AGENDA - City of Fremantle

AGENDA

Planning Committee

Wednesday, 6 April 2016, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF A PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING Elected Members A Planning Committee meeting of the City of Fremantle will be held on Wednesday, 6

April 2016 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street, Fremantle

(access via stairs, next to the playground in Kings Square) commencing at 6.00 pm.

Paul Trotman DIRECTOR STRATEGIC PLANNING & PROJECTS 30 March 2016

PLANNING 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 Committee dated 2 March 2016 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) 1

PC1604-1 CUREDALE STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 10),BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0613/15) 1

PC1604-2 KING WILLIAM STREET, NO. 33 (LOT. 1) - TWO STOREY DETACHED ADDITION TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0599/15) 8

PC1604-3 SOUTH BEACH PROMENADE, NO.52 (LOT 236), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH BASEMENT - (JL DA0572/15) 15

PC1604-4 ORIENT STREET, NO. 12 (LOT 8), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0619/15) 25

PC1604-5 TRUSTING LANE, NO. 12 (LOT 2), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0023/16) 35

PC1604-6 MARDIE STREET, NO. 18B (LOT 75), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0547/15) 44

PC1604-7 HINES ROAD, NO. 53A (LOT 2), HILTON - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0024/16) 50

PC1604-8 CHESTER STREET NO.74B (LOT 88), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (JL DA0056/16) 56

PC1604-9 COLLEGE CORNER, NO. 25 (LOT 108), O'CONNOR - RETROSPECTIVE HOME BUSINESS (STORAGE) IN EXISTING SINGLE DWELLING - (NB DA0566/15) 62

PC1604-10 BANNISTER STREET NO, 7 - 15 (LOT 502) FREMANTLE - FOUR STOREY WITH LOFT ADDITION TO EXISTING HOTEL - (JL DAP012/15) 68

PC1604-11 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 79

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION) 80

PC1604-12 DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS FOR A TWO YEAR TERM 80

PC1604-13 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 2.20 - DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES - APPROVAL FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 82

PC1604-14 SCHEME AMENDMENT 69 - BASIC SCHEME AMENDMENT TO CONTINUE SMALL SECONDARY DWELLINGS BY REMOVING SUNSET CLAUSE FROM LPS4 - ADOPTION 89

PC1604-15 AMENDMENT TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 1.3 - MINOR AMENDMENT TO ALIGN LPP1.3 WITH THE NEW PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS - ADOPTION 94

PC1604-16 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 65 - ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS WHITE GUM VALLEY/BEACONSFIELD LOCAL CENTRE - FINAL ADOPTION 105

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 129

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

PC1604-1 CUREDALE STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 10),BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0613/15) 4

PC1604-2 KING WILLIAM STREET, NO. 33 (LOT. 1) - TWO STOREY DETACHED ADDITION TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0599/15) 12

PC1604-3 SOUTH BEACH PROMENADE, NO.52 (LOT 236), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH BASEMENT - (JL DA0572/15) 26

PC1604-4 ORIENT STREET, NO. 12 (LOT 8), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0619/15) 34

PC1604-5 TRUSTING LANE, NO. 12 (LOT 2), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0023/16) 59

PC1604-6 MARDIE STREET, NO. 18B (LOT 75), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0547/15) 68

PC1604-7 HINES ROAD, NO. 53A (LOT 2), HILTON - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0024/16) 77

PC1604-8 CHESTER STREET NO.74B (LOT 88), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (JL DA0056/16) 84

PC1604-9 COLLEGE CORNER, NO. 25 (LOT 108), O'CONNOR - RETROSPECTIVE HOME BUSINESS (STORAGE) IN EXISTING SINGLE DWELLING - (NB DA0566/15) 91

PC1604-10 BANNISTER STREET NO, 7 - 15 (LOT 502) FREMANTLE - FOUR STOREY WITH LOFT ADDITION TO EXISTING HOTEL - (JL DAP012/15) 100

PC1604-11 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21) 180

PC1604-13 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 2.20 - DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES - APPROVAL FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 185

PC1604-14 SCHEME AMENDMENT 69 - BASIC SCHEME AMENDMENT TO CONTINUE SMALL SECONDARY DWELLINGS BY REMOVING SUNSET CLAUSE FROM LPS4 - ADOPTION 196

PC1604-15 AMENDMENT TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 1.3 - MINOR AMENDMENT TO ALIGN LPP1.3 WITH THE NEW PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS - ADOPTION 211

PC1604-16 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 65 - ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS WHITE GUM VALLEY/BEACONSFIELD LOCAL CENTRE - FINAL ADOPTION 231

Agenda - Planning Committee 6 April 2016

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.

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

PC1604-1 CUREDALE STREET, NO. 14 (LOT 10),BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0613/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Attachment 1 – Development Plans

Attachment 2 – Site Photographs Date Received: 23 December 2016 Owner Name: Mark Harland Submitted by: Bruce Fountain Scheme: Residential R35 Heritage Listing: Level 3 Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for the addition of a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 14 Curedale Street, Beaconsfield. The application is being referred to the Planning Committee due to the primary street setback policy discretion sought. The application has been assessed against the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), local planning policies and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), and requires design principle and/or discretionary assessments against the following elements –

Primary street setback (ground and upper floor);

Lot boundary setback (boundary wall); and

Building height (external wall height). The application has been assessed against relevant statutory planning instruments and is recommended for on balance conditional approval, due to the proposed primary street setback. BACKGROUND

No. 14 Curedale Street is located in the Fremantle South Local Planning Area, on the eastern side of Curedale Street. The street block is bound by South Street to the north, Davies Street to the east, Grosvenor Street to the south and Curedale Street to the west. The site is currently occupied by a single storey Single House which is on the Heritage List and is Level 3 on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI). The proposed dwelling is to face the rear of the site and have a new street frontage (i.e. Davies Street). The site is within the Residential zone and is allocated a density code of R35. Conditional subdivision approval was granted by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in October 2015 for a two lot survey strata subdivision. At the time of writing this report, application for clearance had not been received by the City. DETAIL

In 23 December 2015, the City received an application for the addition of a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 14 Curedale Street, Beaconsfield. The site is currently occupied by a single storey Single House which fronts Curedale Street. Development plans are included as attachment 1 and site photographs are provided as attachment 2. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and planning policies.


Page 3

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:

Primary street setback (ground and upper floor);

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary walls); and

Building height (external wall). 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 item sought a number of Design Principle and discretionary assessments against relevant planning instruments. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 10 February 2016, the City had received no submissions. Heritage The City’s Heritage Coordinator has reviewed the proposal, and as it is separated from the existing dwelling, and fronting a separate street, the impact on the heritage significance of the place and locality is limited. No detailed heritage assessment was required. PLANNING COMMENT

Primary street setback

Required Provided Discretion

7m (wall less than 4m) 2.86m 4.14m

10m (wall greater than 4m) 2.7m 7.3m

The proposed Primary Street setback does not meet the requirements of LPP 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy. In order to vary this requirement, valid clauses of the policy are as follows -

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

While the properties address is 14 Curedale, the new Grouped Dwelling is proposed to face Davies Street, and this streetscape will therefore be it’s primary street. As such, the ground floor front setback of the existing properties fronting Davies Street (as part of the prevailing streetscape defined by LPP 2.9) is as follows for the ground floor-


Page 4

15 Davies – 2m

17 Davies – 3m

19 Davies – 3m

27 Davies – 4m

Additionally, while the development at No. 16 Curedale, has only a single storey outbuilding on the Davies Street elevation, with the Single House fronting Curedale (therefore having a different Primary Street), it does contribute to building bulk within 500mm of the street boundary. It is considered that there are sufficient examples of reduced setbacks on the ground floor in this streetscape to support the proposal. However, when considering the reduced upper floor setback, there are fewer examples of two storey properties within the existing streetscape, with only No. 15 Davies Street which is setback 3m. In this regard, the other discretionary clause that could be considered is -

Iv. Where there is no prevailing streetscape;

The subject site’s existing streetscape is unusual, in that it has two properties to the south which do not have development fronting the same street (Davies Street), only one two storey property and the remainder single storey. It could then be interpreted that the site does not have one consistent prevailing streetscape and that consideration should be given to the reduced upper floor setback (see figure 1 below).


Page 5

Figure 1 – Davies Street streetscape However, the note associated with the provision of LPP 2.9, states -

Note: No prevailing streetscape applies to, but is not limited to, instances where development is proposed on a lot where there are no other Grouped Dwellings or Single Houses adjoining the lot (three either side) that front the same street. Examples include situations where the lot is the first to develop on a new street or right of way, or development of a lot that adjoins a commercial property.

This could be interpreted to mean that the clause is intended to accommodate dwellings in an entirely new or vacant streetscape, rather than one which, by percentage, has a majority of single storey dwellings. The view could be taken, that one, two storey property is not enough, and that the single storey properties are the dominant feature of the streetscape and should be protected by greater upper floor setbacks. The ground floor setback is supported using the prevailing streetscape argument; however the upper floor setback on balance, with reasons to both support or refuse the proposed upper floor primary street setback outline above.

Lot boundary setback (boundary wall)

Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle Assessment

South (ground floor) – 1m 60mm 940mm

The Garage wall is proposed to be setback 60mm from the southern lot boundary and is supported for the following reasons -

For 4.8m of the 5.9m length, the wall abuts an existing Outbuilding on the southern site and therefore complies;

For the remaining 1.2m of boundary wall, there is unlikely to be a significant impact on the neighbours amenity for the following reasons;

o Overshadowing meets Deemed to Comply requirements;

o The proposed boundary wall does not appear to abut an existing outdoor

living area, and is approximately 19m from the rear of the adjoining Single House (where the Outdoor Living Area is likely to be located);

o At 2.5m high, the bulk of the boundary wall is not considered to be of

excessive building bulk;

o Will not restricted access to sunlight for habitable rooms or outdoor living

areas;

o There are a number of boundary walls in the existing streetscape.


Page 6

Building height (external wall)


6m 6.9m (skillion roof design only) 900mm

The proposed building height is supported for the following reasons –

The portion of wall exceeding external wall height, is on one side only due to the skillion roof design;

As the higher portion is on the northern side, the potential overshadowing is reduced;

The upper floor southern wall is 400mm under the deemed to comply 6m;

The overall building height is well under that allowable for a pitched roof (ie.9m), and is less than permitted for a concealed roof (7m), which would result in significantly more bulk and shadow that proposed for this design;

The additional building height will not significantly impact on adjoining windows or outdoor living areas;

The peak of the skillion roof is generally located in the centre of the site and will therefore have minimal impact on adjoining neighbours;

The additional height will not restrict access to views of significance. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is considered against the City’s following strategic documents: Diverse and Affordable Housing Policy:

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

Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

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

Improve physical presentation of the City’s streetscapes. Provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting

development and renewal in designated precincts within the City. Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage.

Green Plan 2020

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land: A large tree appears on the aerial, and is not shown to be retained on the proposed site plan, nor are any additional trees proposed to be planted. As per Clause 8.2l) the removal of trees does not require planning approval.


Page 7

ALTERNATIVE OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION For the reasons outlined in the Planning Comment section of the report above, it is considered there are valid reasons to either approve or refuse the development based on the upper floor front setback. The following alternative to the Officers Recommendation is provided - That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 14 (Lot 10) Curedale Street, Beaconsfield, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy LPP 2.9

Residential Streetscape Policy for the upper floor. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 14 (Lot 10) Curedale Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 23 December 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;

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.


Page 8

PC1604-2 KING WILLIAM STREET, NO. 33 (LOT. 1) - TWO STOREY DETACHED ADDITION TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0599/15)


Attachment 2 – Site photographs Attachment 3 – Justification letter from applicant

Date Received: 17 December 2015 Owner Name: Per Erik and Anne Charlotte Thambert Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: Level 3 Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for the development of two storey detached additions to the existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 33 King William Street, South Fremantle. The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as an objection was received during the advertising period, which was unable to be addressed through the imposition of relevant conditions of planning approval to the satisfaction of the neighbour. The application has been assessed against the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), local planning policies and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), and is seeking the following Design Principle Assessment –

Lot boundary setback (boundary wall – west & east); and

Visual privacy. The application has been assessed, and is supported by Officers on balance. The application is therefore recommended for conditional planning approval. BACKGROUND

No. 33 King William Street, South Fremantle is located on the southern side of King William Street, and has its rear boundary to Little Lefroy Lane. The site is within the Residential zone and is allocated a density of R30. It is within the Fremantle South Local Planning Area, specifically in sub area 4.3.3 of LPS4. It is also located within the South Fremantle Heritage Area, and is individually listed on the City’s Heritage List and MHI as level 3. The ground level of the subject site is significantly different to that of Little Lefroy Road, being 2.2m street level. A search of the property file has revealed no relevant planning history for the site. DETAIL

On 17 December 2015, the City received an application for detached additions to an existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 33 King William Street, South Fremantle. The applicant was contacted due to the proposal for a three storey proposal, which was not able to be supported under LPS4. Ongoing correspondence and amendments were made to the plans, with a final revised set lodged with the City on 12 February 2016. The proposal is as follows –

Demolition of an existing outbuilding;

Construction of a two storey detached addition to the rear of the existing Grouped Dwelling –

o Ground floor at level of existing outbuilding;

2 bedrooms; Bathroom; Powder room.

o First floor at street level;

Studio/games room; Storeroom.


Page 10

o Roof top terrace;

Covered stair landing;

Open roof terrace. Revised development plans are included as attachment 1 to this report, with site photographs included as attachment 2. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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

Lot boundary setback (boundary wall – west & east); and

Visual privacy. A detailed discussion regarding the above is provided in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

Heritage The application was reviewed by the City’s Heritage Coordinator upon lodgement of the DA, with no comments required given the addition’s separation from the existing dwelling, and its limited impact on the primary streetscape (being King William Street). Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as a number of design principle assessments were required, including:

Lot boundary setback (boundary wall – west); and

Visual privacy. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 7 March 2016, the City had received two (2) submissions objecting to the development. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Height of the structure;

Overlooking from roof terrace;

Boundary setbacks;

Noise; and

Car parking.


Page 11

An additional submission was received that noted no objections to the development. PLANNING COMMENT

Building height The proposed development is located within sub area 4.3.3 of the Fremantle South LPA, where development on residential properties shall be no greater than two stories. Officers have assessed the proposal and determined that the structures on this level do not constitute a ‘storey’, as defined by LPS4 – Means that portion of a building which is situated between the top of any floor and the top of the floor above it, that portion between the top of the floor and the ceiling above it, but does not include a loft, or any portion of a building that has 50% or more of its volume below ground level . While the stair and associated landing has a roof over it (and also includes eaves), LPS4 defines ‘floor area’ as being as per Plot Ratio area as defined by the R-Codes. Stairwells, eaves and roof terraces are not included in the definition of Plot Ratio area. Should PC disagree with the interpretation above and consider the stairwell and landing to be a storey, an assessment against Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 would be required, as height is determined by Schedule 12;

Should the stairwell be considered a third storey, it would not be recommended for support against 5.8.1.1, as there are no three storey properties in the vicinity.

The structure could not be supported against Clause 5.8.1.3 as it excludes development within the Residential zone and the structure is greater than 1-% of the roof area. Lot boundary setback (boundary wall - west & east)

Deemed to Comply Provided Design Principle assessment

3.3m 0m 3.3m

1.4m 0m 1.4m

West The proposed boundary wall to the detached addition abuts an existing outbuilding on the neighbouring property for the majority of its ground floor. The remainder of the wall is supported on balance, for the following reasons:

The wall is to the rear of the adjoining property which is occupied by an existing Outbuilding;

The proposed boundary wall does not abut the sites primary outdoor living area, which is expected to be adjoined to the Single House, approximately 18m from the end of the boundary wall;

The wall abuts the eastern side of the adjoining property, resulting in no loss to northern sunlight;

There are no major openings affected by the boundary wall;

The wall is two storey from internal site level, however as viewed from the street is only one level due to the significant site level change.


Page 12

It is considered that there are also reasons to not support the boundary wall for the following reasons:

Due to the site level, the boundary wall could be considered to add to the impact of building bulk to the western neighbour;

The boundary wall will be visible from the street;

The wall forms balustrading for the roof top terrace, which overlooks the adjoining properties.

Officers therefore advise that their primary recommendation is for approval, however considered there is also merit to a refusal on the above grounds. East The proposed boundary wall to the eastern boundary is supported for the following reasons:

The wall height provides screening to the roof terrace to prevent overlooking;

There are no major openings in this elevation;

The area is occupied by an existing Outbuilding;

No major openings or outdoor living areas will be affected by the wall in regard access to daylight or ventilation;

The adjoining site will not be impacted by shadow as calculated by the R-Codes (i.e. their winter sun access will remain unaffected).

While it could be interpreted that there are building bulk issues created as a result of the boundary wall, the impact of this wall is lessened by the lack of major openings (and resulting lesser deemed to comply setback required). Visual privacy


Roof terrace (west) – 7.5m or screened

0m and partially screened

7.5m

The proposed roof terrace is provided with 1m high balustrading and louvres (total screening height 1.455m above the finished floor level) to a portion of the elevations. As demonstrated by the section (see development plans), these louvres allow looking out rather than down into the neighbouring property. The portion not provided with these louvres, overlooks an outbuilding and the street, and is not considered to negatively impact on the neighbours privacy. Should Planning Committee consider that the screening method provided is not satisfactory, a condition of approval could be applied to allow for traditional screening in accordance with the R-Codes (i.e. up to 1.6m in height), as per the standard condition -


Page 13

Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0599/15, on plans dated 12 February 2016 the deck located on the west and north 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. It should be noted however, that by adding screening to the top of the existing wall, external wall height will be increased. While this will not affect compliance with Building Height (as there is a storey limit rather than a wall height limit) it will contribute to additional building bulk on the boundary wall. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Diverse and Affordable Housing Policy:


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

growing population. Improve physical presentation of the City’s streetscapes. Provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting

development and renewal in designated precincts within the City. Green Plan 2020

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land: there are no trees proposed to be removed as part of the development.


Page 14

ALTERNATIVE OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION Due to the on balance nature of the recommendation, an alternative recommendation for refusal is included below. That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey detached additions to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 33 (Lot 1) King William Street, South Fremantle subject to the following condition(s):

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the City of Fremantle’s Planning Policy LPP 2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development, having regard to the western boundary wall.

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey detached additions to existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 33 (Lot 1) King William Street, South Fremantle subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 12 February 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.



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


face brick;





Page 15

PC1604-3 SOUTH BEACH PROMENADE, NO.52 (LOT 236), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE WITH BASEMENT - (JL DA0572/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: Amended Development Plans

Site Photos Date Received: 27 November 2015 Owner Name: L & U Jensen Submitted by: MW Urban Scheme: Residential R20 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Site Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is presented to the Planning Committee for determination as an objection was received during the advertising period, which was unable to be addressed through the imposition of relevant conditions of planning approval to the satisfaction of the neighbour and due to the on balance nature of the recommendation. Planning approval is sought for construction of a two storey Single House with basement at No. 52 South Beach Promenade, South Fremantle. The application has been assessed against the requirements of LPS4, the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and relevant Council Local Planning Policies. The application requires discretionary decisions under LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Policies in relation to:

Lot boundary setback (north – upper floor),

Open Space,

Building height – (External Wall and roof ridge height),

Visual Privacy (north and south),

Solar Access to adjoining Sites (Overshadowing), and

Primary Street fencing. In Council determining this application, it is considered that the key discretionary decisions regarding this proposal are in relation to overshadowing and external wall height. The above discretions are considered to meet the applicable design principles and as such, the application is recommended for planning approval subject to conditions. BACKGROUND

The subject site is bounded by Dorre Lane to the east and South Beach Promenade to the south and west. The site measures approximately 505m² and currently is a vacant site. The site is zoned Residential under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R20. The subject site is not adopted under the City’s Heritage list but is it situated within the South Fremantle heritage area. A search of the property file revealed the following planning history for the site;

On 19 September 2008, the City granted planning approval for a two storey Single House (ref. DA0407/08), which was of a comparable scale to the current proposal for the site. This approval was never acted upon and as such has expired.

The application was submitted on 27 November 2015 and on the 14 March 2016 the applicant lodged another set of revised plans which proposed the following further changes to the original plans:


Page 17

Reduction of roof ridge height by 200mm, Reduction of southern elevation wall height from 6.35m and 6.25m to 6.25m and 6.15m, Increasing the setback of two portions of the upper floor southern wall from 1.5m to 3.86m (middle of site and eastern portion of wall). Reduction of overshadowing of the southern adjoining property from 45.5% (232m2 shadow) to 39.4% (198m2).

See Attachment 1 below for copy of amended development plans. DETAIL

On 27 November 2015, the City received a development application for a two storey Single House with basement carpark comprising the following:

Four bedrooms; Five bathrooms; Living, dining and kitchen rooms; Family/guest room; Library; Alfresco; Office; Pool; Storeroom; Basement Garage; Laundry/utility room; Dry court; and Pool equipment room.

Refer to Attachment 1 for revised development plans.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design 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 (north – upper floor);

Open Space;

Building height;

Visual Privacy;

Solar Access to adjoining Sites (Overshadowing); and

Primary Street fencing; The above matters are discussed in detail in the Planning Comment section below.


Page 18

CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as design principle assessments and policy discretions are sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 8 January 2016, the City had received 1 submission. The following planning issues were raised:

The development would impact on the solar design of my property, which

incorporates features such as solar pergolas, rainwater harvesting and solar heating for the hot water system.

The screening proposed for the planter box is inadequate, given that vegetation is not permanent. Permanent screening should be required;

The southern boundary wall would significantly reduce sunlight access and is visually unappealing;

The front setback proposed would impact on views, in addition to being incongruous with the streetscape;

The overshadowing reduces the functionality of the design, particularly in respect to solar heating;

The clearance from the proposed basement to my boundary is insufficient and should be further investigated to ensure appropriate support during the excavation phase.

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

PLANNING COMMENT

Residential Design Codes DE5.1.3 - Lot boundary Setbacks

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

DGS6 policy 3m (North boundary) 2.45m 550mm

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

The lesser setback does not result in a perception of adverse building bulk when viewed from the adjoining property;

The lesser setback does not contribute adversely to a loss of direct sun, light generally or ventilation to major openings; and,

The lesser setback does not result in any new merit based decision relating to visual privacy, give the proposed northern elevation upper floor balconies will be require to be screened via imposition of planning condition.


Page 19

DE5.1.4 Open Space

Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

50% (505m2 lot – allowable 257.5m2 coverage)

47% (268m2 proposed) 10.5m2

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

The amount of open space is offset by the provision of an outdoor living area greater than that specified by the deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes (R-Code required Outdoor living area being 30m2 and provided being 50m2) . This ensures suitable, useable outdoor space is available to residents of the dwelling;

The locality surrounding the subject site consists of dense development with minimal open space;

The open space provided will not be apparent from the primary street. The scale of development is consistent with other dwellings in the streetscape;

The exercise of discretion is considered minor and generally indistinguishable to a proposal that otherwise meets the deemed-to-comply criteria.

DE5.1.6 – Building height

1. Maximum Permitted 2. Provided 3. Discretion

4. 5.5m* external wall height 5. 7.3m – Northern elevation

6. 6.15m Southern Elevation

7. 1.8m 8. 650mm

9. 8.5m* roof ridge 10. 8.85m 11. 350mm *DGS6 requirement

A summary of existing approved building heights of other existing dwellings on east west orientated lots within the south beach village development area are as follows:

East West orientated Development site

Approved External Wall height

Approved Roof Ridge height

11 Keeling Way 6.8m 7.1m (ridge roof)

13 Keeling Way 5.8m 8.85m (ridge roof)

14 Keeling Way 6.2m 6.4m (skillion roof)

15 Keeling Way 6.7m 6.7m (concealed roof)

16 Keeling Way 5.5m 5.6m (concealed roof)

17 Keeling Way 6.14m 8.85m (ridged roof)



48 South Beach Promenade 5.3m 8.1m (ridge roof)

50 South Beach Promenade 6.4m 8.5m (ridge roof) * Bold indicates discretionary approved building heights


Page 20

It is clearly acknowledged that the majority of existing approved developments within the South Beach Village Policy Area incorporate additional external wall height than that permitted by DGS6, which have directly contributed to additional overshadowing of respective southern sites. The proposed external wall height discretion is supported for the following reasons:

Whilst the additional wall height does contribute to the overall calculated level of overshadowing, the impact of the overshadowing is not considered to be significantly detrimental comparative to other east west orientated allotments of South Beach Village policy area, and

Given the compliant upper floor southern setbacks and the recently amended increased upper floor setbacks (required 1.5m, proposed up to 3.8m) to the middle and eastern portion of the upper floor, the overall impact in term of building bulk is also considered minimal.

DE5.4.1- Visual Privacy

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

South 7.5m 1.6m 5.9m

North balconies – Bedrooms 2, 3

and 4

7.5m 2.45m 5.05m

The proposal is not considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes as the raised openings will be afforded views over current and future outdoor living areas or future major openings on the respective adjoining sites. A condition of approval requiring screening of the above stated elevations is recommended. DE5.4.2 - Solar Access for adjoining Sites (Overshadowing)

Deemed-to-comply Provided Merit based assessment

25% - R20 coded property (southern property 502m2

site area = 125.5m2 coverage allowed

39.4% - 198m2 shadow 72.5m2

The subject site is zoned Residential – R20. Accordingly the deemed to comply criteria allow up to 25% overshadowing of the adjoining site to occur. The proposed development is to result in approximately 39.4% overshadowing of the adjoining site to the south (No. 50 South Beach Promenade).


Page 21

Achieving the R-Codes deemed to comply overshadowing provision of 25% is considered difficult, given the DGS6 –South Beach policy provisions permits nil boundary setbacks for ground floor and 1.5m setbacks for the upper floor along the southern boundary and the east-west orientation of the lots. Furthermore, due to the type of development promoted for the area by the provisions of DGS6; overshadowing concerns are a recognised issue for the east west developed lots of Keeling Way and South Beach Promenade in the immediate locality. A synopsis of existing development and overshadowing of the respective adjoining properties is as follows:

East West orientated Development site

Approved shadow cast on southern adjoining property

11 Keeling Way 22% (road reserve)

13 Keeling Way 41% (11 Keeling Way)



16 Keeling Way 24.5% (14 Keeling Way)


18 Keeling Way 25.5% (16 Keeling Way)

19 Keeling Way Vacant land (no DA approved)


46 South Beach Promenade Vacant land (no DA approved)

48 South Beach Promenade 28% (46 South Beach Promenade)

52 South Beach Promenade Vacant Land (DA approved 38% shadow)

54 South Beach Promenade Vacant Land (no DA approved) * Bold indicates discretionary approved overshadowing

Although the R-Codes specify that 25% of an adjoining lot can be overshadowed in R20 coded areas, this is not considered to be readily achievable given the reasons outlined above. Of the 14 existing east west orientated lots within the South Beach policy area, only 3 properties have achieved compliance with the deemed to comply provision of the R-Codes for overshadowing. The proposed level of shadow to be cast by this proposal is comparative to the existing developments at Nos 13, 15, 17 and 20 Keeling Way and of these four specific properties only one complied with the maximum 5.5m external wall height requirement. It is also noted that the majority of the outdoor living areas of the developments within the South Beach Village sites (east west orientated lots) are encouraged to be located to the north of site through the DGS6 provisions, and in this instance the southern adjoining property is located in the middle portion of adjoining site which inevitably would be impacted by shadow even from a compliant development. This issue is also only compounded by the fact that DGS6 encourages nil ground floor southern boundary setbacks at reduced 1.5m upper floor setbacks, ultimately resulting in the common issue of shadowing impact’s for this policy area. The City did receive an objection which raised this issue as a particular concern. Specifically the submission raised concerns about the level of shadow being cast and its direct impact on the existing northern located outdoor living area and habitable room windows of the southern adjoining site. The submission also raised concerns about the adjoining dwelling’s existing solar collecting devices and overall energy efficiency design being significantly impacted.


Page 22

It is however acknowledged that the southern properties roof top solar collecting device would not be directly impacted by overshadowing as measured by the R Codes. Since this submission the applicant has lodged amended plans which ultimately has significantly reduced the original shadowing impact’s created by the proposal. These proposed changes to the proposal are discussed further below. It is also acknowledged that the majority of the shadow thrown from the two storey element of the dwelling is over the southern adjoining property’s primary outdoor living area. However in stating this, it’s also important to note that the southern adjoining property includes a patio which covers the majority of the dwellings exclusive outdoor living area. This patio addition also includes a nil northern boundary setback which also significantly impact’s this areas ability to gain solar access particularly during midday periods of the week. The applicant has proposed amendments to the original design which have improved the solar access to the southern adjoining site (reducing original impacted shadow area from 238m2 to 198m2). This has been achieved by increasing the upper floor southern boundary setbacks from 1.5m to 3.86m for the middle upper floor and eastern upper floor section of the dwelling and reducing the southern extern wall height from 6.35m to 6.15m. It’s clearly acknowledged that these amendments have improved the southern site’s ability to access sunlight to its exclusive outdoor living area by allowing corridors for both morning and midday sunlight. Whilst noting that there will be shadowing impact’s created by the proposal, given the proposed amendments and the overall calculated shadowing impact on the southern property is not considered to be any more significant than multiple other existing built east west orientated properties within South Beach village locality, the design principle assessment is supported. Primary Street Fencing

DGS6 policy req. Provided Merit based assessment

Up to 1.2m visually permeable with pillars

1.3m visually permeable 100mm height

The proposed fence would be considered supportable given the level of visual permeability proposed for the fence the additional 100mm above height would have a negligible impact on the streetscape. There are other fences within the prevailing streetscape of comparable height. A condition requiring the fence’s high level of visually permeable is recommended to be imposed.


Page 23

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is considered to be consistent with the City’s following strategic document: Diverse and Affordable Housing Policy:


Green Plan 202

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land: the City’s aerial photography archives indicated that no trees have existed on site for some time

CONCLUSION The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and Council’s DGS6 - Local Planning Policy and is considered to be satisfactory with regards to northern lot boundary setbacks, open space, building height and overshadowing. Conditions have been recommended to ensure that the southern elevation upper floor balcony shall comply with the visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes and the primary street fence’s visual permeability meets the requirements of DGS6. Overall the proposed development is also considered to be consistent with all of the provisions set out within the City of Fremantle local area planning policy for South Beach Village. Consequently, the development application is recommended for approval. However, should the Committee consider that the application is not consistent with the above requirements in particular relating to building external wall height and overshadowing an alternative recommendation would be as follows: That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for a two storey with basement carpark at No.52 (Lot 236) South Beach Promenade, South Fremantle, for the following reason: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with Council Policy DGS 6 South Beach Village Local

Planning Policy and the Design Principle criteria of Design Element 5.1.6 – Building Height and DE5.4.2 – Solar Access for adjoining sites of the Residential Design Codes.


Page 24


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for a two storey with basement carpark at No.52 (Lot 236) South Beach Promenade, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 14 March 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

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

3. Prior to occupation of the Single House, the boundary wall located on the

southern common boundary shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;




4. Prior to the issue of a building permit, all fencing within the Primary Street

setback area shall be visually permeable above natural ground level as per clause 4.5 of the DGS6 - South Beach policy, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0572/15,

on plans dated 14 March 2016 the balconies located on the southern and northern elevation shall be screened in accordance with Clause 5.4.1 C1.1 of the Residential Design Codes by either:

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

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

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

c. 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 25

PC1604-4 ORIENT STREET, NO. 12 (LOT 8), SOUTH FREMANTLE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0619/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: Development Plans

Heritage Assessment Site Photos

Date Received: 4 January 2016; Owner Name: Toni Aburn Harken Submitted by: Philip Stejskal Architecture Scheme: Residential R30 Heritage Listing: Yes, MHI management category level 3

South Fremantle heritage area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for partial demolition and two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 12 (Lot 8) Orient Street, South Fremantle. The application is presented to the Planning Committee (PC) on the basis of objections received during the community consultation period that cannot be resolved through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of neighbours.


Page 26

The application seeks design principle assessments against the R Codes in relation to lot boundary setbacks, boundary walls and visual privacy, all of which are considered to satisfy the relevant planning criteria and are therefore supported. The application also seeks discretionary assessments in relation to LPP2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy, of which is considered to satisfy the relevant planning criteria and are therefore supported. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R30 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area 4 (LPA 4) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by McLaren Street to the north, South Terrace to the west, Parmelia Street to the east and Orient Street to the south. The site is individually listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Management Category Level 3; and it is also located within South Fremantle Heritage Area, which is a prescribed heritage area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is approximately 473m2, has a predominantly north-south orientation and is improved by a single storey single house and associated structures. In terms of its topography, the subject site falls by approximately 1.0 metre downwards from its northern (rear) boundary to its southern (front) boundary. Review of the property file did not reveal any information relevant to planning and/or to this application. DETAIL

On 4 January 2016, the City received an application seeking planning approval for partial demolition and two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 12 (Lot 8) Orient Street, South Fremantle. Development plans are included in this report at Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance the relevant provisions contained within LPS4, the R-Codes and Council Local Planning Policies. The proposed development seeks design principles assessments relating to the following deemed-to-comply criteria of the R-Codes, or seeks discretionary assessment in relation to Council’s LPP’s;

Lot boundary setbacks (including boundary walls);

Visual privacy

LPP2.9 – streetscape


Page 27

Not meeting the deemed-to-comply criteria cannot be used as a reason to refuse an application. Further 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 due to policy discretions and R Codes design principles assessment being sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 15 February 2016, the City had received 3 submissions. The main planning issues that were raised related to:

Building bulk; and

Visual privacy; There was also concerns raised in relation to the possible use of the upper level ‘studio’ for the purposes of a music studio as well as placement of air conditioning units, and the subsequent noise issues associated that may result. This is not considered a relevant planning consideration as these matters would be subject to separate legislation. Heritage department (internal) The proposal has been reviewed by the City’s heritage department whom have provided advice, summarised as follows:

“Overall the proposal has the ability to be a positive contribution to the conservation of the heritage significance of the residence and can be supported on heritage grounds with the following conditions;

1) Prior to the issue of a building permit further detailed plans of the conservation works including showing the design of the verandah and the methodology and materials to be used for the conservation of the cottages to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Fremantle.

2) The works hereby approved are to be undertaken in a manner that will retain as much as possible of the building. Additionally the work should not cause irreparable damage or contribute to the deterioration of the building’s original or significant fabric. Conservation works required to rectify the non-compliance with this requirement will be undertaken at the applicant’s expense and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.”

A copy of the heritage assessment is contained as Attachment 2 of this report.

PLANNING COMMENT

Partial demolition

Under the provisions of Clause 5.15.1 of LPS4, Council will only grant Planning Approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

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


Page 28

The Heritage Assessment prepared for this development application, in relation to the portion of the dwelling proposed to be partially demolished concluded:

“The demolition of the rear rooms and pergola assessed to be of little significance is acceptable. The demolition of the rear house roof is considered to have minimal impact and is acceptable. This roof will not be viewed from the street and it is unknown whether the form is the original.”

In this regard, the proposed partial demolition of the existing building should be supported as the Heritage Assessment findings satisfy Clause 5.8.1 (a) and (b). 5.1.2 Lot boundary setbacks

Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle assessment

1 Western boundary, upper floor (studio) - 1.20m 1.05m 0.15m

2 Eastern boundary, ground floor (store) – 1.00m 0.90m 0.10m

3 Eastern boundary, upper floor – 2.30m 1.15m - 2.2m

1.60m

In relation to (1) above, the proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

This element of the proposal uses different materials to that of the ground floor, which serves to break up the perceived impact of building bulk. Further, the wall slopes downwards to reflect the stairs, meaning that the bulk drops off north-to-south as it is viewed from the western adjoining property.

The proposal is compliant in terms of overshadowing;

There are no major openings to habitable rooms/balconies on that elevation of proposal and therefore is not subject to visual privacy requirements.


This relates to a small storage area, extending for a length of 2.585m which would not be visible from the eastern adjoining property if a standard 1.8m high dividing fence was in place. In this regard, building bulk is not a significant issue.


As it is not a habitable room, visual privacy is not relevant. In relation to (3) above, the proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

The wall is broken up by varying setbacks and use of different materials, finishes and openings which serves to break up the perceived impact of building bulk.


The proposal is considered to meet the ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards for this elevation.

The owners of the eastern adjoining property provided consent via signed copies of the development plans upon lodgement.


Page 29

5.1.3 Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)

Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle assessment

North (ground-outdoor living / upper – balcony)

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.

Nil See comments.

West Nil See comments.

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

The proposed boundary wall does not result in a loss of access to daylight or direct sunlight owing to its location of the northern boundary.

The boundary wall is not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or building bulk at it affects only a small portion of the boundary, is not adjacent to the outdoor living area of the adjoining property and the rest of the development is sufficiently setback from this boundary. It is approximately 3.76m high at its maximum as viewed from the northern adjoining property, and extends for a length of 3.96m (23.89% of total boundary length); and,

The boundary wall is not considered to impact on any views of significance or existing significant vegetation.

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

The proposed boundary wall does not result in a loss of access to daylight or direct sunlight owing to its location of the western boundary.

The boundary wall is not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or building bulk at it affects only a small portion of the boundary and the rest of the development on the ground floor is sufficiently setback from this boundary or is supported against the relevant design principles. It is approximately 2.90m high at its maximum as viewed from the western adjoining property, and extends for a length of 11.70m (38.81% of total boundary length);

It does not extend for the full width of the outdoor living area of the western adjoining property; and,



Page 30

5.4.1 Visual privacy

Deemed-to-comply Proposed Design principle assessment

6.0m setback to western boundary from upper floor (studio)

3.8m 2.2m

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

Overlooking of the western adjoining property, being No. 10 (Lot 7) Orient Street is limited to a small area of their outdoor living area and also of an opening to a storage area which is not a habitable room. It is noted that the portion of the outdoor living area to be overlooked is minimal and would not represent the area predominantly used for the purposes of the outdoor living area given. This is reflected in the diagram below, with the red circle indicated the area of overlooking of the western adjoining property.

Further, the owners of the affected property have specifically indicated in their submission that they have no objection to this aspect of the proposal, given the reasons above.


Page 31

Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy

Required Proposed Discretion

Second storey additions to an existing single storey dwelling are to be setback behind the main roof ridge of the existing dwelling a minimum distance of four (4.0) metres;

4.40m Nil

Shall be designed and setback so as to retain the impression of a single storey house when viewed from the street.

Some of the two storey element visible from the

street (studio and some of main additions)

Refer below

As the proposal does not comply with the requirements of clause 5.1 of LPP2.9 above, the proposal is required to be assessed against clause 5.2 of LPP2.9, which states:

“Variations to the requirements of clause 5.1 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to an assessment of the proposed development’s compatibility with and impact on the heritage significance of the property. Due consideration will be given to the heritage assessment prepared under Local Planning Policy 1.6 Preparing heritage assessments and approval will only be granted where the development is considered compatible with the heritage significance of the property.”

The heritage assessment provided the following comments in relation to the proposals compatibility with the heritage listing:

“The proposal includes two storey additions which appears to ‘hover’ over the limestone rooms and form a separate timber clad addition. This intention clearly defines the original cottage with the new development while conserving the cottage and is an appropriate design solution for the site. The additions will also facilitate the conservation of the limestone walls of the 1896 cottage and adaptation of the place. The additions are also set back sufficiently to have a minimal impact on the streetscape.

The two storey studio to be located west of the cottages is not attached and is also sufficiently set back from the streetscape.”

Small portions of the studio will be visible from oblique views down the street however the studio is only 3.5m wide and the two storey section of the studio is located some a15m from the front property boundary. As the main additions to the rear of the main building is so far setback behind the roof ridde, very little will be visible from the street and only from oblique views. The proposal is considered to be compatible with the heritage significance of the property and is considered to satisfy discretionary clause 5.2 of LPP2.9 and is therefore supported.


Page 32

LPP2.8 – Fences Policy Clause 2.1 and 2.2 of LPP2.8 state:

“2.1 Fences within the primary and/or secondary street setback area(s) of places on the Heritage List shall be compatible with, and complimentary to, the heritage character of the listed place with respect to height, materials and heritage character.

2.2 Where a property is included on a heritage list Council may specify the type of building materials to be consistent with the heritage character of the place.”

The proposed front fence has been reviewed by the City’s heritage department who have advised that the proposed height and materials are compatible with, and complimentary to the heritage character of the property. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is considered against the City’s following strategic documents:

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

Green Plan 2020

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land: The proposal includes the removal of two (2) trees that currently exist on site (refer demolition plan). The proposal also indicates that one (1) new tree is to be planted at the rear of the site, just west of the proposed outdoor living area.

It is noted that planning approval is generally not required for the removal of vegetation, including trees where they are located on private land, unless those trees are specifically listed on the City’s heritage list.


That the application be APPROVED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Partial demolition and two storey additions and alterations to existing Single House at No. 12 (Lot 8) Orient Street, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

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

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


face brick;



Page 33

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

3. Prior to the issue of a building permit, further detailed plans of the conservation works including showing the design of the verandah and the methodology and materials to be used for the conservation of the cottages to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Fremantle.

4. The works hereby approved are to be undertaken in a manner that will retain as much as possible of the building. Additionally the work should not cause irreparable damage or contribute to the deterioration of the building’s original or significant fabric. Conservation works required to rectify the non-compliance with this requirement will be undertaken at the applicant’s expense and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

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

6. Prior to use / occupation of the development approved as part of DA0619/15, on

plans dated 4 January 2016 the western elevation of the rear balcony as contained within the upper level, eastern elevation of the rear balcony as contained within the upper level and the northern elevation of the master bedroom as contained within the upper level 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


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.


Advice Note:

Good conservation practice causes a minimal loss of fabric from heritage buildings by following a cautious approach, which is based ‘changing as much as necessary but as little as possible’.

The aim of conservation works is therefore not make heritage buildings appear to be new by returning them to a perfect state. For this reason, where required, repair should only be to the section that is badly deteriorated or missing. This requires a careful process of skilful repair, based on the use of traditional techniques and materials, matching those used originally instead of the complete removal of elements because they are partly damaged. For example, if the bottom of a verandah post has rotted, then replace only a section of it, scarfing the new


Page 34

piece in with traditional joinery details. The same approach applies to an area of failed plaster on a wall — do not replace the plaster from the whole wall just because it sounds a bit drummy in places. Patch repairs only the area that really needs it. If done well the new patch will help to stabilise the rest of the plaster.


Page 35

PC1604-5 TRUSTING LANE, NO. 12 (LOT 2), WHITE GUM VALLEY - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0023/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans (as amended) Attachment 2: Site Photos Date Received: 14 January 2016;

1 March 2016 (amended plans) Owner Name: Mrs Kelsey Ashe Giambazi & Mr Brendan Michael

Giambazi Submitted by: As above Scheme: Residential R20/R25 Heritage Listing: Not individually listed

Not within heritage area Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Single House at No. 12 (Lot 2) Trusting Lane, White Gum Valley. The application is presented to the Planning Committee (PC) on the basis of objections received during the community consultation period that cannot be resolved by the imposition of planning approval condition to the satisfaction of the neighbour.


Page 36

The application seeks design principle assessments in relation to lot boundary setbacks, boundary walls and visual privacy, all of which are considered to satisfy the relevant planning criteria and are therefore supported. The application also seeks discretionary assessments in relation to LPP2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy and LPP2.8 – Fences Policy, all of which are considered to satisfy the relevant planning criteria and are therefore supported. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a split density coding of R20/R25 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the White Gum Valley Local Planning Area 6 (LPA 6) as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The higher density of R25 was awarded as part of subdivision, to be detailed below. The site is located in the street block bounded by Hope Street to the north, Montreal Street to the west, Wiluna Avenue to the east and Trusting Lane to the south. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List; nor is it located within any Heritage Area prescribed under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is approximately 450m2, has a predominantly north-south orientation and is currently vacant. In terms of its topography, the subject site falls by approximately 2.5 metre downwards from its north-western corner to its south-eastern boundary. Review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and/or to this application:

On 14 June 2011, the WAPC referred an application for a two (2) lot survey strata subdivision of the parent property, being No. 45 (Lot 8) Hope Street, White Gum Valley (refer WAPC488-11);

On 4 August 2011, the City referred the application for a two (2) lot survey strata subdivision of the parent property, being No. 45 (Lot 8) Hope Street, White Gum Valley to the WAPC with a recommendation for approval (refer WAPC488-11);

On 25 August 2011, the WAPC granted conditional approval for the two (2) lot survey strata subdivision of the parent property, being No. 45 (Lot 8) Hope Street, White Gum Valley (refer WAPC488-11).

On 25 January 2013, the City granted conditional planning approval for a two storey Single House at No. 12 (Lot 2) Trusting Lane, White Gum Valley (refer DA0483/12)

DETAIL

On 14 January 2016, the City received an application seeking planning approval for a two storey Single House at No. 12 (Lot 2) Trusting Lane, White Gum Valley. On 1 March 2016, the applicant submitted amended plans which increased the setback of the ground and upper floors from Trusting Lane, to ensure that it was at least setback in line with the existing two storey building on the adjacent property to the west. Development plans (as amended) are included in this report at Attachment 1.


Page 37




Visual privacy


LPP2.8 – side and rear boundary fencing Not meeting the deemed-to-comply criteria cannot be used as a reason to refuse an application. Further 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 due to policy discretions and R Codes design principles assessment being sought. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 15 February 2016, the City had received 1 submission. The main planning issues that were raised related to:

Building bulk associated with boundary wall of the rear detached studio.

PLANNING COMMENT

5.1.2 Lot boundary setbacks


1 Western boundary, ground floor - 1.50m 1.307m 0.193m

2 Eastern boundary, ground floor – 1.90m 1.40m 0.50m

3 Eastern boundary, upper floor – 3.00m 1.40m 1.60m


The majority of this wall is single storey, and therefore building bulk is not a significant issue.


Being a ground floor element, the proposal is not subject to visual privacy requirements.

In relation to (2) and (3) above, the proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

The majority of this wall faces onto either a single storey boundary wall of an outbuilding on the property to the east, of which does not contain any major openings, or it otherwise facing a rear portion of backyard area. In this regard, building bulk is not a significant issue.



Page 38

As is detailed later in this report, the proposal has been supported against the ‘design principles’ in relation to visual privacy.

5.1.3 Lot boundary setbacks (studio boundary wall)


North Walls built up to or within 600mm of a boundary behind the front setback line within the following limits;


Nil See comments.

East Nil See comments.



The boundary wall is not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or building bulk at it affects only a small portion of the boundary and the rest of the development is sufficiently setback from this boundary. It is approximately 2.9m high at its maximum as viewed from the northern adjoining property, and extends for a length of 3.96m (20.45% of total boundary length); and,


The boundary wall will partially abut the outdoor living area of the northern adjoining property, however given the location of the door accessing that dwellings’ outdoor living area is approximately 4.0m west of the boundary wall (refer diagram below), it is not considered that the proposed boundary wall will significantly impact that outdoor living area;


Page 39

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


The boundary wall is not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or building bulk at it affects only a small portion of the boundary and the rest of the development is sufficiently setback from this boundary or is supported against the relevant design principles. It is approximately 3.18m high at its maximum as viewed from the northern adjoining property, and extends for a length of 5.46m (23.44% of total boundary length); and,


Upon review of recent planning approvals for the eastern adjoining property, the proposal is not considered to abut that dwellings’ outdoor living area (refer diagram below).


Page 40

5.4.1 Visual privacy

Deemed-to-comply Proposed Design principle assessment

6.0m setback to eastern boundary from upper floor (loft/studio)

1.4m 4.6m

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

Overlooking is likely to affect the rear-most portion of the eastern adjoining property, being No. 47 Hope Street, with overlooking occurring over an outbuilding roof, and rear un-vegetated area which does not appear to be the outdoor living area of that property (refer diagram below).

It is noted that no major openings nor sensitive exclusive outdoor living areas to the eastern adjoining property will be overlooked.

Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy


Minimum prescribed street setback for buildings with an external wall height of 4 metre or less = 7.00m

0.67m 6.33m

Minimum prescribed street setback for buildings with an

external wall height of greater than 4 metres = 10m

0.67m 9.33m


Page 41


“Variations to the requirements of clause 1.1 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to the proposed development meeting at least one of the following criteria:

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

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

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

iv. Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or

v. Where the proposed development is on a lot directly adjoining a corner lot, Council will consider a reduced setback that considers the setback of the corner lot in addition to buildings in the prevailing streetscape.”

The proposal is considered to meet discretionary criteria of both clauses 1.2(i) and (ii). In relation to (i), the proposed ground and upper floor setbacks are commensurate with that of the two storey structure of the western adjoining property. In light of this, the proposal is considered to not result in a projecting element into the streetscape of Trusting Lane, which is demonstrated by the site plan and the elevation plan (south elevation). The proposal is therefore supported. It is noted that that 2 storey dwelling approved in 2013 which is still valid, proposed similar street setbacks. LPP2.8 – Fences Policy


Side and rear boundary fencing not greater than 1.80m above natural ground level

Eastern boundary – up to 2.4m 0.6m

Northern boundary – up to 2.5m

0.7m

Western boundary – up to 2.5m 0.7m

As the proposal does not meet the requirements above, the proposal is required to be assessed against the provisions of discretionary clauses 5.1 and 5.2, which state:

“5.1 Council will not approve side and/or rear boundary fences greater than 1.80 metres in height, or screening material that projects more than 500mm above the top of an approved fence unless the following criteria are satisfied: a) The proposed fence/screening will not have any significant impact on

adjoining properties by way of overshadowing, solar access, or loss of views; and


Page 42

b) Affected neighbours are consulted in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4.

5.2 Council will have particular regard to comments made by neighbouring

owners / occupiers of adjoining properties, and will only consider the criteria in 5.1(a) to be met where it is satisfied that no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring property will occur.”

The proposal is not considered to have any significant impact upon adjoining properties to the west, east and north by way of overshadowing, solar access or loss of views. The majority of the over height fencing is in response to the significant sloping topography on the site, of which affects all boundaries subject to the discretion sought in relation to over height fencing. In relation to clause 5.2, the proposal was advertised to neighbours and no objections were raised in relation to fence height. The proposal is therefore supported. LPP2.2 – Split Density Codes and Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Schedule The subject site was subdivided at the higher R25 density applicable to the site, and therefore a restrictive covenant exists on the certificate of title requiring that all future development on site comply with the requirements of LPP2.2. The applicant has indicated that the proposal will be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of Council’s LPP2.2, which relates to energy efficiency and sustainability. Notwithstanding, relevant conditions will be recommended to ensure compliance with this. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Economic Development Strategy 2011-15: the proposal potentially increases the number of residents in the area; Green Plan 2020:

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land:. The proposal does not include the removal of any trees that currently exist on site. The proposal also indicates that two (2) new trees are to be planted at the rear of the site.


That the application be APPROVED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 12 (Lot 2) Trusting Lane, White Gum Valley, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 1 March 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.


Page 43

2. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the northern and eastern boundaries shall be of a clean finish in either;


face brick;



3. That the dwelling achieve a NatHERS accredited energy efficiency star rating of

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

4. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0023/16, on plans dated 1 March 2016, a minimum 1.5kw photovoltaic solar panel system shall be installed and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to occupation of the development approved as part of DA0023/16, on plans dated 1 March 2016, a 3000L rainwater tank plumbed to a toilet and/or laundry, or an approved grey-water reuse system that collects grey water from the laundry and bathroom and re-directs it for garden irrigation/ground water recharge, shall be installed or and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.



Page 44

PC1604-6 MARDIE STREET, NO. 18B (LOT 75), BEACONSFIELD - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE - (AD DA0547/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans (as amended) Attachment 2: Site Photos Date Received: 18 November 2015;

17 February 2016 (amended plans) Owner Name: Neil Spence & Adrianne Sanzone Submitted by: AK Homes Construction Scheme: Residential R25 Heritage Listing: Not individually listed

South Fremantle heritage area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for a two storey Single House at No. 18B (Lot 75) Mardie Street, Beaconsfield. The application is presented to the Planning Committee (PC) on the basis of an objection received during the community consultation period that cannot be resolved through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbour. The application seeks design principle assessments in relation to lot boundary setbacks and boundary walls, all of which are considered to satisfy the relevant planning criteria and are therefore supported.


Page 45

The application seeks discretionary assessment in relation to LPP2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy, of which is considered to satisfy the relevant planning criteria and are therefore supported. The application is recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R25 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and is located within the South Fremantle Local Planning Area 4 (LPA 4) – sub area 4.3.4 as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The site is located in the street block bounded by South Street to the north, Mardie Street to the west, Seaview Street to the east and Martha Street to the south. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List; however it is located within the South Fremantle heritage area, which is a prescribed heritage area under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is approximately 340m2, has an east-west orientation and is currently vacant and is relatively flat in terms of its topography. Review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and/or to this application:

On 25 June 2012, the WAPC granted conditional approval for the two (2) lot green title (freehold) subdivision of the parent property, being No. 18 (Lot 73) Mardie Street, Beaconsfield (refer WAPC145798).

DETAIL

On 18 November 2015, the City received an application seeking planning approval for a two storey Single House at No. 18B (Lot 75) Mardie Street, Beaconsfield. On 17 February 2016, the applicant submitted amended plans which brought the proposal into compliance with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements of the R-Codes pertaining to overshadowing and addressing street setback issues raised by the City. The amended plans introduced new design principle assessments pertaining to a northern lot boundary wall, and reduced rear lot boundary setback, of which required readvertising to affected properties. Development plans (as amended) are included in this report at Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT


Lot boundary setbacks;




Page 46

Not meeting the deemed-to-comply criteria cannot be used as a reason to refuse an application. Further 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 due to policy discretions and R Codes design principles assessment being sought. At the conclusion of the initial advertising period, being 10 December 2015, the City had received 1 submission. The main planning issues that were raised related to:

Streetscape;

Overshadowing;

Building bulk (boundary wall to the south); It is noted that the applicant has made significant changes to the original proposal, largely based on the comments outlined above and the non-compliance with Council Local Planning Policies and/or the R-Codes. The proposal is now supportable in relation to the streetscape; complies with overshadowing and the southern boundary wall has been moved to the northern boundary. The amended plans received on 17 February 2016 introduced new design principle assessments pertaining to a northern lot boundary wall, and reduced rear lot boundary setback, of which required readvertising to affected properties. At the conclusion of the second advertising period, being 11 March 2016, the City had received 1 submission. The main planning issues that were raised related to:

Lot boundary setback (east) The submitter also raised concerns about accuracy of site survey. The City was not provided with any information which brought into question the site survey submitted to the City as part of this application.

PLANNING COMMENT

5.1.2 Lot boundary setbacks


1 Eastern boundary, ground floor (alfresco/bed 3)- 1.50m

1.281-1.319m

0.219m-0.181m

2 Northern boundary, ground floor (alfresco/living) – 1.50m

1.00m 0.50m

3 Northern boundary, ground floor (dining) – 1.50m

1.00m 0.50m

4 Northern boundary, upper floor (balcony, bed 1, ensuite) – 1.50m

1.00m 0.50m


Page 47

In relation to (1) and (2) above, the proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

These walls are single storey, and therefore building bulk is not a significant issue. Also a large proportion of these walls (43 – 45%) are comprised of the alfresco deck, which is open on that side, which further limits the perception of building bulk.




This wall is single storey, and therefore building bulk is not a significant issue. This wall extends for a length of 3.99m and is otherwise indistinguishable from a wall with no major openings, owing to its single storey nature.




In terms of building bulk, this wall is broken up by the open nature of the front balcony in addition to the window to the ensuite.


The proposal is compliant in relation to visual privacy requirements in relation to the northern adjoining property.

5.1.3 Lot boundary setbacks (garage boundary wall)


North Walls built up to or within 600mm of a boundary behind the front setback line within the following limits;


Nil See comments.



The boundary wall is not considered to contribute to a sense of confinement or building bulk at it affects only a small portion of the boundary and the rest of the development is sufficiently setback from this boundary. It is approximately 3.10m high at its maximum as viewed from the northern adjoining property, and extends for a length of 6.09m (18.75% of total boundary length); and,



Page 48

It is also noted that the proposed northern boundary wall will largely abut another boundary wall on the northern adjoining property, which was recently approved at No. 18A (Lot 76) Mardie Street (refer DA0576/15) but is yet to be constructed. Local Planning Policy 2.9 – Residential Streetscapes Policy


Minimum prescribed street setback for buildings with an external wall height of 4 metre or less = 7.00m

6.055m 0.945m

Minimum prescribed street setback for buildings with an

external wall height of greater than 4 metres = 10m

8.895m 1.105m


“Variations to the requirements of clause 1.1 above may be considered, at Council’s discretion subject to the proposed development meeting at least one of the following criteria:

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

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

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

iv. Where there is no prevailing streetscape; or

v. Where the proposed development is on a lot directly adjoining a corner lot, Council will consider a reduced setback that considers the setback of the corner lot in addition to buildings in the prevailing streetscape.”

The proposal is considered to meet discretionary criteria of both clauses 1.2(i) and (ii). In relation to (i), the proposed ground and upper floor setbacks are commensurate with that of the two storey building at No. 16 (Lot 17) Mardie Street. In light of this, the proposal is considered to not result in a projecting element into the streetscape of Mardie Street, and as such the proposal is therefore supported. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents:

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

2. Green Plan 2020

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land: There is one (1) tree that currently exists at the rear of the site; however it is unclear on the plans as to whether this will be removed.


Page 49

It is noted that planning approval is generally not required for the removal of vegetation, including trees where they are located on private land, unless those trees are specifically listed on the City’s heritage list. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Single House at No. 18B (Lot 75) Mardie Street, Beaconsfield, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved

plans dated 17 February 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within 4 years from the date of the decision letter. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within a 4 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect.

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


face brick;




4. Prior to the occupation of the development approved as part of DA0547/15, on plans dated 17 February 2016 the western elevation of the front balcony as contained within the upper level and the eastern elevation of the front balcony as contained within the upper level 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






Page 50

PC1604-7 HINES ROAD, NO. 53A (LOT 2), HILTON - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING - (CJ DA0024/16)


Attachment 2 – Site photographs Date Received: 14 January 2016 Owner Name: Dongni Fan and Hongfeng Shen Submitted by: APG Homes Scheme: Residential R20 Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Vacant Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received an application for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 53a Hines Road, Hilton. The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as objections have been received that cannot be resolved through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of neighbours. The proposed development has been assessed against relevant clauses of Local Planning Scheme No 4 (LPS4), local planning policies and the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), with the following discretions and/or design principle assessments sought:

Building height;

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall); and

Solar access for adjoining sites.


Page 51

The application was advertised to neighbouring residents and landowners, with three (3) submissions objecting to the proposal received. The application has been considered against the relevant statutory planning instruments and is recommended for on balance approval, with the key issue being Building Height. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located at the rear of No. 53 on the western side of Hines Road, Hilton. The street block is bound by South Street to the north, Rennie Crescent to the south, Hines Road to the east and Lee Avenue to the west. The site is located in the Hilton Local Planning Area, and is zoned Residential with a density coding of R20. The property is not heritage listed, however is located within the Hilton Heritage Area and is therefore subject to the requirements of LPP 3.7. The lot was created as part of subdivision application, WAPC 1086-13 in 2014. The site also has a current planning approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling, which was approved in 2015 (DA0114/15) by Planning Committee (PC). This proposal met all discretionary requirements of LPP 3.7 to allow the two storey building height. DETAIL

On 14 January 2016, the City received an application for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 53a Hines Road, Hilton. Immediately after the lodgement of the application, revised plans were received (dated 19 January 2016) that made minor alterations to upper floor windows. A further set of revised plans were received (dated 16 March 2016), as the upper floor was interpreted to be an Ancillary Dwelling, which is not permitted on Grouped Dwelling sites. The alterations removed the Kitchen on the upper floor, altering it to be an open plan Bar/Activity area which is considered to be an acceptable change to officers. Development plans are included as attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

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

Building height;

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall); and

Solar access for adjoining sites. Detailed assessment is included in the Planning Comment section of the report below.


Page 52

CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4, as the application required a number of assessments against Design Principles. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 8 February 2016, the City had received three (3) submissions, all objecting to the proposal. The following issues were raised (summarised):

Height and bulk will have a detrimental visual impact and block out views;

Wall height and roof ridge height exceeds Hilton Policy;

Boundary wall will be visible from the street;

Has an upper storey, not a loft;

Shadow;

Overlooking;

Morning sun will be blocked to bedrooms and living areas;

Strongly oppose plans, no one else allowed to build this high.

PLANNING COMMENT

Building height


External wall height – 3.5m 5.4m 1.9m

Roof ridge height – 6.5m 7.4m 900mm

In accordance with LPP 3.7 – Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct Heritage Area Local Planning Policy, variations to the prescribed building height may be granted as follows – The development is on a rear survey strata lot, battle axe lot or the equivalent and has minimal presentation to the streetscape and the development complies with the Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes regarding:

i. Design Element 6.3.1 – Building setback from the boundary; and ii. Design Element 6.4.1 – Open Space; and iii. Design Element 6.9.1 – Design for Climate

The proposal at No. 53a Hines Road meets the following aspects of the policy –

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


Page 53

LPP 3.7 refers to a previous version of the R-Codes when listing the design elements that are to be complied with to exercise discretion. 6.3.1 Building setback from the boundary, would correlate with the current R-Code clause 5.1.3 lot boundary setback. The previous version of the R-Codes does not include boundary walls in 6.3.1, however the current version does. The development does propose a boundary wall, however should boundary walls have been required to comply, clause 6.3.2 buildings on boundary or LPP 2.4 Boundary Walls in Residential Development would have also been added to the requirements of the height discretion. It is therefore considered that as all lot boundary setbacks meet deemed to comply requirements (with the exception of the boundary wall), that the requirements of 6.3.1 are satisfied.

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

While the proposed development meets criteria I and ii above, the level of shadow (iii) does not meet Acceptable Development (or Deemed to Comply) requirements for an R20 site. As discussed below, however, it is considered that the site meets the Design Principles of the R-Codes for the proposed shadow and does not result in a negative impact on the adjoining site. Additionally, if the southern site had been subdivided in the same manner as a number surrounding it (i.e. in a two lot subdivision, with one lot behind the other), the development would meet the Deemed to Comply requirements as the southern site would only abut one property, allowing the proposed development to shadow 25% of the site (as opposed to the 11% discussed below). It is also noted, that No. 53a Hines Road has valid planning approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling on the site. Should PC be of the view that not meeting the shadow requirements contributes to the adverse impact of the additional building height on neighbouring properties, the application could be refused on these grounds.

Lot boundary setbacks (boundary wall)

Deemed to Comply Proposed Design Principle Assessment

Garage (North) – 1m Nil 1m

The proposed Garage wall is supported for the following reasons –

It is proposed to abut a vegetated area of the adjoining site;

The proposed boundary wall will not abut an existing outdoor living area or major openings;

The proposed boundary wall abuts the southern side of the adjoining site, and will therefore not impact on access to winter sunlight;

The single storey boundary wall is not significant in height (2.7m), with the remainder of the building setback 2.6m.

The boundary wall will not be highly visible from the street as it located some 38m from the front boundary.


Page 54

Solar access for adjoining sites

Deemed to Comply Proposed Design Principle Assessment

11% - 98.45sqm (proportionate share of 25% total allowable)

14% (124sqm) 25.55sqm)

The level of shadow proposed on the adjoining site, is supported for the following reasons:

The area of site affected is highly vegetated, with limited access to sunlight currently;

The overshadowing will not impact major openings or outdoor living areas;

The overshadowing will not impact on any existing solar collectors on the adjoining site; and

The amount of shadow under the deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes is reduced due to the southern lot sharing its northern boundary with another property. The other property however is only single storey, and given it is setback of approximately 3m, the percentage of shadow thrown, is estimated to be around 8%, much less than its allowable 14%.

Additionally, while the Design Principles of the R-Codes, refer to what is existing on the neighbouring site, it should be noted that similar sized lots have been approved for subdivision in the immediate vicinity by the WAPC. This could result in a new lot abutting No. 53a Hines Road, allowing an increase in allowable shadow to 25%, which this proposal would be well under. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Diverse and Affordable Housing Policy:



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

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

Green Plan 2020

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land: there are no trees proposed to be removed or added to the subject site as part of this development.


Page 55

ALTERNATIVE OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION As the proposal does not meet all discretionary criteria for additional building height in Hilton, an alternate recommendation for refusal is provided for PC’s consideration - That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 53a (Lot 2) Hines Road, Hilton, for the following reasons:

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


That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 53a (Lot 2) Hines Road, Hilton, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 16 March 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.



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


face brick;



Advice note:

i. The dwelling is approved for the purposes of human habitation on a permanent basis by a single person, a single family, or no more than six persons who do not comprise a single family.


Page 56

PC1604-8 CHESTER STREET NO.74B (LOT 88), SOUTH FREMANTLE - TWO STOREY SINGLE HOUSE (JL DA0056/16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 April 2016 (Planning Committee) Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1 – Development Plans

2 – Site Photos Date Received: 3 February 2016 Owner Name: S. Gray and L. Roth Submitted by: Cedar homes Scheme: Residential Heritage Listing: Nil / South Fremantle Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Vacant land Use Class: Single House Use Permissibility: P

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application is referred to the Planning Committee (the Committee) due to a submission being received raising concerns that cannot all be dealt with appropriately via the imposition of planning conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbour.


Page 57

The proposal requires Design Principle assessments of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) in relation to the following:

Lot boundary setbacks (western boundary garage wall),

Building Height (Northern external Wall height due to the skillion roof design), and

Visual privacy of the eastern adjoining properties (Bedroom 1 northern elevation window).

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the provisions of LPS4 and has a density coding of R25. The subject site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List but is located within the within the prescribed South Fremantle Heritage Area under the clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is vacant and comprises of approximately 449m2. The site is located on the eastern side of Chester Street, South Fremantle. The site is relatively flat and is surrounded by existing two storey dwellings. DETAIL

On 3 February 2016, the City received a development application seeking Planning Approval for a Two Storey Single House to be constructed on the vacant lot known as No.74B (Lot 88) Chester Street, South Fremantle (the site). See ‘Attachment 1’ below for a copy of the development plans. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The development has been assessed against the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4), the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and relevant Council’s Local Planning Policies (Council’s Policies). Where a proposal does not meet the deemed to comply requirements of the R- Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant design principles. Not meeting the deemed to comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. The proposal does not meet the deemed to comply requirements of the R Codes in relation to the following:

Lot Boundary Setbacks (western setback garage),

Building Height (External Wall height – northern elevation of dwelling), and

Visual Privacy (eastern adjoining properties) The above matters are discussed further in the “Planning Comment” section below.


Page 58

CONSULTATION

Community

The proposed development was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4 and the City’s LPP1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals policy and design principle assessments were sought. At the conclusion of the original advertising period, being 23 February 2016, the City had received one submission which raised the following relevant planning concerns of the proposal:

Building height is excessive,

Loss of visual privacy from upper floor bedroom window Concerns associated with loss of visual privacy have been noted and as such a planning condition imposed as part of the Officer’s recommendation to ensure compliance with the Deemed to comply provision of the R-Codes. With regards to the concern associated with building height further discussion is included in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

Lot Boundary Setbacks – (Western boundary for garage)

Design Element Deemed-to-comply Provided Design Principle assessment

West

Wall Garage – 7.2m long x up to

4m high

1.1m setback

1m

100mm

The proposed reduced setback is supported for the following reasons:

The lesser setback does not result in a perception of adverse building bulk when viewed from the adjoining property;

The lesser setback does not contribute adversely to a loss of direct sun, light generally or ventilation to major openings; and,

The lesser setback does not result in any new merit based decision relating to visual privacy.


Page 59

External Wall Height

Deemed to Comply R-Codes - Table 3 provision

Proposed Design Principle Assessment

Top of external wall (Skillion roof) northern elevation 6.8m

External Wall height up to

6.8m for northern elevation and portion of the eastern

and western section of dwelling

800mm

As mentioned previously, the development proposes a maximum 6.8 metre external wall height for the skillion pitch of the proposed two storey dwelling. The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes in the following ways;

The application proposes a skillion pitched roof. The proposed roof form, while above the external wall limit is considered to be of significantly less in terms of the overall bulk and scale than that commonly associated with a typical compliant ridge roof development (6m external wall 9m roof ridge height);

The orientation of the land means the additional height (above 6m) has limited impact on access to light to adjoining properties;

There are no views of significance apparent 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.

The skillion roof is location some 6.8m from the northern side boundary and 2.7m from the rear eastern boundary.

Visual Privacy All major openings of the dwelling have been assessed against and comply with the ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions of the R-codes except for:

Area and Impacted property

Deemed to comply

requirement

Proposed Setback

Design Principle assessment

Eastern property – bedroom 1 northern elevation window (51 Daly Street)

4.5m

4.3m

200mm

The proposal is not considered to meet the Design Principles of the R-Codes as the raised openings will be afforded views over current outdoor living and entertaining areas on the adjoining eastern site at 51 Daly Street, South Fremantle. A condition of approval requiring screening of the above stated elevations is therefore recommended.


Page 60

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Diverse and Affordable Housing Policy:

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


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

provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting development and renewal in designated precincts within the city

Green Plan 2020

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land: No mature vegetation is proposed to be removed onsite.

CONCLUSION Based upon the above assessment it is considered that the proposed development adheres to the majority of the relevant R-Codes ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions. Where the proposed development does not meet these criteria, it has been outlined above that it is considered to satisfy the ‘Design Principle’ criteria. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Two storey Single house at No. 74B (Lot 88) Chester Street, South Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 3 February 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.


3. Prior to use / occupation of the development approved as part of DA0056/16, on plans dated 3 February 2016 the window for bedroom 1 located on the northern elevation shall be screened to prevent direct overlooking of the eastern adjoining properties 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 61

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





Page 62

PC1604-9 COLLEGE CORNER, NO. 25 (LOT 108), O'CONNOR - RETROSPECTIVE HOME BUSINESS (STORAGE) IN EXISTING SINGLE DWELLING - (NB DA0566/15)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: N/A Attachments: 1 - Development Plans

2 - Site Photos 3 – Justification email from applicant

Date Received: 26 November 2015 Owner Name: Chi Wai Cheung & Kam Fung Mo Submitted by: Chi Wai Cheung & Kam Fung Mo Scheme: Development Area 8 (Residential - R30) Heritage Listing: Not listed Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: Home Business Use Permissibility: ‘A’

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks retrospective planning approval for a Home Business for the purposes of storage in an existing Single House at No. 25 (Lot 108) College Corner, O’Connor. The application is presented to the Planning Committee (PC) on the basis of objections received prior to and during the community consultation period that cannot be resolved through the imposition of planning approval conditions to the satisfaction of the neighbours.


Page 63

The applicant seeks an assessment against the definition of a Home Business in the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) in regards to its impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood and traffic, which are considered to satisfy the definition and are therefore supported. The application is recommended for conditional approval with the option of considering a temporary approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located within the Taylors College residential development on the western side of College Corner, O’Connor bounded by South Street to the south and Bellamy Street to the north. The lot is part of Development Area 8: Taylors College and the structure plan indicates it is zoned Residential – R30. The site is not individually listed on the City’s Heritage List; nor is it located within any Heritage Area prescribed under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject site is approximately 450m2, has an east-west orientation and currently contains a Single house with the entire frontage of the lot paved to allow for parking. A history of the subject site in relation to the current proposal is as follows: On 31 August 2015 the City received a complaint from a local resident alleging that the premises of the subject site were being used as a warehouse and deliveries were causing traffic safety issues, including at one time the use of a full size sea container. On 29 October 2015 the City received a further complaint regarding a delivery by a truck marked as specialising in hazardous chemical delivery. Compliance Officers from the City investigated the site and discovered that the property was primarily used as a dwelling with some storage of goods, consisting mainly of clothing, that were to be sold off-site. They were further advised that the delivery truck had chemical advertising but was not actually delivering chemicals but, rather, more boxes of clothing. Due to the entire garage and attached storeroom being utilised as goods storage the officers instructed the owner to submit an application for a Home Business, which was received by the City on 26 November 2015. The application indicated that only the garage and storeroom were being used to store goods and included a space outside the garage for a truck to unload. On 15 January 2016 Planning Officers visited the site and discovered that the large patio along the western boundary and one of the rear storage sheds were also being used to store goods for the business. Further investigation into the property files revealed that an additional outbuilding had been erected and the patio eaves had been enclosed, both without receiving planning or building approval from the City.


Page 64

The applicant was instructed to remove all boxes used to store goods for the off-site business from the property and either remove or submit retrospective planning approval for the outbuilding and patio eaves prior to the Home Business application being referred to Council. A deadline of 26 February 2016 was set for these actions to occur at the risk of the application being refused and referred back to the City’s Compliance Team for action. On 26 February 2016 officers returned to the site and confirmed that all relevant goods had been moved to an off-site facility and that the outbuilding and non-approved patio eaves had been removed. The application was thereafter allowed to proceed. DETAIL

The application seeks planning approval for a Home Business (Warehouse) for the storage of goods operating from a Single House at 25 College Corner, O’Connor. Additional information received from the applicant proposes the following:

Storage space for the home business will be limited to the garage and storeroom as indicated on the plans (maximum 50 sqm); and

To minimise traffic impacts deliveries will occur no more than four (4) times a year, limited to vehicles no more than 3 tonnes, and drivers instructed to park in the driveway; and

Further use of a sea container will be avoided. Development plans indicating area used for deliveries and storage are included in this report as Attachment 1. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions contained within LPS4. The proposed development seeks assessments relating to sections (b) and (e) of the definition of a Home Business in LPS4, which states that any Home Business;

(b) Will not cause injury to or adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood; and

(e) In relation to vehicles and parking, does not result in traffic difficulties as a result of the inadequacy of parking or an increase in traffic volumes in the neighbourhood and does not involve the presence, use or calling of a vehicle more than 3.5 tonnes tare weight.

Further discussion of these elements is included in the Planning Comment section of the report below.


Page 65

CONSULTATION

Community

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4 due to a Home Business being an “A” use. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 8 January 2016, the City had received five (5) submissions raising objections to the proposal, which was still in operation at the time of advertising. The submissions are summarised as follows:

Storage of goods is a potential fire hazard.

There is constant traffic with deliveries at all hours.

Goods have been delivered in a sea container that blocks sightlines and impedes traffic.

Narrow streets and an existing lack of curb parking means truck deliveries block the road.

The front yard is already full of vehicles, leaving no place for truck deliveries as indicated on the plans.

Noise from loading and unloading vehicles will be an issue.

Residential area is not conducive to a business location. The applicant has attempted to address these concerns by limiting the total number of annual deliveries, limiting the storage space used to a maximum of 50m2, and moving the majority of the storage to an off-site location. PLANNING COMMENT

As per Schedule 1 of LPS4, a Home Business is defined as:

a business, service, or profession carried out in a dwelling or on land around a dwelling by an occupier of the dwelling which—

a) does not employ more than 2 people not members of the occupier’s household,

b) will not cause injury to or adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood, c) does not occupy an area greater than 50 square metres, d) does not involve the retail sale, display or hire of goods of any nature, e) in relation to vehicles and parking, does not result in traffic difficulties as a

result of the inadequacy of parking or an increase in traffic volumes in the neighbourhood, and does not involve the presence, use or calling of a vehicle more than 3.5 tonnes tare weight, and

f) does not involve the use of an essential service of greater capacity than normally required in the zone.

The proposal complies with (a), (c), (d) and (f) above. The outstanding issues are the impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood and the impact on traffic difficulties.


Page 66

Based on comments received from adjoining owners there is wide agreement that the previous use of the premises as essentially a large warehouse adversely affected the amenity of the neighbourhood. The consideration of this report is whether the proposed changes, including the reduction of overall storage area and the delivery schedule, will be enough to ameliorate neighbour concerns and fulfil requirements (b) and (e) of a Home Business as defined in LPS4.

Will not cause injury to or adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood In terms of actual storage space used, it should be noted that the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes allow outbuildings to have a floor area of 10 percent (in aggregate) of the lot size, in this instance being a maximum area of 45m2. The Home Business requirement, being a maximum area of 50m2, is only slightly larger and it could be considered that an outbuilding and a home business that acts as a small storage facility serve roughly similar purposes and have negligible impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood. Similarly, storage of goods out of sight of adjoining residences is unlikely to impact the amenity of the adjoining lots. Further, the applicant has indicated that all sales are conducted off-site, no customers enter the premises.

In relation to vehicles and parking, does not result in traffic difficulties as a result of the inadequacy of parking or an increase in traffic volumes in the neighbourhood and does not involve the presence, use or calling of a vehicle more than 3.5 tonnes tare weight

The applicant has indicated a loading zone in front of the garage, although it is noted that the proposed loading zone intrudes into the verge. However, the verge is fully paved for vehicles, there are no pedestrian paths along the length of College Corner, parking would be for temporary unloading purposes only, and the driveway of the southern adjoining lot is located far to the south. Therefore, even though a delivery truck may temporarily park partially in the verge area it will have minimal impact on traffic or sightlines. Neighbours have also identified a shipping container used on at least one occasion, which impeded sight lines. Provided the container was located entirely within the boundary of the property and for a period not exceeding 14 days, it would have been considered a temporary development and not require planning approval as per LPS4 section 8.2(c). Notwithstanding this, the applicant has indicated that he will not use a shipping container in the future. Despite the indication of a loading zone on the plans, neighbours have noted that the front yard is consistently filled with vehicles with the result being that delivery trucks often park in the street. It is worth noting that in terms of vehicles parking on site, the definition of a Single House does not limit occupants of the same family and up to six unrelated people can reside in a Single House. On that basis a high number of vehicles could park on the subject site as of right.


Page 67

In order to minimise the negative impact on the amenity of the locality, a condition has been included requiring deliveries to only occur during normal business hours. Further, in response to neighbour concerns regarding the frequency of deliveries the applicant has advised they will limit the total number of deliveries per year. Although this may reduce the overall impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood, these two limitations will be difficult for the City to monitor and enforce. Temporary Approval In light of the above concerns from nearby residents and the difficulty in enforcing delivery times and frequency, Council may wish to consider granting a temporary approval of one year as a trial period. At the conclusion of this period the applicant would be required to submit a new application, which Council could consider in light of an assessment being undertaken of any amenity impacts evident form the temporary approval period. The condition would read as follows:

This approval is limited to a period of one year from the date of planning approval. A separate planning approval will be required to continue the operation of the Home Business (Warehouse) after this time.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Home Business (Warehouse) at No. 25 (Lot 108) College Corner, O’Connor, as detailed on plans dated 26 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 26 November 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. This approval allows the Home Business hereby permitted to be conducted

by Chi Wai Cheung and Kam Fung Mo. If Chi Wai Cheung and Kam Fung Mo cease to operate the Home Business hereby permitted or occupy the subject site, this approval will expire.

3. The deliveries associated with the Home Business hereby permitted shall

only occur during normal trading hours, ie. 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on Monday, to Friday; 8:00 am to 9:00 pm on Thursday; and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday. Sunday deliveries are not permitted.

4. The Home Business consisting of storage of goods for the purpose of sale

hereby permitted shall not occupy an area of greater than 50sqm.


Page 68

PC1604-10 BANNISTER STREET NO, 7 - 15 (LOT 502) FREMANTLE - FOUR STOREY WITH LOFT ADDITION TO EXISTING HOTEL - (JL DAP012/15)

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report (Regulation 12)

Property Location: No.7-15 (Lot ) Bannister Street, Fremantle

Application Details: Four Storey with Loft Addition to existing Hotel

DAP Name: Metro South West Joint Development Assessment Panel

Applicant: The Planning Group (TPG) WA Pty Ltd

Owner: Red Rock Consolidated Pty Ltd

LG Reference: DAP012/15

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

Department of Planning File No: DAP/15/00916

Report Date: 6 April 2016

Application Receipt Date: 20 October 2015

Application Process Days: 90 Days

Attachment(s): 1: - Additional Information/ Justification Letter

- Modified Contour and Feature Survey and 1 x Cross section

- 2 x Overshadowing Diagrams (Approved Scheme)

- 1 x Overshadowing Diagram (Current Scheme)

- 1x Overshadowing Diagram (11m as of right),

- 2 x Cross Sections 2: South west Joint Development Assessment

Panel Minutes No.89 (18 January 2016) 3: Original RAR report presented to JDAP 18

January 2016

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: That the Metro South West Joint - Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) resolves to: Refuse DAP Application reference DAP/15/00916 and accompanying plans 21 October 2015 and 7 December 2015 in accordance with Clause 8.1 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No.4, for the following reasons:


Page 69

1. The building height of the proposed development does not comply with the height requirements contained within Schedule 12 (Sub Area 1.3 – West End) of City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4.

2. The proposed development does not satisfy all of the criteria listed under Clause 5.8.1 and 5.8.4 of City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4.

BACKGROUND:

Property Address: No.7-15 Bannister Street, Fremantle

Zoning MRS: Central City

LPS: City Centre

Use Class: Hotel

Development Scheme: Local Planning Scheme No.4

Lot Size: 1570m2

Existing Land Use: Hotel

Value of Development: $6m

The City of Fremantle records show that the subject site previously known as the ‘Fremantle Club’ was recently redeveloped to a Hotel known as the ‘Hougoumont Hotel’ in 2012. See Attachment 3 for Site Photo’s and respective aerials. See ‘Attachment 3’ below for detailed planning and property history for this matter. For background purposes the application includes the construction of a four storey with loft addition to the middle and western portion of site to the existing hotel. In summary the current proposal includes a four (4) storey with loft addition to the existing Hotel onsite. The additions consist of:

48 bedrooms,

34 onsite car bays,

175m2 Restaurant/ Kitchen,

95m2 Bar room,

100m2 Conference room addition with roof top terrace See ‘Attachment 3’ below for copy of complete set of development plans and background information relating to this development site and the proposal.


Page 70

DETAILS: OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION At its meeting held 18 January 2016 the South West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) considered an application for planning approval for a’ four storey with Loft addition to the existing Hotel’ at the subject site. The application at this meeting was recommended for refusal by the City due to proposal not complying with the height requirements contained within Schedule 12 (Sub Area 1.3 – West End) of City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4, whereby it was ultimately resolved:

That the Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel resolves to defer DAP Application reference DAP/15/00916 for reconsideration by the DAP on or before 26 February 2016 to allow for the applicant to comply with the following:

1. To re-design the rear of the property in compliance with Clause 5.8.1 (a) of

Local Planning Scheme No. 4,

2. In response to 1. above, to submit revised plans to the City of Fremantle no later than 29 January 2016 and for the matter to be listed for further consideration at a MSWJDAP meeting no later than 26 February 2016.

REASON: The DAP determined that a deferral would enable the applicant to review the building height at the rear against the Scheme provisions, in order to reduce the impact on the adjoining neighbours.

The applicant decided to submit an application for review (appeal) of the above decision of JDAP to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) given the application exceeded the 90 day statutory processing timeframe and a deemed refusal was available. Since the SAT review was lodged, as part of the SAT proceedings, the following has transpired:

1 February 2016 – SAT appeal lodged by applicant;

5 February 2016 – City advised submitters to DAP/15/00916 (DAP012/15) of SAT appeal;

12 February 2016 - Directions hearing at SAT. The did not invite the officers of the City of Fremantle and fundamentally was vacated by all parties to allowing mediation to proceed immediately;

On 4 March 2016 Mediation Hearing at SAT which City Officer attended resulted in the following order:

Pursuant to s 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the respondent is invited to reconsider its decision on or before 2 May 2016. It is noted that the City was required to submit its Responsible Authority Report (RAR) by no later than 22 April 2016 to JDAP. Whilst this report will be presented to the City’s Planning Committee at its meeting of 6 April 2016, any resolution from this will be forwarded to JDAP as a separate submission to the City’s resolution as part of its RAR. On 18 March 2016 the applicant submitted additional information/justification, overshadowing diagrams, cross sections and amended contour and feature survey plan. See ‘Attachment 1’ below for copy of new information.


Page 71

LEGISLATION & POLICY: See ‘Attachment 3’ below for original RAR report outlining the relevant statutory legislative requires relating to this proposal.

CONSULTATION: In accordance with clause 6 of the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals, advertising of the amended plans was not required as no new discretionary decisions were sought than what have already been considered. For further discussion on the submission previously received as part of the advertising process (see Attachment 3). Ordinary Council Meeting The City of Fremantle at its Council meeting on 16 December 2015 considered the proposal and resolved:

Refuse DAP Application reference DAP/15/00916 and accompanying plans 21 October 2015 and 7 December 2015 in accordance with Clause 8.1 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No.4, for the following reasons:

1. The building height of the proposed development does not comply with the height

requirements contained within Schedule 12 (Sub Area 1.3 – West End) of City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4.

2. The proposed development does not satisfy all of the criteria listed under Clause 5.8.1 and 5.8.4 of City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4.

Consultation with other Agencies or Consultants No further referrals were required to external agencies that have already provided comment on the development. The previous external agencies involved in the referral of this application included the following:

State Heritage Office

Fremantle Port Authority Internal Referrals No further referrals were required to internal department and/or Advisory Committee. The previous internal department and Advisory committee’s involved in the referral of this application included the following:

Heritage Department

Design Advisory Committee

Infrastructure Projects

Environmental Health Department

See ‘Attachment 3’ below for original RAR report outlining the above internal and external referral departments comments relating to the proposal.


Page 72

PLANNING ASSESSMENT: The applicant lodged an appeal with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) on 1 February 2016. SAT has invited the South West Joint-Development Assessment Panel (JDAP), to reconsider its previous decision under section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act. JDAP at its last meeting (18 January 2016) resolved to defer JDAP Application:

to allow for the applicant to comply with the following:

1. To re-design the rear of the property in compliance with Clause 5.8.1 (a) of

Local Planning Scheme No. 4,

2. In response to 1. above, to submit revised plans to the City of Fremantle no later than 29 January 2016 and for the matter to be listed for further consideration at a MSWJDAP meeting no later than 26 February 2016.

Essentially at this meeting, ‘DAP determined that a deferral would enable the applicant to review the building height at the rear against the Scheme provisions, in order to reduce the impact on the adjoining neighbours’. The applicant has opted, during the mediation process of a SAT appeal, to lodge additional information and justification for the proposal in its original form in the way of providing:

1) 3 x Overshadowing diagrams - Plan 1 = 11m compliant building height example - (winter and summer

solstice’s, - Plan 2 = Approved Scheme example (winter and summer solstice’s), and - Plan 3 = Current Proposed Scheme – (Winter and summer solstices) -

2) 2 x Cross sections - Winter solstices Midday 21 June (34 degree sun angle), - Midday 18 July (37 degree sun angle),

3) Amended contour and feature survey with respective cross section to explain the

impacts of overshadowing from the current proposal on the southern adjoining properties of the subject site.

Refer to ‘Attachment 1’ below for copy of the above additional Information. For background purposes the current proposal for the site required discretion for building height provisions of Schedule 12 of LPS4. The applicant is seeking discretion under clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 for additional building height (portion of development above 11m external wall height). Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 is directly relevant to the issue of overshadowing and associated amenity impacts queried by JDAP at its last meeting for this item. Clause 5.8.1 is reiterated as follows (bold added for emphasis):


Page 73

Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following— (a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties

or the locality generally, (b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates

the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality, (c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and

adjoining, and (d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies.

The additional information provided by the applicant is directly relevant to the assessment of sub clause (a) above. At its meeting held 18 January 2016, JDAP were presented with an overshadowing diagram from the southern adjoining land owner which contradicted the overshadowing diagrams attached to the original proposal. The neighbours diagram clearly indicated that the impact of shadow resulting from the current proposal was significantly larger than that depicted on the applicant’s overshadowing diagram at this meeting. This information fundamentally resulted in the deferral resolution of JDAP at this meeting and consequentially the SAT appeal of this application. The applicant states that this additional information has been prepared to accurately depict impacts of solar access to the southern properties essentially for purposes of the proposal’s assessment against the building height variation clause of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4). The applicant requested that Brown McAllister Surveyors (BMS) review the AHD levels provided in the ‘Contour and Feature Survey’ prepared by Monaghan Mapping & Surveying (MMS) provided by the southern neighbours at the JDAP meeting held 18 January 2016. A review of this Survey can be viewed in ‘Attachment 1’ below of this report. In summary, it is BMS’s opinion that adopting a Standard Survey mark registered at Landgate is superior to adopting water corporation’s sewer lid data connections. Essentially BMS consider there is a discrepancy in the AHD levels of between 0.15 to 0.2 metres. BMS consider the variance in these AHD levels to have resulted from an incorrect datum point from the sewer lid level from the Water Corporation to not be accurate or not updated. Essentially the variance between MMS and BMS’s surveys for the same man hole (sewer lid) is as follows: MMS – 1.74 AHD BMS – 1.90 AHD (0.16m difference) In review of the original RAR report (see Attachment 3), impacts of solar access to the southern adjoining properties was not considered to be significantly detrimentally impacted in comparison to that of a compliant 11m high building with a nil setback to this common boundary. Notwithstanding this, further assessment of the additional overshadowing information is provided as follows.


Page 74

As outlined in the overshadowing diagram titled ‘Current Scheme’ provided by the applicant, the proposal allows for two key corridors (marked yellow) for future solar access to penetrate the development site to the southern adjoining properties. The area’s marked A (in red), B & C (in blue) below, depict the component of additional shadow resulting from the proposed development above the compliant 11m external wall height that incorporates a nil setback to both the southern and east boundary as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4 for this site.

Figure 1 Essentially, the applicant provided the following table for overshadowing impacts on the southern adjoining properties resulting from BMS reviewed AHD levels:


Page 75

Accordingly, it is acknowledged that the additional shadow resulting from the current proposal would impact the southern adjoining properties more so than the previous approved development for the development site. But in stating this, the level of impact should be explored further. Of the additional shadow marked ‘A’ (in red) above in figure 1, this is existing shadow cast by the neighbouring western development to the subject property (located at No.5 Bannister Street) as at 21 June, 12 noon winter solstices. Therefore, it’s considered the proposal wouldn’t contribute to any additional overall loss of solar access to the southern adjoining property as measured during the winter solstice period. It is however acknowledged that the area’s marked “B’ and ‘C’ (in blue) above in figure 1 clearly would and have resulted in additional shadow to the southern adjoining properties located at No.8-12, 14 and 16 Nairn Street. For Area ‘B’ which directly impacts No.8-12 Nairn Street the area impacted consists mainly of a concrete stairway and garden bed area of the property’s backyard. For the area marked ‘C’ this impact exists today as it relates to the first stage of the development onsite and for similar reasons outlined in the assessment of area ‘A’ no additional detrimental impacts would be the resultant for the purposes of assessment under clause 5.8.1 – Variation to building height provisions of LPS4. Overall, whilst it is acknowledged that the second stage of the hotel development onsite would result in additional shadow (shown above in blue projections above the 11m wall line), the level of impact is not considered to be significantly detrimental to the amenity of these southern properties for the reasons outlined above. CONCLUSION: The application includes the construction of a four storey with loft addition to the middle and western portion of site to the existing Hotel (The Hougoumont) at no.7-15 Bannister Street, Fremantle. Whilst it’s acknowledged that the proposed Hotel use is a compatible and encouraged land use within the City Centre, JDAP must ensure that LPS4 is applied rigorously, and unless JDAP is satisfied that all four of the criteria of Clause 5.8.1 discussed above are satisfied, the proposed building height is not capable of approval under the provisions of LPS4. Notwithstanding the above assessment, the key issue associated with its assessment against cl5.8.1 of LPS4 related to part (d) as reiterated in Attachment 3 of this report in the original RAR report. Part d of cl5.8.1 was not considered to be satisfied, given the proposal included a fourth storey with a nil setback to Bannister Street. This component of the development is not considered to comply with the provisions of Council’s DGF14 – West End Conservation Area Policy and as such City Officers original recommendation as per the original RAR report remains the same. However as JDAP fundamentally had key concerns to the overshadowing amenity impacts of the additional height, if JDAP were now of the opinion to support the proposal given the supplied additional information and clarification on this matter, then the following recommendation is provided:


Page 76

Approve DAP Application reference DAP/15/00916 and accompanying plans 21 October 2015 in accordance with Clause 8.1 of the City of Fremantle’s of Local Planning Scheme No.4, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 21 October 2015 and 7 December 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not

irreparably damage any original or rare fabric of the building. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to the submission of a Building Permit application, the owner is required to

contribute a monetary amount of 1% of the estimated total cost of development as indicated on the Form of Application for Planning Approval for DAP012/15, for the development of public art works and/or heritage works to the enhance to the public realm to the satisfaction of the, City of Fremantle. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $6,000,000.00, the contribution to be made is $60,000.00.

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

information to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle having regard to advice from the Design Advisory Committee:

i. Additional detail relating to colour, texture and material arrangement for final

facade finishes. ii. Material construction details of the rear façade finishes including location and

treatment of gutters and downpipes that mitigates any negative impressions as viewed from the adjoining properties.

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

approved by the City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved,, stormwater drainage works must be completed in accordance with the approved plans to the satisfaction of the, City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, vehicle crossovers

shall be constructed in either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

8. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, eight (8) Class 3 bicycle

rack as per the definition of clause 5.7.1 (d) of the Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) shall be installed either onsite or within nearby public land at the owners expense and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

9. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, any redundant

crossovers and kerbs shall be removed and the verge reinstated to the satisfaction of the, City of Fremantle and at the expense of the applicant.


Page 77

10. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the design and materials of the development shall adhere to the requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy L.P.P2.3: Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following: i. Glazing to windows and other openings shall be laminated safety glass of

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

ii. Air conditioners if provided, shall incorporate internal centrally located ‘shut

down’ points and associated procedures for emergency use. iii. Roof insulation shall be provided in accordance with the Building Code of

Australia.

11. The design and construction of the development is to meet the 4 Star Green Star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard are to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of Building Compliance for the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle:

a. A copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia

certifying that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars, or

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

12. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the car parking area

shown on the approved site plan shall be 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.

13. Prior to the submission of a Building Permit application, the owner is to submit

further details on the storage and management of the waste generated by the development for approval by the City of Fremantle

14. All air-conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any other plant and

equipment to the roof of the building shall be located to be not visible from the street, and where visible from other buildings or vantage points shall be suitably located, screened or housed, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

15. Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed landscaping plan, including

information relating to species selection, reticulation, details of proposed vegetation for the southern elevation of the development, shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Fremantle. The 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


Page 78

an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

16. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the primary street wall shall be modified at

the vehicle access point onsite in order to provide adequate sight lines or otherwise comply with the relevant Australian and New Zealand Standard. 2890.1 (as amended) to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

ADVICE NOTE(S)

i. In relation to condition 3, relating to the public art contribution, the applicant is advised that council may waive the requirement for the public art/heritage work contribution in accordance with clause 6 of LPP2.19 where the development incorporates public art in the development to the same value as that specified in condition 10 that is located in a position clearly visible to the general public on the site of the development. In determining the appropriateness and artistic merit of the public art, council shall seek relevant professional advice.

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

advised to contact the City of Fremantle’s Infrastructure & Project Delivery department for further advice on a suitable drainage solution, whether by maintaining the current/existing connection or through surface flow into the drainage system.

iii. With regards to the verge parklet/ beautification works, awning treatments etc,

the applicant is advised to contact the City of Fremantle’s Infrastructure Projects Delivery Department prior to submission of a building permit or obstruction permit regarding current foreseen design issues with this future envisaged road reserve development.

iv. Construction related activates are to meet the requirements of Local Planning

Policy 1.10 Construction Sites unless otherwise approved by the City.


Page 79

PC1604-11 SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (3.61.21)

Acting under authority delegated by the Council the Manager Statutory Planning 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 80

REPORTS BY OFFICERS (COUNCIL DECISION)

PC1604-12 DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS FOR A TWO YEAR TERM

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC 1002-45 (17 and 24 February 2010), C1006-3 (June

2010) and PSC1201-9 (18 January 2012 PSC), PSC1205-69 (2 May 2012), C1205-3 (23 May 2012), PSC1403-60 (19 and 26 March 2014), C1405-2 (28 May 2014)

Attachments: Nil EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In February 2010 the Council decided to establish a Design Advisory Committee (DAC) in accordance with clause 11.8 of LPS4. Following adoption of the Terms of Reference at that time, nominations were received for membership of the Committee. Five expressions of interest were received and in June 2010 those 5 nominees were appointed members of DAC. Every two years nominations for new DAC members are called for. The last time members were appointed was in May 2014 where 5 members were appointed with 2 additional deputies. Current membership terms expire in June 2016. In accordance with the terms of reference it is recommended that nominations for new DAC membership be sought through a public expression of interest process. BACKGROUND

On 28 May 2014 Council resolved: The following approach for the appointment of DAC members be endorsed:

1. That 5 members be appointed, with two additional deputy's 2. That the existing DAC Members who have re nominated be reappointed in the

interest of continuity 3. That the remaining 2 DAC members and an additional 2 deputy members be

appointed based on the merit of the applications and written references.


Page 81

Community

Expressions of Interests for DAC nominations will be sought for 14 days that will include advertisements in:

1. The Western Australian newspaper; 2. Australian Institute of Architects (WA) Chapter e-newsletter; and 3. The City web site.

PLANNING COMMENT

The Terms of Reference state that Committee members are appointed following a public process of expression of interest. Any replies to expressions of interest will be referred to Council. In addition to the specific technical skills and experience, selected members should enjoy considerable professional recognition and prestige. To demonstrate this each nomination should be accompanied by the names of a minimum of two professional referees and a curriculum vitae. These should be independent professional peers who can specifically attest in writing to the suitability of the candidate for membership the Committee. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic document: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

Improve physical presentation of the City’s streetscapes. Provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting

development and renewal in designated precincts within the City. Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage.


Expressions of interest be publicly sought for Design Advisory Committee membership for a period of 14 days and a further report be presented to Council following assessment of the expressions of interest.


Page 82

PC1604-13 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 2.20 - DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES - APPROVAL FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING

ECM Reference: 117/062 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Manager Strategic Planning & Coordinator Heritage Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1511-9 & PC1602-6 Attachments: Previous item PC1602-6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present for Council’s consideration a draft local planning policy to provide guidance on the exercise of discretion to vary Local Planning Scheme site or development standards for heritage reasons in the determination of development applications. Council considered a previous report on this matter on 24 February 2016 (item PC1602-6) and resolved to authorise officers to prepare a draft local planning policy based on a number of principles set out in that item. This report presents the full text of a draft policy based on those principles. It is recommended that Council approve the draft local planning policy for the purposes of public consultation. Following the consultation period a further report will be presented to Council for consideration of any submissions received and a decision on final adoption of the policy. BACKGROUND

On 19 October 2015 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) came into effect. The Regulations include a set of Deemed Provisions which are automatically ‘read into’ every local planning scheme in Western Australia. One provision of the Deemed Provisions – clause 12 – provides a discretionary power to a local government to vary any site or development standards in its scheme in order to facilitate the conservation of a place included on the heritage list or to preserve or enhance a heritage area. A report on the implementation of the Regulations (item PSC1511-9) was presented to Council on 25 November 2015. As part of its resolution relating to this item Council resolved that officers should prepare a draft local planning policy to provide guidance on the use of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions in the assessment and determination of development applications. The purpose of the local planning policy would be to provide a degree of certainty, consistency and transparency to decision-makers, developers and the community regarding the use of the discretionary power provided to the local government under the Deemed Provisions.


Page 83

A further report on this matter (item PC1602-6 – see Attachment 1) was presented to the Planning Committee and Council in February 2016. This report set out a number of suggested principles upon which the policy should be based for Council’s consideration and endorsement before officers prepared the full text of the draft policy. On 24 February 2016 Council resolved to authorise officers to complete the preparation of the draft policy based on the following principles:

1. Development applications seeking the exercise of discretion by the decision-maker to vary any Scheme site or development requirement under the provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions must include information which clearly demonstrates a physical relationship (including the nature and extent of the relationship) between the elements of the proposed development which require the variation and a heritage outcome which either (a) facilitates the built heritage conservation of a heritage listed place; or (b) enhances or preserves heritage values in a heritage area.

2. Development applications which seek to justify variations to Scheme site or development requirements solely on the basis that financial benefit derived from the development will be used to fund heritage works will not be supported.

3. The following criteria will be applied in assessing whether the relationship between

a development proposal and outcomes for a heritage place or area that would result from the proposed development, if it were approved, justify the exercise of discretion to vary any Scheme site or development requirement under the provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions:

There must be a net benefit to the public interest and the contribution the development makes to the public realm, e.g. streetscape, from the heritage outcome achieved through the variation.

The extent of the variation (e.g. additional building height) should be the minimum necessary to achieve the heritage outcomes in question.

The variation should be proportionate to the heritage values and level of significance of the place/area. The Statement of Significance associated with the listing of the heritage place/area will be the basis of considering the proportionality of the relationship between the proposed development and its effect on heritage values.

The spatial relationship including degree of proximity between the heritage ‘asset’ being conserved or enhanced and the development involving the variation.

4. The policy should clearly state that development applications involving potential

Scheme variations under clause 12 must include a written statement of justification provided by the applicant. The statement of justification must provide a clear rationale for the design approach adopted for the proposed development which requires the variation, and explain how it satisfies the ‘nexus’ (or relationship) test referred to in principle (1) above, including how it addresses the criteria listed in (3) above.

For further background information refer to previous item PC1602-6 in Attachment 1.


Page 84


As stated in the Background section of this report, with effect from 19 October 2015 the deemed provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) are read as constituting part of the current Local Planning Scheme. Clause 3 of the Deemed Provisions empowers a local government to prepare a local planning policy in respect of any matter related to the planning and development of the Scheme area. The provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions are clearly such a matter, and therefore the preparation of the local planning policy which is the subject of this report is authorised by the provisions of Clause 3. Clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions reads as follows:

(1) The local government may vary any site or development requirement specified in

this Scheme to –

(a) facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the register of

Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or entered in the

heritage list; or

(b) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.

(2) A variation under subclause (1) may be unconditional or subject to any conditions the local government considers appropriate.

(3) If the local government is of the opinion that the variation of site or development

requirements is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality of the place or the heritage area the local government must – (a) consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions for

advertising uses under clause 64; and (b) have regard to any views expressed prior to making its determination to vary

the site or development requirements under this clause. CONSULTATION

Subject to approval by Council as a draft for consultation purposes, community consultation on the content of the local planning policy which is the subject of this report will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. In this case, given the subject matter of the policy, it is recommended that consultation should include targeted engagement with specific stakeholders who are likely to have an interest in the matter, such as the State Heritage Office and Heritage Council, development industry peak bodies such as the UDIA, and community heritage interest groups e.g. the Fremantle Society. Consultation with Precinct Groups would occur in any event under the requirements of LPP 1.3 in addition to general advertising via the local press and the City’s community engagement webpage.


Page 85

PLANNING COMMENT

The full wording of the draft local planning policy is set out in the Officer’s Recommendation below. It has been developed from the principles endorsed by Council on 24 February 2016, as reproduced in the Background section above. In accordance with those principles, the key elements of the draft policy are as follows:

There must be a clearly demonstrated physical ‘nexus’ (meaning a relationship or connection) between the heritage purposes referred to in clause 12 (i.e. facilitation of the built heritage conservation of a State registered place or a place on the City’s heritage list under the Scheme, or the enhancement or preservation of heritage values in a heritage area) and the aspect of the proposed development which requires variation of a Scheme requirement in order for approval of the development to be entertained.

The extent of the demonstrated relationship must be strong enough to justify approving the development.

Where an application proposes a form of development that requires the exercise of discretion under clause 12 in order to be approved, the responsibility rests with the applicant to provide a clear written justification for the variation, explaining the rationale for the design of the proposed development and how it would satisfy the ‘nexus’ test. The policy expresses this obligation on the applicant as a requirement to submit a ‘Statement of Justification’ as part of the application.

The Statement of Justification must include an explanation of how the proposal addresses the criteria the decision-making body will use in assessing the proposal – i.e. the dot points in principle 3 from Council’s previous resolution as reproduced in the Background section above.

The City may request the applicant to provide additional information prior to determination of the application if it does not consider sufficient information has been provided in the initial Statement of Justification to enable a properly informed judgement of the merits of the application to be made.

CONCLUSION

The draft policy set out in the recommendation below is closely based on principles previously endorsed by Council in its resolution of 24 February 2016. The purpose of the policy is to provide suitable guidance to applicants and decision-makers (the City of Fremantle on the exercise of the discretionary power provided by clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions, in a form which is relevant to the context of planning and heritage issues in the City of Fremantle, to support a consistent and transparent approach to decision-making. Council is recommended to approve the draft policy for public consultation in accordance with the relevant statutory procedures and Council’s own policy on public consultation on planning proposals. Following the consultation period a further report will be presented to Council for consideration of any submissions received and a decision on final adoption of the policy.


Page 86


That Council approve the following draft Local Planning Policy 2.20 – Discretion to vary Local Planning Scheme site or development requirements for heritage reasons for the purposes of advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.20

DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES

ADOPTION DATE: ??/??/2016 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND Under the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), the Deemed Provisions contained in Schedule 2 of the Regulations are applicable to all local planning schemes, whether or not they are incorporated into the local planning scheme text. Accordingly these provisions are applicable to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (the Scheme). Clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions states:

(1) The local government may vary any site or development requirement

specified in this Scheme to –

(c) facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the register

of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or entered in

the heritage list; or

(d) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.

(2) A variation under subclause (1) may be unconditional or subject to any conditions the local government considers appropriate.

(3) If the local government is of the opinion that the variation of site or

development requirements is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality of the place or the heritage area the local government must – (c) consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions

for advertising uses under clause 64; and (d) have regard to any views expressed prior to making its determination to

vary the site or development requirements under this clause.


Page 87

PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance on the submission, assessment and determination of applications for development approval in cases where the decision-making authority may consider exercising its discretionary power under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Regulations to vary any site or development requirement specified in the Scheme in order to achieve one or more the heritage purposes stated in clause 12(1). POLICY

1. Any development application which, in order to be approved, would require the exercise of discretion by the decision-maker to vary any Scheme site or development requirement under the provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions must include information which clearly demonstrates a physical relationship (including the nature and extent of the relationship) between the elements of the proposed development which require the variation and a heritage outcome which either (a) facilitates the built heritage conservation of a heritage listed place; or (b) enhances or preserves heritage values in a heritage area.

2. The information referred to in (1) above must be provided by the applicant in the form of a written Statement of Justification. The Statement of Justification must provide a clear rationale for the design approach adopted for the proposed development which requires the variation, and also explain how it satisfies the relationship (or ‘nexus’) test referred to in (1) above, including how it addresses the following criteria:

i. There must be a net benefit to the public interest and the contribution the development makes to the public realm, e.g. streetscape, from the heritage outcome achieved through the variation.

ii. The extent of the variation (e.g. additional building height) should be the minimum necessary to achieve the heritage outcomes in question.

iii. The variation should be proportionate to the heritage values and level of significance of the place/area. The Statement of Significance associated with the listing of the heritage place/area will be the basis of considering the proportionality of the relationship between the proposed development and its effect on heritage values.

iv. There must be a demonstrable spatial relationship including a degree of proximity between the heritage ‘asset’ being conserved or enhanced and the development involving the variation.

The Statement of Justification may include drawings, photographs or other relevant information in support of the written statement. The Statement of Justification should describe the significance of the affected heritage asset(s), including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail in the statement should be proportionate to the assets’ importance, and as a minimum the relevant statement of heritage significance should have been consulted.


Page 88

The local government may request the applicant to provide additional information prior to determination of the application if it does not consider sufficient information has been provided in the initial Statement of Justification submitted with the application to enable the decision-making authority to make a properly informed judgement regarding whether the proposed development will enable one or both of the heritage purposes specified in clause 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Deemed Provisions to be achieved.

3. Development applications which seek to justify variations to Scheme site or development requirements solely on the basis that financial benefit derived from the development will be used to fund heritage works will not be supported.

4. The criteria set out in (2)i to (2)iv above will be applied by the decision-

making authority in assessing whether the relationship between a development proposal and the outcomes for a heritage place or area that would result from the proposed development, if it was approved, justify the exercise of discretion to vary any Scheme site or development requirement under the provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions.

5. When an application for development approval is granted on the basis of the

exercise of discretion to vary Scheme site or development requirements under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions, the decision-making authority may impose conditions on the approval or require other measures, e.g. a legal agreement between the local government and the owner of the land to which the approval relates, to ensure that the heritage outcome associated with the approved development is achieved when the development is undertaken. The details of the condition or agreement will depend upon the nature of the development the subject of the approval granted, and its relationship with the heritage outcome associated with the development.


Page 89

PC1604-14 SCHEME AMENDMENT 69 - BASIC SCHEME AMENDMENT TO CONTINUE SMALL SECONDARY DWELLINGS BY REMOVING SUNSET CLAUSE FROM LPS4 - ADOPTION

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1010-201 – PSC 20 October 2010

PSC1101-12 – Council 25 January 2011 PSC1102-41 – Council 23 February 2011 PSC1107-136 - Council 27 July 2011

Attachments: PSC1107-136 - Council 27 July 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In late 2011, Small Secondary Dwellings were introduced into the Scheme as a planning response to the provision of small and more affordable housing types within established urban areas. This came as a response to lower levels of housing affordability, declining household sizes and City of Fremantle and state government strategic imperatives to provide for Perth’s future population. Due to the Small Secondary Dwellings concept being a radical approach at the time precautionary measures were built into the Scheme Amendment whereby the Small Secondary provisions would cease to have effect five years from the date of gazettal. These provisions were designed to minimise risks and any concerns of the Western Australian Planning Commission on endorsing the amendment and ensure that the City would have the opportunity to reassess the provisions, if necessary prior to the five year time limit. This report recommends the deletion of the two Clauses within the Scheme relating to the time limit of the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions prior to the provisions ceasing effect in their entirety. In order to ensure that the City retains the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions an approval from the Minister for Planning will need to be provided before 6 December 2016. Under the new Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) the timeframes for making an amendment to the Scheme are now prescribed which gives an indicative time on when an approval may be granted by the Minister. No modifications to the Scheme provisions for Small Secondary Dwellings are recommended as part of this report as a basic amendment is recommended (a simple text amendment with no consultation required) to ensure that the provisions relating to the five year time limit are deleted.


Page 90

BACKGROUND

In early 2011, the City of Fremantle saw an opportunity in the planning system to more effectively enable the provision of small and more affordable housing types within established urban areas. This came as a response to lower levels of housing affordability, declining household sizes and City of Fremantle and state government strategic imperatives to provide for Perth’s future population.

The Small Secondary Dwelling provisions were introduced to LPS4 on 6 December 2011 as part of Scheme amendment 46 (attachment 1) which was intended to assist as a planning mechanism that could allow for landowners with an existing Single House on a lot to potentially build an additional dwelling which would not be required to be rented by members of that family.

The planning system at the time of the introduction of the Small Secondary Dwellings provision however did not allow for members outside of the family occupying the main dwelling to live in an ancillary dwelling on site. This created a significant gap in housing typologies for small scale housing options. This formed one of the fundamental principles behind the introduction of Small Secondary Dwellings which would essentially eliminate the requirement for the occupants of the additional dwelling to be a family member. The Small Secondary Dwelling provisions were considered to be radical at the time due to the deviation from the acceptable development criteria of the R-Codes and that the provisions were at the time untested within Western Australia. The untested nature of the provisions was the basis behind incorporating the ‘sunset’ Clause which limited the duration

of the provisions effect under the Scheme to 5 years. This would allow for the provisions to be reviewed if necessary after the 5 year duration to ensure the City and the Commission remained to be satisfied with the provisions. In 2012 a review of the R-Codes introduced a similar approach to the Small Secondary Dwellings whereby the occupants of a Dwelling could be unrelated to the residents occupying the main dwelling on site. More recently, the changes to the Regulations that took effect in late 2015 have also provided additional opportunity for Ancillary Dwelling developments with provisions now allowing for certain exemptions from the need to obtain planning approval. Notwithstanding the changes to the R-Codes and the Regulations, differences remain between the ancillary dwelling provisions and the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions which provide a suite of options for residents and landowners within Fremantle. The receptiveness by Local Governments, the State Government, landowners and occupiers of Small Secondary Dwellings and Ancillary Dwellings has irrefutably increased since 2011. Notwithstanding the changes to the ancillary dwelling provisions of the R-Codes and the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations, the increased awareness that the Small Secondary Dwellings has bought to Fremantle has continued to encourage residents and landowners to consider these alternative housing options. The success of Small Secondary Dwellings was also recognised by the Planning Institute of Australia by being awarded the Planning Ministers Award and Best Planning Ideas Large Projects 2012 and Planner of the Year 2012 by the Local Government Planners Association.


Page 91

PLANNING COMMENT

Current Planning Framework Since the introduction of the Small Secondary Dwellings to the Scheme in 2011 there have been modifications to the R-Codes and most recently to the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations, which have significantly influenced ancillary dwellings. The changes to the R-Codes in 2012 removed the provision relating to who can occupy an ancillary dwelling while the changes to the deemed provisions now outlines certain development which is exempt from the need to obtain planning approval. While these changes have a significant impact on the advantage of ancillary dwellings it is considered that Small Secondary Dwellings continue to provide an alternative response to diverse housing options within Fremantle. Changes to the Ancillary Dwelling provisions within the R-Codes Many of the principles adopted as part of the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions were a response to the limitations experienced with the acceptable development criteria of the R-Codes and the impact this was having on the accessibility to alternative housing options. The most significant deviations from the R-Codes included the ability for independent occupancy of the dwelling, the exclusion of open space and car parking requirements, exclusion of a minimum lot size requirement and when specific criteria are achieved the exemption for the need to obtain planning approval. In 2012 a review of the Ancillary Dwelling provisions within the R-Code removed the provision relating to the occupant of the dwelling, which therefore allowed non family members to occupy the dwelling. This significantly changed the feasibility to this form of housing type and now allowed a greater flexibility as a Design Principle assessment could be used to assess dwellings that did not meet the acceptable design criteria. This has meant that the advantage of applying for an ancillary dwelling increased during this time however the certainty of receiving a planning approval was only achievable when all the acceptable development criteria were met. This has meant that while there has been an increased popularity towards ancillary dwellings, the Small Secondary Dwellings have continued to provide alternative benefit options. Introduction of Deemed Provisions within the Regulations The 2012 revision to the R-Codes removed the ‘family member only’ occupancy requirements however the requirement to obtain planning approval remained in place until

the inclusion of the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations were introduced in late 2015. One of the major changes that were introduced as part of the Regulations have been the Deemed Provisions which now outlines development for which a development approval is not required. This now allows for Ancillary Dwellings to be exempt from requiring planning approval when they meet all of the acceptable development criteria of the R-Codes and are not located within a Heritage Area and are not listed on the Municipal Heritage Inventory or State Heritage List.


Page 92

Small Secondary Dwellings already have a similar provision within the Scheme, which allows for the dwelling to be exempt when certain criteria are achieved. The criteria for achieving this exemption differs from the acceptable development provisions for ancillary dwellings and allows for an alternative options for landowners, should they wish to have the certainty of being able to build one of these housing types. In addition to the Small Secondary Dwellings having the ability of being exempt from requiring planning approval, there are also provisions, which relate to the advertising of applications that require approval. This also provides a level of certainty to the approval process for Small Secondary Dwellings and in which circumstances advertising is necessary. It is considered that the Small Secondary Dwellings continue to provide a diverse housing option unique to Fremantle Review Opportunities Diverse housing options have continually been a theme that the City has placed significant focus upon. It is considered that it is essential to retain the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions within the Scheme to ensure that a suite of diverse housing options are available for Fremantle residents and landowners. It has therefore been recommended that only the removal of the sunset Clauses is carried out in the immediate future to ensure that the entirety of the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions are not lost. This report primarily notes the importance of retaining the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions however it is envisioned that the opportunity for review of specific provisions can be integrated with the Local Planning Strategy and Scheme Review process which is anticipated to begin in late 2016. In addition to the Local Planning Strategy and Scheme Review Council has recently resolved to appoint an Innovative Housing Working Group, which could contribute towards a broader directional focus on Fremantle’s diverse housing options and has the potential to incorporate Small Secondary Dwellings within this initiative. Basic Scheme amendment On 19 October 2015 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 came into effect, which replaced certain process provisions under the City’s LPS4. This includes provisions relating to scheme amendments. The Regulations apply a tiered approach to scheme amendments; basic, standard and complex amendments. These amendments have differing timeframes that are now prescribed within the Regulations which are dependent upon the complexity of the amendment.


Page 93

Based on the indicative timeframes outlined within the Regulations a Basic Scheme amendment could potentially be endorsed by the Minister for Planning and gazetted sometime in September 2016. It is considered that the basic Scheme amendment process outlined within the Regulations is appropriate for the removal of the sunset Clause. However any additional changes to the Scheme provisions would not be considered basic and the standard Scheme amendment process would need to be followed. This process could not feasibly be achieved before the five year expiry date under the sunset clause (6 December 2016) and therefore is not recommended as it could prejudice retaining the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions as a whole. CONCLUSION The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council resolves to delete the sunset Clauses contained within the Scheme that relate to the Small Secondary Dwellings duration. The deleting of these Clauses has been recommended as this will follow the basic scheme amendment process which is envisioned by officers to be completed prior to 6 December 2016 when the Small Secondary Dwelling Clauses will otherwise no longer have effect in the Scheme. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and regulation 35 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, to adopt a basic amendment to the Local Planning Scheme No. 4. The amendment is adopted as follows:

i. Delete the following Clause in its entirety:

Under Part 5 – General Development Requirements

5.3.5.7 Except for the definitions of ‘grouped dwelling’, ‘small secondary dwelling’ and ‘single house’ all provisions of the scheme referring to small secondary dwellings shall cease to have effect on the date of the fifth anniversary after publication in the Gazette of the amendment introducing those provisions into the scheme.

5.3.5.8 Any small secondary dwelling approved, constructed or substantially commenced before the date on which the provisions of the scheme referring to small secondary dwellings cease operation shall thereafter be subject to clauses 4.8 to 4.12.


Page 94

PC1604-15 AMENDMENT TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 1.3 - MINOR AMENDMENT TO ALIGN LPP1.3 WITH THE NEW PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS - ADOPTION

ECM Reference: 117/024 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1511-9 Attachments: Local Planning Policy 1.3

Previous item PSC1511-9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 25 November 2015 Council resolved to initiate a series of key actions required for the integration of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) with the City’s current planning framework. The Regulations were gazetted on 25 August 2015 and took effect on 19 October 2015, replacing the Town Planning Regulations 1967. This report forms one of the immediate actions identified as a necessary modification to the City’s current planning framework in order to create consistency with the Regulations. The purpose of this report is to update Local Planning Policy 1.3 to reflect the changes made as part of the introduction of the Regulations, specifically in relation to advertising time frames. BACKGROUND

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) came into effect on 19 October 2015. The new regulations represent a significant change to procedural aspects of the statutory and strategic planning system in Western Australia. As a result of these changes to the Regulations some aspects of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (the Scheme) and Local Planning Policies will require modification in order to ensure conformity with the Regulations. At the Ordinary Council meeting on 25 November 2015 Council resolved that a basic amendment was required for Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals. The primary modifications that are required relate to the changes in advertising timeframes that are now outlined within the Regulations. Additionally Local Planning Policy 1.3, also makes reference to Clauses within the Scheme that are no longer contained within the Scheme as these have also been superseded by the Regulations. These references require updating to reflect the correct reference that is now contained within the Regulations.


Page 95

PLANNIG COMMENT Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 The Regulations, as touched on above, have introduced a number of changes to planning process within Western Australia. The extent of the changes to the Regulations affecting the City of Fremantle’s strategic and statutory planning systems has been detailed previously in PSC1511-9 (Attachment 2) and is therefore not discussed in detail within this report. Among the changes the processes for public consultation and advertising for planning applications, structure plans, local development plans, local planning policies and scheme amendments have now been explicitly outlined within the Regulations and are no longer governed by Local Planning Schemes. Along with the main changes to the Regulations, those changes that affect LPP1.3 are primarily the duration of advertising notices and points of reference made to the Scheme which are now governed under the Regulations. These changes form the basis behind this amendment to LPP1.3. Track-based Scheme Amendments The introduction of a track-based approach to scheme amendments has differentiated the varying levels of complexity between scheme amendments and specified different timeframes depending on an amendment’s classification. The inclusion of standard and complex scheme amendments and their separate timeframes will need to be included within the table in Part 5 of the policy. The duration of notice for a standard and complex scheme amendment differ and therefore have been included separately within the table. Basic scheme amendments have not been included within the policy as these amendments do not require public advertising. Changes to Duration of notice Changes to the duration of advertising periods are now prescribed within the Regulations specifically for Scheme amendments (now standard and complex), Structure Plans, Local Development Plans and Local Planning Policy. It is noted that the duration for public notice prescribed for development applications remains the same as currently outlined within LPP1.3 and therefore does not require amendment.

Current duration

Duration required as per the Regulations

Scheme Amendments (Standard)

42 days unless agreed otherwise by the WAPC

Not less than 42 days, unless agreed otherwise by the WAPC

Scheme Amendments (Complex)

Not less than 60 days, unless agreed otherwise by the WAPC

Structure Plans 42 days Not less than 14 days and not more than 28 days

Local Development Plans (previously referred to as Detailed Area Plans)

28 days Not less than 14 days

Local Planning Policy 28 days Not less than 21 days


Page 96

Reference to Local Planning Scheme no. 4 Provisions The report recently presented to Council on Basic Scheme Amendment 67 made several administrative changes to the Scheme as part of the necessary updates to ensure the City’s planning instruments are consistent with the new Regulations. These changes included the removal of any provisions that are now governed under the Regulations. To date, the City has approved and is awaiting determination from the Planning Minister for the Basic Scheme Amendment which will update these changes to the sections of the Scheme now governed under the Regulations. In light of these changes, LPP1.3 will also need to be amended to remove these same references to the Scheme provision which are currently going through the process of being removed from the Scheme. The relevant provisions previously referenced by LPP1.3 will need to be amended to reflect the appropriate provisions within the Regulations. Local Planning Policy 1.3 makes reference to several clauses contained within the Scheme that are now governed by the Regulations, including reference to:

Clause 6.2.6.1 – A proposed structure plan is to contain the following details

Clause 8.3 – Amending or revoking planning approval

Clause 9.4 – Advertising of applications

Clause 10.8 – Approval subject to later approval of details Local Planning Policy 1.3 will now reference the following provisions contained within the Regulations:

LPS4 provision to be replaced

Regulation provisions replacement

Clause 6.2.6.1 Clause 16 – Preparation of a structure plan

Clause 8.3 Clause 77 – Amending or cancelling development approval

Clause 9.4 Clause 64 – Advertising applications

Clause 10.8 Clause 74 – Approval subject to later approval of details

It is also noted that Detailed Area Plans are also currently referenced within LPP1.3 however Detailed Area Plans have been renamed since this time and are now referred to as Local Development Plans. Minor Amendment to Local Planning Policy The changes to the Regulations also modify how Local Planning Policies are amended and in what instance advertising is required. Under Cl. 5 (2) of the Deemed Provisions a local government may make an amendment to a local planning policy without advertising the amendment if, in the opinion of the local government, the amendment is a minor amendment. The amendment to LPP1.3 is considered to be a minor amendment due to the administrative nature of the changes proposed.


Page 97

Any other changes that are not administrative and classified as significant would require the Local Planning Policy to be advertised in accordance with the Regulations. Officers have not recommended any additional changes to the policy as the administrative amendments were identified as an immediate action by Council on 25 November 2015 (Attachment 2). CONCLUSION

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council resolves to make the necessary amendments to ensure that LPP1.3 is consistent with the new requirements for consultations as per the Regulations. It is proposed that an administrative amendment is carried out which is not considered to be a significant change to the existing local planning policy and therefore would not require the advertising of these changes. It is noted that any additional modifications would therefore not be considered to be a minor modification and would require further consultation to be carried out. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the amended local planning policy, LPP1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals, without modification, as below:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 1.3

Public Notification of Planning Proposals

ADOPTION DATE: 28 MAY 2008 and 9 July 2013 AMENDED: 25 MAY 2011, 26 June 2013, 27 April 2016 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4; RESIDENTIAL DESIGN

CODES (2010); PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (LOCAL PLANNING SCHEMES) REGULATIONS 2015

INTRODUCTION This policy provides guidance on the exercise of discretion under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 in terms of when public notice is given, and the means and duration of public notice periods, pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations). The opinions of affected property owners and the general public can inform but cannot be a substitute for the exercise of professional advice by City officers. This policy does not replace or alter the Council’s obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, 1992.


Page 98

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 1) To provide for a consistent approach on the circumstances when public notice

is given, and the means and duration of public notice periods, of planning proposals,

2) To recognise the balance between the need for the community to be informed of, and have reasonable opportunity for input into, planning proposals, and the administrative need to process planning proposals in an efficient manner, and within prescribed statutory timeframes.

SCOPE OF THE POLICY This policy is applicable to the entire municipal area of the City of Fremantle and will be applied by the City when making discretionary decisions relating to public notice of planning proposals. Planning proposals in the context of this policy include development applications; Structure Plans; Scheme Amendments and Local Development Plan. For the purposes of this policy, in circumstances where consultation is undertaken it will include both the owners and occupiers of properties that, in the opinion of the City, may be affected by the proposal and/or other stakeholders where these are identified. The Policy also applies to Planning Applications for which the Council is not the final decision making authority. STATUTORY BACKGROUND The Regulations include provisions relating to the giving of public notice of development applications, Structure Plans, Local Development Plan and Local Planning Polices. Some requirements relating to the public notice of development applications are mandatory, while others provide the Council with discretion as to whether a proposal is advertised and the method of that advertising. The Regulations 2015 prescribe the means of public notice of a Local Planning Scheme amendment, and provide the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Minister with discretion to determine additional means of notice. Part 4 of the Residential Design Codes requires that the Council notify potentially affected neighbours in certain circumstances. POLICY 1. Requirement to give public notice of certain planning applications under

clause 64 of the Regulations.

In addition to where notice is prescribed by the Regulations, public notice will also be given of the following Planning Applications prior to consideration for approval where the application: a) involves the complete demolition of a building where the building is

located on a site listed on the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, on the Heritage List under clause 7.1 of the Scheme or within a Heritage Area designated under clause 7.2 of the Scheme,

OR


Page 99

(b) involves a subdivision or survey strata creating more than twenty (20) lots and the proposal has not previously been advertised as part of a Scheme Amendment or Structure Plan,

OR

(c) Involves a significant exercise of discretion in terms of the Local Planning Scheme, Residential Design Codes or Policy provisions

OR

(d) Has significant strategic planning impacts in terms of the implementation of a strategic planning objective, the scale of the development, or are significantly different from the predominant and expected pattern of land use within the locality.

1.1 Notwithstanding the above, planning proposals that do not meet the above criteria are able to be advertised, at the discretion of the Manager/Coordinator Statutory Planning if it is considered in the public interest to do so.

2. Significant planning applications

Where a planning application meets any 2 of the criteria above, that application shall be considered to be a significant application in terms of this policy.

3. Evidence of non objection

Notwithstanding the above, the Council will waive the notification requirements in respect of residential planning applications involving the exercise of discretion under the Residential Design Codes or Council Policy in cases where: (a) The application involves the notification of one neighbour only (see note 4

at the end of this policy), OR (b) The applicant provides a copy of the plan including a certification by the

owners and occupiers of the adjoining property stating that they have no objections to the proposal. Signatures should include all persons shown as owners on the Certificate of Title and ownership details will be confirmed. The certification must include:

The full name of the owner/s or occupier/s certifying non objection clearly printed in capital letters and a signature;

A statement printed in capital letters indicating no objection to the proposal; and

A current contact address printed in capital letters and a contact telephone number.

4. Refusal of applications without giving of public notice

Any planning proposal may be refused by the Council without the giving of public notice.

5. Means and duration of notice of planning proposals


Page 100

Standard

application Significant application

Scheme Amendments Structure Plan and Local Development Plan

Local Planning Policy Standard Complex

Time period (1)

14 days 28 days Not less than 42 days

unless agreed otherwise by WAPC

Not less than 60 days

unless agreed otherwise by WAPC

SP – not less than 14 days and not more than 28 days. LDP – not less than 14 days.

Not less than 21 days

Local newspaper notice (2)

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sign on site (3)

No Yes Yes, if rezoning is proposed for land

Yes Yes No

Notice to owners and occupiers

Yes, adjoining properties only (4)

Yes, 100m radius (5)




No

Web site No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Precinct groups (6)

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Community Information session (7)

No Yes Yes (8) Yes (8) Yes No

Government Gazette

No No Yes Yes No No

Numbers in brackets ( ) refer to Explanatory Notes at the end of this policy.

6. Additional public notice of proposal previously advertised

(a) Where a planning proposal is subsequently modified prior to its final

determination and additional variations arise from the modifications; or

(b) Where an application to amend an existing planning approval is received

under clause 77 of the Regulations, and additional variations arise from the

proposed amendments;

Additional public notice shall be given in the same manner under the provisions of this policy as if the modified/amended proposal was received as a new development application.


Page 101

7. Amendments to Structure Plans

Amendments considered to be minor amendments to a Structure Plan are not required to be advertised under Clause 29 (3) of the Regulations. Public notice will be given of any other application to vary a Structure Plan as if it were a new plan.

8. Approval subject to later approval of details

Where a planning application has been approved subject to later approval of details under Clause 74 of the Regulations the subject applications for further approval will not be notified for public comment unless specified in the original approval or required by the Scheme and/or policy.

9. Planning Proposals where the Council is not the final decision maker

Public notice will be given of planning proposals where the Council is not the decision maker in the same way as those where the final decision is made by the Council. A full copy of any submissions received will be forwarded to the decision maker. Council is not responsible for informing any submitter of the decision maker’s final decision.

10. Holiday periods

An additional 14 days will be added to any notice period prescribed under this Policy where any part of the notification period falls within the following dates: (a) Between 15 December and 15 January (b) Between one week before and one week after Easter Sunday

11. Notification of interested parties that a matter is listed on a Council Standing

Committee Agenda

(a) Applications for approval to commence a use or to commence or carry out development – the landowner, applicant and all parties who have made a submission will be notified in writing of the date at which an item will be listed on a Standing Committee agenda.

(b) Planning proposals that alter the development potential of land which have not previously been advertised – regardless of the recommendation of any report, notification that an item that affects the development potential of land will be considered by a Standing Committee will be undertaken in accordance with Explanatory Note (4) and will also include the landowner and the applicant.

(c) Planning proposals that alter the development potential of land which have previously been advertised - the landowner, applicant and all parties who have made a submission will be notified in writing of the date at which an item will be listed on a Standing Committee agenda.

Should a Standing Committee refer the item to full Council for determination, the same parties referred to above shall also be notified of the date of the Council meeting. In all cases, staff will endeavor to ensure that the written notification is mailed on the Friday prior to the scheduled meeting date.


Page 102

12. Notification of the Council/Committee/City decision

The applicant, the owner and all authors of written submissions will be advised of the decision of the Council/Committee/City in the form of a written notification of the decision and any associated conditions, advisory notes or refusal reasons.

13. Availability of documents

All plans and written information forming part of the proposal shall be made available for public viewing and access during the public notice period of that proposal. The documentation may be viewed at the City’s Service and Information counter without an appointment and copies of the plans and related information will be provided on request. When a development application is submitted, the plans and written information forming part of the proposal will be copied and given to an interested party on request during the public notice period. On this basis making an application for development approval is taken as having given consent to the City providing to members of the public copies of plans and written information forming part of the proposal.

14. Requests for changes to public notice periods

Requests for extensions or reductions of public notice periods prescribed by this policy will not be approved by staff. Staff will make every reasonable effort to make the Council aware of any submissions received after closure of notice periods.

15. Opportunity for applicant to respond to submissions

Copies of written submissions will be given to the applicant to provide the applicant the opportunity to respond to issues raised in any submissions. Personal details such as names, telephone numbers and addresses however will not be given to the applicant.

16. Submissions reported to Council Officer reports to Council will include a summary of the issues raised in any of the submissions received as part of the advertising process. If the text of a submission is to be included in the report, the author’s personal details will not be identified. Full copies of submissions are available to Elected Members upon request but will not be made available to members of the public unless required by law. Where an interested party does not respond to an invitation to make a submission on a proposal, Council will not view this as signifying no objection to that proposal.


Page 103

EXPLANATORY NOTES

(1) For development applications the time period shall be deemed to have commenced one day after the date shown on the letters that are sent to owners and occupiers by the City. For all other planning proposals the time period for advertising shall commence on the date public notice is published in a local newspaper.

(2) A local newspaper notice is an in a local newspaper, run for two consecutive

weeks during the advertising period. Newspaper notices are arranged by the City with the costs payable by the applicant.

(3) A sign on the site shall be erected in a prominent position on the site to the

satisfaction of Council. Where land subject to a proposal has more than one street frontage or where a site is very large, the applicant shall locate one sign in a prominent location and shall provide sufficient additional signs on each street alignment. The sign/s should be erected on the property boundary or within 0.5m of the boundary and be clearly visible from outside of the property boundary. The sign/s should be maintained in a good condition for the duration of the advertising period. The City will provide the specific requirements of the sign (eg timing, lettering size and overall sign dimensions) to the applicant after the application is lodged a preliminary assessment is made as to whether a sign on site is required. Any signage will be in accordance with the City’s Style Guide. Responsibility for the costs, erection, maintenance and removal of sign/s lies with the applicant.

(4) Means a letter to all owners and occupiers of all abutting properties (those sharing any common boundary and including diagonally opposite or those separated by a right-of-way or access way less then 6.0m in width) as shown at examples a, b and c below excepting in the case of an application for discretionary approval relating to a side or rear setback variation behind the building line, or to the privacy requirements contained within Element 6.8 of the Residential Design Codes 2010, where only the owner/occupier of the property onto whose boundary the discretion is sought will be notified.

Example (a) Example (b)

Subject

Site

Subject

Site


Page 104

Example (c)

(5) Means a letter to all owners and occupiers of all properties which fall wholly

or partly within a radius of 100 metres from the boundary of the subject land

on which the development is proposed.

(6) The Precinct groups will be requested to formally comment on all applications under this policy other than standard applications. Precinct groups will be given the standard consultation period.

(7) A community information session on the proposal will be held with invitation

extended to Elected Members, interested community members, and applicants. The information session will be held during the public consultation period, normally at least one week prior to completion to enable participants to make a formal written submission to Council after the session.

(8) Community information sessions are only required for significant scheme

amendments. A significant scheme amendment as determined by the Manager Planning Policy and Projects would include (but not limited to) large scale rezoning, an amendment that has significant strategic planning impacts or an amendment that is significantly different from the predominant and expected pattern of land use in the area.


Page 105

PC1604-16 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 65 - ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS WHITE GUM VALLEY/BEACONSFIELD LOCAL CENTRE - FINAL ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 218/072 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PC 6 April 2016; Council 27 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: SPC1506-3 (24 June 2015)

SPC1505-2 (27 May 2015) SPC1503-1 (25 March 2015) SPC1409-03 (24 September 2014) PSC1403-47 (26 March 2014) PC1614 (27 January 2016)

Attachments: Report to Ordinary Council Meeting - 27 January 2016 (PC1614) Advertised proposed modified scheme amendment provisions Schedule of submissions on modification

Figure 1. Originally advertised amendment area

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this item is to report on the submissions received during the consultation period for the modifications made to Scheme amendment 65, and to recommend that Council adopt the amendment with further modification to address issues raised in the submissions.


Page 106

Council initiated proposed scheme amendment No. 65 to the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4 or Scheme) for public consultation in June 2015. The amendment proposed inserting two new sub areas into Schedule 12 for the White Gum Valley/Beaconsfield Local Centre and surrounding Residential area. The new sub areas contained an area A and area B. Each area proposed additional density (up to R80/R100) and height requirements (four to five storey) where specific criteria could be met. Following the consultation period during late August to October 2015 and extended into November, Council considered the amendment and resolved at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 27 January 2016, to significantly modify the proposed amendment as a result of submissions received during this time. The modifications were advertised for public comment for 21 days as per the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations 2015). Submissions were taken for an additional two weeks after this. The City received 47 submissions during the public consultation period for the modification to the amendment. Concerns raised in the submissions related to building height, vehicle traffic and parking, heritage and existing character of the area and the boundary of the proposed amendment areas A and B. Several submissions additionally suggested alternatives and further modifications. Officers have taken the alternatives suggested in the submissions into consideration and recommend further modifications to the Scheme amendment. The further modifications propose including select properties fronting South Street into the amendment area only, a building height buffer to the Residential zone for all development, a reduction in building height overall and additional specific criteria to meet when proposing development on these sites. BACKGROUND

In 2014 the City undertook investigations regarding its ability to encourage higher density mixed use and residential redevelopment along South Street, one of the City’s key public transport routes connecting a number of employment and service areas between Fremantle and Murdoch. At its Ordinary Meeting 26 March 2014 (refer to Council item PSC1403-47 for full background) Council adopted an initiative to amend LPS4 to provide for higher density development along South Street. Three locations along South Street were identified as being suitable for more intensive mixed-use redevelopment (refer to SPC1409-03 24 September 2014 for background).


Page 107

Figure 2. Proposed planning scheme amendment areas No. 64, 65 and 66

Council initiated proposed scheme amendment No. 65 to the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4 or Scheme) for public consultation in June 2015. Following the consultation period during late August to October 2015 and extended into November, Council considered the amendment and resolved at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 27 January 2016, to significantly modify the proposed amendment as a result of submissions received during this time. The previous report presented to Council on 27 January 2016 (PC1614) is contained within this report as Attachment 1. DETAIL Proposed amendment The subject area of the proposed amendment - Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley local centre - is zoned Local Centre and Residential. These areas have a current height limit of up to two storeys and a low housing density (R20, R20/25 and R30). The advertised Scheme amendment proposed:

Retaining the existing zoning (Local Centre and Residential), densities (R20, R25/25 and R30) and height requirements as ‘base’ development standards;

A minimum height of two storeys along South Street in area A to ensure redevelopment of the commercial hub is consistent with its purpose and location as a key transit route into the city; and

Individual development controls for the Local Centre zone (Area A) and Residential zone (Area B) to allow for redevelopment through additional residential density and building height (as per below).

AREA A: In the Local Centre zone denoted in the Scheme amendment as Area A (refer to figure 1) a higher density (R100) with a maximum building height of 12 metres (external wall height) and 15 metres (top of pitched roof) was proposed where specific development controls could be met. The proposed specific development controls relate to building height, street setbacks, vehicle access, activated ground floor frontages and minimum open space requirements.


Page 108

AREA B: In the Residential zoned area denoted in the Scheme amendment as Area B (refer to figure 1) a higher density (R80) and additional height (see below) was proposed where specific development controls could be met. The proposed specific development controls include a minimum site area of 1 000 sqm (most likely to be achieved through amalgamation of existing lots) and coordinated access points to minimise individual access points by vehicles to South Street. Building height proposed in Area B:

12 metre external wall height and 15 metre pitched roof height in the areas directly bordering Area A

9 metre external wall height and 12 metre roof ridge height within 15 metres from the boundary of Area B and residential zoned properties outside of Area B

6 metre wall height and 9 metre roof height within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area B. This is the same height limit as already applies to the existing adjoining residential properties in the area.

Modified amendment At its ordinary meeting Council resolved to modify the amendment based on the submissions received to include six additional properties into the White Gum valley amendment area. The six properties are 20-26 Taylor Street and 242-246 South Street, White Gum Valley or the Childcare centre and adjoining single house lots, as shown on figure 3 below.

Figure 3. Advertised amendment area and modifications to include properties into amendment area

A full description of the advertised proposed modified amendment is included in Attachment 2 of this report. CONSULTATION

Community consultation was undertaken from 22 August 2015 to 12 October 2015 with the consultation period subsequently extended to 16 November 2015 to allow for further consultation – 87 days in total. Following Council’s resolution to advertise the modification the modification was advertised for 21 days from 6 to 27 February 2016 as the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations 2015). Submissions were additionally taken for two weeks after this time.


Page 109

The advertising on the modification consisted of:

Public advertising notice in the Fremantle Herald local newspaper – 6 February 2016;

An information package including a frequently asked questions, Scheme amendment report, and submission forms made available at the City offices and on the website;

Notice being placed on the City of Fremantle website for the duration of consultation period;

Letters of notification and inviting comment on the proposal to various service agencies, government organisations and landowners and tenants within at least 100m the amendment area.

Additionally an officer, upon invitation from councillors and residents, meet with residents of Taylor, Stoke and Yalgoo Streets to answer any planning related questions. Officers also presented on the amendment at the White Gum Valley precinct meeting Tuesday 1 March 2016. Summary of Submissions Advertised proposed amendment The City received 33 submissions on the previously advertised proposed amendment. Nine agencies and 24 owner/occupiers in the White Gum Valley and Beaconsfield areas made submissions on the amendment. Position and number of submissions -

Position Number

Object 10

Support 7

Neutral - no objection/no comment 4

Neutral - comment 12

Total 33

Summarised comments from submissions in support of the amendment:

The Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley Local Centre hasn't seen changes for a long time. The changes are adequate and will go a long way to ensuring the ongoing viability of the Beaconsfield local centre. The proposed injection of higher density will encourage greater development, which will ultimately lead to more business, more shops and more people shopping in and around this specific area.

Approve changes as proposed with potentially greater density increases in the area A to R120 or R160 if feasible.

Two submissions proposed extending amendment area B.

Consider the types of uses in the area to create a sense of community.


Page 110

Summarised comments from submissions that object to the amendment:

The proposed height limit will result in buildings up to 5 storeys in height. This is inconsistent with local character/amenity;

Higher density development will increase traffic and result in more congestion and parking issues on adjacent streets;

The validity of the 1000sqm site area requirement in area B and the ability to amalgamate with the neighbouring property was questioned.

Heritage listed property or property with heritage value could be an issue for redevelopment.

Modified proposed amendment The City received 47 submissions on the modifications to the Scheme amendment. One submission included 20 signatures. Three submissions were from agencies/government departments and the remainder (44 submissions) were from owners or occupiers of properties in White Gum Valley and Beaconsfield. Position and number of submissions -

Position Number

Object 39

Support 4

Neutral - no objection/no comment 2

Neutral - comment 2

Total 47

The submissions on the modifications raised similar issues to those addressed in the first submission round. Additional comments have been summarised below. Summarised comments from submissions in support of the amendment:

Paired with light rail it would be fantastic.

Support for the creation of a higher density activity node.

Area A should be allowed to go to at least 6 storeys and R120 density. Summarised comments from submissions that object to the amendment:

Some objectors generally support higher density development on South Street to improve amenity and ambience of the area.

Some submissions do not support any development in the area and suggest alternative locations within the City of Fremantle.

Most objections solely or additionally do not support R80/high density and 4/5 storey height in area B. The reasons presented for the objections included:

The streets/streetscapes in area B are considered established/ character/historical/heritage and inappropriate for higher density development.

The streets in area B have ongoing traffic and pedestrian safety issues due to existing conditions which are expected to worsen through high density development.

The existing and mature trees in the area and heritage, listed and non-listed, houses should be retained.

The expected higher density development type is low quality and would attract low socio-economic groups.


Page 111

Some submissions questioned the 10m setback to South Street imposed through the Primary Regional Road reservation. Several submissions suggested alternatives to the proposed scheme amendment. The alternatives included:

Local structure/development plan process

Hero sites

R40 in Area B

Delete area B from amendment Attachment 3 (Schedule of Submissions) provides a full list of the submissions with officer comments in response. PLANNING COMMENT

The purpose of advertising modifications to an amendment is to gain public comment on the modifications. Few submissions directly addressed the modifications. Instead the submissions received raised similar issues to those addressed in the first submission round and brought up additional issues and alternatives for Council to consider. The subjects discussed in the report presented to Council 27 January 2016 (refer to attachment 1 - PC1614) included the following:

Height

Maximum building heights

Setback of development

Boundary change to area B

Housing Authority: Proposal to extend area B to the west

Planning Solutions: Proposal to extend area B the east

Six various land owners: Proposal to extend area B down Fifth Avenue

Boundary of area A and B

Validity of development in area B

Traffic movements and vehicle parking

Heritage

Minor wording change The modifications to the amendment submission period received more submissions than the first full and extended submission period. New subjects and alternative suggestions were put forward in the submissions received. These suggestions and as well as subjects not fully explored in the first round of submissions have been reviewed and in light of the additional submission comments officers propose further amendments to the Scheme amendment. These matters are discussed below. Heritage Within the Scheme amendment area nine properties are on the City’s heritage list (2 Fifth Avenue, 1, 3, 4 and 6 Central Avenue and 199, 201, 205 and 211 South Street – refer to properties shaded in figure 4 below). The area is not within a heritage area and there are no heritage listed properties in Elizabeth, Stokes or Taylor Street. Inherit (the State Heritage Office’s public record of heritage properties), however, does contain non-statutory notes on the following properties within the Scheme amendment area: 14, 16,


Page 112

18, 20, 21, 22, 23 Stokes Street, 208, 213 and 221 South Street, 7 Central Avenue and 10 Fifth Avenue.

Figure 4. Heritage listed places in proposed amendment area

A heritage listing is not intended to exclude a property from redevelopment. Accordingly for this reason heritage listed properties were not excluded from the amendment area. Notwithstanding, officers acknowledge that redevelopment would need to be more carefully considered to ensure new development is in keeping with the heritage significance of the place and, comparatively to a vacant site, redevelopment could be considered more constrained. Previously to the gazettal of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations 2015) all applications for the demolition of a primary building/structure on any property within the City of Fremantle, regardless of heritage listing, required planning approval. Applications for demolition were than assessed under clause 5.15 demolition of buildings and structures of LPS4. Clause 5.15, introduced into the Scheme through Scheme amendment No. 26 (gazetted 12 March 2010), provides criteria based on the cultural heritage significance of the place to determine planning applications for demolition. Clause 5.15 of LPS4 is provided below: Council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

(a) has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and

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


Page 113

The Regulations 2015 introduced deemed provisions that permit demolition of buildings/structures without the need to gain planning approval where the place is not heritage listed and not within a heritage area. The City still receives any application for demolition on a heritage listed property or in a heritage area and assesses the application on the criteria of clause 5.15 of LPS4. However, buildings that are not on the heritage list or in a heritage area can be demolished without this assessment or planning approval needed as per the Regulations 2015 deemed provisions. As Scheme amendment No. 65 is not within a heritage area demolition of structures or buildings on non-heritage listed properties is permitted as per the Regulations 2015 deemed provisions. The feedback given to officers verbally and in the submissions from owners/occupiers of non-heritage listed property in Elizabeth, Taylor and Stokes Street, White Gum Valley and Central Avenue, Beaconsfield is that the historic nature of houses and other structures in these streets and their streetscapes are considered of value to residents. There is a concern that providing these properties with additional development potential could result in these buildings and structures being demolished without further heritage assessment or planning approval. The general feedback from these areas is a preference for no redevelopment if this results in an increased opportunity for potential heritage buildings to be demolished and streetscapes to change. The City will be looking into these areas for the review of the City of Fremantle Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and the Heritage List under LPS4 to provide greater heritage protection. The priority areas as set by Council at their Ordinary Meeting of Council on 27 January 2016 (PC1616) are as follows -

Parts of the suburb of Beaconsfield not included in the South Fremantle Heritage Area (generally the area east of Mather Road and the South Fremantle High school).

The whole suburb of White Gum Valley.

Parts of the suburb of Fremantle east of Hampton Road, Ord Street and James Street

Depending on funding allocated and resources obtained to review these areas the timings for these heritage review projects are between one and three years. Owners are encouraged to put in their own applications and provide information to the City on their properties to be considered as part of the review(s). Primary Regional reserve on South Street Setback of buildings The Primary Regional Road Reservation of South Street is applicable to the Scheme amendment area. This means that 10m into the front of every property fronting South Street in the Scheme amendment area has the Primary Regional Road Reservation over it (Refer to the red reservation in figure 1). Any development applications received along this proportion of South Street requires referral to Main Roads for comment. If Main Roads provide an objection to a development application than the Western Australian Planning Commission becomes the decision making authority on the application.


Page 114

In the past Main Roads have allowed some types of temporary structures in the road reservation, however in recent years Main Roads have not permitted any development within the reservation apart from vehicle access and parking. Accordingly the amendment proposes a minimum 10m and maximum 12m street setback to South Street, unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback, to align with the reservation. Several submissions referred to the road reservation and the need for greater certainty on what can be achieved in this area and when any upgrades would happen. As part of the Scheme amendments proposed along the South Street transit corridor the City has met with Main Roads WA and the Department of Transport to discuss the Metropolitan Region Scheme Primary Regional Road Reservation along South Street between Hilton and Beaconsfield / White Gum Valley. Both Main Roads WA and Department of Transport have not been able to provide any timeframes for upgrades or modifications to the existing road configuration and both agencies do not support relinquishing control of the MRS road reserve to the City of Fremantle, or the development of built form which would compromise the future utilisation of the MRS road reserve. Officers therefore consider there are no grounds to change the setback. On a positive note Main Roads WA and the Department of Transport appear to have a positive response to a joint State and Local Government approach to interim treatments within the road reservation, including potential improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, the provision of public art and alfresco dining areas to enhance the public and private realm. Engagement with these agencies on the design guidelines for the area (see discussion below on area of amendment) will be valuable. Conversely, the Department of Planning have consistently advised officers that they would ‘not support any development within the South Street Primary Regional Road Reservation’. Alternatives to the amendment The proposed amendment would by the very nature of the proposal (i.e. increased density and height) change the existing streetscape, open space on private land and character of proposed areas A and B. During the public comment period the City received a large proportion of submissions from landowners and occupiers in or directly abutting area B. These submissions objected to the amendment largely for reasons around the existing character of the place and the desire to protect this character in area B. Several submissions proposed alternatives to the amendment. These alternatives are discussed below. Local Structure/Development plan Several submissions suggested the proposed amendment process be changed to a local structure/development plan process similar to the former Kim Beazley School Site. The submissions suggest this process would include further community input, better community buy in and coordinate development of the area better. Officers consider a local structure plan process to not be an appropriate planning mechanism for redevelopment of the amendment area due to changes in the planning regulations and the structure plan process.


Page 115

The Regulations 2015 Since the former Kim Beazley school site structure plan was adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission on 24 September 2014 the Regulations 2015 have come into effect and structure/development plan content and process has changed. The Regulations 2015 have downgraded the status of structure and development plans from documents of similar status to the Scheme to documents of similar status to a local planning policy; decision-makers are to have ‘due regard’ to the structure/development plan when assessing development applications in these areas, but the provisions in a structure plan are not binding.

Additionally what structure and development plans are to contain under the Regulations 2015 has been reduced. Structure plans now provide the basis of zoning and density for areas only. Structure plans no longer provide comment on design outcomes or provide mechanisms to achieve better planning outcomes. A local development plan is additionally required to provide detail however, “is not to be used purely as a means to vary the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-codes” (Framework for local development plans, WAPC, August 2015).

Structure plan process requirements The process to undertake a structure plan is lengthy and requires landowner buy-in to be successful. The area would first need to be rezoned to ‘development zone’ through a Scheme amendment to the City’s LPS4. Following rezoning all current zoning and density requirements would effectively be deleted and any more than minor development would not be allowed. Landowners would then need to coordinate the development of a structure plan and local development plan for the area. The structure plan process is a similar process to a scheme amendment process in that it requires a public comment period, Council consideration and the WAPC as the determining body. This whole Scheme amendment and Structure plan process would likely take at least 18 months to complete. Overall the comments in the submissions do not appear to support undertaking a comprehensive and co-ordinated landowner/occupier process for comprehensive redevelopment of the area as outlined above. Officers consider this planning mechanism better suited to sites with few landowners or greenfield sites and do not support this alternative approach for the amendment area. Suburb wide plan Some of the submissions received questioned the specific area of the amendment, being on South Street and over the suburbs of Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley. These submissions suggested as an alternative to the amendment that local area wide plans for Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley be completed. While officers understand the desire for the local qualities to be included in the amendment, officers consider this approach contrary to the intent and purpose of the amendment.


Page 116

The purpose of Scheme amendment No. 65 and associated amendments along South Street was to encourage higher density mixed use and residential redevelopment along the City’s key transit corridor connecting the employment and service areas between Fremantle and Murdoch. Officers consider the amendment purpose still relevant and advise against expanding the Scheme amendment process for amendment No. 65 to become a community plan. Alternatively, a local area wide planning review will be completed as part of the larger planning strategy and Scheme review (the subject of a report Council in the near future) planned for late 2016/2017. In the interim Council could consider drafting design guidelines for the Scheme amendment No. 65 area. A design guidelines approach has been adopted by Council for the Scheme amendment No. 64 – Hilton Local Centre area. Including the Scheme amendment No. 65 area into the work being carried out on the design guidelines for Scheme amendment No. 64 would provide a coordinated approach to higher density development along the transit corridor for South Street, help enhance the amenity and character of the area and be in keeping with the purpose of the amendment. Density decrease Many submissions mentioned height and density as key points of objection to the amendment. One submission suggested considering an R40 density coding, instead of R80, in area B to allow for redevelopment of the area without height above two storey, clearer building setback provisions and retention of the existing streetscape and buildings. The submission provided: This option allows for some redevelopment in the currently zoned R20/25/30 areas of Zone B, supporting extra dwellings on larger properties or through the amalgamation of rear gardens to form the required block size. The submission acknowledged that the downside of the proposal would be the loss of open space and trees which are valued by residents in this area. Council could consider decreasing the density in area B from R80 to R40 or R60. This option would address concerns raised in the submissions by reducing the height of new development to 2-3 storeys and the density/ number of potential new dwellings in the area. Both options would allow every lot in area B to develop at least one additional dwelling (minimum lot size required to consider subdivision: R40 440 sqm; R60 300 sqm) and overall would be in keeping with the purpose of the amendment – to increase density along South Street. The option however, would still present an opportunity for redevelopment though demolition and would likely change the existing streetscape in these areas. Submissions received on the amendment appear to not support this outcome. Accordingly officers do not recommend this option in area B. Hero sites One submission suggested the idea of ‘hero sites’. Hero sites have the potential for comprehensive development, as they are large sites in the ownership of one landowner. The submission suggests the sites on the western corner of Yalgoo and South Street and the eastern corner of Fifth Ave and South Street would meet these criteria. Officers further identified other multiple lots fronting South Street that are owned by one landowner (refer to figure 5). Officers support this idea and have used it to inform the alternative recommendation presented below.


Page 117

Figure 5. Proposed area A and B multiple lots in the ownership of one landowner Retain area A and delete area B (Officer’s Recommendation) In general there is support in the submissions for increased mixed commercial and residential development along South Street. There is little to no support for comprehensive development in area B. Alternatively several submissions proposed zone B be removed from consideration in the amendment area. Excerpt from submissions:

“Removal of Zone B allows for the historical, environmental, and social context of White Gum Valley streets to be preserved, while also retaining the intent of the Planning Scheme Amendment to allow nodes of higher density with mixed commercial and residential along South Street.”

“I feel that South Street could meet the challenge of greater density with minimal damage to the local community if redevelopment was restricted to the already zoned mix of residential and non-residential uses along its edges. By intensifying these strips each side of South Street some consistency of built form could be achieved. Planning guidelines could recognise and possibly outline long term strategies for light rail and other innovative public transport systems.”

Officers consider there is scope to remove parts of area B and still achieve the purpose of the amendment i.e. encouraging higher density mixed use development along the transit corridor. Area A comprises of properties that are already zoned local centre and can provide for a mix of commercial and residential uses. Many of the property owners in this area own more than one lot side-by-side (refer to figure 5 above), meaning larger development sites and the opportunity for comprehensive redevelopment where a minimum lot size is met (e.g. >1000 sqm). The childcare


Page 118

Accordingly, in light of the views expressed in the submissions, officers propose including those properties in the local centre zone and comprising the childcare centre along South Street into the amendment area only and applying the area B height ‘buffer’ to these sites. This alternative approach would still achieve Council’s desire to ignite redevelopment of the transit corridor and would also address concerns raised in submissions.

Figure 6. New proposed modified amendment (Officer’s recommendation)

Area A/sub area 5.3.1 requirements Officers propose including all of the local centre properties, excluding 230 South Street, White Gum Valley (discussion on this below), into the Scheme amendment and allocating additional development requirements to the sub areas for White Gum Valley (sub area 6.3.1 - Area A) and Beaconsfield (sub area 5.3.1) (refer to figure 6). Officers propose the following modified planning requirements for sub areas 6.3.1 - Area A and sub area 5.3.1:

Retain proposed R100 density coding and other specific criteria as previously proposed for area A;

Reduce the height of development to 10 metre external wall height on development sites 1000 sqm and under where specific criteria are met. This would allow for the development of a three storey building with a 4m wall height (specific requirement) on the ground floor for commercial uses;

Allow for additional height i.e. 12 metre wall height, 13m top of external wall, 15m top of pitched roof, where the development site compromises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm and other specific criteria are met;

Apply the area B height buffer in area A in all instances where additional development requirements are being sought, i.e. development is to be reduced to two storey in height within 5 metres of adjoining residential properties; and

Require additional development criteria for any boundary walls to be no more than 3.5m in height (single storey) and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary on any boundary adjoining the Residential zone.


Page 119

Many of the commercial property owners in Area A/the local centre zone own more than one lot meaning lot amalgamation to provide a sufficient development site area could be achieved. The incentive to achieve this is additional height requirements (i.e. from three storey to four storey height requirements) for development sites over 1000 sqm. A height buffer would be applicable to all development on the site to address the interface between the local centre and the adjoining residential zone i.e. two storey development within five metres of the adjoining low density residential zone. To further address the interface single storey boundary wall requirements are recommended. This requirement would ensure two storey boundary walls, as currently permitted under the R80 and R100 provisions of the R-codes, are prohibited from the area A and the Residential zone interface. The single storey boundary wall requirement would also ensure that development on this interface is similar to development that could happen on R20-R30 density coded properties. Officers propose deleting the property 230 South Street, White Gum Valley (Hey Joe Retro) from area A of the amendment area. This lot is an anomaly in the local centre zone in that it does not adjoin other local centre zoned lots and adjoins residential zoned land. Additionally the lot is small, approximately 369 sqm in size, and has a shallow lot depth (30m). These factors combined with the 10m Primary Regional Road setback requirement and the application of the height buffer to the two sides adjoining the residential zone, restrict development of this site to no more than what can currently be achieved under the R60 density coding requirements (where mixed use development is proposed) and two storey height limit of the Scheme. Accordingly, 230 South Street, White Gum Valley would gain no benefit from being in the amendment area and has not been included into area A of the amendment. Similarly, the smaller (approximately 440 sqm) commercial zoned properties of 226, 228 and 230 South Street, White Gum Valley have shallow lot depths (30m) also. Development up to four storey will be difficult to provide for on these smaller lots, especially with the 10m Primary Regional Road setback and application of the height buffer. Three storey (one more than they can do now) development may be possible, especially if lots are amalgamated. These lots have been retained in the amendment in the hope that the amendment provisions provide incentive to create a larger development area through lot amalgamation. The R100 density coding has been retained. The differences between the density codes R80 and R100 of the R-codes are the plot ratio requirements. R80 has a plot ratio of 1.0 and R100 has a plot ratio of 1.25. All other requirements under the R-codes are the same i.e. parking, setbacks, visual privacy etc. Additional to this the Scheme amendment prescribes the height (10-13 metre wall height), height buffer and street setbacks to South Street (10m). Ultimately development yield will be more restricted by other factors (i.e. building height and setback requirements) than by the density coding. Keeping the density coding at R100 provides more flexibility for development on site. Area B requirements Officers propose properties 20-26 (Lots 3 and 66) Taylor Street and 242-246 (Lots 32, 33, 34 and 35) South Street, White Gum Valley (an established Childcare centre and adjoining single house) be retained in the amendment as sub area 6.3.1 - Area B (refer to figure 6). Officers propose the remainder of proposed area B be deleted from the Scheme amendment.


Page 120

Officers propose the following planning requirements for the reduced area B:

Retain proposed R80 density coding;

Retain the height buffer as previously proposed in area B i.e. development reduced to two storey height within 5 metres of adjoining residential properties;

Retain the height requirement of the R-codes for R80 development i.e. 12 metre wall height, 13m top of external wall, 15m top of pitched roof, where the development site compromises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm; and

Require additional development criteria for any boundary walls to be no more than 3.5m in height (single storey) and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary on any boundary adjoining the Residential zone outside of area B.

The six lots included in area B of White Gum Valley are in the ownership of one landowner meaning lot amalgamation to provide a sufficient development site area could be achieved. The impact of comprehensive development on the site and the existing residential zone would be mitigated by the height buffer and single storey boundary wall requirements at the Area B and residential zone interface. Being that the site is zoned residential any development on the lots would have to be of a residential nature. Council previously considered the sites for inclusion into the amendment at the 27 January Ordinary Meeting of Council. A number of attributes on which to consider properties in the South Street transport corridor were used for consideration of inclusion of the sites. These considerations are still applicable. The table below summarises these considerations and specifies how the additional lots address these elements.

Matter Officers response Appropriate zoning under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and LPS4

The lots are zoned Urban under the MRS and Residential under LPS4.

Large development area (+1000m2)

The six lots measure 2,637m2 and are owned by one land owner.

Alternative access roads to South Street

Future development of the six lots could take access from Taylor Street.

Development of an area that would have limited impact on surrounding low density residential dwellings.

One of the lots contains a single house. This lot adjoins a single house to the north. The remaining five lots contain a single house converted into a childcare centre and associated structures and outbuildings. The childcare centre adjoins five grouped dwellings on one parent lot. A height buffer (two storey for five metres and three storey for 15 metres from adjoining residential lots) and single storey boundary wall height requirements would apply.

Sufficient services in the area to support increased density.

The additional lots are considered to have the same services as those sites already included in the amendment area.

Identified heritage listing constraints which would encroach upon comprehensive

The lots are not heritage listed.


Page 121

development.

Regulations 2015 requirements The Regulations 2015 apply a tiered approach to scheme amendments; basic, standard and complex amendments. Scheme amendment No. 65 is considered a ‘standard’ amendment, because it matches key characteristics described in the definition of a standard amendment in the new Regulations as follows:

Amendment provisions are consistent with the objectives in the scheme for the zoning applying to the area subject to the amendment;

Minimal impact on land outside the area the subject of the amendment;

Amendment does not have any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts.

Modifications were made to the standard scheme amendment and an additional public consultation period of 21 days, as required by the Regulations 2015, was undertaken. In light of the issues raised in the submissions received in the public consultation on the modification officers recommend additional modifications. The proposed changes to the modified amendment are considered to not be significant. Therefore officers consider further advertising of the amendment would not be required. The reason for this view is the changes do not provide for additional development requirements or an increased Scheme amendment area over and above what has been advertised on two separate occasions. Conversely the modified amendment comprises of a reduced amendment area when compared to the original and modified amendment and overall reduced height requirements. The modified amendment also responds to comments made in submissions. The City has followed the standard and modified amendment process requirements of the Regulations 2015 to date and requests the Minister determines the modified Scheme amendment as a standard amendment with no further public consultation required. CONCLUSION The purpose of this item is to report on the submissions received during the consultation period for the modifications made to Scheme amendment 65. In light of the submissions received during the public comment period on the modifications to the amendment officers recommend further modifications to the Scheme amendment. The further modifications propose including select properties fronting South Street into the amendment area only, a building height buffer for all development, a reduction in building height overall and additional specific criteria to meet when proposing development on these sites. It is therefore recommended that Scheme amendment 65 be adopted with further modifications and sent to the Minister of Planning for final determination. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That Council –


Page 122

1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and Attachment 3;

2. Resolve pursuant to regulation 50(3) and 51(7) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to adopt the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 with modifications to address issues raised in the submissions:

a) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 5 – Beaconsfield by replacing Clause 5.1 Local Centre requirements with the following:

Zone (Within LPA Only) Maximum External Wall Height

Local Centre 5.5m (except within Sub Area 5.3.1)

b) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 5 – Beaconsfield by inserting the following:

LOCAL PLANNING AREA 5 - BEACONSFIELD

5.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR SUB AREAS

Sub Area 5.3.1

a) Within sub area 5.3.1, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and

Additional development standards b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub

Area 5.3.1, clause 5.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ of Local Planning


Page 123

Area 5 does not apply. c) A minimum building height of 7 metres, including a building

façade on the South Street frontage which incorporates windows and doors at the ground floor and windows to the first floor level to create interest and a sense of activity within the building, applies.

d) Additional development standards shall be in accordance

with the criteria and standards set out in the table below:

Criteria to be met in order for additional development standards to apply

Additional development standards

Land use a) Notwithstanding the provisions of

Table 1 – Zoning, residential land uses will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level with frontage to South Street, to ensure activation of development frontages to South Street.

Vehicle access b) Vehicle access to development

sites with frontage to South Street and an alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road. Vehicle access shall be designed to encourage coordination of access to adjoining properties.

c) Vehicle parking shall only be

provided at the rear of buildings and / or below ground level.

d) For new development with frontage

to South St, a Traffic Impact Assessment is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and shall be submitted in support of application for planning approval.

Other design requirements e) In the part of all new development

with frontage to South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4

Density a) Residential density

code R100. Height b) Where the development

site area comprises of a minimum land parcel of less than 1,000 sqm the following height requirements apply:

A maximum external wall height of 10 metres and top of pitched roof height of 13 metres.

c) Where the development

site area comprises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm or more the following height requirements apply:

The height requirements shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes for R80 coded land.

Height buffer d) Regardless of the

height requirement referred to above a


Page 124

metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

f) The minimum street setback shall

be 10 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, and the maximum street setback shall be 12 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback.

g) To prevent excessive breaks in

building frontages to South Street, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to South Street is no more than 6 metres.

h) Open space can be reduced to 30%

where development respects existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

i) At least 10% of the site area to be

landscaped with plantings and permeable surfaces.

j) Any wall on the boundary of a

residential zoned property outside of the sub area to be no more than 3.5m in height and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary.

height buffer shall apply to development as follows -

A maximum external wall height of 6 metres and top of pitched roof height of 9 metres for development in the sub area within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of the sub area.

A maximum external wall height of 9 metres and top of pitched roof height of 12 metres for development in the sub area within 15 metres of residential zoned properties outside of the sub area.

Note: Where the above criteria are not met, the height requirements in 5.1 of Local Planning Area 5 above apply.

c) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Development Requirements) Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley by replacing Clause 6.1 Local Centre requirements with the following:

Zone (Within LPA Only) Maximum External Wall Height

Local Centre 5.5m (except within Sub Area 6.3.1)

d) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley by inserting the following:

LOCAL PLANNING AREA 6 – WHITE GUM VALLEY


Page 125

6.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR SUB AREAS

Sub area 6.3.1

a) Within sub area 6.3.1, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and

Additional development standards b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub Area

6.3.1 clause 6.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ of Local Planning Area 6 does not apply.

c) A minimum building height of 7 metres, including a building façade on the South Street frontage which incorporates windows and doors at the ground floor and windows to the first floor level to create interest and a sense of activity within the building, applies within Area A.

d) Additional development standards shall be in accordance with

the criteria and standards set out in the table below:

Locations where additional development standards apply

Criteria to be met in order for additional development standards to apply

Additional development standards

AREA A Land use a) Notwithstanding the provisions of



Page 126

Table 1 – Zoning, residential land uses will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level with frontage to South Street, to ensure activation of development frontages to South Street.

Vehicle access b) Vehicle access to development sites

with frontage to South Street and an alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road. Vehicle access shall be designed to encourage coordination of access to adjoining properties.

c) Vehicle parking shall only be

provided at the rear of buildings and / or below ground level.

d) For new development with frontage

to South St, a Traffic Impact Assessment is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and shall be submitted in support of application for planning approval.

Other design requirements e) In the part of all new development

with frontage to South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

f) The minimum street setback shall

be 10 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, and the maximum street setback shall be 12 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback.

g) To prevent excessive breaks in

building frontages to South Street, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor

code R100. Height b) Where the development

site area comprises of a minimum land parcel of less than 1,000 sqm the following height requirements apply:

A maximum external wall height of 10 metres and top of pitched roof height of 13 metres.

c) Where the development

site area comprises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm or more the following height requirements apply:

The height requirements shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes for R80 coded land.

Height buffer d) Regardless of the

height requirement referred to above a height buffer in Area A shall apply to development as follows -

A maximum external wall height of 6 metres and top of pitched roof height of 9 metres for development in Area A within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area A.

A maximum external wall height of 9


Page 127

level on the frontage to South Street is no more than 6 metres.

h) Open space can be reduced to 30%

where development respects existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

i) At least 10% of the site area to be

landscaped with plantings and permeable surfaces.

j) Any wall on the boundary of a

residential zoned property outside of Area A to be no more than 3.5m in height and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary.

metres and top of pitched roof height of 12 metres for development in Area A within 15 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area A.

AREA B a) The development site comprises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm.

b) Vehicle access to development sites

with frontage to South Street and an alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road. Vehicle access shall be designed to encourage coordination of access to adjoining properties.

c) At least 10% of the site area to be

landscaped with planting and permeable surfaces.

d) Any wall on the boundary of a

residential zoned property outside of Area B to be no more than 3.5m in height and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary.

Note: While amalgamation and joint development of adjoining sites is expected to be the predominant means of providing alternative access to South Street as required in part B above, alternative mechanisms such as the creation of easements or rights-of-carriageway may also be considered.


code R80. Height b) The height

requirements shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes for R80 coded land.

Height buffer c) A height buffer within

Area B shall apply to development as follows -

A maximum external wall height of 6 metres and top of pitched roof height of 9 metres for development in Area B within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area B.

A maximum external wall height of 9


Page 128

metres and top of pitched roof height of 12 metres for development in Area B within 15 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area B.

Note: Where the above criteria are not met, the height requirements in 6.1 of Local Planning Area 6 above apply.

3. That upon final adoption of Scheme Amendment No. 65 Council will, in

conjunction with the work being undertaken for Scheme amendment No. 64, prepare a draft Design Guidelines for the Scheme amendment No. 65 area.

4. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant

documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

5. Request the Minister for planning to grant final consent to the Scheme

Amendment No. 65 as referred to in (2) above. 6. Advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that pursuant to the

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the amendment hereby submitted is considered to be a ‘standard amendment’ for the purpose of the Regulations.


Page 129

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.


Page 130

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

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

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

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

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

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

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO

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

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

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

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

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

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


Page 131


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 132


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 133

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