218/069 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 10 February 2016 Previous Item: SPC1409-01 24 September 2014 and SPC1509-4 23

September 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Previous item SPC1509-4 23 September 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In September 2014 Council agreed to a suite of principles on which to base an amendment to the City’s Local Planning Scheme that would effectively allow for smaller housing types to be built in existing lower density suburbs. The Australian Urban Design Research Centre (AUDRC) modelled the principles in April-June 2015. The modelling used three small dwelling development typologies to test the principles. Using the modelling AUDRC provided feedback on the sorts of development proposals the City could potentially receive if provisions based on these principles were in the Scheme. The modelling was presented at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 23 September 2015. The modelling highlighted a number of additional considerations. Based on this, Council resolved to further refine the previously agreed principles to ensure a resultant scheme amendment achieves the purpose of providing diverse and affordable housing types in the city, whilst also retaining the character of the area. The purpose of this item is to report back to Council on those aspects identified as requiring further examination and to recommend how they should be addressed in the final drafting of a formal amendment to the Local Planning Scheme.

BACKGROUND

In metropolitan Perth the majority of new housing is provided on the urban area’s fringe generally through low density (<R30 density coding) suburbs and large ‘family’ homes (e.g. 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, double garage, etc.) on modest sized lots. In recent years State planning policy has recognised that housing on the fringe does not provide well for sustainable growth or a diversity of housing forms, nor does it address the need for additional and more affordable housing within the metropolitan core, close to existing activity centres. Traditionally, the main planning approach available to provide for infill development in established residential suburbs is to increase the density coding of an area to allow for subdivision of single house lots. The downside of such ‘blanket’ up-coding can be


Page 3

development that negatively impacts on the established streetscape and amenity of the neighbourhood as additional driveways are needed, trees are cleared and housing covers former open backyard areas. Whilst there need to be trade-offs, as infill automatically reduces the land area available per dwelling, the Australian Urban Design Research Centre (AUDRC) found certain spatial qualities of suburban precincts are being excessively eroded through this form of infill development. On 24 September 2014 Council considered an alternative planning approach to delivering new moderately sized housing on lower density coded residential land that focused on the built form attributes of the housing, rather than the number of dwellings per land area. At this meeting Council agreed to a suite of principles for an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) that would potentially allow development that does not meet the minimum site and/or minimum average site area requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-codes) where the development complies with all of the following:

Any new dwelling shall have a maximum floor area of 120sqm A maximum of 1 car bay shall be provided for each new dwelling, unless the

dwelling is existing when a maximum of two car bays would be allowed A maximum of one dwelling in a development, where that dwelling is no larger

than one bedroom/studio size (up to 60 sqm), can be car free Visitor parking shall not be provided for developments of less than 5 dwellings A minimum of 60% open space, as defined by the R-Codes, shall be provided

over the entire development site A minimum of 15% of the development site area shall be provided for a deep

planting zone (DPZ). This area shall be uncovered and have a minimum dimension of 3 metres. The DPZ can be included as part of the open space for the development and 50 percent of the deep planting zone must be provided on the rear portion of the property.

Minimum of one tree, to Council specification, required to be retained or planted in any DPZ on the site.

The City contracted AUDRC to test these principles and provide feedback on the types of development applications the City could potentially receive if development provisions based on the principles were part of LPS4 and what additional policy provisions would be required to address design and built form issues. Three local architectural practices were invited to model three different ‘scenarios’ using the principles agreed by Council, the relevant R-code design elements and applicable local planning policies. This work was reported back to Council in September 2015 (Refer to previous item SPC1509-4 23 September 2015 in attachment 1). The modelling and further research brought up a number of additional considerations. Based on this, Council resolved to further refine the previously agreed principles to ensure a resultant scheme amendment achieves the purpose of providing diverse and affordable housing types in the city, whilst also retaining the character of the area. Council directed officers to prepare a further report regarding the matters highlighted in Council’s resolution below [highlighting added]. These matters form the basis of this report. Council’s resolution 23 September 2015:


Page 4

1. Approve the preparation by officers of a revised set of planning provisions for the development of smaller, diverse housing types to refine and/or add to principles previously endorsed by Council in its resolution SPC1409-01 dated 24 September 2014. The revised principles shall address the following matters:

a) i) The provisions shall apply in areas coded R35 and lower, but only in specified areas to be identified in a further report by officers as areas where infill development of smaller dwellings would be compatible with the character and pattern of existing development.

ii) As part of this further report, officers are to identify local areas where this policy could apply [as outlined in the report on pages 19-20], with some discretion permitted for areas outside these zones where appropriate

b) A minimum of 70% open space, as defined by the R-codes, shall be provided over the entire development site. Council may, at its discretion, permit the minimum open space provision to be varied to not less than 60% in circumstances where criteria identified in a specific local planning policy to be prepared and adopted to address this matter are complied with.

c) A minimum 25% of the development site area shall be provided as a Deep Planting Zone. This area shall be uncovered and have a minimum dimension of 4.5 metres. It can be included as part of the open space for the development and 50% of the deep planting zone must be provided on the rear portion of the site.

d) A minimum rear setback dimension of 5 metres, which Council may, at its discretion, permit to be reduced in circumstances where criteria identified in a specific local planning policy to be prepared and adopted to address this matter are complied with.

e) Vehicle movements must comply with the R-codes (including provision for vehicles to enter the street in a forward gear when the driveway is over 15m in length).

f) All applications for development of a type enabled under the scheme provisions the subject of this amendment must be considered by a design review body to be established by the Council under the provisions of clause 11.8 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4, subject to further investigation of the resource implications of this requirement and/or adoption of a “pre-approved design” mechanism as referred to in g) below.

g) A mechanism to make available to any applicant a choice of dwelling designs commissioned by the City of Fremantle which, if used in a planning application for a diverse dwelling development, would exempt the application from requiring consideration by the design review body referred to in f) above and/or enable Council to exercise discretion to vary other development standards, for example minimum open space area or rear setback requirements.

h) A limit on the maximum number of dwellings that may be built on any single site under the above provisions, based on a sliding scale of maximum dwelling numbers related to site area.


Page 5

2. Direct officers to prepare a further report to be presented to the next appropriate meeting of the Special Projects Committee regarding the matters set out in (1) above including details of criteria to be used in controlling the matters referred to in points b) [minimum open space requirement], d) [rear setback requirement] and h) [maximum number of dwellings] of (1).

PLANNING COMMENT In accordance with Council’s resolution of 23 September 2015, the purpose of this report is to present back to Council on the matters highlighted in the background section above, i.e.

Scheme amendment area

Open space

Rear setback

Limit on maximum number of dwellings Scheme amendment area

Council resolution 23 September 2015: i) The provisions shall apply in areas coded R35 and lower, but only in specified areas to be identified in a further report by officers as areas where infill development of smaller dwellings would be compatible with the character and pattern of existing development.

ii) As part of this further report, officers are to identify local areas where this policy could apply [as outlined in the report on pages 19-20], with some discretion permitted for areas outside these zones where appropriate.

Suspending the R-code minimum site areas and allowing development over and above the existing density in all areas of the city could have unintended effects and impact on the city’s more sensitive areas, for example in heritage areas and/or some suburban areas with relatively intact patterns of single dwelling development and mature, well vegetated streetscapes. Council therefore resolved to apply the amendment to specified areas only and requested officers to identify areas where infill development of smaller dwellings would be compatible with the character and pattern of existing development. Accordingly, officers have prepared maps of the city highlighting various attributes for Council’s consideration. These maps will be displayed at the Strategy and Project Development Committee. The maps highlight:

land coded R35 and lower being the lower density coded land the amendment would be applicable to;

400m ‘ped shed’ from high frequency bus routes and 800m from train stations; and

Heritage areas and heritage listed properties. Officers suggest the following broad criteria to assist Council in identifying targeted areas where the prospective scheme amendment provisions should apply: Exclude:

Heritage areas; areas with a large number of individually listed heritage places. Heritage areas and/or areas with a large number of individually heritage listed properties would be more likely to have streetscapes of significance. Excluding


Page 6

these areas would therefore minimise the risk of this development type adversely affecting areas with significant streetscape character.

Consider:

Areas within a 400m ‘ped shed’ from high frequency bus routes and 800m from train stations The principles for this scheme amendment require less car parking provided on site (e.g. one car bay per each new dwelling) than a standard grouped or multiple dwelling development. Officers therefore consider it reasonable to allow for the possibility of such development close to alternative means of transport.

Areas with a diverse existing streetscape character

Development of the type proposed though the scheme amendment principles is considered likely to have less impact in areas where the existing streetscape is already diverse in character.

Areas with similar existing development types and patterns, e.g. aged person dwellings and 5+ strata lot dwellings on one parent lot. In general residents of a suburb have a perception of the capacity of adjoining properties and wider neighbourhood to develop based on the existing development pattern of the area. In areas where unit-style developments of several dwellings on one ‘parent’ lot (including aged person developments) exist (e.g. areas of Fremantle suburb north of High Street, and White Gum Valley fronting Carrington Street) there is generally a level of tolerance that these development types can be catered for in the area.

Officers therefore recommend that the amendment provisions should initially apply only to specific areas identified in a special control area map in LPS4, similar to the Port buffer area Special Control Area. Five areas have been identified in figure 1 and 2 below. Areas 1-4 are not within heritage areas, area 5 is within the South Fremantle heritage area but is a discrete post-WW2 residential ‘pocket’ isolated by industrial/commercial uses from older residential development more characteristic of the South Fremantle heritage area. All five areas contain few heritage listed places and are mostly within a 400m ‘Ped Shed’ of high frequency bus routes (apart from properties on Carrington Street near the Fremantle Golf Course) and/or have a significant proportion of similar development patterns e.g. 5+ strata lot dwellings on one parent lot.


Page 7

Figure 1. Possible areas 1-4 to apply a scheme amendment based on the principles

Figure 2 - Possible area 5 to apply a scheme amendment based on the principles

Parts of Samson meet the criteria above and have been included in figure 1. Officers however are mindful that Samson, unlike other areas in the City, has not seen any significant infill development since it was established and the suburb retains its original low-density (R15) and relatively large (600-900 sq m) lot layout. Allowing for this alternative development type in the suburb is not anticipated by residents and may reduce the traditional form of the area. For these reasons officers are cautious to include areas of Samson in the amendment area and instead recommend that future development density and patterns in Samson should be considered as part of a comprehensive housing strategy which will be required as part of the review of the City’s


Page 8

Local Planning Strategy and Local Planning Scheme programmed for later this year and 2017. In response to Council’s resolution requesting advice on criteria that might be used to guide exercise of discretion to allow individual cases of this development type outside of the recommended areas, officers recommend the following approach: Council may consider properties outside of the special control area subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following:

a. The property is - i. Not heritage listed; and ii. Located within 400m of a high frequency bus route or 800m of a train station,

unless additional parking and/or alternative modes of transport are provided for; and

iii. Has a minimum lot area of 600 sq m; and

b. The proposed development - i. Meets the deemed-to-comply requirements for design element 5.1.3 Lot

boundary setback of the Residential Design Codes; ii. Meets the Deep Planting Zone and open space requirements of the

Scheme. Open space percentage

Council resolution 23 September 2015: A minimum of 70% open space, as defined by the R-codes, shall be provided over the entire development site. Council may, at its discretion, permit the minimum open space provision to be varied to not less than 60% in circumstances where criteria identified in a specific local planning policy to be prepared and adopted to address this matter are complied with.

The R-Codes currently provide a minimum open space requirement for residential development depending on the density coding applicable to the land. The open space requirement and Scheme amendment principles the subject of this report are depicted below in table 1. Table 1 – Open space requirement

Density coding R-codes open space requirement

R15, R20 and R25 50%

R30 – R60 45%

Scheme amendment principles 70%

In general, the open space on a ‘typical’ non-subdividable lot in older areas of Fremantle can be 70-80%. Therefore the principles for this possible Scheme amendment include a requirement for 70% open space to limit site coverage/the building footprint and help to maintain the existing open aspects, mature vegetation and permeability on a site. AUDRC also suggest that it would encourage creative re-use of an existing dwelling.


Page 9

Council asked officers to consider requirements to guide discretionary decisions to reduce the minimum open space requirement, expressed through an accompanying local planning policy. Officers suggest these requirements could be based around a higher requirement for outdoor living area to combat the deficiencies in the R-Codes definition of ‘open space’ and limiting the impact of building bulk on adjoining lots. The outdoor living area requirements under the R-codes vary for each density coding and development type is provided below in table 2. The broad definition of open space includes elements of a development such as uncovered parking and driveways. Requiring a larger outdoor living space than provided under the R-codes means that if open space is reduced to 60% it is not to the detriment of the outdoor living space provided for each dwelling. Table 2. Outdoor Living Area requirements of the R-codes

Development type

Density code Outdoor Living Area

Grouped Dwelling

R15 No requirement

R20 – R25 30 – minimum dimension of 4m

R30 – R35 24 – minimum dimension of 4m

Multiple Dwelling

All density codes under R40

At least one balcony or equivalent minimum area of 10 sqm and dimension of 2.4 m

Apart from safeguarding the provision of practical outdoor living area, officers consider a reduced open space requirement would be acceptable where the amenity of the neighbouring property is not affected by building bulk. The side boundary setbacks and building height design elements of the Residential Design Codes deal with factors that contribute to the impact of building bulk on neighbouring properties. The Residential Design Codes’ solar access to adjoining sites design element covers the impact of building bulk on neighbouring properties. Accordingly officers suggest that in order for a development to reduce open space to 60% it must meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes design elements listed below. Officers therefore recommend the following criteria to be used to assess proposals for open space provision of less than 70% – At Council’s discretion the 70% open space requirement may be reduced to a minimum of 60% where -

a. An outdoor living area of at least 35 sqm with a minimum dimension of 5m is provided for each grouped dwelling and a balcony of at least 15m with a minimum dimension of 3m is provided for each multiple dwelling; and

b. The development meets the deemed-to-comply requirements of the following Residential Design Codes design elements-

i. 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback ii. 5.1.6 Building height iii. 5.4.2 Solar access to adjoining sites

Rear setback

Council resolution 23 September 2015:

A minimum rear setback dimension of 5 metres, which Council may, at its discretion,


Page 10

permit to be reduced in circumstances where criteria identified in a specific local planning policy to be prepared and adopted to address this matter are complied with.

Additional to the deep planting zone (DPZ) requirement (a minimum 25% of the development area, uncovered with a minimum dimension of 4.5m and at least 50% located on the rear proportion of the site) a minimum rear setback of 5m is required. The rear setback requirement effectively ensures at least some of the DPZ would be located on the rear boundary. In established suburbs the rear setback, compared to a side setback, is more important as traditionally large backyards adjoin each other and the setback between the rear adjoining boundaries has, in the past, been substantial. The rear setback area is also generally where the mature vegetation on a site is located. The purpose of this requirement is therefore to maintain this pattern. There may be circumstances however, where it would be appropriate to reduce the rear setback. Officers suggest the criteria to be considered could be based on the following scenarios:

the significance of the rear setback is reduced – for example where the neighbouring property has a significantly higher natural ground level than the development site or includes a building on or near the boundary;

greater tree protection can be achieved; and

a better location of the DPZ and/or outdoor living areas can be provided (e.g. improved solar orientation).

Accordingly officers recommend the following be used to form the discretionary criteria in a local planning policy to assess proposals to reduce the rear setback – At Council’s discretion the 5m rear setback requirement may be reduced where -

a. The adjoining property to the rear has: i. A building with a wall of 5m or more in length located within 2 metres of the

common boundary; or ii. An existing ground level 1m or more higher than the subject site at the rear

boundary; or b. Greater protection of existing mature trees could be attained than would otherwise

be achieved with the 5m setback requirement; or c. Outdoor living areas and/or some of the Deep Planting Zone would be more

suitably located centrally on the site so as to gain better use of the northern aspect for the development.

Maximum number of dwellings

Council resolution 23 September 2015:

A limit on the maximum number of dwellings that may be built on any single site under the above provisions, based on a sliding scale of maximum dwelling numbers related to site area.

A key purpose of the future amendment is to increase the diversity of housing in existing suburbs by providing for the ability to develop smaller housing types. The results of the modelling undertaken by AUDRC however show that under the current scheme amendment principles sites not capable of subdivision under conventional Scheme and


Page 11

R-Codes controls could potentially yield up to six dwellings for a 750 sq m lot (average lot size in R20-R25 areas). Officers have undertaken further calculations based on the new requirements of 70% open space and 25% DPZ and estimate a lot of approximately 750 sq m could yield up to four to six dwellings, depending on dwelling size and design. While this would meet one main aim of the amendment, the potential for the development of six dwellings on an otherwise non-subdividable single house residential lot could be perceived as a negative outcome by the local community, regardless of design quality. Officers have examined the land area required to subdivide in the different density codings and suburbs. The subdividable lot sizes including the minimum and average lot sizes and total lot size required to consider subdivision for each density code is provided in table 3 below. Table 3. Lot size requirements for subdivision by density coding R-code R15 R20 R25 R30 R35

Applicable LPAs

Samson Hilton, WGV, Beaconsfield O’Connor, South Fremantle, Fremantle

Hilton, WGV, Beaconsfield,South Fremantle, Fremantle

Beaconsfield,South Fremantle, Fremantle, Hilton (north)

South Fremantle, Fremantle

Site area per dwelling(sqm) required for subdivision (R Codes Table 1)

Min 580 Avg 666

Min 350 Avg 450

Min 300 Avg 350

Min 260 Avg 300

Min 220 Avg 260

Lot size (sqm) required to consider subdivision under R-Codes

1332 Note: Few single lots are this size in Samson. Amalgamation required to consider s/d.

900 700 600 520

Estimated range of un-subdivided lot size in existing suburbs (sqm)

600-800

700-900 Note: Hilton and O’Connor have some large 900+ un-subdivided lots

700-800

500-800 500-600

Officers considered a sliding scale based on the density of a site and land required to subdivide. The outcome of this work is presented in table 4. The following assumptions were used:

one additional dwelling could be considered where, based on the lot size, conventional subdivision or group dwelling development is not an option for the site;

three dwellings (two additional) could be considered where, based on the lot size, subdivision is an option for the site; and

The ability for more dwellings as the size of the lot increases above the minimum lot size required for subdivision (e.g. one additional dwelling per 150 sq m of lot area in excess of minimum lot area for subdivision).


Page 12

Table 4. Proposed sliding scale/ density coding R-code R15 R20 R25 R30 R35 Number of dwellings / density coding / (sqm)

Below s/d lot size

<1332 total of 2

<900 total of 2

<700 total of 2

<600 total of 2

<520 total of 2

s/d lot size and above

>1332 3 + 1 for every additional 150sqm





The approach of providing a sliding scale based on subdividable lot size by density in table 4 above correlates to the reasonable expectation of an area’s redevelopment potential however does not relate to the actual lot size of suburbs in the City of Fremanle. Unlike greenfield areas, for the most part, Fremantle was not created on the same densities as areas have today. Accordingly the size of un-subdivided lots in the areas identified earlier in this report (Figures 1 and 2) where the amendment provisions are recommended to apply have similar lot areas of approximately 700-800 sq m (refer to table 3 above), despite different density codings. The approach is also against one of the principles of the amendment. Tying the number of possible dwellings on a lot to the site area by density coding essentially uses the site area requirements of the R-codes. One underpinning principle of the amendment is to allow for development of diverse housing in an otherwise low density suburb regardless of the density coding and site area requirements of the R-codes. Furthermore the provisions could be simpler. Complicated provisions are difficult to explain, administer and assess. Once adopted by Council, the City will be discussing the amendment with the Western Australian Planning Commission and then advertising to the public. The concept of allowing for additional dwellings outside of the R-code density requirements is a radical one. Keeping the provisions as simple and easy to understand as possible will be key to communicating the idea to the Commission and the community. Officers therefore suggest a simpler approach based on a single site area threshold. AUDRC used an indicative lot size of 750 sqm in their modelling as an average lot size in Beaconsfield/White Gum Valley. This is similar to the predominant size of non-subdivided lots in the areas where the amendment provisions are recommended to apply (approximately 700-800 sqm). Accordingly 750 sqm has been chosen as a pivot point upon which the maximum number of dwellings on a site can be considered. Officers therefore propose the following dwelling number ‘caps’ under the scheme amendment:

Site area <750 sqm – maximum three dwellings in total

Site area >750 sqm – maximum four dwellings in total


Page 13

The main advantages of this approach are:

The approach is in keeping with the original principles of this project in that it is not tied to density under the R-codes;

A site area cap would consistently apply to all areas, regardless of other factors i.e. density coding. This provides the community with an easy to understand measure and certainty on the types of development that could be possible in the area.

It also simplifies the provisions making them easier to communicate to WAPC and the public as a concept in a scheme amendment, and ultimately administer and assess if adopted and gazetted.

In addition to the maximum dwelling yield cap, officers also considered a minimum lot size requirement. However this is not considered necessary as there are other requirements in the prospective scheme amendment e.g. 25% DPZ and 60-70% open space that would effectively exclude very small lots from being able to develop. Following the outcome of Council’s consideration of this report the next step in the process will be for officers to draft and present to Council a formal scheme amendment for consideration for initiation. The amendment will incorporate the principles as first agreed 24 September 2014, the refinement of the principles resolved on 23 September 2015 and Council’s resolution in respect of the matters detailed in this report. CONCLUSION The discussion and recommendations contained in this report seek to conclude Council’s consideration of the scope and format of planning provisions to facilitate more diverse housing types, which commenced in September 2014. Since September 2014 modelling and further research on the principles to guide a scheme amendment on this topic has been undertaken and presented to Council. Council has considered a number of additional factors and further refinements have been made to the original principles. The purpose of this item is to suggest further refinements, prior to the initiation of a Scheme amendment. Subject to Council’s consideration of the recommendations in this report, officers will proceed to prepare a final draft of the scheme amendment to present back to Council in March or April 2016.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council

1. Approve adding to the planning provisions previously endorsed by Council in its resolutions SPC1409-01 dated 24 September 2014 and SPC1509-4 dated 23 September 2015 the following:

i. The scheme amendment would only apply to the areas identified in the following plan -


Page 14

ii. Council may consider approving development under the planning provisions referred to in 1 above properties outside of the areas in 1(i) subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following: a. The property is -

i. Not heritage listed; and ii. Located within 400m of a high frequency bus route or 800m of a

train station, unless additional parking and/or alternative modes of transport are provided for; and

iii. Has a minimum lot area of 600 sqm; and

b. The proposed development - i. Meets the deemed-to-comply requirements for design element

5.1.3 Lot boundary setback of the Residential Design Codes; and

ii. Meets the Deep Planting Zone and Open Space requirements of the Scheme.


Page 15

iii. The maximum number of dwellings permissible under these planning provisions, subject to meeting all other relevant scheme site and development requirements, shall be -

where the site area is less than 750 sq m – maximum three dwellings in total; and

where the site area is equal to or greater than 750 sq m – maximum four dwellings in total

2. Approve using the following criteria to form the requirements of an associated local planning policy planning to be used in conjunction with a proposed amendment for the development of smaller, diverse housing types -

i. Open space At Council’s discretion the 70% open space requirement may be reduced to a minimum of 60% where - a. An outdoor living area of at least 35 sqm with a minimum dimension

of 5m is provided for each grouped dwelling and a balcony of at least 15m with a minimum dimension of 3m is provided for each multiple dwelling; and

b. The development meets the deemed-to-comply requirements of the following Residential Design Codes design elements-

i. 5.1.3 Lot boundary setback ii. 5.1.6 Building height iii. 5.4.2 Solar access to adjoining sites

ii. Rear setback requirement

At Council’s discretion the 5m rear setback requirement may be reduced where - a. The adjoining property to the rear has a -

i. building with a wall of 5m or more in length located within 2 metres of the common boundary; or

ii. ground level of 1m or higher than the subject site at the rear boundary; or

b. Greater protection of existing and mature trees could be attained than would otherwise be achieved with the 5m setback requirement; or

c. Outdoor living areas and/or the Deep Planting Zone would be more suitably located centrally on the site so as to gain better use of the northern aspect for the development.

3. Authorise officers to prepare a draft local planning scheme amendment incorporating the planning provisions referred to in previous resolutions SPC1409-1 and SPC1509-4 and in recommendation (1) above for consideration at the next appropriate meeting of the Strategy and Project Development Committee.


Page 16

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.


Page 17

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 18


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 19


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 20

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.

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS

Strategy and Project Development Committee

Wednesday, 10 February 2016, 6.00 pm

Agenda Attachments – Strategy and Project Development Committee 10 February 2016

Page 3

SPD1602-1 INFORMATION REPORT - STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - GREEN PLAN 2020 PROJECTS

ATTACHMENT 1


Page 4


Page 5


Page 6

SPD1602-2 PRINCIPLES OF A SCHEME AMENDMENT TO FACILITATE GREATER HOUSING DIVERSITY - UPDATE ON DRAFT CONTENT

ATTACHMENT 1 - SPC1509-4 23 September 2015


Page 7


Page 8


Page 9


Page 10


Page 11


Page 12


Page 13


Page 14


Page 15

Documents

Strategy and Project Development Committee - City of Fremantle · ensure a resultant scheme amendment achieves the purpose of providing diverse and affordable housing types in the