AGENDA - City of Fremantle · 2018-03-08 · Agenda - Planning Services Committee 7 October 2015 Page 1 DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause

AGENDA

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 7 October 2015, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING Elected Members A Planning Services Committee meeting of the City of Fremantle will be held on

Wednesday, 7 October 2015 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 2 October 2015

PLANNING SERVICES 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 Planning Services Committee dated 2 September 2015 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

PSC1510-1 DEFERRED MCLAREN STREET, NO. 19 (LOT 280), SOUTH FREMANTLE VARIATION TO PREVIOUS PLANNING APPROVAL DA0105/15 (TWO STOREY REAR ANCILLARY DWELLING ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE) (BP VA0020/15 1

PSC1510-2 DEFERRED ITEM - THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 100 (LOT 20), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0310/15) 8

PSC1510-3 DEFERRED ITEM SUMPTON STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 88), HILTON ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0195/15) 14

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 23

PSC1510-4 FLEET STREET, J-SHED UNIT 1 (LOT 2051), FREMANTLE TEMPORARY APPROVAL SPECIAL EVENT VENUE (LIVE MUSIC VENUE) - (AD DA0373/15) 23

PSC1510-5 HENRY STREET, (LOT59 & 60 ) NO. 7, FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE STOREY BUILDING (OFFICE & 22 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) (AA DAP008/15) 47

PSC1510-6 PRICE STREET, NO. 24 (LOT 8), FREMANTLE- TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0365/15) 66

PSC1510-7 PRICE STREET, NO. 24 (LOT 8), FREMANTLE- TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0372/15) 72

PSC1510-8 QUARRY STREET, NO. 45 (LOT 13), FREMANTLE PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO CONSULTING ROOMS AND ASSOCIATED SIGNAGE AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (TB DA0394/15) 80

PSC1510-9 CENTRAL AVENUE, NO. 32 (LOT 82), BEACONSFIELD TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (BP DA0397/15) 85

PSC1510-10 BADHAM CLOSE, NO. 7 (LOT 11), BEACONSFIELD - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING OUTBUILDING AND ADDITION OF OUTBUILDING TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0319/15) 91

PSC1510-11 ATTFIELD STREET, NO. 85 (LOT 6), FREMANTLE SINGLE STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (BP DA0336/15) 97

PSC1510-12 LIME STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 217), NORTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO FIVE (5) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING - (AA DA0399/15) 101

PSC1510-13 CATTALINI LANE (LOT6) NO. 9 NORTH FREMANTLE ONE SIX STOREY BUILDING AND TWO FIVE STOREY BUILDINGS AND BASEMENT LEVEL (104 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS (DAP009/15 AA) 106

PSC1510-14 SOUTH TERRACE (LOT 5) NO. 92 FREMANTLE - REPORT ON MASSING PROPOSAL FOR PROPOSED THREE STOREY ADDITION TO REAR OF THE EXISTING SYNAGOGUE BUILDING (SS DA0301/13) 122

PSC1510-15 HIGH STREET MALL, NO. 120 (LOT 124), FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING - (AA DA0366/15) 141

PSC1510-16 PAKENHAM STREET, NO 1 (LOT 123), FREMANTLE - PROPOSED LEGAL ACTION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING AND BUILDING LEGISLATION - (SS DA0043/15) 148

PSC1510-17 FOR INFORMATION ONLY REPORT - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2015 159

PSC1510-18 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - OFFICE 2007 162

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 163

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 163

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PSC1510-1 DEFERRED MCLAREN STREET, NO. 19 (LOT 280), SOUTH FREMANTLE VARIATION TO PREVIOUS PLANNING APPROVAL DA0105/15 (TWO STOREY REAR ANCILLARY DWELLING ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE) (BP VA0020/15 4

PSC1510-2 DEFERRED ITEM - THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 100 (LOT 20), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0310/15) 14

PSC1510-3 DEFERRED ITEM SUMPTON STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 88), HILTON ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0195/15) 33

PSC1510-4 FLEET STREET, J-SHED UNIT 1 (LOT 2051), FREMANTLE TEMPORARY APPROVAL SPECIAL EVENT VENUE (LIVE MUSIC VENUE) - (AD DA0373/15) 67

PSC1510-5 HENRY STREET, (LOT59 & 60 ) NO. 7, FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE STOREY BUILDING (OFFICE & 22 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) (AA DAP008/15) 135

PSC1510-6 PRICE STREET, NO. 24 (LOT 8), FREMANTLE- TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0365/15) 173

PSC1510-7 PRICE STREET, NO. 24 (LOT 8), FREMANTLE- TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0372/15) 183

PSC1510-8 QUARRY STREET, NO. 45 (LOT 13), FREMANTLE PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO CONSULTING ROOMS AND ASSOCIATED SIGNAGE AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (TB DA0394/15) 193

PSC1510-9 CENTRAL AVENUE, NO. 32 (LOT 82), BEACONSFIELD TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (BP DA0397/15) 211

PSC1510-10 BADHAM CLOSE, NO. 7 (LOT 11), BEACONSFIELD - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING OUTBUILDING AND ADDITION OF OUTBUILDING TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0319/15) 236

PSC1510-11 ATTFIELD STREET, NO. 85 (LOT 6), FREMANTLE SINGLE STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (BP DA0336/15) 240

PSC1510-12 LIME STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 217), NORTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO FIVE (5) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING - (AA DA0399/15) 252

PSC1510-13 CATTALINI LANE (LOT6) NO. 9 NORTH FREMANTLE ONE SIX STOREY BUILDING AND TWO FIVE STOREY BUILDINGS AND BASEMENT LEVEL (104 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS (DAP009/15 AA) 270

PSC1510-14 SOUTH TERRACE (LOT 5) NO. 92 FREMANTLE - REPORT ON MASSING PROPOSAL FOR PROPOSED THREE STOREY ADDITION TO REAR OF THE EXISTING SYNAGOGUE BUILDING (SS DA0301/13) 293

PSC1510-15 HIGH STREET MALL, NO. 120 (LOT 124), FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING - (AA DA0366/15) 347

PSC1510-16 PAKENHAM STREET, NO 1 (LOT 123), FREMANTLE - PROPOSED LEGAL ACTION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING AND BUILDING LEGISLATION - (SS DA0043/15) 362

PSC1510-17 FOR INFORMATION ONLY REPORT - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2015 370

PSC1510-18 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - OFFICE 2007 379

Agenda - Planning Services Committee 7 October 2015

Page 1

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

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

PSC1510-1 DEFERRED MCLAREN STREET, NO. 19 (LOT 280), SOUTH FREMANTLE VARIATION TO PREVIOUS PLANNING APPROVAL DA0105/15 (TWO STOREY REAR ANCILLARY DWELLING ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE) (BP VA0020/15

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 October 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1509-4 Attachments: Attachment 1: Revised Development Plans

Attachment 2: Site Visit Photos Date Received: 22 June 2015 Owner Name: M.A. & K. Stewart-Richardson Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential Zone R30 Heritage Listing: Adopted – Level 3 Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Residential Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a variation to the previous planning approval DA0105/15 (two storey rear ancillary dwelling addition to existing Single House). At the previous Planning Services Committee (PSC) meeting held on 9 September 2015, it was resolved to defer the item to the next appropriate PSC meeting to allow for the applicant to submit amended plans to reduce the size of the ancillary accommodation and increase the southern rear setback of the upper floor. Amended plans were received on 14 September 2015 and increase the southern (rear) setback and decrease the size of the dwelling, however the proposal is still seeking design principle assessments against the requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and discretions against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policies (LPPs) including:

Building height (external wall); Lot boundary setback (south); Ancillary dwellings (plot ratio area).

The above design principle assessments and discretions are considered to be, on balance, supportable. The application is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND The subject site is located west of Parmelia Street, south of McLaren Street, north of Orient Street and east of South Terrace. The site measures approximately 625m² and currently has a Single House on site. The site is zoned Residential under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R30. The subject site is adopted under the City’s Heritage list as a level 3 listed property and is within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. A search of the property file revealed the following planning history for the site:

On 21 April 2015, the City granted planning approval for a two storey rear Ancillary Dwelling addition to the existing Single House (DA0105/15).

On 9 September 2015, it was resolved to defer VA0020/15 “to the next appropriate PSC meeting to allow for the applicant to submit amended plans to reduce the size of the ancillary accommodation and increase the southern rear setback of the upper floor.”


Page 3

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a variation to previous approval DA0105/15 and includes:

One bedroom and bathroom; Kitchen, dining and living areas; Library/guest space; Office; Laundry; Sun deck; Outbuilding.

The variation to the previous planning approval is generally the same aside from shifting some of the internal floor space from the north-west to the south-east, which also includes the reorientation of the sun deck. The revised development plans addressed the outcome of the previous PSC meeting in the following ways:

Increasing the southern lot boundary setback to the upper floor to a range of 850mm to 1740mm;

Altered the eastern lot boundary setback and reconfigured the location of the decking area.

A reduction in the floor space of the ancillary dwelling from 93.22 to 87.6m². Refer to Attachment 1 for revised development plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principle of the R-Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the deemed-to-comply or policy provisions and need to be assessed under the design principles:

Building height (external wall);

Lot boundary setback (south);

Ancillary dwelling (plot ratio area). The above matters will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of the report below.


Page 4

CONSULTATION Community

The application was not advertised in accordance with clause 9.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as an affected owner (who did not consent to the plans as part of the application) submitted an objection shortly after the lodgement of the proposed variation. The other affected properties provided consent to the plans as part of the application. A summary of the objection received is as follows:

The proposed changes would result in an adverse impact by way of overshadowing and building bulk;

The proposed southern setback does not allow for sufficient access to sunlight and ventilation.

Revised plans were sent to the southern adjoining landowner on 15 September 2015. The following comments were raised after viewing the plans:

The proposal still exceeds the required plot ratio area in the R-Codes.

The ancillary dwelling would have an adverse impact on the lifestyle (amenity) of others through building bulk and loss of sunlight;

The discretions being sought are grossly unfair and do not consider the impact towards neighbours sufficiently, particularly in relation to health and well-being.

PLANNING COMMENT Building Height

Element Deemed-to-comply

Proposed Design Principle Assessment

External Wall 6m 5.5-6.6m Up to 0.6m

The proposed external wall height is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The building height proposed is not considered to adversely impact on the amenity of neighbours due to the roof design proposed, which is angled downwards towards the southern adjoining property in order to ameliorate building bulk. The portion of wall that is over height is positioned towards the north of the proposed addition, and therefore has a greater impact on the existing Single House.

The location of the proposed ancillary dwelling and the height of the existing Single House, as shown in the image below, is considered to obscure the height of the addition, therefore having a minimal impact on the amenity of the streetscape.


Page 5

The layout and design of the ancillary dwelling, and in particular the decking area proposed, allows for adequate direct sun into the building, as well as allowing daylight into major openings to habitable rooms;

There is not considered to be any views of significance disrupted through the additional height being sought.

Lot boundary setback (south)

Version of plans



17 August 2015 Upper floor

1.5m

1.16m 0.35m

14 September 2015

0.85 – 1.7m

Up to 0.65m

The proposed southern lot boundary setback is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The setback proposed is not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining southern adjoining properties in terms of building bulk, given that only a small portion of the southern elevation is positioned 1.1m from the southern boundary.

The distance from the southern boundary is considered to provide sufficient direct sun and ventilation to the southern adjoining properties, having regard to clause 5.4.2 of the R-Codes. A summary of the level of overshadowing cast onto the southern adjoining neighbours is as follows:

Overshadowing

Property Deemed-to-comply Proposed Discretion

14 Orient Street 18.75% 10.4% No discretion sought 16 Orient Street 16.25% 7.2%


Page 6

The change predominantly affects the southern adjoining neighbour(s) of 16 Orient Street, and does not alter the previously approved component of the southern wall that affects 14 Orient Street. To this end, the alteration is considered to have a minor impact on 14 Orient Street.

Ancillary Dwellings

Version of plans



17 August 2015

Plot ratio area

75m²

93.22m² 18.22m²

14 September 2015

87.6m² 12.6m²

The proposed plot ratio area for the ancillary dwelling is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The proposed plot ratio area, being 87.6m², is considered to provide a space which is capable of use in conjunction with the existing dwelling on site.

The proposed ancillary dwelling is deemed to share some site facilities with the existing dwelling in an appropriate manner by utilising the outdoor living area as an intermediary between the existing Single House and proposed ancillary dwelling.

The ancillary dwelling is not considered to unduly impact on the amenity of the surrounding properties given there is an existing boundary wall in place to the west.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents:

1. Diverse and Affordable Housing Policy:

Provision of housing which is diverse and affordable to meet the current and future needs of the City’s residents to increase the amount of affordable and diverse housing options

2. Strategic Plan 2010-2015:

Provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting development and renewal in designated precincts within the City and

More affordable and diverse (mixed use) housing option for a changing and growing population


Page 7

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Variations to Planning Approval for DA0105/15 (two storey rear Ancillary Dwelling addition to existing Single House) granted 21 April 2015 at No. 19 (Lot 27), McLaren Street, South Fremantle, subject to the same terms and conditions, except whereby modified by the following condition(s): A Conditions 1 and 3 of the Planning Approval dated 21 April 2015, be deleted

and replaced with the following conditions:

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

the approved plans dated 14 September 2015.

2. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of VA0020/15,

on plans dated 14 September 2015, the balcony on the east and northern

elevations shall be either:

a. fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres

above floor level, or b. fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and

with a maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or

c. a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal floor level, or

d. an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 8

PSC1510-2 DEFERRED ITEM - THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 100 (LOT 20), NORTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0310/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 October 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC 1509-5 (2 September 2015) Attachments: Attachment 1 – Revised Plans

Attachment 2 – Report for PSC 1509-5 Date Received: 3 July 2015 Owner Name: Alex Cochrane and Terri Zhang Submitted by: Braham Architects Scheme: Mixed Use R25 Heritage Listing: Level 3 Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: A


Page 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for two storey additions to an existing Single House at No. 100 Thompson Road, North Fremantle. The application was previously presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) in September 2015 with a recommendation for on balance refusal due to the level of overshadowing and proposed boundary walls. PSC moved to defer the item to allow the applicant to increase the lot boundary setback to the south, to reduce overshadowing and building bulk impacts. The applicant has revised plans, increasing the setback of a portion of the rear addition and reducing the building height, which in turn has reduced the overshadowing. It is considered the amendments reduce the amenity impacts on the southern neighbour and the application is now recommended for on balance approval. BACKGROUND

The application was previously presented to the Planning Services Committee on 2 September 2015, with a recommendation for on balance refusal. PSC resolved to defer the application for the following reason: …..to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting to allow for the applicant to submit amended plans to increase the setback the proposed development from the southern side boundary and to reduce overshadowing and building bulk impacts. The applicant and planning staff met to discuss possible changes on 7 September 2015. The applicant provided amended plans (dated 17 September 2015), that increased the setback of the southern portion of the building to comply and reduced the building height for this portion also. For detailed planning background on the site, please refer to the previous item (attachment 2). DETAIL

On 3 July 2015, the City received an application for additions and alterations to the existing Single House at No. 100 Thompson Road, North Fremantle. Revised plans dated 17 September 2015, have altered the proposed development as follows:

Rear addition (outdoor dining on the ground floor and study on the upper floor) increased setback from nil to 1.0m;

Rear addition reduced in floor area by 2sqm; and

Rear addition reduced in height by 300mm. Revised development plans are included as attachment 1 to this report.


Page 10

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principle of the R-Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the deemed to comply or policy provisions and need to be assessed under the design principles:

Boundary walls:

Visual privacy; and

Solar access for adjoining site. The revised plans reduce the level of design principle and discretion sought regarding boundary walls and solar access for adjoining site, and are discussed further in the Planning Comment section of the report below. CONSULTATION

Community

As the proposed amendments to the plans are not considered to be significant and are considered to improve the amenity for the neighbour, further formal advertising is not required. The revised plans were referred to the southern neighbour, however at the time of writing this report, no response was received in relation to the amendments.

See previous report for details of submissions received during previous advertising period.

PLANNING COMMENT

The following design elements have altered from the previous plans presented to PSC. All other elements are as per the previous report. Boundary walls - south

Deemed to Comply Provided Discretion

South – 1m (outdoor dining and study) 1m Nil (previously 1m)

South – 1m (kitchen/dining) Nil 1m (unchanged)

The western most portion of the addition (outdoor dining and study) has now been amended to comply. It is considered that this change contributes to an improvement (reduction) in the overall building bulk that presents to the southern neighbours outdoor living area. The remaining boundary wall is therefore supported against discretionary criteria of LPP 2.4 on balance, for the following reasons:

The wall is single storey on the boundary, with the second storey portion sloping away from the affected property;


Page 11

Construction of a portion of the additions against the southern boundary allows for an effective outdoor living area and openings to gain maximum use of northern sunlight for the subject site;

The boundary walls provide privacy screening for the subject sites outdoor living area and screens the southern property from overlooking;

The streetscape impact is not significant as the addition is setback behind the existing heritage property;

Only one portion of the two storey additions is now on the boundary, with the rear portion setback, reducing the amount of building bulk the southern neighbour is subject to, particularly abutting their outdoor living area.

Should PSC disagree with the above, the boundary wall could be considered to not meet the discretionary criteria for the following reasons:

The large boundary walls on the southern elevation contribute to the overshadowing of habitable rooms;

While the upper floor gives the impression of being part of a loft on this elevation, the building bulk impact of the boundary wall in combination with the upper floor impacts on the amenity of the southern property;

The boundary wall will impact on access to direct sunlight for major openings and outdoor living area;

There is sufficient space on the northern side of the addition to increase the southern setback; and

Is considered to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property.

Solar access for adjoining sites

Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

25% (82.25sqm) Previous plans - 48% (157.9sqm)

23% (75.65sqm)

Revised plans – 45% (148sqm)

20% (65.75sqm)

The increase in lot boundary setback and reduction in building height has reduced the level of overshadowing to the southern lot. It is considered that the amendments slightly reduce the level of overshadowing in the applicants favour, and while the argument is still on balance, it is considered that the improvements warrant a recommendation for approval for the following reasons:

There are no roof mounted solar collectors existing on the southern site;

The ground floor windows affected are glass blocks that currently obscure light entering;

The outdoor living area is covered by a solid patio roof and is therefore currently shaded; and

An outbuilding on the subject site currently partially overshadows the neighbouring site.


Page 12

Should PSC disagree with the reasons to support the overshadowing, the following reasons for refusal could be considered:

The overshadowing impacts the rear outdoor living area of the adjoining site which while covered, is open on the northern side;

There is space on the northern side of the site to allow the addition to be setback further, reducing overshadowing; and

Openings for habitable rooms (living area) are located on the northern elevation. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Diverse and Affordable Housing Policy:

Provision of housing which is diverse and affordable to meet the current and future needs of the City’s residents to increase the amount of affordable and diverse housing options.

Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: More affordable and diverse (mixed use) housing option for a changing and

growing population. Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage.

ALTERNATIVE OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION As the application is recommended for on balance approval, an alternative recommendation is provided for PSC’s consideration: That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 100 (Lot 20) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes in respect to solar access for adjoining sites.

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

Boundary walls in residential development in regards to the southern boundary wall. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 100 (Lot 20) Thompson Road, North Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 17 September 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


Page 13

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0310/15, on

plans dated 17 September 2015, the study window located on the east elevation shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C.1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor

level, or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a

maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60metres above the floor level, or

c) a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal floor

level, or d) an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive

Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

4. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the western and southern

boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either:

Coloured sand render;

Face brick;

Painted surface; or

Other approved finish

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

5. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not irreparably damage any original or significant fabric of the building. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 14

PSC1510-3 DEFERRED ITEM SUMPTON STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 88), HILTON ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AD DA0195/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 October 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1508-12 (5 August 2015) Attachment 1: Development Plans (as amended) Attachment 2: PSC report for 1508-12 Date Received: 24 April 2015

9 September 2015 (amended plans) Owner Name: Dominic Manganaro Submitted by: Tom Godden Scheme: Residential (R20) Heritage Listing: Not individually listed;

Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented before the Planning Services Committee (PSC) as the applicant has provided amended plans in order to address concerns raised by the City and PSC.

At its meeting held 5 August 2015, the PSC resolved to:

“defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that address the matters raised in the report that relate to the appearance of the dwelling as viewed from the street.”

Specifically the proposal did not satisfy Local Planning Policy 3.7 – “Hilton Garden Suburbs Precinct” Heritage Area Local Planning Policy (LPP3.7) specifically in relation to:

Secondary street setback of carport;

Upgrading of existing dwelling;

Extensions and additions. The applicant has endeavoured to address the issues raised in the reason for deferral, by amending the following elements of the proposal:

Increase setback of the carport from 0.0m (nil) to 0.70m to Sumpton Street;

Removal of the ‘Kitchen’ as initially proposed in the north-eastern corner of the dwelling, increasing the setback of the building from 1.66m to 3.77m to Sumpton Street;

Changes to the roof pitch and form. It is acknowledged that the design has been revised, however it is not considered that the amended proposal satisfies the August 2015 PSC reasons for deferral names the concerns raised in relation to LPP3.7. Further, the proposal introduces an additional discretion in relation to minimum roof pitch, of which the City does not consider to meet the relevant discretionary criteria. Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND

At its meeting held 5 August 2015, the PSC resolved to:

“defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting in order for the applicant to submit amended plans that address the matters raised in the report that relate to the appearance of the dwelling as viewed from the street.”

Further background information is included in the report previously considered by PSC on 5 August 2015 which is included in Attachment 2.


Page 16

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Refer to the previous PSC report from the meeting held 5 July 2015 for further detail (PSC1508-12), which is contained as ‘Attachment 2’ of this report. Policy discretions and assessment against the R Codes design principles sought by this application are discussed in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community

The amended plans were not required to be readvertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4.

PLANNING COMMENT

Secondary St Setback (carport to Sumpton Street)

Required Proposed Discretion

Original Amended Original Amended

1.50m 0.00m (nil) 0.70m 1.50m 0.80m

The proposal is required to be assessed against the following discretionary criteria in relation to clause 1.2 of LPP3.7, which states:

“Variations to Secondary Street setback

d) Council may, at its discretion, allow a lesser setback of the building from the secondary street where due to the nature of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land, the proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element into an established streetscape vista.”

The proposed setback is considered to result in a projecting element into an established streetscape vista as the front setback of the 2 properties on Sumpton Street to the south of the subject site is between 7.0 and 8.0m and as such should not be supported. If PSC was of the view to support the proposal, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring that the carport be setback a minimum of 1.50m from the secondary street (Sumpton Street). It is noted that the standard minimum length for a car parking bay is 5.40m, and given the characteristics of the orientation of the house and where the parking area is located, setting back the carport 1.50m from the street will result in a covered parking area of less than 5.40m in length. Having said this, there is no requirement for parking areas to be covered. LPP 3.7 - Hilton Garden Suburbs Precinct Policy

Clause Required Proposed Discretion

4.1.1 – Conservation of external form

Roofs shall be hipped or gabled with a minimum roof pitch of 27.5 degrees and a maximum roof pitch of 35 degrees.

18 degree roof pitch

Refer below


Page 17

The proposal is required to be assessed against the following discretionary criteria in relation to the above discretions of LPP3.7, which states:

“Council may, at its discretion, vary the roof form and eaves requirements of clauses 4.1.1 – 4.1.3 where it is satisfied that the development is consistent with the roof forms and eaves of dwellings within the prevailing streetscape.”

The proposal is not considered to be consistent with the roof forms and eaves of dwellings within the prevailing streetscape. Accordingly the proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant discretionary criteria of LPP3.7. In addition to the above, during its review of the amended plans, the City identified a discrepancy between the plans originally submitted as part of this proposal, and that of the amended plans. The plans in question related to the ‘existing’ dwelling, specifically in relation to the roof pitch, which appears to have been reduced on the amended plans. This is reflected in Figures 1 and 2 below. This may simply be an error on the drawings and not identified by the applicant prior to submitting amended plans, but nonetheless should be brought to the attention of Council given that the amended proposal includes a roof pitch proposed at 18 degrees. In this regard, given that the existing roof pitch is incorrectly stated as 18 degrees, the proposal for 18 degrees should not be seen as being consistent with that of the existing.

Figure 1 - Roof pitch (30 degrees) of existing dwelling as shown on original plans

Figure 2 - Roof pitch (18 degrees) of existing dwelling as shown on amended plans


Page 18


5.1.1 – Conservation of external form

External alterations shall conserve the overall architectural style and the original external form of the dwelling as viewed from the street but may include modern and/or contrasting materials

Enclosure of front porch/balcony;

Changes to existing openings

Refer below

5.1.2 - Conservation of size and position of opening

The original size and position of openings (doors and windows) visible from the street shall be conserved. Non-traditional materials may be used in the replacement of the doors or windows, subject to the appearance of the replacement doors or windows reflecting the styles of original Hilton dwellings

Changes to existing openings (ie doors and windows existing not conserved)

Refer below

5.1.3 - Conservation of verandahs

The original size and position of verandahs and porches visible from the street shall be conserved

Original size and position of front porch/balcony visible from the street not conserved (enclosed, change roof pitch)

Refer below

5.1.4 - Verandah not to be enclosed

Front verandahs and porches are not to be enclosed

Enclosure of front porch/balcony

Refer below

5.1.5 - Conservation of original roof form

The original form of the roof of the dwelling shall be retained as viewed from the street

Existing – 3 hipped roof elements visible from intersection of Sumpton Street and Oldham Crescent

Proposed – 2 hipped roof elements visible from intersection of Sumpton Street and Oldham Crescent

Refer below


Page 19

The proposal therefore, is required to be assessed against the following discretionary criteria in relation to the above discretions of LPP3.7, which states:

“Council may, at its discretion, vary the requirements of clauses 5.1.1 – 5.1.5 where it is satisfied that the development meets one of the following criteria: a) The proposed development involves minor variations and is specifically

designed according to solar passive design principles to achieve a significantly higher level of energy efficiency than could otherwise be achieved by complying with clauses 5.1.1 to 5.1.5 above; or

b) The original dwelling is not an original timber framed or brick dwelling constructed during the establishment of the Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct (dwellings constructed prior to 1965)”

No evidence has been provided by the applicant to demonstrate compliance, or possible compliance with (a). Notwithstanding this, it is not considered the proposed development involves ‘minor variations’ to the requirements of 5.1.1. The dwelling is an original timber framed dwelling constructed during the establishment of the Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct (dwellings constructed prior to 1965) and as such, (b) is not considered to be met. Accordingly the proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant discretionary criteria of LPP3.7.


5.2.3 - External roof form

The external form of the front of the conserved dwelling is to be retained

Complete change to roof form (hipped to gable)

Enclosure of front porch/balcony;

Changes to existing openings

Refer below

The proposal therefore, is required to be assessed against the following discretionary criteria in relation to clause 5.2.3 of LPP3.7, which states:

“Council may, at its discretion, vary the requirements of clauses 5.2.1 – 5.2.3 where it is satisfied that the development meets one of the following criteria: a) The front and side elevations of the development present generally as a single

storey dwelling when viewed from the street; or b) The original dwelling is not an original timber framed or brick dwelling

constructed during the establishment of the Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct (dwellings constructed prior to 1965).”

The proposed front and side elevations of the development do present generally as a single storey dwelling when viewed from the street, so the proposal could be supported under (a) above.


Page 20

Visual privacy

Required Proposed

1 4.50m setback from lot boundary to bedroom 2 (southern elevation)

4.35m from south-eastern boundary

2 7.50m setback from lot boundary to rear deck (southern and eastern elevations)

5.68m from south-eastern boundary

3 7.50m setback from lot boundary to rear deck (southern and western elevations)

2.42m from western boundary

The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ for the following reasons:

In relation to (1) and (2) above, these are supportable as there is not considered to be any direct overlooking of major openings to habitable rooms or the outdoor living area of that dwelling, based upon development plans approved for that south-eastern adjoining property (DA198/06).

In relation to (3) above, this is not supportable as the property to the west, whilst currently vacant, it can be reasonably anticipated that there will be major openings to habitable rooms and/or outdoor living area located towards the rear of the lot that may be directly overlooked. In this regard, should Council be of the mind to support the proposal, it would be recommended that the southern and western elevations of the proposed rear deck be screened appropriately to prevent direct overlooking of that western adjoining property, of which could be imposed as a condition of approval and be read as:

“Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0195/15, on plans dated 9 September 2015 the southern and western elevations of the rear deck shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor level,

or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a

maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or

c) a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal floor level, or

d) an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

The required screening shall be provided and maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.”


Page 21

Scheme

Clause 10.2.1 of LPS4 outlines the matters to be considered by the Council. For the reasons outlined above, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the following matters of clause 10.2.1 of LPS4:

“(a) the aims, zoning objectives and provisions of this Scheme and any other relevant planning Scheme(s) operating within the Scheme area, including the Metropolitan Region Scheme,

(f) any planning policy adopted by the Council under clause 2.4, any heritage policy statement for any designated heritage area adopted under clause 7.2.2 and any other plan, strategy or guideline adopted by the Council under the Scheme,

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

(o) the preservation of the amenity of the locality,

(s) the way in which buildings relate to the street and adjoining lots, including their effects on landmarks, vistas, the landscape or the traditional streetscape, and on the privacy, daylight and sunlight available to private open space and buildings,

(w) the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal,”

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents:

1. Economic Development Strategy 2011-15: the proposal potentially increases the number of residents in the area;

CONCLUSION

The proposed additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 14 (Lot 88) Sumpton Street, Hilton, has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4, Council’s Local Planning Policies and the R-Codes. The proposal is considered satisfy the relevant ‘design principles’ of the R-Codes pertaining to visual privacy. However, the proposal is not considered to comply with LPP3.7 in relation to clauses pertaining to secondary street setback of carport; upgrading of existing dwelling; and for extensions and additions. It is noted that the City is generally supportive of the rear additions as currently proposed, however the main reasons for refusal relate to the front additions and the detrimental impact it is considered to have upon the streetscape and broader Hilton locality. It is not considered appropriate to recommend a condition of approval deleting the proposed front additions as they constitute the majority of the proposed works, and as such this has not been recommended.


Page 22

Moreover, the changes made to the plans since the previous consideration by PSC have not resulted in the proposal addressing the matters previously raised. The changes also introduce an additional discretion in relation to roof pitch. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 14 (Lot 88) Sumpton Street, Hilton, as detailed on plans dated 9 September 2015, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the area

under clause 10.2 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4. 2. The proposal is inconsistent with Clauses 1.2; 4.1.1; 5.1.1; 5.1.2; 5.1.3; 5.1.4;

and 5.1.5 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 3.7 – “Hilton Garden Suburbs Precinct” Heritage Area Local Planning Policy.


Page 23

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION)

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

PSC1510-4 FLEET STREET, J-SHED UNIT 1 (LOT 2051), FREMANTLE TEMPORARY APPROVAL SPECIAL EVENT VENUE (LIVE MUSIC VENUE) - (AD DA0373/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 October 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee (recommendation/referral only to

WAPC) Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans (DA0373/15) Attachment 2: Schedule of Submissions Attachment 3: City’s Heritage Comments Attachment 4: SHO referral comments Attachment 5: FPA referral comments Attachment 6: DER referral comments Attachment 7: DAA referral comments Attachment 8: Site Photos Date Received: DA0373/15 – 31 July 2015 Owner Name: City of Fremantle Submitted by: DA0373/15 – Sunset Events Metropolitan Region Scheme: Parks and Recreation Reserve Local Planning Scheme: Not zoned under City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Heritage Listing: Yes, MHI management category level 1A;

Inner Harbour Heritage Area, Arthur Head Precinct Heritage Area, WECA Heritage Area, Victoria Quay Heritage Area

Existing Landuse: Vacant building Use Class: Special Event Venue Use Permissibility: N/A


Page 24

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to Council due to the nature of the development. The applicant is seeking temporary Planning Approval for a -Special event venue (live music venue)’ (DA0373/15) at J-Shed Unit 1 (Lot 2051) Fleet Street, Fremantle. As the proposal is contained within land reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) as ‘Parks and Recreation’, the City acts only in the capacity as a referral body providing a recommendation to the determining authority, being the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). As the proposal relates to reserved land under the MRS, the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies (LPP’s) do not apply, but can and have been used as a guide in assisting Council in formulating its position for its recommendation to the WAPC. The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the provisions of Council’s LPP’s, however it is probable that some amenity impacts may result to the immediate locality, including car parking. The proposal is considered to warrant a recommendation for conditional approval to the WAPC for their determination. It is noted that the application for the permanent approval, for the partial change of use to Tavern (including live music) and additions and alterations to existing building (DA0370/15) does not form part of this report, and will form a separate report to Council at a later date.


Page 25

BACKGROUND

In November 2012 Council resolved to seek “the front glass-walled studio of J-Shed to be put out for lease through a competitive process as a bar/café/gallery as a major attractor for the whole area. This should include space for artists in Arthur Head precinct to be able to exhibit their work on a priority basis. At other time the gallery space would be for rent like the Moores building.” An expression of interest process was undertaken in early 2013 in which Sunset Events was selected as the preferred interest. The City has since undertaken negotiations for a lease with Sunset Events for a term of 21 years for Unit 1 and a portion of the surrounds to J Shed. At the ordinary meeting in November 2013 Council considered a report providing the essential terms of the negotiations and resolved the following; “The proposed lease for Unit 1 J-Shed between the City of Fremantle and Sunset Events be deferred to the December, 2013, Strategic and General Services Committee to consider the advertising of a business plan in accordance with section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995 outlining the commercial terms of the lease so that the community has greater opportunity to make comment prior to the lease being finalised.” An item to Strategic and General Services Committee sought approval for a consultation plan for the proposed lease between the City of Fremantle and Sunset Events. The following resolution adopted; “The Strategic and General Services Committee, acting under delegation item 1.1, approve the Consultation Plan for the proposed lease to Sunset Events for Unit 1 JShed, Fleet Street, Fremantle, to be advertised for a period of six weeks.” The City advertised the consultation plan regarding the proposal to enter into a land transaction through disposal of Unit 1 J Shed Fleet Street, Fremantle in the form of a Lease. The plan outlined the proposal from Sunset Events and the essential terms and conditions of the lease negotiations. Prior to Strategic and General Services Committees resolution the City invited stakeholders to an information session in November 2013. Further to this a public information session was also held on Tuesday 14 January 2014 outlining the proposal to interested persons. An outline of the proposal was advertised in the West Australian, Fremantle Herald, Fremantle Gazette and social media directing those wanting to comment to the City’s website which enabled them to view the detailed consultation plan. At its meeting of 26 February 2014, the Strategic and General Services Committee resolved to conditionally grant the lease to Sunset Events for Unit 1 of J-Shed. On the 15 May 2015, the Minister for Lands granted approval for the lease.


Page 26

The site is reserved for the purposes of Parks and Recreation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The site is not zoned or reserved under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a management category level 1A (State Heritage Register) as well as for precinct management. Furthermore, the site is located within the Inner Harbour Heritage Area, Arthur Head Precinct Heritage Area, WECA Heritage Area, Victoria Quay Heritage Area, which are prescribed Heritage Areas under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is 37,463m2 and is located on southern side of Fleet Street and to the west of the freight rail. The site has a predominantly north-south orientation. DETAIL

The applicant has indicated that the purpose of this temporary approval sought is for the space “To be used as an event space as well as low-key music concerts promoted by Sunset Events. The venues indoor and outdoor grassed space to be utilised.” The applicant has indicated that the temporary nature of this application will comprise of the following periods:

Venue permit: 1 October 2015 until 30 June 2017

Summer season operating periods: - 1 October 2015 to 31 May 2016 - 1 October 2016 to 31 May 2017

12 concerts over the summer months (held on any day of the week)

Weekly Sunday “Beach BBQ”

Other private or community cunctation/events on weekends or public holidays

Event earliest start time of 12 noon and latest finish time of 10pm

400 patron capacity for regular trade and 1500 capacity for concerts The applicant has also indicated that the following represents the types of events to be held as part of the special event venue:

1. Weddings 2. Art exhibitions and functions 3. Gala Dinners 4. Awards Nights 5. Music Events 6. Conferences 7. Brand Activations 8. Fashion Events 9. Product Launches 10. Corporate Functions 11. Corporate Christmas parties 12. Social & Celebratory events - Birthday and anniversaries


Page 27

It is noted that it is common for MRS reserves such as this being utilised for similar purposes throughout the year, without the need for any formal planning approval. The WAPC advised the City that given the more intensive use that was not just a “one off” event associated with this proposal, that formal approval would be required. This was the trigger to requiring the application for the temporary approval. A copy of the development plans are contained as Attachment 1 of this report. It is noted that the application for the permanent approval, for the partial change of use to Tavern (including live music) and additions and alterations to existing building (DA0370/15) does not form part of this report, and will form a separate report to Council at a later date. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal was assessed against the relevant provisions of Council’s Local Planning Policies. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP 1.3) as the provisions of LPS4 and affiliate LPP’s are not applicable. Notwithstanding, the City did advertise the proposal, in conjunction with the application for the permanent approval for the for the partial change of use to Tavern (including live music) and additions and alterations to existing building (DA0370/15) given that it considered that there may be some impact to adjoining landowners:

given that the land use is typically discretionary within most zones under LPS4; and

the car parking requirement for such a land use under LPS4 would also mean that there may be some impact.

Advertising of the applications comprised of the following:

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

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

One notice relating to the proposal was placed in the Fremantle Gazette on the 22 August 2015

At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 28 August 2015, the City received 78 submissions pertaining to the proposals. Of the 78 submissions, 76 were against the proposals, with the remaining 2 in support. A copy of the schedule of submissions is contained as Attachment 2 of this report. The schedule of submissions summarise the general content of the submissions. It is noted that a number of submissions also made reference to the lease agreement between the City and Sunset Events. The lease agreement does not form part of this planning assessment.


Page 28

Relevant planning related issues raised in the submissions are addressed in the “Planning Comment” section below. Internal Referrals

City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Directorate

The City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Directorate has reviewed the proposal and has advised that they do not have any concerns with the proposal. Their comment will be sought as part of any future proposed access arrangements to the site, in the event that access cannot be obtained via Fleet Street. City’s Environmental Health Department

The City’s Environmental Health Department has reviewed the proposal and has recommended two advice notes pertaining to food premises and public buildings. City’s Heritage Department

The City’s heritage department has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments:

“The proposed works are supported, subject to the following conditions:

The low limestone wall should be replaced with a landscaping structure that more obviously communicates the impression of a cliff and accurately follows the line of the turn of the century cliff line.

All works in the area of the archaeological sites are to be monitored by a qualified archaeologist to ensure that no damage is caused to them by the proposed works.

The proposed fencing to the boundary of the lease area is not supported. There should be no permanent fencing that would prevent the establishment of strong visual links between the site and Bathers Beach (and the reverse).

Ground levels should remain unaltered.

There should be no grass to the south of the new limestone interpretive wall. The area should be a natural beach landscape.

The new shade structure proposed for the west side of J Shed should not be fixed to the building, but instead should be supported on a complete freestanding structure.”

The above comments related largely to the permanent application for planning approval, as that included physical works to the building and the site. Accordingly, the above comments will be addressed as part of the separate report for DA0370/15 when it is put to Council for consideration. A copy of the heritage comments is contained as Attachment 3 of this report. External Referrals

Whilst the City is not the determining authority for this application, it referred both proposals (DA0370/15 & DA0373/15) to external agencies where relevant, as if it were. Advice from these agencies was sought by the City to assist Council in preparing its recommendation to the WAPC. As the WAPC is the determining body, any comments from external agencies as detailed below should be undertaken by them to assist their decision.


Page 29

State Heritage Office (SHO)

The application was referred to the SHO as the site is on the State Heritage Register. The SHO provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:

“Findings

The referral is for a partial change of use of J-Shed into a tavern with associated additions and alterations, and the temporary approval for it to be used as a special event venue. J-Shed is within the registered curtilage of the Round House & Arthur Head Reserve.

The 2011 Conservation Management Plan by Griffiths Architects classifies J-Shed as having ’secondary/some significance’ for its association with the adjacent early port activities at Victoria Quay, and because it marks the site of the last period of extensive quarrying. The limestone interpretative wall is of little significance, although the original cliff line it interprets is significant.

J-Shed is a relocated structure, adapted for its current location, and has lost some original detailing through the replacement of elements and the south glass facade is not original.

We note that much of the site, including the area to the south west of J-Shed is of exceptional archaeological significance.

The built alterations and additions to J-Shed and the surrounding area are simple in design and sympathetic in nature. The new structures are reversible and readily removable.

The proposed changes to J-Shed will provide an ongoing use of the place and maintains its economic viability.

The demolition of the limestone wall will remove an interpretative element of the site. However, we note that the original cliff line is being reinterpreted through a new ground marker.

Advice

The proposed development, in accordance with the plans submitted, is supported subject to the following condition: 1. A watching brief is to be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist during all works.”

Accordingly, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the above be implemented as per SHO advice. A copy of the SHO comments is contained as Attachment 4 of this report.

Fremantle Port Authority (FPA)

The application was referred to the FPA as the site is located within Fremantle Port Buffer Area 2, and given that they are adjoining landowners. The FPA provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:

“Fremantle Ports has concerns about the proposed redevelopment of J Shed (Lot 2051, Fleet Street Fremantle) to allow the operation of a tavern and special events venue, these being raised in my letter of 13 March 2014.


Page 30

In summary, our Concerns arise due to the proposed redevelopments seeking to introduce a range of intensive. Urban type land uses within close proximity to port operational lands (South Mole and Victoria Quay). These intensive land uses have the potential to negatively impact the operations of tenants (such as Challenger Institute) and Fremantle Port through noise, vehicle access and car parking availability and increases in anti social behaviour. The J Shed proposal is highly dependant on the use of Fremantle Ports’ freehold land for vehicle access, car parking and pedestrian movements. This is highlighted in the Applicant’s supporting submission, whereby reference is made to the use of the Victoria Quay and South Mole car parks and Fleet Street access way. It is our view that the reliance on Fremantle Ports’ land, casts doubt on the validity of the application for development. Fremantle Ports is not a party to the application. Has not signed the MRS Form 1, and has not been consulted during the progression of the development proposal Fremantle Ports therefore requests that the two development applications are deferred. The applications should not progress until Fremantle Ports has consented by way of signing the MRS Form 1 as an owner of the land being used for the purposes of the development.”

The City understands that Fleet Street to the north-west and north of the site may have been transferred from the Crown to the FPA freehold as of 15 July 2014. There is existing vehicle access infrastructure off Fleet Street, servicing the existing tenancies of J-Shed. The City understands that no legal mechanisms were put in place on the Certificate of Title of the sale of this land in Freehold to the FPA which would ensure that these pre-existing vehicle arrangements could continue in the future. With no such arrangement in place, and the absence of any written legal consent of the FPA for access to the site via the Fleet Street (being private property), alternative pedestrian and vehicle access arrangements should be put in place for deliveries and the like. It is noted that when the lease was being considered by Council in early 2014, the Fremantle Ports did raise several matters of concern with the City however the specific matter relating to the dependency of vehicle access to J Shed being entirely dependent on the use of Fremantle Ports’ freehold land was not raised. City of Fremantle planning staff met with Port planning staff on 29 September 2015 who advised that they would not sign the MRS Form 1 as they have issues with various components of the development. They also advised that there were no issues with the artists that currently occupy the northern portions of J Shed using the Fleet Street vehicle access as those uses were of a significantly less intensity than that proposed by the current application.


Page 31

The City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Directorate has provided comment on the possibility of vehicle access being gained to the site via the recently constructed footpath along Bathers Beach. They have advised that the footpath is not suitable for vehicular traffic and that it would likely suffer significant damage as a result. Any proposal to use this as an alternative vehicle access solution to the site is unlikely to be supported by the City, so other options would need to be explored further. Some alternative access options may include (but not limited to):

1. Utilising the road immediately adjacent to the rail line and transporting materials underneath the Whalers tunnel;

2. Using a scissor lift located adjacent to Mrs Trivett Place to lower materials down to J Shed;

3. Construction of a new vehicle access immediately north of Mrs Trivett Place as outlined in Figure 1 below;

Figure 3 - Possible alternative vehicle access point via Mrs Trivett Place

There are inherent issues with this however, given the significant change in topography, proximity to the adjoining FPA-owned Freehold lot inclusive of Fleet Street. The changes in topography levels between Fleet Street and Mrs Trivett Place can be viewed in the site photos as contained within Attachment 9. Notwithstanding this, should such arrangements be able to be formalised, it would be impossible to avoid traversing the FPA privately owned land to leave any new vehicle access point via Mrs Trivett Place, and on Phillimore Street, as detailed in Figure 2 below.


Page 32

Figure 4 - One-way road system necessitates crossing over FPA owned land

Relocation of the existing round about above further east to avoid access being required over Port land would solve this issue. As legal vehicle access cannot be obtained via Fleet Street, a condition of planning approval is recommended requiring the submission and approval of an access management plan, which would detail how the applicant would transport goods and materials to and from the premises that would be required for events. It is noted that the FPA did not provide any comments in relation to the proposal in the context of Local Planning Policy 2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines (LPP2.3). A copy of the FPA comments is contained as Attachment 5 of this report. Department of Environment Regulation (DER)

The application was referred to the DER as the site is listed as ‘possibly contaminated – investigation required’. The DER advised that they have “no objection to the proposed development … provided that the following advice is appended to any approval for this development”:

“It is recommended that management of ground disturbing works at the site include contingency measures for unexpected unearthing of asbestos or contamination, to eliminate any potential health risks to workers or the public. In the event that the development activities detect or unearth asbestos-containing-material or contamination at the site, any potential exposure risks should be immediately mitigated and the site should be investigated without delay in accordance with Department of Environment Regulation’s Contaminated Sites Guidelines.”


Page 33

Accordingly, it is recommended that an appropriate advice note be placed on the recommendations to the WAPC for inclusion on any approval that may be forthcoming. A copy of the DER comments is contained as Attachment 6 of this report. Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA)

The City is not aware of any statutory requirement that may necessitate formal referral of an application for planning approval to the DAA in the case of this proposal. Notwithstanding this, the application was referred to the DAA for their comment as the site is located within the boundaries of two known Aboriginal heritage places: DAA 3421 (Fremantle: Manjaree) and DAA 3774 (Fremantle: Arthur Head). The DAA has recommended that the applicant be advised of their obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. Accordingly, it is recommended that appropriate advice note be placed on the recommendations to the WAPC for inclusion on any approval that may be forthcoming. A copy of the DAA comments is contained as Attachment 7 of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS)

The subject site is reserved as ‘Parks and Recreation’ under the MRS. Land is reserved for community purposes. It may be reserved to protect a resource or to provide areas for infrastructure. The following descriptions are a guide. Its reservation under the MRS means that it is:

“Land of regional significance for ecological, recreation or landscape purposes.” It is considered that the proposal is generally consistent with the intent of the reservation, specifically in relation to recreation as music events.. Ultimately, it will be up to the WAPC to determine whether it considers these proposals to be consistent with the nature of the reservation. Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) As the site is reserved under the MRS, the provisions of LPS4, including development standards such as car parking, do not apply and are only used as a guide. Car parking There is no specific car parking requirement for this temporary land use, and as such the parking requirement for ‘Tavern’ is considered appropriate to use given that the application for the permanent approval, for the partial change of use to Tavern (including live music) and additions and alterations to existing building (DA0370/15) represents the more permanent impact.


Page 34

Required Proposed Shortfall

Tavern/Hotel 1: 2.5m2 of public bar

area 155m2 public bar area

= 62 bays 0 62

1: 5m2 of

lounge/garden area 950m2 garden area =

190 bays 0 190

Total 0 252

Clause 5.7.3 of LPS4 outlines circumstances may waive or reduce the standard parking requirement specified in Table 3, and states:

“Council may—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(viii) any other relevant considerations.

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

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

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

In relation to the above criteria of Clause 5.7.3 (i), it is noted that there is a significant provision of on-street parking available in the immediate vicinity and surrounding locality of the subject site . It is noted that this does not include any car parking on private property, including parking contained within the land owned by Fremantle Port Authority (FPA), particularly their land in and around the Fleet Street locality. It is further noted that should the application be supported, it does not preclude rights for parking to be used within privately owned land, such as parking within the FPA area.


Page 35

There are a number of parking areas within the FPA that are clearly identified as paid parking, and others which have been fenced off, restricting access to those areas. Ongoing compliance with parking on private property is typically a matter between the landowner, and the alleged offender and ultimately it is up to the landowner to manage this issue. A recent parking study of the City Centre undertaken on behalf of the City revealed that there is currently significantly underutilised public car parking capacity in the centre and this spare capacity will likely remain available for a number of years notwithstanding new development activity including development of existing car park sites. Evidence of underutilised public parking capacity was obtained through a comprehensive study of city centre car parking supply and demand patterns carried out by specialist consultants Luxmoore on behalf of the City in late 2012.


Page 36

The Luxmoore study indicated that in the precinct of the city centre there are approximately 1,500 off street public car bays plus approximately 250 on-street parking bays. The average vacancy rate of parking spaces in the precinct identified from surveys undertaken for the study was 48%. Significantly, the Queensgate multi-storey car park which is located 700 metres away from the subject site has 850 bays, with an average vacancy rate of 47% (400 bays) and a vacancy rate at peak occupancy times of 16% (136 bays).

The findings of the Luxmoore study are informing the City’s development of a longer term strategic approach to public parking provision as part of the preparation of the Fremantle Activity Centre Structure Plan, which is currently in progress. In relation to (ii), the site is located approximately 600m from the Fremantle Train Station which provides rail services to and from the Perth Central Business District (CBD) and connecting rail network. Further, it is also located within 600m of the Fremantle Bus Station, which provides bus services on routes 98, 99, 103, 106, 107, 111, 148, 158, 160, 381, 501, 502, 511, 513, 520, 530, 531, 532, 825 and 920. In this regard, the site is considered to be very well serviced by public transport within walking distance. It would be reasonable to expect that by the very nature of the proposed use, and any liquor license that is subsequently granted, that patrons may plan their day and/or night ahead, whether that be car-pooling, catching public transport, catching a taxi or alternative means of transport other than driving. In this regard, it is considered that this may reduce the overall impact of car parking shortfall associated with this change of use application. The City’s Arts and Culture – Events Department has provided the following patronage numbers, for events held throughout the City:

Beerfest 4,000 (patrons per day)

St Jeromes Laneway Festival 10,000

Blues and Roots 12,000

Chilli Fest 23,000 (over two days) Given that this proposal seeks a maximum number of 1,500 patrons, which is significantly lower than the above events, demonstrates that the City’s transport infrastructure (ie car parking, public transport) has the capability to absorb the number of patrons proposed. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of Clause 5.7.3 of the City’s LPS4. Local Planning Policies (LPP’s)

LPS4 acts as the head of power in creating LPP’s. As detailed above, given that it’s an MRS reservation, application of the provisions of LPS4 and therefore LPP’s in the context of these applications are only as a guide and are not binding, the following policies and their provisions should be viewed as such.


Page 37

DGF5 – Arthur Head Reserve Strategy Plan

The subject site is located within Precinct 3 – J-shed as prescribed by DGF5. DGF5 prescribes that the goal of this precinct is to:

“Develop this area as a transition zone that links the Arthur Head Reserve with port uses and other maritime themes of the foreshore”

There are three specified objectives for this precinct, which are detailed and discussed below: Objective 3.1 of DGF5 states:

“Provide a northern access to the Reserve”

The proposal still maintains northern access to the Reserve around the western and eastern sides of the lease area. Furthermore, the proposed fencing around the lease area has not been supported on heritage grounds, so this will ensure that visually that there are no physical restrictions on traversing the lease area north-to-south and vice versa. The City understands that the Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor (DRGL) will require a form of barrier physically defining the licensed area, to assist in management of patrons accessing and egressing the premises and other reasons. This application will likely necessitate the erection of a temporary form of fencing, typically associated with music events. Given the temporary nature of such fencing, which will likely only be erected for a few days either side of any such event, its lack of permanency ensures that any long term impacts are mitigated. The proposal for permanent fencing as part of the application for permanent approval, for the partial change of use to Tavern (including live music) and additions and alterations to existing building (DA0370/15) may present issues, however this will be discussed in the report for DA0370/15 at a later date. Objective 3.2 of DGF5 states:

“Encourage low profile commercial uses of J-Shed reflective of and compatible with the history and maritime themes of Arthur Head and the foreshore.”

There is no definition of what distinguishes a ‘low profile’ commercial use against a ‘high profile’ commercial use within DGF5. In this regard, and despite the lack of definition of this term, Council could form the view that allowing up to 1,500 people for ticketed events may present too many detrimental amenity concerns and as such not be considered to be ‘low profile’. If that is the case, Council may consider not supporting the proposal . Given the temporary nature of this proposal, Council may also consider that this objective is less applicable and that its intent is more designed to capture and therefore apply to more permanent proposals. Alternatively the list of 12 uses included in the “Detail” section of the report, could be considered “low profile” uses and given that the 1500 patron live music event is only 12 days over the summer months and therefore constitutes a small percentage of the overall use of site and is therefore also “low profile”.


Page 38

It is noted that the proposal is for commercial use; however, both the SHO and the City’s Heritage Department have supported the proposal and the proposed works.

Objective 3.3 of DGF5 states:

“Extend the coastal landscape of Bathers Beach in a way that expresses the original landform and defines the northern edge of the reserve.”

As detailed above in the report, given that this application is only for temporary approval, and the scope of physical works to the building and broader site, this objective is less applicable. This is a matter that is more applicable to the permanent application as physical works are proposed. Both the SHO and the City’s Heritage Department have supported the proposal and the proposed works. DGF6 – Arthur Head – (West End of High Street, Fremantle)

It is noted that this policy is from 1983 and many of its provisions are outdated given the many physical and material changes to the broader area since that time. Notwithstanding this, clause 2 of DGF6 relates to access within the Arthur Head area and states:

“Arthur Head is quite small so planning for access is important as well as not overloading the vicinity with proposed developments.

In general terms, visitors should be able to walk easily (from a nearby car park) into the pedestrian-only area of Arthur Head, and enjoy the combination of beach, ocean, vegetation, landforms and historic building as a Local Area which offers physical pleasure, relaxation, information, creature comforts and - importantly - an emotional experience.”

The proposal still maintains northern access to the Reserve around the western and eastern sides of the lease area. See Objection 3.1 above for further discussion. Clause 3 of DGF6 relates to new structures within the Arthur Head area and states:

“The only new structures which may be considered for introduction into the Arthur Head area are:

a public amenities building above Bathers Beach to the north of the pottery workshop, incorporating changing rooms,

showers, toilets, and kiosk; and

historic boat shelters, located parallel to the railway line in the vicinity of the Western Australian Maritime Museum.”

The overarching planning concern in relation to the above provision is the preservation of heritage. This proposal does not include any permanent physical changes to the site, however it will likely require structures such as temporary fencing, transportable toilets and other non-permanent works which are not considered to have a permanent physical impact.


Page 39

DGF26 – Planning Policy for the West End of Victoria Quay The subject site is located within ‘Area D – Workshops’ character area as prescribed by this policy. Clause 3.4 of DGF26 sets out conservation objectives, land use and development principles. The policy prescribes the following uses as ‘primary uses’:

maritime and port functions;

maritime education;

maritime industry, research and exhibition;

maritime related administration, trade, service and professional offices Further, the policy prescribes the following uses as ‘ancillary uses’ (maximum 50% total gross floor area per building):

maritime arts and craft workshops, display, retail (produced on site)

cultural heritage exhibition and interpretation relevant to the site

marine related commercial offices e.g. shipping agents,

marine related trade outlets e.g. boating materials and supplies

car parking The proposal is not considered to be consistent with the prescribed primary or ancillary uses as set out for this character area however the area of the building appears to be less than 50% of the total floor area of the building. Both the SHO and the City’s Heritage Department have supported the temporary proposal. Accordingly, this component of the proposal should be supported. DBU6 – Late Night Entertainment Venues Serving Alcohol

Clause 1.1 of Council’s DBU6 relates to the location of late night venues which propose to serve alcohol and states:

“Due to access and safety issues, any proposal for a late night entertainment venue (serving alcohol), including hotels, nightclubs, jazz and piano bars and performing arts centres, should be located on land adjacent to well-lit through streets to enable adequate safety and access for taxi cabs. Ideally a loading zone or similar shall be located near the entrance to the building to allow for private vehicle drop off and pick up as well as pre-ordered taxi travel. Amenity and safety considerations may preclude narrow or quiet streets from this type of development.

A provision for a queuing area at the entry of the venue is required on site if admission fees or other line up situations are proposed for the venue.

If this is not possible Council may consider a site adjacent to a footpath of 3 metres minimum width (from the kerb to the entrance of the property).

Proximity of proposed late night entertainment facilities (serving alcohol) to residential development shall form a significant part of the assessment of the applications as, in general, Council does not support proposals which may encourage conflict between land uses.”


Page 40

It is considered that the intent of the policy provisions is based on a late night venue being located either in the city centre itself or in similarly well established and served urban areas. The J-shed has a unique location, and its historic setting combined with it abutting Fremantle Port Authority (FPA) land means that vehicle and pedestrian access is not easily achievable, and therefore the provisions of this policy should be viewed with this context in mind. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that recent improvements which included lime-crete footpath and solar lighting and was completed in 2013 in and around the Bathers Beach area enhance safety at night time. The proposal is located more than 100m from the closest adjoining residential development to the east, separated by a limestone cliff. Clause 1.3 of Council’s DBU6 specifies matters pertaining to conditions of approval relating to: noise management; management plans; hours of operation; and floor area for the use. Matters relating to noise management are typically an ongoing management issue, governed by environmental health legislation. The management plan typically is assessed and forms part of the applicants Section 39 application for their liquor license application. It will be recommended that the hours of operations as proposed, are imposed as a condition of approval. Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that the issuance of a Liquor License is a separate approvals process, issued under separate legislation by the State Government’s Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor. DGF14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy

Clause 4.1.2(b) of DGF14 provides for development controls within the Arthur Head Reserve as contained within ‘The Foreshore’ area specifies:

“A low key use of the J-Shed, compatible with the ethos of the area, is acceptable.” There are a number of artists based industries and businesses in an around the J-Shed area. The proposed temporary activation of the site, which includes live music, is also a form of art and that this should be considered appropriately. The scale of temporary proposal could be viewed as not being low key based on numbers and capacity alone, so Council would have to be satisfied that the use is compatible with the ethos of the area, having regard to its potential to provide additional means of art, albeit through a different medium than what is currently existent in the immediate locality. Regarding as assessment of whether the “ethos” of the proposal is acceptable, the “ethos” of the area could be defined by the relevant policies for the area. As stated in the discussion of each policy objective/requirement above, as it is considered that the temporary proposal meets the policy requirements, it can be argued that the proposal therefore meets the ethos of the area.


Page 41

Public Submissions As detailed in the schedule of submissions as contained as Attachment 2 of this report, the City received a considerable amount of submissions, most of which objected to the proposal. Key themes in the issues raised in the submissions, which haven’t already been addressed or discussed above already included the following matters:

Anti-social behaviour;

Property devaluation;

Access impacts upon other J-Shed tenants;

Noise. Anti-social behaviour

A number of submissions raised concerns pertaining to this matter. Such matters are addressed through separate legislation other than planning legislation, and are typically a responsibility for the management of the licensed premises, and for the Police. Property devaluation

This is not a valid planning consideration. Access impacts upon other J-Shed tenants

The City is satisfied that the location of the northern entry to the proposed Tavern will not restrict access to, nor significantly impact the operations of other J-Shed tenants. FPA has advised that they have no in-principle issue with allowing on-going access to existing tenants of the J-Shed via Fleet Street, as the intensity of their land uses (car parking and pedestrian) is significantly less than what is proposed. Noise

This is governed by separate legislation other than planning legislation. Further, the site is located between an active sea port and active freight rail, which can emit substantial noise in their own right. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Economic Development Strategy 2011 -15:

New commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing employment opportunities.

Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:


Provide for economic growth by planning and promoting development and renewal in designated precincts within the City.

Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage. Maintain and grow tourist and visitor servicing.


Page 42

Comment from City Business Directorate Clauses 5 and 7 of Council’s resolution to enter into the lease agreement, as detailed in the Strategic and General Services Committee meeting held on 12 February 2014 (item SGS1402-2) state:

“5. The lessor and lessee mutually agree that the lease boundaries are established for the purpose of executing the lease so as to enable the lessee to investigate the planning, heritage, urban design, and landscaping matters relevant to the proposed development of the lease area through the design development process and the determination of any required applications by the appropriate authorities.

7. The lessor and lessee mutually agree to work collaboratively to develop a

masterplan and/or detail design for the lease area, the overall reserve and adjoining areas, that seek to include, but are not limited to, the following:

a) Develop a place where visitors feel welcome and the design gives

expression to the precincts underlying historical significance. The design and programming of the space should provide visitors with an opportunity to experience the physical reality of early European settlement and the type of environment that existed prior to European settlement;

b) Develop a place where visitors enjoy the combination of beach, ocean, endemic vegetation, natural and modified limestone landforms, historic buildings, cultural activity and creative arts. The precinct should offer the visitor physical pleasure and relaxation, information about a place of considerable cultural significance, creature comforts and amenities, and, importantly, an emotional experience.

c) Develop the J-Shed precinct as a transition zone that links Bathers Beach with the maritime character associated with the Slip Street Precinct and Victoria Quay;

d) Identify short, medium and long term urban design and servicing of the J-Shed studios in liaison with existing tenants;

e) Improve the presentation of J-Shed to the surrounding spaces including to Fleet Street, Bathers Beach and the Arthur Head areas to the east;

f) Improve the pedestrian movements between Bathers Beach through to the Slip Street Precinct and Victoria Quay beyond, in liaison with Fremantle Ports, TAFE and any other identified stakeholders;

g) Provides a legible northern gateway and pedestrian access point to Bathers Beach;

h) Develop proposals that reveal, conserve, and interpret archaeological sites in the vicinity;

i) Provide improved and unrestricted pedestrian connectivity between the J-Shed precinct and the elevated areas of Arthur Head to the east;


Page 43

j) Address any unpleasant microclimate implications of the open space areas as far as reasonably possible and include appropriate urban design and landscape responses that can diminish the impact of the hot summer sun and strong sea breezes on the precinct, aiming always to establish a more enjoyable foreshore experience;

k) Develop a landscape palette that assists with the creation of shade, protection from strong winds, and references the original coastal and limestone outcrop environments. Include materials that reflect and amplify the original materials and form of the headland. Maintain or remove existing vegetation as deemed appropriate to establish a quality and sustainable landscape, including the existing Norfolk Island Pines in Fleet Street.

l) Improve pedestrian pathways and routes in the Bathers Beach precinct and the Whalers’ Tunnel to accommodate the anticipated increase in public and commercial activity in the area and to improve public safety and amenity;

m) Develop an interpretation strategy for the precinct to include and highlight the indigenous and non-indigenous cultural significance;

n) Improve public parking in the precinct and adjoining areas to serve the precinct generally and the lease area specifically, including identifying any parking arrangements that may be required as a condition of planning approval in relation to the new development;

o) Improve way-finding between the proposed development and other key activities including the passenger rail station and other forms of public transport, public car parks, and nearby precincts such as the West End, Victoria Quay, Bathers Beach, the Fishing Boat Harbour and the Esplanade Reserve;

p) Includes appropriate reinstatement of a portion of the J-Shed and, where appropriate, new low profile and architecturally sensitive additions that do not detract from the important outlooks above the cliffs;

q) Improve lighting of the precinct, including the foreshore, without causing glare at public viewing points above the cliffs;

r) Provide adequate protection from coastal forces and sea level rises as required;

s) Ensures improvements are made for the long term and not just for the lifespan of the lease.”

The following comment was provided by the City Business Directorate in relation to the lease and its relationship to the applications for planning approval:

“The resolution for approval of the lease with Sunset Venues also sought the City to undertake the development of a concept plan for the landscaping of the surrounds to the J Shed precinct and to better define linkages between Bathers Beach and Victoria Quay.


Page 44

The City engaged CODA Architects to develop these concept landscape plans to provide consistency with the proposed development of Unit 1 J Shed by Sunset Venues. The development plans submitted by CODA for Sunset Venues includes elements of the concept landscape plans developed as part of that process. The intention of developing a landscape concept is for the City to consider these plans once the development of J Shed is confirmed. The City will then need to consult with Council and stakeholders in the area to finalise and cost this concept plan with the intention to allocate funding in the forward budget to align with any approved development for unit 1. If Sunset Venues does not undertake development of unit 1 by the cut off period required under the lease, the City will refine the concept landscape plan to take this into account.”

CONCLUSION

The proposed Temporary Approval - Special event venue (live music venue) at J Shed Unit 1/Fleet Street (Lot 2051), Fremantle, has been assessed against the provisions of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policies. As the proposal is contained within land reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) as ‘Parks and Recreation’, the City acts only in the capacity as a referral body providing a recommendation to the determining authority, being the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). As the proposal relates to reserved land under the MRS, the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Council’s Local Planning Policies (LPP’s) do not apply, but can and have been used as a guide in assisting Council in formulating its position for its recommendation to the WAPC. The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the provisions of Council’s LPP’s, however it is probable that some amenity impacts may result to the immediate locality, including car parking. The proposal is considered to warrant a recommendation for conditional approval to the WAPC for their determination. It is noted that the application for the permanent approval, for the partial change of use to Tavern (including live music) and additions and alterations to existing building (DA0370/15) does not form part of this report, and will form a separate report to Council at a later date. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for APPROVAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme for the proposed Temporary Approval - Special event venue (live music venue) at J Shed Unit 1/Fleet Street (Lot 2051), Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 31 July 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.


Page 45

2. This approval permits the use of the site as a special event venue (live music venue), and is valid until 31 May 2017 (inclusive).

3. The special event venue shall be limited to the following types of activities:

Weddings;

Art exhibitions and functions;

Gala Dinners;

Awards Nights;

Music Events;

Conferences;

Brand Activations;

Fashion Events;

Product Launches;

Corporate Functions;

Corporate Christmas parties;

Social & Celebratory events - Birthday and anniversaries;

and any other type of similar activity to those prescribed above, as deemed appropriate by, and to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission, upon the advice from the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

4. Events are to be held between 1 November and 30 May (inclusive) of each

year, up until 31 May 2017 and are to consist of:

i. Up to 12 music concerts per year, to be held on any day of the week, which are to commence at no earlier than 12:00pm (midday) and conclude no later than 10:00pm that same day with a maximum number of 1500 patrons at any one time; and

ii. All other uses are limited to weekends and public holidays and are to commence at no earlier than 12:00pm (midday) and conclude no later than 10:00pm that same day with a maximum number of 400 patrons at any one time;

5. Prior to commencement of the use of the site, the applicant is to submit and

have approved by, the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, an access management plan which addresses how event patrons, goods and materials, as required for events, will be transported to and from the site, in the event that access cannot be obtained via Fleet Street.

6. A watching brief is to be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist during all

works, to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission, upon advice from the State Heritage Office.

Advice Notes:

i. The proponent must make application to establish the food business –

tavern – so that the premises comply with the Food Act, Rood Regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Submit detailed architectural


Page 46

plans and elevations to the City’s Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

ii. The proponent must make application during the Building License

application stage to the City’s Environmental Health Services via Form 1 - Application to construct, alter or extend a public building as a requirement of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. If the proponent is granted approval to commence development the proponent must immediately make application to the City for a Regulation 18 noise notice under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1992. For enquiries and a copy of the application forms contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

iii. The applicant is advised to contact the Department of Aboriginal Affairs

(DAA) on (08) 6551 8092 to discuss any statutory requirements that may be required to be undertaken and/or fulfilled by them under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. This may include advising the South West Land and Sea Council of the proposed works, of which should be confirmed with the DAA.

iv. The DAA has advised the City to advise the applicant that they have

released the Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Guidelines to assist developers with planning and considering Aboriginal heritage during proposed works. A copy of the guidelines can be found on the DAA website as:

v. http://www.daa.wa.gov.au/globalassets/pdf-files/ddg vi. The applicant is advised that the Department of Environment Regulation

(DER) has recommended that management of ground disturbing works at the site include contingency measures for unexpected unearthing of asbestos or contamination, to eliminate any potential health risks to workers or the public. In the event that the development activities detect or unearth asbestos-containing-material or contamination at the site, any potential exposure risks should be immediately mitigated and the site should be investigated without delay in accordance with Department of Environment Regulation’s Contaminated Sites Guidelines.

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.daa.wa.gov.au/globalassets/pdf-files/ddg


Page 47

PSC1510-5 HENRY STREET, (LOT59 & 60 ) NO. 7, FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE STOREY BUILDING (OFFICE & 22 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS) (AA DAP008/15)

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report (Regulation 12)

Property Location: No. 7 (Lot 59 & 60) Henry Street, Fremantle

Application Details: Partial demolition of existing building & construction of five storey building (Office & 22 Multiple Dwellings)

DAP Name: Metropolitan South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel

Applicant: Rowe Group

Owner: Henry Street Project Pty Ltd

LG Reference: DAP008/15

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

Department of Planning File No: DAP/15/00849

Report Date: 7 October 2015

Application Receipt Date: 15 July 2015

Application Process Days: 80 days

Attachment(s): 1: Development plans (21 September 2015) 2: Location plan 3: Applicants Heritage Impact Statement 4: Advice of Fremantle Port Authority 5: Advice of State Heritage Office 6: Site photos

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel resolves to: APPROVE DAP Application reference DAP/15/00849 and accompanying plans A2.01, A2.02, A2.03, A2.04, A2.05, A2.06, A3.00, A3.01, in accordance with Clause 10.3.1 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, in accordance with the plans dated 21 September 2015 subject to the following conditions: Conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 21 September 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


Page 48

2. Notwithstanding condition 1 of this approval, prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the plans hereby approved shall be modified and/or additional details providing dealing with the following matters;

a) The most upper (fourth) floor of the development be deleted and the

internal layout of the two effected dwellings be modified accordingly; b) The external wall height (excepting balustrades to the rear ‘communal

roof terrace’ of the proposal being modified so that it is not more than 14m above natural ground level; and,

(i) All dwellings shall be provided with a storage area pursuant to design element 6.4.6 (P6) of the Residential Design Codes.

(ii) Air-conditioning equipment being relocated from balcony areas or appropriately enclosed/screened.

The modifications and details are to be reflected on the Building Permit application to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle, on advice of the Design Advisory Committee.

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

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

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

final facade finishes; (ii) provision of 3D perspectives demonstrating the proper retention of the

existing brick pier including return;

And any modifications made to the proposal thereto shall be reflected on the Building Permit application.

5. Prior to occupation, measures to ensure the safe interface between vehicles

and pedestrians at the junction of the access way on the southern boundary of the subject site and Henry Street shall be installed and thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle, on advice of the Coordinator Traffic and Civil Projects.

6. Prior to occupation, Lots 59 & 60 Henry Street, Fremantle are to be legally

amalgamated or alternatively the owner may enter into a legal agreement with the City of Fremantle, drafted by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties concerned prior to the commencement of the works. The legal agreement will specify measures to allow the development approval to operate having regard to the subject site consisting of two separate lots, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 49

7. Prior to occupation the design and materials of the development shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy L.P.P2.3 - Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following:

i. Glazing to windows and other openings shall be laminated safety glass

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

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

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

8. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the western, northern and

southern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;

coloured sand render;

face brick;

painted surface; or,

other approved finish

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

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

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

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

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

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

value to one percent of the estimated development cost, as indicated on the Form of Application for Planning Approval, to the City of Fremantle for development of public art works and/or heritage works to enhance the public realm. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $7,015,000 the contribution to be made is $70,150.

11. The car stacking equipment shown on the plans hereby approved being designed, installed and maintained thereafter in order to allow for access and egress of stacked vehicles independent of other vehicles, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 50

ADVICE NOTE(S)

i. In relation to condition 10 relating to the public art contribution, the applicant is advised that council may waive the requirement for the public art/heritage work contribution in accordance with clause 6 of lpp 2.19 where the development incorporates public art in the development to the same value as that specified in condition 10 that is located in a position clearly visible to the general public on the site of the development. In determining the appropriateness and artistic merit of the public art, council shall seek relevant professional advice.

ii. Where the applicant seeks to dispose of storm water off-site, the

applicant is advised to contact the city of fremantle’s infrastructure projects department for further advice on a suitable drainage solution, whether by maintaining the current/existing connection or through surface flow into the drainage system.

iii. In regards to the provision of additional storage areas, at least 1 area

shall be provided per dwelling. Alternate solutions such as over-head areas, smaller cage areas or areas of a lesser dimension than specified in the deemed-to-comply criteria of the r-codes may be available to applicant as a solution.

iv. It is recommended that the applicant and/or owner submit a construction

management plan to the city to the satisfaction of the chief executive officer – city of fremantle addressing the following matters:

a) Use of City car parking bays for construction related activities; b) Protection of infrastructure and street trees within the road reserve; c) Security fencing around construction sites; d) Gantries; e) Access to site by construction vehicles; f) Contact details; g) Site offices; h) Noise - Construction work and deliveries; i) Sand drift and dust management; j) Waste management; k) Dewatering; l) Traffic management; and m) Works affecting pedestrian areas.

The Demolition and Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the demolition of the existing building on site and construction of the new development. It is advised that Local Planning Policy 1.10 is reviewed in formulating the Demolition and Construction Management Plan.


Page 51

BACKGROUND:

Property Address: No. 7 (Lot 59 & 60) Henry Street, Fremantle

Zoning MRS: Central City

LPS: City Centre (R-AC3)

Use Class: Multiple Dwelling – ‘D’ Office – ‘P’

Development Scheme: Local Planning Scheme No. 4

Lot Size: 900m2

Existing Land Use: N/A

Value of Development: $7,015,000

The subject site is located on the western side of Henry Street between High Street and Phillimore Street, Fremantle (see Attachment 2). The subject site is zoned City Centre and coded R-AC3 pursuant to the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The site is subject to the provisions of Schedule 12 (Sub Area 1.3.1) of LPS4 and is located in Local Planning Area 1 – City Centre. The subject site is not included on the Register of Heritage Places under LPS4 or the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (the Heritage Act). The site is located within the West End Conservation Area Heritage Area identified under LPS4 and adjoins the following places of heritage significance;

The ‘Fothergills Building’ (No. 32 Henry Street) located at the corner of Henry Street and High Street, which is included on the City’s Heritage List;

The ‘former Cleopatra Hotel’ (No. 24 High Street) located along the subject sites rear boundary, fronting High Street, which is included on the City’s Heritage List;

The former ‘Adelaide Steamship House’ (No. 10-12 Mouat Street), adjoining the rear of the site fronting Mouat Street, which is included on the Heritage List pursuant to the Heritage Act;

‘Lance Holt School’ (No. 10 Henry Street), opposite the subject site, which is included on the Heritage List pursuant to the Heritage Act;

The ‘Marich Buildings’ (No. 36-44 High Street), at the corner of High Street and Henry Street, opposite the subject site, which is included on the City’s Heritage List; and,

The ‘Quatermains Building’ (No. 3-5 Henry Street), adjoining the subject site fronting Henry Street, which is included on the City’s Heritage List.

The subject site exists as a series of buildings identified as the ‘Fremantle Workers Social and Leisure Club’ (the Workers Club). The buildings consist of a front façade and front-of-house area as well as a large open hall/bar space located behind the front façade structure. It is noted that the northern boundary of the site is subject to a party wall easement registered on the certificate of title.


Page 52

DETAILS: OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION The application includes demolition of components of the rear portions of the building with retention of the front façade of the building only. The façade of the building is proposed to be restored including replacement of existing windows, doors and paintwork as well as the repair of an existing flowerbox planter. The application then proposes a five storey development behind the façade of the building consisting of a ground floor parking garage (containing 29 vehicle bays including 24 in car-stackers), 54m2 office tenancy, lobby, storage and plant and equipment areas. The remaining four storeys consist of 22 Multiple Dwellings with a total plot ratio area of 1,567m2, consisting of 8 one bedroom dwellings, 12 two bedroom dwellings and 2 three bedroom dwellings. The application was originally submitted on 15 July 2015. Following advice of the City’s heritage department and Design Advisory Committee, amended development plans were provided on 21 September 2015 which made design changes to the proposal. The changes reduced the number of Multiple Dwellings proposed from 25 to 22 dwellings. The amended development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. LEGISLATION & POLICY: City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) The following LPS4 provisions are considered relevant in the consideration of this planning application:

Table 1 – Zoning;

Table 2 – Vehicle parking requirements;

Clause 5.7.3 – Relaxation of parking requirements;

Clause 5.15 – Demolition of buildings and structures;

Clause 10.2 – Matters to be considered by Council;

Schedule 1 – Dictionary of defined words and expressions and;

Clause 7.5 – Variations to scheme provisions for a heritage place or heritage area;

Clause 12.12 - Schedule 12 Development requirements – Local Planning Area 1 – City Centre – 1.3.1

State Government Policies

State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes.


Page 53

Local Planning Policies

Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public notifications of planning proposals;

Local Planning Policy 1.9 – Design Advisory Committee & Principles of Design;

Local Planning Policy 2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines;

Local Planning Policy 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements;

Local Planning Policy 2.19 – Contributions for Public Art, and

D.G.F14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy CONSULTATION: Public Consultation The planning application was identified as a ‘Significant Application’ as set out in Council’s LPP1.3. The application was advertised for a period of 28 days and included the following actions;

A sign notice being placed on the development site;

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

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

the Precinct Groups of the City were informed of the proposal;

Two notices relating to the proposal were placed in the Fremantle Gazette on consecutive weeks;

A community information session held on 13 August 2015. This session was attended by approximately 20 people.

At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 21 August 2015, the City had received 37 submissions including 36 objections. The planning issues raised are summarised as follows;

Height; The proposed height of the building is inconsistent with the scale of buildings in the west end of Fremantle;

Vehicle access; The proposed vehicle accessway is considered unsafe and sightlines poor;

Vehicle parking; There are insufficient vehicle parking bays provided;

Street parking; The proposal will reduce the availability of street parking;

Traffic; The proposal will generate unreasonable traffic;

Overdevelopment; The proposal overdevelops the subject site and is of bulk and scale inconsistent with surrounding development;

Heritage significance; The proposal does not respect the heritage significance of the surrounding area;

Existing façade; The existing façade is not of significance and should not be used as reason to seek additional development height;

Visual amenity; The proposed development will be highly visible and is inconsistent with the existing level of visual amenity;

Density; The proposed density makes the building too large and results in a range of other amenity impacts. The number of apartments proposed should be reduced;


Page 54

Construction impact; The construction of the proposal will impact on adjoining sites;

Views; The proposal will significantly impact of the availability of views in the area, particularly from the Navy Club building on High Street;

Skyline and roofscape; The proposal will be highly visible and interrupt the existing west end skyline and roofscape;

Development precedence; Approval of the proposal will allow for increases in height in the west end; and,

Street vista; The proposal will interupt views to the Round House and down High Street.

It is noted that a significant number of the submissions received were pro-forma objections covering the same matters. Further consideration of these matters is made in the ‘Planning Assessment’ section of this report. Fremantle Port Authority The subject site is located within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port Buffer Area (FPA). The application was referred to the Fremantle Port Authority for comment. On 6 August 2015, the City received a response (see Attachment 4) which advised that the proposal should meet the built form requirements for Area 2 of the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.3 – Port Buffer Area Design Guidelines (LPP2.3). A condition of approval is recommended reflecting these requirements. State Heritage Office The application was referred to the State Heritage Office (SHO) as the site is located adjacent to several places on the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage Act. On 31 August 2015, the SHO included the following advice (see Attachment 5);

The proposed development does not significantly impact on the identified place of cultural significance (Lance Holt School);

The place is located in the West End of Fremantle, which has been nominated for inclusion of the State Register of Heritage Places.

Heritage (internal) The application was referred to the City’s Heritage department for comment as it involves the partial demolition of an existing building which is also located within a heritage area identified under LPS4. A heritage comment was received on 2 September 2015 which is summarized as follows;

The West End precinct is of high cultural heritage significance and the heritage values of some places, usually from the gold-boom period, have long been recognised and have become more clearly established over time.


Page 55

The Fremantle Workers’ Social and Leisure Club building is an example of a place about which opinions have changed over time. Although the building is not included on the City of Fremantle’s Municipal Heritage Inventory, it is considered to be of heritage significance for its historic, social and aesthetic values, particularly those that embody its associations with the West End’s long history as a working class social hub.

The decision to construct the new building in the International Style is significant as, in many ways, it epitomises the progressive attitudes of the post War Two era. Both the exterior (primarily the front façade) and interior of the building were in this modern style.

The front part of the building effectively embodies the social, historical and some aesthetic values of the place. The proposed retention and conservation of the exterior face of this part of the building (including brick element returning down the service lane) is strongly supported. The conservation works is to include the removal of paint from the textured bricks and tiles.

The rear parts of the building are not considered to be significant. The proposed demolition of these areas is supported.

The applicant, in submitting the application also provided a heritage impact statement which supports the findings of the City’s internal assessment (see Attachment 3). Design Advisory Committee (internal) The application was presented to the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) for comment. The application was presented to the DAC meeting of 27 July 2015, 10 August 2015 and 14 September 2015. Following the 10 August meeting the applicant submitted amended plans (earlier versions of those contained at Attachment 1) partially in response to the DAC comments. DAC minutes from the 27 July 2015 are as follows; CABE DESIGN PRINCIPLES CHARACTER The proposed façade scale is appropriate and details of the screening materials will need to be provided and approved by the Committee at a later stage. CONTINUITY AND ENCLOSURE, QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM, EASE OF MOVEMENT, LEGIBILITY, ADAPTABILITY, DIVERSITY The above issues did not arise during the presentation OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY

Regarding the rear light well, if a building can be built up to this boundary on the adjoining property, this will compromise internal amenity.


Page 56

All bedrooms are compromised in terms of privacy due to windows being adjacent to common access walkways.

The extra height located to the east will block light to apartment bedrooms in the morning i.e. the additional height is not adding value.

Access to light, ventilation and privacy is compromised.

There are real concerns regarding the resultant level of amenity associated with the yield proposed.

APPROPRIATNESS OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES The details, material and finishes of the façade screen will need to be high quality. This can be provided at a later date for approval by the Committee. GENERAL COMMENTS

It is understood from a statutory planning perspective that the additional height will be difficult to support.

Design excellence is not achieved in terms of lack of internal access to light and air to apartments.

DESIGN ASSESSMENT WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS

Retention of the heritage façade and reinstatement back to its original materials and colours.

Contemporary approach to the façade design.

The re-planning of the internal design compared to the December 2014 plans so there are no internalised bedrooms.

Resolution of the onsite parking issue with the use of car stackers.

Increased residential density in the west end.

HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED

Improved internal access to light, ventilation and privacy for the apartments.

Reduce spatial congestion between apartments through reduced height and yield.

Further consideration of the design having the regard to the potential development on adjoining sites.

Further detail of the façade screens (not necessarily @ DA stage as this could be conditioned)

Indication of where air-conditioning is to be located (i.e. either on the roof or screened on balconies)

RECOMMENDATION The design is not supported due to the compromised internal amenity of the units specifically relating to access to light, privacy and ventilation. DAC minutes of the 10 August 2015 are as follows;


Page 57

GENERAL COMMENTS The separation of communal access walkways away from bedroom windows has improved the amenity of the adjacent bedrooms. The following previous concerns of the Committee however have not been resolved:

Improved internal access to light, ventilation and privacy for the apartments. For example the re-labelling of an internalised room previously labelled ‘bedroom’ to ‘study’ is not an acceptable solution.

Moving stores from balconies to the basement.

Reduced spatial congestion between apartments through reduced height and yield.

Operable windows that are only 3.0m apart (compromised privacy)

From a statutory planning perspective it is understood that the main issue relates to the additional height (fifth floor). If the committee was to support any additional height the internal amenity of the development would need to be improved. A separate meeting with DAC member/s outside the regular DAC monthly meeting schedule could be arrange to discuss and help resolve these matters. DESIGN ASSESSMENT WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS

Clarity of the façade design. HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED

Making the central light well larger to improve legibility and access to natural light and privacy.

Moving stores into the basement. RECOMMENDATION The design is not supported until the above matters are resolved. At the 14 September 2015 meeting, the following comments were made; DESIGN ASSESSMENT WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS The scheme has much improved since the committee first saw the proposal, specifically the rear courtyard space and privacy to bedrooms.


Page 58

HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED 1. The location of the door from the escape stairs opening into lobby needs to be

reconfigured to minimize the potential for conflict with users of the lobby. 2. The Ground Floor lobby should be reconfigured to create a more consolidated area

and one that allows the lift location to be more apparent. 3. It was suggested that the architects explore whether reversing the location of the lift

and the escape stairs would enable a better designed lobby. 4. The legibility of the brick pier on the Henry Street façade, as seen from the side,

moving north on Henry Street, needs to be more apparent; i.e. an amendment to the façade design is needed to reveal more of the pier than is currently shown.

5. It is unclear how visible the top floor will be from the street. Street perspectives from a position on Henry Street south of High Street would demonstrate this.

6. Air conditioning units need to be screened from view, preferably on the roof or in

the car park area. RECOMMENDATION While the design has significantly improved, the above mentioned issues still need to be resolved. Any proposed design changes can be emailed to the committee chair for comment rather than there being the need to refer them to a full DAC meeting. Following this meeting, the applicant prepared the final set of amended plans (Attachment 1) and submitted these to the DAP chairperson. The advice of the DAC chair is summarised as follows;

The entry lobby has been improved but could be improved further by relocating the letterboxes to the lobby and relocating the service cabinet. There are a number of potential solutions including reversing the lift and escape stair position;

The amended plans improve the commercial tenancy space, relocate the bin area and modify the bicycle storage position in an acceptable way;

Walkways and dwelling entries have been improved;

Location of A/C units on the balconies is considered a poor option that should be reviewed;

Further 3D elevations should be provided so the concealed gutter design and retention of the brick pier to the original façade can be better read and considered.

Having regard to this advice, the proposal is considered advanced enough to be recommended for conditional approval. Conditions reflecting the advice of the DAC and the chairperson are included in the officer’s recommendation.


Page 59

Infrastructure Projects (internal) The application was referred to the City’s Infrastructure Projects department for comment as it involves the creation of a new vehicle access point to Henry Street. The following recommendations (summarised) were made;

The proposal does not comply with sightline criteria relevant to AS2890.1. It is recommended that a truncation as well as pedestrian protection methods be provided; and

Trip generation for the proposal is considered to have a negligible impact on the local traffic network.

Further discussion of these matters is made in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. Parks and Landscapes (internal) The application was referred to the City’s Parks and Landscapes department. The department made no relevant planning comments. Waste management The application was referred to the City’s Waste management department for comment. No objection or comments were raised. PLANNING ASSESSMENT: Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (Schedule 12 – Sub Area 1.3.1)

Element Scheme requirement Proposed Discretion sought

Building height Three storeys (maximum external wall

height of 11m) with a roof plain pitch up to 33

degrees.

5 storeys, up to 16.92mexternal

wall height.

+2 storeys, +6m external wall height

In addition to that specified above, Schedule 12 – Sub Area 1.3.1 provides the following additional discretionary height criteria;

‘The Council may consent to an addition storey subject to – (a) the upper level being sufficiently setback from the street so as to not be visible

from the street(s) adjoining the subject site, (b) maximum external wall height of 14 metres; and, (c) compliance with clause 1.2.’

The proposal includes an additional storey above that specified in the discretionary criteria. The proposed external wall height of 17.0m is also 3.0m above the discretion height specified in part (b). It is noted that despite the additional storey and height, the proposal maintains compliance with part (a) and will not be ‘visible from the street’ above the 11m external wall height prescribed in Schedule 12.


Page 60

Aside from the discretionary criteria above, City officers are of the view the only other means of considering the height specified, given it is above the stated maximum building height contained in Schedule 12, arises in clause 7.5 of LPS4. This provision is stated as follows (bold used for emphasis);

‘7.5 Variations to Scheme provisions for a heritage place of heritage area Where desirable to – (a) facilitate the conservation of a heritage place entered in the Register of Places

under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or listed in the Heritage List under clause 7.1.1; or,

(b) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area designated under clause 7.2.1;

the Council may vary any site or development requirement specified in the Scheme or the Residential Design Codes by following the procedure set out in clause 9.4.’ [Emphasis added]

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘preserve’ as ‘keep safe, keep alive, maintain, retain (quality, condition). The proposal is considered to satisfy these criteria of the basis of the heritage advice received by the SHO and the City’s Heritage department in reference to the retention of the existing façade. The retention of the façade of the Workers Club provides an opportunity to protect the current townscape character of Henry Street. Retention of part of the building will reinforce the former use of the sites as being of social significance. In this respect, part (b) of the above is considered satisfied. The provision offers unfettered discretion to vary site or development requirements ‘where desirable to do so’. A combination of factors determines the desirability to exercise discretion in relation to height. The City’s local planning policy D.G.F14 – West End Conservation Area policy (DGF14) is the most specific policy to this site. Part 4.2.2(a) of the DFG14 specifies that;

‘To conserve this valuable asset it is essential that existing buildings be protected through the promotion of evenly spread development consistent with that already exists; through preventing the pre-emption of potential by the over-development of single sites; and through ensuring that new development is sympathetic to (and subordinate to) the present townscape and traditional uses of the area.’


Page 61

The provisions continue to note that;

‘The appropriate height is one which respects the scale and reinforces the integrity of the existing streetscape. The Council officers and advisers believe that in principle this is to be a maximum of three storeys, on the street frontage. The height will be assessed by appropriately considering its relation to and effect on the existing landmarks, on recognised vistas, skyline and in particular on the heights of the adjacent buildings.’

On balance, the exercise of discretion relating to height is not considered ‘desirable’ in so far as;

The proposed roofline and rear facing external wall will be significantly higher than the surrounding skyline and adjacent buildings;

The fourth floor, while integrated into the roof form of the building, will likely be apparent from adjoining sites and vistas further removed from the subject site;

The proposal is considered inconsistent with the predominant height patterns of adjoining properties and the locality generally, which is characterised by three storey development with an additional upper level of limited scale to more modern developments.

A condition of approval requiring the deletion of the fourth (most upper) floor of the development is recommended (see condition 2 of the officer’s recommendation). This will result in modifications being made to the layout of the Multiple Dwellings on the floor directly below. This modification does not result in a lesser amount of Multiple Dwellings proposed. Despite the above there are recognised reasons where the upper floor proposed may be considered supportable in the context of DGF14. These include;

The proposal is not considered to over-develop the site having regard to the nature of development the surrounding locality; being buildings of at least two storeys covering the majority of sites;

The additional height falls within the building envelop established by the relevant ‘line-of-sight’ and 33 degree roof pitch criteria contained in Schedule 12 of LPS4;

DGF14 places emphasis on the appearance of buildings at the street. The building presents as a 3 storey, 11m high building to Henry Street, which is consistent with this element of the policy; and,

The additional height is separated from the prominent High Street vista;

The proposal (overall) is considered with the stated objectives of the City Centre zone, LPS4 and other strategic documents of the City.

The above reasons do not specify a ‘desirable’ outcome, more so an unobjectionable situation. In that respect these reasons should not be considered by the JDAP as reasons to support the application. However should The JDAP consider these reasons to have planning merit, the panel could delete condition 2 a) and b) of the officer’s recommendation.


Page 62

Demolition The proposal includes the demolition of the majority of structures on the site except the façade of the building. Clause 5.15.1 of LPS4 states that Council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

‘a) Has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and b) Does not make significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality in which it is located.’

The heritage comment provided by the City’s Heritage department clearly specifies that the rear of the existing building contained on-site is not of heritage significance but that the forward façade is of significance in its own right and to the wider streetscape. The proposed extent of demolition is supported as a result. Archaeological investigations The City has not received any information suggesting the site may contain elements of archaeological significance. As a result, an archaeological investigation pursuant to clause 7.7 of LPS4 is not recommended. Vehicle parking

Element Deemed-to-comply Proposed Design principle

assessment

Multiple Dwelling 22.5 bays 29 bays 2 bays

Visitor 5.5 bays

Office 2 bays

Delivery 1 bay

Total 31 bays

The proposed amount of parking provided is supported for the following reasons;

The subject site is located within the Fremantle City Centre zone. This zone has immediate access to transport options of regional significance;

There are a significant amount of local employment, retail, entertainment and recreational activities located within and around the Fremantle City Centre zone, thereby reducing the demand for motor vehicle use;

The R-Codes specify that bicycle parking and storage for at least 11 bicycles should be provided. The development provides 16 bays. This assists in providing for alternative transport modes to compensate for the shortfall in vehicle parking;

There are 944 publically available parking bays within the West End precinct of the City Centre zone available for use by visitors to the subject site; and,

The proposed Office land use is considered to generate only a minor demand for vehicle parking given the limited 51m2 size.


Page 63

It is noted that the majority of vehicle parking bays provided are arranged in car-stackers. A condition of approval specifying independent access of these bays is recommended. Street setback


assessment

Primary street 2.0m Nil 2.0m

The City’s DGF14 clearly specifies a desired streetscape character of nil setback and hard edged buildings. The proposal is consistent with this policy and the character of development in the surrounding locality. Boundary walls


Proposed Design principle

assessment

North Maximum height of 7.0m (average 6.0m) up to any

boundary for any length

Up to 13.6m high x 17.6m long and up to

13.6m high x 7.4m long on the northern

boundaries

Up to +7.0m maximum

height

West Up to 7.6m high x 14.0m long and Up to 14.0m high x 14.8m long on the western

boundaries

South Up to 14.0m high x 35.4m long on the

southern boundaries

The proposed development is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

There is a clear established character of buildings built up to boundaries, of similar scale and proportion, throughout the locality. This character is also encouraged by the City’s DGF14;

The subject site adjoins other sites on all boundaries with existing boundary walls. It is noted that these walls are depicted on the development plans (see Attachment 1) as being of lesser dimensions than those proposed; and,

The adjoining sites do not contain residential development directly affected by the proposed walls.


Page 64

It is noted that the southern boundary wall abuts existing openings on the upper floor of the adjoining building (No. 32 High Street). It is unclear how this opening came about. It is likely the windows were installed at the property some time ago however the City has no records confirming when the windows were installed. The R-Codes permits, under the deemed-to-comply criteria, walls to be built on a boundary up to a wall of the same dimensions. As the adjoining wall at No. 32 High Street is of lesser dimensions, this portion of the proposed boundary wall meets the deemed-to-comply criteria. Utilities and Facilities


assessment

Lockable storage area

Minimum dimension of 1.5m, with an internal of

at least 4m² for each multiple dwelling,

accessible from outside the dwelling

21 storage areas (22 dwellings)

1 storage area

The proposed design principle assessment is not supported due to the lack of sufficient storage for each dwelling. A condition of approval requiring provision of an additional storage area is recommended. It is recognised that there are a number of alternate solutions available to the application than simply the provision of a 4m2 room. An advice note specifying the following is recommended. Sightlines and vehicle access The City’s Technical Services department has provided advice noting the insufficient vehicle sightlines provided at the junction of the access way to the parking area and the Henry Street boundary. On the basis of the heritage advice received, it is not recommended that the façade of the building be altered or partially demolished. A condition of approval specifying alternative traffic interface solutions is recommended. Alternative solutions may include the installation of warning signals, mirrors, speed bumps and retractable bollards/gates. Sustainable building design The proposed development is required to achieve a rating of not less than 4 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia (‘GCBA’) rating tool pursuant to LPP2.13; or an equivalent rating. A condition of approval reflecting this is recommended.


Page 65

Public arts contribution The proposed development is subject to the requirement to make a public art and/or heritage works contribution equal or greater than one per cent (1%) of the total cost of the development in accordance with LPP2.19. A condition of approval requiring compliance with LPP2.19 is recommended. Fremantle Port buffer area As discussed earlier in this report, a condition of approval requiring compliance with the Fremantle Port Buffer Area 2 requirements is recommended. CONCLUSION: The application seeks planning approval for five storey development (25 Multiple Dwellings and Office). The application is summarised as follows;

The proposal includes an additional storey than specified in Schedule 12 of LPS4 and in the context of the subject site and adopted policies, this is not supported. A condition of approval requiring the floor to be deleted in recommended;

The proposal includes demolition of the majority of the existing structures onsite. This demolition is supported by the City’s Heritage department and is considered to meet the relevant criteria of LPS4;

The proposal has been reviewed by a number of internal departments of the City and is supported, including by the City’s Design Advisory Committee.

The application is recommended for conditional approval.


Page 66

PSC1510-6 PRICE STREET, NO. 24 (LOT 8), FREMANTLE- TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0365/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 October 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site photographs Date Received: 29 July 2015 Owner Name: Oliver Waters and Felicity Clarke Submitted by: Austurban Construction Scheme: Residential R35 Heritage Listing: Listed (Demolished) Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 67

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for the addition of a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 24 Price Street, Fremantle. The development has been assessed against the requirements of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), local planning policies and Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and requires Design Principle or discretionary assessment against the following design elements:

Building height. The application was advertised to neighbouring landowners, and as relevant submissions were received that cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the neighbour, the application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination. The application is considered to satisfy Design Principle and discretionary criteria and is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

No. 24 Price Street, Fremantle is located on a right of way to the rear of properties fronting Price Street in Fremantle. The street block is bound by Grey Street to the north, Price Street to the south, South Terrace to the east and Marine Terrace to the west. The subject site is located in sub area 4.3.1 of the Fremantle South Local Planning Area. It is on the City’s Heritage list for historic reasons only, as the stables previously on site were demolished in 2006. The site is not located within a Heritage Area. A search of the property file found the following relevant planning history:

Subdivision application –

o Approval subject to conditions had been granted by the WAPC as of 4

September 2015. There are no conditions of approval that are considered to affect this development proposal.

DA0324/15 – Three, Interconnected Two Storey Residential Buildings (25 September 2012)

o Refused due to being not consistent with objectives of Residential zone,

vehicle parking, building height and a number of other R-Code requirements including lot boundary setbacks.

DETAIL

On 29 July 2015, the City received an application for the addition of a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 24 Price Street, Fremantle. This application is for the eastern portion of the site (as per map below).


Page 68

Revised plans were received 7 September, deleting the proposed balcony on the southern elevation. Development plans are included as attachment 1. The City has received an additional application for another two storey Grouped Dwelling (DA0372/15) on the western portion of the site which is not the subject of this application. This application is included as a separate item in this agenda. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. In this particular application, the area outlined below does not meet scheme requirements:

Building Height. The above matter will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of the report below. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the application is seeking Design Principle and discretions against the following design elements:

Building height; and

Visual privacy.


Page 69

At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 24 August 2015, the City had received three (3) submissions. The following issues were raised (summarised):

The strata plan assessment and approval process undertaken for 24 Price Street is not clear and no community consultation undertaken.

Double storey development is unnecessary and neighbouring properties not permitted to build to two storey.

Significant shadow impact.

Visual privacy impact unacceptable.

Satisfied with proposal to have highlight windows on side elevations.

Request that owners make contact prior to changes to boundary fences.

Need to ensure all footings etc. on subject site.

Request owners are made aware that future development may be applied for on adjoining properties.

Boundary walls should be of clean finish.

Any bollards should be on subject site not in ROW. The applicant was provided with the submissions, and chose to delete the balcony from the southern elevation, removing the visual privacy Design Principle assessment. The alterations to the plans did not require further advertising. PLANNING COMMENT

Building height

Permitted Provided Discretion

Single storey with loft Two storey One storey

Max external wall height - 4.8m 3.5-5.8m 0-1m

Roof plain pitch – max 38 degrees 30 degrees Complies

As the prescribed building height is as per Schedule 12 of LPS4, height can only be varied using Clause 5.8.1 Variation to height requirements, as follows: 5.8.1.1 Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following – The subject site is currently vacant, however it is considered it is adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than specified, being that there are a number of examples of two storey buildings in the vicinity.

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

The proposed development is compliant with the Deemed-to-Comply requirements of the R-Codes, particularly in relation to visual privacy, overshadowing and lot boundary setbacks, which ensures the two storey aspect has a limited impact on the amenity of adjoining properties. The lot is separated from southern and eastern properties by the existing Right of Way, and abuts rear


Page 70

yards to the north. The subject site’s separation from surrounding streets ensures that the two storey aspect of the development will have a limited impact on the streetscape and locality generally.

b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the

scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality; There are a number of properties within the locality that are two storeys, and provide sufficient grounds for Council to support the additional height:

No. 25 Grey Street – 6m external wall height – warehouse conversion (DA126/93);

15 Grey St – Two storey (detached addition), 4.95m external wall height plus additions to existing house at approximately 5.35m;

No. 9A (Lot 2) Grey Street - two storey Grouped Dwelling with a maximum wall height of 5.56 metres;

No. 22A (Lot 2) Price Street - two storey Grouped Dwelling external wall height 6.80 metres.

No. 26 Price St – two storey rear addition, 6m external wall height (DA302/96).

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

While the subject site is on the City’s Heritage List, the buildings that were deemed to be of significance have been demolished and is still listed for historical reasons only. It is not considered that the proposed two storey grouped dwelling will impact on the significance of this site.

Adjoining properties that are on the City’s Heritage List include:

No. 137 and 141 South Terrace (Level 3);

No. 25 Grey Street (Level 3);

No. 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23 Grey Street (Level 2); and

No. 26 and 28 Price Street (Level 3).

The proposed building height is not considered to impact on the heritage values of buildings adjoining the site, given its separation from the street and portions of the heritage listed properties.

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

DGF29 Suffolk to South Streets Local Area refers to development being predominantly single storey. Given the property is significantly set back from South, Price and Grey Streets and is going to have limited presentation to each streetscape, the additional building height is not considered to have a significant impact on surrounding properties.

The proposed building height is therefore supported for the reasons above, and the application is recommended for conditional planning approval.


Page 71

Utilities and facilities

Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle

Storage area Nil Required

As the proposed dwelling has been assessed as a Grouped Dwelling, store rooms are required. The garage has been indicated to also be a store, and it is considered that there is sufficient space for a small storeroom in addition to the garage space for storage, should the resident require it at a later date. It is noted however, that once the pending subdivision application is acted on, the two Grouped Dwellings (DA0365/15 and DA372/15), will become Single Houses. Under this provision of the R-Codes, Single Houses do not require storage areas. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents:

Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

Provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting development and renewal in designated precincts within the City.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 24 (Lot 8) Price Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved



3. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern boundary shall be

of a clean finish in either;


face brick;

painted surface; or

other approved finish.



Page 72

PSC1510-7 PRICE STREET, NO. 24 (LOT 8), FREMANTLE- TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0372/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 October 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site photographs Date Received: 31 July 2015 Owner Name: Oliver Waters and Felicity Clarke Submitted by: Seed Consultants Scheme: Residential R35 Heritage Listing: Listed (Demolished) Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 73

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City has received an application for the addition of a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 24 Price Street, Fremantle. The development has been assessed against the requirements of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), local planning policies and Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and requires Design Principle or discretionary assessment against the following design elements:

Building height;

Visual privacy; and

Rear boundary fence (screening) The application was advertised to neighbouring landowners, and as relevant submissions were received that cannot be resolved by conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbour, the application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination. The application is considered to satisfy Design Principle and discretionary criteria and is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND No. 24 Price Street, Fremantle is located on a right of way to the rear of properties fronting Price Street in Fremantle. The street block is bound by Grey Street to the north, Price Street to the south, South Terrace to the east and Marine Terrace to the west. The subject site is located in sub area 4.3.1 of the Fremantle South Local Planning Area. It is on the City’s Heritage list, however is not located within a Heritage Area. A search of the property file found the following relevant planning history:

WAPC642-15 - Subdivision application –

o Approval subject to conditions had been granted by the WAPC as of 4

September 2015. The only condition that may impact this development is No. 6-

A restrictive covenant, pursuant to section 129 BA of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (as amended) is to be placed on the certificate of title of proposed Lot 1 advising of the existence of a restriction on the use of the land. Notice of this restriction to be included on the diagram or plan of survey (deposited plan). The restrictive covenant is to state as follows: No new development shall occur within a 2.0 metre by 2.0 metre truncation of the south western corner of the lot. An advice note has been recommended to remind the applicant that this will be required should the subdivision be finalised and that this may impact the proposed fence.


Page 74

DA0324/15 – Three, Interconnected Two Storey Residential Buildings (25 September 2012)

o Refused due to being not consistent with objectives of Residential zone,

vehicle parking, building height and a number of other R-Code requirements including lot boundary setbacks.

DETAIL

On 31 July 2015, the City received an application for the addition of a two storey grouped dwelling at No. 24 Price Street, Fremantle. The proposal also includes a swimming pool and deck. This application is for the western portion of the site (as per map below).

Revised plans were received 18 August 2015, providing further detail and elevations specifically regarding fencing and the deck. Development plans are included as attachment 1. The City has received another application for a two storey Grouped Dwelling (DA0365/15) on the eastern portion of the site which is not the subject of this application but is included on this agenda as a separate item. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principle of the R-Codes. Not meeting the deemed to comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application, the areas outlined below do not meet the deemed to comply or policy provisions and need to be assessed under the design principles:

Building height;

Visual privacy; and

Rear boundary fence (screening).


Page 75

The above matters will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of the report below. CONSULTATION Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the application is seeking Design Principle and discretions against the following design elements:

Building height;

Visual privacy; and

Rear boundary fence (screening). At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 24 August 2015, the City had received three (3) submissions. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Unsure how upper floor balcony and windows impact on block;

Overlooking from bedrooms a concern;

Not sure where lot boundary is, wouldn’t want higher fencing abutting property;

Overlooking from pool deck a concern;

Trees to create a screen is positive;

Two residences preferable to previous proposal;

Noise will be excessive from swimming pool; and

Privacy screen on top of fence is 75% permeable and negates any privacy. PLANNING COMMENT Building height

Required Provided Discretion

Single storey with loft Two storey One storey

Max external wall height - 4.8m 6m 1.2m

As the prescribed building height is as per Schedule 12 of LPS4, height can only be varied using Clause 5.8.1 Variation to height requirements, as follows: 5.8.1.1 Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following –

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

The proposed two storey Single House is setback 6-10.5m from the northern property boundary. Additionally, it is separated from western and southern properties by the existing Right of Way.

Overshadowing meets Deemed-to-Comply requirements of the R-Codes and largely impacts the Right of Way.


Page 76

While an additional storey could have the potential to result in visual privacy issues, the building has been setback to ensure compliance with the R-Codes in this regard.

The proposed Single House is to the rear of existing properties facing Grey Street, South Terrace and Price Street and is unlikely to be visually dominant given it’s separation from the streetscape.

The level of open space on the proposed lot exceeds that required by the R-Codes by approximately 20%, further offsetting the potential building bulk impact.

b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the

scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality;

Buildings within the locality exhibit heights similar to and greater than those proposed in this development as follows:

15 Grey St – Two storey (detached addition), 4.95m external wall height, plus additions to existing house at approximately 5.35m;

No. 9A (Lot 2) Grey Street, Fremantle comprises a two storey Grouped Dwelling with a maximum wall height of 5.56 metres;

No. 22A (Lot 2) Price Street comprises a two storey Grouped Dwelling with a maximum wall height of up to 6.80 metres;

No 26 Price St – two storey rear addition, 6m external wall height (DA302/96); and

No. 25 Grey Street – 6m external wall height (warehouse conversion DA126/93).

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

While the subject site is on the City’s Heritage List, the buildings that were deemed to be of significance have been demolished. It is not considered that the proposed two storey Single House will impact on the significance of this site. Adjoining properties that are on the City’s Heritage List include:

No. 137 and 141 South Terrace (Level 3);

No. 25 Grey Street (Level 3);

No. 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23 Grey Street (Level 2); and

No. 26 and 28 Price Street (Level 3).

It is considered that given the sites separation from adjoining properties and the existing streetscapes, the impact on the existing Heritage Listed properties is considered to be minimal.


Page 77

d) Any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies. DGF29 Suffolk to South Streets Local Area refers to development being predominantly single storey. Given the property is significantly set back from South Price and Grey streets and is going to have limited presentation to a streetscape, the additional building height is not considered to have a significant impact on surrounding properties.

In accordance with the assessment above, the proposed building height is supported. Visual privacy


North (deck) – 7.5m Nil 7.5m

The proposed deck is proposed to surround an above ground swimming pool in the north eastern corner of the site. The deck is approximately 1.2m above ground level and therefore requires assessment against Visual Privacy requirements of the R-Codes. While the adjoining house is setback approximately 27m, it is considered appropriate to screen the deck to protect the privacy of its open space and outdoor living area. Rear boundary fence (screening)


1.8m high 1.8m Nil

500mm screening 1m 500mm

The proposed screening proposed on top of the boundary fence is supported for the following reasons:

The proposed screening is on the northern side of the property, ensuring no impact on neighbouring properties access to northern sunlight;

The screening is to satisfy visual privacy of the pool deck, which is raised 1.2m above ground;

Concerns from neighbours directly abutting the proposed screening were received regarding visual privacy from the deck and the appropriateness of the permeability of the screening to protect privacy, rather than the height and bulk of the screen;

The bulk of the additional screening will not impact significantly on the neighbouring property (No. 23 Grey St) by way of building bulk given the size of the existing rear yard (27m to the rear of the house).

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic document: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

Provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting development and renewal in designated precincts within the City.


Page 78

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 24 (Lot 8) Price Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 18 August 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


3. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0372/15, on plans

dated 18 August 2015 the pool deck located on the northern elevation shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

a) fixed obscured or translucent glass to a height of 1.60 metres above floor

level, or b) fixed with vertical screening, with openings not wider than 5cm and with a

maximum of 25% perforated surface area, to a minimum height of 1.60 metres above the floor level, or

c) a minimum sill height of 1.60 metres as determined from the internal floor level, or

d) an alternative method of screening approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

Advice notes –

i. The applicant is advised there may be restrictions in regards to keeping poultry on site. Please contact the City’s Environmental Health Officers on 9432 9999 or see the City’s website for further information http://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/residents/health-and-wellbeing/animals

ii. The applicant is advised that the Western Australian Planning Commission has conditionally approved subdivision on the site. The applicant is recommended to pay particular attention to Condition 6 – A restrictive covenant, pursuant to section 129 BA of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (as amended) is to be placed on the certificate of title of proposed Lot 1 advising of the existence of a restriction on the use of the land. Notice of this restriction to be included on the diagram or plan of survey (deposited plan). The restrictive covenant is to state as follows:

http://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/residents/health-and-wellbeing/animals


Page 79

“No new development shall occur within a 2.0 metre by 2.0 metre truncation of the south western corner of the lot”


Page 80

PSC1510-8 QUARRY STREET, NO. 45 (LOT 13), FREMANTLE PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO CONSULTING ROOMS AND ASSOCIATED SIGNAGE AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (TB DA0394/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 October 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1 - Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site Photos Date Received: 10 August 2015 Owner Name: Wavenet International Submitted by: Gosia Barley Scheme: Central City Zone Heritage Listing: Level 3 Heritage Listing Existing Landuse: Existing Single House Use Class: Consulting Rooms Use Permissibility: P


Page 81

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for the change of use of an existing Single House on the ground floor of an existing two storey building to Consulting Rooms (orthodontists). The application seeks the exercise of discretion pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) is respect to onsite car parking bays. The proposal is considered to meet the objectives of the Mixed Use zone as defined by LPS4. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND The subject site is zoned Mixed Use pursuant to the scheme maps of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The site is adopted on the City’s Heritage List and is Level 3 on the Municipal Heritage Inventory. The subject site is not located within a Heritage Area. Planning history for the site is as follows;

November 2004 – the City became aware of issues associated with the use of the private ROW. These matters are long standing and yet to be resolved with the Department of Lands.

DA442/04 – Construction of a two storey house to the rear of the existing building and change of use from medical centre to residential (density bonus).

DA649/03 – Change of use to Medical Clinic.

DA31/92.04 – Additions and Alterations to existing building

DA31/92.03 – Signage on side of existing building

DA31/92 – Construction of a rear enclosed security structure.

DA31/92.01 – Use of the existing building as an import/export office and minor alterations to the existing building

DA31/92 – Use of the existing building as a hair and body care centre. DETAIL

On 10 August 2015, the City received an application for the partial change of use to Consulting Rooms and additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 45 Quarry Street, Fremantle. Amended plans were provided on 24 September 2015 to include the location of the proposed signage. The proposal includes changes to the existing ground floor and adjoining ROW, comprising of the following:

Internal alterations, including;

o Demolition of internal walls

o Alterations to existing staircase

o Addition of major opening to Consulting Room 1.

Addition of spiral staircase in existing ROW;


Page 82

The partial change of use is for a Consulting Room (Orthodontist) and the associated signage for the business. The business is proposed to be open Monday to Friday from 9am – 5pm. It is also noted that one orthodontist will be consulting for 2-3 days per week as well as one clinical staff member assisting with patients on selected days. A total of 2-4 auxiliary staff have been proposed to work from Monday to Friday with one specialist orthodontist. Two consulting rooms have been proposed as part of the application. It is anticipated by the applicant that a total of 60-70 appointments will take place each week. The upper floor component of the proposal is to remain the same as existing, with the exception of alterations to the internal staircase. The upper floor is currently used for residential purposes, which is proposed to continue. Regarding the new spiral staircase located in the private ROW, the applicant has verbally agreed to a condition of approval deleting the staircase. The applicant is happy to use the existing internal staircase to access the upstairs residential area. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within LPS4 and Council Local Planning Policies. The application seeks the exercise of discretion under LPS4 pursuant to the onsite car parking provision. CONSULTATION Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as proposal seeks discretions under provisions of LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 14 September 2015, the City had received 1 submission. The following summarised issues were raised as part of the submission:

Increased demand for street parking along Quarry Street.

There has been a significant deterioration in availability of car parking due popular café on Quarry Street.

Discussion of the relevant matters raised is made in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.

Heritage

The City’s Heritage Coordinator has reviewed the proposal and has advised that there are no concerns in relation to the proposed internal alterations. In relation to the proposed signage on site, the Heritage Coordinator advised that signage that is not attached to the façade of the dwelling is supportable on heritage grounds.


Page 83

PLANNING COMMENT Vehicle Parking

Element Required Proposed Discretion

Existing Single House

1 onsite bay Nil See comments below

Consulting Rooms

5:1 Practitioners or* 5:1 Consulting Room (10 onsite bays) *whichever is the greater

Nil See comments below

As the existing residential land use is proposed to remain on level one of the building, one onsite car bay is required as per the Residential Design Codes. There has previously been a car parking shortfall supported for the residential land use on site. This shortfall is considered to be increased by the proposed partial change of use. Therefore, with the proposed partial change of use to Consulting Rooms the overall parking shortfall will result in a shortfall of 11 bays. Clause 5.7.3.1 (iv) of LPS4 specifies that;

‘Council may –

a) Subject to the requirements of Schedule 12, waive or reduce the standard parking requirements specified in Table 2 subject to the applicant satisfactorily justifying a reduction due to one or more of the following –

(i) the availability of car parking in the locality including street parking, (ii) the availability of public transport in the locality’

Having regard to the above, the proposed parking shortfall is considered supportable on the following grounds;

It is considered that the adjoining car parking area, which contains 160 car bays, provides availability of car parking in the locality surrounding the proposed Consulting Rooms. Additionally, on street parking is provided along Quarry Street which is also considered to provide parking within the immediate locality.

The subject site is considered to be well located in relation to availability of public transport.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Economic Development Strategy 2011 -15:

More residents; more commercial office space; more retail floor space; particularly in the Fremantle CBD.



Page 84

Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: New commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing employment

opportunities. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the partial change of use to Consulting Rooms and additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 45 Quarry Street, Fremantle at No. 45 (Lot 13) Quarry Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 24 September 2015, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 24 September 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. The signage hereby permitted shall not contain any flashing or moving light

or radio; animation or movement in its design or structure; reflective, retro-reflective or fluorescent materials in its design structure.

3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit the proposed additional staircase

shown on plans as ‘New Spiral Staircase’ that is located within the right of way is to be deleted and does not form part of this approval.


Page 85

PSC1510-9 CENTRAL AVENUE, NO. 32 (LOT 82), BEACONSFIELD TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (BP DA0397/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 October 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1: Development Plans

Attachment 2: Site Visit Photos Date Received: 11 August 2015 Owner Name: F. Hoy & S. Pawley Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential Zone R20 Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Residential Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 86

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for two storey additions and alterations to the existing Single House. The proposal is referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to a submission that is unable to be addressed through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of neighbours, as well as design principle assessments against requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and discretions against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policies (LPPs) including:

Boundary wall (south); Lot boundary setback (south); Building height (external wall).

The above design principle assessments and discretions are considered to be supportable, subject to conditions. The application is therefore recommended for planning approval. BACKGROUND The subject site is located west of York Street, south of South Street, east of Central Avenue and north of Lefroy Road. The site measures approximately 519m² and currently has a Single House on site. The site is zoned Residential under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R20. The subject site is neither adopted under the City’s Heritage list nor is it situated within a heritage area. A search of the property file revealed the following relevant planning history for the site:

On 8 December 2011, the City granted planning approval for an outbuilding addition to the existing Single House (DA0595/11).

On 12 March 2015, the City granted planning approval for additions and alterations to the existing Single House (DA0643/14). This particular application involved the approval of a 10.1m long boundary wall positioned at a similar location to this application on the southern boundary.

DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for alterations and additions to the existing single storey Single House and includes:

Living room; Additional bedroom; Study; Bathroom.

Refer to Attachment 1 for development plans.


Page 87

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principle of the R-Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the deemed-to-comply or policy provisions and need to be assessed under the design principles:

Lot boundary setback (south); Building height (external wall).

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

Boundary wall (south); The above matters will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of the report below. CONSULTATION The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as design principle assessments and policy discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 1 September 2015, the City had received 1 submission. The following issues were raised:

The height of the proposed addition would overshadow the outdoor living area of

the southern adjoining property;

The roofing material selected would result in visual discomfort to neighbours by way of excessive reflectivity;

The finish of the southern boundary wall should be of a clean finish;

Temporary fencing should be installed during the construction phase to maintain appropriate levels of security for the southern adjoining residence.

The above matters are discussed further in the Planning Comment section of the report below.


Page 88

PLANNING COMMENT Boundary Height (external wall)

Element Deemed-to-comply Proposed Discretion

External wall 6m 6.35-7.6m 0.35-1.6m

The proposed external wall height is considered to meet the design principles of R-Codes in the following ways:

The building height proposed is considered to maintain adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces. The shadow anticipated to be cast is aligned to the east of the existing dwelling; therefore not impacting on access to direct sun into the building any further from the degree of shadow currently cast. It is noted that there would be overshadowing onto the outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property, however considering the size of the outdoor living area overall, there is deemed to be a minor amount of space cast in shadow in the context of the open space afforded to the property. The shadow from the new extension would result in approximately 65m² of the open space of the southern adjoining property being overshadowed, while the approximate space of the outdoor living area overall is 252m².

Given the above, adequate access to daylight to major openings into habitable rooms is maintained through the proposed second storey addition.

There are no views of significance which would be obstructed through the proposed addition.

For the above reasons, there is not considered to be a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties through the additional external wall height being sought.

Lot boundary setback (south)


Upper floor 1.2m 0.9m 0.3m

The proposed southern lot boundary setback to the upper floor is not considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways:

The southern lot boundary setback to the upper floor would have an adverse impact on the southern adjoining property by way of the building bulk contribution.

It is recommended that the upper floor be setback 1.2 metres from the southern boundary so as to be in accordance with the deemed-to-comply provided in the R-Codes.


Page 89

Boundary Wall (south)


South 1m 0m 1m

The proposed boundary wall is considered to meet the design principles of Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development (LPP 2.4) in the following ways:

Due to the layout of the site and location of the dwelling on the southern adjoining property, the boundary wall ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for the adjoining property is not significantly restricted;

The height of the proposed boundary wall, being 3.1m, is not considered to significantly impact on the amenity of the adjoining property, given that the height of this wall would extend approximately 0.7m above the height of the existing boundary fence.

The boundary wall is significantly reduced in length from the boundary wall that was previously approved as part of DA0643/14. The length of the boundary wall in this application is 5.08m, whereas the previous application had a boundary wall to a length of 10.1m approved.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the second storey additions and alterations to the existing Single House at No. 32 (Lot 82), Central Avenue, Beaconsfield, as detailed on plans dated 11 August 2015, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 11 August 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Notwithstanding condition 1, prior to the issue of a building permit the upper

floor is to be setback a minimum distance of 1.2 metres from the southern boundary.

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

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 4. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern boundary shall

be of clean finish in either;


face brick;



Page 90

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


Page 91

PSC1510-10 BADHAM CLOSE, NO. 7 (LOT 11), BEACONSFIELD - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING OUTBUILDING AND ADDITION OF OUTBUILDING TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0319/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 October 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site Photographs Date Received: 8 July 2015 Owner Name: John Babic and Julie Gray Submitted by: Bauhaus Design Scheme: Residential R20 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P


Page 92

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City has received an application for the demolition of an existing Outbuilding and addition of a larger Outbuilding at No. 7 Badham Close, Beaconsfield. The proposed Outbuilding was required to be advertised, as the proposal did not meet the following Deemed to Comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes):

Lot boundary setbacks;

Boundary walls; and

Outbuildings. Submissions objecting to the proposal were received from neighbouring landowners. Revised plans were received, and due to an additional boundary wall being proposed to the south, the application was re-advertised with further submissions received. The proposed Outbuilding has been assessed against the Design Principles of the R-Codes and is supported, however due to relevant objections to planning matters received, the application is referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination. The application is recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND No. 7 Badham Close, Beaconsfield is located at the end of the Close in the Fremantle South Local Planning Area. The street block is surrounded by Grosvenor Street to the north, Lefroy Road to the south, Badham Close to the east and Howell Vista to the west. The site is located in the Residential zone and is allocated a density of R20. The site is not on the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory, however is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. Previous planning history for the site includes the replacement of a patio (DA0263/15). DETAIL

On 8 July 2015, the City received an application for the demolition of an existing Outbuilding and the addition of a larger Outbuilding of approximately 120m2 floor area at No. 7 Badham Close, Beaconsfield. As a result of submissions received, the applicant chose to amend the plans (dated 12 August 205) as follows:

Reduction of dimensions from 16m x 7.5m (120sqm) to 15m x 7.5m (112.5sqm);

Reduction of roof pitch height from 3.661sqm to 3.361sqm;

Reduction of external wall height from 3m to 2.7m;

Increase of western lot boundary setback from 0.2m to 0.7m;

Reduction of southern lot boundary setback from 1.5m to 0.5m; and

Increase of minimum eastern lot boundary setback from 0.2m to 0.7m. The application was re-advertised with further submissions received, which required the application to be presented to the PSC. Revised development plans are included as attachment 1.


Page 93

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principle of the R-Codes. Not meeting the deemed to comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the deemed to comply or policy provision and need to be assessed under the design principles:


Boundary walls; and

Outbuilding. The above matters will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of the report below. CONSULTATION Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the application is seeking Design Principle assessments and discretions against the following design elements:


Boundary walls; and

Outbuildings.

At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 6 August 2015, the City had received five (5) submissions that raised the following comments (summarised):

Not compliant with R-Codes;

Would prefer nothing taller or bigger than existing outbuilding;

Support if complies with R-Codes;

Setback of 3m from driveway requested;

Shed should be colorbond;

Floor plan incorrect;

If used as children’s play room should be insulated; and

Suggest reduce height to 2.7m.


Page 94

The applicant was provided with the submissions, and chose to amend the plans. As an additional boundary wall was proposed, the application was re-advertised. At the conclusion of the additional advertising period, being 1 September 2015, the City had received five (5) submissions that raised the following comments (summarised):

Not compliant with R-Codes;

Outbuilding size excessive - existing one overshadows already;

Shed should be insulated for noise;

Confusion about floor level in relation to driveway; and

Outbuilding should be setback 3m from driveway.

PLANNING COMMENT Lot boundary setbacks (west)


1m 700mm 300mm

The reduced lot boundary setback is supported against the Design Principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The amount of building bulk created by the new outbuilding to the western neighbour will not be dissimilar to the existing outbuilding on the site. It is proposed to be the same length and located in the same location;

The proposed lot boundary setback to the west will not restrict access to northern sunlight or ventilation for the adjoining property; and

The proposed lot boundary setback will not result in overlooking or impact on privacy, given the outbuilding is non-habitable.

Boundary walls (south)


1.5m 500mm 1m

The boundary wall to the south is not considered to a significant impact on the amenity of the southern neighbour and is supported against the Design Principles and Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls for the following reasons:

Given the proposed boundary wall spans the length of the lot, it provides additional privacy for the neighbour to the south and the occupant, and their open space;

The southern property has portions of their northern setback area used for vehicle parking;

Major openings will not be impacted by the proposed outbuilding;


Page 95

Ventilation will still be achievable for the southern Grouped Dwelling as openings are setback approximately 10m from the boundary, and the patio is setback between approximately 3m and 7.0m;

Areas of outdoor living area may be impacted, however as are currently covered by a patio, is considered to have a limited impact by way of shadow;

The proposed outbuilding is to the rear of the site and will have minimal impact on the prevailing development context and streetscape;

The 2.7m high boundary wall is setback 500mm from the boundary and is not considered to have a significant amount of building bulk.

Outbuildings


Do not exceed 60sqm 112.5m2 52.5m2

Wall height 2.4m 2.7m 300mm

Comply with setback requirements

See lot boundary setback above

The proposed outbuilding is supported against the Design Principles of the R- Codes for the following reasons:

The proposed outbuilding is to the rear of the site and has minimal presentation to the streetscape;

The proposed outbuilding has been assessed to be suitable in size and is considered have minimal impact on the amenity of surrounding properties.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the demolition of Outbuilding and proposed Outbuilding addition to existing Single House at No. 7 (Lot 11) Badham Close, Beaconsfield, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 12 August 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

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


Page 96

3. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern boundary shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;


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


Page 97

PSC1510-11 ATTFIELD STREET, NO. 85 (LOT 6), FREMANTLE SINGLE STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (BP DA0336/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 October 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1: Development Plans

Attachment 2: Site Visit Photos Date Received: 17 July 2015 Owner Name: C. Jefferies Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential Zone R30 Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Residential Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 98

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for single storey side and rear alterations and additions to the existing Single House. The proposal is referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to a submission that is unable to be addressed through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of neighbours, as well as design principle assessments against requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and discretions against the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policies (LPPs) including:

Boundary wall (north).

The above design principle assessments and discretions are considered to be supportable subject to setting back a component of the northern boundary wall. The application is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND The subject site is located west of east of Carnac Street, south of Norman Street, north of South Street and west of Attfield Street. The site measures approximately 369m² and currently has a Single House on site. The site is zoned Residential under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R30. The subject site is neither adopted under the City’s Heritage list nor is it situated within a heritage area. A search of the property file revealed no relevant planning history for the site. DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for alterations and additions to the existing single storey Single House and includes:

Studio; Bathroom; Storeroom; Garage; and Deck

Refer to Attachment 1 for development plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies. Some of the City’s policies replace or augment the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. In this application Council has the ability, through its policy provisions, to apply discretion in the following areas when determining the application:


Page 99

Boundary wall (north);

The above matters will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of the report below. CONSULTATION Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as design principle assessments and policy discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 13 August 2015, the City had received 1 submission. The following issues were raised:

The proposed northern boundary wall has an adverse building bulk impact on

the adjoining property.

The northern boundary wall would block light into windows of the northern adjoining property.

The construction of the boundary wall would impede access to the limestone wall which is important for maintenance.

The window to the loft space of the studio addition would result in an intrusion of privacy.

The studio addition at the rear would meet the definition of an Ancillary Dwelling.

PLANNING COMMENT Boundary Walls


North 1.5m 0-0.2m 0.8-1m

The proposed boundary wall is not considered to meet the design principles of Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Boundary Walls in Residential Development (LPP 2.4) in the following ways:

The boundary wall is situated on approximately 74.6% of the northern boundary. As such the boundary wall is considered to have an adverse impact through the length of the wall being sought, which consequently contributes towards excess building bulk. Further, the studio boundary wall to the rear abuts an outdoor living area to the north, which is considered to be a more sensitive area in relation to the effect of building bulk on the amenity of the adjoining property.

It is recommended that the studio addition at the rear be set back 1.5 metres from the northern adjoining boundary so as to ameliorate the building bulk impact. It is considered that the height and length of the proposed garage boundary wall, being 2.7m and 6.05m, respectively, would have a minor impact in comparison and would not unduly disrupt the amenity of the northern adjoining neighbour.


Page 100

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil CONCLUSION The application is recommended for conditional planning approval on the basis that the studio addition at the rear is to be setback 1.5 metres from the northern boundary. Despite this condition, Council may be of the view to setback the garage a maximum of 450mm from the northern boundary, which still allow for the width of the garage to meet Australian Standard 2890.1. Such a planning condition would read as follows:

“Notwithstanding condition 1, prior to the issue of a building permit the proposed northern wall of the garage is to be setback 0.45metres from the northern boundary, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.”


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the alterations and additions to the existing Single House at No. 85 (Lot 6) Attfield Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 17 July 2015, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 17 July 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Notwithstanding condition 1, prior to the issue of a building permit the

proposed northern wall of the studio addition is to be setback a minimum distance of 1.5 metres from the northern boundary, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 4. Prior to occupation, the proposed boundary wall on the northern elevation shall

be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;

painted surface; or

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


Page 101

PSC1510-12 LIME STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 217), NORTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO FIVE (5) MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING - (AA DA0399/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 October 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1302-20 Attachments: 1 – Development plans

2 – Approved development plans (VA0010/14) 3 – Site Photos 4 – Applicants response to submission Date Received: 11 August 2015 Owner Name: Lime 217 Pty Ltd Submitted by: TPG Planning & Urban Design Scheme: Mixed Use (R25) Heritage Listing: North Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Multiple Dwellings & Office Use Class: Multiple Dwellings Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 102

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for the partial change of use of existing Office tenancies on the ground (units 1-4) and first floor (unit 5) of an existing mixed use development to Multiple Dwellings. The change of use includes the fitout of tenancies for residential purposes in a way that can be converted back to a non-residential use in the future. The original development achieved a density bonus up to the R60 code, from the prevailing R25 code or the basis a ‘mixed use development’ was achieved. This relied entirely on the five tenancies in question containing non-residential uses. The proposed change of use means that the density bonus available under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) would no longer apply. If this was the case upon first application for the development, at the R25 code, the development could not have been approved; based on the minimum site area requirements of the R-Codes. The application is recommended for refusal as a result. BACKGROUND The subject site is zoned Mixed Use under the provisions of the City LPS4 with a density coding of R25. The site is located within the North Fremantle Local Planning Area under the provisions of LPS4. The site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List and the Municipal Heritage Inventory, but is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area. The subject site is located on the eastern side of Lime Street, North Fremantle and has a site area of approximately 1,125m2. The site is developed as a three storey mixed use development containing 11 Multiple Dwellings and 5 Office tenancies. On 12 February 2013 the City granted planning approval for the existing ‘Three storey mixed use development’ (DA0550/12) at the subject site. On 14 April 2014 the City granted variations to the planning approval DA0550/12 which resulted in minor design and façade treatment modifications (VA0010/14). On 27 October 2014, the City granted a building permit pursuant to VA0010/14 and construction of the development has since progressed onsite. DETAIL The application seeks planning approval to change the use of five existing office tenancies to a flexible planning approval encompassing both the Office land use and a Multiple Dwelling land use. The application includes internal alterations to accommodate the potential fit out of each tenancy as a Multiple Dwelling. Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1.


Page 103

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. The proposed development seeks discretion relating to density under LPS4 and the R-Codes. CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the land use sought requires advertising under LPS4. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 19 September 2015, the City had not received any submissions. However one late submission was received which raised concern regarding the impact of the proposal the availability of parking in the area. The applicant provided a response to the objection raised, which is included in this report at Attachment 4). PLANNING COMMENT 5.1.1 Site area & density Clause 5.2.5 of LPS4 specifies that;

‘Notwithstanding the requirements of clause 5.2.3 residential density in the Local Centre, Neighbourhood Centre and Mixed Use zones may be increased up to R60, where residential development is part of a mixed use development, where, in the opinion of Council the proposal is not detrimental to the amenity of the area.’

A ‘mixed use development’ is defined in Schedule 1 of LPS4 as;

‘when used in relation to a Planning Application, a combination of one or more of the residential use classes specified in Table 2 – Zoning and any other land use or uses, and where the residential use class and any other one use class each comprise a minimum of 25 per cent of the gross lettable area of the development.’

The original development application (DA0474/12) achieved the requisite mix of land use specified above and included 866m2 of residential plot ratio area spread across 11 Multiple Dwellings. This resulted in a plot ratio of 0.77, considered against the R60 criteria of 0.7. The non-residential uses made up at least 25% of the net lettable area of the development, thereby triggering 5.2.5 above. The subject site is coded R25 under the R-Codes and as a result, development of Multiple Dwellings is assessed against the minimum site area requirements of the R-Codes; in this case being 300m2 per dwelling.


Page 104

In approving DA0474/12, a density bonus up to the R60 code was applied based on the development being considered a mixed use development. At the R60 code, there are no minimum lot or density requirements. Had DA0474/12 not been considered a mixed use development, it would not have been approved under LPS4 citing the minimum site area requirements of the R-Codes. Modifying the substantially commenced development to remove the non-residential uses removes the ability for the development to be considered mixed use and as a result, it is submitted that the base R25 code applies. However, clause 5.8.2.1 of LPS4 specifies that;

‘The Council may vary other requirements of the Scheme subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following:

a) The variation will not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or within

the locality generally; b) Conservation of the cultural heritage values of building on-site and adjoining; and, c) Any other relevant matter outline in Council’s local planning policies.

It is recognised that this provision cannot be used as a basis to vary the density code applicable to the site, or the definition of a ‘mixed use development’ as contained in Schedule 1 of LPS4. However, the provision may apply to instances where the City, in applying clause 5.2.3 of LPS4, considers that ‘residential development is part of a mixed use development’. Other development elements If approved the development may result in other elements of planning discretion such as vehicle parking and provision of external store rooms. These elements have not been assessed given the clear view of officers is to refuse the application. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents:

Diverse and Affordable Housing Policy: Provision of housing which is diverse and affordable to meet the current and future needs of the City’s residents to increase the amount of affordable and diverse housing options.

The applicant notes that the proposal has been designed to allow dwellings to be converted (relatively easily) back to non-residential spaces in the future. This clearly provides a diverse form of housing for perspective residents.


Page 105

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial change of use from Office to five (5) Multiple Dwellings and alterations to existing building at No. 14 (Lot 217) Lime Street, North Fremantle , as detailed on plans dated 11 August 2015, for the following reason:

1. The proposed development does not meet the minimum site area requirements of Design Element 5.1.1 (as per Table 1) of the R-Codes pursuant to the R25 code.


Page 106

PSC1510-13 CATTALINI LANE (LOT6) NO. 9 NORTH FREMANTLE ONE SIX STOREY BUILDING AND TWO FIVE STOREY BUILDINGS AND BASEMENT LEVEL (104 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS (DAP009/15 AA)

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 12)

Property Location: No. 9 (Lot 6) Cattalini Lane, North Fremantle

Application Details: One six storey building and two five storey buildings and basement level (104 Multiple Dwellings)

DAP Name: Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel

Applicant: PTS Town Planning Pty Ltd

Owner: Rockingham Park Pty Ltd

LG Reference: DAP009/15

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

Department of Planning File No: DAP/15/00738

Report Date: 7 October 2015

Application Receipt Date: 3 August 2015

Application Process Days: 90 days

Attachment(s): 1: Development plans (21 September 2015) 2: Location plan 3: Advice of Department of Petroleum and Mines 4: Advice of Department of Environment Regulation 5: Advice of Fremantle Port Authority 6: Advice of Main Roads Western Australia 7: Site photos

Recommendation: That the South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel: APPROVE DAP Application reference DAP/15/00738 (City of Fremantle reference DAP009/15), in accordance with plans dated 21 September 2015, in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, subject the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved



Page 107

2. Notwithstanding condition 1, Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the

applicant shall submit;

a) Details of façade materials, colours, textures and detailing; b) Details confirming ceiling heights of a minimum 2.7m in habitable areas; c) Plans demonstrating a modified layout of dwellings to improve access to the

sun and to cross ventilation; and, d) Details of screening material to roof mounted air conditioners.

to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle, on advice of the City of Fremantle Design Advisory Committee. 3. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the development shall be designed

and thereafter maintained so as to meet the relevant Australian Standards relating to noise and vibration from nearby railway and port infrastructure, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle, on advice of the Public Transport Authority (WA).


5. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP009/15, the

car parking and loading area(s), and vehicle access and circulation areas shown on the approved site plan, including the provision of disabled car parking, shall be constructed, drained, and line marked and provided in accordance with Clause 5.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP009/15 on

plans dated 21 September 2015, a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land that the subject site is located in close proximity to the Fremantle Port and may be subject to noise, odour and activity not normally associated with residential use. The notification is to be prepared by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties prior to occupation.

7. Prior to occupation of the development, at least 46 bicycle parking racks shall be provided in accordance with Design Element 6.3.3 of the Residential Design Codes (as amended) and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.


Page 108

8. The design and construction of the development is to meet the 4 star green star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Twelve (12) months after practical completion of the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle;

a) a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia

certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars, or

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

9. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the southern boundary to

Walter Place shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;


other approved finish and be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle. Advice Note(s) i. It is recommended that prior to commencement of development the owner

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

ii. The applicant is advised that the City does not collect waste from basement areas of buildings.

iii. The applicant is advised to contact the City’s Parks and Landscapes department regarding future landscaping works to the Curtin Avenue and Walter Place verge areas.

iv. It is recommended that the applicant and/or owner submit a Construction Management Plan to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle addressing the following matters:

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


Page 109

g) Site offices; h) Noise - Construction work and deliveries; i) Sand drift and dust management; j) Waste management; k) Dewatering; l) Traffic management; and m) Works affecting pedestrian areas. The Demolition and Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the demolition of the existing building on site and construction of the new development. It is advised that Local Planning Policy 1.10 is reviewed in formulating the Demolition and Construction Management Plan.

Background:

Insert Property Address: No. 9 (Lot 6) Cattalini Lane, North Fremantle

Insert Zoning MRS: Urban

TPS: Development Zone (Development Plan 17)

Insert Use Class: Multiple Dwellings

Insert Strategy Policy: Schedule 14 – Development Plan 17

Insert Development Scheme: Local Planning Scheme No. 4

Insert Lot Size: 3575m2

Insert Existing Land Use: Vacant

Value of Development: $28,000,000

The subject site is located on the north-western corner of Walter Place and Curtin Avenue, North Fremantle. The site consists of 3,575m2 of site area which is currently vacant of significant improvement (see Attachment 2). The lot is zoned as ‘Development Zone’ under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is subject to the provisions of Development Plan 17 (DP17) adopted under Schedule 14 of LPS4. The site is adopted on the City’s Heritage List but is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area under LPS4. The subject site exists within an area of redevelopment centred around Freeman Loop to the north. The northern side of Freeman Loop consists of existing 5 storey residential apartments. The Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) has previously granted approval for ‘207 Multiple Dwellings, commercial tenancies and basement car parking’ (DAP80003/14) and ‘Six storey (and basement) Hotel’ (DAP001/15) on lots on the southern side of Freeman Loop but north of the subject site. The title of the subject site includes a number of notices and encumbrances. The title details of relevance to this application are set out in the table below;


Page 110

Reference Interest Summary

K622977 Notification under Section 165 of the Planning and Development Act 2005

Identifies that the site is located nearby to Fremantle Port and may be impacted by these operations.

K622978 Restrictive covenant to the Commissioner of Main Roads

Access to the site cannot be obtained via Curtin Avenue

DP55276 Easement Provides rights of access to Leighton Beach Boulevard.

M364451 Memorial Contaminated Sites Act

Identifies the land as being ‘remediated for restricted uses’.

The application was originally submitted by the applicant on 3 August 2015. On 21 September 2015, the applicant submitted amended plans relocating the proposed basement driveway and ramp structure (see Attachment 1). This report discusses the proposal in the context of the amended development plans dated 16 September 2015. Details: outline of development application The proposed development consists of the construction of three x five and a six storey buildings containing 104 Multiple Dwellings in total. The specific details of the development application are as follows;

Three buildings consisting of one six storey building and two, smaller, five storey buildings;

A basement level containing 117 vehicle bays including 38 bays provided in car-stackers;

The provision of 46 bicycle parking bays and 104 external storerooms across the subject site;

3 visitor parking bays located on the subject site adjoining Cattalini Lane;

104 Multiple Dwellings including 68 single bedroom dwellings and 36 two bedroom dwellings;

A rooftop containing plant and equipment;

Vehicle access to the site provided to Leighton Beach Boulevard via an access easement of adjoining Lot 5 (No. 35 Leighton Beach Boulevard) and Lot 3 (No. 29 Leighton Beach Boulevard).

Amended development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. Legislation & policy: Legislation Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4);

Table 2 – Vehicle Parking requirements;

Clause 5.8.2 – Discretionary clause to vary other requirements;

Claus 5.8.3 – Consideration of adjoining owners;


Page 111

Clause 5.8.4 – Additional criteria that must be taken into consideration by Council in excising its powers under clause 5.8.1.1;

Clause 11.8 – Design Advisory Committee;

Schedule 11 – Development Areas; and

Schedule 14 – Development plan 17 (DP3B). Local Policies

Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals;

Local Planning Policy 1.9 – Design Advisory Committee & Principles of Design;

Local Planning Policy 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements; and

DGN14 – Leighton Design Guidelines. Consultation: Public Consultation The planning application was identified as a ‘Significant Application’ as set out in Council’s LPP1.3. The application was advertised for a period of 28 days and included the following actions

A sign notice being placed on the development site;



the Precinct Groups were informed of the proposal;

Two notices relating to the proposal were placed in the Fremantle Gazette;

A community information session held on 3 September 2015. There were no external attendees to this meeting other than the applicant.

No submissions were received from members of the community relating to the application. The amended plans received 21 September 2015 were not readvertised as they are not considered to introduce any additional significant exercise of discretion. Department of Mines and Petroleum The application was referred to the Department of Petroleum & Mines for comment as the subject site exists nearby to significant petroleum infrastructure at Walter Place. On 11 September 2015 the department provided a response to the City (see Attachment 3). The submission notes further consideration would be made by the Departments ‘Resources Safety Division’. At the time of writing this report, no advice had been received from this division.


Page 112

Department of Environment Regulation The application was referred to the Department of Environment Regulation (‘DER’) as the site is noted as being ‘Remediated for Restricted Uses’ under the department’s contaminated sites database. On 24 August 2015 the DER provide advice to the City (see Attachment 4) which raised no objection to the development proposal. The advice notes that should the development plan change and ground water be disturbed, a site-specific health and safety plan may need implementation. Fremantle Port Authority The subject site is located within Area 3 of the Fremantle Port Buffer Area (FPA). The application was referred to the Fremantle Port Authority for comment. On 17 August 2015, the City received a response (see Attachment 5) which advised that the subject site should include a memorial on title advising of potential impacts on future residents from the nearby port operations. Main Roads Western Australia The application was referred to Main Roads WA (‘MRWA’) for comment as the subject site adjoins a road reserved under the MRS as a Primary Regional Road; Curtin Avenue and Walter Place, North Fremantle. On 8 September 2015, MRWA provided a response to the City (see Attachment 6) raising the following comments;

No vehicle access shall be obtained from Walter Place or Curtin Avenue;

The applicant is required to undertake a transport noise assessment in accordance with State Planning Policy 5.4; and,

No development, earthworks or stormwater shall affect the road reservation areas and the applicant shall make good any damage to these areas.

It is noted that the applicant has provided a transport noise assessment in accordance with SPP5.4 as part of the development application package. The recommendation of the report has been integrated into the design of the development. The amended plans were provided to MRWA for any additional comment. On 16 September 2015 MRWA advised that the original comment provided remained unchanged. Design Advisory Committee (internal) The application was referred to the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) on 13 April 2015 and 10 August 2015 for comment on the basis of the height of the proposal.


Page 113

DAC minutes of the 13 April 2015 meeting are as follows;

CABE DESIGN PRINCIPLES CHARACTER The Committee responded positively to the proposed building form and applauded the proposed use of crisp clean detailing with high quality materials. However, the quality of detailing needs to be high to maintain the design intent demonstrated. And, while it is acknowledged that some of the final material choices are not yet fully resolved, the choice of materials will also be critical. The Committee therefore requires evidence of final detailing and choice of materials. In addition, a number of elevational inconsistences need to be corrected for the next presentation to the Committee. CONTINUITY AND ENCLOSURE More permeability and opportunity for interaction is needed in the northern public space shared with the Mirvac development. Several design solutions could be introduced to improve these aspects and may include reducing the extent of solid front fencing, providing appropriate landscaping, and changing levels. QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM While it is disappointing not to see any ground floor public activation, it is acknowledged that the Leighton Design Guidelines do not require ground floor commercial uses in this particular location. EASE OF MOVEMENT The Committee supported the proposed vehicle access configuration that reduces the area of public road and increases the opportunity for provision of a permeable community space This matter needs to be negotiated between the adjoining landowners and resolved prior to the submission of a planning application. A single ramp to basement parking, shared between the two adjacent landowners, is preferred. However this vehicle access option should not lock the adjoining landowner into a prescribed design. Shifting the ramp further north, while potentially being more costly, will provide more flexibility in terms of location of vehicle access to the adjoining property. LEGIBILITY The above issue did not arise during the presentation ADAPTABILITY The above issue did not arise during the presentation DIVERSITY


Page 114

The above issue did not arise during the presentation OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY

It is disappointing to see that the solar orientation of the 2 southern pods is compromised.

The final location of aircon units needs to be factored into the design such that they are located on the roof with appropriate screening (preferred) or screened from view on balconies.

APPROPRIATENESS OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES See comments in the character section above. GENERAL COMMENTS

Blast zone issue and its effect on the design still needs to be resolved, as acknowledged by planning consultant,

inconsistencies between scheme v DGs re visual permeability still need to be resolved.

DESIGN ASSESSMENT WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS

Generally supportive of the design approach and other well considered aspects

Proposed crisp clean detailing and high quality materials

Small number of south and some west facing windows to ameliorate noise.

2.7m floor to ceiling height offers apartments good internal amenity.

Single vehicle ramp to basement car parking proposed to be shared with adjoining Landcorp development to avoid the need for two ramps.

HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED

Improve solar access for those units that do not have north-facing rooms. Improve cross ventilation wherever possible.

Respond positively, in design terms, to points made in the above discussion. RECOMMENDATION As the design is at concept stage only, the plans have not progressed to a stage where they can be recommended for support or not, however the Committee response to the preliminary design is generally positive, subject to the improvements suggested above.


Page 115

At its meeting of 10 August 2015 the DAC made the following resolution;

‘GENERAL COMMENTS

The Committee encourages the applicant to continue their discussion with the adjoining northern landowners regarding the eastern extension of the vehicle access between the two properties. DESIGN ASSESSMENT WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS Internal planning has improved since the DAC last saw concept plans HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED As currently proposed, the roof plant will be quite visible from the highway, so care will be needed in its final design and detailing. Provision of a minimum of 2.7m floor to ceiling heights in living areas. Design modifications as suggested by the applicant to improve access to natural light and ventilation. RECOMMENDATION The design is supported subject to the following condition; Prior to the issue of a building permit the applicant is to provide additional details regarding the following matters to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer - City of Fremantle on further advice from the Design Advisory Committee: a) Details of façade materials, colours, textures, and detailing. b) Floor to ceiling heights of a minimum 2.7m in habitable areas. c) Modified unit designs, as suggested by the applicant, to improve access to the

sun and to cross ventilation d) Air conditioners to be located on the roof and appropriately screened.’

A condition reflecting the above is recommended. Infrastructure and project delivery (internal) The application was referred internally to the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery department. The department raised no comments or objections to the proposal. Parks and landscapes (internal) The application was referred to the City’s Parks and Landscapes department for comment. On 12 August 2015 the department advised that all verge works, including landscaping shall be referred and approved by that department prior to commencement of works on-site. The advice also noted the potential difficulties in provided street trees to the Walter Place/Curtin Avenue street verges but recognises that this matter can be resolved at a later time. An advice note reflecting this situation is recommended.


Page 116

Waste management (internal) The application was referred internally to the City’s Waste Management department. The department raised no comments or objections to the proposal. Planning assessment: Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (Schedule 14) – Development Plan 17 Leighton North Fremantle The subject site is located within the Development Zone, which under LPS4 includes the following objectives:

‘The purpose of the Development Zone is to provide for future residential, industrial, commercial or other uses in accordance with a comprehensive structure plan or detailed area plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme.’

The site is subject to the requirements of the Leighton Marshalling Yards Planning Guidelines Development Area Structure Plan (DP17), in Schedule 14 of LPS4, the requirements of which are discussed below.

Element Development plan

requirement

Provided Discretion sought

Building height (DP4)

5 storeys (26.5m AHD)

6 storeys (26.55m AHD)

5 storeys (+0.5m AHD)

The proposed building height is supported pursuant to the provisions of clause 5.8.2.1 of LPS4, for the following reasons;

As demonstrated by the diagram below (provided by the applicant) the proposal is only marginally higher than the specified 26.5m AHD limit over the northern portion of the subject site, but significantly lower than this criteria over the southern portion;

Subject to the recommendations of condition 2 of the officers recommendation, officers and the City’s DAC note no concern with the level of internal amenity of the proposal resulting from the lesser floor to ceiling heights proposed than could otherwise be achieved by a five storey proposal;

The proposal broadly meets the setback criteria set out in DP17 and is significantly below the plot ratio criteria for DP4 (specified at 3:1). This suggests that the proposal is of a bulk and scale consistent with that intended under DP17.


Page 117


requirement


Vehicle parking 122 bays 120 bays (117 in basement, 3 at grade bays to Cattalini Lane

2 bays

The exercise of discretion under DP17 is supported for the following reasons;

The subject site is located nearby to significant public transport infrastructure at North Fremantle Railway Station and along Stirling Highway;

There are opportunities for off-site vehicle parking, predominately suited to visitors, nearby to the subject site along Leighton Beach Boulevard, the Leighton Beach Surf Club and Freeman Loop;

The development consists mostly of single bedroom Multiple Dwellings which are likely to generate a lesser demand for parking.


Page 118


requirement


Vehicle parking (visitor parking)

10% of total required bays = 12.2 (13 bays)

3.6% (3 bays) 6.4% (7 bays)

DP17 specifies that 10% of all bays required should be provided as visitor bays. The exercise of discretion under DP17 for the lesser amount of visitor bays is supported for the same reasons as stated above. Primarily, the significant opportunities for off-site visitor parking nearby to the subject site are cited as the key reason to vary these criteria. Local Planning Policy DGN14 – Leighton Development Area Design Guidelines The subject site is identified as site ‘DP4’ under the Leighton Development Area Design Guidelines policy (DGN14). DGN14 cover a number of matters including streetscape, the impact of coastal conditions, pedestrian access and shelter. These matters are considered to have generally formed part of the City’s DAC consideration of the proposal. Matters of legibility, material durability and streetscape composition are included in the term of reference for the City’s DAC. As a result these matters are not specifically addressed in this report.

Element Policy requirement


Setback – East boundary

3m to first four levels

1.5m-3.6m (average beyond

3.0m)

Up to 1.5m

6m to fifth level 1.8m-3.6m Up to 4.2m

Setback – East corner boundary

4.5m to fifth level Nil – 4.4m Up to 4.5m

Setback – West 4.5m to first four levels

3.0m Up to 1.5m

7.5m to fifth level 5.5m Up to 2.0m

Setback – North 12m to fifth level 9.0m to fifth floor Up to 3.0m

The proposal includes a number of discretion elements relating to the setback of buildings to boundaries. While there are a number of elements that do not meet the prescribed criteria, the following elements are noted;

In relation to the eastern boundary setbacks, the proposal meets an average setback equal to or beyond the stated criteria;

The setbacks to the west and northern boundaries do not meet the criteria purely on the basis that a 6 storey building is proposed instead of a 5 storey building. DGN14 specifies setbacks in terms of storeys to a building, rather than a relative height.


Page 119

On that basis, the setbacks proposed are supported for the following reasons;

The proposal is significantly under the plot ratio criteria set out in DGN14, suggesting that the buildings proposed are of a bulk and scale consistent with the intent of the policy;

The proposed buildings are articulated in the same way as set out in DGN14; that is a hard edged wall to lower levels with a setback to the upper floor; and,

The lesser setbacks do not result in any impact on adjoining sites in terms of solar access or unreasonable loss of views of significance.

Outdoor living area


Provided Design principle assessment

Outdoor living area size

10m2 48 balconies are 8m2 or 9m2

1-2m2

A number of balconies on the upper floor of the development are smaller than that specified in the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. The design principle assessment is supported for the following reasons;

Each balcony meets the minimum 2.4m dimension criteria meaning, despite the overall lesser size, each balcony is of a usable dimension;

The balconies are provided to the single bedroom Multiple Dwellings. These dwellings, given they’re likely to be less densely occupied, are likely to generate a lesser need for a larger outdoor living area.

Visual privacy



West – North building –

Multiple balconies

6.0m 3.0m 3.0m

2 x southern buildings – opposing

balconies to each floor

12.0m 11.5m 0.5m

The proposed design principle assessments are supported for the following reasons;

There is no development existing, approved or proposed on the western adjoining property. Moreover the area affected by the cone-of-vision from the west facing balconies is likely to consist of a vehicle access way;

The balconies to the two southern buildings are offset (on all floors) from each other to discourage direct overlooking. The design principle assessment sought is otherwise considered a minor in nature.


Page 120

Utilities and facilities



External storeroom

4m2 per dwelling with a minimum

dimension of 1.5m

104 store rooms some with a

lesser area than 4m2 (as small as

1.6m2) and a lesser minimum than 1.5m2 (as

small as 0.8m in dimension)

See comments

The application includes a sufficient number of external store areas for the number of dwellings proposed. However a number of store rooms do not meet the minimum 4m2 area and a number have unusual dimensions due to their position and shape. Overall however, there is considered to be sufficient external storage available to each dwelling. There are also further opportunities for provision of additional areas to the proposed ground floor terrace/private garden areas. Noise and vibration DGN14 specifies that development nearby to railway infrastructure ought to demonstrate compliance with the relevant Australian Standards. The application was referred to the Public Transport Authority (PTA), as operators of the adjacent railway infrastructure. The PTA raised no objection to the proposal based on the noise and vibration modelling provided with the application. A condition of approval requiring review and implementation of the measures raised in the modelling is recommended. Odour and risk hazard Clause 7.3 of DP17 specifies that a notification be placed on the titles of new dwellings advising future owners of potential odour impacts. A condition of approval is recommended reflecting this clause. DP17 also notes that development within 300m of petroleum infrastructure at Walter Place be orientated and developed in a way that responds to a number of risk hazard provisions. The subject site is located within 70m of this infrastructure. At the time of writing this report, no response from the Department of Petroleum and Mines had be received relating to this matter. It is likely a response will be provided prior to consideration by the JDAP and suitable conditions and/or advice notes recommended. It is noted that the City has previously granted planning approval for the demolition of infrastructure referred above (DA0216/15 & DA0233/15). The approved demolition has recently been completed. Removal of this infrastructure has removed the need to mitigate the risk hazard referred above.


Page 121

Sustainable building design The proposed development is required to achieve a rating of not less than 4 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia (‘GCBA’) rating tool pursuant to LPP2.13; or an equivalent rating. A condition of approval reflecting this is recommended. It is noted that DGN14 specifies a range of criteria relating to building performance, water management and sustainability of materials. These matters are considered to be sufficiently covered by the criteria of LPP2.13 as specified above. No further conditions relating to the criteria set out in DGN14 are recommended. Fremantle Port buffer area As discussed earlier in this report, a condition of approval requiring compliance with the Fremantle Port Buffer Area 3 requirements is recommended. Conclusion: The application has been assessed against the relevant statutory requirements, and is recommended for conditional approval.


Page 122

PSC1510-14 SOUTH TERRACE (LOT 5) NO. 92 FREMANTLE - REPORT ON MASSING PROPOSAL FOR PROPOSED THREE STOREY ADDITION TO REAR OF THE EXISTING SYNAGOGUE BUILDING (SS DA0301/13)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 October 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: DA0696/05, DA0267/11, DA0521/11, DA0610/11,

DA0073/12, DA0460/12, DA0013/13 & DA0301/13 Attachment 1: Development Plans & Conservation Works Remaining

plans Attachment 2: Previous Council Report DA0301/13 Attachment 3: Heritage Council advice dated 2 June 2015 Attachment 4: Internal Heritage Advice Attachment 5: Photographs of site Attachment 6: Department of Lands Response dated 10 July 2013 and 8

July 2015 Attachment 7: Applicants Response to DAC Comments June 2015 Attachment 8: DAC amended Façade Composition Plans Date Received: 23 March 2015 Owner Name: Roger McKimm Submitted by: Roger McKimm MRS Scheme: Central City Zone LPS4: Not Zoned Heritage Listing: State Register Heritage Places; Heritage List (LPS4);

West End Conservation Area; Convict Establishment Heritage Area and Level 1A on Municipal Heritage Inventory.

Existing Landuse: Partially Vacant – Place of Worship (Synagogue) Use Class: Hotel Use Permissibility: N/A


Page 123

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fremantle (the City) is in receipt of a planning application which includes:

1) A change of use from Place of Worship to Hotel, 2) Internal fit-out of existing Building and 3) A three storey addition and alterations to the existing Synagogue building

located at No.92 South terrace, Fremantle (the site). The development site is listed on the State Register of Heritage Places. A previous planning report was referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) to consider the massing, sitting, bulk and scale photographs of a model and plans (dated 28 July 2014) in August 2014, which PSC resolved to defer the matter until Heritage Council had an opportunity to review the proposal and provide necessary comments. Heritage Council have since reviewed the amended proposal and support the application subject to a number of planning conditions. DA0301/13 has since been withdrawn and this application lodged in replace of the original proposal. The City’s Heritage Department support the proposed development, subject to conditions. The application was referred to Department of Lands (DoL’s) regarding the proposed airspace encroachments over Parry Street road reserve (north and west of the site), who advise the preferred option to dealing with the proposed road reserve encroachments is via the road closure process of the Land Administration Act. The City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) have raised concerns associated with complexity of the proposed rear additions façade composition, natural light and ventilation to the basement, and units 5 and 6 of the proposed rear addition and building code fire rating requirements. The subject site is not zoned under the provision of the Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) and as such the provisions of LPS4 for City Centre zoned land has been utilised for guidance purposes only in the planning assessment of this application. Accordingly, the application requires discretionary assessments in regards to:

Hotel land use, and

Nil onsite car parking and bicycle rack provisions. In summary, the proposal has been assessed against and is considered to generally adhere to the relevant guiding statutory provisions of LSP4, and accordingly the application is recommended for conditional approval.


Page 124

BACKGROUND The property at No.92 South Terrace, Fremantle is located on the eastern corner of the South Terrace and Parry/Norfolk Street intersection. The car parking area to the rear (north-east) of the site is part of the Parry Street road reserve. To the south-east is the Stan Riley Centre site, which is in the ownership of the Crown and is under the care, control and management of the City of Fremantle for the purpose of “Football Club, Community and Ancillary uses". The development site, which is privately owned, contains a former synagogue/shop and exposed basement area. Heritage Listings The Synagogue site is listed on the City’s Heritage List and is on the City’s Municipal Inventory of Heritage Places (management category 1A). It is also included on the State Register of Heritage Places (SRHP) under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990. The surrounding locality contains various properties on the SRHP, including:

Scots Presbyterian Church;

Fremantle Markets;

Fremantle Prison (World Heritage Listed).

The site is also partly located within DGF14 - West End Conservation Area. Planning Application History The site has been the subject of numerous planning applications including several changes of use as well as alterations over the years. In recent times, the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) granted conditional approval on the 5 June 2008 (2008 approval) for a mixed residential and commercial development involving conservation works to the main building and new works to the rear of the existing building (DA696/05). A building licence was issued in April 2011 for certain works relating to the main Synagogue building only, based on the 2008 SAT approval. Since then, the City has received seven further planning applications for the site, which have sought to vary the original decision of SAT (DA696/05). Of those applications: 1. Two planning applications were for work relating to the main building; 2. Two planning applications were for retrospective/proposed works relating to the

main building or structures adjacent to the main building; and 3. Three planning applications were for development over the existing basement at

the rear of the main building. On 26 June 2013 the City received a planning application for additions and alterations to the existing building onsite (DA0301/13). SHO provided referral advice which didn’t support the original proposal. The applicant opted to amend the proposal after consulting with City’s Heritage Department.


Page 125

As part of the planning application process a report was presented to PSC at its meeting held 6 August 2014 regarding the amended proposal including the general massing, bulk, scale, sitting, materials and character of the overall proposal to provide comment to the applicant and the State Heritage Office. In summary City Officers recommended ‘In principle’ support of the amended proposal subject to a number of conditions which can be read in Attachment 2 of this report. As part of PSC’s resolution regarding this application Council resolved to,

‘defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Service Committee meeting in order for advice to be sought from the State Heritage Office.

As a result of Council’s deferral, the application was referred back to SHO for further comment. On 2 February 2015 SHO provided the following comments:

The Development Committee could support the revised concept subject to the following information being provided for further consideration when a formal referral is made by the City of Fremantle:

Materials and colour schedule.

Details on the connection of the glazed link to the rear elevation of the Synagogue.

This preliminary comment relates only to the three storey addition to the Synagogue site and not to the conservation or use of the original Synagogue building, which will be considered at the formal referral stage.

On 20 March 2015, the applicant formal withdrew planning application DA0301/13 and lodged the current application (DA0135/15) for determination. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Planning Framework The site is zoned Central City Zone under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The land is not zoned under LPS4 and as such, Council is acting under delegated authority from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) to determine the planning application under the MRS. In doing so, Council is required to have due regard to the provisions of LPS4. Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 The site is listed on the State Register of Heritage Places. Section 11(3) of the Heritage Act requires that a decision-making authority to not take any action which might affect to a significant extent a registered place unless that action is consistent with advice received from the Heritage Council. See ‘Attachment 3’ below for a copy of the SHO’s heritage comments regarding the proposed development.


Page 126

DETAILS The existing heritage listed building has been partly renovated/conserved. A basement has been constructed beneath the main building and at the rear of the main building. Internal walls within the rear basement have been constructed without planning approval, which are required to be modified to accommodate revised floor plans. The proposed works include the following: 1. Existing heritage listed building:

a) use the basement beneath the existing building for storage/cool room purposes;

b) use the front ground floor level (Beers shopfront) as a restaurant area and the rear section (Synagogue) as a public bar area.

2. Existing rear basement area:

a) use the rear basement level partly for reception/convention facilities and staff/public amenities;

b) construct three levels (two levels of Hotel Accommodation) above the rear basement;

c) Use’s the ground floor level as a commercial/reception space, public amenities, staff storage, general service rooms;

d) first level containing 6 hotel units, 1 office tenancy and general lift/storage and service facilities; and the

e) second level containing 4 Hotel units and general lift/storage and service facilities.

3. Link the new addition with the main building through a glassed link walkway/bin

storage area; 4. Use of space around the main building/addition as a courtyard/alfresco area

associated with 1b) above. 5. Balcony Encroachment’s for the hotel unit additions to the northern and western

elevation over the Parry Street Road reserve. 6. Multiple restoration and conservation works to the existing Synagogue building. 7. Retention of the non-heritage listed wall located in the Parry Street road reserve. 8. Change of use of the site from Place of Worship to Hotel. In relation to point 5 above, the proposal will also require the approval of the State Land Services. See ‘Attachment 1’ below for a copy of the Development Plans and the Conservation and Restoration Works Plans.


Page 127

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

Sign on site was erected to the frontage of the existing building to South Terrace and Parry Street;



the Precincts were informed of the proposal;

Two notices relating to the proposal were placed in the Fremantle Gazette on the 21 & 28 April 2015.

A Community Information session was held on the 7 May 2015. Land owners/occupiers within a 100m radius of the site and elected members were invited to attend the Community Information Session. The session was attended by 1 member of the public, two Councillors, the land owners and applicant. One submission was received by the City at the end of the consultation period which supported the application as proposed. Internal Environmental Health Department Review The Environmental Health section have reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:

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

The proponent must make application during the Building License application stage to Environmental Health Services via Form 1 - Application to construct, alter or extend a public building as a requirement of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. For further information and a copy of the application form contact Environmental Health Services on 9432 9999.

Infrastructure & Projects Delivery Department (IPD) IPD were contacted in relation to the proposed air encroachments over Parry Street road reserve and onsite waste management (bin storage and rubbish collection) with the proposed development. A site inspection was conducted by City staff whereby, concern was raised in relation to the first floor north eastern corner balcony encroachment and its current design impacting larger (bus and delivery trucks) vehicle access to and from the adjoining eastern site (Stan Reilly Centre). Potential truncation or other redesigns may be required to safeguard vehicle movements within this northern adjoining road reserve.



Page 128

Accordingly an advice note is included alerting the proponent to this potential issue and possible future design modifications. With regards to waste management IPD recommended that the following condition has been included as part of the Officers Recommendation:

Prior to commencement of development, the owner is to submit a waste management plan for approval, detailing the storage, collection locations and general management of the waste generated by the development to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

Consultation with State Heritage Office (SHO) The application relates to a place that is registered on the Heritage Council of Western Australia’s Register of Heritage Places. Accordingly the application was referred to the SHO for assessment with SHO responding on 2 June 2015, stating the plans as submitted were supported subject to the imposition of planning conditions 10-15 which have been included in the Officers Recommendation. See ‘Attachment 3’ below for complete copy of SHO’s response for this application. City’s Heritage Department In summary the heritage department have reviewed the proposed development and made the following recommendations:

The additions, alteration and new works proposed for the Synagogue and the Beer’s Buildings are considered to be generally acceptable and are recommended for support subject to the following conditions:

1) The proposed new rear extension building is considered to be generally

acceptable in terms of its siting, bulk, form, scale, colour, texture and materials.

2) That the owner of the building collaborates with the Design Advisory

Committee on the more detailed aspects of the scheme to achieve a general simplification of the design.

See ‘Attachment 4’ below for complete copy of the Heritage Departments advice for this application. Department of Land (DoL) Prior to lodgement of this application the applicant liaised with Department of Lands (DoL) regarding the air encroachments to Parry Street road reserve as with previous related applications this matter required further. In January 2014 the DoL provided the applicant with an email confirming the following, ‘Departments preference for the encroached land to be purchased and transferred in freehold under section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA). This is consistent with the previous advice received by the City for DA0301/13,


Page 129

However, DoL’s response to the applicant also stated that another option to allow the proposed encroachments if Council wasn’t supportive of a formal road closure of these portions of Parry Street. DoL stated the following, ‘If Council does not support this approach than a section 57 and section 87 of the LAA lease approach can be considered’. Upon lodgement of the application a formal referral to DoL was undertaken on 30 March 2015. On 8 July 2015 DoL provided the following response:

It should be noted that the Department of Lands’ previous advice on this matter remains current (please refer to the attached letter).

Our policy enables the placement of structures over roads without the requirement for tenure under the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA), only if that structure provides a public benefit, does not increase floor space and is not being used for commercial benefit. It has been determined that the existing and proposed encroachments forming a part of this development application do not meet these requirements and as such suitable tenure will need to be arranged. DoL signed the proponents development application to simply enable it to be lodged and considered by the City. The signing of the DA was conditional upon the proponent liaising with this Department and the City of Fremantle to establish tenure over the balcony encroachments and the permanent wall structure prior to the commencement of any works.

If the proposal is to proceed, DoL’s preference is for the balcony encroachment land to be purchased and transferred in freehold under section 87 of the LAA, particularly in respect of the cantilevered balconies at the first and second levels of the proposed development. As part of this process the City will need to resolve to request the closure of that portion of Parry Street road reserve under section 58 of the LAA and Regulation 9 of the Land Administration Regulations 1998.

DoL understands that the footpath underneath the balconies is to remain open to the public. This common access can be preserved by way of a public access easement pursuant to section 195 and 196 of the LAA being registered over that portion of land.

In terms of the other encroachments being the constructed limestone wall that forms a part of the proposed alfresco area. DoL understands that this structure was originally built by Council and is contained within the local government managed road reserve. The Department’s general policy approach is that where the structure is permanent and substantially restricts the public’s access to the road, the area of the affected road should be closed and the relevant land leased under section 79 of the LAA or sold under section 87 of the LAA. Given the private nature of the encroachment it is DoL’s preference that the relevant area be acquired in freehold under section 87 of the LAA.


Page 130

In considering DoL’s previous email and responses regarding the proposed encroachments, it’s considered two options are available to the owner of the site for the proposed balcony encroachments to exist:

1) DoL’s preference for the required land to be transferred in freehold, meaning the City will need to resolve to request the closure of roads under the provisions of the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA) and the land be transferred at full market value from the Minister for Lands to the proponent, or

2) under section 57 and section 87 of the LAA lease approach can be considered if

Council was not supportive of the approach in part 1 above, but this is subject to the Minister for Lands consenting.

Regardless of the above two option in considering this application, if a road closure for the encroachments area of Parry Street was not supported by Council and a lease from the Minster of Lands not forthcoming under section 57(1) of LAA, then the application would need to be redesigned to delete encroachments over the Parry Street road reserve. Such amendments would ultimately require Council’s planning approval and Office of State Heritage referral and a new planning application would need to be submitted for assessment. Design Advisory Committee (DAC) The proposal has been presented to the City’s DAC on 8 June 2015. A summary of the comments from the DAC meetings are reproduced below:

1. DAC Minutes 8 June 2015 CABE DESIGN PRINCIPLES CHARACTER and APPROPRIATNESS OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES

The façade of the new building is considered to be visually complex as a result of the way the rendered banding and the red face brickwork has been ordered, together with the forms of openings and other elements.

It was considered that this facade complexity to the new building needs to be simplified in order to be more respectful towards the simpler form and ordering of materials evident in the old Synagogue.

OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY

There are concerns about the proposed windows and balconies of Units 5 and 6 which are placed on the southern boundary. There is the potential for a future neighbouring development to be built to the boundary on the adjoining land, leaving these units with no natural light, ventilation, or outlook.

The basement reception/convention rooms have no access to light or outlook. While this may work for certain types of events, it will prove unsatisfactory for others. This could be ameliorated by the introduction of a light/planting court to the north, where there is currently a store/passage and, directly above, is not built out.

The Committee’s previous concerns regarding servicing, fire escape and internal planning are reiterated.


Page 131

CONTINUITY AND ENCLOSURE, QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM, EASE OF MOVEMENT, LEGIBILITY, ADAPTABILITY, DIVERSITY The above issues did not arise during the presentation

2. DESIGN ASSESSMENT HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED

As detailed above, the Committee considered that the façade composition of the new building should be simplified. A number of strategies were discussed. These included a less complex and more rational disposition of the rendered and face masonry. For example, the northern and lower shopfront building could be finished in render and the taller building in red face brick. The Committee strongly encouraged this and further testing be conducted, preferably in 3D.

Future proofing of the potential loss of light, ventilation and outlook to Units 5 and 6 should be demonstrated.

Modifications to the basement should be tested to enable access to natural light.

Independent assessments should be sought which demonstrate compliance with fire regulations and servicing needs.

3. RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not support the current design and strongly encourages the above points be addressed. Additional information was submitted by the applicant on 27 July 2015 in response to DAC concerns raised at its June 2015 meeting. At this time the applicant didn’t want to amend the proposal given DAC comments, but since late July the applicant has reconsidered the matters and wishes to resolve DAV concerns associated with the current façade composition. On 21 September 205 the applicant submitted revised façade composition plans which at the time of writing this report had not been reviewed by DAC. Both of the applicant’s responses to DAC’s above comments can be seen in Attachments 7 and 8 below. PLANNING COMMENT

In its determination of this application, Councils primary matters for considerations relate to the:

1) Proposed change of Land use to Hotel, 2) Onsite Car parking, and 3) Heritage matters relating to the Synagogue Building. 4) Façade composition

In addition to the above it must be outlined that the provision of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4), do not statutorily apply to the assessment of this application, but rather the provisions of LPS4 are being utilised for the orderly and proper planning assessment of the proposal.


Page 132

Land use Noting that the site isn’t zoned under LSP4 and that the City Centre provisions of LSP4 are being utilised for guidance purposes only for planning assessment of this application, the following assessment is provided. The applicant is proposing a change of use from Place of Worship to Hotel. A Hotel use is classified as an ‘A’ use under Local Planning Scheme No. 4(LPS4) in the City Centre zone, meaning –

that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after giving special notice (advertising) in accordance with clause 9.4

Advertising was undertaken, with one submission in support of the proposal being received. Overall, it is considered that a Hotel land use is suitable for the site as it addresses the objectives stipulated for the City Centre zone in the following ways:

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

A Hotel is considered to be a suitable land use for the City Centre, as it provides a tourist population to support other retail, entertainment and hospitality uses, as well as being not significantly disruptive to residential properties.

(ii) Comply with the objectives of local planning area 1 of schedule 12 The development complies with the prescribed building heights for the City Centre as stipulate din Schedule 12 of LSP4.

(iii) Conserve place of heritage significance the subject of or affected by development The proposed development has been assessed by the Office of State Heritage and the City’s Heritage Department, who generally supports the proposal, subject to conditions.


Page 133

Car parking

Required Provided Discretion

1:2.5m2 of public bar Nil for 120m2 bar area 48

1:5m2 of lounge / garden area

Nil for 355m2 of garden /lounge area

71

1:1 bedroom (10) Nil 10

Delivery bay 1:service/storage area (1)

Nil 1

TOTAL 130 bays

Bicycle bays

Class1:1 per 25m2 bar floor area & 1:100m2 lounge ‘ garden area

Nil for 120m2 bar and 355m2 lounge/ garden area

9 x class 1 racks

Class 3: 1 per 25m2 bar floor area & 1:100m2 lounge ‘ garden area

Nil for 120m2 bar and 355m2 lounge/ garden area

9 x class 3 racks

Note:

o Class 1 – High security level – Fully enclosed individual locker,

o Class 3 – Low security level – Rails or racks to which both the bicycle frame

and wheels can be locked In accordance with clause 5.7.3.1 Council may waive or reduce car parking requirements subject to the following –

(i) The availability of car parking in the locality including street parking: Several larger public car parks including South Fremantle Oval, Queensgate & Collie Street Car park are all within a reasonable walking distance.

(ii) The availability of public transport in the locality;

The City Centre is well serviced by bus and rail transport, as well as taxis.

For the reasons above, the Change of Use to Hotel is supported with onsite no car parking. Clause 5.7.3.3 of LPS4 allows Council to waive class 1 and 2 bicycle racks requirements of Table 2 when a proposal involves a minor change of use. In this instance, whilst it may be considered this is relevant to the existing Synagogue portion of the building onsite, given a three storey accommodation wing is also proposed, the bicycle rack provisions generated by this component of the development should be accommodated onsite. Of the calculated total 9 class 1 rack provisions, 5 of the required class 1 racks are required for the existing synagogue building and the change of use to this portion of the site. The waiving of these bike racks is supported for this portion of the building in accordance with 5.7.3.3 of LPS4. The proposal includes multiple internal storage spaces within the rear three storey additions which could easily accommodate the required 4 additional class 1 bicycle racks.


Page 134

With regards to onsite bicycle rack provisions the proposal has a short fall of 9 class 1 and class 3 bicycle racks. With regards to Class 3 rack provisions is noted that several racks already exist within close proximity of the site (Norfolk Hotel and the Department of TAFE) However these racks are already well utilised by other business occupants and as such additional racks are considered warranted in this situation. Whilst its acknowledged that the site and the current developments design has limited ability to locate these required bike racks onsite, there is ample space available within the public land whereby the class 3 racks could be located at the applicant’s expense. Accordingly, conditions of approval are recommended relating to class 1 and 3 bicycle rack provisions. Design Advisory Committee Advice As outlined above DAC didn’t support the proposal in its current form raising the following three areas whereby the proposal could be improved:

As detailed above, the Committee considered that the façade composition of the new building should be simplified. A number of strategies were discussed. These included a less complex and more rational disposition of the rendered and face masonry. For example, the northern and lower shopfront building could be finished in render and the taller building in red face brick. The Committee strongly encouraged this and further testing be conducted, preferably in 3D.

Future proofing of the potential loss of light, ventilation and outlook to Units 5 and 6 should be demonstrated.

Modifications to the basement should be tested to enable access to natural light.

Independent assessments should be sought which demonstrate compliance with fire regulations and servicing needs.

The applicant has submitted an extensive response to these matters raised by DAC which can be seen in ‘Attachment 7’ of this report. In summary the applicant has taken DAC’s comments into consideration but disagrees with DAC’s position on these matters, therefore opting to not amend the proposed development. Subsequently the applicant has reviewed their original position to disagree with DAC and has opted to investigate alternative façade composition options. The alternative composition options can be viewed in ‘Attachment 8’ of this report. At the time of writing this report, the amended façade composition plans had not been reviewed by DAC. In summary, the applicant has verbally confirmed the acceptance of recommended planning condition No.5 which requires the simplification of the façade and for this condition to be imposed as part of the Council’s determination of this application, should they be included to approve the application. With regards to the second and third bullet points above, given the proposal is for a Hotel use, and not a Residential land use the generally amenity expectations of future occupants is considered to be significantly less given the limited expected timeframes occupants would reside within the basement function space and Hotel accommodation and as such isn’t considered to be a significant statutory planning issue. However, Council could be of the opinion and agree with DAC advice requiring units 5 and 6 to be redesigned to ensure adequate ventilation and natural light be gained by these units. As such Council may wish to include an additional section to Condition No.5 as part (ii) which reads as follows:


Page 135

(ii) Units 5 and 6 be internally redesigned to orientate north south allowing for southern elevation openings to both units, ensuring ventilation and natural light access.

In relation to the third bullet point above (basement access to natural light) if Council was inclined to also agree with DAC comments regarding improving natural light access to the basement area, it’s important to highlight that such design changes would fundamentally require significant alterations to the current proposed development. Alternatively, Council may opt to impose a condition limiting the habitable status of the basement area, changing the purpose of this space to non-habitable. However, for similar reasons as outlined above, given the limited occupancy/ nature of these areas within similar tourist accommodation, isn’t considered to be a significant planning statutory matter. Ultimately, it’s considered that the building could be modified appropriately in the future if required to accommodate sufficient solar access and /or alternative forms of ventilation to these areas of the building should this become an issue in the future for the owner of the property. The last bullet point would need to be addressed at building permit stage of the proposal and isn’t considered to be a relevant planning consideration. Sustainable Building Design The proposed development is required to achieve a rating of not less than 4 Star Green Star using the relevant Green Building Council of Australia (‘GCBA’) rating tool pursuant to LPP2.13. Under the heading ‘Application’, LPP2.13 states that;

‘The requirements of this policy apply to all development with the exception of:

(c) Any development with a Gross Lettable Area (GLA) of less than 1000m2 GLA; (d) Refurbishments of existing buildings over 1,000m2 GLA not involving substantial structural or internal alterations and all refurbishments to buildings under 1000m2 GLA.’

Clause 1.2 of LPP2.13 states that;

‘Council may exercise discretion to waive the requirements of the policy in the case of development with either or both of the following circumstances apply:

a) refurbishment of a building included on the Heritage List under clause 7.1. or in a Heritage Area under clause 7.2. on the Scheme where, in the opinion of the Council, adherence to the requirements of clause 1.1 would detrimentally impact of the heritage values of the building or area.’


Page 136

It is recognised that although a GCBA tool could be applied to the overall development, given the works proposed for the existing heritage significant Synagogue building merely involve refurbishment works its considered warranted to apply this condition only to the new rear three storey building at the rear of site. Therefore a modified version of the standard City’s standard LPP2.13 condition requiring achievement of the initiatives above is therefore recommended.

CONCLUSION Noting that the site is not zoned under the Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) and that the provisions of LPS4 have only been used for guidance purposes for the statutory planning assessment of the application, the proposal has been assessed against and is generally considered to comply with the relevant requirements of LPS4 and relevant Council local planning policies. The proposal has been referred and supported by SHO subject to specific conditions which are included as part of the ‘Officers Recommendation’. The City’s DAC has raised concerns relating to the façade composition of the new three storey building at the rear of site and that this component of the development should be simplified. The applicant has provided amended façade compositions, which have not been reviewed by DAC as yet. Accordingly, an appropriate condition of approval has been recommended. The matter relating to road reserve encroachments is a matter Council will fundamentally need to consider should this application be approved. Council will either need to support a road closure and initiate this process on behalf of the owner of the subject site with Department of Lands (DoL) or the owner of the property will need to pursue a lease arrangement directly with the Minister of Lands, should Council not be supportive of the road closure process under provisions of the LAA. This is a matter that the applicant will need to be deal with after the planning stage of the development. The City’s Heritage Department have reviewed and support the proposal subject to a number of conditions which have been included in the Officers Recommendation, ‘the owner of the building collaborates with the Design Advisory Committee on the more detailed aspects of the scheme to achieve a general simplification of the design. Overall the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme for the Change of use form Place of Worship to hotel and Three storey additions and alterations to existing Synagogue building at No.92 South Terrace (Lot 5), Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans and Conservation Works Remaining plans, dated 23 March 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within two years from the date of this decision letter.


Page 137


3. The design and construction of the rear three storey building of the

development is to meet the 4 star green star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard is to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Twelve (12) months after practical completion of the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle

a) a copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia

certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars, or

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

4. The works hereby approved are to be undertaken in a manner that will not

cause irreparable damage or contribute to the deterioration of the building’s original or significant fabric. Conservation works required to rectify the non-compliance with this requirement will be undertaken at the applicant’s expense and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

information to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle having regard to advice from the Design Advisory Committee:

i. Additional detail relating to colour, texture and material arrangement for

final facade finishes to achieve a more simplified composition. 6. Prior to occupation of the three storey rear hotel accommodation portion of the

development, a Notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title to the land the subject of the proposed development advising the owners and subsequent owners of the land of the potential of the enclosure of the balconies located along the south eastern boundary by future development on the adjacent site. The notification is to be prepared by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties prior to occupation.

7. Prior to occupation of the development, nine (9) Class 3 bicycle rack as per the

definition of clause 5.7.1 (d) of the Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) shall be installed either onsite or within nearby public land at the owners expense and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 138

8. Prior to occupation of the development, the owner is to submit a waste management plan for approval, detailing the storage, collection locations and general management of the waste generated by the development to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

9. Prior to occupation of the three storey rear hotel accommodation portion of the

development, the boundary wall located on the south eastern boundary shall be of a clean finish in either;

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


State Heritage Office 10. The circular hollow section (CHS) posts to the existing South Terrace and

Parry Street awning, shall be deleted from proposal, as there is no documentary or physical evidence that details their original existence. The existing awning structure is to be retained in situ and repaired to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on advice from the State Heritage Office.

11. Lime based mortars and renders shall be used in the conservation works and

no concrete/cement product should be incorporated into the mix to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on advice from the State Heritage Office.

12. The approach to the rear elevation shall be to do as little as possible, and as

much as necessary. The extrusions interpreting the stages of the additions to the rear shall be retained in place to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on advice from the State Heritage Office.

13. The proposed application of a smooth render to the original lean-to area on the

northern elevation of the building shall be deleted from the proposal to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on advice from the State Heritage Office.

14. All air-conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae, mechanical, electrical,

hydraulic services and any other relevant plant and equipment for the Hotel use which is to be located to the external walls and roof of the building shall be located to be not visible from the street, and where visible from other buildings or vantage points shall be suitably located, screened or housed, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle on advice from the State Heritage Office.


Page 139

15. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit the applicant shall provide the following information to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer City of Fremantle, on advice of the State Heritage Office:

a) A program of monitoring any structural movement and potential vibration

impacts on Fremantle Synagogue shall be implemented at the commencement of works. Should any impact occur, the State Heritage Office is to be notified immediately and advised on a recommended course of action by a qualified structural engineer.

b) Further information on the impact arising from National Construction Code

compliance detailing physical impact on the fabric and visual on the setting, shall be provided. This shall include further information on the location of mechanical systems, including air conditioning and ventilation, and fit-out and services to the bar and kitchen areas as a result of the proposed use.

Advice Note(s):

i. The applicant is advised that modification will be required to the design of the first floor northern eastern balcony airspace encroachment over the Parry Street road reserve, to safeguard and ensure safe vehicle movements from the adjoining eastern property are protected. The applicant is advised to liaise with the City of Fremantle Infrastructure and Project Delivery Department about this matter.

ii. The applicant is advised to liaise with the State Heritage Office in

relation to any clarity relating to matters associated with conditions No.10-15. The Office of State Heritage also advises the applicant that if new timber framing is required to the shopfront windows, the framing shall match the original profile.

iii. Regulation 17 of the Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions)

Regulations 1996, requires that an insurance policy, in the joint names of the local government and the person, indemnifying the local government against any claim for damages which may arise in, or out of, the balcony construction, maintenance or use is required to be obtained by those persons constructing anything within the road reserve.

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

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



Page 140

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

vi. The applicant/ landowner is advised that a Construction Management

Plan should be submitted to the City to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle which addresses the following matters of Council’s LPP1.10 – Construction Sites Policy:

a) Use of City car parking bays for construction related activities; b) Protection of infrastructure and street trees within the road reserve; c) Security fencing around construction sites; d) Gantries; e) Access to site by construction vehicles; f) Contact details; g) Site offices; h) Noise - Construction work and deliveries; i) Sand drift and dust management; j) Waste management; k) Dewatering; l) Traffic management; and m) Works affecting pedestrian areas.

The Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the demolition of the existing building on site and construction of the new development.



Page 141

PSC1510-15 HIGH STREET MALL, NO. 120 (LOT 124), FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING - (AA DA0366/15)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 October 2015 2015 Responsible Officer: Planning Officer Actioning Officer: Manager Development Approvals and

Manager Field Services (Compliance section) Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: C1408-1 (10 September 2014) Attachment 1: Development plans (30 July 2015) Attachment 2: Site photos Attachment 3: Previous report extract (DA0259/14 – 10 September

2014) Attachment 4: Planning Compliance Matrix Attachment 5: Internal heritage comment Date Received: 30 July 2015 Owner Name: Silverleaf Investments Submitted by: Meyer Shircore & Associates Scheme: City Centre (R-AC3) Heritage Listing: Adopted (Level 1B) Heritage Area: West End Conservation Area Existing Landuse: Shop, Office & Restaurant Use Class: N/A Use Permissibility: N/A


Page 142

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks retrospective planning approval for the removal of a portion of the first floor of an existing heritage listed building fronting Cantonment Street for the purpose of accommodating a construction crane. The applicant notes that the removal of the flooring is temporary in nature and will be reinstated following completion of the construction works. Development approval for redevelopment of the subject site was granted by the City on 22 September 2014 (DA0259/14). The removal of the flooring to the first floor of the Cantonment Street building was not depicted on the development plans or a subsequent building permit granted by the City. The application was referred to the City’s Heritage department for comment, which consistent with previous advice relating to the overall redevelopment of the site (pursuant to DA0259/14) advised that the floor was of heritage significance and should have been retained. Given this level of identified significance, the application is recommended for refusal. This report also discusses possible actions for the City to take in light of the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located in the West End Conservation Area Heritage Area and is adopted on the City’s Heritage List. The subject site is given a management category of ‘Level 1B’ pursuant to the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory. On 22 September 2014 the City granted planning approval to ‘Partial demolition and alterations of existing building and construction of a four (4) storey (with basement) multiple use development (office, shop and restaurant)’. This approval included the retention of two existing buildings on the subject site fronting High Street and Cantonment Street. The approved plans depict the retention and restoration of the existing first floor of the Cantonment Street building. The plans also depict the removal of the roof and ceiling of the first floor of this building to accommodate a new roof deck. On 15 July 2015 the City granted a building permit for the works forming part of DA0259/14. On the 24 July 2015, officers of the City inspected the property and established that without approval;

a ~16m2 hole had been cut into the first floor (jarrah flooring and timber joists) and roof of the building fronting Cantonment Street; and

a tower crane had been erected through the newly created hole;

the original timber joists that had been cut away were on the ground next to the base of the crane; and

timber flooring was lying within the first floor space, which had become the site office.


Page 143

A request to weather protect the hole in the roof, so as to protect the internal portion of the heritage listed building from adverse weather conditions, was sent to the builder on the 24 July 2015. A further letter was sent on the 28 July 2015 requesting the builder to retain all timbers on the site and to protect them from the weather. DETAIL

The application seeks retrospective planning approval for the temporary removal of a 16m2 portion of the first floor for the purpose of providing a vertical penetration for a tower crane currently erected on-site. The owner has advised that the crane would need to remain in-situ until approximately February/March 2016. It is proposed that after the removal of the tower crane, the joists, roofing and flooring would be re-instated. It is noted that the removal of roofing material formed part of DA0259/14; to accommodate a new roof deck. The following responses (highlighted in red) were provided to queries raised by the City;

How much of the original flooring has been retained; All has been retained.

How much of the original floor joists has been retained; All are stored on site to be

re-used.

What action is proposed to be taken in the restoration of the portion of the building

affected by the construction of the crane through it and by when; This is expected

around the start of March.

Why the crane was put through the building; This was the only location available on site to erect the crane. The amount of timber removed (flooring and joists) and the amount that was damaged/salvaged; As noted before 15m2 was removed. 5 floor joist that all still remain on site. How it is intended to re-instatement the flooring, as joists have been cut, flooring has been damaged by removing it in the way that it was done, and how the tongue in grove flooring is to be re-instated; The floor joist will be fish plated and bolted back to getter. There is an area where the existing stair case is that needs to be removed and new flooring needs to be installed, this will all be done at the same time and tied in together. I will be getting Alan Kelsall in for his input regarding this area. What flooring is to be used where the timber flooring has been damaged through its unauthorised removal; Above response answers this question. When is the crane to be removed; This is anticipated to be removed around the end of Feb/ Start of March. How long after the removal of the crane will the flooring be re-instated; This will be worked on as soon as the crane is down.

The builder has subsequently clarified that approximately 20% of the flooring was damaged, however, they will be using similar profiled timber from other parts of the site. Development plans and site photos of the works are included in this report at Attachment 1 and Attachment 2.


Page 144

The development plans depict the removal of the flooring as ‘temporary demolition for tower crane’. PLANNING COMMENT

Demolition The subject site is included on the City’s Heritage List (and given a management category of Level 1B). Clause 5.15.1 of LPS4 states that Council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

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

significance and character of the locality in which it is located.’ [Emphasis added].

A previous heritage assessment prepared pursuant to DA0259/14 identifies the Cantonment Street building to be of ‘some’ significance inclusive of the flooring elements of the first floor (see Attachment 3). It is also noted that the applicants heritage assessment submitted as part of DA0259/14 also identified this area of flooring on the Cantonment Street building as being of ‘some’ significance. Further to these earlier assessment, the City’s heritage department provided additional comment regarding the specific significance of the flooring and roof structure. The comments are summarised as follows;

The original decision to support DA0259/14 was based upon balancing the need to conserve the heritage value of the place and the needs for re-use and redevelopment of places. There can be no misunderstanding of the importance of the Cantonment Street building having regard to the process undertaken in DA0259/14 involving the applicant, developer, DAC and Council staff;

While it is recognized that that a solution has to be found that as far as possible overcomes the damage caused to this heritage building, it is emphasized that the solution should not be considered to justify the harm caused to it.;

The proposed removal of flooring to the Cantonment Street building was not supported as part of DA0259/14 and is not supported now.

The removal of the flooring, albeit specified by the applicant to ‘temporary’ does not satisfy clause 5.15.1 of LPS4 above. The application is therefore recommended for refusal and a further resolution is recommended specifying that the floor be reinstated. Should Council consider the flooring to be of lesser significance than that identified by officers of the City, it may consider clause 5.15.1 of LPS4 to be satisfied. In this instance, a resolution specifying approval would result. Officers recommend a condition specifying the reinstatement of the flooring to its original condition once the crane tower is removed, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle, be included.


Page 145

COMPLIANCE COMMENTS Approval/Permits The removal of the timber flooring from the heritage listed building would have required planning approval and a building permit prior to the works being undertaken. The works that have been carried out are inconsistent with the planning and building permits (and the notes on those documents) for the site, as outlined below: 1) Planning approval – note on floor plan stated “Existing timber floor to be retained” 2) Building Permit plans:

a) had the following comment annotated on the plans in the location of the existing crane: i) ‘Existing carpet to be removed off floor. Floor boards to be sanded back

and sealed”. ii) “Existing suspended floor to remain” reference was to the timber floor.

b) Showed the location of an 80t slewing crane on the Cantonment Street footpath. There was a note on the site plan that stated “Tower crane reach shown doted’. However, there was no indication whatsoever that a tower crane was to be erected within the heritage building (as it exists now) or anywhere else on the site plan.

3) An Obstruction Permit was sought to close a part of Cantonment Street in front of the heritage listed building. The application indicated that a new crane was to be erected. The plans submitted with the application showed how an obstruction to the road reserve was going to happen but did not show the location of any crane within the site or the building.

Consultation There was no consultation with City staff over this proposal to locate the crane within the heritage listed building. Retrospective planning applications for the site This is the second retrospective planning application the City has been required to consider for the site. The owners have previously converted the High Street Mall end of Atwell Arcade into a coffee shop without consultation or planning approval. Retrospective planning approval was subsequently granted for the unauthorised works. Planning Compliance Matrix The solicitors have previously provided the City with a Matrix to help the courts determine the severity of a matter. The Matrix has been filled in as far as possible in this matter – refer to Attachment 4.


Page 146

Other similar cases At its 3 September 2014 meeting, the PSC resolved to prosecute the owners of No. 8 Bannister Street (PSC1409-146) for undertaking unauthorised works to a heritage listed building (Heritage List LPS4; MHI Category 1B level and West End Conservation Area). The works involved the removal of original flooring within the heritage listed building (approximately 76 m2). This was the second time unauthorised works had been carried out by the Company. The Company was fined $30,000 in the Local Magistrates Court. By way of comparison, both buildings are on the Heritage List LPS4, have an MHI Category 1B level classification and are within the West End Conservation Area. Compliance Options The following compliance options have been identified in responding to the breach of LPS4. These options are based on the PSC granting retrospective planning approval to the unauthorised works or refusing retrospective planning approval for the works. Departure from LPP1.5 can occur depending upon how insignificant/significant the circumstances of the matter are. Other variations of these options could be considered: 1) Retrospective Planning Approval Compliance Options

a) No compliance action;

Option a) is not recommended on the basis that substantial time and effort was spent in the planning approval process supporting the development application while still seeking to achieve good heritage outcomes. Further, there was no consultation with the City in terms of the need for the construction of a tower crane on the site, let alone being constructed through a heritage listed building.

b) Issue Direction Notice to re-locate the crane elsewhere on the property in a

position approved by the City as well as re-instating the timber flooring/joists, all within 60 days (minimum period specified in the Planning and Development Act) from the issue of the Notice;

This option could potentially impact on the continued construction of the development as it would require the existing tower crane to be dismantled and re-erected somewhere else without further impacting on the heritage fabric of the existing buildings. The flooring/joists could then be re-instated as best as possible having regard to the way in which they were removed.

c) Follow LPP1.5 – issue $500 Planning Infringement Notice and Direction

Notice requiring re-instatement of timber flooring within 4 months – time period may need to be extended if the time period for the cranes retention and time to re-instate; This option acknowledges that the damage has been done, allows construction to continue without any penalty apart from the $500 fine.


Page 147

d) Prosecute for the unauthorised works on the heritage listed building and allow construction to continue by issuing a Direction Notice for the crane to remain in-situ until the need for the crane is finished and the joists/flooring can then be re-instated as best as possible in accordance with any specific conditions of planning approval. This option is similar to option c), except the owners are prosecuted for the breach of LPS4 rather than the $500 Planning Infringement Notice. Should this process be followed, any penalty imposed in this matter would be determined in the Magistrates Court.

2) Refusal of Retrospective Planning Approval

Should the PSC refuse to grant retrospective planning approval to the works undertaken, then option b) could be used to provide direction to the owners to remedy the current situation. As to whether or not compliance action is taken is a matter for determination by the PSC.

Appeal rights to the State Administrative Tribunal exist for the owner in this matter except in the case of action taken in the Local Courts. The matter of compliance action is submitted for consideration by the PSC following determination of the retrospective application for planning approval for the unauthorised works. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is considered inconsistent with the following strategic documents of the City;

Strategic Plan 2010 – 15: ‘Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage.’

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Retrospective approval for partial demolition of existing building at No. 120 (Lot 124) High Street Mall, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 30 July 2015, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not satisfy clause 5.15.1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4

in that it results in the demolition of portions of a building identified as being of some cultural heritage significance.


Page 148

PSC1510-16 PAKENHAM STREET, NO 1 (LOT 123), FREMANTLE - PROPOSED LEGAL ACTION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING AND BUILDING LEGISLATION - (SS DA0043/15)

DataWorks Reference: 122/009; 122/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 OOctober 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Field Services Actioning Officer: Coordinator Planning Mediation Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachment 1: Comparison of photographs – 23 Aug 2012 and 3 Oct

2014 Attachment 2: Additional photographs of unauthorised works – Oct 2014 Owner Name: Tintedoils Pty Ltd Heritage Listing: Heritage List (LPS4); Category 1B (MHI), West End

Conservation Area

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This matter is referred to the Planning Services Committee as there have been breaches of the planning and building legislation. Legal action under the Building Act 2011 (the Building Act) is recommended to be taken against Tintedoils Pty Ltd (the Company) that owns the heritage listed property for the unauthorised works. Since the Company purchased the property in 2008, the City did not receive any applications for a building licence/building permit for the construction works undertaken on the site. Further, the Company did not make application for an Occupancy Certificate (required by the Building Act) prior to the occupation of the basement, which would have addressed fire, access and safety matters.


Page 149

The unauthorised construction works identified on 3 October 2014 (refer to Appendix 1 and 2 for photographs) included: a) first floor office space of approximately 45 sq m and stairs within the

carriageway of the development (subsequently removed); b) Rear balcony connected to an adjoining building (subsequently modified); c) Rear patio connected to an adjoining building (subsequently modified); d) Rear outbuilding with the wall of the adjoining property becoming the rear

wall of the outbuilding (subsequently modified); and e) Conversion of a basement into useable floor space. The City, at its expense, engaged the services of a structural engineer (7 October 2014) to view and provide directions in relation to the unauthorised structures (items a) to d) above). To address any safety concerns, the City directed the Company (13 October 2014) not to permit any person to use the unauthorised structures or to be beneath them until a retrospective building permit had been obtained and the structures modified to make them safe, which occurred with the receipt of an Occupancy Certificate on 3 February 2015. The City chose not to commence legal action under the Building Act then, as the:

City would have been prevented (through the legal action process) from issuing any permits to the owners to carry out work to make the unauthorised structures safe;

unauthorised structures and the area beneath them would have remained unsafe and unusable until the legal action finished; and

new business occupants of the basement would have been required to vacate the basement until such time as the legal action was completed and the required Occupancy Certificate had been issued.

Since 2012, the City has issued against the Company: 1) two Direction Notices (August 2012 and October 2014) under the Planning

and Development Act 2006; 2) two $500 Planning Infringement Notices; and 3) two Building Orders requiring the submission of:

a) a Certificate of Building Compliance application (a retrospective Building Permit) including compliance with conditions of approval; and

b) an Occupancy Certificate (Jan 2015) for the basement.

One of the Directors of the Company is a Registered Builder, who; A. should have known of the legislative requirements to obtain planning

approval and a building permit before commencing any construction works; B. should have been aware of the ramifications for not complying with Direction

Notices or Building Orders; and C. had been previously prosecuted by another local authority in the Magistrates

Court (April 2012), for undertaking works without a building permit and departing from the planning approval, which also necessitated retrospective planning approval in that situation.


Page 150

The building approval process is designed to ensure that any construction meets relevant construction standards and is safe for the public to occupy and use. Having regard to the facts relating to this matter, and whilst there have been major breaches of both the planning and building legislation, it is recommended that the City be authorised to commence legal action against Tintedoils Pty Ltd for breaching the provisions of the Building Act 2011.

BACKGROUND

The following background provides information in relation to both planning and building matters between January 2008 and June 2015, although it is being recommended that compliance action be undertaken under the Building Act 2011 only: Jan 2008 The current owners, Tintedoils Pty Ltd, purchased the property. Mr Ray

Paolucci and Ms Sylvia Paolucci are the two directors of the company. Mr Ray Paolucci is a registered builder.

16 Jun 2010 Request for copies of building plans was submitted to the City by Mr Ray

Paolucci, as Sole Director of Tintedoils Pty Ltd. 28 Jun 2010 Application for planning approval (DA0310/10) submitted for the

refurbishment and painting of the existing heritage listed building. The proposal included the removal of the original timber sleeper floor within the basement.

23 Nov 2010 The City issued its refusal for planning approval (DA0310/10) to

Tintedoils Pty Ltd for the proposed works to the heritage listed building, including the proposed removal of the timber sleeper floor in the basement.

4 Mar 2011 Request to obtain copies of Building Plans for the site was again

requested by Tintedoils Pty Ltd, however, the City advised Tintedoils on the 15 March 2011 that there were no building plans on the property file for the site.

26 Apr 2012 Mr Ray Paolucci and Jamie Paolucci plead guilty in the Magistrates

Court [2013] WASC 50 to three offences that occurred in another Local Authority “concerning alterations and extensions to a building without approval and developing land for residential purposes without conforming to the provisions of the Residential Design Codes.”

25 May 2012 Planning application (DA0228/12) received from Tintedoils Pty Ltd and

signed by the director of the Company for the use of the upper floor level as a maritime simulation centre – note on plans state that “No work” is to occur within the basement, nor does it show any other existing or proposed external building works.

27 Jun 2012 Planning approval issued for the internal works to the upper level. 12 Jul 2012 Application for variation (VA0027/12) to DA0228/12 was received.


Page 151

24 Jul 2012 Approval for variation to DA0228/14 granted. 23 Aug 2012 City officers took photographs of unauthorised works that were occurring

on the heritage listed site, including the removal of the original timber sleeper floor located within the basement and the internal timber stairs.

24 Aug 2012 File note on the City’s records indicate that Mr Ray Paolucci contacted

the City and advised that he thought the City was going over the top in terms of issuing a Stop Direction Notice.

30 Aug 2012 Direction Notice (2012 Direction Notice) issued under the Planning and

Development Act directing the owners to stop work immediately on the site and that a retrospective planning application was required to be made and the matter (including compliance with any conditions of retrospective approval) to be resolved within 4 months (by 30 December 2012) of the issue of the Direction Notice. The Company was issued with a $500 Planning Infringement Notice, which was subsequently paid.

18 Sep 2012 Planning application for the retrospective works and for additional works

to be undertaken was received (DA0434/12). The proposed works were for a change in use to Small Bar (external and partially within the rear portion of the basement), partial change to Restaurant (café) and alterations to the existing building (proposed use as yoga centre and day spa).

28 Feb 2013 The Supreme Court hands down its decision to reduce the penalties

imposed in the Magistrates Court for the unauthorised works undertaken by Ray and Jamie Paolucci under the Planning and Development Act and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act that occurred in another Local Authority.

11 Jun 2013 Retrospective planning approval (DA0434/12) was granted

approximately 9 months after the 2012 Direction Notice was issued. The approved plans showed:

A rear balcony with columns on the rear boundary, but within the boundaries of the site;

An outbuilding in the rear corner of the site; and

Various fit outs and construction works to the building.

The works approved as part of the planning approval would require a building permit before they could be built. An extract from the planning approval is shown below that contains a statement in relation to the preparation of a Building Permit and unauthorised works:

You may now proceed with the preparation of plans for a building permit application if you have not already done so. Please note that it is an offence to commence any construction prior to the issue of a building permit and any such activity may prompt the City to consider further action.


Page 152

23 Aug 2013 Further planning application for internal changes to the raised ground floor level was received and subsequently approved on the 30 August 2013. The plans showed that there were no works to be carried out to the basement level or the outside area of the building.

26 Sep 2014 The City was requested to comment on concept plans for the layout of a

Small Bar proposal within a portion of the basement, while still keeping the retail use within the rest of the basement.

1 Oct 2014 Site inspection was undertaken in response to the request for comment

on small bar concept plans. Concerns were raised by the staff in relation to the fit out of the basement, which had occurred without planning approval.

3 Oct 2014 The City undertook a further detailed inspection of the site and a review

of the property file. It was established that there were further building works since the 2012 site inspection and that these works had been:

undertaken without or were contrary to the planning approvals issued for the site; and

carried out without any building permit.

Following a comparison of the photographs taken on the 23 August 2012 and the photographs taken on the 3 October 2014 (refer to Appendices 1 and 2), review of aerial photographs and the property file, it was established that the following had occurred:

1) No planning approval under Local Planning Scheme No 4 for:

a) New upper level floor space (estimated to be approximately 45 sq m) and stairs constructed within the carriageway;

b) Removal of ceiling material to new office area (see corrugated ceiling in remaining portion of carriageway);

c) New opening into rear wall for window to unauthorised upper level floor space;

d) New patio to rear of building - bolted to an adjoining building; e) Balcony (approved as part of DA0434/12) that was bolted to

an adjoining building rather than being supported on the development site;

f) Outbuilding (approved as part of DA0434/12) was built onto the wall of adjoining building, using the wall of the adjoining building as the rear wall of outbuilding; and

g) stormwater issues.

2) No Building Permit under Building Act 2011 for: a) Rear balcony (balcony beams were also bolted to the wall of

the adjoining building); b) Patio structure (structure was also bolted to the wall of the

adjoining building); c) First floor office space/stairs within carriageway; d) Outbuilding within rear courtyard (with wall of adjoining

building being used as external wall of outbuilding on development site);


Page 153

e) Construction (toilets) within basement; f) Concrete floor within basement; and g) Fit out of basement.

3) Commencement of use of basement as a shop without the required

Occupancy Certificate under the Building Act 2011. The occupation of the basement had occurred without the necessary Occupancy Certificate – matters such as fire exits, safety lighting, acceptable means of egress had not been addressed or complied with.

6 Oct 2014 Letter sent to Mr Ray Paolucci (as a Director of Tintedoils Pty Ltd)

advising of the breach of Local Planning Scheme No 4 and the Building Act – advised to cease all works – that the City had engaged a structural engineer to inspect the unauthorised structures – and of the need for a meeting to discuss the unauthorised works.

7 Oct 2014 Burdett and Associates (Structural Engineers) inspected the property on

behalf of the City and expressed concern in relation to the structural adequacy of the unauthorised office space constructed within the carriageway and the details of the rear balcony and patio roof.

13 Oct 2014 Mr Ray Paolucci (as Director of Tintedoils Pty Ltd) directed to prohibit

people using or being under the unauthorised structures until a Building Approval Certificate (retrospective Building Permit) had been obtained.

14 Oct 2014 City was requested to refer all correspondence to Mr Jamie Paolucci

from The Paolucci Group instead of Mr Ray Paolucci from Tintedoils Pty Ltd.

15 Oct 2014 A Building Order Emergency (2014 Building Order) was issued to

Tintedoils Pty Ltd (as owners of the property) directing them to cease works and lodge an Application for a Building Approval Certificate (retrospective building permit) for the works undertaken – to be submitted within 28 days of the Notice being served on them.

22 Oct 2014 City issued its second Direction Order (2014 Direction Notice) and

second $500 Planning Infringement Notice under the Planning and Development Act to Tintedoils Pty Ltd within a 26 month period for the same site, requiring the cessation of the unauthorised building works and to either: 1) re-instate the building within 60 days; or 2) within four months to:

a) lodge a retrospective planning application for the unauthorised works; and

b) have the matter, including compliance with the conditions of retrospective planning approval, resolved (by 22 February 2015).

27 Oct 2014 the City received payment of the second $500 Planning Infringement

Notice and a request to extend the time period to comply with the 2014


Page 154

Building Order (compliance with Order due by the 12 November 2014) by a further 5 months. The City was advised that the unauthorised first floor office would be removed.

4 Nov 2014 The City responded advising that it was not prepared to extend the terms

of the Building Order, however, will review its position depending upon progress towards compliance with the Building Order.

12 Nov 2014 City briefed its solicitors with a view to instituting legal action against

Tintedoils Pty Ltd for breaching the provisions of the Building Act 2011. 21 Nov 2014 Meeting held between City officers, the Mayor and the owners of the

retail store within the basement to discuss use of the premises and the rear yard for food vehicles. As the owner had not complied with the 2014 Building Order, no exit signs had been installed and one of the exits from the basement was locked from the outside preventing safe egress. The shop owners were advised that the City could not support their proposal to Liquor Licensing as the landowner had not complied with the City's Building

Order requiring a Certificate of Building Compliance to be submitted by 12 November 2014 for all unauthorised building works. The tenants were also unaware that the balcony and patio roof above the back courtyard were unauthorised and deemed unsafe by a structural engineer. It was also explained that an occupancy permit had not been issued for the basement.

24 Nov 2014 City received legal advice that if court action commenced, it could not

deal with any Building or Occupancy Permits whilst the legal action was in progress and therefore, the City would have had to require the evacuation of the basement and the outside of the building as the relevant Occupancy Certificate could not be issued nor any rectification works undertaken to make the site safe. The commencement of court action against the owners has been held in abeyance in order not to penalise the occupants of the basement and to ensure that the owner obtained all permits and undertook all the rectification works required to make the building and surrounds safe.

10 Dec 2014 In accordance with the Building Act 2011, the City issued a Notice of

Intention to Serve a Building Order to Tintedoils Pty Ltd as there had not been an Occupancy Certificate issued for the basement nor was the basement compliant with the Building Code of Australia in relation to safety matters such as escape paths, emergency lighting and access for people with disabilities. The Notice also set out requirements that had to be fulfilled in terms of an audit being undertaken by a Registered Building Surveyor (within 7 days), submit the audit (within 5 days) and rectify any areas identified by the Registered Building Surveyor (within 14 days) to enable the issue of an Occupancy Certificate.

9 Jan 2015 Following on from issuing the Notice of Intention to Serve a Building

Order to Tintedoils Pty Ltd, the City issued its second Building Order (2015 Building Order), to be complied with by 4 February 2015.


Page 155

2 Feb 2015 The City, in response to the 2014 Direction Notice issued in October 2014, received the retrospective planning application for the works undertaken in the basement and external areas to the building (DA0043/15). Based on the 2014 Direction Notice requirements, the matter (including compliance with conditions of approval) was required to be resolved by the 22 February 2015.

3 Feb 2015 City received an Application for an Occupancy Certificate under the

Building Act 2011. The application included a Certificate of Building Compliance. The Certificate of Building Compliance was required as part of the 2014 Building Order Emergency issued on the 15 October 2014 and was received approximately 3.5 months after the Order was issued.

5 Feb 2015 Occupancy Certificate issued for the basement retail store and

appurtenant patio roof, balcony and ablution structures. 6 Jun 2015 Conditional retrospective planning approval granted under delegated

authority by the City for the works undertaken in the basement and external areas to the building (DA0043/15). However, the conditional retrospective planning approval requires the applicant to undertake rectification works for inappropriate conservation works that were previously undertaken on the site and for those works to be completed within 90 days of the retrospective planning approval being issued. It took 4 months for the City to issue its conditional retrospective planning approval.

COMMENT

In spite of having had a planning application refused in 2010, the Company undertook unauthorised works on the development site. These works should have been the subject of applications for planning approval or the submission of a Building Permit before the works commenced. Even when retrospective planning approval was issued for the first lot of unauthorised works/proposed works in June 2012, the new works were not carried out in accordance with the planning approval. The actions of the Company caused the City to issue it with the following: 1) two Direction Notices (2012 and 2014); 2) two $500 Planning Infringement Notices; and 3) two Building Orders requiring the submission of an application for Certificate of

Building Compliance (2014); and the submission of an Occupancy Certificate (2015) for the basement, including compliance with any conditions of approval.


Page 156

Planning Part 4.2 of Local Planning Policy 1.5 - Planning Compliance (LPP 1.5) states the following in relation to unapproved development: 4.2 In all other cases (e.g. unapproved development or non-compliance with other

development approval conditions): a) A $500 infringement will be issued; and b) A notice will be issued requiring the compliance matter to be resolved within 4

months (this may include obtaining retrospective development approval, stopping an unapproved use, removing an unapproved structure or undertaking the prescribed work). If after 4 months the matter is not resolved, then the matter will proceed to legal action.

Planning approval was refused for proposed conservation works on the development site in 2010 (DA0310/10). After having approved DA0228/12 on the 27 June 2012 for internal works to the upper level, the City became aware that unauthorised works had occurred on the site, including some work that was part of the refused 2010 planning application. In relation to the 2012 Direction Notice, the applicants were required to resolve the compliance matter within 4 months of the issue of the Direction Notice (by 30 December 2012). However, it took just under 9 months for the City to be in a position to grant conditional retrospective planning approval for the unauthorised works, some 5 months after the matter was required to be resolved. The City did not undertake legal action at that point. Having established in October 2014 that further unauthorised works had occurred (either unauthorised variations to DA0228/12 or works that had no planning approval) the 2014 Direction Notice was issued requiring the compliance matter to be resolved within 4 months of the issue of the Notice (by 22 February 2015). The retrospective planning application was lodged on the 2 February 2015 (DA0043/15), 20 days prior to the expiry of the four month time period to have the development compliant with any retrospective planning approval that may have been issued. As stated in part 4.2 b) of LPP1.5, the matter is to proceed to legal action following the expiry of the 4 month period. It took almost a further 4 months for the City to be in a position to conditionally approve DA0043/15. This was done through the imposition of a number of conditions of planning approval requiring further information and the rectification works to be carried out within 90 days of the issue of the planning approval. This matter is currently being assessed for compliance with the planning approval. Building The matter has now reached a stage where the basement and the carriageway/rear courtyard areas can be occupied under Building Legislation as: a) the unauthorised/dangerous structures have either been removed or modified to

comply with the required building and safety requirements of different legislation; b) the structures that were attached to the adjoining building have now been modified

so that they are self-supporting within the development site; c) an Occupancy Certificate for the basement and external areas has been issued as

all fire, access and safety matters have now been addressed; and


Page 157

d) the two Building Orders (2014 and 2015) issued under the Building Act 2011 have been complied with, albeit the 2014 Building Order requiring the Certificate of Building Compliance was submitted beyond the time period set out in the Order.

In the normal course of events, and had the Company followed due process, the Building Permit that was required to be lodged with the City would have: 1) been reviewed for compliance with the Planning Approval - the unauthorised

changes to the planning approval and additional work would have been identified and the owners would then have been required to seek a further planning approval before the permit was issued; and

2) had structural engineering details as part of the Building Permit, designed and endorsed by a structural engineering before the works commenced, rather than risking the safety of the public and having to remove or modify the existing unauthorised structures, which happened in this instance.

The City, at its own cost, engaged the services of an independent structural engineer to review the construction work that had occurred (especially the partially completed first floor office, balcony and patio roof) to determine whether there were any public safety issues. A direction was subsequently given to the owners to prevent the public from using or being under the unauthorised building structures (the first floor office, balcony and patio roof). The City did not proceed with court action at the time under the Building Act 2011 as its primary focus was to ensure that the: i. building was safe for the occupants and the community to use; and ii. new tenants, who had been setting up a new business within the basement and in

the courtyard, did not have to close down due to the actions of the owner. Now that the site has been made safe for everyone, it is considered that legal action should commence against the Company for breaching the building legislation. It is considered taking no action is not an appropriate action in this instance as the Company: a) has a Registered Builder as one of the Directors, who should have known that

planning and building approvals were required before construction commenced and been aware of the ramifications of not complying with the planning or building legislation;

b) Director, who is the Registered Builder, has previously been prosecuted for undertaking works (in a different Local Authority) that was contrary to a planning approval, prior to the issue of a building permit, contrary to the building permit and the works required retrospective planning approval;

c) undertook and continued unauthorised building works over an extended period of time (August 2012 to October 2014) without relevant approvals for the development site;

d) undertook works on a heritage listed building that had previously been refused as part of planning application DA0310/10;

e) in spite of having a stop work notice issued against the company the first time the unauthorised works were discovered in 2012, continued on with unauthorised works and potentially placed the health and safety of the community at risk by bypassing the planning/building approval processes;

f) undertook unauthorised works in 2013, even though the planning approval clearly advised the applicant and the owners that a building permit was required for the works and that construction without a building permit was an offence and could result in further action.


Page 158

Unlike the matrix developed for legal action on planning matters, the solicitors do not have a matrix for the Building Act 2011 as there have been insufficient court actions to develop a similar matrix. The Company, who has a registered Builder as a director of the Company, has failed to: a) obtain a Building Permit under the Building Act 2011, which would have permitted

authorised and compliant building works to commence; b) comply with the 2014 Building Order, which required the submission of a Building

Compliance Certificate (retrospective approval for the unauthorised works and proposed changes required to meet relevant building and safety standards) within the time period specified in the 2014 Building Order; and

c) obtain an Occupancy Certificate under the Building Act 2011 prior to occupation of the basement and the use of the new structure to the rear of the site, which would have certified that all safety measures had been met and that the building was safe to be occupied.

In spite of pleading guilty to the offences carried out in another Local Authority area in the Magistrates Court (April 2012), and appealing the severity of the fines in the Supreme Court (February 2013), the City identified the: i) first lot of unauthorised works on 1 Pakenham Street in August 2012 - some four

months after the Director was convicted in the Magistrates Court; and ii) second lot of unauthorised works on 1 Pakenham Street in October 2014 - some 8

months after having the Supreme Court reduce the penalties imposed in the Magistrates Court.

CONCLUSION The disregard for the building approval process and public safety for commercial gain by the Company is considered to be the more severe of the breaches. The Company, with a registered builder as one of the Directors, would have been fully aware that they should have obtained a building permit prior to any construction works being undertaken on the site. Yet this did not happen over a two year period, even in spite of pleading guilty in the Magistrates Court to contravention of the planning and building legislation prior to the unauthorised works taking place within the City at No. 1 Pakenham Street. Therefore it is requested that Council endorse the taking of legal action under option 2 against Tintedoils Pty Ltd for the various breaches of the Building Act 2011.


That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to institute legal action against Tintedoils Pty Ltd for breaching the provisions of the Building Act 2011.


Page 159

PSC1510-17 FOR INFORMATION ONLY REPORT - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2015

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 October 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: 28 January 2015 PSC1501-8 Attachments: 28 January 2015 PSC1501-8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) were gazetted on 25 August and take effect on 19 October 2015, replacing the Town Planning Regulations 1967. The Regulations are a major part of the Government of Western Australia’s planning reform agenda. The regulations affect the arrangements for local planning strategies, schemes and amendments. In addition the Model Scheme Text has been updated and a set of deemed provisions that form part of every local planning scheme in the State have been introduced through the Regulations. The purpose of this report is to outline the key aspects of the Regulations. A further report on the proposed approach to integrating the Regulations into the City’s planning framework, including communication to the public and amendments to current scheme and policy provisions as required, will be presented to Council in November 2015. BACKGROUND

In January 2015 the Department of Planning sought public comment on a discussion paper titled ‘Planning makes it happen (Phase 2) discussion paper – Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2014’. The discussion paper identified a number of proposed changes to the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and Model Scheme Text aimed at modernising the planning framework. These changes included:

The procedure under which local planning schemes, structures plans and development schemes are prepared, adopted, consolidated and amended under Part 5 of the Planning & Development Act 2005 (the Act);

The introduction of a series of deemed provisions, which would apply automatically to local planning schemes.

Council’s submission on the discussion paper expressed general support for the proposed changes. Refer to PSC1501-8 28 January 2015 for further information (Attachment 1).


Page 160

PLANNING COMMENT The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) were gazetted on 25 August and take effect on 19 October 2015, replacing the Town Planning Regulations 1967. The current (until 19 October) Town Planning Regulations have been in operation for more than 40 years. The changes therefore represent one of the most significant reviews of the regulations and a major part of the Government of Western Australia’s planning reform agenda. The regulations affect several aspects of the state and local planning framework. The key categories of change include:

Track-based approach to Scheme amendments: A track-based approach to preparing scheme amendments and the introduction of timelines for WAPC. Scheme amendments will be classified as basic, standard or complex and different statutory timeframes and processes, including community engagement requirements, would apply to each classification.

New scheme ‘health check’: New scheme review and data collection requirements. The purpose of this is to be less onerous than the current requirement for an extensive review. For example consultation and advertising requirements have been reduced.

Development contributions: Clarified mechanisms for the cost sharing of development contributions and providing for a development contribution plan in the Model Scheme Text, including State Planning Policy 3.6 - development contributions to be read as part of the Scheme.

Land use definitions: Clarified and expanded land use definitions in the Model Scheme Text to ensure consistency.

Heritage: Heritage protection measures, including preventing demolition by neglect provisions, as deemed provisions applying to all local governments.

Deemed provisions for structure plans: Structure plan requirements as deemed provisions applying to all local governments to ensure consistency in the preparation, advertising and determination process. WAPC are now also the sole decision-making body for all structure plans.

Exemptions: ‘Permitted development’ standards as deemed provisions applying to all local governments to provide consistency in planning approval exemptions across the state. These include but are not limited to: developments (e.g. construction or demolition) involving a single dwelling or minor development (e.g. ancillary dwelling, outbuilding, external fixture, veranda, garage, carport etc.) that meet all the deemed to comply provisions of the R-Codes subject to the place not being heritage listed or in a heritage area; temporary works; temporary and other advertisements.


Page 161

A more detailed report will be presented to Planning Services Committee in November once officers have completed a detailed assessment of the implications of the new Regulations for the City of Fremantle’s planning regime and proposed actions to handle their implementation. The purpose of this report is simply to provide an overview of the new Regulations to Council. CONCLUSION The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 take effect on 19 October 2015. The Regulations are a major part of Western Australia’s planning reform agenda. The Regulations affect the arrangements for local planning strategies, schemes and amendments. In addition the Model Scheme Text has been updated and a set of deemed provisions that form part of every local planning scheme in the State have been introduced into the Regulations. A further report on the proposed approach to integrating the Regulations into the City’s planning framework, including communication to the public and amendments to current scheme and policy provisions as required, will be presented to Council in November 2015. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That Council:

1. Note the information in this report.

2. Note that officers will present a further report in November 2015 containing a more extensive review of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, including a proposed approach to integrating the Regulations into the City’s planning framework and communicating the effects of the regulations to the public.


Page 162

PSC1510-18 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - OFFICE 2007

Acting under authority delegated by the Council the Manager Development Approvals determined, in some cases subject to conditions, each of the applications listed in the Attachments and relating to the places and proposal listed.


That the information is noted.


Page 163

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

Nil.

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.


Page 164

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


Page 165


with any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.

Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

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

Diversity of view on most issues 9. The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10. City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow 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 166


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 167

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.

Documents

AGENDA - City of Fremantle · 2018-03-08 · Agenda - Planning Services Committee 7 October 2015 Page 1 DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) The following items are subject to clause