AGENDA ATTACHMENTS - City of Fremantle PSC... · CONVENIENCE STORE TO RESTAURANT (CAFE) (JWJ ... PSC1110-176 EDMUND STREET NO. 84 (LOT 13), ... In this case, the subject site is

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 5 October 2011,6.00 pm

Agenda Attachments - Planning Services Committee 5 October 2011

Page 2

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PSC1110-172 THOMPSON ROAD NO.2/64 (LOT 2) NORTH FREMANTLE – DEFERRED ITEM – TWO STOREY DETACHED ANCILLARY ACCOMODATION ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (DA0170/11) 3

PSC1110-174 MARMION STREET, NO. 121 (LOT 5) FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR UNAUTHORISED PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM LUNCH BAR / CONVENIENCE STORE TO RESTAURANT (CAFE) (JWJ DA0237/11) 19

PSC1110-175 MOUAT STREET, NO. 5 (LOTS 1, 2, 3, & 4) FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR UNAUTHORISED EXTERNAL PAINTING TO EXISTING BUILDING (JWJ DA0369/11) 24

PSC1110-176 EDMUND STREET NO. 84 (LOT 13), WHITE GUM VALLEY – OUTBUILDING ADDITION TO SINGLE HOUSE – (JS DA0357/11) 49

PSC1110-177 THOMPSON ROAD NO. 1/82 (LOT 202), NORTH FREMANTLE – TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE – (AD DA0356/11) 52

PSC1110-178 ESPLANADE RESERVE NO.9399 – TEMPORARY APPROVAL FOR SKY VIEW OBSERVATION WHEEL & ANCILLARY STRUCTURE ADDITIONS TO ESPLANADE RESERVE - (JL DA0473/11) 59

PSC1110-179 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 72

PSC1110-180 DEVELOPMENT AREA 1 - TEMPORARY PLANNING APPROVALS 74

PSC1110-181 ADVERTISE – PORT BEACH ROAD AND TYDEMAN ROAD – PROPOSED PARTIAL ROAD CLOSURES AND AMAGAMATIONS - WITH FORESHORE RESERVE NO. 43311 AND NO. 29 PORT BEACH ROAD, NORTH FREMANTLE (KSW)) 88


Page 3

PSC1110-172 THOMPSON ROAD NO.2/64 (LOT 2) NORTH FREMANTLE – DEFERRED ITEM – TWO STOREY DETACHED ANCILLARY ACCOMODATION ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (DA0170/11)

ATTACHMENT 1 – Revised Development Plans


Page 4


Page 5


Page 6


Page 7


Page 8


Page 9

ATTACHMENT 2 TITLE THOMPSON ROAD NO.2/64 (LOT 2) NORTH FREMANTLE – DEFERRED

ITEM – TWO STOREY DETACHED ANCILLARY ACCOMODATION ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (DA0170/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 September 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: Additional Information Date Received: 13 April 2011 Owner Name: Rowan Chitty Submitted by: As above Scheme: Mixed Use (R25) Heritage Listing: N/A Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination as the applicant proposes variations to the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes. In addition to this, the City received five submissions during the advertising period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval. The applicant is seeking planning approval for the construction of a two storey detached addition, rooftop terrace and wind turbine to the existing Single House located at No.2/64 Thompson Road, North Fremantle. The proposal is also comprised of the addition of a plunge pool and two water tanks. The applicant is pursuing a variation to the building height requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 and the requirements of the Residential Design Codes in relation to Buildings Setback from Boundary, Visual Privacy, Solar access for Adjoining Sites and External Fixtures. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes in relation to Buildings Setback from Boundary, Visual Privacy and Solar Access for adjoining sites, however it is considered that these discretionary decisions correlate to the proposed variation to the height requirements of the scheme. It is considered that should the issues associated with height be addressed, the proposal may be supported. Notwithstanding, the application is on balance recommended for refusal due to the nature of the variations proposed to the requirements of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 and the Residential Design Codes. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located on the western side of Thompson Road, North Fremantle. The site is zoned Mixed Use under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), and is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area (Local Planning Area 3). The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory but is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Precinct, a designated Heritage Area in accordance with Clause 7.2 of LPS4. DETAIL The applicant is seeking planning approval the construction of a two storey detached addition, rooftop terrace and wind turbine to the existing Single House located at No.2/64 Thompson Road, North Fremantle. Specifically the proposed detached addition is to be tenanted, but is also proposed to be used for demonstration purposes on an incidental basis to exhibit the sustainable systems to be used. The development plans are enclosed as an attachment to this report (Attachment 1).


Page 11

CONSULTATION

Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and the City’s L.P.P1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising period being the 18 May 2011 there were a total of 5 submissions received. The content of the submissions received is summarised below: Submission 1 Concerns expressed in regard to possible overlooking from the

proposed rooftop terrace, potential noise issues associated with the location of the pool and wind turbine, and in regard to access to the subject site.

Submission 2 No objection – applauded the installation of a Wind Turbine. Submission 3 Concern in regard to noise and light reflections associated with

wind turbine. Submission 4 Concern in relation to the height of the combined studio and

wind turbine, visual privacy, boundary setbacks and appearance of the structure.

Submission 5 Concern expressed in relation to site access and parking

arrangements at 106-107 Stirling Highway, further concern raised in relation to visual privacy and the proposed wind turbine (aggressive form of renewable, noise issues, ‘flicker’ issues, shadowing, safety, height) bulk being intensified with reduced setback, drainage and water retention.

The content of the submissions will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASESMENT Local Planning Scheme No.4 Building Height The subject site is located within Local Planning Area 3 – North Fremantle. For a property located within the mixed use zone of Local Planning Area 3, a 7.5m maximum wall height applies. Accordingly the applicant is proposing an external wall height of 8.5m, which is contrary to the height requirements of Schedule 12. It is worth noting that the proposal is only in excess of the maximum height requirements stipulated within Schedule 12 because of the balustrade proposed to be located above the second storey of the addition to provide for roof access.


Page 12

In entertaining a discretionary decision in relation to the height requirements of Schedule 12, a site is to contain or otherwise be adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that outlined within Schedule 12 of LPS4. In this case, the subject site is located in close proximity to another residential property at No.60 Thompson Road, located 10m to the south of the subject site which contains a dwelling built in excess of the maximum height provided for in Schedule 12 of LPS4. Notwithstanding, clause 5.8.1.1 outlines that for Council to entertain a variation to the height requirements of Schedule 12, there is to be more than one example of a adjacent building in excess of the proposed height requirements. Whilst the location of the Dingo Flour Mill building located 75m to the north of the subject site could allow for the height variation to be entertained, the large majority of properties in the locality are single and two storeys, therefore it is considered that the Dingo Flour Mill is unique and exceptional circumstance and on this basis does not provide for the City to entertain a height variation. Accordingly, it is considered that a variation to the height requirements of Schedule 12 is not able to be supported in this instance. Notwithstanding, should Council form the view that the Dingo Flour Mill be considered in entertaining a height variation, Council will need to be further satisfied that the proposal meets the criteria outlined in clause 5.8.1.1 of LPS4. Clause 5.8.1.1 states as follows: 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. Permitted Development The proposed rainwater tanks and plunge pool located to the southern side of the proposed studio constitute permitted development in accordance with Schedule 15 of LPS4. Residential Design Codes The applicant is proposing the following discretionary decisions from the Acceptable Development criteria of the Residential Design Codes: • Buildings Setback from Boundary; • Visual Privacy; • Solar Access for adjoining sites; • External Fixtures.


Page 13

The variations to the acceptable development criteria of the R-Codes will be discussed further in Planning Comment section of this report. Local Planning Policy D.B.H5 Satellite Dishes, Air Conditioners and Antennas It is noted that wind turbines are not specifically covered in this policy, the policy is has been used for the purposes of guidance in assessing the proposed wind turbine. Specifically D.B.H5 provides for the following key considerations: • Impact on the visual amenity of the area; • Obstruction of vistas; • Location on site; • Design, bulk, colour, height, general appearance. The requirements of the City’s D.B.H5 are discussed further in the planning comment section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

The applicant is seeking discretionary decisions in relation to Design Element 6.3.1 Buildings Setback from Boundary, 6.8.1 Visual Privacy, 6.9.1 Solar Access for Adjoining Sites and 6.10.2 External Fixtures, as a result, these components require an assessment against the respective Performance Criteria of the R-Codes. The discretionary decisions sought are discussed further below: Overshadowing Maximum

Permitted Provided Variation

Shadow Cast (as per R35)

35% 50% 15%

The proposed addition located on the subject site will overshadow the southern adjoining property is in excess of the maximum requirements stipulated in Design Element 6.9.1 of the R-Codes. As a result, this component requires an assessment against the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.9.1, which state: “Development designed to protect solar access for neighbouring properties taking into account the potential to overshadow: • outdoor living area; • major opening to habitable rooms; • solar collectors; or • balconies or verandahs”.


Page 14

The increased overshadowing resulting from this proposal will fall onto a portion of the north facing outdoor living area of the property to the south, however the outdoor living area located on the northern side of the site is covered by an existing patio, meaning that the impact of the projected overshadow will be lessened in this instance. Furthermore, the main living space of the southern adjoining property is located to the eastern side of the site and will not be impacted by the projected shadow of the proposal. Accordingly, the proposal is not anticipated to restrict the northern access of the southern adjoining site, therefore is considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of this Design Element. Boundary Setbacks The applicant is proposing the following departures from the Acceptable Development Criteria of Design Element 6.3.1: Required Provided Variation Western Elevation Ground Floor – 2.3m First Floor – 3.5m Terrace – 4.8m

Western Elevation Ground Floor – 1.2m First Floor – 1.2m Terrace – 1.2m

Western Elevation Ground Floor – 1.1m First Floor – 2.3m Terrace – 3.6m

Northern Elevation First Floor –1.5m Terrace – 4.8m

Northern Elevation First Floor – 1.3m Upper Floor – 1.3m

Northern Elevation First Floor – 0.2m Upper Floor – 3.5m

Southern Elevation Terrace – 4.8m



The proposed reduced setbacks have been assessed against the Performance Criteria of Design Element 6.3.2. The Performance Criteria of the R-Codes relating to boundary setbacks state: “Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; • ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; • assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; • assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and • assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.”


Page 15

Western/Northern Boundary Setbacks The proposed boundary setbacks are considered to provide for direct sun and ventilation to the proposed dwelling, and the adjoining premises. Due to the reduced setback, it is acknowledged that the proposal may contribute to impacts associated with building bulk on the western and northern adjoining sites. Given the 4m difference in topography between the subject site and the developed area of the western adjoining site, the proposal is likely to result in increased building bulk, however it is noted the western adjoining property is used for commercial purposes. Likewise, the adjacent area of the northern adjoining property is comprised of an outbuilding and rear setback area, whilst impacts associated with bulk are not anticipated to be significant, it is acknowledged that the height of the proposal may contribute to an enclosing effect on this area. Furthermore, the proposal is not considered to contribute to the increased privacy between the two sites. Overall the reduced boundary setbacks are not considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes. Southern Boundary Setback The proposed setback is not anticipated to limit ventilation to the subject site nor the southern adjoining property. Furthermore, given the increased setback, issues associated with building bulk are considered to be reduced. As the proposed setback variation to the southern boundary is minor in nature and only associated with the terrace component of the elevation, it is considered that the impact of this elevation is negligible. Increasing the setback of this portion of the elevation will not contribute to the reduced overshadowing. On this basis, the proposal is considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of this Design Element. Visual Privacy The proposal contains upper level major openings and balconies that fail to meet the Acceptable Development provisions for visual privacy setbacks. The proposal seeks variations to: • Mezzanine window facing west located to the front of the dwelling; • First floor windows, facing west and north located at the rear of the dwelling; and • Proposed rooftop terrace.


Page 16

The Performance Criteria of DE 6.8.1 states: Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings is minimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness. Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid overlooking is preferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass. Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal impact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity. Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, the distance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows. Given the extent of the projected visual intrusion into the northern, southern and western properties, from the proposed terrace and upper levels of the proposed addition, the proposal is not considered to satisfy these criteria. Wind Turbine It is acknowledged that there is a degree ambiguity in how to go about assessing the proposed wind turbine; however, it is considered that whilst Design Element 6.10.2 of the R-Codes does not specifically provide requirements for such development, the Performance Criteria of this Design Element provide some guidance in assessing a proposal of this nature. The performance criteria of this design element states: “Solar collectors permitted as of right and other external fixtures that do not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties” Furthermore, the City’s D.BH5 has also been used for the purposes of providing guidance in assessing a proposal of this nature. The proposal has been advertised to the adjoining properties who have conveyed a number concerns in relation to the proposed wind turbine, therefore it is probable that the proposal may have an adverse on the adjoining residents. It is worth noting that the Residential Design Codes permit the application of solar panels as of right due in part to their contribution to the energy efficiency of housing stock. Accordingly as the proposed wind turbine will contributes to the energy efficiency of the dwelling, it is considered to be warranted that the proposal should be entertained.


Page 17

It is acknowledged that the visual impact of solar panels and the proposed wind turbine differ greatly, however it is considered that given this development stands unprecedented for the most part, it would appear incongruous with the surrounds. However, as the use of wind turbines becomes a more common practice in providing alternative energy for housing, the proposal will be less at odds with the surrounds, thereby it is anticipated that associated implications with amenity will become ameliorated over time. It is considered in this circumstance that on balance the proposal satisfies the Performance Criteria of this Design Element and the objectives of the City’s D.B.H5. CONCLUSION In determining this application, the fundamental point that requires consideration is the proposed building height of the studio. The proposed wind turbine, whilst contrary to the acceptable development criteria of the Residential Design Codes is considered to be a positive aspect of the proposal, is not likely to have a significant negative impact on the adjoining properties as that of the studio itself. The proposed studio depicts a height contrary to the city’s Local Planning Scheme and as a result requires a number of discretionary decisions to the acceptable development criteria of the Residential Design Codes. It is considered that this aspect is the fundamental factor for Council’s consideration in determining this application. Whilst the proposal in its current state is contrary to the requirements to the City’s Local Planning Scheme and the Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes, the majority of the issues associated with the proposal relate to the height of the studio. Given the proposal has the potential to make a positive contribution to the City of Fremantle in terms of demonstrating alternative uses of renewable energy, Council may be of the to approve the applications, upon which the following resolution would be recommended: That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Detached Addition and Rooftop Terrace Including Wind Turbine to existing Single House at No.2/64 (Lot 2) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with

development plans dated 13 April 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

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

3. Prior to occupation, the upper level window(s) on the southern and eastern elevations shall be fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.65 metres above the upper floor level or alternatively a minimum sill height of 1.65 metres as determined from the internal floor level to prevent overlooking in accordance


Page 18

with Clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Prior to occupation, 80% solid surface area / obscured balustrading to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above the floor level shall be provided to the proposed terrace in accordance with clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Note that the installation of privacy screening as per condition 4 above will increase the external wall height variation from 1.0m to 1.6m. Notwithstanding, given that the height of the proposal is contrary to the maximum requirements outlined in Schedule 12 of LPS4, along with the performance criteria of Design Element 6.3.2 and 6.8.1, the proposal is on balance recommended for refusal. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two Storey Detached Addition, Rooftop Terrace and Wind Turbine to existing Single House at No.2/64 (Lot 2) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, for the following reasons : The height of the proposed development does not comply with the height requirements contained within Schedule 12 of City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4. Cr A Sullivan moved to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Service Committee meeting to allow the applicant to address the following:

1) Privacy issues raised in the officers report and those raised by the external staircase.

2) Deletion of the balustrating and stair access to the deck and allowing for ladder access.

CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 19

PSC1110-174 MARMION STREET, NO. 121 (LOT 5) FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR UNAUTHORISED PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM LUNCH BAR / CONVENIENCE STORE TO RESTAURANT (CAFE) (JWJ DA0237/11)

ATTACHMENT 1


Page 20


Page 21


Page 22

ATTACHMENT 2


Page 23


Page 24

PSC1110-175 MOUAT STREET, NO. 5 (LOTS 1, 2, 3, & 4) FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR UNAUTHORISED EXTERNAL PAINTING TO EXISTING BUILDING (JWJ DA0369/11)

ATTACHMENT 1


Page 25


Page 26


Page 27


Page 28


Page 29


Page 30

ATTACHMENT 2


Page 31

ATTACHMENT 3

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

FORMER NORDDEUTSCHER-LLOYD BUILDING , 5 MOUAT STREET FREMANTLE

DA369/11

Als o known as Tarante lla Night Club (fmr) and German Cons ula te (fmr)

PREPARED FOR CITY OF FREMANTLE

Sep tember 2011


Page 32

Introduction This heritage assessment document has been prepared as required and in accordance with the City of Fremantle’s City Local Planning Policy 1.6 Preparation of Heritage Assessments. The former Nordeutscher-Lloyd Building, 5 Mouat Street Fremantle is included on the City of Fremantle's Heritage List and has a level 1A management category on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory and as such the place is considered by the City of Fremantle to be of exceptional significance to the City and its conservation is required. 5 Mouat Street is also included on the Heritage Council of Western Australia’s Register of Heritage Places and is known as the Tarantella Night Club (fmr). Mouat Street is included within the West End Conservation Area. Places of heritage significance should be conserved in accordance with the principles of the Burra Charter (The Australia ICOMOS for the conservation of places of cultural significance) which has been adopted by Council as the guiding document for the conservation of places of cultural heritage significance. Also taken into consideration on heritage grounds is City of Fremantle’s policy L.P.P.2.5 External Treatment of Buildings and D.G.F14 Fremantle West End Conservation Area. For detailed information on the place refer to Heritage Council of Western Australia’s Register documentation or the conservation plan prepared by Sasha Ivanovich + Associates Architects Pty. Ltd. for the place in 1998. The application is for retrospective painting to the façade.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE/S

Mouat Street is included within the West End Conservation Area and extends in a north west to south east direction between Phillimore Street and Marine Terrace. 5 Mouat Street is located on the western side of Mouat Street between Phillimore and High Streets. The former Tarantella Night Club (fmr), 5 Mouat Street is a three storey commercial and residential building constructed in 1903. The building displays a similar scale to the buildings in the street, however the Federation Romanesque details gives the building a highly individual character with a more vertical emphasis than the neighbouring Federation Free Classical buildings. The facade is constructed from rock faced limestone with contrasting stone details of bluestone columns and plinths. There are decorative string courses defining the floor levels and the building is entered through an arched opening supported by two bluestone columns with bowl capitals. It has a steep gabled roof which has been topped with an elaborately decorated square turret that has a steep pyramidal roof. The side and rear external brick walls are constructed in English bond brickwork.


Page 33

There has been recent conservation works to the limestone façade which were approved by Council. An internal inspection or assessment has not been undertaken.

HERITAGE VALUES Heritage values and attributes should be considered in the context of the following: Fabric Setting Use Associations Meaning

Table 1 (please refer HCWA documentation for further information) Heritage values Aesthetic Exceptional Historic Exceptional Social Considerable Scientific - Heritage Attributes Rarity High Representativeness High Integrity Moderate Authenticity High HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE Table 2 Significance Exceptional Considerable Some Limited or none Comments: Statement of Significance (extracted from the Heritage Council’s Register documentation for the place)

The former Tarantella Night Club (fmr), a three storey stone building in Fremantle’s West End, has cultural heritage significance for the following reasons:

the place, with its strong vertical form, deep recesses, rich masonry textures, and medieval motifs, is a fine idiosyncratic example of the Federation Romanesque style;

designed to accommodate a combination of mercantile offices, residence, and warehouse, later used as a night club and, more recently adapted to commercial and residential uses, the place demonstrates the evolution of the commercial centre of Fremantle; the place is closely associated with the Imperial German Consul prior to World War One, with gables of his activities now part of Fremantle folklore; and,


Page 34

with its long associates with Fremantle’s mercantile activities and nightlife the place contributes to the identity of Fremantle.

Zones if Significance: Overall, the building is largely intact and is of exceptional local significance to Fremantle and is of state significance as evidenced by its inclusion on the Heritage Council of Western Australia’s Register of Heritage Places. The Statement of Heritage Impact examines the impact of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the place, and includes a discretionary value judgment concerning the impact of the proposal on the identified heritage values of the place. The Statement of Heritage Impact shall be prepared in the following format: Table 3 How does the proposed development impact on the heritage significance of the place with regard to the following criteria:

Degree of change (positive and negative) on the place in light of its heritage significance.

The place is of exceptional significance and should be conserved.

The plinth, entablature, aedicule, the blue stone pillars and other decorative stucco and have recently been painted in a dark charcoal paint (Dulux – Tuscan Charcoal Chintz). Timber joinery is painted in an off white (Dulux - Regency White).

Although there is a letter stating that the Tuscan Charcoal Chintz matches the original paint, no documentary or physical evidence or the methodology has not been provided. Timber joinery chips showing an off white paint have been provided but do not provide clear evidence whether this was the original colour.

The statement of significance states that the building is recognised as significant for “…its strong vertical form, deep recesses, rich masonry textures, and medieval motifs…” Also the Federation Romanesque style of Architecture is renown for its simplicity and weighty robustness of the


Page 35

rock stone face. There is a major loss of aesthetic value to the façade, as rather than the significant ‘verticality’ of the building there is currently a horizontal emphasis. There is also less emphasis on the rock face and the decorative string course detailing is not as easily visible due to the strength of the colour. This is shown in the earlier photographs prior to painting of the building. The central bluestone pillars were not originally painted which further adds to the distortion of the building. Therefore the dark grey paint scheme is not in accordance with Burra Charter Principles which states that the impact of changes on the cultural significance of a place should be analysed with reference to the statement of significance. The original treatments and finishes are part of the original intent and therefore integral to the historic values of the place. It is acknowledged that where paint scrapes are not conclusive that a ‘compatible’ colour maybe used. The use of charcoal grey (Tuscan Charcoal Chintz) is a more contemporary colour and not sympathetic or compatible with the building. The off white (Regency White) for the timber joinery does not distort the original intent of the façade and is compatible. The methodology of the paint scheme also requires analysis. To ensure the paint has not significantly comprised the heritage fabric of the building in accordance with the City’s L.P.P 2.5 External treatment of Buildings policy. There has been five recent signs added to the facade as shown in the 2011 photographs. This adds clutter to the building and is not appropriate, particularly to the bluestone pillars.


Page 36

Overall, the use of the dark grey has a highly negative impact on the exceptional cultural significance of this landmark façade. The darkness of the colour creates a distortion and misunderstanding of the important façade elements of the building. The Regency White paint for the joinery can be supported but the Tuscan Charcoal Chintz paint scheme is not supported on heritage grounds. It is recommended that the signage be removed from the bluestone pillars and that all the grey paint be removed in the near future from the façade using appropriate methods and materials to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle so as not have any further damage to the façade.

Degree of permanent impact (irreversible loss of value) that the proposal is likely to have on the heritage significance of the place.

Although painting and signage is reversible the inappropriate painting or methodology as well as constant minor punctuations to the fabric from the signage may have a permanent impact on the heritage values of the place.

Compatibility with heritage building in terms of scale, bulk, height – the degree to which the proposal dominates, is integrated with, or is subservient to a heritage place

n/a

Compatibility with the streetscape and/or heritage area in terms of the siting, local architectural patterns, and the degree of harmonised integration of old and new.

The proposal has a negative impact on the significance of the Mouat Street streetscape as well as the West End Conservation Area.

Compatibility with heritage building in terms of the design solutions and architectural language such as refinement and finesse of detailing, texture, materials, finishes and quality of craftsmanship.

As above, the colour scheme of the joinery can be determined as compatible but the Tuscan Charcoal Chintz is not considered compatible.


Page 37

Degree of impact on the important public views, vistas, landmarks, landscape features

The proposal has a negative impact on this publically recognised landmark building within the City of Fremantle.

5.0 STATEMENT OF CONSERVATION Note: This is required for all Category 1 and Category 2 level places unless otherwise advised by the City of Fremantle. Statement of conservation should define all essential processes of looking after a place (preservation, restoration, reconstruction, adaptation, maintenance and interpretation of a place) so as to retain its cultural significance. This part of the assessment is not based on the proposed development, but identifies the conservation works required, and guides future fabric retention, adaptation and reuse.

o Condition Analysis

o Identification of conservation works required

o Recommendations as to the future fabric retention, adaptation and reuse.

Generally:

• Overall the building is in good condition and is undergoing conservation works.

• A program of maintenance should be prepared and implemented.

• The conservation plan for the Tarantella Night Club (fmr) prepared in 1998 should be reviewed and updated and reviewed.


Page 38

Photographs City of Fremantle

5 Mouat Street - front elevation prior to painting (2009)

5 Mouat Street - front elevation following painting (2011


Page 39

5 Mouat St- 2009

5 Mouat St- 2011


Page 40

View from building opposite showing the tower (2007)

5 Mouat Street - view showing portion of southern elevation


Page 41

5 Mouat Street - view showing timber joinery and signage under

5 Mouat Street - view showing signage on the pillars


Page 42

6.0 REFERENCES Apperly, R, e t a l. A Pictorial Guide to Identifying Australian Architecture Styles and terms from 1788 to the Present. (Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1989) HCWA Assessment Documentation Register of Heritage Places-Permanent Entry Tarantella Night Club (fmr), Fremantle. Municipal Heritage Inventory datasheet and Local History Collection Files


Page 43

ATTACHMENT 4 TITLE MOUAT STREET, NO. 1 / 5 (LOT 1) FREMANTLE - PAINTING OF

FACADE & EXTERNAL REPAIR WORKS TO EXISTING BUILDING - (JWJ DA0397/09)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Covering letter dated 10 August 2009 and

Development Plans Attachment 2: Conservation Works to Front Façade – SIA Architects Attachment 3: Heritage Council of WA Advice Attachment 4: Heritage Assessment Date Received: 13 August 2009 Owner Name: Peter Donovan Submitted by: SIA Archtiects Pty Ltd Scheme: City Centre Heritage Listing: MHI Level 1A Existing Landuse: Lodging House / Multiple Dwelling Use Class: Lodging House (TPS3) / Multiple Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘A’ & ‘D’


Page 44

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented before Planning Services Committee as the development involves No. 1/5 (Lot 1 on Strata Plan 25827) Mouat Street, Fremantle which is registered on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a management category Level 1A. The applicant is seeking Planning Approval for painting and external repair works to the existing building on the site (former Norddeutscher-Lloyd Building, Tarantella Night Club and German Consulate). The application was referred to the Heritage Council of WA and the Heritage & Special Places Committee who supported the proposed works. A heritage assessment was prepared in accordance with LPP 1.6 Preparing Heritage Assessments. The assessment stated that the proposed works would improve the heritage values of the place for the long term and that it would make a positive contribution to the streetscape. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located within the block bound by Mouat, High, Cliff and Phillimore Streets, Fremantle. The site consists of one lot of approximately 279m2 total site area. The site is occupied by the original building and zoned ‘City Centre’ under the provisions of the City of Fremantle’s (the City) Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). No. 1/5 Mouat Street, Fremantle, is registered on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as management category Level 1A. The City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) states that the place is considered to be of exceptional significance to the City and its conservation is required. The place is included on the State Register of Heritage Places. The City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) database ‘Statement of Significance’ refers to the Heritage Council of Western Australia’s (HWCA) Register of Heritage Places ‘Statement of Significance’ which states that:

‘Tarantella Night Club (fmr), a three storey stone building in Fremantle’s West End, has cultural heritage significance for the following reasons: • the place, with its strong vertical form, deep recesses, rich masonry

textures, and medieval motifs, is a fine idiosyncratic example of the Federation Romanesque style;

• designed to accommodate a combination of mercantile offices, residence,

and warehouse, later used as a night club, and more recently, adapted to commercial and residential uses, the place demonstrates the evolution of the commercial centre of Fremantle;


Page 45

• the place is closely associated with the Imperial German Consul prior to World War One, with fables of his activities now part of Fremantle folklore; and,

• with its long associations with Fremantle’s mercantile activities and nightlife

the place contributes to the identify of Fremantle.’ DETAILS On 13 August 2009 the City received a development application seeking Planning Approval for the painting of the façade and external repair works to the existing building (see Attachments 1 and 2). The proposed works consist of: • Removal of cement or paint layers on stonework; • Repair and repaint stonework using only lime based mortars to match original; • Repair the domes using steel pins and repaint the flagpoles on parapet; • Repair external timber joinery to doors and windows and replace hardware with

matching components; • Install stainless steel pins where required to limestone render of façade; • Repair render on western elevation to brickwork where required. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) Clause 8.2 of LPS4 prescribes that painting on the external surface of any building is development which can be undertaken without planning approval excepting where the building or structure is:

(i) located in a place that has been entered in the Register of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990,

(ii) the subject of an Order under Part 6 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990,

(iii) included on the Heritage List under clause 7.1 of this Scheme. The site is included on the State Register of Heritage Places and the City’s Heritage List under clause 7.1 of LPS4 and therefore Planning Approval is required to be obtained for the proposed works. Clause 10.2.1 of LPS4 prescribes the matters to which the Council is required to afford due regard in considering a proposal. Included amongst these matters are any potential impacts that a proposal may have on the heritage values of an existing place and its context including the streetscape and/or heritage area. Clause 7.4 of LPS4 prescribes that the Council may require a heritage assessment to be carried out prior to the approval of any development proposed in a heritage area or in respect of a heritage place listed on the Heritage List.


Page 46

Council’s Local Planning Policies LPP 1.6 Preparing Heritage Assessments LPP 1.6 requires a heritage assessment to be undertaken prior to approval of any development proposed in respect of a management category Level 1A listed heritage place on the City’s Heritage List. LPP 2.5 External Treatment of Buildings The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance for the assessment of planning applications for the treatment of heritage listed buildings and for new and infill development and to prescribe the circumstances where:

a) painting and treatment of finishes of buildings are to be considered as part of a planning application; and

b) where it may be dealt with via a condition; and c) where no condition is considered to be necessary.

Additionally, Clause 1.1.1 of this policy states that planning applications that propose the treatment of the external surface of a building shall include:

a) A ‘painting methodology’ to demonstrate that the type of paint, as well as the preparation of the building and application of the paint will contribute to the conservation of the building, and will not significantly compromise the significant heritage fabric of the building.

b) Evidence of research into original colour schemes in the form of a paint scraping and/or historical research into the style of the building.

Furthermore, Clause 2.1 states that paint colours ‘shall be compatible and complimentary to the heritage character of the existing building’. CONSULTATION

Community The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 or Council’s LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals.


Page 47

HERITAGE Heritage Council of Western Australia The application was referred to the Heritage Council of Western Australia (HCWA) by the applicant as the place is included on the State Register of Heritage Places on a permanent basis. The applicant provided the HCWA’s comments (Attachment 3) dated 17 July 2009 which stated that the proposed works were supported subject to the following conditions:

1. Paint scrapes of joinery surfaces that are subject to the repainting should be undertaken and analysed. The results of the analysis of the paint scrapes are to be submitted to the Heritage Council; and,

2. Window and door hardware is to be replaced with like for like. Heritage & Special Places Committee The application was referred to the Heritage & Special Places Committee. The Committee resolved as follows:

‘The committee resolved to recommend to Council that the proposal is commendable and should be supported on heritage grounds’

Heritage Assessment A heritage assessment (see Attachment 4) was prepared in accordance with LPP 1.6 Preparing Heritage Assessments which stated that the methods and materials proposed were appropriate for the conservation works and that it would be a positive contribution to the heritage significance of the place and the streetscape. Furthermore, it was considered that the proposal was respectful of the heritage place, did not detract from the streetscape and that there would be no irreversible loss of heritage value. PLANNING COMMENT

In determining this application, the key issue that requires Council’s consideration relates to the heritage significance of the existing building on site and the immediate locality of Fremantle. The proposed works are supported by the Heritage Council of WA, the Heritage & Special Places Committee and the heritage assessment as the works would be a positive contribution to the heritage place and streetscape and that the materials and methods proposed were considered appropriate. CONCLUSION Overall the development is considered to be appropriate as the proposed colour scheme and repair works are compatible with the heritage significance of the existing


Page 48

building and would also be complementary to the streetscape of Mouat Street, Fremantle. The application is supported as it is consistent with the provisions of LPS4 and Council’s policy LPP 2.5 External Treatment of Buildings and therefore the development is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. It is recommended that the conditions of approval identified by the Heritage Council be included as conditions 3 and 4 of the recommendation for approval. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Mayor, Peter Tagliaferri requested the item be referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council. Seconded by Cr L Lauder. COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Mayor, Peter Tagliaferri That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the painting of the façade and external repair works to the existing building at No. 1 / 5 (Lot 1) Mouat Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with

the approved plans and colour scheme dated 13 August 2009; 2. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does

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

3. Paint scrapes of joinery surfaces that are subject to the repointing should

be undertaken and analysed. The results of the analysis of the paint scrapes are to be submitted to the Heritage Council;

4. Window and door hardware is to be replaced with like for like. SECONDED: Cr R Fittock CARRIED: 10/0 For Against Mayor, Peter Tagliaferri Cr John Alberti Cr Robert Fittock Cr Donna Haney Cr Alice King Cr Les Lauder Cr Shirley Mackay Cr Bill Massie Cr Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan


Page 49

PSC1110-176 EDMUND STREET NO. 84 (LOT 13), WHITE GUM VALLEY – OUTBUILDING ADDITION TO SINGLE HOUSE – (JS DA0357/11)

ATTACHMENT 1: Development Plans


Page 50


Page 51


Page 52

PSC1110-177 THOMPSON ROAD NO. 1/82 (LOT 202), NORTH FREMANTLE – TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE – (AD DA0356/11)

ATTACHMENT 1: Development Plans


Page 53


Page 54


Page 55


Page 56


Page 57


Page 58


Page 59

PSC1110-178 ESPLANADE RESERVE NO.9399 – TEMPORARY APPROVAL FOR SKY VIEW OBSERVATION WHEEL & ANCILLARY STRUCTURE ADDITIONS TO ESPLANADE RESERVE - (JL DA0473/11)

ATTACHMENT 1


Page 60


Page 61


Page 62


Page 63


Page 64


Page 65


Page 66


Page 67


Page 68


Page 69

ATTACHMENT 2


Page 70


Page 71


Page 72

PSC1110-179 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

ATTACHMENT 1

1. TUCKFIELD STREET NO. 62 (LOT 603), FREMANTLE – ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0335/11)

2. JEFFERY STREET NO. 21 (LOT 3), BEACONSFIELD – PATIO ADDITION

TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE – (KS DA0399/11)

3. FULLSTON WAY NO. 16 (LOT 81), BEACONSFIELD – TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE – (AD DA0269/11)

4. GRIGG STREET NO. 35 (LOT 1507), HILTON – ALTERATIONS AND

ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE – (KS DA0526/10)

5. MARMION STREET NO. 99 (LOT 1), FREMANTLE – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING – (KS DA0442/11)

6. SWEETMAN STREET NO. 18 (LOT 1831), WHITE GUM VALLEY –

DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE AND OUTBUILDINGS – (AD DA0359/11)

7. BUTTERWORTH PLACE NO. 12 (LOT 9), BEACONSFIELD – TWO STOREY

SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0407/11)

8. MINILYA AVENUE, NO. 11A (LOT 2) WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (JWJ DA0415/11)

9. SOUTH STREET NO. 213 (LOTS 63 & 64), BEACONSFIELD - RE-ROOF,

ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (MEDICAL CENTRE) (AD DA0347/11)

10. SOUTH TERRACE NO. 211 (LOT 67), SOUTH FREMANTLE – PAINTING

EXTERIOR OF EXISTING HERITAGE BUILDING – (JS DA0343/11)

11. PAKENHAM STREET NO. 43 (LOT 200), FREMANTLE – DELETION OF CONDITION NO. 7 FROM PLANNING APPROVAL DA0175/11 – (KS DA0338/11)

12. GRIGG PLACE NO. 19 (LOT 1499), HILTON– AMALGAMATION & SURVEY STRATA SUBDIVISION (AM WAPC56511)

13. CHESTER STREET NO. 28 (LOT 96) – PAINTING AND ALTERATIONS TO

EXISTING SECONDARY STREET FENCE AND PAINTING OF EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE – (KS DA0425/11)

14. HOPE STREET NO. 67 (LOT 1), WHITE GUM VALLEY – ADDITIONS AND

ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE – (KS DA0419/11)


Page 73

15. STIRLING STREET NO.8 (LOT 303, 304 & 305), FREMANTLE –

DEMOLITION OF EXISTING OUTBUILDING – (JL DA0457/11)

16. DAVIS STREET NO 13 (LOT 2), BEACONSFIELD – TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE – (JL DA0152/11)

17. CARRINGTON STREET NO. 192B (LOT 2), HILTON – SINGLE STOREY

ADDITION TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING – (KS DA0431/11)

18. CARRINGTON STREET, NO. 240 (LOT 994) – ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE – (KS DA0414/11)

19. YORK STREET NO. 68 (LOT 148), BEACONSFIELD – TWO LOT SURVEY

STRATA SUBDIVISION – (KS WAPC 803-11)

20. COTTONWOOD PLACE NO. 26 (LOT 57), O’CONNOR – GARAGE DOOR AND PORTICO ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE – (KS DA0433/11)


Page 74

PSC1110-180 DEVELOPMENT AREA 1 - TEMPORARY PLANNING APPROVALS

ATTACHMENT 1 Knutsford Street East Structure Plan Area – Infrastructure Upgrading Arrangements and Detailed Area Planning

DataWorks Reference: 115/084 and 218/040 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Manager Planning Projects Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC0802-52, PSC0811-317, PSC0909-170 and

PSC1008-149 Attachments: 1. Previous item PSC1008-149

2. Schedule of submissions on draft development contribution plan and cost apportionment schedule 3. Plan of major land holdings in DA1 4. Plan of revised extent of infrastructure upgrade area


Page 75

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s determination of how it intends to proceed with the preparation and implementation of arrangements to fund improvements to services and other infrastructure in the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan Area (Development Area 1) to facilitate redevelopment in accordance with the structure plan. In August 2010 the Planning Services Committee gave preliminary consideration to a draft amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to designate Development Area 1 (DA1) as a Development Contribution Area where landowners undertaking redevelopment would be obliged to contribute to the overall cost of improvements to infrastructure. The Committee resolved that preliminary consultation should be undertaken with affected landowners regarding the proposed scope of works and cost contribution mechanism prior to Council formally considering whether to proceed with such a scheme amendment. Consultation in the form of meetings with landowners and invitation to owners to submit written comments was subsequently undertaken. The consultation feedback indicates a significant level of opposition to a contribution plan along the lines of the draft plan previously presented to the Planning Services Committee, particularly from smaller landowners, some of whom have stated they have no plans to redevelop and already have adequate services to support existing uses of their premises. In the light of these responses the value of attempting to proceed with a contribution plan as originally envisaged is questionable, and this report outlines a potential alternative approach of a cost sharing agreement between the four owners (including the City) of the largest land parcels in DA1 who are most likely to promote redevelopment of their land and have indicated support in principle for a cost sharing agreement to fund necessary infrastructure. The report also addresses the implications that this alternative approach to infrastructure cost sharing would have for the requirements of detailed area plans for each of the precincts in the structure plan area, and recommends a course of action to modify a previously approved detailed area plan for one of the precincts in the event that Council supports the revised approach to infrastructure upgrading and funding. BACKGROUND

The area bounded by Amherst Street, Blinco Street (east of Amherst St), Montreal street and Stack Street is zoned Development zone and designated as Development Area 1 under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). On 27 February 2008 Council resolved to adopt the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan (the structure plan) as a ‘guiding document to facilitate redevelopment within the designated area’ (PSC0802-52).


Page 76

The structure plan does not contain a high level of detail, but broadly identifies overall development intentions for the area in terms of general built form including building heights, density and land uses, and identifies five precincts based on existing street blocks within the area. The structure plan also sets out requirements for Detailed Area Plans (DAPs) to be prepared for each precinct. The purpose of the DAPs is to set out more detailed development controls such as general building locations, access points and setbacks. The structure plan also identifies in general terms the services and other infrastructure requiring upgrading in order to support the more intensive forms of development in the area provided for under the structure plan, and requires a mechanism to be put in place prior to subdivision and development for sharing infrastructure costs between landowners in the area. Infrastructure Upgrading On 23 September 2009 Council considered a report on the general principles and scope of infrastructure works to be included in a development contribution plan for the structure plan area (DA1) by means of an amendment to LPS4 to create a Development Contribution Area under clause 6.3 of LPS4 (see previous item PSC0909-170). Following the above mentioned resolution of Council, City officers and engineering consultants prepared a more detailed scope of infrastructure works with cost estimates, and presented this to the Planning Services Committee on 4 August 2010 together with the draft wording for a Scheme amendment to create a Development Contribution Area (see Attachment 1 – previous item PSC1008-149). Part of the Committee’s resolution on this item was that preliminary consultation should be undertaken with landowners in DA1 on the draft scope of infrastructure works and cost apportionment arrangements, and that the results of the consultation should be reported back to the Planning Services Committee for further consideration and formulation of a recommendation to Council on initiation of a scheme amendment. Consultation with landowners was undertaken in September and October 2010 and is detailed in the ‘Consultation’ section of this report. Detailed Area Planning A DAP for Precinct 5 of the structure plan area (the street block bounded by Amherst Street, Knutsford Street, Wood Street and Stack Street) prepared on behalf of one of the landowners in the area (West Cape Property Group) was approved by the City in early 2009 following the incorporation of amendments in accordance with a resolution of Council dated 26 November 2008 (PSC0811-317). An alternative DAP for the same precinct, lodged on behalf of a different landowner (the owner of a lot in Stack Street) in December 2008, has been advertised but not yet reported to Council for determination. The main points of difference between the two DAP’s concern access and staging/coordinated development requirements applicable to lots fronting Stack Street, and the treatment of the interface between these lots and land to the north.


Page 77

Officers held discussions in early 2010 with both applicants to try to secure mutual agreement to replace the approved and proposed DAPs with a single amended plan containing a consolidated set of provisions acceptable to all parties that could be presented back to Council for approval. However, subsequently priority has been given by officers to progressing arrangements for the funding and implementation of infrastructure improvements, because the outcome of this issue will affect owners’ capability to carry out development if they wish to irrespective of the content of detailed area plans. Furthermore the City has recently been advised that West Cape Property Group has been wound up as a company, and control of the relevant land in the DAP area now rests with other parties who at this time are not able to indicate their future intentions for the land. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT All of the land subject to the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan is zoned ‘Development’ and forms Development Area 1 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). Clause 6.2.3.2 requires the subdivision and development of land within a Development Area to be generally in accordance with any structure plan that applies to the land. Clause 6.2.15.1 of LPS4 makes provision for the preparation of a detailed area plan (by either the local government or an owner) where it is considered desirable ‘to enhance, elaborate or expand the details or provisions contained in a structure plan for a particular lot or lots’. Clause 6.3 of LPS4 makes provision for the City to designate Development Contribution Areas under the Scheme, with the following purpose:

(a) provide for the equitable sharing of the costs of infrastructure and administrative costs between owners;

(b) ensure that cost contributions are reasonably required as a result of the subdivision and development of land in the Development Contribution Area; and

(c) coordinate the timely provision of infrastructure. CONSULTATION As referred to earlier in this report, following the Planning Services Committee’s resolution of 4 August 2010 all landowners in DA1 were consulted on the draft development contribution plan and cost apportionment schedule considered by the Committee. A series of meetings were held with landowners, and owners were invited to submit written comments. A total of 20 written submissions were received, and these are summarised in the schedule in Attachment 2 of this report. In general terms, the consultation responses may be divided into two categories as follows:

(a) Two owners of large parcels of land within DA1 (the northern part of the Precinct 5 street block, and Precinct 2 – bounded by Blinco, Montreal, Wood and Knutsford Streets) support the principle of a development contribution scheme, however they oppose the proposal to include a cash-in-lieu payment for Public Open Space improvements as part of the overall contribution


Page 78

scheme and also consider that some of the cost of road and storm drainage improvements should be met by the City as a normal local government responsibility instead of being shared by all owners. In addition to these submissions, the developer consortium in contractual negotiations with LandCorp for the development of Lot 1354 Knutsford Street which is adjacent to DA1 also made a submission because some infrastructure required to service DA1 is also required to service Lot 1354. The submission opposes any future consideration of including Lot 1354 in a Development Contribution Area, but acknowledges that some costs associated with providing services to both Lot 1354 and DA1 may be shared; however ‘basic’ road and drainage maintenance costs should be met by the City and not be included in any cost sharing arrangement.

(b) 17 submissions from owners of smaller land parcels in DA1 (mostly in Blinco and Stack Streets) oppose the inclusion of their land in a development contribution scheme for one or more of the following reasons:

• their land already has adequate services for current needs and owners have no plans to redevelop;

• proposing that all owners share all infrastructure costs on a $ per sq m basis is inequitable as it is generally the largest land parcels with most development potential which are unserviced, and smaller lots on the peripheries of DA1 could not be developed at the same density and in any event already have services;

• public open space and road improvement costs should not be included in a contribution scheme as existing owners have already contributed to these matters through paying rates;

• all objecting owners should be excised from the proposed development contribution area;

• future contribution liabilities and uncertainty could adversely affect land values and small business’ ability to borrow and re-invest.

PLANNING COMMENT

Infrastructure upgrading The feedback from the consultation undertaken with landowners, as outlined above and in Attachment 2, clearly indicates that there is a lack of general support from the majority of landowners for a development contribution plan along the lines of the draft plan previously presented to the Planning Services Committee in August 2010. Some degree of disagreement over the details of the draft contribution plan would not be unexpected. However, the extent of opposition to even some of the basic principles of a Planning Scheme-based contribution plan over the land in DA1, especially from owners of smaller lots in the area who state they have no plans to redevelop and therefore perceive no benefit to themselves from improved services, calls into question the value of proceeding with preparation of a Scheme Amendment to introduce a contribution plan of this type.


Page 79

Council could still resolve to proceed to initiate a Scheme Amendment to introduce a development contribution plan, either with the scope of infrastructure works and cost apportionment methodology previously considered by the Planning Services Committee (see Attachment 2) or with a reduced scope of infrastructure works to reduce the costs borne by landowners and/or a different approach to the apportionment of costs. If Council was minded to pursue this course of action, the main opportunity to reduce the scale of cost contributions would be by reducing or removing entirely contributions to Public Open Space improvements, and the cost of loans and administration associated with the City pre-funding and project managing infrastructure improvements. This could reduce contributions apportioned to landowners by up to 50% of the estimated total amount referred to in the August 2010 report (see Appendix 2). Nevertheless, a considerable number of the submissions received expressed objections to the principle of a contribution scheme on the grounds that it would represent a liability hanging over owners even if they have no plans to redevelop (redevelopment being the ‘trigger’ for payment of contributions). It seems reasonable to assume that similar objections would be made during the formal public consultation process that would occur if the Council did resolve to initiate an amendment to LPS4 to introduce a development contribution plan. A potential alternative course of action has consequently been identified by officers. There are four large parcels of land, each with a single owner, which represent the most likely major redevelopment opportunities in the structure plan area. These land parcels are indentified in Attachment 3 – two adjoin one another in Precinct 5 of the structure plan area, and together represent nearly 75% of the total area of this precinct. These sites are in private ownership. A third parcel is the whole street block bounded by Blinco, Wood, Knutsford and Montreal Streets (Precinct 2 of the structure plan). This land is controlled by LandCorp and has already been cleared of previous buildings and is currently being remediated in preparation for redevelopment. The fourth parcel is the City’s Depot site on the south side of Knutsford Street, which forms Precinct 3 of the structure plan area. Feedback from the consultation exercise indicated that the two private owners and LandCorp, whilst having concerns about some aspects of the draft contribution plan, were supportive in principle of paying contributions to the cost of necessary service upgrades to enable redevelopment of their land. Feasibility work carried out by the City’s consulting engineers has confirmed that it would be possible to implement an amended package of infrastructure works to provide upgraded services to these four land parcels only, without having to significantly alter existing services to other, smaller, lots in the area which are mostly located on the edges of the structure plan area in Stack Street and Blinco Street. This presents the opportunity to secure a co-funding arrangement for service upgrades between the City and the other three major landowners only, excluding owners of smaller lots from the cost contribution arrangement (as at least some of them have requested) on the basis that they have no plans to redevelop and therefore do not require the higher specification services necessary to support more intensive new development.


Page 80

Attachment 4 shows the extent of the area within which service upgrades and other infrastructure works would be likely to be carried out in association with servicing the four large land parcels as referred to above. The nature of the amended infrastructure upgrading works would be similar to the works previously proposed, however the physical extent of the works would be reduced to reflect the fact that existing services to the smaller lots would be left unchanged. The detailed scope of works would require further consideration, but in summary is likely to include:

• Road and storm water drainage upgrading works. • New sewer pipes in parts of Amherst, Knutsford, Montreal and Wood Streets

with no existing sewers. • New larger diameter water mains in parts of Amherst, Knutsford, Montreal and

Wood Streets (existing mains pipes not affected) with common trenching to accommodate upgraded gas services funded by gas service provider.

• Upgraded underground low voltage power lines, switchgear and street lights in parts of Amherst, Knutsford, Montreal and Wood Streets.

• Contribution towards public open space improvements. Under this option the funding of the infrastructure upgrades might be secured, if all four owners (including the City) agree, through a legally binding infrastructure contribution agreement entered into voluntarily rather than through statutory contribution plan provisions incorporated into the Local Planning Scheme. A potential benefit of a voluntary agreement would be that it could be completed more quickly than a Scheme Amendment as it would not require public advertising or final approval by the WAPC and the Minister for Planning. The implementation section of the adopted Structure Plan states that a voluntary legal agreement between the City and landowners would be a suitable mechanism for dealing with infrastructure cost contributions as an alternative to provisions enforced through a Planning Scheme. The City’s consulting engineers have confirmed that implementation of infrastructure upgrades to service the four large land parcels in question (see Attachment 3) would not prejudice the opportunity for upgraded services (e.g. larger diameter sewer and water pipes, and underground power) to be extended at some future date to service the smaller lots in the area if the owners of those lots were willing to make their own arrangements to fund such works in order to undertake major redevelopment. On this basis the smaller lot owners could maintain their potential ability to undertake the form of more intensive redevelopment provided for in the structure plan, subject to satisfying servicing requirements at their own expense. Small scale development associated with existing uses on the smaller lots, capable of functioning using existing services, may also be able to occur. Recent informal discussions with some landowners in the area has indicated some support in principle for the approach to infrastructure upgrading and funding outlined above. It is therefore recommended that Council endorse this approach as the preferred mechanism to deal with funding of infrastructure upgrades in the area, instead of proceeding with an amendment to LPS4 to introduce a development contribution plan as previously envisaged. Subject to such endorsement officers could then undertake further discussions with landowners to confirm which owners are willing to


Page 81

participate in a voluntary cost sharing arrangement, and to clarify the scope of works and payment arrangements to be included in such an agreement. Subject to general agreement on these matters with owners, a further report would then be presented to Council to authorise the drafting of a formal legal agreement between the City and relevant landowners to deal with these matters. Detailed Area Plans Should Council endorse the revised approach to infrastructure upgrades outlined above, it would be appropriate to also reconsider how the Detailed Area Plan provisions in LPS4 and in the adopted Structure Plan should be applied in this area. As stated in the Background section of this report, the applicant responsible for the DAP previously approved by Council in relation to Precinct 5 has been wound up as a company, and the parties now in control of the land in question (which makes up approximately 32% of Precinct 5) are at this time unable to indicate their future intentions for the land. Even if owners of the large land parcels in the northern part of Precinct 5 do eventually plan to undertake redevelopment in accordance with the structure plan, officers consider it would be appropriate to review the functionality of the previously approved DAP. This DAP was prepared, and adopted by Council, based on expectations that redevelopment across the whole precinct, including the smaller lots in the southern part of the precinct fronting Stack Street, would be undertaken in a coordinated manner. This did not mean that simultaneous redevelopment of all properties throughout the precinct was anticipated, but that redevelopment outcomes in terms of built form, consolidated access and parking arrangements, and servicing requirements, would be broadly similar. The DAP identifies a series of development stages or ‘cells’, each comprising several existing lots, which it assumes would be redeveloped in the above coordinated manner. However, on the basis of the feedback from landowners regarding infrastructure upgrading arrangements, such outcomes now seem very unlikely, particularly in relation to the smaller lots fronting Stack Street. Consequently the value of maintaining the approved DAP in its current form, especially in terms of how the plan deals with the relationship between the smaller lots and larger land parcels to the north and how it applies coordinated access and servicing requirements to the smaller lots, is questionable. Officers therefore consider it would be appropriate to replace or modify the existing approved DAP to reflect the likely situation of the smaller lots remaining in their current use, at least for the short to medium term future, with possibly only incremental changes of use and/or small scale development occurring which could be supported by existing services. Similarly, the alternative proposed DAP for the same precinct submitted in December 2008 which has not yet been determined contains some provisions which do not reflect the likely situation described above. The plan refers to coordinated development requirements, and the staging provisions of the plan refer to


Page 82

subdivision and building construction not being supported until developer contributions towards infrastructure have been secured through a contribution scheme. Given the consultation responses from owners of lots in the area there would appear to be no reasonable prospect of these requirements being satisfied, at least for the foreseeable future. In these circumstances, the practical benefits of approving this DAP as a planning instrument to guide development in the area would be questionable. Given these circumstances, it is recommended that the applicant of the undetermined DAP be invited to withdraw the plan, with the submission fee being refunded, and with regard to the previously approved DAP (submitted by a different applicant) the City should seek the modification of the plan to remove the smaller lots fronting Stack Street from the coordinated development and service upgrading requirements of the previously approved plan. This would reflect the likely scenario of the smaller lots remaining in current uses and only being developed on a more incremental basis consistent with available services. In the future, if one or more of the smaller lot owners decided to propose major higher intensity redevelopment, they would be required to submit a separate DAP covering the land in question to demonstrate an integrated approach to redevelopment and demonstrate that they have made satisfactory arrangements at their own expense for the provision of required service infrastructure. Clause 6.2.15.8 of LPS4 contains provisions enabling the City to vary a detailed area plan, subject to following procedures relating to advertising set out in LPS4. The City’s legal advisors have confirmed that this power of variation is not confined to DAP’s prepared by the City in the first instance – the City can also vary DAP’s previously prepared by landowners. A further report could be presented to Council dealing with modifications to the previous DAP if Council supports the recommended course of action at this stage. Precincts 1 and 4 of the structure plan area also comprise a number of smaller lots in separate ownerships, which would not be connected to upgraded services if the revised approach to upgrading services to the large land parcels only as recommended earlier in this report was to be implemented. However, if in the future a number of owners in either or both precincts wished to undertake major development they would also have the option of preparing a DAP covering the land in question to demonstrate an integrated approach to redevelopment and satisfactory arrangements at the owners’ own expense for the provision of required service infrastructure.


Page 83

CONCLUSION The large number of separate landowners in Development Area 1, the variable level of existing services across the area and the diverse attitudes and intentions of different owners as reflected in consultation responses has made it clear that implementation of a uniform development contribution scheme across the whole area as originally contemplated will be extremely difficult to achieve. Consequently Council is recommended to endorse the alternative approach of seeking to secure a voluntary agreement between the four owners of the largest land parcels in the area (including the City itself) to co-fund the infrastructure improvements necessary to enable the redevelopment of their land. Related modifications to detailed area plan requirements could be made as described in this report to reflect this revised approach to servicing and enable individual owners of smaller lots to maintain existing land uses which are already serviced, but requiring them to satisfy service upgrading and detailed area planning requirements at their own expense if, at a future date, they were to propose major redevelopment as allowed for under the structure plan. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

1. Note the submissions received in response to preliminary consultation with landowners in Development Area 1 (DA1) regarding a draft Local Planning Scheme amendment to introduce development contribution area provisions into Local Planning Scheme No. 4;

2. Resolve to not proceed with initiation of a Local Planning Scheme amendment to apply development contribution area provisions to the whole of Development Area 1 as referred to in (1) above; and instead proceed with an alternative approach of providing upgraded infrastructure to service only the land parcels numbered 1 to 4 and shaded on the plan below, by means of a voluntary legal agreement between the owners of the identified land.


Page 84

3. Authorise officers to undertake further discussions with the owners of the land referred to in (2) above regarding their participation in a voluntary infrastructure cost sharing arrangement and the scope of works and payment arrangements to be included in such an agreement, and report back to Council on the outcome of these discussions.

4. Invite the applicant of the currently undetermined proposed Detailed

Area Plan (DAP) (submitted December 2008) relating to land bounded by Knutsford Street, Wood Street, Stack Street and Amherst Street (Precinct 5 of the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan area) to withdraw the proposed DAP, with the application fee to be refunded if the applicant does withdraw the plan. In the event that the applicant declines to withdraw the proposed DAP a further report will be presented to the next available Planning Services Committee and Council meeting to enable the DAP to be determined.

5. Authorise officers to prepare a further report to Council regarding

modifications required to be made to the Detailed Area Plan for Precinct 5 of the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan area previously approved on 23 February 2009 as a consequence of the revised approach to infrastructure upgrading referred to in (2) and (3) above; with the modifications to address the following matters:


Page 85

• Recognise parts of the existing Precinct 5 DAP area which are unlikely to be comprehensively redeveloped or have existing service infrastructure upgraded in the foreseeable future.

• Make provision for dealing with the transitional area between the parts of Precinct 5 which are likely to undergo major redevelopment at a higher density, and the parts which are unlikely to be redeveloped.

• Revised development staging requirements to reflect other changes to the DAP.

CARRIED: 6/0 For Against Cr Dave Coggin Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

Cr Andrew Sullivan moved a minor amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to reword part (4) of the recommendation as follows:

4. Invite the applicant of the currently undetermined proposed Detailed Area Plan (DAP) (submitted December 2008) relating to land bounded by Knutsford Street, Wood Street, Stack Street and Amherst Street (Precinct 5 of the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan area) to withdraw the proposed DAP, with the application fee to be refunded if the applicant does withdraw the plan. In the event that the applicant declines to withdraw the proposed DAP a further report will be presented to the next available Planning Services Committee and Council meeting to enable the DAP to be de te rmined a fte r de te rmina tion o f the modifications to the DAP re fe rred to in (5) be low.

SECONDED: Cr R Fittock CARRIED: 9/0 For Against Cr John Alberti Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson


Page 86

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

1. Note the submissions received in response to preliminary consultation with landowners in Development Area 1 (DA1) regarding a draft Local Planning Scheme amendment to introduce development contribution area provisions into Local Planning Scheme No. 4;

2. Resolve to not proceed with initiation of a Local Planning Scheme

amendment to apply development contribution area provisions to the whole of Development Area 1 as referred to in (1) above; and instead proceed with an alternative approach of providing upgraded infrastructure to service only the land parcels numbered 1 to 4 and shaded on the plan below, by means of a voluntary legal agreement between the owners of the identified land.

3. Authorise officers to undertake further discussions with the owners of the land referred to in (2) above regarding their participation in a


Page 87

voluntary infrastructure cost sharing arrangement and the scope of works and payment arrangements to be included in such an agreement, and report back to Council on the outcome of these discussions.

4. Invite the applicant of the currently undetermined proposed Detailed Area

Plan (DAP) (submitted December 2008) relating to land bounded by Knutsford Street, Wood Street, Stack Street and Amherst Street (Precinct 5 of the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan area) to withdraw the proposed DAP, with the application fee to be refunded if the applicant does withdraw the plan. In the event that the applicant declines to withdraw the proposed DAP a further report will be presented to the next available Planning Services Committee and Council meeting after determination of the modifications to the DAP referred to in (5) below.

5. Authorise officers to prepare a further report to Council regarding

modifications required to be made to the Detailed Area Plan for Precinct 5 of the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan area previously approved on 23 February 2009 as a consequence of the revised approach to infrastructure upgrading referred to in (2) and (3) above; with the modifications to address the following matters:

• Recognise parts of the existing Precinct 5 DAP area which are

unlikely to be comprehensively redeveloped or have existing service infrastructure upgraded in the foreseeable future.

• Make provision for dealing with the transitional area between the parts of Precinct 5 which are likely to undergo major redevelopment at a higher density, and the parts which are unlikely to be redeveloped.

• Revised development staging requirements to reflect other changes to the DAP.

SECONDED: Cr R Fittock CARRIED: 9/0 For Against Cr John Alberti Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Donna Haney Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson


Page 88

PSC1110-181 ADVERTISE – PORT BEACH ROAD AND TYDEMAN ROAD – PROPOSED PARTIAL ROAD CLOSURES AND AMAGAMATIONS - WITH FORESHORE RESERVE NO. 43311 AND NO. 29 PORT BEACH ROAD, NORTH FREMANTLE (KSW))

ATTACHMENT 1


Page 89


Page 90


Page 91


Page 92


Page 93


Page 94

Documents

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS - City of Fremantle PSC... · CONVENIENCE STORE TO RESTAURANT (CAFE) (JWJ ... PSC1110-176 EDMUND STREET NO. 84 (LOT 13), ... In this case, the subject site is