AGENDA - City of Fremantle...Agenda - Planning Services Committee 2 September 2015 Page 5 4. All queries regarding traffic and access should be directed to the City of Fremantle’s

AGENDA

Planning Services Committee

Wednesday, 2 September 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, 2 September 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 28 August 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 5 August 2015 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. TABLED DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DEFERRED ITEMS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 1

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COMMITTEE DELEGATION) 2

PSC1509-1 TYRONE STREET, NO. 1 (LOT 217), NORTH FREMANTLE- TWENTY TWO (22) MULTIPLE DWELLIINGS - (CJ/TB DAP007/15) 2

PSC1509-2 MARINE TERRACE, NO, 78F (LOT 6), FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO MULTIPLE DWELLING - (AA DA0308/15) 21

PSC1509-3 NAYLOR STREET, NO. 1 (LOT 73), BEACONSFIELD - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO MULTIPLE USES (INDUSTRY - LIGHT, GENERAL AND COTTAGE, SHOP, OFFICE, GARDEN CENTRE AND STORAGE YARD) AND SIGNAGE ADDITIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING - (AA DA0320/15) 26

PSC1509-4 MCLAREN STREET, NO. 19 (LOT 280), SOUTH FREMANTLE - VARIATION TO PREVIOUS APPROVAL DA0105/15 (TWO STOREY REAR ANCILLARY DWELLING ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE) - (BP VA0020/15) 32

PSC1509-5 THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 100 (LOT20), NORTH FREMANTLE -TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0310/15) 37

PSC1509-6 PROWSE STREET, NO. 8A (LOT 2), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0293/15) 44

PSC1509-7 HICKORY STREET, NO. 4 (LOT 26), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0329/15) 52

PSC1509-8 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - OFFICE 2007 60

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 61

PSC1509-9 ADVERTISING - PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY CLOSURE AND AMALGAMATION WITH NO.S 10 AND 12 KELLOW PLACE, FREMANTLE 61

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 67

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION 68

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PSC1509-1 TYRONE STREET, NO. 1 (LOT 217), NORTH FREMANTLE- TWENTY TWO (22) MULTIPLE DWELLIINGS - (CJ/TB DAP007/15) 3

PSC1509-2 MARINE TERRACE, NO, 78F (LOT 6), FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO MULTIPLE DWELLING - (AA DA0308/15) 69

PSC1509-3 NAYLOR STREET, NO. 1 (LOT 73), BEACONSFIELD - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO MULTIPLE USES (INDUSTRY - LIGHT, GENERAL AND COTTAGE, SHOP, OFFICE, GARDEN CENTRE AND STORAGE YARD) AND SIGNAGE ADDITIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING - (AA DA0320/15) 73

PSC1509-4 MCLAREN STREET, NO. 19 (LOT 280), SOUTH FREMANTLE - VARIATION TO PREVIOUS APPROVAL DA0105/15 (TWO STOREY REAR ANCILLARY DWELLING ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE) - (BP VA0020/15) 77

PSC1509-5 THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 100 (LOT20), NORTH FREMANTLE -TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0310/15) 86

PSC1509-6 PROWSE STREET, NO. 8A (LOT 2), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0293/15) 105

PSC1509-7 HICKORY STREET, NO. 4 (LOT 26), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0329/15) 115

PSC1509-8 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - OFFICE 2007 138

PSC1509-9 ADVERTISING - PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY CLOSURE AND AMALGAMATION WITH NO.S 10 AND 12 KELLOW PLACE, FREMANTLE 142

Agenda - Planning Services Committee 2 September 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 Nil.


Page 2

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

PSC1509-1 TYRONE STREET, NO. 1 (LOT 217), NORTH FREMANTLE- TWENTY TWO (22) MULTIPLE DWELLIINGS - (CJ/TB DAP007/15)

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 12)

Property Location: No. 1 (Lot 217) Tyrone Street, North Fremantle

Application Details: Three Storey Twenty two (22) Multiple Dwelling Development

DAP Name: Metro South West JDAP

Applicant: DMG Australia

Owner: Western Australian Land Authority

LG Reference: DAP007/15

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

Department of Planning File No: DAP/15/00833

Report Date: 2 September 2015

Application Receipt Date: 19 June 2015

Application Process Days: 90 Days

Attachment(s): 1: Development Plans (SK.00, SK.01, SK.02, SK.03, SK.04, SK.05, SK.06, SK.07, SK.08, SK.09, SK.10, SK.11, SK 12, SK. 13 & SK.15) 2. Landscaping Plan 3. Site Photographs 4. Submissions 5.Applicants Response to Submissions


Page 3

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the Metro South West JDAP resolves to: Approve DAP Application reference DAP/15/00833 and accompanying plans SK.00, SK.01, SK.02, SK.03, SK.04, SK.05, SK.06, SK.07, SK.08, SK.09, SK.10, SK.11, SK 12, SK. 13 & SK.15 in accordance with the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, subject to the following conditions/for the following reasons as follows: Conditions

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans dated 22 June 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year prior, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

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

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

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

4. Prior to the occupation of the development vehicle crossovers shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to the occupation of the development landscaping shall be

completed in accordance with the approved plans or any approved modifications thereto to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle. All landscaped areas are to be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation of the development, all air-conditioning plant, satellite

dishes, antennae and any other plant and equipment to the roof of the building shall be located or screened so as not to be highly visible from beyond the boundaries of the development site to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

7. 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 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 City of Fremantle


Page 4

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.

8. Prior to occupation of the development, a minimum of six (6) car bays

shall be constructed in the road reserve surrounding the development, in the location and to the specifications of the City of Fremantle’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery team, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

9. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant is to demonstrate

compliance with all relevant Australian Standards relating to vehicle access and egress, specifically relating to truncations and sight lines at the driveways on The Cutting to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

10. Prior to occupation of the development, no crossover shall be

constructed closer than 12m to the property alignment of another road intersecting with the carriageway that the driveway services, nor shall it infringe upon any part of a corner truncation of 6 metres unless otherwise approved by City Of Fremantle.

11. Prior to occupation of the development, an outdoor lighting plan must be

submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The outdoor lighting is to be designed, baffled and located to prevent any increase in light spill onto the adjoining properties.

12. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the primary street fence shall be

truncated or reduced to 0.75m height within 1.5m of vehicle access points and street corners in order to provide adequate sight lines or otherwise comply with Clause 5.2.5 C5 of the Residential Design Codes.

13. Prior to occupation of the development, three (3) bicycle spaces for

visitors shall be provided on site, designed in accordance with AS2890.3 (as amended), to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

Advice Notes

1. The applicant is advised that construction related activates are to meet the requirements of Local Planning Policy 1.10 Construction Sites unless otherwise approved by the City.

2. The applicant is advised to liaise with the City’s Parks and Landscape team in regards to landscaping of the verge area and construction of footpaths.

3. The applicant is advised that the car bays proposed on McCabe Street are not supported, and that they should liaise with the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery team regarding the proposed bays.


Page 5

4. All queries regarding traffic and access should be directed to the City of Fremantle’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery department.

5. In relation to condition 11, the applicant is advised to ensure that all artificial illumination within the development site complies with the relevant standards when illuminated in the hours of darkness and must prevent the spill of artificial light to habitable rooms of adjacent properties.

Background:

Insert Property Address: No. 1(Lot 217) Tyrone Street, North Fremantle

Insert Zoning MRS: Urban

TPS: Residential R60

Insert Use Class: Multiple Dwellings

Insert Strategy Policy: N/A

Insert Development Scheme: Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4)

Insert Lot Size: 2884m2

Insert Existing Land Use: Nil

Value of Development: $14.4m

No. 1 Tyrone, North Fremantle is located on the southern side of McCabe Street, North Fremantle in sub area 3.3.1 (Rocky Bay) of the North Fremantle Local Planning Area. The site is bound by McCabe Street to the north, The Cutting to the east, Mathieson Avenue to the south and Tyrone Street to the west. The site is in the Residential zone and has been allocated a density of R60. The site is located within the North Fremantle Heritage Area, however is not on the City’s Heritage List or Municipal Heritage Inventory. The site slopes approximately 9m, from the north of the site to the south. Relevant planning history is as follows:

DA0181/15 – Site works – conditionally approved for new site levels to the northern portion of the site (to 3100), creating a stepped development site.

Details: outline of development application The applicant has lodged a development application for the addition of a three storey twenty two (22) Multiple Dwelling development at No. 1 Tyrone Street, North Fremantle. The development includes:

Four (4) double storey three (3) bedroom Multiple Dwellings;

Eighteen (18) single storey, three (3) bedroom Multiple Dwellings;

Two (2) basement car parks with a total of fifty five (55) car bays, twenty two (22) stores, shared store, bin store and services;

Rooftop landscaping on southern building; and

Two vehicle entry and three pedestrian entry points. Development plans are included as attachment1, landscaping plan is included as attachment 2 and site photographs are included as attachment 3.


Page 6

Legislation & policy: Legislation Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) –

Clause 9.4 – Advertising of Applications

Schedule 12 - Sub Area 3.3.1 Rocky Bay (LPA3 – North Fremantle)

Clause 5.4.5 –Dwelling Mix State Government Policies State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes Local Policies LPP 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals; Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy; Local Planning Policy 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements. Consultation: Public Consultation The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4, as the proposal seeks discretions under provisions of LPS4, as well as design principle assessments under the R-Codes for the following elements:

Primary and Secondary Street Fencing

Plot ratio

Street Setbacks (Primary and Secondary Streets)

Open space

Vehicle sightlines

Landscaping

On site car and bicycle parking

Design of car parking spaces

Site works

Retaining walls

Dwelling mix

The application was advertised in accordance with the requirements of LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals for significant applications as follows:

Total time period of 28 days;

Local newspaper notice run for two consecutive weeks;

Sign on site;

Notice to owners and occupiers within 100m radius;

Notice on the City of Fremantle’s website;

Notification to precinct groups;

Community Information session held on Thursday 16th July 2015 at the City of Fremantle, with six (6) members of the public, two elected members and the applicant attending.


Page 7

Internal referrals Parks and Landscape The application was referred through to the City’s Parks team, who has provided the following advice:

The City is expecting to take over the landscape works for the Minim Cove Stage 8 Development – this includes verge and median landscaping to Tyrone and McCabe Streets in August 2016. The proposed development of Lot 217 will be ongoing.

All landscape works to match existing materials and planting species.

Access/storage/parking etc. will not be permitted on Tyrone and McCabe Street and a bond for all infrastructure (like for like) will be required from the developer to cover cost of replacement.

An advice note has been recommended to remind the applicant to liaise directly with the City’s Parks team in relation to verge works and during the construction of the development. Infrastructure and Project Delivery The application was referred to the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery team, with the following comments received:

Observe all AS relating to vehicle access and egress. Specifically truncations at the driveways on The Cutting.

Support comments from Parks and Landscaping regarding access not being permitted along Tyrone Street. This is also to apply during construction of the development.

Dimension parallel bays on Mathieson Ave and ensure they conform with AS for car parks on road.

Observe COF specifications for location of crossovers in relation to intersecting roads. In this case the southern entrance on The Cutting would appear to be closer than 12m to the through alignment of the intersecting road (Mathieson Ave).

No crossover shall be constructed closer than 12m to the property alignment of another road intersecting with the carriageway that the driveway services, nor shall it infringe upon any part of a corner truncation of 6 metres unless otherwise approved by City Of Fremantle.

Parking bays on The Cutting not clear. Please define footpath (Parks comment)

Parking bays on McCabe Street are not supported The applicant has been notified of Infrastructure and Project Delivery’s comments. Alternative solutions are yet to be agreed upon and as such conditions and advice notes have been recommended in relation to the above. Concerns raised relating to access via Tyrone Street during the construction period of the development are considered to be addressed in the recommended advice note 1 and have not be discussed further within this report.


Page 8

City Works The application was referred through to the City’s City Works team, who recommended a condition be applied relating to the requirement of a waste management plan being provided. Consultation with other Agencies or Consultants Western Power The application was referred to Western Power for comment, with no objection received from the agency. Planning assessment: The development has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, local planning policies and deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed to comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles. Not meeting the deemed to comply criteria cannot be used as a reason for refusal. The proposal does not meet the deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes relating to the following elements–

Primary and Secondary Street Fencing

Plot ratio

Street Setbacks (Primary and Secondary Streets)

Open space

Vehicle sightlines

Landscaping

On site car and bicycle parking

Design of car parking spaces

Site works

Retaining walls The application also includes an exercise of discretion under LPS4 and local planning policies in relation to the following:

Dwelling mix


Page 9

Submissions A total of 48 submissions were received of which 47 were objections. The following relevant planning concerns were raised during the advertising period and are addressed in the planning assessment section of the report below –

Submission Planning Assessment

Building Height Building height has been assessed against the requirements of LPS4 and no discretion is sought.

Plot Ratio Plot ratio does not meet the Deemed to Comply requirements and an assessment against Design Principles of the R-Codes is provided below.

Open Space Open space does not meet the Deemed to Comply requirements and an assessment against Design Principles of the R-Codes is provided below.

Visitor Parking The sufficient number of visitor bays are provided, however they are not publically accessible. A Design Principle assessment is provided below.

A detailed schedule of submissions is included as attachment four. Construction Sites LPP 1.10 Construction Sites, outlines the requirements for Construction Management Plans, to alleviate the impact on surrounding properties during the construction phase of a development. Given the Residential properties in the vicinity, an advice note has been recommended to remind the applicant of their obligations to meet all other relevant legislation during construction. Primary and secondary street fence

Required Provided Merit based assessment

McCabe Street – 1m solid, visually permeable above to 1.8m, piers 2m

1.5m solid

0.5m solid portion of fencing

The proposed fencing along McCabe Street exceeds the permitted maximum solid portion of fencing as per LPP 2.8 Fences Policy by 0.5m. LPP 2.8 also specifies the following discretionary criteria;

‘Council may permit solid fencing for a portion of the total length of the boundary within the primary and/or secondary street setback area(s), where surveillance between a habitable room window of the dwelling and the street and approach to the dwelling is available, and the following criteria are satisfied; a) Where it is necessary to provide privacy screening where there is no

alternative outdoor living area to the front setback; or


Page 10

b) Where it is consistent with the prevailing streetscape. The proposal meets the criteria of (a) above, as the proposed fencing along McCabe provides privacy to the only outdoor living areas for these dwellings. Additionally, the balconies of the multiple dwelling provide surveillance from the dwellings to the street. It is also noted that due to a significant fall in topography, that there are portions of external walls of the building with balustrading located above. It is considered that these portions of balustrading are not considered fencing. Additionally these portions of balustrading are predominantly of a permeable material and continue to provide surveillance to the street. Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements As the development is greater than 1000m2 GLA, LPP 2.13 Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements applies. The applicant has provided the following acknowledgement of the requirements in their application - “An Ecological Sustainable Design (ESD) Strategy has been prepared by CADDS Energy for the proposed development, and details the overarching approach to achieving a highly sustainable outcome. Refer to Appendix 4 for a copy of the ESD Strategy. The proposal is capable of satisfying the provisions of LPP 2.13 and will be subject to a condition of approval requiring compliance with this requirement.” The ESD Strategy provided with the application concludes: “It is the opinion of Cadds Energy that this development should achieve a Four Star Rating, a total of 50 points, along with utilising superior thermal performance to facilitate in achieving a 8 Star NatHERS Rating.” A condition of approval is recommended to ensure ongoing compliance with the requirement. Land use

Land Use Permissibility Discretion

Multiple Dwelling D in Residential Zone Required

A ‘D’ use means that the use is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. Multiple Dwellings are considered to meet the requirements of the Residential zone as noted in Clause 4.2.1a) as follows:

i) Provide for residential uses at a range of densities with a variety of housing forms to meet the needs of different household types, while recognising the limitations on development necessary to protect local character. The immediate area in Minim Cove are characterised by Single Houses. Given the site’s coding of R60, and that it is nominated as a Grouped Housing site, it is considered appropriate that Multiple Dwellings are developed on the site.


Page 11

ii) Safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas and ensure that

development, including alterations and additions, are sympathetic with the character of the area. The development is supported against the Design Principles of key design elements (and/or meets Deemed-to-Comply), and is therefore considered to be of a character that is sympathetic with the character of the area.

iii) Encourage high standards of innovative housing design which recognise the need for privacy, energy efficient design and bulk and scale compatible with adjoining sites. The application is considered to provide an energy efficient design which proposes a Four Star Green Star or equivalent rating. The overall design of the development also responds to the five storey development adjacent to the site, as well as being sympathetic to the Single Houses predominantly to the south of the site.

iv) Recognise the importance of traditional streetscape elements to existing and new development

The development is considered to respond to the diverse mix in housing typologies in the surrounding area. Additionally the site responds to the areas sloping topography with the proposal appearing as two separate buildings which respond to the variation in site levels.

v) Conserve and enhance places of heritage significance the subject of or affected

by the development, and

No places of heritage significance have been identified in the immediate area surrounding the subject site. It is however noted, that the proposal is considered to respond to the existing character of the area.

vi) Safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas by ensuring that land use is compatible with the character of the area.

The proposed Multiple Dwelling development is considered to provide diversity to the existing housing mix within the immediate area while ensuring the development is compatible with the surrounding mix of housing types and forms. Given the proposal is solely residential, Multiple Dwellings are considered to be a compatible land use.


Page 12

Dwelling mix

Required Provided Discretion

25% to have max floor area of 60sqm or less

Nil 25% (5.5 apartments)

No more than 40% to have a floor area of 120sqm or more

100% (22) 60% (13.2 apartments)

Clause 5.4.5 of LPS4 states the following requirement for developments with ten or more Multiple Dwellings;

‘In development comprising of ten or more Multiple Dwellings, a minimum of 25 per cent of the total number of dwellings must have a maximum floor area of 60 square metres or less and no more than 40 per cent of the total number of dwellings may have a floor area of 120 square metres or more.’

The proposed development does not meet the dwelling mix requirements set out in LPS4 as 100% of the development is above 120 square metres. LPS4 also provides the following variation criteria in varying requirements of the Scheme. Clause 5.8.2.1 states;

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

with the locality generally; b) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and

adjoining; and c) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.

In considering the development within the general locality, the lack of proposed 60 square metre dwellings are not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties. The adjacent lots to the north of No. 1 Tyrone Street at No. 1-15 McCabe Street (Taskers) have current planning approvals which include a mix of Grouped Dwellings, Multiple Dwellings and commercial land uses. This site has dwellings which range from approximately 60m2 to 400m2. These sites provide a higher density dwelling mix to the immediate area surrounding the subject site. Similarly, the adjacent lots to the south of the subject site provide further dwelling diversity in the general locality. These sites consist of Single Houses with a lower density code of R25 which generally range in lot size between 350m2 and 540m2. It is considered that the proposal will not be detrimental to the area as it assists in providing a dwelling mix to the general locality. Additionally Clause 5.8.3 gives further consideration to the potential impacts on owners and occupiers in the surrounding area;

‘In considering an application for planning approval under this clause, where, in the opinion of Council, the variation is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality or adjoining the site that is the subject of consideration for the variation, the Council shall –


Page 13

a) consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions for advertising applications under clause 9.4, and

b) have regard to any expressed views prior to making its determination to grant the variation.’

As mentioned previously the application was advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4 and the requirements of LPP 1.3. During the consultation period submissions did not raise concern over the mix of dwelling size. Concerns were however raised regarding the overall plot ratio of the development. This has been considered and discussed separately to the dwelling mix issue, in the plot ratio section of this report.

‘The power conferred by clauses 5.8.1 and 5.8.2 may only be exercised if the Council is satisfied that- a) approval of the proposed development would be appropriate having regard to

the criteria set out in clause 10.2,and b) the non-compliance will not have an adverse effect upon the occupier or users

of the development, the inhabitants of the locality or the likely future development of the locality. ’

As outlined above, in considering the impact of the proposed development within the immediate locality the proposal is considered to provide a mix to the existing dwelling typologies offered in the immediate area. Furthermore, in considering the development within the context of the surrounding area and in relation to the future of the development, it is considered that the dwelling diversity of the area will provide a variety of dwelling options. Building Height Building height for the site is outlined in Schedule 12 – Local Planning Area 3 – North Fremantle, Sub Area 3.3.1 Rocky Bay (North Fremantle LPA). The following height requirements specifically relating to the site area as follows;

‘Despite the general development controls specified above, the maximum building height shall be 10m (external wall height or ridge height) to any development on Lot 217 Mathieson Avenue.’

It is considered that the building height proposed as part of the development is consistent with the requirements of Schedule 12 and no discretionary assessment is required. It is also noted that an architectural feature on the exterior portion of Unit 8 is located above the 10m external wall height requirement by approximately 500mm. This architectural feature is not considered to be external wall height and is partly attributed to the undulating topography. In addition to the above, it is noted that the proposed lift and supporting structures is considered to have a minor projection above the 10m wall height. As the projection will not be visible from the street the minor projection is not considered to result in a negative impact.


Page 14

Plot Ratio

Deemed-to-Comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

0.7 (2018m2) 1.06 (3059m2) 0.36 (1041m2)

The proposed plot ratio is considered supportable against the design principles of the R Codes. The design principles for Plot Ratio states;

‘Development of the building is at a bulk and scale indicated in the local planning framework and is consistent with the existing or future desired built form of the locality’

In considering the potential of the site at its current approved coding of R60, nineteen Grouped Dwellings could meet the Deemed to Comply density requirements, which could potentially result in greater building bulk given that there is no plot ratio requirement (and therefore maximum floor area) for Grouped Dwellings. In considering the existing and future desired built form of the locality the site has been zoned as a higher density (R60 compared with the surrounding R25) which allows for a greater opportunity for housing diversity in the area and is suited for Multiple Dwellings. Additionally the adjacent lots to the north of the site, along McCabe Street have been approved at a density significantly greater than the site which demonstrates the intended mix in densities for the area. Notwithstanding the above, when considering the design of the proposal, the overall bulk and scale are considered to have been reduced through a variety of design elements, and is supported for the following reasons against the Design Principles of the R-Codes:

The separation of the two buildings to reduce the overall impact on the sloping site;

The addition of a landscaped roof terrace which works to reduce the impact of the bulk of the southern building;

The design features used to reduce the sense of building bulk including the materials proposed, landscaping and openings;

The use of angles and articulations along the street creates interest and variety in order to reduce the bulk of the building;

Sloping nature of the site allows for a split level development, further reducing the impact of building when viewed from the street;

The site occupies the entire street block and is therefore separated from other properties by road reserves; and

The design is considered to address and respond to the perception of building bulk and is therefore the plot ratio is not considered to significantly impact on the overall amenity of the site and the surrounding locality.


Page 15

Street setback

Deemed to Comply Provided Average area located within setback area *

Design Principle Assessment

Primary Street – 2m (McCabe)

0.54 2.4m2 1.46

Primary Street– 2m (Tyrone Street)

1.05 14.9m2 0.95

Secondary Street – 2m (The Cutting)

0.3 1.4m2 1.7

Secondary Street – 2m (Mathieson Ave)

0.93 15.2m2 1.07

The primary and secondary street setbacks are supported for the following reasons:

Only small triangular portion of the development project beyond the 2.0m deemed to comply requirement;

The proposal is considered to positively contribute to the desired streetscape;

The proposal provides for the articulation of the building on the primary and secondary streets to reduce building bulk on the street;

Allows for minor projections that create interest and reflect the character of the street without impacting on the appearance of bulk over the site;

Are appropriate to its location, respecting the adjoining development and existing streetscape, particularly given the site occupies the entire street block;

Facilitate the provision of weather protection where appropriate;

The lot is a unique shape and creates challenges in meeting a consistent setback and the areas of the building which fall outside the setback line are considered to be minor. The following plan was provided by the applicant, which demonstrates the portions of the building which is located in front of the setback area.


Page 16

* Average area located within setback area depicts the area in which the building is located in front of the setback line. Open Space

Deemed to Comply

Provided Design Principle Assessment

45% 26% 19% - approximately 548m2

Notwithstanding the development not meeting the deemed to comply, the proposed amount of open space provided is considered supportable for the following reasons;

Open space provided has been incorporated with the streetscape in order to reduce the overall impact of the buildings bulk and interest to the street.

The lesser amount of open space is considered to be offset by the provision of outdoor living areas greater than that specified by the deemed-to-comply criteria. The required 10m2 outdoor living area for each dwelling results in a total of 220m2 overall for the site. In addition to each dwelling meeting the required outdoor living area, a total of 904m2 has been provided across the 22 proposed dwellings, which results in more than 4 times the required outdoor living area being provided.


Page 17

Balcony areas do not contribute to the deemed to comply calculation for open space under the R-Codes.

The proposed rooftop landscaping is also not included in the open space calculation as it is not accessible by residents. It is however noted that this feature assists in creating a sense of openness, providing visual interest and reducing the apparent bulk of the lower level apartments given all Multiple Dwellings looking over this portion of the site will be overlooking the rooftop.

Outdoor living areas have been provided, predominantly in the form of balconies, which are visible from the four street elevations. The design of these outdoor living areas provides the development with active surveillance and similarly, appears as the development provides adequate open space.

The reduced open space provided on the subject site is not considered to be evident when viewed from the street and within the general locality.

The river foreshore is located approximately 100m from the subject site which provides access to high quality open space area.

Sight lines

Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

Walls, fences truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of where walls, fences, other structures adjoin vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street

Not provided

Required

The sight lines proposed for the southern basement car parking area are not considered to meet the design principles of the R-codes and have been assessed by the City’s Traffic Officer to require amendments. A condition relating to the development meeting the sight line requirements has therefore been recommended. Landscaping


Lighting provided to pathways, and communal open space and car parking areas

Not provided

Required

The proposal is not considered to address the deemed to comply lighting requirements of the R-Codes. The proposed landscaping for the site has been assessed against the following design principles of the R-Codes;

‘The space around the building is designed to allow for planting. Landscaping of the site is to be undertaken with appropriate planting, paving and other landscaping that:


Page 18

Meets the projected needs of the residents;

Enhances security and safety for residents; and

Contributes to the streetscape.’

It is considered that the above design principles have been addressed in the proposed landscaping shown for the site, with the exception of point two above (‘Enhances security and safety for residents’). It is therefore recommended that lighting be provided for the site in order to ensure the security and safety of residents. Parking


Resident (33) 53 bays Nil (20 additional)

Visitor (0.25 per dwelling) - 6

6 Nil (but unmarked)

TOTAL CAR BAYS - 39 53 Nil (14 additional)

Bicycle (resident) - 8 Nil 8 racks

Bicycle (visitor) - 3 Nil 3 racks

TOTAL BICYCLE RACKS – 11

Nil 11

The proposed parking provisions for visitor parking are considered supportable for the following reasons;

The proposed development has a total of 14 additional car bays provided, which is considered to sufficiently address the shortfall in marked visitor parking bays.

It is considered that visitor parking will be adequately addressed with the combination of both secure onsite parking and through the provision of offsite parking bays, provided by the applicant, in consultation with the City.

It is noted that the applicant has been in consultation with the City, in order to provide off site car parking for the development. It is considered that these bays will facilitate some visitor parking demand related to the site. The provision of bicycle parking for future residents is considered to be supportable due to the onsite storage areas offsetting the shortfall in residents bicycle racks. The proposed storage areas are 9m2 – 11m2 in area, which is approximately 6m2 greater than the required 4m2 storage areas. It is considered that this area can provide sufficient and secure storage for resident’s bicycles and therefore a requirement to meet the 8 bicycle racks is not considered necessary for the development. Notwithstanding the residential bicycle racks being supported, on site visitor bicycle racks are not supported, as such a condition relating to the provision of 3 visitor parking racks is recommended.


Page 19

Design of Car Parking Spaces


Visitor car parking spaces:

Marked or visible from the point of entry to the development and outside any security barrier; and

Provide an accessible path of travel for people with disabilities

Bays proposed as unmarked and within secure basement area. Disability access is considered to be provided

Required

The proposed design of visitor car parking spaces are considered to be address the following design principles of the R-codes; ‘Car, cycle and other parking facilities are to be designed and located on site to be conveniently accessed, secure, consistent with streetscape and appropriately manage stormwater to protect the environment.’ The proposal is considered to provide a sufficient number of bays as discussed in the Parking section of the report above, however visitor car parking is not designated or marked clearly. Similarly, the proposed visitor spaces are located within the secure basement. It is considered that the provision of visitor car parking within the secure basement area is acceptable as this provides a high level of security. In addition to visitor car parking being provided within the basement area of the development, six (6) on street parking bays have been proposed and considered supportable by the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery department, as discussed in the Consultation section of this report. The six (6) on street parking bays are considered to provide additional bays that can be accessed by visitors to the development. Should Council wish to have the six (6) required visitor parking bays in the basement area marked, the following condition could be imposed; “Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DAP007/15, a minimum of six (6) visitor car parking bays, 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 City of Fremantle.” Site Works


Excavation or filling between street and building , or within 3m of the street alignment, whichever is the lesser, shall not exceed 0.5m, except where necessary to provide for pedestrian or vehicle access, drainage works or natural light for a dwelling

0m-1m fill proposed from street and building

Required


Page 20

The proposal is considered to address the design principles of the R-codes for the following reasons;

The existing site slopes significantly and as such the proposed site works are intended to provide for ‘steps’ for the development. In this regard it is considered that the fill considers and responds to the natural features of the site and requires minimal excavation/fill based on current site conditions;

It will provide for new stepped levels that are more consistent with adjoining road heights and ensures that the proposal is able to adequately address the street;

The site works do not result in a height discretion. Retaining Walls


Less than 0.5m high required on a lot boundary, may be located up to the lot boundary or within 1m of the lot boundary to allow for an area assigned to landscaping

1m retaining proposed

Required

The proposed development seeks to provide retaining walls on the western, eastern and southern boundaries, in conjunction with the proposed fill. It is considered that the proposed retaining will enable the required fill for the site. The proposed retaining along the boundary will enable the development to adequately address the street and respond to the sloping nature of the site. Residential Design Code amendments The proposed changes to the Residential Design Codes that are to become effective in October 2015 are not considered to impact this development application. Specifically, the proposed changes impact on the car parking provisions of the R-codes for Multiple Dwelling developments. The car parking requirements will not vary the existing car parking calculation for this development, as the required bay calculation will remain consistent for dwellings over 110m2. Conclusion: The application has been considered against all relevant statutory planning requirements and is supported. The development is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval.


Page 21

PSC1509-2 MARINE TERRACE, NO, 78F (LOT 6), FREMANTLE - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO MULTIPLE DWELLING - (AA DA0308/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 September 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development plans

2 – Site photos Date Received: 2 July 2015 Owner Name: P & C Jones Submitted by: P &C Jones Scheme: Mixed Use (R35) and Unzoned Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Office Use Class: Multiple Dwelling Use Permissibility: ‘A’


Page 22

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for the change of use of an existing office tenancy on the ground floor of an existing three story building to a Multiple Dwelling. The application seeks the exercise of discretion pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) is respect to land use. The proposal is considered to meet the objectives of the Mixed Use zone as defined by LPS4. The proposal also seeks a minor design principle assessment under the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) in respect to vehicle parking; which is also supported. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND The subject site is partially zoned Mixed Use and also partially unzoned pursuant to the scheme maps of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The subject site is not heritage listed or located in a heritage area. The tenancy in question exists on the ground floor of an existing three storey mixed use buildings and is currently approved as an Office. The upper floors of the development contain Multiple Dwellings including directly above the subject tenancy. The tenancy consists of 111m2 of internal floor area, an external courtyard fronting Marine Terrace measuring 32m2 and a parking bay at the rear of the building measuring 17m2. DETAIL The application seeks planning approval to change the use of the tenancy from an Office to a Multiple Dwelling. The proposal includes the fitout of the existing internal floor area to provide a new kitchen and living area, two bathrooms and up to four bedrooms. The proposal also includes changes to existing external openings fronting Marine Terrace. Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. 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. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions and seek policy discretions;


Page 23

Land use;

Vehicle parking. Discussion of these elements is included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the ‘Multiple Dwelling’ land use is discretionary and required to be advertised. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 28 July 2015, the City had received 5 objections. The following issues were raised;

There is any existing parking issue within the development, largely relating to the visitor parking area;

The proposal will result in a loss of land value for the complex as a whole;

The complex was established so that there would be three commercial tenancies and 3 dwellings;

There is limited parking available in the area;

Converting the tenancy to a dwelling will mean external outlets for services will be visible external to the tenancy;

The development has already occurred;

A residential use will prevent commercial uses from operating the way they current operate;

Current office tenants would likely terminate their lease on the grounds of noise and parking from the new residence.

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

PLANNING COMMENT Land use Clause 4.2.1(e) of LPS4 states the following objective of the Mixed Use zone;

‘Development within the Mixed Use zone shall – (i) Provide for a limited range of…small scale retailing of goods and services

(ie. showrooms, cafes, restaurants…), small scale offices and administration, entertainment, residential at upper levels and recreation;

(ii) Ensure future development within each of the mixed use zones is sympathetic with the desired future character of each area,

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

(iv) Conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development.’


Page 24

The proposed use of the ground floor tenancy as a Multiple Dwelling is supported for the following reasons’

The proposed residential use is considered compatible with surrounding non-residential (largely shops and office uses) uses;

The ground floor location, while discouraged by (i) above is distinguishable from other ground floor locations as the tenancy is setback from the street, separated from other non-residential uses by a vehicle driveway and adjoins another residential building at No. 82 Marine Terrace;

The location of the subject site, being outside the Fremantle City Centre area, means there is a lesser need to encourage activation at ground floor levels. Ground floor activation is not a high order planning objective in this area;

The built form alterations proposed are limited, meaning the building could be readily converted back to an Office use (or similar) in the future; and,

The proposal has no impact on adjoining buildings of heritage significance. Vehicle parking

Element Deemed-to-comply Proposed Design principle assessment

Multiple Dwelling 1.25 (Dwelling) + 0.25 (Visitor) = 1.5

(2 bays)

1 bay See comments

LPS4 specifies that the current Office land use (Office) be provided with parking at a rate of 1 bay per 30m2. This would result in 4 bays being required were the development approved under LPS4. 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 –

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

the land.’ Having regard to the above, the proposed parking assessment is considered to be waived under LPS4. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents:

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


Page 25

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the change of use from Office to Multiple Dwelling at No. 78F (Lot 6) Marine Terrace, Fremantle, subject to the following condition: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 2 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.


Page 26

PSC1509-3 NAYLOR STREET, NO. 1 (LOT 73), BEACONSFIELD - PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE TO MULTIPLE USES (INDUSTRY - LIGHT, GENERAL AND COTTAGE, SHOP, OFFICE, GARDEN CENTRE AND STORAGE YARD) AND SIGNAGE ADDITIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING - (AA DA0320/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 September 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development Plans

2 – Site photos Date Received: 8 July 2015 Owner Name: Ducasien Pty Ltd Submitted by: S Drake-Brockman Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Warehouse & Storage Yard Use Class: Industry – Light, General & Cottage, Shop, Office, Garden

Centre and Storage Yard Use Permissibility: All ‘X’ uses except Cottage Industry which is ‘A’


Page 27

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for a partial change of use for portions of the site to a range of uses. The intent of the change of use, as stated by the applicant, is to provide opportunities for business to co-exist on a site and share resources. The proposal intends to act as an ‘incubator’ for a range of commercial and industrial uses, by a range of operators. On 26 September 2013, the City resolved to adopted scheme amendment 43 that will rezone the subject site from ‘Development Area – DA14’ to ‘Residential (R25)’.This amendment has recently been gazetted therefore Council may only consider approval for X uses for up to 2 years. Overall the proposal is considered to have a limited impact on the existing and future amenity of the area over the next 2 years; and provides a usual, albeit temporary use of the site in the interim. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND The subject site measures approximately 12,318m2 and includes a number of warehouse and industrial buildings. The site exists at the corner of Naylor Street and Strang Street, Beaconsfield. It is noted that the use of the site is considered to represent the ‘Warehouse’ and ‘Storage Yard’ uses. The relevant planning history of the site includes:

On 23 October 1995 the City refused to grant planning approval for a ‘Tannery’ at the subject site (DA186/95).

On 13 May 1997 the City granted planning approval for a ‘Salvage Yard’ at the subject site (DA167/97). This use is considered equivalent to the ‘Storage Yard’ use.

On 14 July 1998 the City granted planning approval for a ‘Storage Shed’ at the subject site (DA311/98). This use is considered equivalent to a ‘Warehouse’ use.

On 26 September 2013, the City resolved to adopted scheme amendment 43 that will rezone the subject site from ‘Development Area – DA14’ to ‘Residential (R25)’. This amendment has recently been gazetted. DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for a partial change of use for portions of the site to a range of uses. The applicant notes that the uses are intended to operate as an ‘incubator’ for small scale commercial and industrial uses. This may be considered similar to the way the existing ‘MANY 6160’ use operates within the Fremantle City Centre area. In the submission included in the development application, the applicant makes the following remarks;


Page 28

‘Interest has coming from a florist, carpenter, welder, a small mining company, artist, sculptor, fertiliser wholesaler/retailer, musician, floor sander, building and others.’

The uses identified are considered to fall under the following use classes pursuant to LPS4;

Industry – Light, General & Cottage;

Shop

Office

Garden Centre; and,

Storage Yard. It is noted that the external areas of the site are already considered to represent a ‘Storage Yard’ but have been included in the application for clarity. It is noted that some forms of ‘fertiliser wholesaler’ are likely to fall under the Industry – Noxious land use classification. This land use has not been included in the assessment made in this report given that it is considered to be wholly inconsistent with the current zoning of the subject site. It is unclear whether the extent of fertiliser produced and/or sold or transferred on the site would fall under the Industry – Noxious classification. In any event a specific condition excluding any type of land use under the Industry – Noxious definition is recommended. The application includes approximately 1,500m2 of external storage (hardstand) area as well as 450m2 of floor area internal to an existing Warehouse building. Development plans, including the covering submission are included in this report at Attachment 1. 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 range of land uses sought’. CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the proposal includes a number of discretionary land uses. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 31 July 2015, the City had received not received any submissions.


Page 29

PLANNING COMMENT Land Uses

Land Use Residential zone

Industry – Light X

Industry – General X

Industry – Cottage A

Shop X

Office X

Garden Centre X

Storage Yard X

The table above specifies the various permissibility of land uses within the Residential zone. Clause 10.6.1 of LPS4 states that;

‘Despite any other provisions of the Scheme to the contrary, if the Council considers that any use should be permitted on any land temporarily, it may give Planning Approval strictly limited in time as a temporary use.’

Clause 10.6.4 further states that Council shall not approve a use under clause 10.6.1 for more than 2 years. A time limit of more than 2 years is not permitted by clause 10.6.4 for ‘X’ uses. It is noted that a two year approval does not exclude the applicant from re-applying for a further two year approval in the future. The proposed land uses are supported, subject to a condition limiting the time of approval to two years, for the following reasons;

Substantial redevelopment of Development Area 14 for residential uses in considered unlikely to highly unlikely to occur within the 2 year period;

While a range of uses are proposed, these are considered to be limited in scale and of little impact on amenity;

The applicant describes the proposal as an ‘incubator’ for commercial and industrial activities. The scale of each use is unlikely to be equivalent to a typical industrial or commercial activity and the impact on surrounding sites, including nearby residential uses, is likely to be limited.


Page 30

Vehicle parking

Element Scheme requirement

Proposed Discretion Sought

Industry – Light, General & Cottage; Shop Office; and, Garden Centre.

1:20m2 minimum 3 bays Based on

~450m2 floor area = 22.5 bays (23 bays)

5 bays 17 bays

Based on the range of land uses sought, the greatest parking requirement specified by LPS4 relates to the ‘Shop’ land use. Should the entire indoor area of the existing Warehouse be used for the Shop use, 23 bays would be required. The exercise of discretion under LSP4 relating to vehicle parking is supported for the following reasons;

There are substantial hardstand areas available on the site capable of providing vehicle parking. These are not indicated on the plans but are clearly available;

As stated by the applicant, a range of uses is proposed, including uses which are likely to generate a demand for parking significantly below the Shop parking requirement;

There are opportunities for off-site parking within the immediate vicinity of the subject site including along Naylor Street and Strang Street;

Public transport is available nearby to the subject site along Hampton Road, which is identified by the City as being an important transport corridor.

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

Economic Development Strategy 2011 -15:

o New commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing

employment opportunities.

Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

o New commercial businesses established in Fremantle providing

employment opportunities.

o Provide for economic growth by planning and promoting development

and renewal in designated precincts within the City.


Page 31

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 multiple uses (Industry - Light, General and Cottage, Shop, Office, Garden Centre and Storage Yard) and signage additions to existing building at No. 1 (Lot 73) Naylor Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 8 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 of this approval, the use hereby approved shall be limited to a period of not more than 2 years from the date of this decision letter. After this time, the use of the land for the activities specified under this application shall cease, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

3. Notwithstanding condition 1 of this development approval, the use of the site

as ‘Industry – Noxious’ is hereby deleted from the application and shall not be carried out at the subject site.


Page 32

PSC1509-4 MCLAREN STREET, NO. 19 (LOT 280), SOUTH FREMANTLE - VARIATION TO PREVIOUS 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: 2 September 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: 22 June 2015 Owner Name: M.A. & K. Stewart-Richardson Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential Zone Heritage Listing: Not heritage listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Residential Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 33

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). The proposal is referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) due to a number of submissions that are 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:

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 an two storey rear Ancillary Dwelling addition to the existing Single House (DA0105/15).

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.


Page 34

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. 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);

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

PLANNING COMMENT Lot boundary setbacks

Element Deemed-to-comply

Proposed Design Principle Assessment

South 1.2m 0.85m – 1.4m Up to 0.35m

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 the same as what currently exists from the garage to the southern boundary.

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 850mm from the southern boundary.


Page 35

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 15.75% 10.4% No discretion sought 16 Orient Street 13.13% 7.8%

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

Element Deemed-to-comply

Proposed Design Principle Assessment

Plot ratio area 75m² 93.22m² 18.22m²

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 93.22m², 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 36


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 22 June 2015.

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

on plans dated 22 June 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 37

PSC1509-5 THOMPSON ROAD, NO. 100 (LOT20), NORTH FREMANTLE -TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (CJ DA0310/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 September 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 Attachment 3 – Heritage Comment

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 38

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for two storey rear additions to an existing Single House at No. 100 Thompson Road, North Fremantle. The application has been assessed against relevant statutory provisions, including the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and local planning policies. Due to Design Principle and discretionary assessments required against the following, the application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination:

Boundary walls;

Visual privacy; and

Solar access for adjoining sites. The application has been assessed against the relevant statutory requirements, and due to the proposed two storey boundary walls on the southern boundary and level of overshadowing proposed, the application is recommended for on balance refusal. An alternative recommendation is provided for PSC’s consideration. BACKGROUND

No. 100 Thompson Road, North Fremantle is located on the western side of Thompson Road in the North Fremantle Local Planning Area. The street block is bound by Coventry Parade to the north, Stirling Highway to the west, Pamment Street to the south and Thompson Road to the east. The site is adopted on the City’s Heritage List and is Level 3 on the Municipal Heritage Inventory. It is also located in the North Fremantle Heritage Area. The site is currently occupied by a single storey Single House. Planning history for the site is as follows:

DA321/03 – Re-cladding of Cottage and Demolish external toilet - approved with conditions

DA686/03 – Unauthorised alterations to front verandah – approved with conditions

DA623/03 – Single Garage to replace existing Shed 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. The works proposed include:

Addition of a detached rear two storey structure;

o Covered outdoor living area;

o Storeroom;

o Study.

Partial demolition of the rear portion of the existing Single House;

Demolition of existing outbuilding;

Two storey additions to the rear of the house;


Page 39

o Additional bedrooms and expanded living areas;

o Basement.

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

Heritage

The City’s Heritage Department has assessed the partial demolition and additions to the existing single storey Single House and has the following comments:

Two storey, rear additions are proposed to an existing single storey Single House. Works include demolition of an outbuilding at the rear of the property and partial demolition of the rear of the building. The demolition works are supported as they are considered to have little or no significance to the significance of the building.

The additions and alterations to the building are to the rear only, and are not considered to impact greatly on the existing fabric. The upper floor of the rear addition is setback behind the existing roof ridge of the house and only occupies approximately half the width of the lot. The overall impact of the additions are not considered to significantly impact on the streetscape

Full comment is included as attachment 3.

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;

Visual privacy; and

Solar access for adjoining sites.


Page 40

At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 29 July 2015, the City had received two (2) submissions that raised the following comments (summarised):

We weren’t permitted to construct parapet walls and required extensive modifications to height and pitch to satisfy overshadowing;

Percentage of overshadowing is extremely excessive;

Allows very little natural sunlight in to living room and rear outdoor living area;

Boundary wall not in keeping with historical natural of heritage buildings.

PLANNING COMMENT

Boundary walls

Deemed to Comply Provided Discretion

South – 1m Nil 1m

West - 1m Nil 1m

South The boundary walls proposed on the south are not supported on balance. The proposed boundary walls to the south are not supported for the following reasons:

The large 7.0m high boundary walls on the southern elevation contribute to the overshadowing of the southern neighbours outdoor living area and 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 is significant, given the majority of the boundary the additions will occupy;

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;

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

Should PSC not agree with the above, the proposed southern boundary wall could be supported for the following reasons:

The wall is 3.3m high on the boundary, with the second storey portion sloping away from the affected property;

Construction of the additions on up against the southern boundary allows for an outdoor living area and openings to gain maximum use of northern sunlight;

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

Should the wall be setback to the required 1m, the amount of overshadowing on the site would not be significantly reduced;

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


Page 41

West The western boundary wall is supported for the following reasons:

The 1.00m wide pedestrian access way (PAW) in between the subject site and adjoining property acts as setback for the wall;

Building bulk impacts will be negligible given the existing boundary walls for the western property;

Major openings and/or active outdoor spaces will not be impacted by lack of ventilation or direct sunlight; and

The western property will not be affected by overshadowing as calculated by the R-Codes.

Visual privacy


Study – west elevation – 4.5m

1.4m N/A - Commercial

Study – east elevation – 4.5m

2.5m (to southern boundary) –screening

2m

It is considered that the study window on the eastern elevation, should be screened, given the potential for overlooking of major openings on the adjoining property. While this has been indicated on the plans, should the application be approved, a condition is recommended to ensure a suitable type of screening is provided. The study window that looks to the western property is not recommended to be screened given the sites commercial use. Solar access for adjoining sites

Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle

25% (82.25sqm) 48% (157.9sqm) 23% (75.65sqm)

The proposed level of overshadowing is considered to be unsupportable on balance. The solar access for the adjoining site is not supported for the following reasons:

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. Should PSC not agree with the above, the proposed overshadowing could be supported for the following reasons:

No roof mounted solar collectors existon site;

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

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


Page 42

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

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.


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

Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION As the application has been recommended for refusal on balance, an alternative recommendation has been provided for PSC’s consideration: 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 21) 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 3 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. 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 3 July 2015 the study window located on the east 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.


Page 43

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 be 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.


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.


Page 44

PSC1509-6 PROWSE STREET, NO. 8A (LOT 2), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0293/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 September 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: 29 June 2015 Owner Name: Mitchell Jones Submitted by: Antonelli Investments Scheme: Residential R20/25 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 45

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 8a Prowse Street, Beaconsfield. The proposal has been assessed against the requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policies. The application is seeking design principle assessments and discretionary assessments against the following:

Boundary wall

Building height – external wall

Visual privacy – north and west

Car parking dimensions and manoeuvring

Site works The proposed development was advertised to neighbouring landowners, with objections received to relevant planning considerations that cannot be resolved through conditions of planning approval to the satisfaction of the neighbours and is therefore being referred to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) for determination. The application has been assessed against relevant statutory planning requirements and is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

No. 8a Prowse Street, Beaconsfield is located at the rear of No. 8, on the eastern side of Prowse Street, Beaconsfield. The street block is bound by Prowse Street to the west, O’Hara Street to the south, York Street to the east and Michael Street to the north. The site is located within the Beaconsfield Local Planning Area and is not on the City’s Heritage List, nor is it in a Heritage Area. Planning history for the site includes the following:

WAPC756-13 – Two lot survey strata subdivision approved with conditions (29 August 2013). The application was approved under the higher density; however the recommendation to apply a Restrictive Covenant in accordance with LPP 2.2 Split Density Codes and Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule was not applied by the WAPC.

DETAIL

On 29 June 2015, the City received an application for the addition of a two storey Grouped Dwelling to a recently subdivided site. The site is currently vacant. Development plans are included as attachment 1.


Page 46

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 wall;

Building height – external wall;

Site works;

Retaining walls; and

Visual privacy. 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 discretionary assessment against the following:

Boundary wall;

Building height – external wall;

Site works;

Retaining walls; and

Visual privacy. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 23 July 2015, the City had received four (4) submissions. The following issues were raised (summarised):

No reason why application should not comply with the R-Codes;

No need for extra height;

Codes are meant to protect neighbours not allow people to build bigger houses;

Knew what codes were before drafting plans;

Object strenuously to height and setbacks;

Visual privacy;

Overall building height;

Infill developments do nothing for the amenity of the area;

Impact access to light in back yard;

Small windows will still overlook; and

Overall height will block sunset view. Relevant planning concerns are assessed in the Planning Comment section below.


Page 47

PLANNING COMMENT

Boundary wall – South (Garage)

Deemed to Comply Provided Discretion

South – 1.5m Nil 1.5m

The proposed boundary wall is not supported, on balance for the following reasons:

The 9.4m long wall does not create any more privacy for the occupant or outdoor living area, than if the garage wall met lot boundary setback requirements;

The 3.1m high boundary wall is significantly higher than a typical boundary fence of 1.8m, and will result in building bulk abutting the majority of the neighbouring properties rear yard;

The resultant shadow from the boundary wall will occupy approximately half of the neighbours rear yard. Given the lot is capable of subdivision in a side by side formation, this could potentially result in the whole rear portion of a new lot being occupied by shadow in winter;

Is considered to have some adverse impact on the neighbouring property. A condition of approval is recommended to set back the garage by 0.8m, as this will still allow for a garage of compliant width, in order to increase the amenity for the southern neighbour. Should PSC not agree with the above condition the boundary wall could be supported for the following reasons:

The shadow thrown by the boundary wall would not be significantly reduced by a compliant lot boundary setback, given the upper floor of the development;

The neighbouring property’s rear yard is still able to gain a significant amount of northern sunlight;

The wall does not have a significant impact on the streetscape given it is on the rear lot.

PSC could elect to delete the condition to increase the setback requirement, should they agree with the reasons to support the boundary wall. If the boundary wall is supported, the following standard condition should be applied - 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 48

Building height – external wall


6m – External wall height 6- 6.78m 0 - 780mm

Due to the slope of the land for a portion of the western elevation, the Deemed-to-Comply height of 6m for an external wall is exceeded. The external wall height is supported for the following reasons:

The bulk of the elevations meet the 6m height requirement, the only exception being the 2.7m wide entry architectural feature on the western elevation that protrudes above the general gutter line;

The portion of the building that exceeds the height requirement is setback 4.63m from the neighbouring boundary and will therefore have minimal impact on the access of direct sunlight to open spaces and major openings;

The portion of greater external wall height does not have an impact on the overshadowing calculation; and

The development is on a rear lot and will therefore have minimal presentation to the streetscape.

Vehicular access


Driveways designed for two way access to allow for vehicles to enter the street in forward gear where distance is 15m or more

Adequate manoeuvring space provided that is not wide enough (2.1m)

300mm

The proposed manoeuvring space provided on site is supported for the following reasons:

A space to reverse is provided, albeit 300mm narrower than a car space requires;

Sightlines have been provided as part of the subdivision both at the junction of the common property and lot and common property and street;

Prowse Street is not a major road and could safely be reversed on to;

The verge is approximately 6m wide, with the footpath on the street side rather than directly up against the lot boundary, allowing additional space for vision of pedestrians;

The front property does not currently have a front fence restricting obstruction to view; and

The amount of vehicles using the common property is restricted to those parked on two lots only.


Page 49

Site works


Not more than 0.5m above ngl at lot boundary

Nil to 680mm

130mm

The proposed levels of site works are supportable for the following reasons:

Fill is proposed in the north western corner only, and the majority of the site is a relatively consistent level;

The fill proposed will not be visible from the street; and

Building height is compliant in the area with the most fill, with the only external wall height assessment required for a feature that protrudes above the gutter line.

A standard 1.8m high fence on top of the proposed retaining wall would protect the privacy of adjoining properties.

Retaining walls


Setback from lot boundaries Nil setback 1.5m

The proposed retaining walls are proposed on the lot boundary and are supported for the following reasons:

The retaining walls following that natural topography of the site and allow for an even development site and ensure an alfresco area that does not include steps down from the dwelling. ;

The maximum height of the retaining is 680mm and is only for a small section of the north western part of the site;

The impact on neighbours is considered to be minimal and visual privacy is assessed below.

Visual privacy


Balcony – west – 7.5m 2.8m 4.7m

Balcony – north – 7.5m 5.6m 1.9m

Alfresco – north – 7.5m Nil 7.5m

Visual privacy is assessed as follows:

The upper floor balcony is proposed to overlook the rear outdoor living area of the adjoining western site. It is recommended that screening be provided to this elevation.


Page 50

The upper floor balcony also proposes to look to the north, however will overlook the roof of the adjoining property, and is not considered that it will impact on the privacy of an outdoor living area or major openings. The northern elevation of the balcony is supported without screening.

The alfresco area on the northern side of site is partially more than 500mm above natural ground level. It is considered that a typical 1.8m boundary fence would satisfy the screening for this portion of the site and no requirement for further screening is required.

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.


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


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 8a (Lot 2) Prowse, Beaconsfield, subject to the following condition(s): 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans, dated 29 June 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. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the southern setback of the Garage on

the ground floor shall be increased to a minimum of 0.8m to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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 occupation of the development approved as part of DA0293/15, on plans dated 29 June 2015 the (balcony 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


Page 51

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 52

PSC1509-7 HICKORY STREET, NO. 4 (LOT 26), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AA DA0329/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 2 September 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 – Development plans

2 – Site photos 3 – Applicants response to submissions

Date Received: 15 July 2015 Owner Name: R & S Backhouse Submitted by: Mikasa Designs Scheme: Residential (R25) Heritage Listing: South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 53

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning approval for partial demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of rear additions as well as an upper floor addition. The application is presented to the Planning Services Committee (PSC) as it seeks the exercise of discretion against planning policies of the City, or a design principle assessment against the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), in respect to the following elements;

Street setback (upper floor)

Building height (external wall)

Visual privacy (north)

Lot boundary setbacks (south); and,

Solar access for adjoining sites. The application does not meet the prescribed setback criteria of Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential streetscapes (LPP2.9) in relation to the upper floor element. The subject site adjoins single storey dwellings (some with a loft) fronting Hickory Street. The upper floor addition is considered to be inconsistent with the existing prevailing streetscape character. It is noted that the subject site is located nearby to No. 5 Douro Road which has a valid development approval for an upper floor addition of a similar setback to that proposed (pursuant to DA0024/15). The proposal is also considered to result in an unreasonable loss of solar access to existing windows and outdoor areas on the southern adjoining site. It is noted that modification of the proposal could reduce this impact. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant merit based criteria relating to all other elements. The application is recommended for refusal on the basis of the street setback and solar access. However should Council give regard to the greater context of the site, including approvals such as DA0024/15, an alternative recommendation for approval is included in this report. BACKGROUND The subject site includes a single storey house fronting Hickory Street. The dwelling is not heritage listed and is not noted as being of cultural heritage significance; but is located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area. The subject site is the second property on the eastern side of Hickory Street, from the corner of Douro Road and Hickory Street South Fremantle. The site area is 455m2. A search of the property file revealed no relevant planning history.


Page 54

DETAIL The application seeks planning approval for partial demolition of an existing single storey dwelling and construction of a two storey addition. The proposed demolition results in the retention of the front two rooms of the dwelling, construction of a rear two storey addition which sits partially over the retained dwelling portions and a new external tandem carport area. New street fencing is also proposed to Hickory Street. The development plans also depict a ‘granny flat’ with an adjoining ensuite room. Given the limited size of the bedroom proposed as well as the lack of kitchen and laundry facilities, this area is simply considered a portion of the dwelling and not a stand-alone Ancillary Dwelling. Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. 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. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles of the R Codes. Not meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions and seek policy discretions:

Street setback (upper floor)

Building height (external wall)

Visual privacy (north)

Lot boundary setbacks (south); and,

Solar access for adjoining sites. Discussion of these elements is included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION Community The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the proposal seeks the exercise of discretion, most prominently, against the City’s LPP2.9 – Residential streetscapes. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 12 August 2015, the City had not received any submissions. The City received a late submission after the timeframe specified above. This submission raised concerns regarding the impact on solar access to the southern adjoining property noting loss of light to existing habitable rooms as well as the impact of building bulk caused by the ground floor boundary wall.


Page 55

In response to the submissions, the applicant provided addition information and a response (see Attachment 3). The submission is summarised as follows;

The proposed boundary wall will have a limited impact on light access and quality given the existing patio structure of the adjoining site;

The proposal will cast a shadow over the existing 1.8m wide side area to the dwelling but this area is not a useable outdoor space;

The proposal will cast a shadow over the existing windows but this is not unreasonable in the context of the existing extent of shadow.

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

PLANNING COMMENT Street setback

Element Required Provided Discretion

Upper floor (wall height greater than 4m)

10m 4.2-4.9m 5.1-5.8m

The application includes a discretionary against the LPP2.9. Clause 1.2 of LPP2.9 specifies the following discretionary criteria;

‘(i) The proposed setback of the building is consistent with the setback of buildings of comparable height within the prevailing streetscape; or (ii)The proposed setback of the building does not result in a projecting element into an established streetscape vista by virtue of the road and/or lot layout in the locality or the topography of the land; or; (iii) The proposed setback of the building will facilitate the retention of a mature, significant tree deemed by the Council to be worthy of retention; or (iv) Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or, (v) Where the proposed development is on a lot directly adjoining a corner lot, Council will consider a reduced setback that considers the setback of the corner lot in addition to buildings in the prevailing streetscape.’

The proposal includes an upper floor addition fronting Hickory Street. Buildings contained within the ‘prevailing streetscape’ (No. 2, 6, 8 & 10) are all single storey dwellings with limited wall heights; or in the case of 10 Hickory Street, have an upper floor setback beyond the prescribed criteria. In that respect the proposal does not satisfy part (i) above. The proposal will also be highly visible from Hickory Street and project forward of the single storey buildings contained adjacent at No. 2 and 6 Hickory Street. Both of these dwellings are on the City’s Heritage List.


Page 56

Looking more broadly, it is noted that there are a range of buildings that include upper floors which are clearly visible from the street. This includes an existing three storey building at No. 1 Douro Road, opposite the subject site. It is noted that the Council previously granted planning approval to a first floor addition at the nearby site at No. 5 Douro Road. This addition, if constructed, will be highly visible from both Douro Road and Hickory Street. Should Council consider approval of the development having regard to the wider context of the site, an alternative recommendation is provided in the ‘Conclusion’ section of this report. Solar access for adjoining sites

Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

25% (113.5m2) 34% (155m2) 9% (41.5m2)

The proposal, on-balance, is not considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

The proposal results in a shadow cast to southern adjoining site including over a portion of roofing. This shadow will effect existing major openings on the adjoining site (6 Hickory Street). These rooms currently consist the main living, dining and kitchen areas as well as a bedroom. It is noted that the shadow does not affect existing solar panels on the adjoining site;

The majority of shadow cast effects a side access area but this also includes an outdoor living area at the rear of the site.

It is recognised that the orientation of the land means the achieving the deemed-to-comply criteria may be difficult when an upper floor is proposed. However the wall has a direct impact on existing openings and outdoor areas on the adjoining site and is not supported as a result. Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle

Assessment

South (TV Room, Laundry room to existing

outbuilding

Walls built up to or within 600mm of a boundary behind

the front setback line within the following limits;

(b) where the wall is proposed to abut an existing or

simultaneously constructed boundary wall of similar or

greater dimensions.

7.95m long x 3.0m high on the southern

boundary

See comments.


Page 57

The proposed boundary wall is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and the additional criteria of LPP2.4 in the following ways;

The portions of the wall are considered to affect a side access area and only a small portion of a rear outdoor living area. The extent of this impact is not considered to cause a sense of confinement;

There is considered to be only a limited impact on access to light and ventilation on the southern adjoining site;

The main dwelling casts a greater shadow over than the adjoining site than the proposed single storey boundary wall;

The wall does not contribute to a loss of views of significance or significant vegetation.

Building height

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

Wall height (concealed roof)

7.0m 6.00 - 7.415m Nil - 0.415m

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

The application proposes a concealed roof. The proposed roof form, while above the external wall limit is significantly below the height of a deemed-to-comply pitched roof (9m) and is considered to be of significantly less bulk and scale;

The proposal is not considered to unreasonably impact any views of significance that may be present in the locality; and,

The proposal presents as a two storey building, which is the clear intent of this design element of the R-Codes.

Only the upper floor library (facing the street) is more than 7.0m in height.

It is noted that the proposal would meet the deemed-to-comply criteria if the parapet for the roof terrace was removed or reduced in height. Visual privacy

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

Roof deck 7.5m 1.7m 5.8m

The proposed design principle assessment is not supported as it will afford views to existing major openings on the ground floor and loft elements on the northern adjoining property at 2 Hickory Street. A condition relating to screening of the cone-of-vision from the roof deck is included in the alternative recommendation contained in the ‘Conclusion’ section of this report.


Page 58

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is inconsistent with the City’s following strategic documents;

Strategic Plan 2010 – 15;

o Improve physical presentation of the City’s streetscapes.

o Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage.

CONCLUSION The application includes the partial demolition of a dwelling and construction of a two storey addition. The proposal is not considered to meet the merit based criteria of LPP2.9. However the wider context of the subject site contains buildings of varying scale and size. Should Council give greater regard to buildings not considered by LPP2.9, the following alternative recommendation for approval is provided;

‘That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two storey alterations and additions to existing Single House at No. 4 (Lot 26) Hickory Street, South Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

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

dated 15 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. 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, 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.

4. Prior to use of the development approved as part of DA0329/15, on plans dated

15 July 2015, the north and east elevations of the roof deck and all other screening depicted on the plans hereby approved shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either;

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

level, or ii. 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

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


Page 59

iv. 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.’ OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two storey alterations and additions to existing Single House at No. 4 (Lot 26) Hickory Street, South Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 15 July 2015, for the following reasons:

1. The upper floor setback of the proposal is inconsistent with the pattern of development within the prevailing streetscape and represents a projecting element into the streetscape pattern. The proposal is therefore inconsistent with clause 1.2 (i) and (ii) of Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential streetscapes.

2. The proposal results in a loss of solar access to the southern adjoining site

which does not meet the design principles of Design Element 5.4.2 of the Residential Design Codes.


Page 60

PSC1509-8 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 61

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

PSC1509-9 ADVERTISING - PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY CLOSURE AND AMALGAMATION WITH NO.S 10 AND 12 KELLOW PLACE, FREMANTLE

ECM Reference: 158/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 02 September 2015 Responsible Officer: Manager Statutory Planning Actioning Officer: Land Administrator Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments 1: Application - to close the Pedestrian Access Way between

Kellow Place and Swanbourne Street, Fremantle. Attachments 2: Infrastructure Projects – PAW Physical Assessment Attachments 3: WAPC PAW closure (Option B) Guidelines

Figure 1 - PAW (Lot 55) Swanbourne Street is shown in red.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application (see Attachment 1) from the owners of 10 and 12 Kellow Place, Fremantle (‘Applicants’) to close the Pedestrian Access Way (Lot 55) located between Swanbourne Street and Kellow Place, Fremantle (PAW). The Applicants, propose to amalgamate the PAW with their adjoining properties at No. 10 and 12 Kellow Place, Fremantle. The application is supported with a petition signed by 17 of the 25 property owners adjoining Kellow Place. The petition is not included in this report in order to maintain the privacy of the signatories.


Page 62

A pedestrian access way closure and amalgamation application must follow the planning guidelines as set out by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) 2009 publication in conjunction with and pursuant to Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (‘Act’). This report seeks to advertise the proposal in accordance with statutory requirements and report the results back to the Council. Council is recommended to approve the advertising of the proposed PAW closure and amalgamation of Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, Fremantle with the adjoining properties. BACKGROUND

On 01 December 2014 the Applicants provided a formal submission to the City proposing the closure and amalgamation of the PAW together with a supporting petition signed by 17 out of 25 property owners with access to Kellow Place, Fremantle. The Applicants allege that the PAW is a major contributor to criminal incidents, endured by the residences over many years. On 8 December 2014, the City’s Technical Services Officers proceeded with an internal investigation to identify the infrastructure located within the PAW. On 19 January 2015 the City contacted Western Power (WP) with regard to an underground distribution cable located within the subject PAW. On 27 January 2015, WP advised the City that the Infrastructure would require re-location and requested that the Applicants should apply to Western Power as to the costs involved. WP indicated that they prefer to relocate their infrastructure rather than creating an easement as an alternative option. The Applicant subsequently wrote to the WP on 29 January 2015. On 18 March 2015 WP wrote back to the Applicant and provided their fee structure. The Applicant accepted the costs and asked that the City obtain a valuation of the PAW in order to estimate the overall costs involved to purchase of the portions of PAW for amalgamation subject to all statutory approvals. On 20 April 2015 the City wrote to the Department of Lands (DoL) providing all details currently available and requested a valuation from Valuation Services. On 28 April 2015 the DoL declined to provide a valuation without a Council resolution to support the Closure. The DoL had in the past provided valuations in relation to similar requests, however due to the costs involved they no longer provide the service. On 29 April 2015 the Applicant was advised and subsequently elected to obtain his own valuation and asked the City not to proceed pending the results of the valuation.


Page 63

On 07 May 2015 the Applicant received an estimated valuation and asked that the City proceed with the proposed PAW closure and amalgamation process. The formal process requires a Pedestrian Access Way Physical Assessment in (‘Assessment’) accordance with the WAPC 2009 Guidelines for the closure of PAW’s. The assessment was conducted by the City’s Infrastructure Projects Department and the work and costs were scheduled to commence in the new financial year due to current budget commitments. The usage element of the assessment was scheduled to be carried out after the school holidays in July in order to obtain a true usage figure. On 27 July 2015 the City conducted a short survey to target the property owners (with access to Kellow Place) who did not sign the petition. The survey resulted in three owners supporting the proposal with three owners against and two not responding. On 3 August 2015 the Assessment was completed with the inclusion of a Police report providing statistics on Police “Reported” and “Attendances” within the subject area. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The City is required to follow the "Procedure for the Closure of Pedestrian Access Ways" as set out in the October 2009 WAPC Planning Guidelines ("Guidelines"). The new, simplified procedure for dealing with the closure of pedestrian access way's is based on Section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997 which sets out a process by which an amalgamation of remnant Crown land may be achieved which is described as follows.

Step 1 The City receives a request for closure of a PAW and prepares a closure report.

Step 2 The City refers the closure report to all relevant infrastructure providers and any other agencies for comment.

Step 3 The City consults the community likely to be affected by the proposed closure (including all abutting landowners) and seeks their comments in writing.

Step 4 The City assesses any comments and advice received from infrastructure providers, agencies and the community and determines whether to close the PAW or retain it and keep it open.

Step 5 If the City resolves to close the PAW it advises all abutting landowners of its decision and seeks support for the closure and agreement on how to proceed.

Step 6 The City submits a written request to close the PAW to the WAPC with relevant supporting information.

Step 7 The WAPC assesses the proposal and communicates it decision to the local government.

Step 8 On receipt of the WAPC's endorsement, the local government proceeds with the closure, and refers the request to State Land Services for processing.

A more detailed explanation of the process is included in attachment 3 COMMENTS A Dial before You Dig (DBYD) search identified the following infrastructure located within the PAW:

Western Power – Low voltage cable

Water Corporation – Critical water pipeline

Atco Gas Australia – Service point


Page 64

The Applicants will be required to pay all costs associated with the proposed PAW closure and amalgamation including the relocation of any infrastructure services and/or easement requirements. The City is now required to advertise the proposal in accordance with legislative requirements and to provide the Council with a clear indication of the public support or opposition to the proposal prior to making a decision on the matter. INFASTRUCTURE PROJECTS COMMENT In accordance with the WAPC legislative requirements, a Pedestrian Access Way Physical Assessment was carried out by the City’s Traffic and Design Officer (see Attachment 2).The Assessment noted that the “primary use of the PAW would be assumed to be exclusively convenient for residents of Kellow Place as the PAW does not provide a quicker route for pedestrians using the area without detouring into Kellow Place. Conversely, removal of the PAW would be to the detriment of Kellow Place residents.” The Assessment noted that no lighting existed at either end of the PAW. The City has taken action to remove the vegetation to allow clear sight of the entry points as well as a clear view through the PAW (see Attachment 2 - photos 7 and 8). The clearing of vegetation has increased the PAW design aspect from a medium vulnerability PAW with a score of 7, to a Low vulnerability PAW with a score of 11 (see table below).


Page 65

EXTERNAL SUBMISSIONS

Community

The Applicant has provided a petition in support of the proposed PAW closure and amalgamation signed by 68% (17 out of 25) of the property owners located within and abutting Kellow Place, Fremantle. A City of Fremantle survey was conducted to target the remaining property owners who did not sign the petition resulted with three owners in support, three owners objecting to the proposal and two not responding.

A formal advertising process will follow pending council approval.


Page 66

CONCLUSION The Applicants propose to close the PAW for the purpose of amalgamation with their adjoining properties located at No. 10 and 12 Kellow Place, Fremantle. The Applicants have requested the PAW closure due to the belief that the PAW is a major contributor to crime in the area of Kellow Place. Police Incident and Attendance reports obtained as part of the PAW Assessment Report show a greater number of reports within Kellow Place rather than Swanbourne Street, as noted in the graphs shown in attachment 2 (figures 2-4). In summary, a total of 23 reported incidents (between 2002 and 2015) were recorded by Police within Kellow Place with 10 Police attendances recorded from 2011 to the present for the same area. As a comparison, Police have selected an area with a street address between 59 and 63 Swanbourne Street in order to capture reported and attended incidents associated with the PAW at the western end. The results are noted as a total of 1 reported incident between 2011 and 2015 together with 1 Police attendance between 2011 and 2015. The City has removed the vegetation from the PAW to improve the sight lines from both entrances including the full length of the PAW. The addition of lighting would further improve the design of the PAW. The results of the applicant’s petition and the City’s survey indicate both support and opposition to the proposed PAW closure and amalgamation. Therefore, it is recommended that a formal public consultation and advertising process be undertaken in accordance with legislative requirements. The results of public advertising will be reported back to Council for consideration resulting in a resolution to proceed or refuse the proposed PAW closure and amalgamation. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Undertake a public consultation and advertising process including a 35 day

public comment period in regard to the proposed permanent closure and amalgamation of the Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) as described on Certificate of Title Volume 1726 Folio 648 on Diagram 69767 being Lot 55 Swanbourne Street, Fremantle linking Kellow Place – pursuant of Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and the West Australian Planning Commission PAW closure procedure (October 2009).

2. Following the completion of the advertising period, consider any

submissions in a report to Council for a final decision to either support or reject the proposal to permanently close the Pedestrian Access Way described in (1) above.


Page 67

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.


Page 68

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION

The Council adopted a Community Engagement Policy in December 2010 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

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

Various participation opportunities 2. The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3. The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4. These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

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

All input is of equal value 6. No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

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


Page 69


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 70


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 71

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...Agenda - Planning Services Committee 2 September 2015 Page 5 4. All queries regarding traffic and access should be directed to the City of Fremantle’s